The article deals with the problem of academic environment evolution in which an antiquity historian, A.S. Shofman (1913–1993) conducted his research and taught students in different periods of his life. The author shows that Shofman’s personal qualities, such as determination, ability to work in any external conditions, considerate and, at the same time, demanding attitude to his students and colleagues, sense of humor, irony, self-deprecation, and others played an important role in his development as a scholar. It is also pointed out that fate often brought him to teachers and colleagues who facilitated his success. Different spheres of his scientific communication are studied: prominent scholars of Ancient History and Philology – his teachers at Leningrad State University; international scientific contacts with his colleagues from Macedonia and Serbia, which used to be the part of Yugoslavia, from Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. His relationship with Russian historians and philologists from Moscow, Leningrad, Voronezh, Tomsk and Belorussian scholars from Minsk were also discussed as well as academic environment at Kazan State University, especially at the Department of World History which A.S. Shofman headed for several decades. The article reveals the influence of his scientific surroundings on his development as a scholar and on themes of his research. A.S. Shofman, in his turn, shaped the mode of activity of the Department he headed and set up a scientific school in Kazan State University well-known in the country

Petr Borisovich Umansky (1930–1993), a distinguished scholar and Kazan University lecturer in the latter half of the 20th century, stands out as a key figure in the Kazan school of world history and American studies in Russia. After graduating from university in 1952, he was mentored by another famous Soviet historian, G.R. Levin. In 1962, he defended his Candidate’s dissertation titled “F. Douglas and the abolitionist movement in the United States between the 1830s and 1850s” at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. He later became widely recognized as the founder of the study of American historiography of the War of Independence. His works were featured in the publications of Kazan University and major central journals like “Novaya i Noveishaya Istoriya”, “Voprosy Istorii”, and “Istoriya i Istoriki”. He also actively participated in various scientific gatherings, such as the First All-Union Historiographical Conference and the First Symposium of Americanists in Moscow. At Kazan University, P.B. Umansky played a vital role in shaping the school of researchers specializing in American studies. Many of his former students now teach at his alma mater and continue to pass down their knowledge to new generations of historians. With a career spanning from the 1950s until his death, P.B. Umansky was widely hailed as one of the top international lecturers in Tatarstan. The article is supplemented with the memoirs of the historian’s son, E.P. Umansky.

This article examines the issues on the emergence of the Egyptian priestly synods known through the trilingual decrees. They were an important innovation in the Ptolemaic era. Their origin is of particular interest. Here, the early history of the synods is analyzed. The following questions are answered: When were the synods established? Who started convening them? And why was this institution founded? Based on the results obtained, a number of conclusions are drawn. Firstly, the synods were introduced during the reign of Ptolemy III, and the earlier assemblies under Ptolemy II should be viewed as their prototypes. Secondly, the synods were arranged and controlled by the king, even if the decrees stated otherwise. Thirdly, the synods were needed to strengthen support for the priesthood in the early reign of Ptolemy III when there was a major uprising during the Third Syrian War. Thus, it was a major tool for boosting the king’s legitimacy and securing the loyalty of the Egyptian priesthood.

This article explores the perception of the yoke as a symbol of domination and subordination in texts from Ancient Mesopotamia and the Middle East, as well as from ancient Greek and Roman writings. The metaphor of the yoke is analyzed from the perspective of both the conquerors and subjugated. In the texts of the Assyrian kings, conquest is perceived as the imposition of a yoke, while the fight for independence is portrayed as liberation from it. The Greeks adopted the concept of the yoke from the East, which explains why it was often used to describe the Greco-Persian conflict in the ancient Greek tradition. In many cases, the yoke was not only a metaphor for subordination but also had a military-political meaning. For example, the Assyrians harnessed captives to the royal chariot, while the Romans drove away captive enemies “under the yoke”, which was a structure consisting of two spears or pillars stuck into the ground with a third spear or pillar as a crossbar.

This article uses ancient Greek epic poetry, tragedy, and lyrics to describe how the Greeks treated the Pelasgians in the Archaic and Classical periods and provides a glimpse into the role assigned to them by the Hellenic authors. The evolution of the ancient Greeks’ ideas about the Pelasgians in the Archaic and Classical periods is traced. The place of the ethnonym of the Pelasgians in ancient Greek culture is outlined. The references to the Pelasgians in epic literature are examined. The image of the Pelasgians in tragedy and lyrics is reconstructed. The method of comparative analysis was employed: a thorough review of epic poetry, tragedy, and lyrics allowed for a comparison of the specifics of how the Pelasgians were portrayed. Hypotheses are proposed for the differences in the portrayal of the Pelasgians. Homer’s influence on subsequent works is not evident. The study’s findings provide new perspectives on historiography and resolve the longstanding disputes surrounding the study of the Pelasgians.

This article explores the influential role of the Roman centurions in the provincial government of the Roman Empire by analyzing their judicial and administrative powers. The results of modern historiographical research show that the military institution was closely intertwined with the Roman “government without bureaucracy:” the provincial governors’ offices were mainly staffed by military personnel and headed by the first cohort’s centurions. However, their administrative functions, although crucial in governing the provinces, have been insufficiently studied. The judicial power of the centurions has been viewed by scholars in two different ways: either as detrimental to the central government due to possible abuse by military personnel or as exceptional because it was not needed in the Romanized and urbanized areas of the empire. Here, based on the epigraphic evidence and papyrus data, the judicial and administrative duties of the centurions, including those delegated by the Roman imperium’s holders, are considered. Their involvement in the work of the municipal authorities is discussed. The conclusion is made that it was quite common for the centurions to hold extra managerial powers. In many cases, this was deemed legitimate as it did not contradict Roman law and stemmed from the long-established Roman practices.

This article is a response to the criticism by D.V. Puzanov. The main arguments and counterarguments are summarized. New evidence is provided in favor of the hypothesis that the oaths taken by the pagan Rus and the Greeks to ratify the agreements between them assumed that the oath breakers would be magically slayed by their own “animated” weapons. This is because the Scandinavians, including the Rus, believed that their weapons were “alive” and capable of “reviving” or “dying” regardless of the owner’s desire. The images of the Scandinavian ornaments with “living” weapons acting independently of their owners are analyzed. Through a number of examples, the practical attitude of the Scandinavians to their faith is shown: they treated the gods as partners in a kind of agreement about divine help. References are provided to the historiographical sources that support the idea of animation of weapons in the Scandinavian and Rus cultures, in which weapons appeared as living creatures with their life paths and destinies, as well as capable of physical action, “reviving”, and “dying”.

This article builds on the earlier discussion about the actor traits associated with North Germanic weapons. The historical theories and evidence used by O.L. Gubarev to support his approach are analyzed. It is argued that he seems to echo the historiographical tradition relying on oversimplified a priori assertions, rather than a comprehensive analysis of the concept of “living” things in certain cultures. In his polemical response, he misinterpreted some historical sources and the views of other researchers, while also presenting his own controversial ideas as undeniable facts. In conclusion, it is suggested that the beliefs in the ability of inanimate things to have person-like qualities and play an actual social role, the distinction between living and non-living nature, as well as the practice of attributing souls to non-living entities, should be regarded as separate problems that are not clearly related in all cultures.

This article considers the role of the oath of Russian citizenship as confirmation that foreigners become naturalized as Russian citizens. The concepts of “cross kissing”, “cross-kissing record”, and “oath” are examined in relation to the procedure of citizenship acquisition in Russia from the 15th to the early 20th century. Particular emphasis is placed on the genesis of the essence and scope of the oath institution in Russia. A comparative analysis is performed on the oaths taken by foreigners to assume the positions of public officials and subjects of the Russian emperors. The obtained results show that the change of citizenship did not entail compulsory religious conversion as long as the 17th century. All applicants for Russian citizenship had the right to take the oath in their native language and in front of the clergy member representing the religion they professed. As the oath of citizenship gained legitimacy and popularity in Russia, the lawmakers tried to unify the procedure, while ensuring that the oath text and ceremony remain sacred.

In the historiography of the military reforms during Peter I’s reign, the focus has primarily been on the 1699 mass recruitment of conscripts for life (datochnye lyudi), free people (vol’nye lyudi), and itinerants (gulyashchie lyudi), as well as on the recruitment duty imposed in 1705. However, to gain a better understanding of the specifics of the Russian army’s recruitment system prior to the Northern War, the earlier mobilization measures must be considered. This article discusses the course and results of the 1697 recruitment by analyzing the regiments of K. Rigeman and D. Maine. The Order-in-Charge Prikaz records are used to disclose the recruitment mechanisms and their progress in different administrative levels and territories. In addition, the Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire is studied as the major regulatory document, and I. Zhelyabuzhsky’s notes and Patrick Gordon’s diary are examined as the primary sources. Detailed descriptions are provided of where soldiers were registered, what documents were required at different stages of recruitment, and how soldiers were transported to their duty stations. The recruitment rates in various cities are shown. The social consequences faced by conscripts of different origins are outlined. It is concluded that despite the difficulties and problems at certain stages, two new regiments were quickly equipped during the 1697 recruitment. The drafting of free people and itinerants led to serious conflicts, forcing the government to gradually curtail the recruitment. Overall, the practical steps taken during the 1697 recruitment proved to be effective and determined subsequent recruitment campaigns of the late 17th century.

Based on an analysis of the studies published by Russian researchers of the pre-revolutionary, Soviet, and post-Soviet periods, the article overviews the development of gunpowder production in Russia during the reign of Peter I, from the end of the 17th century to the first quarter of the 18th century. The early development of military-technical policy pursued by the Russian state in producing gunpowder is considered. Its inconsistency and zigzag nature are shown. The industrial infrastructure for gunpowder production and the major stages of its history are described. The characteristic features that point to its institutionalization as an integral part of the Russian military industry are identified: state management of the industry, centralized introduction of new techniques, and establishment of an effective personnel training system. The conclusion is made that the efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in gunpowder production through the use of saltpeter and sulfur were unsuccessful. Gunpowder production in Russia was also greatly influenced by the European raw materials market and technical expertise. The need for further research on this topic is highlighted.

This article, for the first time in Russian historiography, reconstructs the biography of Vladimir Ivanovich Savva (1865–1920), an esteemed Russian historian and archivist, based on the analysis of historical writings, meeting minutes from scientific societies, as well as letters and memoirs from his contemporaries. Researchers have long been captivated by his original path as a scholar, yet it has never been the focus of a dedicated study. Here, V.I. Savva’s biography and professional development are thoroughly explored. His works and archival research are discussed. The interactions he had with other prominent scholars during the turn of the 20th century are considered. It is the first article in a series that will document and examine V.I. Savva’s life and works on Russian history from the 16th to 19th centuries.

This article considers the main milestones in the life of Elena Vladimirovna Guerrier (1868–1942), the daughter of the prominent Russian historian V.I. Guerrier. She was highly educated and fluent in four European languages, including German. During World War I, she was in Germany where she cemented her status as a fervent patriot of Russia and made every attempt to repatriate Russian subjects. E.V. Guerrier became widely respected for her contributions in the fields of school education and philanthropy. The recognition she received on the 25th anniversary of her hard work highlights that her public endeavors and initiatives were highly appreciated. After the October Revolution in 1917, E.V. Guerrier went through difficult times. She took care of her ailing father, who eventually succumbed to his illness. She was also arrested twice and served some time at Butyrka prison. In an attempt to integrate into Soviet society politically, E.V. Guerrier worked as a librarian and researcher at Lenin’s State Library for over ten years. However, due to her poor health, she retired in 1928. Until her death in 1942, she organized and safeguarded V.I. Guerrier’s scientific heritage by thoroughly revising his articles. She rewrote her father’s memoirs, which is a valuable source of information about the establishment of women’s higher education in Russia.

This article considers the Anglo-American historiography of the early English parliament based on the extensive contribution and heritage of Evgenia Vladimirovna Gutnova (1914–1992), an outstanding Soviet and Russian medievalist and historiographer. E.V. Gutnova was a pioneer and groundbreaker in the historical and historiographical study of the English state and medieval parliamentarism during the 13th–14th centuries. Through her work, she expanded the pool of historiographical sources available to the scientific world. This vast collection included the fundamental works on the English constitutional history of the Middle Ages published by major historians of England and the USA in the middle of the 19th–the first half of the 20th centuries. She performed a detailed analysis of their concepts of the English medieval parliament by comparison of the Whig-liberal (W. Stubbs) and “critical” (F.W. Maitland) models in line with the Marxist methodologies of history. Here, based on the historical-genetic and -comparative methods, along with historical analysis and synthesis, E.V. Gutnova’s role in the study of the early English parliamentarism within the Anglo-American historiography was defined. The conclusion is made that she developed and introduced an innovative historiographical concept, which has become a widely used algorithm for research in the field of foreign history of historical science, with the Anglo-American historiography of early parliamentarism in England as its integral part.

This article considers the popularization of Soviet science through the lens of the Australian botanist Eric Ashby, the author of the book “Scientist in Russia” published in New York in 1947. Although it has gone unnoticed in Russian historiography, this publication deserves thoughtful consideration for many reasons. Firstly, it addresses the current problem of public history. Secondly, it clarifies the role of cultural factors and national traditions in the development of Soviet science. Thirdly, it sheds light on the formation of a system of values in relation to science and scholars, which is closely linked to commemorative events. As an attentive foreign observer, E. Ashby succeeded in sketching his ideas about Soviet science. Here, his viewpoints are analyzed. The conceptualizing of the phenomenon of science popularization associated with academic anniversaries is discussed with respect to the celebration of the 220th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences in June 1945, in which E. Ashby participated. The conclusions drawn from the study are as follows. E. Ashby related the extensive popularization of Soviet science to cultural paradigm, Russian literature, pre-revolutionary enlightenment practices, and the practical concept of applied knowledge. He emphasized the important role of science popularization in elevating the status of scientific knowledge and scholars in Soviet society. However, he also stressed possible negative consequences of overpopularized science, such as the hierarchization of the academic community based on popularity rather than scientific achievements.

This article considers the features of “ethnic culture” and its place in the everyday and spiritual life of the Russian urban population of the Republic of Tatarstan. Its symbolic and functional importance for various sociodemographic groups is explored. The population of Tatarstan is viewed as a single historical and ethnographic community descending from the Great Russians of the Volga region. The structure of the social identity types and the characteristics of ethno-cultural group practices are described. Special attention is paid to how social space and ethno-cultural needs are related. The comparative analysis of different social groups of the urban and rural Russian residents of Tatarstan is carried out. The study employs the hermeneutic approach to decipher social phenomena with symbolic meanings. The theoretical insights and generalizations are based on the materials of a comprehensive ethno-sociological study performed on the modern Russian population of Tatarstan in 2022 with the help of both quantitative (mass survey) and qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus group) methods. The results obtained show a direct relationship between the type of ethnic identity and the level of ethno-cultural needs among the Russian urban population of Tatarstan. It is also concluded that many ethno-cultural practices, from the ritualized tradition to personal interiorization, have transformed under the influence of the socio-cultural landscape of the city.