The Egyptian priest Manetho of Sebennytos, the author of a work on the history of Egypt written in Greek in the first half of the III century B.C., gave in its second tomos (book) dealing with the events of the second millennium B.C. the information on the conquests of the king Sesostris of Dynasty XII, the historical Senwosret III. This evidence was transmitted by George Synkellos, who followed Julius Africanus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eusebius’ Armenian version. These authors reproduced an epitome of Manetho’s text from the end of the Hellenistic period. The analysis of these testimonies and their comparison with the data from the ancient tradition allows us to conclude that, apparently, epitomators accurately reproduced the essence of Manetho’s narration. Moreover, Manetho named the territories of Sesostris’s conquests, described his appearance, and indicated the duration of his reign. These reports are close to the accounts of Hecataeus of Abdera, the court historiographer of the satrap of Egypt, Ptolemy, son of Lagus. In turn, the information from Hecataeus is known thanks to Diodorus Siculus. Hecataeus’s text was signifi cant for Manetho as a work of offi cial historical writing of the house of Ptolemies. Moreover, it was an extensive and detailed work, and its information about the great conqueror of the distant past was consistent with what was independently known to the Egyptian historian. However, Manetho used the form of the name of this king (Sesostris), introduced not by Hecataeus, but much earlier, by following, apparently due to the established association of this name with military feats. He also determined the place of this king in the dynastic sequence not according to Hecataeus, but following his own information, derived from the hieroglyphic tradition. Besides, Manetho must have shared Hecataeus’ view that the king Sesostris founded the great interregional empire, which united Asia and must have passed under the sway of Assyria by the time of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt.

The circle of zealots of piety, or “Bogolyubtsy”, had a key infl uence on the schism of the Church and the entire Russian society, as well as on the conduct of book correction and the development of church institutions. Among other things, its representatives formed the core of book scholarship of that time. Notes in books belonging to these outstanding figures of Russian book culture and church history of the 17th century are an important historical source. This article introduces previously unknown inscriptions into scholarly circulation, preserved mainly on copies of old printed Cyrillic editions. They belong both to individuals who were part of the zealots of old piety and to some people directly associated with this circle. The author deals with donation and ownership notes in books that once belonged to Grigoriy Neronov, the czar’s confessor Stefan Vnifant’iev (Vonifat’iev), Reverend Dionysius (Zobninovskiy), and Bishop Alexander of Vyatka. The notes examined in the article were mostly identified in recently described state and little-known private collections and were not previously listed in bibliographies. The largest number of discovered copies belongs to the collection of Stefan Vnifant’iev; all were printed at the Moscow Print Yard in the early 1650s and contain the owner’s handwritten autograph notes. No less interesting is the fate of the book donation by Bishop Alexander of Vyatka to the Koryazhma Monastery: the preserved and described book is traced through the monastery’s documentation of the 17th century. A significant addition to the known historiographical corpus of preserved book donations by Reverend Dionysius (Zobninovskiy) are the two old printed editions discovered, which became donations in memory of the recently deceased donor. Furthermore, the article provides a note made on behalf of Grigoriy Neronov, another key participant in the church history events of the mid-17th century, who was well acquainted with Reverend Dionysius, Bishop Alexander and Stefan Vnifant’iev.

The article examines the biography and political views of N.E. Markov (Markov the Second), the former leader of the Union of the Russian People, deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Empire, and chairman of the Supreme Monarchist Council in exile, during the period of the World War II. The reconstruction of his political biography from 1939 to 1945 is being undertaken in historical science for the first time. Using methods of historicism, scientific objectivity, aggregation, historical reconstruction and interpretation, the author attempts an impartial analysis of Markov’s stance towards Nazi Germany, the USSR, Soviet leadership and the Russian people. The research is based on previously unknown journalistic works by Markov, materials from émigré periodicals and foreign archives. A significant portion of these sources is being introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time. Emphasis is placed on the fact that, while Markov entered into a deal and cooperation with the German Nazis, he remained a supporter of an Orthodox autocratic monarchy. Not sharing the neopagan views of the Nazis and viewing fascist dictatorships only as a stage on the way to a traditional monarchy, Markov nevertheless became a staunch supporter not only of the German invasion of the USSR but also of Germany’s victory with the subsequent establishment of German influence over Russia. His uncompromising fight against communism, his anti-Semitism, masonic phobia, hatred of the USSR and its leaders led him, who throughout the life identified himself as a champion of Russia’s and Russians’ interests, into the camp of enemies of his own country and people. By supporting the German aggression against the USSR in 1941, Markov continued to work for the Reich until the end of the Great Patriotic War. He viewed the political and ideological changes occurring in the Soviet Union (the official national-patriotic rhetoric, the revival of church life, and the return of historical continuity) exclusively as a tactical move by the Bolsheviks, not an evolution of the Soviet system. The article also provides clarifi ed information about his last years and circumstances of his death.

The article examines the Russian period of the life and work of the Russian and Yugoslav historian, legal scholar and literary critic Aleksandr Vasilievich Soloviev (1890–1971). Up to now, the legacy of his emigration period (from 1920) has been studied in considerable detail. During this time, while teaching at the Universities of Belgrade and Sarajevo in Yugoslavia, and later at the University of Geneva in Switzerland (from 1952), he composed numerous works on the legal history of the southern Slavs during the Middle Ages, as well as on the history and literature of medieval Russia. However, his Russian years have remained overshadowed by these achievements. This article attempts to fill this gap. It characterizes the Faculty of Law at Warsaw University, where Soloviev studied, noting the infl uence of professors F.F. Siegel, I.A. Malinovsky, and E.V. Spektorsky on his education, with a special emphasis on Siegel’s role in fostering Soloviev’s interest in Slavic history and law. Based on unpublished archival documents, it is shown that Soloviev’s master’s preparation coincided with the introduction of a new system for awarding academic degrees in Russian legal history at the end of 1915, leading to changes in the system of master’s examinations for professorial fellows. The article introduces internal administrative documents of Warsaw University (1914–1917), which demonstrate the development of master’s training in Russian legal history. For the first time, early source studies by A.V. Soloviev from 1916–1917 are characterized. One of these studies deals with a unique Galician- Russian charter from 1414, discovered by Soloviev. Another article discusses the newly discovered translation of the Lithuanian Statute. Soloviev concludes that this translation had a signifi cant influence on the Sobornoye Ulozhenie of 1649. Additionally, the author has established Soloviev’s authorship of an article on American universities, published in the journal “Issues of Pedagogy” in 1913. Thus, Soloviev is presented as a student, professorial fellow and novice lecturer at the Warsaw/Don University.

This article is dedicated to Professor Anatoliy Vasilievich Muravyev of the Faculty of History at Lomonosov Moscow State University, whose 100th birthday is celebrated in 2024. His fate is closely intertwined with the history of Russia and Lomonosov Moscow State University. A veteran of the Great Patriotic War, he walked the roads of war, was seriously wounded, and received government awards. Muravyev was at the forefront of establishing the Department of Russian Source Studies at the faculty, investing significant effort in its formation and development. He led it for several years and then served as the deputy head of the department. He managed the museum group, laying the foundation for studying the history of Russia’s first university and creating its museum. He was a renowned specialist in Russian medieval culture and history of eighteenth-century Russian towns and excellent university professor. Muravyev is an author of fundamental publications in specialized and auxiliary historical disciplines, primarily paleography and historical geography, textbooks, study guides and instructional programmes. Dozens of diploma theses and PhD candidate dissertations were defended under his direction. He delivered general and specialized lecture courses, conducted seminars and practical classes on source studies, historical geography, Russian paleography, historical chronology and metrology at the university. Muravyev supervised student practices. He always combined professional work with personal communication, earning great respect among students. By highlighting Professor Muravyev’s activities in this article, his colleagues pay tribute to him as a veteran of the Great Patriotic War, patriot, scholar and author of a large number of scientific, educational and methodological works, many of which remain significant today. In his memory the Faculty of History has held Muravyev scientifi c readings at Moscow State University since 1996.

The history of the Komsomol cash and prize lotteries begins in 1957. This initiative was proposed by the Committee of Youth Organizations of the USSR under the Central Committee of the Komsomol, which was established in 1956. This marked a new direction in the Komsomol’s activities (previously, funds were obtained from membership fees, subbotniks, collection of scrap metal, waste paper, etc.). All the lotteries were timed to coincide with the World Festivals of Youth and Students and aimed at attracting additional funds to the Komsomol budget for organizing the festivals. This became especially relevant aft er 1959, when the Komsomol lost its state subsidy and was forced to independently form its budget. The youth festivals had important ideological and educational significance and were held on a grand scale. In addition, within the framework of the festivals, the Komsomol provided material assistance to delegates from Asia and Africa, and sometimes fully covered their participation in the event. The Komsomol managed all aspects of the lottery from designing the lottery tickets to distributing them. Analysis of a range of archival documents, including financial reports, budget plans, as well as decrees and materials from secretariats and bureaus, clearly shows that the funds raised from the lotteries were consistently much less than expected. To address the issue, regional lottery committees were established, and plans for ticket sales were introduced for Komsomol organizations. However, against the backdrop of increasing membership fees, the youth were in no hurry to buy lottery tickets. As a result, regional committees failed to meet the planned ticket sales targets. The Central Committee of the Komsomol found a solution by withdrawing the missing amount from other raised funds. Nevertheless, lottery tickets were more eagerly purchased by foreign participants of the youth festivals as a memorable souvenir, especially since they were sold in souvenir kiosks.

The article examines the Russian-Mari linguistic environment, focusing on the usage of the Russian and Mari languages (Meadow Mari and Hill Mari), identifying the level of bilingualism in the context of the widespread use of the Russian language and the relationships between language practices and ethnic identity. This comprehensive interdisciplinary ethnological-linguistic study employs various methodological approaches. The research data were collected through a survey conducted using the Texas University “Bilingual Language Profi le” questionnaire, supplemented by several blocks of questions on ethno-social topics, as well as interviews with representatives of the linguistic environment. The data were collected during an ethnological expedition by the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University in the Republic of Mari El (Zvenigovsky, Kuzhenersky, Medvedevsky, Morkinsky, Orshansky, Sernursky, Sovietsky districts, and the city of Yoshkar-Ola). The majority of the 70 respondents identify themselves as belonging to the ethnographic group of Meadow Mari, with some also speaking Hill Mari. They share a deep involvement in Mari culture, being (or having been) employees of cultural centers and museums, librarians, school teachers, researchers of Mari culture, active participants in local communities, folklore ensembles, and thematic communities on social networks. Most of them can be classifi ed as ethnic activists. The study employed both qualitative (analysis of the collected interviews) and quantitative (analysis and graphical representation of the collected survey data) methods. The research revealed a high degree of interest among the Mari people in preserving their ethnic languages alongside traditional culture and identity. Additionally, the survey data indicate a relatively balanced level of Russian-Mari bilingualism, especially among those over 30 years old. Among the younger generation, there is a noticeable “shift ” in bilingualism towards the Russian language, likely due to the Russian-speaking educational environment.

The disintegration of the USSR in 1991 set off unprecedented migration processes across the post-Soviet space, remarkable for their scale and complexity. This multifaceted migration phenomenon, with its various forms and manifestations, highlights the crucial need for an interdisciplinary approach in studying the issue. The novelty and relevance of this work stem from its pioneering attempt to illustrate the dynamics of migration processes in post-Soviet Russia through the application of a broad range of methodologies from different humanities disciplines. This article presents a portion of the findings from a comprehensive study conducted by an interdisciplinary research team at Lomonosov Moscow State University. This team, which includes historians, geographers, psychologists, and lawyers, is part of the university’s development program project, “Interdisciplinary Study of Modern Migrations: New Analytical Approaches”. The authors conduct a comprehensive review of current literature on the geographical, demographic, historical, sociological, and anthropological aspects of migration. They analyze thematic documents from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federal State Statistics Service, as well as archival materials covering the past 30 years, up to 2022. These sources hold significant academic value for research in the field. The study identifies the phases and intensity of migration dynamics in the Russian Federation and highlights key trends within the context of global and domestic factors, such as the economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and shift s in Russia’s current migration legislation. The article also explores the concept of ethnic enclaves and offers a functional, operational, and interdisciplinary definition of this phenomenon. It traces and explains the causal relationships that lead to emerging points and nodes of tension, as well as the potential threats inherent in migration processes and enclave formation. Additionally, the study outlines historically driven changes in the dynamics, types, and demographic structure (gender and age) of migration flows to Russia, influenced by both external and internal developments within the country

The 14th and 15th centuries are considered the “darkest” period in the archaeology of medieval Rus’. The watershed of the Desna and Oka river basins, located at the borders of the modern Bryansk and Oryol regions, is one of the least studied areas in terms of political history. During these centuries, it was situated at the frontier of the principalities of Bryansk, Karachev and Novosil’ (the southernmost on the Upper Oka), which were “squeezed” between the Grand Duchies of Moscow, Lithuania, Ryazan’, and the Golden Horde. New archaeological and numismatic findings made by the expedition of Bryansk State University provide material evidence of the military-political events of the last third of the 14th century. Additionally, the correlation of these findings with specific events allows for more precise dating of various types of religious artifacts, military equipment, and monetary and weight items. Key dating finds (apart from ceramics) at the Navlya settlement include a rowel spur of type VIII (according to O. Dvurechenskiy, 2014) and a copper alloy encolpion depicting the Archangel Sachiel and Saint Sisinnius. This encolpion is a double recast from the original. The spur belongs to a type characteristic of the transition period from chain mail to plate armor, a time when combined armor prevailed in Europe. Based on analogs from Poland, Czechia and Galicia, the Navlya specimen can be dated from the second half of the 14th century to the early 15th century. The encolpion can be dated to approximately the same time. In this border region, many military events occurred in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, which could have resulted in the deposition of valuable and intact items in the cultural layer. These events are also associated with other finds of rowel spurs, but more frequently of later types, as well as similar encolpia and icons throughout the Southeast of Rus’, including the Seim and Psel regions. However, for the Navlya finds, the chronology can be narrowed to the end of the 14th century, thanks to the discovery of a hoard of Jochid dirhams (dang coins), as well as hoards and individual coins of Severskaya minting at the Navlya.

The image of the fortress in architecture emerged in the Early Modern period when the constructive elements and volumetric-spatial schemes typical of defensive structures were incorporated into civil architecture. These structures lost their original functional meaning but retained distinctive features of their prototypes. In Russian historiography, there is a perception of the identity between architectural representations of the fortress image and the Neo-Gothic style of the last third of the 18th century. This view developed gradually, stemming from metaphorical comparisons made by pre-revolutionary essayists and Soviet art historians. Although these comparisons were periodically repeated, they did not become the focus of research reflection, as the attention was primarily directed towards stylistic issues. Alongside the enduring association of “castle” and “Gothicism”, another topos emerged, the interpretation of the fortress image in the 18th-century Russian Neo-Gothic as a memorial to the Russo-Turkish wars. This topos introduced a stereotype about the Orientalist background of certain buildings. Upon closer examination, these accepted concepts prove inapplicable to several monuments: the fortress image appeared in Russian architecture before the Turkish campaigns and Catherine the Great’s fascination with Neo-Gothic, and classical-style buildings featuring castle-like elements were constructed alongside exemplary Russian Neo-Gothic monuments. The recognition of the limitations of studying style led researchers to the issue of architectural imagery. The interpretation of the image opened new avenues and perspectives, allowing the identification of connections between individual monuments and the European architectural context, explaining the genesis of their forms, and reconstructing the underlying ideological programs. Analyzing historiography and the current state of the issue not only confirms the existence of the fortress image as a phenomenon in architecture, existing outside of styles and inherent to various national schools, but also allows it to be used as a construct to conceptualize a whole range of chronologically and morphologically related buildings in Russian architecture of the last third of the 18th century