If we consider science as a field of free competition of ideas, then it is natural to write its history as the history of “winners”—scientists who have made great discoveries and achieved universal recognition. However, in reality, the work of a scientist depends not only on talent and hard work, but also on his place in the scientific hierarchy, as well as on external circumstances, in particular on state policy. It is especially important to take this into account when studying the humanities in the USSR, which was favorable only to those who unconditionally shared the dogmas of Marxist-Leninist ideology and did not deviate from the party line. The book by S. Krich tells about the fate of Soviet historians of antiquity, primarily those who remained on the periphery of scientific life. Among them were both true nonconformists and those who gravitated towards the mainstream, but were unable to integrate into it. The author examines in detail the behavioral strategies of “peripheral” historians, the processes of interaction between the “periphery” and the “core” and, finally, the trends in the development (or extinction) of ideas in the Soviet historical science of antiquity. The study of this material allows us to answer in a new way the question of what ultimately happened in Soviet historical science and whether there was an alternative. Sergey Krikh – Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Faculty of History of Omsk State University named after F. M. Dostoevsky.