Nine decades Klein

From the editors: November 7, in St. Petersburg, in the ninety-third year of life, an outstanding specialist died in many areas of humanities and the permanent author of our newspaper Lev Klein . We express deep condolences to his family and colleagues. We bring to your attention an interview with Leo Samuilovich, published on the Genophore.rf website on July 1, 2017 [ 1 ]. Talked by Nadezhda Markina .

- Lev Samuilovich, your life from the side looks like a long, dramatic and fascinating novel. But this is an affair with science, which began at school age. Probably, it is impossible for you to imagine yourself not to scientists, but in a different hypostasis. Is that so?

- curiosity was inherent in school, it is. But in my youth, I seriously thought about other professions - a musician, a poet, a military man - studied Klausvitsa, read a lot about tanks.

- How did your family affect your identity?

- The family of children loved and respected. Superly, not annoyingly, ambition was not annoying. (How this is not the first student in the class!) When receiving the four, they only sympathized. In a music school, he got used to applause. From childhood I got used to work hard.

-As you said about myself at the 70th anniversary, "I was inclined to rebellion from my youth, to an uprising against authorities and dogmas." You always went against the current, back in the school years, when in 1944 you organized a “free -thinking” underground organization and only miraculously escaped serious repression. Is this also in your blood - the desire for freedom of thought?

- Perhaps yes. Probably, this is due to the formation of observation and a scientific warehouse of thinking: to question everything and extract the underlying foundations. The contradictions of official ideology, falsity and intimidation of adults became clear.

- At the age of 16, freedomed went to the front. Has you to change you in something front-line experience?

- Certainly! At least he stopped dreaming of a general's career. But in some ways he remained the same. Hatred by the Germans and German culture was never imbued with.

- You from your youth were fond of the humanities, your first scientific works were in the field of philology, and your teacher at the University of Leningrad V. Ya. Propp was a philologist. When did you understand that the work of your life is archeology?

- The choice of archeology turned out to be random: I graduated from the first course at Propp, and did not succeed to the daytime department, despite the petitions of Proppa and its very high marks: anti -Semitic sentiments dominated the Faculty of Philology, and the atmosphere was more liberal at the Eastfire. Since my term paper was called “Bear in a folk fairy tale, language and rite compared to archeology materials”, Propp and advised me to go to archeology. And the rector of Voznesensky, having received my statements (I prepared two just in case, but both from excitement at once), without looking, signed both. So I began to study at once at two faculties. Well, in the process of studying, archeology carried me more.

- The theme of your dissertation is a catacomb culture. Does this topic have particular importance for you or it served as the soil on which your theoretical generalizations arose, such as the theory of migration? And how did you come to the need to develop theoretical archeology?

- The catacomb culture did not receive much importance for me until I put a lot of work into it. At the same time, I was engaged in the origin of the Scythians, a dispute about the Varangians and the early Tripoli, and one or the other topic was knocked forward. I was fond of different topics, usually difficult and “hot”-attracting common interest to their meaning for a dispute of some large concepts. But they attracted me only when I saw a certain detail capable of turning over the entire interpretation of this topic from afar. In a catacomb culture, I found its unexpected coincidences with the Yutland culture of single burials. In the early Tripoli - analogies of the Karbunsky treasure in Hungary, among the Scythians of the Tsarskoye I was struck by the presence of a catacomb, among the Normans - obvious attempts of a number of scientists to underestimate their number in Rus'.

Very often, the need to introduce strict evidence into these disputes prompted me to underdeveloped methods and theoretical apparatus for this, and I immediately came to the idea to work out them first. Say, for working on catacomb ceramics, I needed to enter the topic of typology and classification, to clarify the origin of its own and the Scythians, I required the development of archaeological signs of migrations, for all of them it turned out to be a theory of culture and ethnos, etc.

- In the afterword on your book “Avation of Science”, Alexei Elyashevich notes that you are inherent in the research method is more characteristic of natural sciences than for humanitarian. Probably, the desire for streamlining and typologizing knowledge refers to this. Do you agree with this? Do you feel like a scientist in a humanitarian environment?

- Probably, Alexei Mikhailovich was impressed by my everlasting desire for theoretical justification and methodological, often absent among humanities, a craving for structuralness and logical harmony of works, an understanding of the need for formalization. As for the typology, in its contrasting the classification it just came to me from literary criticism (expressed in Belinsky), and the very concept of type came to archeology from numismatics, and there from biology. And in biology - from a typographic business. So with all the rapprochement with the natural sciences in the methodology, etc., I do not feel the natural science. I am from a humanitarian environment. Another thing is that I do not attribute archeomology to either one or the other.

- Explain your vision of archeology, the need to separate it with history. Why is it necessary to “cut the centaur”?

- This is explained in my articles and books quite fully. There is no need to make a brief squeeze. If I say that the merger of them prevents each of these sciences from developing their own methods, then this will be true, but incomplete and unproven. And clarifying is to reprint or shift my appropriate work. You just need to read them.

“ I read your explanations.” And yet you can partially bring them again? You compare the work of the archaeologist with the work of the investigator (in your opinion, an archaeologist is an investigator who has been late for the scene for thousands of years), and the historian assign the role of the judge. Is it possible to interpret so that the archaeologist works with facts (with material sources), and their interpretation - in the competence of the historian?

- No, there is an archaeological interpretation. All confusion in the logic of those who unite archeology with history are due to the fact that two sciences actually hide in history, two researchers in the historian: the historian-source and the historian-synthuster. The first is engaged in the preparation of written sources for the second: he studies the text (textology), its reliability and authenticity, whether the fake, the original or the list, etc. (external criticism), its reliability as a source (internal criticism). And the second extracts its content and compares with other sources, with the data of other types of sources, synthesizing information about historical events and processes. Here is the work of an archaeologist (and anthropologist, toponymist, etc.) is completely similar to the work of a historian-source. And it does not at all correspond to the work of the historian-synthusator, since he does not have the corresponding qualifications, he is incompetent.

The trouble is that the work of historians of both species often merges into one profession, because both work mainly with written texts. Therefore, they often perform in one person, although in reality some more often concentrate on one type of work, others on the other. This confused logic leads to the fact that history is considered as a general science (in Marxism there are other grounds for this), including not only written source studies, but also archaeological, since they are similar in terms of functions. But in their methodological nature they are completely different, others, and in archeology this acts quite clearly. These are applied sciences.

This is where my comparison with the detective, late to the place of events for a thousand years, works. Research methods are completely the same. And the court of history is performed by another specialist. If they are not separated, truth will suffer. The story that the archaeologist writes, who has taken over the functions of a historian without appropriate qualifications, will turn out a unilateral, thin and therefore incorrect history. At the same time, archeology, considered as part of history, usually remains without specific methods of archaeological research, dispensing with general “historical” considerations at the amateur level.

This is not a division into facts and interpretation. There is an interpretation at the archaeological level. The archaeologist must translate an archaeological source from the language of things into the language of history. Present complexes as traces of events and processes. And to establish on this basis the causal relationship of events, that is, to build history, to identify its laws is not its competence. There are other knowledge, another preparation.

- Are there any favorite topics for you in archeology?

- There are no constant. Everyone becomes loved while I work on them.

- The coverage of these topics is very wide even in archeology. But along with them, in different periods of life, you were engaged in philological surveys, such as the study of the Homeric Iliad or Perun in Slavic paganism. You go beyond all the time and master the new one. Are you moving interest, curiosity? Is it easy for you to learn in the new territory of science?

-It so happened that I had a fairly wide education, initially mastered several professions: philologist, archaeologist, officer-translator, musician, builder, teacher. Therefore, without fear, he rushed into the new industry, if some discovery beckoned there. But in the industry, which was part of my circle of knowledge. He did not rush, for example, in mathematics or physics. Therefore, it was not as difficult for me to master the new industry as a complete newcomer. On the other hand, I did not stop halfway, worked in the new industry until I felt confident, and limited my actions there - a certain circle of tasks for which I did not go out.

- When mastering new areas, you often contradicted established concepts. Most experts did not support your opinion that the Iliad is composed of different epics and that there was no Trojan war at all. And your concept of Slavic paganism was also not unequivocally adopted. Do you like to go against it?

- You know that from the very beginning my Homeric concept was supported by such authority as I. M. Dyakonov, who stated that my conclusions seem to him irrefutable, and predicted that a new stage of home rejection would begin with this work. Now, after thirty years, we see that this trend defeated this trend in Western homeless studies, and such a pillar of traditional homework as Snodgrass, expressed regret that he published his monographs in the past.

With my concept of Slavic paganism, a different picture. My idea of ​​Perun in the Caucasus, which served as a clue for me to the whole concept, is refuted by the linguists, I must admit it. But behind her new discoveries in different areas reached out: the East Slavic calendar ritual, understanding of the mermaids, the study of Perun as a dying and resurrected deity, the origin of Shrovetide.

I don't like to go against it. But I'm not afraid to do it.

- You have an amazing talent to make science even from the most difficult life experience. You used to stay in prison and camp for anthropological observations of the marginal part of society, and unrighteous sentence prompted you to scientifically study homosexuality as a phenomenon. And how, in such a situation, an intelligent person does not break, pass the test with dignity and preserve a detached research view of others?

- As an intelligent person in general, I can’t say in such conditions. These are really bad conditions, and I do not condemn those who have broken.

I can only recall what kept me from this. Firstly, I was no longer young (more than 50), I followed the experience of sixteen expeditions, of which in the last five I was a boss. Secondly, there was a long pedagogical experience. Thirdly, I knew that the investigating authorities went to a number of falsifications, the traces of which are sticking out in my trial. Indeed, the impromptu court of the prisoners (lasting two weeks) issued the verdict “sewing the case”.

From these positions, I chose such a tactic. Firstly, he told his cellmates only the truth (although, according to Napoleon, not the whole truth) and held his own business, which with me, open. Secondly, he did not adapt to Wednesday, continued to behave calmly and naturally, as you usually behave without changing speech and behavior-neither the mat nor the jargon used it. Thirdly, he immediately rejected any attacks very firmly, if necessary, with a sharpened spoon in his hand. When someone pushed me that, perhaps, I would have to hold a rite of “omitations” over me, I very calmly said that I am an old person and the second is likely to be able to. When asked, why not the first, I also calmly answered: "Because the first will be killed." He said that everyone believed. And the fourth. I had something to inspire respect for myself, and I used it. Believing languages, university san, good knowledge of judicial wisdom, very necessary for everything. I soon became a common lawyer in the cell. And this acted even when transferring into a “tension” - a camera with “plundered” in the order of pressure. "Subty" also wants to be as soon as possible. And finally, I did not succumb to pressure measures, withstood quite difficult lawsuits and did not sign recognition - this caused the additional respect of the convicts, and I arrived at the camp as a “corner”, that is, not an ordinary prisoner.

I was released from the camp with a very strange characteristic for the “disrespectful” article: “I used the respect of prisoners.”

- Lev Samuilovich, your anthropological observations in prison and camp led you to the conclusion on the similarity of morals and customs of the criminal world and primitive society. Does this mean that over the past thousands of years, evolution has much affected human psychology, and only culture raises modern man over primitiveness?

- Yes, that is how. Over the past 100 thousand years (in Europe - 40 thousand years), the psychophysiological properties of a person have changed little. We are still the same Nomo sapiens sapiens , which arose then and are well adapted to the then environment, including sociocultural. And this environment has changed many times since then, and now we are now the same in its biological properties (almost the same), in a completely different environment, in a different society. Because biological adaptation occurs with jerks, much slower than sociocultural: it is constrained by the need for a multiple change of generations.

- After the hardest tests, in prison, you had to survive the difficult period at large, when you were deprived of all degrees and titles and ten years were not taken to work. How did you manage to use this time fruitfully and regain academic titles and scientific, including international, authority?

- Soviet life was a vile, but had its advantages. All everyday was mostly bad and wretched, but it was very cheap, so it was possible to feed with small workouts (for example, translations). And to restore its place in science there were two ways. One - to appeal along the official lines, I tried, but all the same judges sat in all places. All complaints came to them. And there was a second way - to start the whole scientific career again. With new sciences, new research. There was free time - heated. Not all sciences and not even all sectors of archeology require state allocations, expeditions, collections. For many individual works, there are enough libraries. I was deprived of titles, but not knowledge and, as it turned out, respect for my colleagues.

I knew the ability to work a lot and quickly. Therefore, he did not lose heart and worked. Part was printed under the pseudonym, then switched to his own name, but in peripheral publications. Very soon he made his way to the central ones. Moreover, I had new discoveries in different industries. He also wrote to the table - for the future. By the time of perestroika, I already had ready -made manuscripts of books - “Inverted World”, “The Phenomenon of Soviet Archeology”, “Anatomy of the Iliad”, “New Archeology” and “Archaeological Typology”. The “Inverted World” came out in the journal during perestroika. And perestroika added liberation from the shackles - I became "outbound", went to the universities of the world by invitation with lecture courses. At the University of Vienna, I was awarded the title of professor, though invited, but at all my future visits (I came to Vienna with lecture courses twice). In 1994, I defended (unanimously) in St. Petersburg an “archaeological typology” as a doctoral (without the restoration of a candidate degree!) And was invited by a professor to the Faculty of Philosophy of his native university. Moreover, the Higher Attestation Committee smoothly approved both a doctoral degree and professorship. So the recovery took the period 1983–1993.

-You mentioned that one or two monographs and a dozen articles come out of you (correct me, if I were mistaken in numbers) per year. В чем секрет вашей фантастической работоспособности и продуктивности?

— Иные годы выходило и по 5–6 монографий, но ведь бывали и годы без монографий, особенно до 50 лет — десятилетия без монографий! Статей выходило много всегда, всего их накопилось в списке более 800.

В чем секрет работоспособности и продуктивности? Никакого секрета, собственно, и нет. Во-первых, десятилетиями многое писалось в стол. Всё это перерабатывается, а иногда и в готовом виде идет в печать. Так что за каждой книгой из серии пяти и шести, выходящих сразу, стоят многие годы труда. Во-вторых, волею КГБ и советских идеологов я был на многие годы освобожден от преподавания и причастности к экспедициям и службе. Всё время уходило на самостоятельную работу, а небольшие приработки обеспечивали жизнь. В-третьих, я смолоду приноровился споро работать: все данные у меня были расписаны в картотеке (150–180 тыс. карточек). Опять же, знание языков: я не перевожу, а читаю литературу. И как-то непроизвольно выработалось быстрочтение: я слежу взглядом не по строкам слева направо, а по странице сверху вниз. Одним из первых я привез из-за границы компьютер (в 1990 году) — с ним работа пошла втрое быстрее. И наконец, я не трачу попусту время. И не работаю аврально, и не спешу. У меня всегда работа заканчивается досрочно. Всё остальное — потом. That's the whole secret.

— Лев Самуилович, а случалось ли вам когда-нибудь ошибаться в науке?

— Разумеется, работать безошибочно в науке, в которой всё фрагментарно, данных всегда не хватает, невозможно. Суть хорошей работы в том, чтобы ошибки были не по глупости, чтобы их было мало и они тотчас исправлялись.

Из крупных своих ошибок, кроме уже упомянутой с идей Перуна на Кавказе, могу назвать долгое держание за короткую хронологию европейского неолита и бронзового века, т. е. опоздание с признанием правоты радиоуглеродной хронологии. Я признал ее полностью только после Второй радиоуглеродной революции (проведение калибровки по дендрохронологии и ленточным глинам). Я не стал замазывать этот факт, а постарался сделать из этого урок для себя и для других.

— Скажите, вы когда-нибудь отдыхаете? And how?

— Странно, еще никто не задавал мне этого вопроса. Оглядываясь назад, вижу, что отдыхать я не умел и не любил. Летние отпуска всегда проводил в экспедиции или в городе за работой. Дачное времяпрепровождение помню только в детстве. На курорты никогда в жизни не выезжал (за исключением нескольких недель в гостях у сестры в Риге, на Рижском взморье). Но в Питере, поселившись на Васильевском острове, в жару бегал купаться на море, пока пляж был в 300 метрах от моего дома, потом он удалился на несколько километров в связи с намывом и застройкой дополнительных территорий. Тогда уже разок в неделю ездил на электричке с приятелями в Сестрорецк на пляж.

Раньше отдыхал больше, но отдых был всегда активным. В студенческие годы руководил ансамблем, брал призы на конкурсах современных танцев (на пару с ректором Александровым). Играл в волейбол на любительских площадках. Настольные игры (шахматы, карты, лото, домино и прочее) не любил. Они мне представлялись пустой тратой времени. Кино, театр и концерты посещал редко, только за компанию. Один — никогда. В Эрмитаже бывал часто, но это работа. Встречался с друзьями, обсуждали общие проблемы, обменивались новостями и мыслями. Выпивки меня не привлекали никогда, вино смаковал понемногу только ради вкуса, никогда «для настроения».

С течением времени отдыху стал уделять всё меньше времени. Дело в том, что лучшим отдыхом для меня стала моя работа. За ней я великолепно, от души отдыхаю. А самое трудное и тягостное для меня — безделье. Я буквально места себе не нахожу. Для меня тюремные месяцы были тягостны прежде всего этим. Я как-то выходил из положения: час уделял немецкому, час французскому, час английскому, под видом упражнений стал вести записи своих наблюдений за особенностями среды (и сумел их вынести), писал стихи, не пропустил ни одной прогулки по тюремному дворику, тогда как большинство валялось на шконках и курило. Но всё же из тюремного «отдыха» я вынес туберкулез, который, по счастью, самозалечился на свободе. Остались лишь позже выявленные следы в легких (я получил легкие курильщика, не выкурив в жизни ни одной сигареты).

Ежедневную зарядку я делал регулярно до 70 лет.

Только после 80 пришлось уделять время и пассивному отдыху, лежа в постели, — по медицинским показаниям. Это самые тяжелые дни в жизни. Хорошо, если это время удается проспать. Самая трудная наука — ничего не делать.

— А музыка присутствует в вашей жизни? В детстве вам прочили карьеру музыкального вундеркинда, но вы решили выбрать другой путь. Вы писали, что в период работы в Ленинградском университете довольно успешно участвовали в самодеятельности. А слушаете ли вы музыку просто для себя, для души? And which one?

— Для домашнего потребления завел себе довольно рано квадросистему к ужасу соседей. Слушал не только классику (любил симфоническую музыку романтиков), но и джаз Луиса Армстронга, рок «Битлзов» и кое-что из «Роллинг Стоунз» и «Лед Зеппелин». Музыку слушал раньше больше, теперь гораздо меньше. Во время работы мне музыка мешает. Но вот всё же написал и «Гармонии эпох» — книгу о смене гармоний под воздействием социальной психологии эпох.

— Вернемся к науке. На фоне того, что сейчас делается в научном и околонаучном мире, что происходит с РАН, как относится к науке наше государство, — каким вы видите будущее российской академической науки? В 2013 году в газете «Троицкий вариант — Наука» вы опубликовали очень яркую антиутопию о том, что случится через пять лет. Прошло четыре года. И среди ваших предсказаний я насчитала четыре, которые попали почти в точку (те, что касаются министра образования, кафедр теологии, закрытости заседаний ВАК, положения президента РАН). And what's next? Российская наука вообще выживет?

— Выживет, конечно, куда же ей деться. Вопрос только, в каком состоянии окажется, насколько отстанет от мировой науки.

— А что археология? Она находится в одной лодке со всей академической наукой или у нее есть свои особые проблемы?

— В каких-то вопросах — в одной лодке со всей академической наукой, а в чем-то по- своему: она ведь еще и университетская наука, и музейная, и т. д. У нее и дополнительные ассигнования, и проблемы с охраной памятников.

— У вас было много учеников, в том числе те, кто прошел через ваш археологический семинар в Ленинградском университете. Думаю, что все, кто сталкивался с вами по жизни, чему-то у вас учились. А есть ли у вас последователи в науке?

— Полагаю, что есть. Только если не ставить заслон для тех, кто не следует мне непременно во всем. Я слишком много чего делал в жизни. Следуют — кто-то в одном, кто-то в другом, кто-то в третьем, и не только непосредственные ученики. Но есть и вопросы, в которых последователей не вижу, к сожалению.

— Ну и, наконец, вопрос по названию вашей книги: трудно быть Клейном?

— А в чем вопрос-то? Да, трудно. Но если вы о том, не хотел ли бы я прожить другую жизнь, — нет, на другую не променяю. Хотел бы продлить эту, разумеется в рабочем состоянии.

Lev Klein
Беседовала Надежда Маркина