Importance of Archaeological Research of Mangazeya in the Late 60s – Early 70s of the 21st Century for the Archeology of the Period of Development of Siberia and the Far East by the Russian State

Abstract

Purpose. Between 1968 and 1973, under the leadership of M. I. Belov, O. V. Ovsyannikov, and V. F. Starkov, largescale excavations were conducted at the Mangazeya settlement – a unique site from the era of the Russian expansion into Siberia. These works resulted in the publication of a fundamental two-volume monograph and a series of articles considered classics of Russian archaeology. However, despite the recognized importance of these works, the question regarding the actual scale and nature of the influence these materials had on the development of the archaeology of the Russian period in Siberia and the Far East remains unexplored. The aim of this study is to provide a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the impact of the archaeological research of Mangazeya on the development of Russian archaeology in Siberia. To achieve this goal, the author accomplished several objectives: the complete corpus of publications on the excavation results (1968–1973) was identified; a dataset of 234 scientific works by other authors containing 586 citations to Mangazeya materials was compiled; and a deep analysis of the source base was conducted. The study focuses on identifying citation patterns, determining how the scientific community utilizes Mangazeya data to construct analogies, dating, and historical reconstructions, as well as understanding the place of this research in modern historiography. Results. The analysis of citation dynamics revealed five chronological periods demonstrating shifting interest in the site. It was established that the vast majority of citations (80.4%) refer to the two-volume monograph by M. I. Belov and co-authors, which effectively replaced the need for researchers to consult individual articles. A significant time lag (up to 17–20 years) was identified between the publication of materials and the start of their active citation. Analysis of the content of the citations showed that 33% belong to the category of “analogies.” However, more than 80% of such analogies are typological and, for the most part, “dead-end”: authors note the similarity of finds but do not draw conclusions based on this. Attempts to date artifacts exclusively by analogy with Mangazeya are unproductive, as the chronological timeframe of the city’s existence (1601–1672) is narrower than the circulation period of many types of items (from the 16th to the 19th centuries). The largest group of citations (50%) is historiographical in nature and often represents a formal mention of predecessors’ works. Only in isolated cases were researchers able to draw productive, original conclusions based on Mangazeya materials (e.g., in the field of numismatics). Classifications developed by the excavation authors (footwear, ceramics, skis) are mentioned but are practically unused by colleagues for systematizing their own collections. Conclusions. The study concludes that, despite the fundamental nature and high scientific status of the works by M. I. Belov, O. V. Ovsyannikov, and V. F. Starkov, the actual productivity of using Mangazeya materials remains low. Identified analogies rarely generate new knowledge, and the majority of citations are ritualistic or descriptive in nature. The current situation indicates a methodological crisis in Russian archaeology in Siberia and the Far East. This field does not function as a unified system; rather, it represents a mechanical aggregate of studies on individual sites, weakly connected at an interpretational level. Thus, the results of studying such a reference site as Mangazeya remain in demand only within the narrow scope of historiographical reviews and formal comparisons, failing to exert the systemic influence on the development of Russian archaeology in Siberia that would be expected from a project of such scale.