The scientist and the bureaucracy (to the history of the unrealized version of scientific biography of A. P. Umansky)

The purpose of the article is to consider the dramatic events in the biography of the famous Siberian historian and archaeologist Alexei Pavlovich Umansky that led to a radical change in the problems of his scientific research. To solve the set goal, the following tasks are to be solved: to identify the reasons that determined the desire of the Barnaul scientist to work in the field of archeology; to characterize his contacts with the Leningrad archaeologist M.P. Gryaznov; to show the influence of external bureaucratic factors on the scientific activities of Umansky. The publication is based on the methodological principles of intellectual history and the practice of modern historical and anthropological research. The problematic field of work is related to the relationship between scientists and authorities, when bureaucratic obstacles were insurmountable obstacles to their creative aspirations. The source of the article is the unpublished correspondence of A.P. Umansky with prominent Russian archaeologists M.P. Gryaznov, B.A. Latynin, M.P. Zolotukhin, A.I. Martynov, as well as archival documents. As a result of long-standing archaeological explorations and excavations, A.P. Umansky received a vast archaeological material at his disposal. On its basis, he planned to prepare a candidate dissertation, having attached for a year to the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Archeology. However, the Ministry of education of the RSFSR did not give permission for the attachment of thesis to an academic institution, which was not in charge of it, by offering him a post-graduate course at one of the pedagogical institutes or universities. Not succumbing to the hypnosis of the ministerial paper, A. P. Umansky takes bold practical steps to change the situation that forced the bureaucratic machine to come to a certain movement. As a result, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences has already given a positive conclusion on admission of the Barnaul researcher in a one-year postgraduate course at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Archaeology. Further decisions of the Ministry of education are striking in their incompetence and formalism: it informed that Umansky may be registered as a graduate student in an academic institution, but neither the Ministry, nor the Barnaul Pedagogical Institute could bear the corresponding costs. Almost next two years went to the search and negotiation of new institutions and a research supervisor. As a result, the problem was solved only in the institutional framework of the Kemerovo Pedagogical Institute. As a result of the conducted research, the author came to the conclusion that, due to external circumstances, A.P. Umansky had to change abruptly the already well-established plans for scientific work and master the topic, which did not involve the use of archaeological material accumulated for years and did not fit well into the researcher's established scientific interests. It is likely that if the idea with the Leningrad postgraduate studies was realized, then there could be an authoritative archeological school under the leadership of A.P. Umansky subsequently.

Keywords

Authors

References