Historian: important discoveries were made on the "royal" remains

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Will the Russian Orthodox Church, after the latest examinations, recognize the so-called "Yekaterinburg remains" - the remains of the family of the last Russian emperor?

The unequivocal answer to this question is still sealed with seven seals: according to the law, experts cannot disclose research results until the investigation is closed.

Nevertheless, as an exception, individual conversations with researchers, with the permission of the Investigative Committee, are now published by the church portal Pravoslavie.ru.

On the eve of the big conference on the "Yekaterinburg remains" RIA Novosti correspondent Sergei Stefanov spoke with a famous Orthodox publicist and historian, researcher of the fate of the royal family Anatoly Stepanov, which is authorized by the patriarchal commission to record and publish conversations with experts.

Anatoly Dmitrievich, why was the decision made to publish some of the data?

- Research into the "Yekaterinburg remains" is known to have a long history. In the 90s, many Orthodox Christians developed a distrust of the investigation and the results of the examinations. There are many reasons for this, the main of which is the haste and pressure of the secular authorities on the Church.

The new phase of the research, which began in 2015, is taking place with the active participation of representatives of the Church. Recently, however, some representatives of the Orthodox community have begun to show concern about the lack of information about the progress of the research, the opinion has begun to spread that they are being carried out behind the scenes, "behind the backs of the people."

To dispel these doubts and rumors, the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church turned to the Investigative Committee of Russia with a request to allow experts bound by a nondisclosure agreement to publicly disclose the results of their work.

For greater objectivity, the secretary of the Patriarchal Commission for the Study of the Remains, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Yegoryevsk, suggested interviewing three people who were known as active critics of the investigation in the 90s and 2000s: the candidate of historical sciences Peter Multatuli, historian and journalist Leonid Bolotin and to your humble servant. Multatuli refused, and Leonid Evgenievich and I agreed. For various reasons, I recorded the first few interviews without Bolotin's participation, although I coordinated the questions with the researchers. We recorded an interview with historian Yevgeny Vladimirovich Pchelov together, it will be published soon.

- I cannot say that I changed my position. In the 90s and 2000s, I, like many members of the Orthodox community who were more or less familiar with the topic, had a lack of confidence in the investigation. Now there is no such mistrust.

Firstly, because the investigation is taking place in close cooperation and even under the control of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, which we have been striving for all these years.

Secondly, experts who had previously criticized the findings of the investigation and were skeptical about the results of the examinations were involved in the study, for example, the St. Petersburg forensic scientist Professor Vyacheslav Popov. Talking with experts, I want for myself, first of all, to understand this most difficult, but also the most important problem not only for our past, but, I am sure, for the future as well. I still have a lot of questions.

- As you know, the final position of the Church was formulated at a meeting of the Holy Synod on July 17, 1997, on the day when, at the insistence of the secular authorities, the remains were buried in the Peter and Paul Fortress without the participation of the Patriarch and bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The essence of the position of the hierarchy was that it was necessary to continue the work of the state commission, since the Church did not receive convincing answers to the 10 questions it raised at the meeting of the Synod on October 6, 1995 and worked out by the commission on November 15, 1995.

Let me remind you of some of them: a complete anthropological study of bone remains; analysis of the conclusions of the Kolchak government investigation on the complete destruction of the entire royal family and comparison of other results of the investigation of 1918-1924 and the modern investigation; a graphological, stylistic examination of Yurovsky's Notes (on the shooting of the royal family. - Ed. note); examination of the callus on the skull No. 4 (presumably, Nicholas II. - Ed. note); confirmation or refutation of the ritual nature of the murder; confirmation or refutation of evidence of the severing of the head of Nicholas II immediately after his murder. These questions are in the center of attention of experts today. And we hope to receive convincing answers to them. And some have already been received.

- I can only talk about what I have heard from the experts. As far as I know, the genetic examination, including the comparison of the remains of Emperor Alexander III and skeleton No. 4 - the alleged remains of Tsar Nicholas II - has not yet been completed. I, at least, did not talk with geneticists and I can not say anything about this.

I talked with an anthropologist, dentist, forensic experts, historians. From the new data, we can note the assertion of anthropologist Denis Pezhemsky and forensic scientist Vyacheslav Popov that traces of a saber blow were found on skull No. 4 (an attempt was made on the life of Tsarevich Nicholas in 1891 in Japan; previous examinations of the blow did not reveal. - Ed..). This is a very important piece of evidence. We are waiting for the publication of photographs and the results of the analysis.

- As far as I understand, the first task of the new investigation was to put in order the investigation case, since it turned out that there was no documentary confirmation of many of the examinations carried out. According to experts, the new investigation is of a more systemic nature, many new examinations are appointed.

The previous investigation relied mainly on genetic expertise and paid the main attention to it. Today, in addition to forensic medicine, an anthropological examination has been carried out. And the genetic material is organized much more thoroughly - the genetic material is carefully encrypted, they say, even personally by the Holy Patriarch, so that the mosquito does not undermine the nose (we are talking about the numbering of body tissue samples taken for examination personally by Patriarch Kirill. - Ed.).

Historical examination continues, which has raised many questions in the past. Historians have been asked a huge number of questions, starting with the circumstances of the so-called abdication of the sovereign and ending with an analysis of the investigative case of Nikolai Sokolov (since 1919 he has been conducting an investigation into the murder of the royal family. - Ed.) And various testimonies of the organizers and participants in the regicide. Historical expertise is still ongoing.

The so-called "Yurovsky's Note" raises many questions. As far as I know, today not only handwriting examination is being carried out, but also author's examination, designed to answer the question of whether Yurovsky was involved in its compilation, or whether the note was the work of the Soviet historian Pokrovsky. An attempt is being made to establish from the author's handwriting of the inscription of the couplet from Heinrich Heine on the wall of the basement of the Ipatiev house (in Heine's poem it is said about the murder of the last Babylonian king Belshazzar. - Ed.).

As far as I know, the new investigation appoints expert examinations in the course of the investigation, if the need arises. At one of the last working meetings, the head of the Investigative Committee asked forensic experts to conduct an examination, which would answer the question about the possibility of dissolving the human body in sulfuric acid.

- Well, I can only judge competently about historical problems. For example, historians are faced with the problem of the loss of some archives, including such an important source as the minutes of the meetings of the presidium of the Ural Regional Council, where the fate of the royal family was discussed. There is a version that the archive disappeared during the Nevyansk anti-Bolshevik uprising.

Another problem is that we will probably never know what the main organizers (as one might assume) of the regicide Yakov Sverdlov and Isaak Goloshchekin agreed on in July 1918, when Goloshchekin lived at Sverdlov's apartment in Moscow during the V Congress of Soviets. There are also a number of questions regarding the reconstruction of the historical canvas of events, which can only be answered guessingly.

- Two bodies, the remains of which were found in 2007, were burned. Only 170 grams of bones remained from them, and after examinations carried out in 2007 - and as some believe, simply because of slovenliness - 70 grams. Therefore, it is impossible to carry out similar examinations. They say that geneticists managed to take "pure" material for the examination of these remains. But according to the analysis of the preserved bones, anthropologist Denis Pezhemsky can only assert that these are the remains of an already formed girl and child, whose age and gender he cannot determine.

- This problem is very difficult. Unfortunately, the formed distrust of the previous investigation sometimes extends to the activities of the current investigation. Conspiracy theories of the events are being expressed. However, on the whole, according to my observations, the majority of believers still treat the ongoing research with confidence - precisely for the reason that they are carried out in close cooperation with the Church. The topic of identification is important, first of all, for the educated and politically active part of believers, therefore it is presented in the media space.

- Vladyka Tikhon, by the way, for many years was among those who were skeptical about the results of the identification of the “Yekaterinburg remains” carried out in the 90s. Like the current holy patriarch Kirill. It is just stupid and groundless to accuse them of some kind of engagement.

There is, indeed, a small but active group of representatives of the Orthodox community, which takes an irreconcilable position: they have no questions, and the conclusions of the investigator Nikolai Sokolov about the destruction of the bodies of the royal family and their servants are immutable. On June 18, a conference was held in Moscow in the palace of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in Kolomenskoye, where this kind of mood prevailed. I participated in this meeting.

It was there that I fully felt the pressure when some people present in the hall interrupted me and tried to disrupt my performance. But I am glad that many of my old friends and colleagues, despite disagreements on some issues, have maintained friendly relations with me.

- Such people, according to my observations, are few. And their influence in the Church is not that strong. By the way, they themselves do not represent a kind of monolithic unity, since there are serious disagreements between them on other issues of church life. And in this sense, I do not see a real threat of a split in the Russian Orthodox Church on this issue.

I think that the initiative of the hierarchy to start discussing the topic through a series of interviews is designed to remove some questions by organizing a broad church discussion.

- The position of the Holy Patriarch on this score, as I heard from various sources, is this: they will investigate as long as questions remain. Haste is not needed here. The hierarchy is not attached to any dates. Since all the examinations have not been completed yet, it is unlikely that the Council of Bishops will make any decision.

Perhaps the bishops will be familiarized with the preliminary results of the examinations, as the members of the Holy Synod were informed about in June this year. Hopefully, by the 100th anniversary of the villainous murder of the royal family and their servants - by July 1918 - this issue will become clear.

It must be borne in mind that obtaining the results of the examinations is the completion of only the scientific and investigative part of this process. And then, if these are indeed the relics of the Holy Royal Passion-bearers and their servants, they must “manifest themselves” by miracles. After all, the Church has its own unique thousand-year experience of revealing the authenticity of the relics. So, I believe, the matter will not end with scientific examinations.

- I believe that this is the main task of the planned conference. The Orthodox community must hear firsthand the answers to all the questions that concern us.

- The monastery in honor of the holy Royal Passion-Bearers on Ganina Yama was created on the place where the bodies of the martyrs were mocked, where they were destroyed. Nothing has changed and will not change.

Whether the bodies were completely destroyed on Ganina Yama or they could not be destroyed there and taken to another place, and in the end they were able to burn only two bodies at the stake, and the rest were buried in a hole in Pig's Log, - the experts must answer us.

If this turns out to be true, the place of veneration in the Pig's Log will simply be added to the place of veneration of the Royal Passion-Bearers on Ganina Yama.