Archaeology and education in Postsoviet Russia.

BEREZKIN, YURI E.

Key-words: Russia, soviet, Slav, education, universities, history

In the mid 1980s, anthropologists such as Marcus & Fischer (1986) called for a `repatriation' of anthropology, bringing the tools of the discipline to bear on the `home' situations of Euro-America rather than focusing on `alien, exotic' traditions.

To understand fully the relationship between archaeology and education in Russia, some background is necessary. In the Soviet Union, Marxism meant that evolutionary ideas characteristic of the later 19th century were preserved for another hundred years. Ideal research in the USSR was not the study of the past but the identification and confirmation of laws which regulate historical development, supporting marxism theory. Such Marxist theories, supported by many Russian intellectuals before the revolution, was afterwards upheld as official doctrine and disseminated through mass secondary education in the 1920s and '30s.

The evolutionary paradigm meant that archaeologists focused on temporal changes in technology and social structure rather than the problems of cultural development. Migration as explanation was extremely unpopular, and `cultural' groups identified within USSR territory were seen as ancestors of contemporary Soviets: in the case of eastern Europe, usually the ancestors of Eastern Slavs. In the 1940s and '50s cultures such as Fatianovo, Tripolye, Zarubincy and Cherniakhov, spread across eastern Europe, were identified as Slavic or proto-Slavic. Archaeology became an important component of national and imperial myth.

Archaeology, the main source of prehistoric study, claimed extensive financial support from the state. Academic prestiege, linked with opportunities for leading research expeditions, made the discipline an attractive and respected career choice. In 1965, there were 130 applicants for each of the four places reserved for archaeology at Leningrad State University; greater competition than any other departments within the History Faculty. Even after sifting by exam results, during the 1960s and '70s there were no less than four applicants for every place in the Archaeology department.

Soviet centralization of the discipline created strong and weak points. The Academy of Sciences of every Soviet republic had a Field Committee with exclusive control over issuing permits (`Opened Lists') for archaeological research. These lists were in three degrees, the least permitting only reconnaissance and description of sites. The receivers of Opened Lists were required to present reports of their research for assessment, upon which further research would depend. Copies of these reports were also presented to the museums, universities and academic institutions which had been involved in the research. Although not all reports fulfilled the requirements of scientific methodology, they did provide minimal data of research undertaken. This system still exists, and is effective in preventing amateurish excavations as well as concentrating all information at major centres for consultation. However, there is no requirement to publish work, and at least nine-tenths of reports presented to the Academy remain unpublished. While in the 1980s 1000 special permits were issued for archaeological excavations every year within the territory of the Russian Federation alone (Trifonov 1991: 80), there is a danger of overlooking previous research.

School history books of the Soviet period had little space for archaeology (usually a handful of pages including handaxes and early horticulture), but older schoolchildren had the chance to learn more through the system of `archaeological circles' (educational groups), which existed not only at major scientific centres like the Hermitage or Leningrad State University but also at many provincial museums, universities and sometimes at the schools themselves; although precise numbers are unclear, thousands and possibly tens of thousands of children were in contact with them. Greater numbers of children had the opportunity to visit archaeological excavations, and sometimes (for example at the excavation of old Russian towns) older children were employed as permanent workers during field research. More usually, however, pupils from nearby schools were brought to site for a short lecture and an opportunity to shovel earth at the edge of an excavation. Explanation of research methodology or placing the work in greater archaeological context was rare; however, the idea of value of material remains of the past was established; for a number of archaeologists of Russia, Ukraine and other post-Soviet states this sparked a life-long interest in archaeology.

Undergraduate and postgraduate university students provided most of the labour for archaeological expeditions from the Baltic to the Pacific oceans. Many were not archaeologists but engineers giving up holiday to assist in research: by returning year after year, a number developed a good understanding of both field methodology and particular historical problems associated with each area of research. From the 1960s to the '80s it was normal for Soviet students to join expeditions and research groups over the summer vacation: it should be remembered that during the Soviet era, trips abroad were practically impossible, and holidays at USSR health resorts were both expensive (by Soviet standards) and of little interest. The further away and more exotic the research site, the more prestigious it was considered. Although pay rates were higher among construction teams, attracting the majority of young people and providing opportunities for starting careers in administration and (more recently) business, archaeological research was seen as more intellectually attractive as well as less physical labour. Students undertaking archaeological expeditions forged important relationships, both personal and professional; such a process can be likened to initiates entering a specific group, and such ties form the structure of archaeological society -- I myself can confess that most of my social contacts were created through shared field experiences. Among the largest and most prestigious archaeological expeditions of the Leningrad State University include the Pangikent expedition (northwestern Tadzikistan), Sayan-Tuva expedition (southern Central Siberia), and to a lesser extent the Kara Kum expedition (southern Turkmenistan). Between the 1960s and the '80s these expeditions seemed to us as stable and long-living institutions as the kosmodrome Bai Konur and the atomic centre at Dubna.

Although I know of no socio-cultural research into the role of archaeological expeditions in the formation of social contacts and world view, I would guess that for the educated youth of Petersburg/Leningrad, such a role was very significant. Another important function of these expeditions was their contribution to the maintenance of the territorial unity of Russian society. As large-scale expeditions are now rarely undertaken, although previous connections have not been totally broken, the creation of new ones has become a problem which the present-day conferences are unable to solve: many young people cannot afford to attend, and the informal atmosphere of living anti working together is no longer present.

In post-Soviet times the relationship between archaeology and society has changed. Numbers of non-professionals taking part in archaeological expeditions has dropped to approximately 1% of previous levels, research in distant locations has almost completely stopped, and Russian archaeology is developing greater similarities with Western archaeology.

The present situation is one of reduced financial support spread between many organizations, greater excavation costs and increasing numbers of sites under threat of destruction. Countries such as Afganistan, Iran and Iraq, popular archaeological destinations, have been closed for Euro-American researchers, while many others have toughened up their rules including issuing permits for field research and moving antiquities across boarders. This has created a situation where the selection of areas of research is not linked to their scientific importance or personal preferences of the researcher, but the need to excavate in advance of construction as well as obtaining grants from sponsors whose interests may be quite different to those of the discipline. It can be said that archaeologists have been reduced from military strategists to mercenaries, excavating where and when the sponsors dictate. Such a situation has coincided with postmodernist ideas about the relative nature of values; there is no longer sense in discussing the comparative importance of researching the origins of productive economy over the history of a farm abandoned a hundred years ago. In either case, we are playing a game whose rules we have created, that have no objective foundation.

Russian archaeological research in the 1990s is dominated by rescue excavation. Unlike western Europe and North America, there are few companies prepared to spend any money on non-profit-related archaeological research, and effective punishment for illegal destruction of material is non-existent. Once frequent visitors to construction sites, as in the West, archaeologists are now rarely present. The whole nature of rescue excatation has changed; during the 1960s and 1970s when huge construction projects were undertaken, archaeologists were given free range for research options, as only small parts of the sites could be excavated anyway. Less ambitious construction has meant choice in excavation has disappeared.

Uncontrolled excavation, rare in the West, has become as common in Russia as in developing countries, where laws against illegal excavation and selling of antiquities are weak obstacles against mass plunder: the only consolation is the general lack of ready cash and low education of most of the nouveaux riches. This means that the post-Soviet antiquity market is mostly limited to jewellery and fine pottery from Ancient Greek settlements and graveyards near the Black Sea. Apart from weapons and decorations found with soldiers (Soviet and German) of the Second World War, Siberian, Central Asian and Eastern European objects usually are not on sale. Attitudes of respect for the past, fostered during the Soviet era, are waning: however, there is a counter-current linked to national and religious ideology. Boys and girls who formerly would have been excavating Bronze or iron Age settlements can now be found cleaning Orthodox monastery cellars, closed by the communists and reestablished five or ten years ago. Few young people in present-day Russia have the opportunity to be involved in archaeological research in the strict meaning of the word, or at least see `proper' excavations. In contrast, knowledge of prehistory is much more available.

The study of prehistory has never been restricted to archaeology. Population genetics, historical linguistics, palaeoecology and other disciplines often play an equally important part in research. In many cases, after decades of excavation, archaeological data has become so voluminous that interpretation and reconstruction has more to do with archive research than excavation. However, the collapse of Russian field archaeology has created a pressure to publish and interpret previous research. Archaeological circles in museums and schools have not been closed but re-oriented, along with historical education, to appeal to both children and adults.

As has been previously mentioned, the Soviet world-view was evolutionary, stemming from a mixture of Marxism and Christian ideas of history. Although up to the 1920s, some remnant of archaic calendric-cyclical views may have survived among the peasants, such ideas had long been abandoned by the urban population. Despite almost universal secondary education, most adult citizens of the USSR had poor knowledge of historical events; knowledge that was present was structured by epochs. These began with `primitive times' (commonly associated with the image of Neanderthal male killing woolly mammoth at cave mouth), and highlights included `feudalism', leading to `modern times' (capitalism and socialism). Chance visitors to excavations expect archaeologists to be searching for mammoth bone or gold. Between Neanderthals and feudalism lie ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, but such classics have not been an integral part of the educational system. The lack of widely spread knowledge of the Ancient World is understandable in a country which (unlike Western, Central and Southern Europe) was mostly outside their direct influence. Individual rejections of marxism rarely led to the rejection of evolutionary theory; it was simply reduced to exclude socialism and peak with capitalism. In the 1980s (and perhaps in places since the 1960s) non- and anti-revolutionary views spread across Russian society. The essential feature of such views is that cultural and social patterns not extant today were allowed to have existed in the past, including those considered higher than those of the present. With the breakdown of communism, such views are becoming increasingly popular, although it is difficult to say how prevalent or localized they are. What is clear is a destructuration of the past, and loss of orientation in time. Many humanities students (and doubtless many science and technical students) do not posess a consistent picture of the past, and fail to identify any large-scale processes therein. It is typical that such people can, however, have a clear knowledge of events of the Middle Ages and thereafter.

Large numbers of historical books, albums and encyclopedias have been published since the late 1980s, aimed specifically at the young. Graphic and textual information, extremely difficult to obtain in Soviet times, has become easily available to interested parties. However, the very multiplicity of sources has become a problem: most publications are dominated by description of events rather than processes. Books of high scientific standard share the shelves with kitsch and pure fantasy, and the sellers know little more about their respective qualities than the buyers; the same can be said about popular lectures and newspaper publications, etc. After the abandonment of obligatory study of marxist historical and political dogmas, tens of thousands of lecturers have become unemployed, turning to teaching `culturology', `geopolitics' and the like. Religious-mystical and psychological treatments of history predominate, and economic treatments are often neglected or vulgarized. Archaeology has retained its academic position, although its treatment has become tendentious and selective. Most attention is given to the nature of a dozen or so sites such as Stonehenge and Arcaim-Sintashta, abstracted from their historical context. If present-day tendencies continue (which seems likely), the next generation of Russians will live in a society with knowledge of 300-400 years of history at best, lacking archaeology as an integral part of the systemic knowledge about the world. Practically, such a society already exists. Since the late 1970s the number of young people who would like to study archaeology has been dropping, and is now lower than the number of university places available. At the moment, archaeology is one of the most undesirable choices for the Russian young: among the humanities the most popular seem to be those that permit students to avoid the study of particular people living at a particular time and concentrate on the topics that could be treated outside a concrete historical context (such as philosophy, phylology, history of art). It is not by chance that the books of mathematician Anatoly Fomenko have become top bestsellers in the Russia of the 1990s. Fomenko (developing the ideas of famous revolutionary Morozov) has reduced world written history to about 1000 years, identifying as one and the same peoples and places of different epochs and countries. Based on misinterpreted or inaccurate astronomical data, his books, both by their content and by their style, should lack credibility for people who have received secondary, not to say higher education. Nevertheless, Russian journalists and editors, school-teachers and physicians take them for real science, such a hypothesis being as good as any other. This disappearance of world history (either its chaotic dispersion or its reduction to the history of the last centuries) is accompanied by the increase of knowledge about more recent events. Many history books of the 19th and 20th centuries disappear from shop shelves immediately after publication. It seems that in case of Stalin or Napoleon we are dealing mostly with facts and not processes. Facts are understandable to people who have very a confused or distorted world view. By recombining the facts, people gladly create and believe in personal versions of history. Liberated from the censorship of the Communist state, the Russians enjoy their new freedom.

However, there is no need to overestimate the danger of the loss of archaeology, and science, from modern Russia. Many societies of the past, including quite successful ones, possessed no `history' in the present sense, instead prefering fantasy. The `historic' mentality of the Soviet people was illusory: it differed from more common mythologies mainly because of an official co-ordination between mythological epochs and the `real' chronology, measured in years. For the common people, historic events, as far as they were familiar to them, existed not in history but in the `Time of Creation', while real, understandable time had the depth of about five generations, typical for traditional societies. Russian scientists, archaeologists among them, should probably abandon the hopeless attempt to carry their knowledge to the masses, and concentrate on the education of small groups of young people who could preserve and develop the scientific tradition. Practically, it is just what we have been doing during the last years (Berezkin 1997).

References

BEREZKIN, Y.E. 1997. Marginal elite: The results and perspectives of humanitarian training of schoolchildren of Saint-Petersburg in the middle of the 90s. Paper presented to the Conference `Professionalism, Education, Moral, and the Future of Russia', May-June 1997. Moscow: International Research and Exchange Board.

MARCUS, G.E. & M. FISCHER. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique. An experimental moment in the human science. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

TRIFONOV, V.A. 1991. Why so little is known about modern Soviet Archaeology: archaeological data in the USSR -- collection, storage and exploitation. World Archaeological Bulletin 5: 77-85.

YURI E. BERENZKIN, Institute for the History of Material Culture, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.