|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Historical informatics
Reference:
Lakhtionova E.S.
State registration of industrial heritage monuments in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions (1940-1980s): comparative analysis
// Historical informatics.
2024. № 4.
P. 18-29.
DOI: 10.7256/2585-7797.2024.4.72467 EDN: NBORCW URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=72467
State registration of industrial heritage monuments in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions (1940-1980s): comparative analysis
DOI: 10.7256/2585-7797.2024.4.72467EDN: NBORCWReceived: 24-11-2024Published: 01-12-2024Abstract: 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. Keywords: Monument, industrial heritage, accounting, security, industrial architecture, lists of monuments, administrative documentation, regional executive committee, Sverdlovsk region, Chelyabinsk regionThis article is automatically translated. Introduction The process of placing objects of historical and cultural heritage on state registration in the 1940s and 1980s included a number of stages that required painstaking and serious preparation. This was spelled out in detail in a number of documents: "Instructions on the procedure for accounting, registration and maintenance of archaeological and historical monuments on the territory of the RSFSR" (1949), "Instructions on the procedure for accounting, registration, maintenance and restoration of architectural monuments under state protection" [18, pp. 92-128] (1949), which were used until the mid-1980s. In 1986, a new document was prepared and published – "Instructions on the procedure for accounting, ensuring the safety, maintenance, use and restoration of immovable historical and cultural monuments" [8], according to which state accounting included the identification, inspection of monuments, determination of their historical, scientific, artistic or other cultural value, fixation and study, compilation of accounting documents, maintenance of state lists of immovable monuments [8, p. 6]. This article will consider the last, important stage of placing monuments on state registration, related to the maintenance of state lists of objects that have been assigned the status of monuments of local, republican or all-Union significance, fixed by relevant normative legal acts [8, pp. 9-10]. The purpose of the article is to conduct a comparative analysis of the number of industrial heritage monuments placed under state protection in the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions in the 1940s and 1980s. It should be noted that in the chronological period under study, there was no concept of "monument of industrial heritage" either in the scientific literature, or even more so in legislation [14]. Therefore, in this study we will use terms and categories developed by modern historical science, but adapting them to the realities of the Soviet period. Industrial heritage is currently understood as "a part of the material cultural heritage, a set of buildings, artifacts produced by society using labor, which are considered important enough to preserve them for future generations" [7, p. 79]. According to the classification proposed by the Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor V. V. Zapari, monuments of industrial heritage, in accordance with their functions, are divided into: "1) production centers: workshops, metallurgical plants and factories, mines and places where there is any production or transformation process; 2) warehouses and storages: for storage raw materials, semi-finished products and finished products; 3) energy: places where energy is generated, transmitted and used, and places that provide and use water; 4) transport: passenger and cargo vehicles and their infrastructure, consisting of railways, ports, roads and air terminals; 5) social environment: places where the activity of the enterprise is associated with certain conditions, such as settlements of workers, services, schools or churches" [6, p. 36]. In historical science, there are other criteria for the typologization of monuments of industrial heritage [1]. However, in this study we will adhere to the classification of V. V. Zaparia, since it allows us to most accurately identify in the total mass of historical and cultural monuments registered with the state, only those that can now be attributed to industrial heritage. Materials and methods of research The sources for this study were the lists of historical and cultural monuments, which were appendices to the resolutions of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR and decisions of state bodies of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions. It was on the basis of these documents that the previously identified objects were registered as monuments of national or local significance. Most of these documents are kept in archives and are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. At the central level, it is necessary to note the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR No. 1327 of August 30, 1960 "On further improvement of the protection of cultural monuments in the RSFSR". This normative legal act was supplemented by Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 624 of December 04, 1974 "On the Addition and partial Amendment of Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR of August 30, 1960 No. 1327 "On further improvement of the protection of cultural monuments in the RSFSR" [20, L. 1-10]. According to these resolutions, the objects received the status of monuments of national importance. At the regional level, it is necessary to note the administrative documents according to which the identified objects of industrial heritage were placed under state protection as monuments of local importance. In the Sverdlovsk region, during the period under study, a number of the following decisions were made: Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee No. 587 dated August 12, 1966. "On the state and measures to improve the protection of historical and cultural monuments in the Sverdlovsk region" [21, l. 1, 3], Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee No. 63 dated January 30, 1969. "On taking industrial architecture monuments under state protection" [4, L. 5], Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee No. 636 dated August 05, 1971. "On the state and measures to improve the protection and promotion of historical and cultural monuments in the region" [22, l. 1-6], Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee No. 16 of January 11, 1980, Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee No. 454 of December 04, 1986, Sverdlovsk Regional Executive Committee No. 535 of December 31, 1987. At the level of the Chelyabinsk region, it is necessary to note the decisions of: Chelyabinsk Regional Executive Committee No. 960 of August 31, 1949, Chelyabinsk Regional Executive Committee No. 154 of March 30, 1971 "On the protection of monuments of industrial, civil and religious architecture of the XVIII-XIX centuries on the territory of the Chelyabinsk region" [15, L. 49-54], Chelyabinsk Regional Executive Committee No. 371 of September 20 1977, Chelyabinsk Regional Executive Committee No. 211 dated April 20, 1978. The "Lists of historical and Cultural monuments" were also used as sources, which were a separate type of documents, such as, for example, in the Chelyabinsk region: "Lists of monuments of industrial, civil and religious architecture in the territory of the Chelyabinsk region" (1981) [16], "List of historical and cultural monuments of the Chelyabinsk region located in on state protection" (1989) [17]. Regarding the Sverdlovsk region, the most valuable source of information was published in 1989. "A comprehensive program of identification, certification, registration, restoration, museification, promotion and use of historical and cultural monuments of the Sverdlovsk region" [9]. Among the main methods used to achieve the goal, it is necessary to name historical-comparative (allowed to compare the studied objects in historical dynamics), statistical (helped to present the data obtained in quantitative terms), historical-typological (allowed to identify among the total mass of historical and cultural monuments registered, only those that relate to industrial heritage, according to the modern classification). The novelty of the proposed research topic lies in the fact that none of the scientists has so far isolated objects that belong to the industrial heritage from the total mass of monuments registered in the 1940s and 1980s, and has not conducted a comparative analysis of their number and categories. Among those who also used lists of historical and cultural monuments to conduct a quantitative analysis of the total mass of registered objects, it is necessary to name an article by L. S. Antonenko and M. V. Goloborodsky, in which scientists analyze statistical data on objects of historical and cultural heritage of the Sverdlovsk region, of which industrial is a part [3]. The results of the study In the total number of historical and cultural monuments registered by 1989, we identified only those objects that can now be attributed to industrial heritage (see Table 1). Table 1. The ratio of the number of industrial heritage monuments to the total number of historical and cultural monuments registered with the state (data for 1989).
Sources: The United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk Region (OGACHO). F. R-12. Op. 1. D. 136. L. 88-89; A comprehensive program for identification, certification, registration, restoration, museification, propaganda and use of historical and cultural monuments of the Sverdlovsk region. Sverdlovsk: B.I., 1989. p. 16. Thus, by 1989, the number of monuments of industrial heritage registered with the state amounted to 5.8% of the total number of registered monuments in the Sverdlovsk region, and 5.6% in the Chelyabinsk region. As we can see from the above list of administrative documents of central and local importance, in the Sverdlovsk Region, objects now classified as industrial heritage were registered fairly evenly throughout the 1960s and 1980s (see diagram 1). Figure 1. The total number of industrial heritage sites registered by the state in the Sverdlovsk region (data for 1989)
Source: Comprehensive program for identification, certification, registration, restoration, museification, promotion and use of historical and cultural monuments of the Sverdlovsk region. Sverdlovsk: B.I., 1989. pp. 39-125. In the Chelyabinsk Region, registration of industrial heritage sites began in 1949, and the largest number of monuments were placed under state protection in the 1970s (see diagram 2). In the 1980s, of course, historical and cultural monuments were registered, but among them there are none that can be classified as industrial heritage, so these decisions were not taken into account in this study. Figure 2. The total number of industrial heritage sites registered with the state in the Chelyabinsk region (data for 1989)
Source: OGACHO. F. R-12. Op. 1. D. 92, 122, 126, 136. As can be seen from Diagrams 1 and 2, by 1989 37 objects of industrial heritage had been put on state registration in the Sverdlovsk Region, and 22 objects in the Chelyabinsk Region. There are several reasons for this difference in numbers. Firstly, the Sverdlovsk region was one of the largest and oldest industrial areas not only in the Urals, but also in the whole country, rich in monuments of industrial heritage. Secondly, the presence in the Sverdlovsk region of a solid scientific base (Institute of History and Archaeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Ural Polytechnic Institute, Ural State University, Ural branch of the Moscow Architectural Institute (then – Sverdlovsk Architectural Institute) made it possible to identify, survey, study and certify monuments of industrial heritage at high theoretical and practical levels. Thirdly, it was Sverdlovsk architects who, before other specialists, drew attention to the need not only to study, but also to preserve monuments of industrial architecture, which include objects of industrial heritage [5],[19]. Based on the achievements of N. S. Alferov and A. E. Korotkovsky in the 1970s and 1980s, the scientific program "Stone Belt" was developed, aimed, among other things, at demonstrating the historical and cultural value of mining historical and architectural complexes of the Urals [2]. Students, postgraduates and young teachers of the Sverdlovsk Architectural Institute actively participated in the implementation of this program [10]. This direction in the field of preservation of monuments of industrial architecture, initiated by Ural scientists, laid the foundations for scientific research on the problems of preserving monuments of industrial heritage in subsequent years. Active work was also carried out in the Chelyabinsk region to identify and subsequently register monuments of industrial heritage. A major role in this was played by state bodies [12], the section of historical monuments of science and technology of the regional branch of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments [13], as well as individuals, for example, K. A. Shishov. However, as history shows, the Sverdlovsk Region remained in the most advanced positions among all the regions of the Urals in this regard. It also follows from Diagram 1 that in the Sverdlovsk region 18 sites have received the status of monuments of national importance (according to the resolutions of the Council of Ministers of 1960 and 1974). In the Chelyabinsk region, one object received a similar status – the Kommunar steam locomotive – in 1974. It is quite difficult to categorize monuments placed under state protection according to any modern classification proposed by modern historical science, since often regulatory documents did not specify exactly which part of the plant was registered. For example, the name of a monument of national significance called "The complex of structures of the Bilimbaevsky Plant" [20, l. 9] could include a dam, workshops, a plant management building and some other objects of industrial heritage. However, some documents also specify what exactly acquires the status of a monument, for example, "The complex of structures of the Sysertsky plant (workshops, dam, waterworks)" [20, l. 8], "The retaining wall of the dam on the Olkhovka river" or "The building of the factory office of the Kusinsky iron Smelting and Ironworks" [15, l. 52]. However, it is possible to single out the categories officially established in normative legal acts, including the USSR Law of October 29, 1976 "On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments" in the total number of monuments of industrial heritage registered with the state (see table 2). Table 2. The ratio of different categories of monuments in the total number of industrial heritage sites put on state protection (data for 1989)
Sources: OGACHO. F. R-12. Op. 1. d. 92, 122, 126, 136; A comprehensive program for identification, certification, registration, restoration, museification, propaganda and use of historical and cultural monuments of the Sverdlovsk region. Sverdlovsk: B.I., 1989. pp. 22-125. As can be seen from the table, almost all monuments placed under state protection and now classified as industrial heritage belonged to the category of monuments of urban planning and architecture, and only five – to historical monuments. It is quite interesting to trace how the state-registered monuments of industrial heritage were distributed among individual cities and districts within each region (see diagrams 3 and 4). Figure 3. Distribution of industrial heritage monuments by cities and districts of the Sverdlovsk region (data for 1989)
Source: Comprehensive program for identification, certification, registration, restoration, museification, promotion and use of historical and cultural monuments of the Sverdlovsk region. Sverdlovsk: B.I., 1989. pp. 39-125. Figure 4. Distribution of industrial heritage monuments by cities and districts of the Chelyabinsk region (data for 1989).
Source: OGACHO. F. R-12. Op. 1. D. 92, 122, 126, 136. As can be seen from diagrams 3 and 4, in both regions, a greater number of monuments were registered in the regional center. At the same time, there are 5 out of 10 monuments in Sverdlovsk (the retaining wall of the dam on the Olkhovka river (1960), the VISA management building (1974), the water tower at the intersection of Donbasskaya and Kultury streets (1974), buildings and structures of the Yekaterinburg ironworks "Monetka" (1974), the lattice of the dam of the city pond on Lenin Ave. (1974)) had republican status, and in Chelyabinsk 1 out of 4 (steam locomotive "Kommunar"). Conclusion Thus, the process of placing industrial heritage sites on state registration included several stages, each of which was quite important. The final stage was to give the identified objects the official status of monuments of local or republican significance by including them in the state lists of monuments. Security activities in relation to historical and cultural monuments in the whole country acquired special importance after the end of the Great Patriotic War. Although the military actions did not affect the Urals, however, the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 3898 of October 14, 1948 "On measures to improve the protection of cultural monuments" adopted in 1948 contributed to the identification and subsequent registration of historical and cultural monuments, including industrial heritage. In the 1970s, in connection with the adoption of the USSR Law of October 29, 1976 "On the protection and Use of historical and Cultural monuments", lists of the most valuable objects began to be even more actively maintained, which were divided into monuments of national significance and monuments of local significance, depending on whose balance these objects were transferred to. In the Sverdlovsk Region, 18 objects out of 37 had the status of monuments of national significance, and in the Chelyabinsk region, 1 object out of 18 registered had this status. The transfer of monuments to the balance of local authorities made it possible in the 1970s and 1980s to ensure a more careful attitude towards monuments on the part of Soviet residents. Since 1965, the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments has been involved in the process of state registration of historical and cultural objects, including industrial heritage. Sometimes it was thanks to the initiative of its regional branches that some monuments of industrial heritage were saved, for example, the Seversk blast furnace in Polevskaya (Sverdlovsk region) [11]. Individual residents of the Urals also took an active part in the process of identifying, studying, and then compiling lists of objects recommended for state protection. In the Sverdlovsk region, architects N. S. Alferov, G. S. Zaikin, Yu. A. Vladimirsky and others can be named. And in the Chelyabinsk region, a lot of work was done in the 1970s and 1980s by engineer, local historian and writer K. A. Shishov, the compiler of the one-of-a-kind "Catalog of monuments of the History of Science and Technology of the Chelyabinsk region", as well as the ideological inspirer and developer of the project to create a Museum of Science and Technology in Chelyabinsk. By 1989, 37 industrial heritage sites had been registered with the state in the Sverdlovsk Region, which amounted to 5.8% of the total number of all historical and cultural monuments under state protection. In the neighboring Chelyabinsk region, 22 objects of industrial heritage were registered, which amounted to 5.6% of the total number of monuments. These data indicate that in both areas, the activity of placing industrial heritage monuments on state registration was approximately at the same level. The presence of 18 objects with the status of monuments of national significance in the Sverdlovsk region among the registered ones may indicate a more intensive work of local government authorities and representatives of public organizations, since it was on them that the initiation of the process of registering the identified objects in one status or another depended. The fact that the vast majority of registered monuments of industrial heritage in both regions were listed as monuments of urban planning and architecture (54 out of 59 objects), and only 5 as historical monuments, indicates the perception in the 1940s and 1980s of this category of objects, primarily as monuments of industrial architecture. Thus, the activities of various actors in registering monuments of industrial heritage were part of the state policy of the Soviet state for the protection of historical and cultural heritage as a whole. In the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions, as regions with a rich industrial past, this activity was most clearly manifested in the 1960s and 1980s, which was in line with global trends that indicated the emergence of the movement for the preservation of industrial heritage. References
1. Alekseeva, E. V. (2010). Study and preservation of industrial heritage in the world and in the Urals: current methodological problems. In eds. V.V. Zapariy & S.P. Postnikov. Eighth Tatishchev Readings: reports and messages (pp. 41-45). Ekaterinburg: Publishing House UMC UPI.
2. Alferov, N. S. & Zaikin, G. S. & Korotkovsky, E. A. & Starikov, A. A. (1975). Program of scientific and creative specialization of the Sverdlovsk Architectural Institute “Stone Belt”. Sverdlovsk: Sverdlovsk Architectural Institute. 3. Antonenko, L. S. & Goloborodsky, M. V. (2022). On the issue of the history of protection of monuments of historical and cultural heritage in the Sverdlovsk region. Academic bulletin UralNIIproekt RAASN, 3(54), 79-84. doi:10.25628/UNIIP.2022.54.3.013. 4. State Archive of the Russian Federation. F. A-639. Op. 1. D. 258. 5. Zaikin, G.S. (1977). Architectural and urban planning principles of complex conservation and use of historical and architectural monuments: Author's abstract. diss. ...cand. architecture. Moscow: without publisher. 6. Zapariy, V.V. (2009). “Industrial heritage” and its modern interpretation. Academic bulletin UralNIIproekt RASSN, 1, 34-38. 7. Zapariy, V.V. (2008). On the issue of understanding the concept of “industrial heritage” in Russia and abroad. Russian scientific journal, 2, 77-83. 8. Instructions on the procedure for recording, ensuring the safety, maintenance, use and restoration of immovable monuments of history and culture (1988). In no editor. Moscow: Printing house of the Ministry of Culture of the USSR. 9. A comprehensive program for identifying, certification, registration, restoration, museumification, propaganda and use of historical and cultural monuments of the Sverdlovsk region (1989). Sverdlovsk: without publisher. 10. Korotkovsky, A. E., Zaikin, G. S. & Starikov, A. A. (1978). Comprehensive program of scientific, creative and socio-political activities of students of the Sverdlovsk Architectural Institute in the field of nature conservation, preservation of historically valuable buildings, transformation and reconstruction of the architectural and spatial environment Ural region “Stone Belt”. Part 1. Sverdlovsk: Sverdlovsk Architectural Institute. 11. Lakhtionova, E. S. (2023). History of saving the industrial heritage monument “Severskaya Blast Furnace” in the 1960-1980s. History and modern perspectives, 5(2), 113–119. doi:10.33693/2658-4654-2023-5-2-113-119 12. Lakhtionova, E. S. (2024). The role of government authorities in preserving the industrial heritage of the Chelyabinsk region (1960–1980s). Scientific dialogue, 13(3), 488-505. doi:10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-3-488-505 13. Lakhtionova, E.S. (2023). Section of monuments of Science and technology VOOPIK: history and main activities (on the example of the Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions). Genesis: Historical research, 6, 122-133. doi:10.25136/2409-868X.2023.6.41012 Retrieved from http://en.e-notabene.ru/hr/article_41012.html 14. Lakhtionova, E. S. (2023). Theoretical approaches to the issue of defining the concept of «monument of industrial heritage»” in the USSR. History and Modern Perspectives, 5(3), 30-36. doi:10.33693/2658-4654-2023-5-3-30-36 15. United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk Region. F. R-12. Op. 1. D. 92. 16. United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk Region. F. R-12. Op. 1. D. 126. 17. United State Archive of the Chelyabinsk Region. F. R-12. Op. 1. D. 136. 18. Protection of historical and cultural monuments. (1973). Moscow: Soviet Russia. 19. Starikov, A. A. (1977). Issues of preservation and use of mining historical and architectural complexes in the architectural and planning structures of the cities of the Urals. Author's abstract. diss. ...cand. architecture. Moscow: without publisher. 20. Documentation Center for Public Organizations of the Sverdlovsk Region. F. 250. Op. 1. D. 100. 21. Documentation Center for Public Organizations of the Sverdlovsk Region. F. 250. Op. 1. D. 15. 22. Documentation Center for Public Organizations of the Sverdlovsk Region. F. 250. Op. 1. D. 72.
Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|
© 1998 – 2025 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
