{"title":"亚述叙事对苏联古代史学的形成及其意义","authors":"S. Krikh","doi":"10.21638/11701/spbu02.2022.115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author of the article, using the method of backward chronology, highlights characteristic features of the narrative about Assyria from the beginning of the 21st century until the middle of the 20th century, and points out that I. M. Dyakonoff, who used to be the leading Assyriologist, gradually had delegated to his pupils almost all of the aspects of Assyrian history, retaining the history of Sumer within his major research scope. On the basis of archival documents, the author shows that the Assyrian narrative of I. M. Dyakonoff had been generally shaped even before the war, during his work on the chapters for the multi-volume “World History”. His Assyrian narrative was formed under the influence of the “Cambridge History of Antiquity” and V. V. Struve’s lectures: in the first case, this was evident in the presentation of a large amount of material; in the second case — in the desire to search for non-obvious explanations of the essence of historical processes. Moreover, I. M. Diakonoff did not share V. V. Struve’s views on the Assyrian history and attempted to present his position. The author concludes that the shift of I. M. Diakonoff’s interests from Assyrian history to mainly the history of Sumer was inevitable and was very unlikely to have been caused by the desire to supersede academician V. V. Struve in his status of the classic of Soviet scholarship. Two main factors influenced this transition: first, the features of Soviet historical scholarship, which presupposed a search for in-depth explanations almost exclusively in the socio-economic field, and secondly, the specificity of Assyrian sources, which contained scanty information about socio-economic processes.","PeriodicalId":53995,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Formation and Significance of Assyrian Narrative for the Soviet Historiography of Antiquity\",\"authors\":\"S. Krikh\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/11701/spbu02.2022.115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The author of the article, using the method of backward chronology, highlights characteristic features of the narrative about Assyria from the beginning of the 21st century until the middle of the 20th century, and points out that I. M. Dyakonoff, who used to be the leading Assyriologist, gradually had delegated to his pupils almost all of the aspects of Assyrian history, retaining the history of Sumer within his major research scope. On the basis of archival documents, the author shows that the Assyrian narrative of I. M. Dyakonoff had been generally shaped even before the war, during his work on the chapters for the multi-volume “World History”. His Assyrian narrative was formed under the influence of the “Cambridge History of Antiquity” and V. V. Struve’s lectures: in the first case, this was evident in the presentation of a large amount of material; in the second case — in the desire to search for non-obvious explanations of the essence of historical processes. Moreover, I. M. Diakonoff did not share V. V. Struve’s views on the Assyrian history and attempted to present his position. The author concludes that the shift of I. M. Diakonoff’s interests from Assyrian history to mainly the history of Sumer was inevitable and was very unlikely to have been caused by the desire to supersede academician V. V. Struve in his status of the classic of Soviet scholarship. Two main factors influenced this transition: first, the features of Soviet historical scholarship, which presupposed a search for in-depth explanations almost exclusively in the socio-economic field, and secondly, the specificity of Assyrian sources, which contained scanty information about socio-economic processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu02.2022.115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu02.2022.115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文作者运用回溯年表的方法,突出了21世纪初至20世纪中叶关于亚述的叙事特征,并指出,曾经的亚述学权威Dyakonoff逐渐将亚述历史的几乎所有方面都委托给了他的学生,而将苏美尔的历史保留在他的主要研究范围内。在档案文件的基础上,作者表明,甚至在战争之前,在他为多卷本的“世界历史”的章节工作期间,亚述叙事就大致形成了。他的亚述叙事是在《剑桥古代史》和v·v·斯特鲁夫讲座的影响下形成的:第一种情况,这在大量材料的呈现上是显而易见的;在第二种情况下,在寻找历史过程本质的非明显解释的愿望中。此外,Diakonoff不同意V. V. Struve对亚述历史的看法,并试图表明他的立场。作者的结论是,Diakonoff的兴趣从亚述历史转向主要研究苏美尔历史是不可避免的,不太可能是由于想要取代V. V. Struve院士在苏联学术经典中的地位而引起的。有两个主要因素影响了这一转变:第一,苏联历史学术的特点,它要求几乎完全在社会经济领域寻找深入的解释;第二,亚述文献的特殊性,其中包含的关于社会经济过程的信息很少。
The Formation and Significance of Assyrian Narrative for the Soviet Historiography of Antiquity
The author of the article, using the method of backward chronology, highlights characteristic features of the narrative about Assyria from the beginning of the 21st century until the middle of the 20th century, and points out that I. M. Dyakonoff, who used to be the leading Assyriologist, gradually had delegated to his pupils almost all of the aspects of Assyrian history, retaining the history of Sumer within his major research scope. On the basis of archival documents, the author shows that the Assyrian narrative of I. M. Dyakonoff had been generally shaped even before the war, during his work on the chapters for the multi-volume “World History”. His Assyrian narrative was formed under the influence of the “Cambridge History of Antiquity” and V. V. Struve’s lectures: in the first case, this was evident in the presentation of a large amount of material; in the second case — in the desire to search for non-obvious explanations of the essence of historical processes. Moreover, I. M. Diakonoff did not share V. V. Struve’s views on the Assyrian history and attempted to present his position. The author concludes that the shift of I. M. Diakonoff’s interests from Assyrian history to mainly the history of Sumer was inevitable and was very unlikely to have been caused by the desire to supersede academician V. V. Struve in his status of the classic of Soviet scholarship. Two main factors influenced this transition: first, the features of Soviet historical scholarship, which presupposed a search for in-depth explanations almost exclusively in the socio-economic field, and secondly, the specificity of Assyrian sources, which contained scanty information about socio-economic processes.