Lakhtionova E.S. —
State registration of industrial heritage monuments in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions (1940-1980s): comparative analysis
// Historical informatics. – 2024. – ¹ 4.
– P. 18 - 29.
DOI: 10.7256/2585-7797.2024.4.72467
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/istinf/article_72467.html
Read the article
Abstract: The object of the study is monuments of industrial heritage on the territory of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions in the 1940-1980s. The subject of the study is the final stage of registering these monuments with the state, associated with the inclusion of these objects in the state lists of monuments. The purpose of the work is to conduct a comparative analysis of the number of industrial heritage objects registered with the state as monuments. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that until now no one has dealt with the problem posed in this article.
The sources were lists of historical and cultural monuments in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions. Some of the sources are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. The methodology of the work consisted of a series of stages, implying the use of both general scientific methods and special historical ones.
As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that by 1989, 37 objects of industrial heritage were registered with the state in the Sverdlovsk region, and 22 objects in the Chelyabinsk region. In relation to the total number of historical and cultural monuments registered, this amounted to 5.8 and 5.6%, respectively. Geographically, the monuments were concentrated not only in regional centers, but also in smaller cities. 18 industrial heritage sites in the Sverdlovsk region had the status of monuments of republican significance, and in the Chelyabinsk region only 1 site had this status. 54 objects out of 59 in both regions were registered as monuments of urban planning and architecture. The author came to the conclusion that the activities for state registration of industrial heritage monuments in the Sverdlovsk region were carried out a little more targeted and efficiently compared to the Chelyabinsk region.
Lakhtionova E.S. —
Section of monuments of Science and technology VOOPIK: history and main activities (on the example of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions)
// Genesis: Historical research. – 2023. – ¹ 6.
– P. 122 - 133.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-868X.2023.6.41012
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/hr/article_41012.html
Read the article
Abstract: The object of the study is the section of monuments of science and technology of the VOOPIK. The subject is the activity of the section of monuments of science and technology for the identification, study, accounting, preservation and updating of the corresponding category of monuments. The purpose of the study is to reconstruct the history of the emergence and functioning of this structural unit in the 1960s-1980s. The territorial framework is limited to the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions, the leading industrial regions of the Urals, on the territory of which there were a large number of monuments of science and technology, monuments of industrial heritage. The author studies the history of the formation of the section of monuments of science and technology, and also gives a description of various types of its activities on the materials of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions. The problem posed has not yet been the subject of special study, and has only been touched upon in the context of the study of history in general of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments and its regional branches, in particular. This determines the scientific novelty of the article. The source material is represented by archival materials, many of which are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, for example, unique information about the project to create a Museum of the History of Science and Technology in Chelyabinsk. The author comes to the conclusion that there were both similar directions and significant differences in the activities of these sections. This was determined by several reasons. Of great importance was the personal factor, which also influenced the effectiveness of the functioning of the section of monuments of science and technology