Nevostruev was one of the first archeologists to come from Viatka, just as he was also among the first trained in theology to develop church archeology as a branch of the science. His primary contribution was the cataloging of Slavic manuscripts in the Synodal Library, which won him the Lomonosov Prize, but he also excavated in the Ananinskii Mogilnik.
Social Estate: popovich
Nikitskii was yet another priest’s son who received his education in the seminary, but was sent to St. Petersburg to train for a career as a teacher. His talents at Greek would have been wasted at a gymnasium, and he became a respected scholar of Greek epigraphy. He also taught at the St. Petersburg Women’s Pedagogical Institute. At the Odessa Congress, he argued that Novgorod had already opened a Window on the West via trade through the Neva, so Muscovite conquest was detrimental.
Nikolskii applied his seminary education to Assyriology and was one of the most active members of the Eastern Commission of the IMAO. He worked with Praskovia on her multi-volume “Archeology of the Caucasus.”
Murzakevich recalled from childhood when Napoleon’s army captured Smolensk, and he and many others took shelter in his father’s church. The precocious lad ended up at Moscow University, but without money or social connections. A friend with both got Murzakevich to Odessa, first at the customs office and then at the Richelieu Lyceum. Murzakevich became one of those who Russianized the school, but he also became fascinated with the archeology in New Russia and Crimea and he became an influential member of the Odessa Society of the History of Antiquities. Moreover, the Governor General of New Russia Mikhail Vorontsov recognized his talents and supported his work, even employing him to sort out his library.
The son of a village priest in Novgorod Province, Modestov trained initially at the Petersburg Pedagogical Institute to become a teacher. Instead, he became one of the leading figures in the history of Rome, beginning with the Neolithic Age in Italy. After retiring from New Russia University, he moved to Rome. Perhaps surprisingly for a leading classicist scholar, he opposed the reforms of Minister of Education Dmitrii Tolstoi, who in the 1870s returned the university curriculum to emphasize the ancient languages over history or philosophy. He also translated Tacitus into Russian.
An Orthodox Syrian, Murkos was one of only two Arabs to attain a professorship in Imperial Russia; educated first in Constantinople, he mastered Russian and become a Professor of Eastern Languages at the Lazarevskii Institute. He became politicized against Greek dominance of the Bulgarian Church, and also began to raise issues about the Koran; the Russian government toned him down, and he did well in academics, active in the eastern branch of the IMAO and translating an annotating his magnum opus, five volumes on as a translation and commentaries on travel account of the journey of patriarch of Antioch Makarius to the Moscow state (1652–1659).
Transplanted from a provincial gymnasium in Vilna to the prestigious classical lyceum in Moscow, and then to the university, Kulakovskii became one of the foremost specialists in Roman history and Latin inscriptions.The Imperial Commission sent him to Kerch in 1890, and he remained in the region. In 1893 he published the archeological map of Sarmatian Europe in Ptolemy’s Time.
Aleksei Ivanovskii worked with Praskovia Uvarova on her multi-volume studies of the Caucasus. By education, he was a geographer and an anthropologist.
The son of a Georgian priest, Khakhanov taught his native language at the Lazarevskii Institute, and maintained his interest in religion. He worked with Praskovia on her multi-volume Materials of the Archeology of the Caucasus, often translating inscriptions. He left behind copious publications upon his death from consumption.
Arguably the most influential historian in Imperial Russia, Kliuchevskii broke with his mentor, the eminent Sergei Solovev, over their differing theoretical approaches to history, which had implications for archeology. Kliuchevskii considered Solovev too driven by state formation, that is, by the archival documents, whereas he preferred social and economic motives, and drew much from material culture.