The journal intends to be published four times per year in the form of special issues. We aim to be interesting to our readers, staying within the academic discourse. We use literary allusions in topics of journal issues as a way of updating scientific problems, being aware of conventionality of disciplinary boundaries in human knowledge.
The New Past is a peer-reviewed journal which publishes original papers in Russian and English on issues, covering such disciplines as history, cultural anthropology, language studies and different hybrid areas of Social Sciences and Humanities without any regional or chronological limitations.
The Editorial Board accepts papers for publication in the following areas of research:
- Phenomenon of the past and identity;
- academic practices of representation of the past;
- mass historical representations in different epochs;
- symbols of the past and their role in the functioning of historical consciousness;
- historiographical schools and trends, and their characteristics;
- historical memory and historical oblivion, factors of their formation;
- politics of memory, tools and mechanisms for managing the past;
- collective trauma and its role in the reflection on the past;
- documents and archives, techniques of working with them;
- biographies and shaping of historical consciousness.
The main journal topics are (No)Doubt, Theme of the issue, Theory and Methodology, Articles and Reports, Discussions, Sources, Reviews, Academic Life.
Submitted articles must contain the following elements:
- Introductory part, containing the statement of the problem and justification of the goal, the novelty and relevance of the presented research;
- Analysis of the sources and literature on the basis of which the research was carried out;
- Description of the methods used or theoretical basis;
- Analysis of arguments (main part);
- Conclusions.
We draw your attention that the submitted articles should correspond to the concept of the journal. The journal publishes manuscripts in which the past is perceived as a subject of constant processing in the framework of academic and non-academic practices. The Editorial Board of the journal prefers manuscripts that reflect not only the events of the past but rather different forms of reflection about it or a new look at the events - a new problem statement, use of new methods of analysis or introduction of new sources that open up a new perspective for the research. We expect these new aspects to be reflected in the submitted papers.
Sections of the journal and length of the manuscript:
Sections "(No)Doubt", “Main Issue”, “Theory and methodology”, “Articles”, “Sources”, "Discussion" are regular and peer-reviewed.
The recommended length of the article is from 20,000 to 40,000 characters, spaces included, taking into account all units of the article (see Author’s Guide).
The section “Main Issue” contains submitted articles on topics proposed in advance by the Editorial Board following the Annual Program.
In the section “Theory and Methodology” articles that highlight the current state of theoretical and methodological aspects of historical research are published.
Articles that are not related to the topic of the current issue are published in the section “Articles”.
In the “Sources” section previously unpublished sources and archival materials are introduced for further scientific use. The section is intended for the publications of written historical sources, narrative or documentary. In some cases, the Editorial Board may consider publishing a specific set of archaeological sources, although it is not possible to follow this practice in each of the issues. Priority is given to sources first introduced for scientific use through their archaeographic publication. Reprinting sources is not encouraged and should be justified.
In methodological terms, an archaeographic publication should meet the requirements of "Rules for the publication of historical documents in the USSR" (Moscow, 1990), as well as methodological recommendations for the publication of certain varieties of written historical sources (e.g. acts). In the structure of the publication, it is necessary to highlight the archaeographic introduction (foreword), an array of published documents (if there are several) and comments on them. Guided by the methodological recommendations of leading Russian archaeographers and counting on the development of an archaeographic culture of text transmission, we consider it necessary for the authors to justify the inclusion of the sources in the publication. The number of published documents, however, is not regulated. The recommended total amount of accepted materials is up to 40,000 characters, including spaces. Author’s Guide are identical to the requirements for manuscripts for other sections.
The “Discussion” section contains 4 authors' materials ranging from 15,000 to 20,000 characters each on the issues previously announced to the participants (related to the topic of the current issue) and based on questions formulated by the Editorial Board. The authors can choose all questions or just several to answer. The column "Discussion" is peer-reviewed, and therefore, the materials must contain all units of the manuscript structure (see. Author’s Guide). The Editorial Board invites leading experts, representing different points of view, to participate in the discussion.
The recommended length of manuscripts for section “Academic Chronicle” ranges from 15,000 to 18,000 characters (spaces included). The materials in these sections contain all units of a scientific article (see Author’s Guide).
Opinions articulated in published articles reflect personal views of authors and could not coincide with those of the Editorial Board.
«The Days of the Turbins» (1/2026)
Editors: Pavel G. Kultyshev, Andrey V. Venkov
Following our journal’s tradition to frame the themes of its issues through the motifs of great texts, the editors have chosen Mikhail Bulgakov's play "The Days of the Turbins", which celebrates its centenary in 2026. Its premiere became a turning point not only in the development of literature and theatre art but also in the entire history of interwar period in our country, marking a substantial change in the perception of the nation's recent past and, more broadly, all of its "pre-revolutionary" history. The public resonance of Bulgakov's play is eloquently illustrated by the fact that it was performed 987 times before the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.
The staging of "The Days of the Turbins" became a true challenge, presenting a completely different – until that moment strictly tabooed – side of the Russian Civil War. Here the defeated "Whites" were portrayed not as caricatured characters, but people with their own fears and mistakes, striving to preserve a fading past and to resist the impending changes. The issues raised by Mikhail Bulgakov in "The Days of the Turbins" remain relevant for understanding contemporary issues of identity and memory, especially given that modern Russian society is still far from not only a consensus on the perception of the events of the Civil War but also, more broadly, from "reconciliation" with its own past in a wider historical context.
The focus of this issue is on a wide range of problems inspired by the motifs of Bulgakov's play – the dialectic of continuity and discontinuity, of succession and the rupture of connections between eras during times of epochal change. How do the mechanisms of transmitting cultural experience transform when familiar social institutions collapse? In what ways are former values reinterpreted in conditions of systemic crisis? How and why does the rejection and tabooing of past historical experience occur, and for what reasons is partial or full rehabilitation of it undertaken after some time? Bulgakov's play provides food for thought on how family and close circles become the last bastion of stability – that very "safe harbor" where the characters attempt to maintain their usual way of life in the face of fateful historical changes. We invite authors to explore how universal this phenomenon is: in which other critical epochs did private spaces serve as a protective buffer against the chaos of the outside world?
Equally significant is the question of identifying "us" and "them" in the context of civil confrontation. The world of "The Days of the Turbins" demonstrates how fluid and conditional these boundaries are: yesterday's comrades turn into opponents, while recent enemies may become potential allies. The editorial board invites reflection on the self-identification processes during the Civil War and the reasons for the constant reconfiguration of its markers under the influence of circumstances, personal motives, and changing political conditions. How stable are the signs of group affiliation during periods of acute social conflict? What factors contribute to the blurring of boundaries or, on the contrary, the increasement of tensions between opposing sides?
A special place in this issue will be given to the problem of historical memory of the Civil War: how narratives about the events of 1917–1920 were formed and transformed within various social groups, and which mechanisms ensured the preservation or suppression of memories about the conflict. It is interesting to compare the artistic images of the play with historical evidence of the era. Where do they coincide, and where do they diverge – and why? How does a literary interpretation influence the collective perception of the historical past?
Finally, the editorial board invites discussion on the current state of historical science and public consciousness from the perspective suggested by the motifs of Bulgakov's play. What new sources and methodological approaches allow us today to rethink the events of the Russian Civil War? Why do the issues raised by Bulgakov remain relevant for understanding contemporary processes of identity and memory construction? We are convinced that a dialogue between artistic text and historical science opens new perspectives for comprehending the nature of social divisions and finding ways to overcome them.
"Provincial Sketches" (2/2026)
Editors: Maksim N. Krot, Alexander Yu. Bendin
The life of the Russian provinces found its reflection in the works of many Russian writers. Gogol, Leskov, Pisemsky, and Chekhov described it, although in different tones. Yet perhaps the most detailed study of life in Russian hinterland was conducted by Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, according to Dmitry Pisarev, "the leader of our denunciatory literature", whose bicentenary will be celebrated in 2026. The work that serves the literary foundation of this issue, "Provincial Sketches", brought the aspiring writer fame and marked his emergence as a relentless political satirist. The first publication of the "Sketches…" in the pages of the "Russian Messenger" («Russkiy Vestnik»), which 170th anniversary will be celebrated next year, symbolized to a large extent the advent of a new era – the era of "Thaw" and “Glasnost’”, when many distortions and vices of Russian life not only became vividly illuminated but also were mercilessly castigated in the public sphere. Beyond the sharp critical nature of the “Sketches…”, its immense popularity among readers was also due to the widely noted effect of authenticity, a distinctively proclaimed “commitment to plausibility”. That helped the “Sketches…” to be perceived as accurate depictions of Russian society due to specific details and prompted readers to look for real-life prototypes of the characters portrayed in the sketches. At the same time, the similarity of the fictional Krutogorsk, where the sketches take place, to Vyatka, which Saltykov knew well, should not mislead the reader. While describing the scenes of the town, its simple way of life, administration, and economy, creating a gallery of portraits of its inhabitants and visitors, the writer sought to construct a comprehensive image of the Russian provinces, to depict it as an integral part of the unified Russian “whole”, which reflects and represents this “whole” in a specific way. This is precisely the aspect of the “Sketches…” that determines the range of questions addressed in this issue.
It is well known that the history of any state unfolds on two spatial levels. The first one, meticulously recorded in historical annals, occurs primarily on the capital’s level, under the bright lights of spotlights catching the close attention of contemporaries and future generations – both participants and outside observers. It is the dimension where the most dramatic events involving great historical figures take place. The second, which attracted much less interest, is the life of provinces, subtly similar across different eras and peoples, often characterized as "quiet, peaceful," and sometimes even "remote." Nevertheless, how vast is indeed the gap between these two levels? What is the dialectical interdependence of life in capital and life in provinces? What is the grade of their interconnection and mutual alienation? To what extent does the reality of provinces, depicted in Saltykov-Shchedrin's "Sketches…" as a whimsical mixture of the real and the illusory, reflect and embody of the Russian state and society as a whole? Equally significant are the questions of how life in provinces evolved during eras of upheaval and socio-political turmoil. How were major historical events refracted on a local dimension? What conditions made provinces fertile ground where initiative and a new reality rapidly flourished, or, in contrast, a swamp in which innovations hopelessly sank?
The editorial board invites authors and readers to reflect on these and other questions related to the phenomenon of Russian provincial life, which inspired many generations of Russian intellectuals with both fear of its dark and consuming depths and awe of its eternally dormant forces.
"Radetzky March" (3/2026)
Editors: Andrey V. Korenevskiy, Ashot A. Melkonian
The theme of this issue of "The New Past" was inspired by the novel of Joseph Roth, which, alongside the works of Stefan Zweig, Rainer Maria Rilke, and Gustav Meyrink, is traditionally associated with Finis Austriae – the era marking the decline of one of the most brilliant monarchies of the Modern Age. The novel’s plot metaphorically synchronizes two layers of events: the decline of the "imperial Slavs" family, Trotta von Sipolje, and the disintegration of the state that three generations of Trotta family faithfully served. The choice of the novel's title is also deeply symbolic referring to the march by Johann Strauss Sr., dedicated to a Czech aristocrat who became the most celebrated Austrian military commander. The multiple overt and hidden meanings, as well as the metaphorical structure of this novel, provide reason to reflect on issues that are the priority for our journal. On the one hand, the disappearance of a state of such scale from the historical stage falls within our interest in the issues of historical ruptures and cultural memory. Empires like the Austrian one undoubtedly serve as pivotal mnemonic actors in world history. By transforming chaos into order, they, as Arnold J. Toynbee once keenly observed, "win so powerful a hold on the affections and imaginations of their subjects that these cannot imagine living without them". Even if such former colossi are negatively assessed at the moment of their collapse, imperial nostalgia almost inevitably gains strength over generations. This brings us to another, no less important aspect of the journal's focus, reflected in its title: the continuous renewal of memory of the past and the knowledge about it, or at least what we perceive as such knowledge.
Finis Austriae represents an almost ideal model case for a comparative study of the entire spectrum of problems of Empire Studies in the broadest spatial and chronological context. We invite contributions addressing questions such as: are the decline and fall of empires fatal, or is their degree of adaptability significantly higher than generally assumed? How relevant is the analytical language applied to these political systems? The language, which is entirely composed of oppositions ranging from the contrast between "maritime" and "continental" empires, and empire itself versus the nation-state, to such clichéd antitheses as metropolis-colony and center-periphery. Today, when the phrase "imperial nation" no longer seems like an oxymoron, it may be time to reconsider other established oppositions as well. Moreover, it is appropriate to ask whether we are dealing with familiar, and therefore almost unnoticed, cognitive aberrations – those very "traps of dichotomies", in Otto G. Oexle's words, which tempt us with the simplicity of black-and-white thinking instead of a gradient of shades.
"From the outskirts to the center" (4/2026)
Editors: Evgeny V. Vdovchenkov, Svyatoslav V. Smirnov
At first glance, referring to Joseph Brodsky's poem to frame the theme of an issue dedicated to current problems in the history and archaeology of the ancient city may seem somewhat strange. However, this text, as well as the author’s consciousness, actually contains a deep historical substrate shaped by many millennia of urban culture and, first and foremost, of the ancient tradition. Although the poem was written by a poet of the Sixtiers about Leningrad in the final years of the "Thaw", two factors should be considered. Firstly, it is the significance of classical images and motifs in general for Brodsky's poetry and worldview. Secondly, the fact that both in content and style, through reference to the genre of elegy, the author engages in a dialogue with the classics of Russian literature (primarily Alexander Pushkin and Yevgeny Baratynsky), and thanks to them—with the poetic tradition of Greece and Rome, which gave rise to this genre and further nurtured it.
On the other hand, the vector of unfolding the elegiac chronotope chosen by Brodsky paradoxically resonates with the approaches used by historians and archaeologists in studying ancient cities. The poet immerses the reader in the space of his native city, mentally moving from the outskirts to the center, starting with the industrial-port area ("this locality of love, the peninsula of factories, paradise of workshops, haven of river steamers"). Likewise, an archaeologist usually begins exploring a city from its periphery – the suburbs (khors), country estates, fortifications, as well as widely scattered but reliable signs of its existence: coins, stamps on pottery, imported goods that have passed through its port. The solemn and magnificent center does not reveal itself immediately to the researcher’s eye. At times, it lies beneath later constructions (like ancient Chersonesus under Byzantine layers, or ancient Rome and Athens under modern buildings). At other times it is buried under ruins and remains indeterminable (as in Tanais). A historian studying ancient cities, mainly using written sources, likewise approaches the subject of their research from the perspective of an external observer rather than an insider, a native resident. For most ancient cities, its descriptions starting from the harbors and walls have been preserved by those for whom the city reveals itself.
The issue, which will be published in the year marking the 30th anniversary of Joseph Brodsky's death, emphasizes the relevance of the poet's work — along with the relevance for the historical sciences under the aegis of Clio. We invite contributions on a range of topics in historical urban studies, related to the issues of the center and periphery of urban space:
the city as a socio-cultural phenomenon – concepts and problems of terminology; theories of city origins;
the "spatial turn" and the ancient city – the concepts of "center" and "periphery" in the early 21st century;
topography of cities and urban necropoleis; the city and its surroundings – models of interaction;
sacred topography of the city;
urban institutions;
the private and the public in city life.
The date of paper acceptance to an issue is the date of positive decision on the publication made at a meeting of the Editorial Board.