150
Archaeological Laboratory managed by
Martyna Milewska, who employs two per-
sons.
Conclusion
The Polish archaeology of the future has just
begun its adventure with a system ruled by
the free market economy. The experience of
the pre-World War I1 period has been com-
pletely forgotten. Moreover, managing a n
Archaeology in the ex-USSR: post-
perestroyka problems
P.M. DOLUKHANOV”
Structure
For about 70 years the USSR possessed the
world’s largest network of archaeological
research (Trigger 1989). The foundation of this
system was laid on 18 April 1919, when Lenin
signed a decree establishing the Russian
Academy for the History of Material Culture
(RAIMK)in place of the Imperial Archaeological
Commission. The same decree proclaimed all
the historical and archaeological monuments on
the Russian territory to be state property.
The establishment of a centralized archaeo-
logical structure in the newly founded com-
munist state was instigated by Nikolai Ya.
Marr (1865-1934), the Russian linguist and
archaeologist of Marxist orientation.
From the very beginning the archaeology
in the USSR was largely viewed as a device
for official communist indoctrination. The
study of material remains (hence the name
of the archaeological institution) was regard-
ed as an instrument for promoting Marxist
dogmas in relation to the socio-economic
development of pre-class a n d early-class
societies. For a long time Marr’s teaching
based on the formal similarities between the
evolution of languages and Marxist explana-
tion of socio-economic evolution was offi-
cially regarded as a guideline for Soviet the-
oretical a n d practical archaeology. Marr’s
* Dcpartrnent of Archaeology, The Ilnivcrsity, Newcastle upon Tync N E 7RlJ,
ANTIQCJITY 67 (3993): 150-56
ROMUALD SCHILD
archaeological institution today is a complete-
ly different experience from that of pre-1939.
Usually, good managers are required as direc-
tors rather than outstanding scientists.
In my opinion the future of archaeology in
Poland is not a bleak one. We are undeniably
moving rapidly toward a world in which com-
petition is the watchword, but that is not nec-
essarily bad in itself: there are also several
bright sides to this world.
concept was refuted after Stalin in 1950 crit-
icized it as ‘a vulgarization of Marxism’.
The structure of Soviet archaeology was
repeatedly modified in the course of recent
decades until it finally acquired its full status
in the 1970s.
At that time at least three hierarchical levels
could be distinguished:
All-Union institutions
These were entitled to carry out archaeologi-
cal investigations on the whole territory of the
USSR:
Research Institutes of the Academy of
Sciences of the USSR
Institute of Archaeology, Moscow (Directors:
Acad. V.P. Alexeyev; died in 1992; acting
director: Prof. R.M. Munchayev);
Leningrad (later St Petersburg) Branch of the
Institute of Archaeology (Director: Prof.
V.M. Masson);
Institute of History, Ethnography and
Archaeology, Novosibirsk (Director: Acad.
A. Derevyanko).
Each of these institutes included several
historically evolved departments, e.g.
Department of Stone Age, Department of
Central Asia and Siberia, Department of North
Pontic (Classical) Archaeology, Department of
Finno-Slavic Archaeology, Laboratory for
~ IJK.
 ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE EX-USSR: POST-PERESTROYKA PROBLEMS 151

Archaeological Technology (St Petersburg); Department of Archaeology, Moldova

Department of Neolithic a n d Bronze Age, Academy of Sciences (Chisinau);
Department of Slavic Archaeology, Centre of Archaeology, Georgian Academy of
Department of Classical Archaeology, Sciences, Tbilisi;
Department of Theoretical Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Uzbek Academy of
Department of Archaeological Records, Sciences, Samarkand;
Laboratory for Scientific Methods (Moscow). Departments of Archaeology in the Baltic
Republics (Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius);
Universities Departments of Archaeology in Petrozavodsk
Large departments of archaeology exist at the (Karelia);
Moscow State University and at the St Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography in
Petersburg State University, There are depart- Erevan (Armenia);
ments of Archaeology at the universities of Department of Archaeology in Baku
Eka t erinburg ( Sver dlovs k) , Novosibirsk , (Azerbaidjan) ;
Tomsk, Vladivostok, Syktyvkar (Komi Departments of Archaeology also exist in the
Republic in the Russian North), a n d some republican academic institutions in Alma-
other universities. Ata (Kazakhstan); Ashgabad
The universities carry out mostly teaching, (Turkmenistan); Bishpek (Kyrgyzstan);
both on undergraduate and postgraduate (aspi- and Dushanbe (Tadjikistan).
rantura) levels. At the same time, the universi- The most important departments of
ties are engaged in research and carry out field Archaeology are at the universities of Tbilisi,
projects, mostly on a smaller scale than the Yerevan, Baku and Tashkent.
institutes belonging to the Academy of Science. Large archaeological collections are held at
The inadequate co-operation between the ‘aca- the museums of Tallin, Riga a n d Vilnius.
demic’ institutions and the universities was Considerable archaeological materials are dis-
one of the main shortcomings of Soviet science played at three museums in Kiev. The
inherited by the present regime. Museum of Archaeology and Zoology,
Ukrainian Academy of Science (actually
Museums under reconstruction) houses important
The most important sectinns of archaeology, Palaeolithic collections, including reconstruc-
housing considerable collections, are at the tions of Palaeolithic dwellings; the Historical
State Museum of History, Moscow; The State Museum of Ukraine gives a general panorama
Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg; The of Ukrainian antiquities, from the Stone Age
Pushkin State Museum of Fine Art, Moscow; to the Middle Ages; the Museum at Kiev’s
Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum Lavra contains materials from Scythian
of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St tumuli and Greek sites in the northern Pontic
Petersburg. area. The archaeological museum of Odessa
Archaeological and prehistoric departments (the only specialized archaeological museum
at these museums carry out many archaeologi- in the ex-USSR) possesses a unique collection
cal expeditions: e.g. the Hermitage Museum of classical antiquities from the north Pontic
has numerous archaeological missions in sites, including the materials from pre-1917
Central Asia, the North Pontic area and the excavations.
Russian northwest. There are local archaeological museums at
some important archaeological sites. One of
Republican institutions the most impressive museums is located at
All the Soviet Republics had either the reserve of Olbia, an important complex of
Archaeological Institutes or Departments of Greek and Roman sites near the town of
Archaeology within the framework of their Nikolaev.
Academies of Sciences. The most important of Each capital of the Caucasian republics
these are: (Tbilisi, Yerevan, Baku) has national museums
Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of history with rich archaeological collections.
of Sciences, Kiev; In addition, there are local archaeological
Department of Archaeology, Belarus Academy museums erected at most important archaeo-
of Sciences, Minsk; logical sites. Amongst these one should men-
152 P.M. DOLUKHANOV
tion the museum at Vani (a site of the classical
period) in Georgia; Gharni (a fully restored
basilica of the Hellenistic era) and Metsamor (a
large Bronze Age metallurgical centre) in
Armenia; Kobystan (Stone Age rock paintings)
in Azerbaidjan. Outstanding archaeological
collections were held in the Museum of
Sukhumi, Abkhazia. They included monu-
ments of the Stone Age (including megaliths),
classical antiquities and objects of early Middle
Ages. There are unconfirmed reports indicating
that these treasures were destroyed during the
recent fighting in the town.
There are national museums at each capital
of the newly independent Central Asian
republics. An important museum reserve is at
the Parthian site of Nisa (3rd century BC-AD
3rd century) near Ashgabad, Turkmenistan.
Substantial archaeological collections are held
at the museum attached to the Institute of
Archaeology, Uzhek Academy of Sciences in
Samarkand. An impressive museum is located
in Pendjikent, an important Sogdian town of
the 5th-8th centuries AD.
To the credit of local authorities both in
Russia and in ex-Soviet republics, it should be
stressed that, notwithstanding economic diffi-
culties, they spend considerable funds on the
development of archaeological museums,
which are considered as an important element
of the national heritage.
Regional institutions
Each capital of an oblast’ [district) has a her-
itage museum with archaeological depart-
ments. These museums carry out limited-scale
excavations within the corresponding districts.
Each oblast’ has a department for the pro-
tection of historical monuments (within local
councils), which supervises and partially
finances the restoration of monuments under
its protection.
In Russia, like in the ex-Soviet republics
there are small museums at archaeological
sites. A sizable museum was opened a few
years ago in Kostenki (Voronezh oblast”), at
one of the best preserved late Palaeolithic
dwellings.
Each Soviet Republic had a Committee for
Field Archaeology which issues licences for
excavations (otkrityi list) within the territory
under its jurisdiction. In the Russian
Federation this committee is attached to the
Institute of Archaeology in Moscow.
Geography
During the past 70 years Soviet archaeologists
have excavated many sites of various periods.
The excavation technique adopted i n the
USSR stipulates large-scale horizontal expo-
sures. Great attention is being attached to the
identification of various types of structures
and to the distribution of artefacts within
these structures. The meticulous application
of this technique resulted in numerous out-
standing achievements, including the identifi-
cation of Palaeolithic dwellings in the 1930s,
earlier than anywhere else in the world
(Childe 1951).
Another characteristic feature of Soviet
archaeology consisted in a profound interest
in sociological interpretations - in the identi-
fication, wherever possible, of the technology,
social organization and ideology of past soci-
eties.
All materials from the excavations are held
i n centralized archaeological archives.
According to law, excavation reports should
be submitted to the controlling institutions
(field committees) within six months of the
completion of field work. No licence may be
issued until the full report of the previous
excavation campaign has been handed in and
approved. The St Petersburg Institute houses
the largest archaeological archive i n the
USSR, which also includes the documents of
the Imperial Archaeological Commission. The
St Petersburg Institute also has the largest col-
lection of archaeological visual documents
(pictorial archive).
The central institutions carried out field
investigations in all part of the Soviet Union.
Within the republics these investigations are
often carried out jointly with the republican
and/or regional institutions.
Funding
The greater part of funding for archaeological
research in the Institutes belonging to the
Academy of Sciences is normally carried out
through appropriations by the central budget
office of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow
(currently, through the local branches of the
Academy of Sciences in St Petershurg, Siberia
etc.).
Another important source of funding is the
Development Act, which provides for major
development projects to finance archaeologi-
cal excavations within the terrain affected by
 ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE EX-USSR: POST-PERESTROYKA PROBLEMS 153

FlGURE 1.Most important field projects of the Institute of Archaeology (Institute for History ofMateria1
Culture), St Petersburg, 1985-92.
Stone Age (triangle)
1 Kostenki
2 Palaeolithic cave-sites in the Central Caucasus (Kudaro et al.)
3 Pulaeolithic cavesites in the Nortliern Caucasus
Chalcolithic and Bronze Age (circle]
4 Bronze Age barrows in the Northern Caucasus
5-6 Clialcolithic-Bronze Age sites in southern Turkmenistan
7 Bronze Age sites in Western Siberia
Classical Age (diamond]
8-11 Sites of the Classical Age in the Northern Pontic area
Early Medieval sites (square)
11 Ladoga
1 2 Novgorod
154 P.M. DOLUKHANOV
the development ( 3 4 % of the total budget).
The most important archaeological projects in
the 1960s-1980s in Siberia were funded by
the major developments (e.g. Krasnoyarsk,
Sayano-Shushino hydro-electric power sta-
tions and many other projects).
Post-perestroyka developments
The problems faced recently by archaeology
in the USSR are akin to the difficulties
encountered by Soviet society as a whole. The
first major problem stems from the disintegra-
tion of the Soviet Union. The Academy of
Sciences of the USSR no longer exists. It has
split up into the Academy of Sciences of inde-
pendent states. Some of these entered the CIS,
others (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania) are totally
independent. Consequently, the Institutes of
Moscow and St Petersburg now belong to the
Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN). The
Institute in St Petersburg proclaimed its inde-
pendence from Moscow and restored its old
Marrian name [Institute for History of
Material Culture).
Another consequence of the disintegration
of Soviet state was the disruption of intra-
republican cooperation. Even in the old days
it was not always possible to obtain licences
for excavations from the republican archaeo-
logical authorities. Now it has become much
more difficult. In spite of substantial difficul-
ties, however, several archaeological expedi-
tions from St Petersburg have been able to
carry out fieldwork in the Ukrainian Pontic
area and in the Crimea (FIGURE 1).
Ethnic conflicts have virtually stopped all
kinds of archaeological investigations in
Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. During our
visit to the Greek and Roman site of Tyra (in
the estuary of the Dniestr River) last April
Charles Daniels (Head of Department of
Archaeology, University of Newcastle upon
Tyne) and the author had to use a detour, the
main motorway between Odessa and Kishinev
being cut by fighting.
A flare-up of ethnic conflicts in the Northern
Caucasus has closed yet another area where
intensive archaeological studies were being
carried out by Russian archaeologists.
Problems
The deep economic crisis combined with the
painful transition to the market economy has
resulted in considerable reduction in the
funding of fundamental sciences, and particu-
larly of the humanities. Galloping inflation
has recently caused a considerable increase in
salaries. Since the overall funding remained
unchanged, it resulted in drastic restriction in
field activities. Only a few large expeditions
with ‘central budgeting’ were able to carry out
fieldwork in 1992.
Owing to the general decline of input from
industry and to the chaotic state of finances,
no agreements were concluded for this year
with the development companies for the
funding of archaeological excavations in
development areas.
At the same time a new source of funding
emerged: sponsorship. At least one large expe-
dition (a classical site near Nikolayev excavat-
ed by a team from St Petersburg) was entirely
financed by sponsors this year. There are also
cases when sponsors fund the publication of
archaeological books.
The publication of archaeological books is
another area that has been severely hit by
post-perestroyka. Until recently a limited
number of books was annually published by
the central Nauka publishing house and by its
St Petersburg branch. Since 1992 Nauka has
imposed charges on the institutes that they
are unable to pay. No major archaeological
publications will appear this year.
According to reliable sources, the financial
situation in the ex-USSR will grow worse in the
immediate future. In words of Mr Saltykov,
newly appointed Minister of Science, ‘Russia
can no longer support its science to continue in
the style it was accustomed’. A new policy
adopted by the Russian government abandons
all-out support of a broad spectrum of basic
research, and switches emphasis to priority pro-
jects. The government reserves the right to
decide which these priorities are (cited from
Pokrovsky 1992). There can be little doubt that
archaeology will have no chance of entering the
circle of the privileged few.
There are numerous no less serious prob-
lems facing Russian and ex-Soviet archae-
ology in the turbulent post-Communist peri-
od. The President of the newly organized
Russian Archaeological Society in his address
to the Supreme Soviet stressed that the draft
law on land presented to the Russian
Parliament makes no provisions to safeguard
the protection and management of national
heritage in the case of privatization of land
 ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE EX-USSR: POST-PERESTROYKA PROBLEMS 155

ownership (cited from Archaeological the funding of individuals, whose indepen-

Bulletin, 1991). The law which may revoke dence will be encouraged (Pokrovsky 1992).
the decree of nationalization of historical and In the present circumstances Western insti-
cultural monuments enacted in Russia since tutions should themselves choose the projects
1919 (and which could not prevent the large- and individuals in Russia to he included in
scale destruction of historically and archaeo- joint ventures.
logically important ecclesiastical monuments In choosing concrete projects, the following
in the 1930s and 1940s) may result in massive considerations should be taken into account:
destruction of the national heritage. Since the the importance of the project for the resolu-
publication of this report, the situation has tion of problems of major theoretical
improved. Considerable sums of money were importance;
allotted for detailed records of archaeological the possibility of the application of multidis-
and historical monuments in the area of possi- ciplinary techniques;
ble privatization of land. accessibility and infrastructure.
A large scandal has arisen from the hasty One of the important aspects of the project
agreement of the Russian Government to hand should consist of training Russian personnel
back artistic treasures (including archaeologi- in the use of modern technology (computer-
cal items) from Russian museums to the ized data recording and processing, geophysi-
‘places of their origin’. This decision, which cal techniques etc.).
could have resulted in a cultural disaster, was British archaeologists already have consid-
finally repealed after numerous protests by erable experience in carrying out joint pro-
distinguished intellectuals. jects with Russian and ex-Soviet archaeolo-
A major controversy surrounds the estab- gists. The University of Southampton for
lishment of an Archaeological Society of about five years has been carrying out a n
Russia. In fact, two rival archaeological soci- exchange of researchers with a limited partici-
eties exist in Russia, each claiming the right to
pation in fieldwork in a wide range of topics.
represent the ‘unofficial organization of The Institute of Archaeology of University
archaeologists’ in Russia. The appeal of one of College London is participating in a field pro-
these societies is given as an appendix to this ject, the Jeytun Project, in Turkmenistan,
paper. aimed at the multidisciplinary study of early
agricultural sites.
Prospects The department of archaeology of the
According to available information, in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne is current-
present circumstances internationally spon- ly engaged in negotiations with the University
sored projects on the territory of the ex-USSR of Odessa and the Institute of History of
have the greatest chances for additional fund- Material Culture in St Petersburg which may
ing. The Academy of Sciences normally allo- result in starting several joint projects.
cates special funds for international multidis- The departments of archaeology in the
ciplinary projects. universities of Durham and Newcastle recent-
The problems related to aid to Russian sci- ly proposed to create a joint Centre for the
ence on the part of the international scholarly Archaeology of Central and Eastern Europe,
community is being actively debated in the which would encompass all the former
scientific press. As J. Mervis wrote recently Eastern Bloc countries, including the
(Mervis 1992), ‘everyone agrees that . . . the ex-USSR. The aims of the Centre would
aid should by-pass the ex-Soviet bureaucracy include promoting fieldwork by British
and go directly into the hands of individuals’. scholars in the area: extending knowledge
This attitude seems to he accepted even by the of new technical and theoretical approaches
present Russian scientific establishment. In a in archaeological research in the Central
quoted statement, the Russian Minister of and East European countries; and providing
Science wrote that in terms of the new policy practical help to archaeologists in these
the funding of institutions will be replaced by countries.
156 P.M. DOLUKHANOV
References
Archaeological Bulletin (1991) 418: 2.
C H I L U E , V.G. 1951, Social evolution. London:
Watts.
MEKVIS, J. 1992. The West gropes for ways to help,
Ncrture 356: 733.
POKROVSKY, V. 1992. Russian research may be put
on a lean diet, Nature 3 5 7 : 530.
TRIGGER, B.G. 1989. A history of archaeological
thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University I’ress.
Appendix
Dear colleagut:
We are very grateful to you for supporting o u r soci-
ety in very hard times. LJp to now it was imp~issihle
to conduct archaeological research in Kussia only
through official state institutions. O u r Russian
Archaeological Society is the first unofficial organi-
zation of archaeologists after 1917. However, hardly
had we started to work when the official institu-
tions ( h e a d e d by t h e director of Novosibirsk
Institute, A.P. Dcrcvyanko, the former secretary of
the regional committee CPSU KPSS) began to strug-
gle for assuming our title and appropriating the
results of our work in order to maintain their for-
mer monopoly. It is only through your support that
helped u s to withstand the difficulties. We do not
know how long we shall be able to stand up to the
attack of offical institutions, that is why we are in a
hurry to send you o u r membership card and the
annotation of our society. We hope that you will go
on supporting us and with your help we shall [:on-
tinue our work o n saving archaenlogy in Russia.
President of the Russian Archaeological Society
Academician Matyushin Gerald
The Mosc:ow University (MGIJ)
Korpus L
K 111117234 M o s t : o i v
Russia