Igor Mikhailovich Diakonov is the only author of Vestnik Drevnoi Istorii who has participated in the journal's work for 60 years, actively and creatively. His first article was published in 1939, and his last in 1998. He spoke in all genres of VDI publications, including special research articles, problematic articles that opened scientific discussions, publications of new sources, translations into Russian of the most important Ancient Eastern monuments, reviews of the state of scientific research on a particular problem of the history of the Ancient East, book reviews, and conference reports, and letters to the editor.

Igor Mikhailovich was most actively published at VDI in the 1950s - 1960s, and it can be said that this was the time when he determined, to a certain extent, the direction of research interests of the author's team of Orientalists grouped around the journal. At the same time, cooperation with Vestnik Drevnoi Istorii and publication of I. M. Dyakonov's research on its pages contributed to the young scientist's entry on the international stage. Unfortunately, in the following years, when he was able to publish abroad, he began to send his works to VDI less often, and this is probably the fault of us, the editorial staff (in particular, the author of this article), who lost their previous close contacts with I. M. Diakonov after N. M. Postovskaya left the magazine.

Let's try to give a brief overview of Igor Mikhailovich's cooperation with our magazine.

In 1939, two of his works appeared on the pages of VDI: in the article " A letter to the Sumerian king Shu-Sin (on the issue of land relations in Sumer)", he published a cuneiform tablet from the Hermitage (inv. N 7436), gave its transcription, translation and commentary (1939, N 1) and in connection with with this document, he expressed an opinion on the forms of land ownership in Sumer, in particular on the system of"feeding". In the second article " Amorites (On the Origin of the cult of the God Jesus) "(1939, No. 4), he proposed his interpretation of the name "Amorites" - atoggi, based on a comparison of cuneiform and biblical evidence. In 1940-1941, VDI published two reviews by I. M. Diakonov: on the book by A. N. Riftin "Old Babylonian legal and administrative documents in the collections of the USSR "(Moscow-L. 1937) (1940, N 3-4) and the first issue of "Proceedings of the Hermitage" (State Hermitage Museum. Proceedings of the Department of History, Culture and Art of the East, vol. I. L., 1939) (1941, N 1).

The Great Patriotic War interrupted the successful scientific work of a young employee of the Hermitage. It should be recalled that with the beginning of the war, I. M. Diakonov joined the army as a volunteer and from September 1941 to December 1945 was on the Karelian Front, ending the war with the rank of captain. Only in 1946 did he return to his research work. As if to make up for lost time, he works with surprising intensity in the following decades, publishing articles, reviews, and books in various publications.

In 1946-1950, he published five articles at VDI: he offers his own interpretation of the text of the British Museum OT-1 tablet, defending its later dating (1946, N 4); gives an overview of the study of cuneiform writing in the USSR for 30 years (1947, N 3);

discusses some issues of the social structure of Sumer: "Once again on the term gurus (KAL) in the Sumerian language "(1948, N 3), "Who are the "Gurush" in the economic texts of the third dynasty of Ur "(1949, N 2), "On the area and composition of the population of the Sumerian "city-state"" (1950, No. 2). In addition, he publishes reviews of books by S. N. Kremer (Sumerian Mythology. N.Y., 1944) (1947, N 2) and N. M. Nikolsky

page 11

"Private land ownership and land use in the ancient Two Rivers" (1949, No. 1). During the same years, Igor Mikhailovich defended his PhD thesis and based on it published the book "Development of Land Relations in Assyria "(Leningrad, 1949; see D. G. Reder's rec.: VDI, 1951, N 1).

In 1951-1955, I. M. Diakonov simultaneously conducted research on the history of Urartu and the history of land relations in Sumer. He prepared for publication in the department of "Appendices" of the VDI (1951, N 2-4) a very important and for that time exhaustive selection of translations of cuneiform Babylonian and Assyrian texts concerning the history of Urartu, "Assyro-Babylonian sources on the history of Urartu" with an introduction describing the state of Urartian studies, and comments to each document (he also belongs to most of the translations of texts). This publication undoubtedly stimulated research on the history of Urartu in our country and abroad.

In 1951, based on these documents, I. M. Diakonov published an article on the history of Urartu in the last years of its existence (No. 2); and the following year, an article "On the fate of prisoners of war in Assyria and Urartu" (1952, No. 1) in connection with the discussion in the journal problems of producers material goods in the ancient world. In No. 3 for 1954, I. M. Dyakonov published a detailed and rather critical review of G. A. Melikishvili's book "Urartu: The Future of the World", which is quite critical from the point of view of linguistic and ethnogenetic interpretations. Popular science essay on the history of the ancestors of the Georgian people "(Tbilisi, 1951) and "On the Origin of the Georgian people" (Tbilisi, 1952). In 1956 (No. 2), I. M. Diakonov carefully reviewed the new research work of G. A. Melikishvili "Ancient Eastern materials on the history of Transcaucasia: I. Nairi-Urartu" (Tbilisi, 1954). Having made a number of specific comments on historical geography, onomastics, dating, interpretation of texts and other issues, Igor Mikhailovich highly appreciated this study.

Many years later, in 1987. (No. 3) Igor Mikhailovich once again returned to the issue of the state of research on the history of Urartu in the article "The Urartian State in a new light" (together with I. N. Medvedskaya). This article was a response to P. Zimansky's monograph "Ecology and Empire: the Structure of the Urartian State" (1). In general, while giving a positive assessment of the book, I. M. Diakonov reproaches the author for ignoring the question of the composition of the population of Urartu and, based on his research, gives a description of the social structure of the Urartian state.

Continuing the practice of publishing translations of cuneiform documents, I. M. Diakonov published in 1952 in the department of "Appendices" of the VDI (N 3-4) essentially a whole book (about 22 printed sheets) - "Laws of Babylonia, Assyria and the Hittite Kingdom" with footnotes and an appendix of special essays-comments of a historical and legal nature to each period legislation. All Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian texts were translated by Igor Mikhailovich himself, Hittite texts by I. M. Dunaevskaya, and commentaries by I. M. Diakonov and Ya.? (legal comments belong to the latter).

In the publication of Babylonian texts, the first sections are devoted to surviving fragments of Sumerian laws and their use in subsequent legislation. This period continues to be the main object of I. M. Diakonov's research. In 1951 (No. 1), he published the article "The Urukagina Reforms in Lagash", where he gave his translation of the main source on these reforms "Konusov V/S" and his interpretation of the activities of the Urukagina (as a supporter of the priesthood and the consolidation of private property). In the next article, "The State System of ancient Sumer" (1952, No. 2), I. M. Diakonov analyzes the functions of ensi, lugal, and the Council of elders, asserts that the state formations of ancient Sumer cannot be equated with the "city-state" of the ancient world, and suggests the name "nome state" for the states of not yet unified Sumer. He also raises the question of the reasons for the emergence of the ancient Eastern despotism.

1. Zimansky PL. Ecology and Empire: the Structure of the Urartian State. Chicago, 1985.

page 12

Another article by I. M. Diakonov, devoted to the history of the Sumerians, appeared in 1955. (No. 4)- "Buying and selling land in ancient Sumer and the question of the Sumerian community". In it, he analyzed all the documents known by that time about the purchase and sale of land from the XXVIII to the XXIII centuries, which allowed him to identify the role of the community in the land ownership of ancient Sumerian "city-states" (here he uses this term, but always in quotation marks) in comparison with temple land ownership. In 1958 (No. 2) he published another article devoted to Sumer ," On working with Sumerian historical sources", where he described their specifics. And in 1959, I. M. Diakonov published a monograph " The social and state system of the ancient Two Rivers. Schumer", which he defended as a doctoral dissertation.

Simultaneously with his work on the documents of Sumer and Akkad, I. M. Diakonov became involved in the study of monuments of Central Asia. In 1953 (No. 4), the Publications department published a joint work by I. M. Diakonov, his brother M. M. Diakonov, and V. A. Livshits entitled "The Parthian Archive from Ancient Nisa". The article corrected the first documents published earlier in 1951, published samples of documents from the finds of 1951, and made preliminary conclusions about the significance of the Nisa archive for the history of Parthia.

After the death of M. M. Dyakonov in 1954, Igor Mikhailovich, together with V. A. Livshits, continued working on documents from the Nisa archive. In 1956 (No. 4) they published an article "On the language of documents from ancient Nisa", in which they polemicized about the nature of language and writing with an article by I. N. Vinnikov, published under the same title in 1954 (No. 2). The authors believed that I. N. Vinnikov had no grounds to reject the Iranian character of the language and the heterographic character of the written language. In 1960 (No. 2), in the article "Parthian royal economy in Nis of the first century BC", they published a series of documents-labels and references regarding the available wine or its receipt. In addition to publishing Parthian documents, I. M. Diakonov participates in the research and publication of a number of other written monuments. In 1954 (No. 1), he (co-authored with V. A. Livshits and K. V. Kaufman) published an article "On the ancient Sughd script of Bukhara", which deals with inscriptions on Bukhara coins and monuments of Toreutics. In 1955. (N 2) Together with K. V. Starkova, Igor Mikhailovich publishes the article "Inscriptions of Artaxy (Artashes I), King of Armenia", making corrections to the previous readings.

In his articles and reviews sent to VDI, Igor Mikhailovich primarily seeks to acquaint readers with important sources and studies that are relevant to him at this stage of scientific development. So, in 1959. (No. 4) he puts the article " Slave estates of Persian nobles (Review of documents published by G. R. Driver, and the state of the study of parallel sources)". The article reviews the letters of the Persian satrap Arsham to the manager of his estates in Egypt published by G. Driver, retells the contents of a number of letters, and provides a transcription and translation of Letter VII. These letters are compared with Babylonian and Persepolis documents, and the meaning of the term garda is discussed in Arsham's letters and in other sources.

In his article "Social Relations in Sumerian and Babylonian Folklore" (1966, No. 1), I. M. Diakonov provides a translation and transcription of 120 proverbs and sayings concerning the community, family and marriage, social inequality (poverty, slavery, debtors and creditors), officials, scribes, and lower clergy. In the article "Asia Minor and Armenia ca. 600 BC and the northern campaigns of the Babylonian kings "(1981, N 2), he offers his translation of some parts of the so-called "Chronicle of Gadd", dedicated to the war of Nabopalassar with Assyria and the emergence of the New Babylonian Kingdom, with detailed commentary. This text is compared with the sources published in the VDI on the history of Urartu, the annals of Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria (AKA I), and other monuments. In 1988 (No. 3), in the article "The ruler of Parthia Andragoros and his coins", I. M. Dyakonov and E. V. Zeymal offered their own interpretation of the Aramaic legends on the coins of Andragoros and "Vakhshuvara" and gave the corresponding information.

page 13

historical and chronological attribution of these coins as a source for the history of pre-Arsacid Parthia.

We should also mention I. M. Dyakonov's reviews of V. M. Masson's book "The Ancient Agricultural Culture of Margiana", where he expressed his thoughts on the question "on the archaeological identification of the oldest Indo-Iranian tribes", which was discussed in this monograph (1960, N 3), and on M. A. Dandamaev's book " Iran under the first Achaemenids (VI century BC). AD)", in which Igor Mikhailovich, as in other cases, focuses on translations and interpretations of cuneiform monuments, in particular the Bisutun and other inscriptions (1964, N 3).

In the 1960s, I. M. Diakonov's collaboration with VDI was marked by a series of problematic articles on socio - economic issues. In No. 1 for 1963, an article by I. M. Diakonov "The Community in the Ancient East in the works of Soviet researchers" appeared. Based on his work and research of students and colleagues, I. M. Diakonov presented his own understanding of the structure and role of the community in the history of ancient society. In essence, it was the publication of his report at the "II All-Union Session on the Study of the Ancient East". In the same issue of VDI, the discussion that unfolded on his report was also published. It allows you to imagine how the main provisions of the report were met by specialists in antiquities and ethnography. But the discussion of the community's problems did not end with this discussion, and in subsequent years a number of articles appeared on the pages of VDI (M. L. Geltser, V. V. Struve, N. B. Yankovskaya and other authors). M. O. Obliquen's critical remarks evoked the remark of I. M. Diakonov "On the problem of the community in the Ancient East" (1964, No. 4), where he emphasized the specifics of communities in the countries of the ancient East.

In the late 1960s, I.M. Diakonov published in Vestnik a series of articles on the socio-economic structure of Ancient Eastern societies of the third and first half of the second millennium BC, as if summing up his long-term research. In the first article (1967, N 4) " Property problems. On the structure of society in the Middle East up to the middle of the second millennium BC" he considers two questions: first, about the concepts of property in general and royal property, primarily on land, while arguing that in Western Asia there was no supreme ownership of the king on all land; secondly, about the social categories of the population - about the royal people and community members who worked on the royal, temple and belonging to individual communities land. In the next two articles (1968, N 3-4), entitled " Problems of Economics. On the structure of society in the Middle East up to the middle of the second millennium BC", it is about the structure of the community and public sectors of the economy. The author's reasoning is based on a huge research apparatus, which takes into account Soviet and foreign books and articles on these problems. In conclusion, I. M. Diakonov, after briefly describing the class structure of ancient Eastern society, cautiously suggests that the ancient method of production can be called "slave" only conditionally.

I. M. Dyakonov returns to the question of the social structure of ancient Mesopotamia once again in the article "Slaves, helots and serfs in early Antiquity "(1973, N 4). Arguing with I. Gelb (2), who finds in ancient times two types of exploited workers: slaves and serfs (=glebae adscripti, "serfs"), I. M. Dyakonov agrees with the existence of two types of exploitation in the ancient world, but believes that there is no reason to equate the second type (serfs, according to Gelb This, in his opinion, is the same form of exploitation that was witnessed in the ancient world, like Helotia, and slavery, as such, in the countries of the ancient East, is patriarchal in nature. At the same time, he relies on his previous research published not only in VDI, but also in other ote-

2. Gelb /../. From Freedom to Slavery. BAW. Ph.-hist. Kl. Abb. HF 75. Munchen, 1972. The discussion with I. Gelb began in 1963-see I. M. Diakonov, Ethnic and social factors in the history of the ancient World (Based on the material of Sumer). According to the results of the IX International Meeting of Assyriologists / / VDI. 1963. N 2; see also. Letter to the editor / / VDI. 1964. N 1.

page 14

Russian and foreign publications. Unfortunately, I have not been able to trace the impact of this work of I. M. Diakonov on subsequent publications in our journal.

Since the late 1960s, Igor Mikhailovich has published a number of linguistic articles and reviews in VDI, their subject matter mostly coincides with the chronological framework and area of the eras and regions that interested him earlier. In 1965. (N 3) he publishes a review of the book by V. A. Gvakhariya "Dictionary-Symphony of the Urartian language"; in 1966 (N 3) - a review of the fourth edition of the Ungnad grammar (Ungnad A. Grammatik das Akkadischen. Munchen, 1964), in 1966 (N 2) - a critical review of "Maikop letters (On the method of decoding)" in connection with the article published earlier in VDI (1965, N 3) by G. F. Turchaninov "The oldest written monument of the Caucasus". In the article "The Karian alphabet and its place among the oldest alphabetic scripts (Deciphering and pseudo-deciphering of Karian inscriptions)" (1967, N 2), I. M. Dyakonov mostly approved the deciphering of D. V. Shevoroshkin and critically evaluated the work of Yu. V. Otkupshchikova on deciphering the Carian inscriptions of Africa. In 1970 (No. 4), I. M. Diakonov published an article "Aryans in the Middle East: The End of Myth" with the informative subtitle "On the methodology of research of extinct languages". The article is written in connection with the book published in 1968 in Germany by A. A. Kropotkin. Kammenhuber " Arias in the Fore East "(3). He carefully analyzes the evidence of Aryans preserved in Ancient Eastern monuments, mainly traces of Indo-Iranian languages, and generally supports the researcher's concept.

In the early 1980s, I.M. Diakonov took part in the discussion of the Indo-European problem that developed on the pages of VDI, which began after two articles by T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov were published in the journal as a discussion. We can assume that I. M. Diakonov was their main opponent. In his articles " On the ancestral Homeland of native speakers of Indo-European dialects "(1982, N 3-4), having considered the linguistic foundations of the concept of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, he pointed out the insufficient validity of their analysis of language borrowings due to ignoring geographical and historical realities. He stressed that it is especially important to take into account archaeological data and the reflection of historical and economic realities in the language when describing the migration of speakers of Indo-European languages. He gives his own description of the migration of Greeks, Proto-Armenians, Indo-Iranians, Europeans, and attaches a map. Rejecting the hypothesis of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, who consider the Indo-European ancestral homeland of Eastern Anatolia (the Armenian Highlands), the South Caucasus, and Northern Mesopotamia, as insufficiently justified linguistically, and even more so historically, IM. Diakonov believes that it is more acceptable to look for a hypothetical homeland of Indo-European speakers in the Balkan-Carpathian region. In their objections to Dyakonov (VDI, 1984, No. 2), Gamkrelidze and Ivanov still focus on linguistic argumentation, referring to their monograph on this problem. But even after the publication of the book by these authors, I. M. Diakonov continues to debate in special works [4], and in articles-reviews in VDI. In the article "Alarodii" (1995, N 1), written in connection with the publication of the book by K. Kh. Kushnareva " South Caucasus in the IX-II millennium BC, stages of cultural and socio-economic development "(St. Petersburg, 1993), I. M. Diakonov, positively evaluating this work, again It also raises the question of the need to consider the problem of ethnic community and ethnic movements based on a combination of archaeological sources and linguistic analysis. It is the linguistic data of the Caucasian family of languages, which I. M. Diakonov calls "Alarodian", that he supplements the archaeological material of K. H. Kushnareva.

3. Kummenhuher A. Die Arier im Vorderen Orient. Heidelberg. 1968.

4. Diakonoff L. M., Sturostin S. A. Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language. Miinchen. 1986 (rec.: Orel V. E. II VDI. 1989. N 3).

page 15

In the article "The ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans (About the book by E. E. Kuzmina "Where did the Indo-Aryans come from?" M. 1994)" I. M. Dyakonov again reproaches Gamkrelidze and Ivanov for the fact that in their book they actually completely ignore the data of historians and archaeologists dealing with the problems of the peoples of the East (1995, N 1), and approves the author a peer-reviewed monograph for providing the question of the ancestral homeland of Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians with strictly verified archaeological materials. Noting the careful analysis of the vast amount of factual material collected on the basis of the "ethnic indicators" method developed by Kuzmina, I. M. Dyakonov, however, does not agree with all her conclusions (in particular, about the role of Aryans in Near Asia).

In 1996, VDI No. 4 published a remark by I. M. Dyakonov "Sumerians and Afrasians through the eyes of a historian" on the article by A. Y. Militarev with the almost identical title " Sumerians and Afrasians "(VDI, 1995, No. 2), which dealt with the convergence in the Sumerian and Afrasian languages. Already in the title of the article-remark (quite positive), its main idea is emphasized: linguistic constructions and conclusions are important only if they correspond to the historical conditions of society.

Continuing the practice of publishing problematic articles in the VDI, I.M. Diakonov in 1982 (No. 2) published together with V. A. Yakobson the article "Nome states", "territorial kingdoms", "polis" and "empires". Problems of typology". The authors write about three ways of development of early class - slave-owning societies, the economic conditions specific to each path, the social structure, and the corresponding political organization. If the first way is characterized by the appearance of "nome states", and for the second-by the so-called "territorial kingdoms", then as ancient societies develop on the basis of the first state forms, "empires" - ancient world powers-arise. To stabilize them, it was necessary to have "the real functioning of expanded slave reproduction", this was ensured by self-governing eastern cities that existed within the empires, similar to ancient poleis. The ancient way of development-a variant of the third way - was a consequence of specific conditions in Greece and Asia Minor, due to the level of development of commodity-money relations in these regions. Ancient city-states (polis) They were formed within the framework of the community-private sector, which determined their socio-political structure and ideology. However, the possibilities for the development of the" city - state " were limited in terms of economic and political independence, and they were absorbed by the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman Empire. These provisions were also reflected in subsequent works of the same authors.

In a review (1993, No. 3) of V. D. Neronova's book "Forms of Exploitation in the Ancient World in the Mirror of Soviet Historiography" (Perm, 1992), Igor Mikhailovich, while approving the appearance of such a book (although he does not always agree with its author), writes that it is very timely in our science to "look back and see what is happening in the future." what we have done in it." He considers the hypercritical attitude to Soviet historiography, to the study of forms of exploitation and social structures to be erroneous: they "are an objective reality that serious researchers belonging to various scientific schools have taken into account and are taking into account" (p.209). In conclusion, he raises the question of determining the stages of the historical process: the course of history, in his opinion, is determined not only by the development of production, but also by the development of social psychology and ways of thinking.

The last work of I. M. Dyakonov was published in VDI, 1998, No. 1. This is a joint article with V. A. Yakobson entitled "Civil Society in Ancient Times". In it, with the scientific boldness characteristic of I. M. Diakonov, his principled position in the modern ideological restructuring of historical science is clearly outlined. Noting a kind of" allergy " of post-Soviet historiography to Marxism and the historical-materialist method of studying society, the authors state that they see no reason "to abandon either the formational or civilizational approach. The first of them allows us to identify common features and differences in ancient societies,

page 16

and the second one clarifies these differences" (p. 23). The first stage of class society (instead of the previously used designations "slave formation" or "Asian mode of production") they consider it possible to call it the "ancient civil society". Justifying their concept, they defined its chronological framework, identified two stages (according to Jacobson) or two formations (according to Diakonov) of its existence - early antiquity and late antiquity, described their specifics (the nature of the civil community and the state, ideas about democracy), and established the reasons for the disappearance (or departure from the historical arena) of the "ancient world". civil society organizations".

This article in the anniversary (on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of VDI) issue ended I. M. Diakonov's long-term cooperation with the magazine. Of course, in this review I was not able to fully cover the huge contribution of Igor Mikhailovich - his articles, translations, reviews - to the development of the science of the ancient world on the pages of Vestnik Drevnoi Istorii for 60 years. The question of the response of readers and authors of the journal to his articles, the extent to which his work determined the direction of research, and therefore the subject of the journal, is not sufficiently covered. I was not able to correlate his articles published in VDI with his numerous publications in foreign publications - such a comparison would allow us to understand why Igor Mikhailovich preferred to publish his works in VDI on this or that issue. But, unfortunately, I have never studied the history of "early antiquity" and linguistics, and therefore I did not follow closely enough the publication of books by Igor Mikhailovich and the publication of his articles in other journals and publications.

I still hope that the material I have collected will allow us to somehow fill in the image of I. M. Diakonov, a wonderful scientist and a man who loved his homeland, gave a lot of effort to domestic science, and cared about its prestige and fate in the person of his students, colleagues and opponents, authors and readers of VDI.

I.M. DIAKONOFF AND "JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY" (Vestnik drevnel istorii) A.I. Pavlovskaya

I.M. Diakonoff was a constant contributor to the VDI since the early years of its existence. His first paper was published here in 1939 and his last in 1998. The 50ies-60ies marked the acme of his cooperation with the journal. At this time the VDI published his papers on the history of Transcaucasian countries and Central Asia in the III-II mill. ВС, texts prepared by him and with his translations, as well as book reviews - all of these works aiming to present the sources and works indispensablerfor research. Of greatest importance were his translations (in collaboration with his disciples) of Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform sources on the history of Urartu and Babylonian, Assyrian and Hittite laws, published in the VDI in 1951-1952. In the 60ies - early 70ies the VDI published a series of his papers on the problems of Ancient East community and on the forms of property and social and economic structure of Near East societies. In the 70-80ies his contributions to the VDI included articles and book reviews on linguistic problems (e.g. on the Indo-European problem), emphasizing the necessity to apply archaeological and historical data to linguistic research. In the articles of the 80-90 ies I.M. Diakonoff discussed some theoretical problems: the ways of early class societies development, typology of ancient states, formational and civilizational approach to the study of historical epochs etc. In his last paper (in collaboration with V.A. Jakobson) published in the VDI in 1998 he suggested that the first stage of class society should be called "civic society". Nevertheless, he opposed hypercritical attitude towards the Soviet historiography.

Permanent link to this publication: