Restoration is one of the most important areas in preserving the world’s cultural heritage. The 19th century is a landmark in the history of restoration. At that time, it turned from a private practice of self-taught artists into a real scientifically based discipline. Many European countries have faced the problems of cultural heritage preservation, and everywhere they were solved in different ways, depending on local peculiarities and experience. This article deals with previously unknown facts from the life and activity of the first Russian restorer Andrei Filippovich Mitrokhin, who was born and studied painting in the town of Toropets. He served as a simple soldier, then on duty he ended up in Saint Petersburg, where he was soon granted a valet at the Hermitage. His career developed under Franz Ivanovich Labensky, who assumed the position of chief curator of paintings in the Hermitage Gallery in 1797. Mitrokhin’s role in the history of Russian restoration and, in particular, the Hermitage cannot be overestimated. He not only restored paintings and trained several apprentices, but also worked independently on the development of new methods of restoring paintings. By mastering new techniques and methods of mechanical restoration, Mitrokhin and his students managed to preserve more than a thousand paintings from the Hermitage collection, many of which are painting masterpieces. Unfortunately, some aspects of Mitrokhin’s biography, especially his life outside the Hermitage, have long been overlooked by scholars. This paper examines the problem of his alleged date of birth, family and friendship ties, etc. The archival data cited by the author allow us to take a fresh look at Mitrokhin as a restorer, and also shed light on some socio-cultural aspects of his time.

Archaeological and natural science studies of Paleolithic paint pigments (ocher) date back more than 100 years. However, until recently, the vast majority of studies were focused on the study of individual samples, not the whole corpus of this category of materials — mineral paint raw materials (in the broad sense of the term). The description of the theoretical approach and the available results obtained in the course of testing the method of the fixation of field data and laboratory processing of ocher samples, which come in diff erent shapes, sizes and differ in consistency, clearly demonstrate that it is fundamentally important to conduct an archaeological study of colorful pigments as a mass material prior to the natural science stage of the study. In the opposite case even goal-setting for subsequent interdisciplinary research will be virtually impossible, and its results will be extremely limited. A multifactorial study of paint materials can demonstrate a great variety of sample characteristics, both among diff erent layers of archaeological material and artifacts from the same site, and among diff erent sites. When approaching pigments as a mass material, statistical processing of the findings is necessary to form meaningful conclusions about the use of pigments on sites. The afore-said methodological approach reveals systemic differences, which opens up opportunities for comparison based on the methods of mathematical statistics. To obtain relevant data, such an approach requires the accumulation of a statistically signifi cant number of pigment samples, suitable from the point of view of field algorithms. Consequently, it is only the study of a maximum available array of specimens (including a maximum of small grains) of ocher from diff erent artifacts of the cultural layer, individual layers and diff erent sites that makes it possible to obtain information about the cultural similarities and diff erences in this part of the life strategies of Upper Paleolithic groups, including the identifi cation of the main stages of production chain. The proposed approach to the study of ocher as a mass material, if complying with the methodology of field work, is relevant for all types of archaeological sites of the Stone Age.

The subject of this study is a part of the scientifi c heritage of the Honored Professor of Moscow University, Iya Leonidovna Mayak (1922–2018), represented by her reviews on national and foreign monographs on Roman history, published in 1958–1999. The article deals with I.L. Mayak’s motives for writing the reviews, the methodological foundations of her analysis, her requirements for the source base and the historiographical rating of classical studies, their structure and the logic of presentation. It is noted that I.L. Mayak was opposed to dogmatism in the application of the theory of socio-economic formations as well as a hypercritical attitude to sources related to archaic Rome, the spread of which she considered to be the methodological consequence of Kantianism. It is shown that I.L. Mayak not only monitored the diffi cult process of rehabilitation of the ancient tradition as a source for studying the archaic Rome, but herself actively promoted this process, in particular by means of reviewing other people’s works. The study considers the requirements set out by I.L. Mayak for classical studies such as the need to provide a terminological analysis of sources data, to trace changes in the content of concepts over time, to show the possibility of various interpretations of the given facts. In the formulation of theoretical constructions I.L. Mayak considered essential to provide a concept against the background of the concepts introduced by predecessors, and if the problem was debatable, to indicate the view clearly and defi nitely. The analysis of reviews written by Iya Leonidovna allows us to conclude that they make it possible to expand our understanding of her academic views, especially on those problems of Roman history, which she did not directly examine in her monographs and articles, in particular, on the issue of preserving polis paradigm in the late Rom an Empire. Reviews by I.L. Mayak reflect her image memorable to many generations of historians: she was respect ful to colleagues, however critical of their work, delicate in remarks, stringently academic in expressing her thoughts. The article shows the polemic sharpness and dialogic character of the reviews by I.L. Mayak.

The review examins the monograph by A.B. Nikolaev “State Conference of 1917: Summoning, Composition, Activities”, published in 2022. The preparation and holding of the large-scale all-Russian event in the revolutionary year of 1917 are analyzed in the context of studying parliamentarism in Russia. The Moscow State Conference of 1917 arose from an urgent necessity for the coalition Provisional Government to strengthen its prestige and A.F. Kerensky’s personal power, as well as probably to receive a “tribune”, which could be used to give prompt explanations on all issues that would arise in the event of its transformation from an advisory institution as an ersatz parliament into a body with constituent functions. In addition, the Provisional Government was looking for opportunities on a state level to reconcile revolutionary socialist democracy and bourgeois liberalism movements, which had already completely split by that time. Moscow State Conference of 1917 assumed crucial signifi cance due to the desire to find a way out of the existing revolutionary impasse and to serve as a support for the weak and dependent dual state power. Having ensured this support, it would become a united, strong power, capable of saving the country from internal collapse. In an effort to prevail over the impending political and social anarchy, the Conference became a tense, dramatic episode of the Revolution of 1917. The observers and participants of the State Conference obviously regarded it as the “Zemsky Sobor of all the Russian Land” which met in the former capital of Russia to solve the pressing problems and give state power the physical and spiritual strength it needed. The results of the State Conference proved to be contradictory for all political forces. The Provisional Government was able to obtain majority support at the meeting, but the nature of this support indicated the extremely precarious position of the coalition. As a result of the research, the author of the reviewed monograph comes to the conclusion that the State Conference, while maintaining the coalition, did not strengthen it. Representatives of revolutionary democracy were forced to make concessions to the bourgeoisie, which subsequently led to the loss of revolutionary democracy’s authority among workers and soldiers.

The article concerns the organization of management at the Manchuria railway station in the early 20th century. The station was located on the Chinese territory, two kilometers from the Russian border. For several decades, the Russian population constituted a majority there; churches, schools and hospitals were built, and two customs offices operated. The management of the hamlet, which sprang up near the station, was carried out by the administration of the Chinese Eastern Railway. Simultaneously, at the time of the completion of the construction of the railway connecting branch “Chinese Junction — Manchuria”, part of the functions of the management of the station was taken over by the Trans-Baikal Railway. On the materials of the Russian State Historical Archive the author had shown that the joint management of the station by two railways at once had a number of peculiar features. To resolve disputes, the administration of the railways entered into special agreements. The first of them was signed in 1903 and made provision for all income and fees from the operation of the border section of the road from the Chinese border to the Manchuria station to go into the use of the Transbaikal road. All expenses for the operation of the rolling stock were also to be borne by the Trans-Baikal Road. The operation of the station facilities was strictly regulated: one part of the stone building for passengers, as well as the territories along the railway line, passed under the control of the Trans-Baikal Road, and the other — under the control of the China Road. Expenses for the maintenance and repair of the building for passengers, as well as other public facilities at the Manchuria station, were to be borne by each road in equal parts. The efficiency of the station largely depended on the due organization of the management system. The simultaneous participation in this process of the representatives of two railway departments at once led to a lack of unity of action in matters of organizing transportation. The state-owned Trans-Baikal Railway was dependent on the central departments. The Chinese Eastern Railway, as a private road, had broader competence. The presence of commercial agents at the Manchuria station did not add to unity, as they often pursued their own goals to the detriment of state interests.