Schultz d p history of modern psychology. Shultz, Pavel Nikolaevich

Dudin V.A. N.P. SCHULTS (SHIPOVA)(1792–1877) the first headmistress of the Tsarskoye Selo school for maidens of clergy.

We have been on the pages of our website more than once - the Shipov nobles from the Belkovo estate in Soligalichsky district, who played a big role in the history of Russia and showed themselves to be capable organizers. While in government positions, they served a lot in their field: in military affairs, education, science, politics...

___________________________________________

Nadezhda Pavlovna Shultz (Shipova), like her five brothers and sisters, was born in 1792 in the Belkovo estate of Soligalichsky district, which belonged to the famous noble family of the Shipovs.

In 1811, Nadezhda Pavlovna graduated from the St. Petersburg School of the Order of St. Catherine with a golden code. (The code is the award metal monogram of the reigning empress.)

Portrait of Elizaveta Pavlovna Shipova. Illustration Wikipedia.

In 1843 - 1845, thanks to the patronage of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna (later Queen of Wirtemberg), the first two schools for girls of clergy were founded in Russia: one in Tsarskoe Selo, the other in Soligalich (1845), under the direction of Elizaveta Pavlovna Shipova, sister of Nadezhda Pavlovna, which was later transferred to Yaroslavl (1848).

The decree of Emperor Nicholas I of August 18, 1843 on the founding of a school in Tsarskoe Selo said: “Drawing Our Royal attention to the clergy who do not have the means to decently educate their daughters, and wishing that it be carried out in accordance with the direct purpose of the spiritual state and with his true needs, according to the statutes of Our Orthodox Church. For this purpose, we have established an exemplary School in the department of the St. Petersburg Diocesan Administration, which will be under the Highest patronage of Our Most Dear Wife, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, and under the main guardianship of Our Dearest Daughter, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna.”

Nadezhda Pavlovna von Schultz (Shipova) was invited to the position of the first head of the school, who for many years became its soul, the main organizer of the educational process and leisure of the students.

In 1846, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, having got married, left Russia, and before leaving, she informed Chief Prosecutor Protasov that “she is transferring care of the schools for girls of the clergy of Tsarskoye Selo and Soligalichsky to her daughter-in-law, the Tsesarevna (future Empress Maria Alexandrovna) so that Her Imperial Highness, in accordance with Her proposal, would try to spread similar ones in other cities of Russia.”

In addition to the subjects of general education: the Law of God, general history, the history of Russian literature, pedagogy, painting, singing, etc., the school authorities were instructed to teach pupils handicrafts, housekeeping, gardening, poultry and barnyard activities, to give concepts about raising children, about caring for the sick and the properties of medicinal plants found in the country. At the end of the 1860s, physics and natural history began to be taught at the school.

During the first three decades of its existence, the Tsarskoye Selo School consisted of three two-year classes (lower, middle and higher), with 30 girls in each of them. Since 1888, the school was transformed into a six-grade school, with an increase in the number of students to one hundred and eighty, and from 1908 - into a seven-grade school, where two hundred and fifteen students were already trained. Beginning in 1871, graduates of the school, upon successful completion of the course, were awarded the title of home teacher.

In high school, some essays were always read in the presence of Nadezhda Pavlovna herself. These were: History of the Russian State (reading 13 volumes of Karamzin stretched out for almost two years), some historical and patriotic novels and others. Especially, in the study of books “on the positions of presbyters” and “on the duties of the priesthood,” Nadezhda Pavlovna tried to give the future mother-wives of the shepherds of the church, who were to become their faithful assistants in serving God and humanity, an ideal idea of ​​the high rank of priest.

The school was maintained at the expense of the Holy Synod. The staffing allocation since 1851 was 19 thousand rubles per year, not counting private donations and donations from the imperial family. At the beginning of the 1910s, one hundred students of the school were on government support; for the rest, the tuition fee was 150 rubles per year. Many private scholarships existed to support some female students free of charge. All students were listed as full boarders (they lived permanently at the school).

Most of the school's graduates devoted their lives to teaching. Many opened schools at home or held positions as teachers in various schools, mainly rural - zemstvo and parochial.

For more than 34 years, Nadezhda Pavlovna managed the Tsarskoye Selo School. She died in Tsarskoe Selo on September 12, 1877, at the age of 85, leaving behind a grateful memory among her many pupils.

Nadezhda Pavlovna's husband, Anton-Otto Leopold Alexandrovich von Schultz, was born in Livonia on March 3, 1792, studied at the University of Dorpat, where he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Medicine. He fulfilled his duties as a doctor during the Napoleonic War, setting up temporary hospitals in Moscow. In 1835, he became director of the state-owned Pavlovsk cloth factory. In 1842, already in retirement, he was killed on his estate by rebellious peasants.

Nadezhda Pavlovna and Anton Alexandrovich had three children. One of their sons, Pavel Antonovich Shipov-Schultz, was among the most prominent figures in the reforms to free the peasants from serfdom.

St. Petersburg, 1998.

Preface

This book is dedicated to the history of modern psychology - from the end of the 19th century, when psychology became an independent, independent discipline, to the present day. Without ignoring the early philosophical schools of thought, we have focused on what is directly related to the emergence of psychology as a new, different field of study. We present precisely the history of modern psychology, and not the psychology and philosophy that preceded it.
The history of psychology is presented here as a history of great ideas and scientific schools of thought. Since 1879, which formally marked the beginning of this scientific field, psychology has been given a variety of definitions, depending on what trends dominated the scientific field at that time. Most of all, we are interested in the sequence of ideas that determined the subject of the study of psychology, its methods and goals.
Each of the psychological schools is viewed as a movement growing out of its historical context, and not as something independent or isolated. This context includes not only intellectual (Zeitgeist), but also social, political and economic factors.
Although the book is compiled taking into account the positions of scientific schools that had a significant influence on the development of psychology, we understand that any definitions, ideas and approaches are the result of the activities of specific people - scientists and researchers. People, not some abstract forces, write articles, conduct research, prepare scientific reports and pass on their knowledge to a new generation of psychologists. The development and dissemination of this or that direction in psychology becomes possible thanks to the selfless work of these people. We talk about the lives of outstanding figures in psychology who stood at the origins of science, without forgetting that their work was influenced not only by the era, but also by the characteristics of personal life experience.
Each direction in psychology is considered from the point of view of its connection with previous and subsequent scientific ideas and discoveries. We will talk about how psychological schools developed - thanks to or contrary to the established order, and how points of view were formed that ultimately led to fundamental changes in scientific views. Looking back into the past, we can discover a certain pattern, continuity of development.
During the preparation of the sixth edition of this textbook - almost 30 years after the release of the first - we added a lot, deleted a lot and revised a lot, which in itself is clear evidence of the dynamic nature of the history of psychology. It is not in a complete state, but is constantly evolving. Intense academic work is underway, new translations are appearing, the role of significant figures in the history of psychology is being reassessed, emerging problems, methods and theories are being analyzed.
A significant addition to the book is a chapter on issues of gender and race in the history of psychology. We will look at the forces that have limited the opportunities for women and ethnic minorities to gain higher education in psychology and enter the profession. We will also talk about the so-called - that is, about efforts aimed at eradicating discrimination in the field of psychology. Throughout the book, the names of women psychologists and black scientists who have made undeniable contributions to science are mentioned.
Another feature of this volume is the inclusion of new topics and additional material relating to the personal lives of prominent psychologists - it illustrates the impact of their life experiences on the subsequent development of their ideas.
The concept of the machine as a metaphor for human functions has been expanded to include not only watches and automatic machines, but also examples from medicine and technology. Babbage's calculating machine is seen as the forerunner of the modern computer and the first attempt to copy human cognitive processes: a parallel is drawn between the concept of evolution and the development of machines.
We supplemented the chapter on cognitive psychology with a discussion of the method of introspection, as well as a story about how psychologists returned to the study of the cognitive subconscious and the consciousness of animals.
Primary source materials relating to structuralism, functionalism and behaviorism have been substantially edited to make them more accessible to the modern reader. The article on Gestalt psychology has been replaced by an excerpt from Köhler's book (fnielligenzprufungenan an Menschenaffen), which describes experiments in which animals solve problems using special devices. The article on psychoanalysis is taken from Freud's first lecture, given in 1909 to an American audience at Clark University (newly translated by Saul Rosenzweig). All of these materials present the original text of unique scientific methods - thus, we get the opportunity to find out what generations of psychology students studied in the past.
The new edition is supplemented with photographs, tables and drawings. Each chapter contains an outline, summary, discussion questions, and an annotated list of recommended readings. Definitions of important terms highlighted in the text are given in the margins. Comprehensive notes and indexes prepared by Elissa M. Lewis.
I would like to thank many teachers and students for their valuable suggestions. The book is undoubtedly enriched by the rigorous and insightful comments of the distinguished historian of psychology, Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr. from A&M University, Texas. We are grateful to the other reviewers of the new edition: Gerald S. Clack, Southern University, New Orleans; Stephen P. Coleman, Cleveland University; Katherine W. Hickman, Stevens College, Columbia, Missouri; Elisse M. Lewis, Southwestern University, Missouri; W. Scott Terry. University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Our editor, Carey Galloway, was always supportive and enthusiastic, and her professionalism was a huge help in refining our ideas. The project's senior editor, Angela Williams, provided connections with production departments and provided every possible support throughout the work on the book, each page of which is evidence of her competence and scientific pedantry.
Authors
Dedicated to Russ Nazzaro, who once, long ago, asked a new assistant professor:

Chapter I
Studying the History of Psychology

Development of modern psychology
We begin with a paradox, an apparent contradiction, saying that psychology is one of the most ancient sciences and at the same time one of the youngest. We have always been concerned with our own behavior, and reflections on human nature form thousands and thousands of philosophical and theological works. Already in the 5th century BC. A. Plato, Aristotle and other Greek thinkers were interested in many of the same problems that psychologists still work on today: memory, learning, motivation, perception, dreams, behavioral pathologies. Undoubtedly, there is a continuity of fundamental importance between the past of psychology and its present.
Although many ancient sciences can be called the spiritual forerunner of psychology, it is believed that the modern approach began to take shape in 1879 - just over a hundred years ago.
The difference between modern psychology - the central theme of this book - and its roots is not a question of human nature, but rather of the methods by which it is studied. The approach and research methods used distinguish modern psychology from the older discipline of philosophy, marking the emergence of psychology as a separate, primarily scientific field of knowledge.
Until the last quarter of the 19th century, philosophers studied human nature based on their own, very limited, experience, using reflection, intuition and generalizations. Change became possible when philosophers began to use tools that had already been successfully used in biology and other natural sciences. It was only when researchers became confident in the reliability of methods for studying the human mind, such as carefully controlled observation and experimentation, that psychology began to separate from its philosophical roots. Historians describe this transition from a philosophical to a scientific basis as (Cadwallader. 1992. P. 53).
The new science had to develop more accurate and objective research methods. In many ways, the history of psychology - since its separation from philosophy - is a history of the continuous refinement of research methods in order to achieve greater objectivity in the study and solution of problems.
In seeking to understand the complex controversies and debates that define modern psychology, one must take as a starting point the 19th century, a time when the science became an independent discipline with its own theoretical and experimental methods of research. Already the philosophers of antiquity, Plato and Aristotle, were interested in those problems that have not lost their relevance today, but their research methods were significantly different from those used by psychologists of our day. Ancient thinkers were not psychologists in the modern sense. Therefore, we will touch on their ideas only to the extent that they are directly related to the formation of modern psychology.
The idea of ​​the applicability of methods of physical and biological sciences to the study of mental phenomena was inherited from both philosophical thinking and psychological research of the 17th-19th centuries. It was then that the soil was prepared from which modern psychology grew. Philosophers of the 19th century paved the way for an experimental approach to the study of thinking, and psychologists, independently of them, approached the solution of the same problems from a different angle. Psychologists of the 19th century took a decisive step towards understanding the physical mechanisms underlying the processes of thinking. Their scientific methods differed from those of philosophy proper, but the union of these two different disciplines - philosophy and psychology - gave birth to a new field of study that quickly gained individuality and strength.
Having emerged, the new field of psychology developed rapidly, especially in the United States, which took and maintains a dominant position in the psychological world. More than half of the world's psychologists work at CLLIA; a huge number of specialists from other countries have visited here, at least for an internship. The vast majority of books on psychology are published in the United States. The American Psychological Association (APA), which once had only 26 members, had 1,100 members by 1930, and more than 100,000 by 1995.
This among psychologists was accompanied by an explosion of information - the appearance of countless studies, scientific reports, theoretical articles, reviews, books, films, computer programs, etc. Psychologists, within the framework of their narrow specialization, find it increasingly difficult to keep track of the rapid development of their own science.
Not only have the ranks of practicing doctors, researchers, scientists, and specialist literature increased, but the influence of psychology on our daily lives has also increased. It is quite possible that, to a certain extent, the work of psychologists affects the life of every person - regardless of his age, activities and interests.
The influence of the past on the present
Already in 1911, universities were giving lectures on the history of psychology, but today such a course is offered in most psychology departments (McCovern. 1992); in some cases, a course in the history of psychology is compulsory for students. State educational authorities in the United States strongly recommend including the history of psychology among the subjects required for study in psychology departments (Hilgard, Leary, McGuire. 1991; Lloyd, Brewer.

1992: Matarazzo. 1990).

In this regard, psychology is a unique science, because most faculties do not offer lectures on the history of their science at all. Why are psychologists so interested in it? One reason is what we mentioned earlier: many questions that scientists pondered hundreds of years ago are still relevant today; in psychology - unlike other sciences - the continuity of subjects and methods of study is obvious. This means that psychology has a more tangible and living connection with its own past, the study of which psychologists consider important and necessary.
The interest of psychologists in the history of their own science has developed into a separate area of ​​research: just like specialists in social psychology, psychopharmacology or adolescent psychology, there are also specialists in the history of psychology.
In 1965, edited by psychologists in the USA, it began to be published (journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences). At the same time, the Archive of the History of American Psychology was founded at the University of Akron, Ohio, a rich collection of primary sources that scientists could now access. In 1966, within the APA, the Department of History of Psychology (Division 26) arose, and in 1969, the International Society for the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences (Chevron Society) was founded. Certified specialists in the field of history of psychology are trained at several universities in the United States. The growth in the number of books and articles, seminars and conferences, the emergence of new archives - all this indicates the important place the history of science occupies in the course of modern psychology.
You will say: this is quite interesting, but why should I study the history of psychology? Look carefully: in all of psychology there was not a single approach or definition regarding which all representatives of this science expressed complete unanimity. There are many opinions, differences and even disagreements regarding the subject of study, professional and scientific specialization.
Some psychologists focus their attention on cognitive functions, others on the study of the subconscious, and still others work on issues of external behavior or on the biochemical processes of thinking. Modern psychology includes many disciplines that, at first glance, unite only an interest in human behavior and nature and the desire to develop at least a somewhat unified scientific approach.
The only thing that connects and weaves these different areas and approaches into a coherent context. - this is their history, the development of psychology as an independent discipline. Only by studying the origins and development of psychology can one clearly see what it is today. Knowledge of history brings order and meaning to what seems to be chaos, the past is built into a perspective that explains the present.
Psychologists of various specialties use similar methods based on the belief that the past most directly affects the present. Clinical psychologists, for example. They try to understand their patients' current state by studying their childhood and life events that may have caused them to behave or think in a certain way. By collecting facts, clinicians reconstruct the evolution of patients' lives, and often this leads to explanations for problems that arose. Behavioral psychologists also recognize the influence of the past in shaping the present. They believe that behavior is determined by previous life conditions and ingrained experiences - in other words, a person's current state can be explained by his past.
The course in the history of psychology brings together all areas of research and all problems of modern psychology. It allows you to understand the relationship between various ideas, theories and concepts, and allows you to understand how individual pieces of the puzzle called psychology fit into a coherent picture. The history of psychology can also be thought of as a science that studies what happens, explores historical events and experiences of the past - which is what psychology does. what it is today.
It must be added that the history of psychology is also simply a fascinating story, where you will find dramas, tragedies, cases of true heroism, revolutionary changes and even something about sex and drugs. There were mistakes, misunderstandings, and delusions, but there was also free development, the result of which is modern psychology and all its rich experience.
Historical information: reconstruction of the past
Historical facts - the material that historians use to recreate a picture of life, events, eras - differ markedly from the data of science. The main distinguishing feature of scientific data is the method of obtaining it. When psychologists want, for example, to determine under what conditions a person will respond to the misfortune of another, or how the implementation of a reflex enhancement program affects the behavior of laboratory rats, or whether children will imitate the aggressive behavior of TV characters, they construct situations by creating conditions under which the necessary data can be obtained.
You can conduct laboratory experiments, observe the behavior of an object in a real controlled situation, conduct research, or calculate a statistical correlation between two variables. This allows the scientist to structure the events he wants to study in a certain way. In turn, other scientists at another time and in another place can restore or copy these events. The results are verified under conditions that are the same for initial and repeated experiments.
But history data cannot be restored or copied. Each event occurred at a specific time in the past—perhaps centuries ago—and eyewitnesses may not have recorded the events in detail. (Wertheimer. 1979. P. 1).
If a historical episode cannot be examined directly, how can historians work on it? What data can they use to describe it? And how can you even know what really happened?
Even if historians cannot reproduce the situation to work with the relevant data, this does not mean that reliable information does not exist at all. The facts of history are available to us in the form of fragments of the past - eyewitness accounts, letters and diaries, photographs and things, newspapers and other sources. It is on the basis of these data that historians try to recreate the events and experiences of the past.
This is roughly how archaeologists work with finds from the past - arrowheads, fragments of clay pots or bones from burial mounds - they try to recreate the characteristic features of disappeared civilizations. Sometimes archaeological expeditions manage to find well-preserved fragments, which makes it possible to more accurately reconstruct the era. It’s the same with history - data fragments can be so significant that they leave virtually no doubt about the accuracy of the reconstruction.
Lost or corrupted data
Sometimes historical data is incomplete. They may have been lost, or deliberately distorted by self-interested scholars, or translated inaccurately from one language to another. In the history of psychology, we often have to reconstruct historical truth from incomplete data.
It happens that for decades, researchers are not even aware of the existence of important personal documents of famous scientists. The papers of Hermann Ebbinghaus, a prominent memory researcher, were found in 1984, almost 75 years after his death. In 1983, ten large boxes containing handwritten diaries of the founder of psychophysics, Gustav Fechner, were discovered. These records cover the period from 1828 to 1879 - a time very important in the early history of psychology, and yet for more than a hundred years no one had any idea of ​​their existence. The authors of numerous books about Fechner and Ebbingau could not rely on these important primary sources in their work. New historical finds mean a few more pieces of the puzzle can be put into place.
Sometimes facts can be deliberately distorted or hidden from the public in order to protect the reputation of people associated with them. Thus, the first biographer of Sigmund Freud, Ernest Jones. deliberately concealed Freud's addiction to cocaine, admitted in one of his letters: (Isbister.

1985. P. 35). Speaking about Freud (Chapter 13), we will see that recently discovered evidence confirms that he used cocaine over a long period of his life. Jones decided he couldn't let anyone find out about this.

Another case of substitution of facts was discovered in connection with the study of the life and work of one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, Wolfgang Köhler (see Chapter 12). (Ley. 1990. P. 197). This episode illustrates one of the difficulties scientists face in determining the true value of historical materials. Can you trust documents or other data reflecting facts relating to a person’s life and work? Are the facts manipulated in such a way as to create a certain - positive or negative - image?
Let's return to Sigmund Freud. He died in 1939, but researchers and publishers only gained access to his personal papers and letters many years later. An extensive collection of personal documents is kept in the US Library of Congress, however, according to Freud’s own will, some of them will be opened only in the next century. The reason for such secrecy is also known: to prevent interference in the personal lives of Freud’s patients and their families, and, possibly, Freud himself and his descendants.
One of Freud's best biographers has discovered a significant difference in the dates of permission for publication of these materials (Sulloway.

1992). For example, one of the letters to Freud from his eldest son is closed until 2013, another until 2032. And a letter from one of Freud's mentors cannot be published until 2102. By that time, approximately 177 years will have passed since the death of this person, and this suggests that there is something contained in the letter (Sulloway. 1992. P. 159).

Psychologists do not know how these archival documents will affect our perception of Freud and his work. Perhaps they will change it significantly, and perhaps not. However, until the data are available for study, our knowledge of one of the central figures of psychology remains incomplete and perhaps inaccurate.
Translation errors
Another problem that historians face concerns information that is unintentionally distorted. The data is available, but it has been altered in some way - perhaps due to imperfect translation from one language to another, or due to the negligence of an eyewitness to the events.
For an example of inadequate translation, let us again turn to the life and works of Freud. Few psychologists can boast of sufficient knowledge of German to read Freud in the original. Most rely on the translator, who selects the most appropriate, equivalent words and phrases. However, the translation of a word does not always exactly correspond to the meaning intended by the author.
Freud's theory of personality has three fundamental concepts: id, ego and suverego - terms with which you are familiar. But these words do not accurately reflect Freud's ideas. These are the Latin equivalents of the German words: ego - Ich (I), id - ?s (It) and superego - Uber-lch (Super-I).
Using the term /c/i (I). Freud wanted to describe something very internal and personal, and clearly separate it from the Es (It), which represents forces different from or even alien to him. (Bettelheim. 1982. P. 53). Thus, the difference between and is not reflected correctly in the English translation. as in the original.
Consider Freud's term. Here the word means making a mental connection between one idea and another - that is, it is implied that each of them acts as a stimulus for the extraction of the next link in the chain. But Freud spoke about something else. He used a term that in German is Einfall, which does not mean association at all. Literally, it's either. Freud wanted to emphasize the uncontrollability with which the subconscious takes root - one might even say invades - into a person’s conscious thought.
These are examples of a fundamental discrepancy with what Freud meant. The historical data - in this case, Freud's own words - are distorted in the process of translation. An Italian proverb speaks briefly about this: (Baars.

1986. P. 73). When relying on translations, historians should keep this in mind. that the data they work with may be inaccurate or erroneous. In the 1980s, the British Psychoanalytic Society recommended that traditional translations of Freud's works be reconsidered because they perpetuated a distorted view of his ideas (Holder 1988).

Self-interests of the characters in the story
Historical facts can be misrepresented by those directly involved in the events. People may, consciously or unconsciously, describe what they see in a biased manner in order to protect themselves, whitewash, or exaggerate their role in the public eye. B. F. Skinner, a prominent researcher of human behavior, writes in his autobiography that in the 1920s, while a student at Harvard University, he was distinguished by amazing self-discipline.
I woke up at six in the morning and read before breakfast. then it was time for lectures and laboratory classes, after which I went to the library, where I worked until nine in the evening - and all this with only fifteen-minute breaks. I didn't go anywhere, not to the cinema. I didn’t go to the theaters, I occasionally went to concerts, I had practically no time for romantic interests. I read books on psychology and only psychology. (Skinner. 1967. P. 398.)
This passage seems to give us information that is very important to understanding Skinner's character. But 12 years after the publication of his autobiography and 51 years after the events described, Skinner denied that he had led the life of a Spartan during his student years. Regarding the above passage, he wrote: (Skinner. 1979. P. 5).
Although Skinner's apprenticeship is not of fundamental importance for the history of psychology, the very fact of the presence of two interpretations belonging to the main character presents certain difficulties for historians. Which version is more accurate? Which of the characteristics is closer to reality? Which of them was influenced by the vagaries of memory or its selective nature? And how do we know the truth?
Perhaps in some cases there will be evidence from colleagues or eyewitnesses. If historians of psychology are critically interested in learning about Skinner's years at Harvard, they might try to track down his classmates, or at least their diaries and letters, and compare their memories of Skinner as an undergraduate with his own. Skinner biographer Daniel Bjork did just that (Bjork. 1993). A former classmate of Skinner’s told Bjork that he always finished his laboratory work before everyone else and spent the rest of the day playing ping-pong.
Thus, disputes over historical inconsistencies can sometimes be resolved by consulting other sources. A similar method was used to interpret some incidents from the life of Sigmund Freud in his own account. Freud liked to portray himself as a martyr who sacrificed his mortal body on the altar of psychoanalysis; a visionary constantly despised and persecuted: one who was reviled by traditional medicine and psychiatry. Freud's first biographer. Ernest Jones preached precisely this image in his books (Jones. 1935, 1953,1957).
But newly discovered material suggests otherwise: Freud's work was not denigrated or ignored. By 1906, his ideas dominated the minds of young Viennese intellectuals. Freud's clinical practice flourished and, in modern parlance, he was even a celebrity (Ellenberger. 1970). Freud himself distorted the facts, and several biographers perpetuated these distortions. Later, the impression he cared to create was changed, but for decades - until new evidence was found - our understanding of Freud's life and influence was inaccurate.
How do these problems affect the study of the history of psychology? First of all, they demonstrate that our understanding of history is not static, but dynamic. With the advent of new data, it changes and develops, it is purified and enriched, and false ideas are dispelled. History cannot be considered finished or complete; it is always in motion, it has no end. The historian's narrative can only bring us closer to the truth. But every year, with every new discovery and examination, the history of psychology becomes more complete.
Contextual factors in psychology
Psychology does not develop in a vacuum; it is part of a larger culture and is therefore subject not only to internal influences, but also to external ones, which also shape its character and directions. Understanding the history of psychology involves considering the context in which the science emerged and developed—that is, the ideas that have dominated the science at different times (Zeitgeist, or intellectual), as well as social, economic, and political forces (Altman. 1987; Furumoto. 1989). .
Zeitgeist - general intellectual and cultural atmosphere.
Throughout this book we will frequently address questions about how contextual forces have affected psychology in the past and how they continue to affect it today. For now, we will limit ourselves to giving examples of three such forces: economic opportunity, war, and prejudice.
Economic factor
The beginning of the 20th century in the United States was marked by changes both in the work of psychologists and in psychology itself. Opportunities for applying psychological knowledge and methods to real-life problems have increased—largely due to economic factors. This was explained by practical reasons. As one psychologist said, (N. HoUingworth, cited in: O"Donnell. 1985. P. 225).
Although the number of psychological laboratories in the United States grew steadily toward the end of the 19th century, so did the number of psychologists applying for jobs in these laboratories. At the turn of the century, there were three times as many psychologists with doctorates as there were labs that could employ them. Fortunately, the number of teaching vacancies at new universities in the western states has increased, but in most of these educational institutions psychology is the youngest of the sciences. received minimal financial support. In comparison with disciplines that had a stronger position, such as. physics and chemistry - psychology was invariably given last place in the list of annual allocations; Very small amounts were allocated for research work, laboratory equipment and salaries for teachers.
Psychologists quickly realized that basic science could advance, and budgets and revenues grow, only if they convinced university administrators and legislators who regulated subsidies that psychology could be useful in solving social, educational, and industrial problems. Psychology departments soon began to be looked at for their practical value.
At the same time, as a result of social changes, a real opportunity arose in the United States to apply psychology in practice. Thanks to the influx of immigrants and the high birth rate of this social group, public education has become a rapidly growing industry. Between 1890 and 1918, the number of registered free secondary schools increased by 700 percent, with one school being built per day across the country. More money was spent on education than on military and social programs combined.
Many psychologists, taking advantage of the emerging opportunities, looked for ways to apply their knowledge in the field of education. Thus began a rapid change of emphasis in American psychology - from experimentation in university laboratories to the application of psychology to problems of training, education and other practical issues of pedagogy.
War factor
Wars are another force that helped shape modern psychology. The experience of providing psychological assistance to the military in the first and second world wars accelerated the development of practical psychology and expanded its influence in such areas as personnel policy, psychological testing and applied psychology. c)that work demonstrated to the entire psychological community and society at large how useful psychology can be in solving the problems of everyday life.
The Second World War changed the face and fate of psychology in Europe - especially in Germany, where experimental psychology was born, and in Austria, the birthplace of psychoanalysis. Many outstanding psychologists - among them Freud, Adler, Horney, Erikson, leading representatives of Gestalt psychology - fled from the Nazi threat in the 30s and almost all settled in America. Their forced emigration marks the final stage of the movement of the center of psychology from Europe to the United States.
The war also significantly influenced the developed theories and research of individual psychologists. Observing the carnage of the First World War, Freud suggested that aggression was an important motivating force, just like sex; this marked a turning point in his system of psychoanalysis. The founder of neo-Freudianism, Erich Fromm, who actively opposed armed aggression, subsequently turned to studying such a manifestation of behavioral pathology as fanaticism, which gripped his native Germany during the war.
Prejudice
The third factor is the prejudice and discrimination based on race, religion and gender, which for many years influenced the fate of those who wanted to devote themselves to psychology and work in the specialty. For decades, African-Americans were largely excluded from psychology and most fields that required a college education. It was already 1940, and in the United States only four colleges could admit black students to their psychology departments; units of universities admitted black men and women to graduate school. Between 1920 and 1966, even in the ten most advanced American psychology departments, only eight African-Americans were able to obtain doctorates. For comparison, hereinafter the text mentions the academic degree of Doctor of Science, which in the Russian education system approximately corresponds to the degree of Candidate of Science in the relevant field of knowledge. - Approx. translation
Research: Over the same period of time, more than 3,700 white PhDs in psychology emerged (Guthrie, 1976).
Jews also became victims of discrimination. At the end of the 19th century, two scientific centers important for the early history of psychology were founded - Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. The leadership of both universities followed a policy that resulted in the dismissal of Jewish teachers from their faculties. Since the middle of the 20th century, special quotas for admission to higher educational institutions began to be allocated for Jews. Even those who received doctorates found it very difficult to get jobs in academic institutions. Julian Rotter, a leading scholar of subjective experience (see Chapter 11) who became a PhD in 1941, recalled that he (Rotter 1982: 346). Instead of university, he began his professional career at a state mental hospital.
Throughout the history of psychology, we continually encounter examples of widespread prejudice against women. In particular, we are talking about cases where women have been denied entry into higher education or employment. But even if a woman managed to get a teaching position, her salary was incomparably lower than what men were paid; in addition, women constantly faced all sorts of obstacles in promotion and extension of tenure. Sandra Scarr, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, remembers her interview process as an applicant to Harvard University in 1960. The eminent social psychology theorist Gordon Allport then told her: (Scarr. 1987. P. 26).
There were very few people working in fundamental and applied psychology, representing those social groups that were subject to systematic discrimination. Realizing the abnormality of this state of affairs, a number of psychologists have proposed the so-called identity politics. It is defined as (Sampson. 1993. P. 1219).
The identity politics movement has been embraced by those women, blacks, homosexuals and ethnic minorities from developing countries who believe that psychology today is dominated - and virtually unchallenged - by the white, heterosexual, male, Caucasian person. Dissatisfied with this situation, they claim that such a view of human nature and behavior not only ignores their needs and interests, but also maintains the dominance and power of the majority. In Chapter 16 we will take a closer look at the issue of discrimination in psychology.
Later we will analyze other examples of the influence of economic, political and social forces on the development of modern psychology; and thus we will see that the history of psychology was shaped not only by ideas, theories and outstanding researchers, but also by outside influences that are practically impossible to control.
Personalistic and naturalistic concepts of the history of science
Two theories can be used to explain the development of psychology: personalistic and naturalistic.
Personalistic theory
In the personalist theory of the history of science, the emphasis is on the monumental achievements of individuals. According to this view, advances and changes in science are attributed directly to the influence of unique individuals who are capable of single-handedly determining and changing the course of history. According to this theory, Napoleon, Hitler or Darwin were the main driving forces behind great historical events. The personalistic concept suggests that the events associated with their names would never have happened without the appearance of these particular outstanding people. Finally, supporters of this theory argue that man.
At first glance, it seems obvious that science is the work of intellectuals, creators, energetic men and women who determine its direction. We often name an era by the name of the person whose discoveries, theories or other achievements marked a given historical period. We're talking about sculpture or physics. All this indicates that thanks to individual people, dramatic (sometimes destructive) changes are taking place in science and culture as a whole, turning the course of history.
Thus, there is some truth in the personalistic theory. But is this enough to fully explain the development of science or society? Not at all. Often the work of scientists, philosophers, and artists is not noticed during their lifetime, they are persecuted, and their merits are recognized too late. Each such case suggests that the approval or rejection of an idea, praise or contempt, can depend on the cultural or spiritual atmosphere of the time. The history of science is replete with examples when new theories and discoveries were not recognized by their contemporaries. Even the greatest thinkers and inventors were limited by the Zeitgeist, that is. The mindset and pressing issues currently prevalent in society can block the path to discovery. An idea that will be enthusiastically received a century later may be called strange or unorthodox at the time it appears. Unfortunately, progress towards progress is sometimes too slow.

The war interrupted archaeological research for several years. However, the patriotic upsurge that clearly manifested itself in these years aroused increased interest in the history of ancient autochthonous political formations in party-ideological, state and scientific circles. This is precisely what became the reason for such an extraordinary event as the arrival in Simferopol of the Tauro-Scythian expedition led by P.N. in the summer of 1945. Schultz. The expedition was created by the State Museum of Fine Arts and the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The main task of scientific research was to resolve issues related to the emergence and development of the Late Scythian state in Crimea (Red Crimea, 1945, No. 165).

The work was supposed to begin in Naples, in the area of ​​the Blaramberg excavation of 1827, where the base of the Skilur statue and a relief depicting a horseman were discovered. Another object of excavation was a nearby section of the defensive wall with traces of the city gate. In the future, P.N. Schultz intended to begin excavating the crypts of the Scythian nobility in the necropolises of Naples and examine the Late Scythian monuments of the Salgir valley. Much attention was paid to the fortification of Kermen-Kyr, a clearly unusual monument among Late Scythian settlements.

Field work, begun in 1945, continued with minor interruptions until 1959 and was concentrated mainly on Naples. In some areas of the site, excavations continued into the 60s. Over the years of research, in which P.N. participated at different times. Shultz, A.N. Karasev, O.D. Dashevskaya, O.I. Dombrovsky, V.P. Babenchikov, N.N. Pogrebova, T.Ya. Kobets, E.A. Symanovich, I.D. Marchenko, T.N. Vysotskaya, I.V. Yatsenko, E.N. Cherepanova, E.V. Chernenko, A.N. Shcheglov, defensive structures were opened in the area of ​​the main city gates, a mausoleum of the Scythian nobility, a complex of ceremonial, public and residential buildings located near the city gates. In the northern part of Naples, public, residential and utility structures were explored. In the suburban area, ash pits, places of worship and outbuildings were studied. Numerous burials have been excavated in the eastern necropolis of Naples. Among them is crypt No. 9 with its well-preserved paintings.

In addition to the excavations of Naples, the Tauro-Scythian expedition carried out archaeological explorations over a vast territory. P.N. participated in the work. Shultz, N.N. Pogrebova, O.D. Dashevskaya, E.V. Weimarn, N.P. Katsur, A.A. Shchepinsky. In the late 40s - early 50s. Most of the currently known Late Scythian monuments of the Piedmont and North-Western Crimea were discovered. Of particular interest was the survey of Western Crimea conducted by A.N. Shcheglov. Among the most important conclusions of the researcher is the conclusion that the coastal settlements of Western Crimea mark and control the road leading from Kalos-Limen to Chersonese. He also suggested that the Ust-Alma settlement was a Roman military fortification (Shcheglov, 1961; 1965). The latter has not been confirmed by excavations, but the placement of a Roman garrison at the site seems quite likely.

Small but effective work was carried out at the site of Kermen-Kyr, where O.I. Dombrovsky and V.G. Girshberg discovered a section of the outer rampart with a tower and a wall, as well as a ceramic oven in the central part of the fortification (see Koltukhov, 1999, pp. 38-39). The stove was published by O.I. Dombrovsky (Dombrovsky, 1957). O.D. Dashevskaya, continuing her research on Kermen-Kyr, proposed a new interpretation of this monument, characterizing it as the most important outpost of the Scythian foothills, and also published previously unknown materials from the works of N.L. Ernst (Dashevskaya 1957). V. S. Drachuk published exploration materials on the small settlement of Dzhalman in the Salgir valley (Drachuk, 1960). In the 50s excavations began at the site of Alma-Kermen, which made it possible to confidently speak about the presence on the monument of not only Late Scythian (by the way, still the least studied cultural strata), but also a layer that appeared as a result of the presence of a Roman garrison at the site (Vysotskaya, 1967a; 1970) .

In 1948, when the research of the Tauro-Scythian expedition was just picking up pace, the work of M.I. Artamonov “The Scythian Kingdom in Crimea”. It convincingly formulated a hypothesis about the nature of the Sedangarization of early nomads in the lower reaches of the Don, Dnieper and Kuban. Here is the first detailed outline of the military-political history of “late Scythia”. The Scythian kingdom was characterized as a military organization or state of the barbarian type. Skilur and Palak were considered the successors of Saitafarn, and in distant retrospect - Atey. Their state, created to subjugate the Greek Black Sea city-states, lost its strength and strict centralization after the defeat inflicted on the Scythians by Diophantus (Artamonov, 1948). In fact, the work summed up pre-war ideas about the history of “late Scythia.”

Excavations carried out in those years under the leadership of P.N. Schultz, gave their first scientific results. The candidate's dissertation and a large article by V.P. were devoted to the study of the necropolis of Scythian Naples. Babenchikova. The researcher examined the materials from the “mound of 1949” and burials in the western and eastern burial grounds of the Scythian capital. He systematized and dated the main types of burials, highlighting “collective” burials in mounds, aristocratic burials in cut-out crypts, burials in ground crypts, ground and undercut graves. At the same time, V.P. Babenchikov in one case attributed the burial grounds of Naples to the 1st century. BC e. - IV century n. e. (Babenchikov, 1957), in another to the 1st century. BC e. - III century n. e. (Babenchikov, 1957a). Most likely, a change in the well-founded upper date from the 3rd to the 4th century. in an article that appeared in a collection edited by P.N. Schultz, happened under his influence. Since the lower chronological boundary of the burial grounds did not coincide with the dating of the settlement that existed at that time, V.P. Babenchikov expressed the opinion that the necropolis of the 3rd-1st centuries. BC e. not yet discovered. The researcher explained the appearance of things of the Sarmatian type in burials either by penetration in the first centuries. n. e. Sarmatians into the urban population, or through intensive trade exchanges with Sarmatian tribes.

In 1951, the first work of T.N. was published. Troitskaya “Scythian mounds of Crimea” (Troitskaya, 1951). It has not lost its significance even now, however, only in the part related to the Scythians - the nomads of the early era. In this article, based on materials obtained back in the 19th century and clearly insufficient for reliable conclusions, direct continuity was seen between the funerary monuments of the Scythian proper and late Scythian times. Moreover, some burials were dated in total to the 3rd century. BC e. and III-II centuries. BC e. Such a chronology seriously influenced the historical and geographical ideas of readers, clearly illustrating the continuous development of Scythian culture in Crimea, based on ideas about the presence of the Late Scythian population in the Crimean steppe. However, T.N. Troitskaya was allocated a group of so-called mounds with collective burials. This type of monument, in her opinion, was characterized by stone tombs with a very large number of skeletons. The burials, concentrated mainly in the foothills of Crimea, dated back to the 3rd century. BC e. to the 2nd century n. e. and were interpreted as “family” tombs of the inhabitants of the Late Scythian settlements. In the ritual of “collective burials” the researcher saw a mixture of Scythian and Taurian features.

In parallel with field research in the forties and fifties, their results were periodically published in scientific publications. Soon after the start of the work of the Tauro-Scythian expedition, an article by P.N. Schultz, dedicated to Naples reliefs, the images on which the researcher considered as sculptural portraits of Skilur and Palak (Schultz, 1946). In the 50s and early 60s. a series of publications and monographs appeared. In 1953 P.N. Schultz published a monograph in which he published the most striking materials from the mausoleum excavated at the main city gates of Naples (Schultz, 1953). The main conclusion of the work was the conclusion that the tomb was built for the burial of King Skilur at the end of the 2nd century. BC e. N.N. Pogrebova, who directly carried out excavations in the mausoleum, published burial materials. She dated the earliest burial to the beginning of the 1st century. BC e., considering it the grave of Palak, Skilur’s successor (Pogrebova, 1961). A.N. Karasev prepared a monograph on the fortifications of Naples. However, it was never published. O.D. Dashevskaya and I.V. Yatsenko published graffiti from the public building “A” and a reconstruction of the paintings on its walls (Dashevskaya, 1962; Yatsenko, 1960). L.P. Kharko, K.V. Golenko and E.A. Symanovich were engaged in identifying numismatic material from the excavations of the Tauro-Scythian expedition (Kharko, 1961; Symanovich, Golenko 1960). O.D. Dashevskaya classified and introduced into scientific circulation the molded ceramics of Naples (Dashevskaya, 1968). I.B. Zeest characterized some types of antique ceramic containers discovered at the site (Zeest, 1954). IN AND. Tsalkin made determinations of the osteological part of the collection of the settlement (Tsalkin, 1960), and G.F. Debets, M.M. Gerasimov, T.S. Konductorova processed the anthropological material from the excavations (Konduktorova, 1964). E.I. Solomonik re-processed, supplemented and published the epigraphic monuments of Naples (Solomonik, 1962).

Thus, in the process of work in Naples in the late 40s - 50s. the necessary material was accumulated to solve priority problems in the field of studying material culture, chronology, art, ethnic, social and political history of the Late Scythian state in Crimea.

A generalizing work owned by P.N. Schultz, was based on materials from excavations of 1945-1950. It was originally presented at the IHMC conference in 1952, and then revised and published (Schultz, 1957). According to the leading researcher, the Kermenchik settlement was undoubtedly Naples, mentioned by Strabo and the author of the decree in honor of Diophantus. The city arose in the 3rd century. BC e., existed until the 4th century. n. e. and died during the Hun invasion. The construction periodization of the monument was correlated by P.N. Schultz with the stages of Late Scythian history. The first construction period, dating back to the 3rd century. BC e., was never characterized. The second is correlated with the era of the reign of Skilur and his father. It ended with the death of Skilur and the construction of the mausoleum. The third period was dated by the reign of Palak and the era of the Scythian wars with Chersonese, supported by the army of Diophantus. P.N. Schultz was convinced that it was in the second and third periods that Naples turned into a fortress city, the residence of the Scythian kings. The fourth and fifth construction periods, falling on the I-II centuries. n. e., according to P.N. Shultz, pointed to a new rise during the reign of Pharzoi and Inismey, when the Scythians again approached the walls of Chersonesus and threatened the Bosporus. Layers III-IV centuries. n. e. testified to the decline of the city. Already at the turn of the II-III centuries. The mausoleum and central gate were destroyed. Schultz connected this event with the victory of Sauromat II over the Scythians and Taurians.

Naples seemed to the scientist a city of landowners, herd owners, traders and warriors. The complex social structure of the urban population was evidenced by serious differences in construction and burial practices, the coexistence of palaces and dugouts, the royal mausoleum and painted crypts of aristocrats with the graves of ordinary city residents. The peculiarities of the development of urban culture showed that at an early stage this center of Scythian culture itself experienced a strong Hellenic influence, and during the period of secondary prosperity it found itself under the influence of Sarmatian culture. The population of Naples was basically Scythian, with a slight admixture of Taurus and Greek elements. In the first centuries n. e. Sarmatians appeared here. Their penetration into Naples intensified in the 3rd-4th centuries. n. e. The main results of studies of Naples in the 40-50s. should have been summarized in the doctoral dissertation and monograph by P.N. Schultz, but this work was never completed.

Essay on the history of late Scythia, owned by E.I. Solomonik (Solomonik, 1952), largely reflected the views of P.N. Schultz. The Scythian state, centered in Crimea, seemed to be the successor to the state formation that arose under Atea, during a fierce struggle with the Bosporus and Chersonese. The transfer of the capital to Crimea was justified by the desire of the Scythians to get closer to the most important trading centers and the Sarmatian offensive on the Black Sea Scythia. The state, which reached its greatest prosperity under Skilur, included most of the Crimea, the Lower Dnieper region and Olbia. The farmers of the foothills were dependent on the steppe nomads and paid them tribute. Political power by the time of Skilur had a monarchical character, and the Scythian kingdom still did not have the prerequisites for turning into a developed slave state due to the predominance of a free and dependent agricultural population, and, in addition, strong remnants of primitive communal relations. The defeat in the war with Diophantus seriously weakened the Scythians, but did not lead to their complete submission to Mithridates VI. In the first centuries n. e. The Scythian forces were quite large and allowed them to periodically enter into battle with the Bosporus and Chersonese.

E.I. Solomonik proposed a new interpretation of Strabo’s passage about the construction of Late Scythian fortresses during the war with Diophantus. New materials made it possible to date the fortifications to an earlier time, so the researcher considered the geographer’s message as evidence of the reconstruction and strengthening of existing fortifications, including Naples (Solomonik, 1952, p. 116).

A controversial issue, as in the 19th century, remained a question from the field of historical geography. If P.N. Schultz and E.I. Solomonik confidently localized Naples on Kermenchik, then O.D. Dashevskaya, using other arguments, suggested that Palakia, rather than Naples, should be placed on this monument (Dashevskaya, 1958).

Even more interesting for us is the observation of V.D. Blavatsky, who, based on his own ideas about the dating of archaeological material and the traditional interpretation of Strabo’s message about royal fortresses, in a monograph devoted to military affairs in the ancient Black Sea region, attributed the appearance of Naples to the middle of the 2nd century. BC e. (Blavatsky, 1950).

It must be emphasized that already in the early 50s. a well-founded judgment was expressed by V.V. Kropotkin about the death of Naples in the 3rd century. n. e. during the period of the “Gothic campaigns” (Kropotkin, 1953). O.D. shared a similar opinion. Dashevskaya (Dashevskaya, 1954).

The authenticity of the existence of the Late Scythian state (at least during the times of Skilur and Palak) was not disputed by researchers, although S.A. Zhebelev expressed the idea that the Scythian state of Skilura appeared only as a result of the activities of the legendary king and direct contacts of the Scythians with the Hellenes, and the Scythian statehood ended with the displacement of the Scythians from the Crimea during the military actions of Diophantus (Zhebelev, 1953).

B.N. Grakov considered the state of Skilura as a successor to the earlier Scythian state, the capital of which was located on the Kamensky settlement (Grakov, 1954. P. 29; 1971. P. 38). Naples seemed to the researcher as a city “half Greek, half barbarian” (Grakov, 1947, p. 32).

The concept of Crimean archaeologists was significantly corrected by the opinion of T.N. Blavatsky about the possibility of an alliance between the Bosporus and the Scythians in the period preceding the campaigns of Diophantus (Blavatsky, 1959, p. 149). No less important was the well-founded conclusion of N.I. Sokolsky that written sources do not give grounds to consider the Crimean Scythians independent, both under Mithridates VI Eupator and during the reign of Leander (Sokolsky, 1957. p. 100). N.G.’s conclusion also acquired great importance during these years. Elagina about the autonomy of the Scythians of the Lower Dnieper (Elagina, 1958. P. 56).

We have already noted that the work of the Tauro-Scythian expedition was not limited only to excavations of Kermenchik-Naples. However, the results of significant work carried out by the expedition on the peripheral monuments of Crimean Scythia were fairly fully reflected only in the Ph.D. thesis of O.D. Dashevskaya, dedicated to Late Scythian settlements (Dashevskaya, 1954). When classifying fortifications, the main attention was paid to their layout. Along with this, the development of fortifications, types of structures, utility pits, features of household activities, and a ceramic complex were characterized. The genesis of molded dishes was associated with the previous ceramics of the nomadic Scythians. In the same work, the well-known burial grounds of the late Scythians, “mounds with collective burials,” and types of burial structures: crypts and undercut graves were briefly described. The influence of Bosporan painting on the paintings of Naples crypts was noted and a conclusion was drawn about the connection between the funeral traditions of the late Scythians in the Crimea and the Lower Dnieper. Assumption about the origin of the inhabitants of the Late Scythian settlements from the previous Scythian nomadic population O.D. Dashevskaya considered it possible, but in need of additional justification. At the same time, the consideration was expressed about the extremely low probability of resettlement of the inhabitants of the Dnieper region to Crimea and the transfer of the Scythian capital from the Kamensky settlement to Crimea. Chronological boundaries of the existence of Late Scythian settlements O.D. Dashevskaya determined within the framework of the beginning of the 3rd century. BC e. - III century n. e.

The leader of the Tauro-Scythian expedition himself approached the problem of fortifications from a slightly different position, isolating from the mass of fortresses the cities of Naples, Habei and Palakia, various fortified settlements and shelters (Schultz, 1971, pp. 126-129). He also suggested the existence of several strategic defense lines in Crimean Scythia: the first at Perekop, the second along Salgir and the third along Alma (Schultz, 1946a). True, O.D. Dashevskaya criticized this hypothesis, showing that none of these positions were borderline (Dashevskaya, 1954).

In fact, by the mid-50s - early 60s. Many researchers have expressed opinions that, when generalized, could lead to the formation of a different approach than that of P.N. Shultz, B.N. Grakova and E.I. Solomonik, a historical and archaeological model of the Scythian kingdom in Crimea. So, O.D. Dashevskaya doubted the possibility of transferring the Scythian capital from the Kamensky settlement to the Crimea, and V.D. Blavatsky dated the emergence of Naples to the middle of the 2nd century. BC e. T.N. Blavatsky pointed out the strong connection between the Crimean Scythians and the Bosporus in the 2nd century. BC e., and S.A. Zhebelev and M.I. Artamonov saw no reason for the existence of Late Scythian statehood after the end of the 2nd century. BC e. N.I. Sokolsky considered the Crimean Scythians dependent on the Pontic Kingdom and Bosporus at the end of the 2nd-1st centuries. BC e. O.D. Dashevskaya and V.V. Kropotkin dated the cessation of life at Late Scythian settlements to the 3rd, not the 4th century. n. e. Nowadays, these are the conclusions that are either confirmed with minimal adjustments or are considered very probable.

Mausoleum of Scythian Naples.

// M.: “Art”. 1953. 124 p.

- 3

Introduction. - 5

Opening and excavation of the mausoleum. - 9

Architecture of the mausoleum. - 13

Location of burials. - 20

Stone tomb. - 21

Wooden sarcophagus. - 25

Burials in wooden boxes and horse burials. - thirty

The question is about the time of construction and destruction of the mausoleum. - 40

About the social affiliation and ethnic composition of the buried. - 42

Scythian, Sarmatian and Greek elements in funeral rites and grave goods. - 44

The nature of local artistic craft. - 46

The question of the genesis of the architectural forms of the mausoleum. - 48

The mausoleum is a monument to the urban culture of the late Scythians. - 50

Conclusion. - 52

Notes - 53

Accepted abbreviations. - 54

Description of tables. - 72

List of illustrations. - 87

Tables. - 89

In the history of Russian science there are a number of brilliant archaeological discoveries that have made it possible to evaluate entire historical eras of the distant past of our Motherland in a completely new way.

Such discoveries include the results of excavations of many royal Scythian burial mounds: Melgunovsky, Kelermessky, Kul-Obsky, Chertomlytsky, Alexandropolsky, the Solokh and Karagodeuashkh mounds.

The Melgunovsky mound, excavated in 1763, and the later excavated Kelermes mound (1903), which complemented it, yielded numerous highly artistic items made of gold and other materials, which introduced us to the culture of the early Scythians of the archaic period (VII-VI centuries BC). Excavations of the Kul-Ob mound (1831), Chertomlytsky (1862) and Solokha mound (1912-1913) enriched the Hermitage collections with remarkable items made of precious metals related to the Scythian culture of the classical, middle period (V-IV centuries BC) . The mounds of Alexandropol (1851) and Karagodeuashkh (1888) provided rich new material on the culture of the late Scythians of the early Hellenistic period (III century BC) in the territory of the Dnieper and Lower Kuban.

In Soviet times, well-known excavations of mounds of the Scythian-Sarmatian era were carried out in Northern Mongolia (Noin-Ula, 1924-1925) and in Altai (Pazyryk, 1927-1929, 1947-1950). The discovery of a mausoleum near Simferopol on the territory of Scythian Naples, the capital of the state of the late Scythians, can be added to the same series of major achievements of Soviet archeology, which are of global significance and are the pride of our domestic science. This discovery was made by Soviet archaeologists

in 1946, wrote a new chapter in the study of Scythian culture of the later period (last centuries BC - first centuries AD). Questions that had remained controversial until now, with the discovery of the mausoleum and other monuments of Scythian Naples, arose on the basis of irrefutable facts. It became clear that the Scythians, contrary to the statements of many Western scientists who present the Scythians as wild Asian nomads, created their own state, that they built cities and urban-type burial structures, that they were familiar with stone architecture and, not limited to the so-called “animal style” , which was dominated by images of animals, created their own monumental style in art.

The discovery and excavation of the mausoleum of Scythian Naples with its numerous burials of representatives of the Scythian nobility was carried out by the Tauro-Scythian archaeological expedition, organized in 1945 by the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Museum of Fine Arts named after A.S. Pushkin. Subsequently, starting in 1948, the leadership of the expedition passed to the Crimean branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The Crimean Regional Museum of Local Lore took part in the expedition's work in 1945-1948. The expedition was led by senior researcher at the IHMC of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts P.N. Shultz, currently head of the department of history and archeology of the Crimean branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. People's Artist of the USSR S.D. took an active part in creating the expedition. Merkurov. The most valuable finds were received by the A.S. Museum of Fine Arts. Pushkin.

The description of the tables with the dating of the burials was compiled in this book by N.N., a researcher at the IIMK of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Pogrebova.

This first detailed publication of the findings in the mausoleum, which is brought to the attention of readers, will introduce the general reader to sources that open a new page in the rich and multifaceted history of the culture and art of our Motherland.

On September 20, 1983, after a long serious illness, shortly before reaching the age of 83, the prominent Soviet archaeologist and art critic, candidate of historical sciences Pavel Nikolaevich Shultz died.

P. N. Schultz is the same age as our century. He was born on October 9 (22), 1900 in St. Petersburg, in the family of a scientist. His father, biologist N.P. Shultz, headed the Botanical Department of St. Petersburg University and taught classes to students. P. N. Schultz inherited his interest in history from his mother, the daughter of a famous historian, specialist in Russian history, professor at Warsaw and Kharkov universities N. Ya. Aristov.

After graduating from high school in Petrograd in 1918, P. N. Shultz entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Petrograd University, but soon interrupted his studies and went to serve in the Red Army. Returning to Petrograd in 1921, he continued his studies at the university, graduating in 1923 with a degree in archeology and history of art of the ancient world. His immediate teachers at the university were B.V. Farmakovsky and O.V. Waldgauer. Under the leadership of the latter, after graduating from the university, P. N. Schultz worked for more than two years in the Department of Antiquities of the State Hermitage, where he improved his knowledge of the history of ancient art. In 1926, he was accepted into the graduate school of GAIMK and here, under the guidance of B.V. Farmakovsky, he began to study monuments of Scythian and Sarmatian monumental sculpture. This direction was just beginning to be developed, and the young researcher became one of its first creators. Pavel Nikolaevich did not part with this topic, in which he became a leading expert, until the end of his life, constantly returning to it in his works.

After graduating from graduate school in 1929, P. N. Shultz was appointed to the position of senior researcher in the ancient department of the State Historical and Historical Museum. From that same time, his fruitful teaching career began - he became an assistant professor at Leningrad State University. From 1936 to 1941, he was an assistant professor at the Academy of Arts - he gave lecture courses at the Faculty of History and Theory of Art, at one time he served as dean of the faculty and permanently headed the Cabinet of Art History. Everyone who studied at the Faculty of History and Theory of Art at the Academy of Arts in the pre-war years remembers with gratitude the rich, vibrant and fascinating lectures of P. N. Shultz.

At the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War, Pavel Nikolaevich volunteered to join the ranks of the militia division. At the end of July 1941, he joined a partisan detachment and, together with the detachment, made raids behind enemy lines on the Leningrad, Tikhvin and Volkhov fronts. A passionate hunter and tracker, an excellent knowledge of the terrain, able to navigate in any conditions, an experienced field researcher, an excellent observer - all these qualities were especially useful to a fighter of a partisan detachment operating behind enemy lines in those difficult conditions when the blockade ring closed around Leningrad. The skills and knowledge of places acquired during pre-war archaeological exploration in the Luga and Gdov districts of the Leningrad region turned out to be very useful. While working as a guide for partisan detachments in the harsh winter of 1942 on the Volkhov Front, Pavel Nikolaevich was seriously wounded and frostbite. He had to have his fingers amputated. For military services, P. N. Shultz was awarded the Order of Glory, III degree, and the medals “For the Defense of Leningrad” and “For Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.”

After leaving the hospital in Moscow, P. N. Shultz became a senior research fellow at the Institute of Medical Sciences, where in 1943-1944. served as scientific secretary. For 5 years (1944-1948) he also concurrently headed the antique department of the Pushkin Museum. A. S. Pushkin and conducted teaching activities, giving lectures on the history of art of the ancient world at the Moscow Art Institute. V.I. Surikov and at the art history department of Moscow State University. In 1948, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences sent P. N. Shultz to Simferopol to organize the Crimean Research Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which was soon transformed into the Crimean Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. As part of the base, Pavel Nikolaevich created the department of history and archeology of Crimea, which he headed for almost two decades. After the dissolution of the Crimean branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the department of history and archeology was reorganized into the Department of Ancient and Medieval Archeology of Crimea and became part of the Institute of Archeology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. P. N. Shultz headed the department until returning to Leningrad in 1966, where he was invited to lead the Group of Ancient Archeology of the LOIA. In 1974, Pavel Nikolaevich retired due to illness. For many years of scientific and scientific-organizational activity, he was awarded the Order of the Badge of Honor and medals.

P. N. Shultz began independent field research in 1925. This and the next year he organized the Upper Volga expedition of the State Historical Inspectorate, in 1927-1929. participated in the North-Western expedition of P. P. Efimenko, in 1924 and 1928 - in the North Caucasus expedition of A. A. Miller. Pavel Nikolaevich took repeated part in the work of the Olbian expedition (1926, 1929-1930, 1932, 1939). During these years, P. N. Shultz showed a special talent in conducting archaeological exploration, in which he was always lucky. During exploration along the banks of the Volga in the area of ​​Rzhev and the lower reaches of the river. Vazuzy discovered settlements and burial grounds of different times - from the Neolithic to the late Middle Ages. He was one of the first researchers to begin a targeted search and study of the settlements of the Olbian periphery on the right bank of the lower reaches of the river. Southern Bug in 1929-1930 and 1939

From the beginning of the 30s, P. N. Shultz began to study the archeology of Crimea. In 1933-1934. he carried out an exploratory survey of the coast of Northwestern Crimea, where he discovered a number of Greek and Late Scythian fortified and unfortified settlements, and also carried out excavations at the Kara-Tobe site. He was the first after M.I. Rostovtsev to once again draw attention to the importance of a comprehensive study of the monuments of this area, not only from the point of view of the history of Chersonesos, but also the history of the Scythian-Sarmatian world, as well as the history of Greco-barbarian interactions. The results of the exploration allowed P.N. Shultz to put forward a new hypothesis about Greco-Scythian relations in Crimea in the 4th-3rd centuries. BC e. This hypothesis turned into a generally accepted concept that existed for a long time in science and had an important impact on the development of ideas about the ancient history of the Black Sea region. At the end of the 50s, P. N. Shultz resumed extensive and comprehensive field research in the North-Western Crimea, which is continued to this day by his students and followers.

All post-war scientific and organizational activities of P. N. Shultz were connected with Crimea. The archeology department he created and led in Simferopol became practically the center of archaeological research in Crimea. Even before the formation of the Crimean branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, on the initiative of Pavel Nikolaevich IIMK and the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. A. S. Pushkin in 1945 organized a permanent Tauro-Scythian expedition (then the expedition of the Crimean branch), the general management of whose long-term work was carried out by P. N. Shultz. Regular field research by three or four detachments of this expedition covered almost the entire territory of Crimea; work was carried out in the steppe, foothill and mountain regions, as well as on the southern coast of the peninsula. Other central scientific institutions and museums of Crimea also took part in the expedition - P. N. Schultz constantly sought to attract maximum scientific forces for a comprehensive study of Crimean antiquities and solving the assigned problems. Subsequently, he created and headed a number of other expeditions, the Crimean branch and the Institute of Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, including the Simferopol, Yalta and North Crimean expeditions, which from 1952 to the present day have been conducting research along the route of the North Crimean Canal and in irrigation zones lands in the Steppe Crimea. From 1967 until his illness, P. N. Shultz led the Bosporan expedition of the LOIA.

Pavel Nikolaevich was a versatile and widely gifted researcher, a major specialist in various branches of archeology. But his main scientific interests lay in the field of studying the Late Scythian and Kizil-Koba cultures, the antiquities of the Tauri, as well as monuments of Scythian and Sarmatian monumental sculpture. The leading role of Soviet science in the study of Scythian culture is generally recognized. The research of P. N. Shultz occupies a special place in it. Thanks to them, new data was obtained that made it possible to form fundamentally new ideas about the development and state of the society and state of the late Scythians with centers in the Crimea. His observations and conclusions, set out in a number of articles, are summarized in the work “Late Scythian culture and its variants on the Dnieper and Crimea (statement of the problem)” (In the book; Problems of Scythian archeology. M., 1971, pp. 127-143). Those carried out under the leadership of “P. N. Schultz in 1945-1963. and the widely known excavations of the main center of Crimean Scythia - the ancient settlement of Kermenchik, identified with Naples. The study of this Late Scythian city is a whole chapter in the development of Scythian studies. Many years of work have provided extensive new material for studying the last stage of Scythian culture. Among the monuments discovered at the site is the famous mausoleum, the burial vault of the supreme nobility, apparently of the royal family. The main results of these studies are summed up in a number of works by P. N. Shultz, among which is the generalizing article “Studies of Scythian Naples (1945-1950)” (In the book: History and Archeology of Ancient Crimea. K., 1957, pp. 61- 93) and the monograph “Mausoleum of Scythian Naples” (Moscow, 1953). In the last years of his work, P. N. Shultz practically completed the excavations of the largest mound in the Bosporus, Kara-Oba - a monumental monument of the 2nd century. BC e., the study of which began in the 19th century. A. E. Lyutsenko and continued by V. F. Gaidukevich.

Back in the early 30s, P. N. Shultz developed the first taxonomy of Scythian and Sarmatian sculptures, which remained unpublished. Subsequently, he constantly improved it and collected materials for the Code of Monuments of Scythian monumental sculpture. He completed this work, and brief conclusions from it were published in the article “Scythian sculptures of the Black Sea region”, widely known to specialists (In the book: Ancient Society. M., 1967, pp. 225-237).

The leading place belongs to P.N. Shultz in the study of the Taurus problem. Exploration and excavations carried out by the Tauro-Scythian expedition allowed him to substantiate the first harmonious periodization of the monuments of the Mountain Crimea and create a general work “On some issues of the history of the Tauris (territory, chronology, relationships with ancient cities and Scythians)” (In the book: Problems of the history of the Northern Black Sea region in ancient times. M., 1959, pp. 235-272).

P. N. Schultz published a little more than 60 works - this does not correspond to the actual contribution that he made to science. But the fact is that Pavel Nikolaevich belonged to that happy type of scientist who is called “idea generators,” and he willingly and happily shared ideas with colleagues and students, sparing no time at all. He had the gift of synthesizing disparate and seemingly random small and insignificant facts and observations, seeing common phenomena and processes behind them, and building generalizing models and concepts. At the same time, he was a brilliant field worker who attached particular importance to archaeological exploration, a search that was always subordinated to a specific scientific goal. Being a man with a soul of extraordinary generosity, he sought to pass on all his knowledge and skills to others. One of the most important achievements of P. N. Shultz is the creation of a modern school of Crimean archeology. Quite a few specialists came out from under his wing. He taught always and everywhere: in the field, in the laboratory, and simply in conversations, and always unnoticed and without any pressure. In the first post-war years, “unobtrusively, gradually, but, as always, consistently and methodically, he rebuilt yesterday’s front-line soldiers with crippled bodies and wounded souls into “civilians” - those former peaceful scientists and students that we were on the eve of the war” - so warmly recalls Pavel Nikolaevich in the book “Ayu-Dag - “Holy” Mountain” (Simferopol, 1975, p. 102) one of his first students O. I. Dombrovsky. With the same warmth and gratitude, the bright memory of Pavel Nikolaevich Shultz is kept by his students of all generations and ages and all those who were lucky enough to work with him and who continue the work to which he devoted his life.

Shcheglov A. N. In memory of Pavel Nikolaevich Shultz // SA - M.: 1984, No. 3. P. 285-287.

On this day:

• Days of death
• 1891 Died Karl Ludwig Müller- Danish numismatist, author of the books “Coins of Alexander the Great”, “Coins of Ancient Africa”, “Coins of the Macedonian King Philip II” and “Coins of the Thracian King Lysimachus”.