Известия Уральского федерального университета. Серия 2: Гуманитарные науки (Jul 2024)

Soviet Historical Studies in the Mirror of Personal Connections: Correspondence between K. E. Grinevich and S. F. Platonov (1927–1929)

  • Andrey Anatolyevich Nepomnyashchy

DOI
https://doi.org/10.15826/izv2.2024.26.2.031
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 26, no. 2

Abstract

Read online

Based on the materials of the personal fund of Academician S. F. Platonov kept in the department of manuscripts of the Russian National Library, the author restores Platonov’s communication with K. E. Grinevich (1891–1970), a major researcher, museum worker, archaeologist, and antiquarian. The entire set of extant letters from Grinevich to Platonov is introduced into scholarly circulation which has never been done previously. This helps restore the nuances of the preparation and conduct of several all-Union scientific events that consolidated the historical community of the epoch through the prism of personal and official messages. The author expands the history of the conference of archaeologists of the USSR in Sevastopol which took place in September 1927. The documents studied make it possible to reveal in a new way the activities of Grinevich as an administrator in the field of Soviet museology during his transfer to Moscow as deputy head of the museum department of the Narkompros of the RSFSR. The article also shows the collaboration of scientists in preparing the all-Union archaeological congress. The correspondence demonstrates a conflict of interest between the Main Directorate of Scientific Institutions of the People’s Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR, which issued Archaeological Excavation Permits for archaeological work, and the State Academy of the History of Material Culture, which provided scientific support for these studies. It is demonstrated that Grinevich did not stop contacts with Chersonese and Crimean academic science in general. This is evidenced by his active participation in the congress on the study of the productive forces of Crimea (1928) and his long visits to Chersonese during the archaeological seasons. Finally, the author demonstrates the career rise of a provincial museum worker and the change in the style of his communication with colleagues in Crimea and in the capitals in this regard.

Keywords