The role of A. S. Terekhin in identifying monuments of industrial heritage of the Perm region in the 1960-1970s

Lakhtionova Elizaveta Sergeevna ORCID: 0000-0002-8414-4540 PhD in History Associate Professor; Postgraduate student; Department of Russian History; Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin 620034, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Opalikhinskaya str., 16, sq. 109 elza1982@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

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" ^{[18, p. 79]}. In addition, the industrial heritage includes not only a material component, but also a spiritual one: "a developed system for the development and transfer of special (engineering) knowledge; a peculiar mentality of the Urals; a reflection of their identity in everyday life and artistic creativity" ^{[3, p. 23]}.

In the 1960s and 1970s, such a clear understanding of what "industrial heritage" or "monument of industrial heritage" was had not yet been formulated either abroad or in the USSR. However, this category of historical and cultural heritage can still include monuments of industrial architecture, monuments of science and technology, monuments of the labor glory of the Soviet people ^{[22, pp. 32-33]}.

During the Soviet period, state bodies and public organizations, such as the All–Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (hereinafter referred to as VOOPIK), were engaged in the preservation of industrial heritage monuments under the leadership of the Central Committee of the CPSU. The role of the personal factor in this activity was not so noticeable against the background of government structures, but it was still present.

The purpose of the article is to characterize the contribution that A. S. Terekhin made to the identification of monuments of the industrial heritage of the Perm region in the 1960s and 1970s.

The chronological scope of the study is limited to the 1960s and 1970s, when the global movement for the preservation of industrial heritage abroad was born and gradually unfolding. In the USSR, this trend was in its infancy, but it was undoubtedly present, as evidenced by archival materials, publications in the media, as well as some scientific research ^{[14; 19]}.

The geographical scope of the study is indicated by the Perm region, on the territory of which there were many monuments of industrial heritage, the preservation of which was carried out quite dynamically, compared with other subjects of the Urals. This was established by the author in the framework of his dissertation research, which revealed that 17 industrial heritage sites had been registered with the state by 1991 in the Perm Region. They were actively studied within the framework of the activities of Perm State University. A set of historical and cultural monuments of the Perm region has been prepared. A partial museification of the Ust-Borovsk Salt Factory was carried out, which was later transformed into the "Salt Museum of Russia" ^{[23, pp. 15-16]}. The choice of the Perm region is also due to the fact that earlier than in other regions of the Urals, attention was paid to the identification of monuments of industrial wooden architecture, also related to the industrial heritage.

The relevance of the presented topic lies in the fact that at present it is extremely important to consolidate all available forces (government agencies, public organizations, scientific and educational institutions, citizens) in efforts to preserve the remaining monuments of the national industrial heritage. The contribution of every Russian in this area is important, because only by combining all available forces, including individual people, is it possible to convey to our descendants knowledge about the magnificent achievements in metallurgy, mining, mechanical engineering, construction and architecture, etc., concentrated in the material remnants of previous eras (machine tools, blast furnaces and crucible furnaces, dams, water towers, bridges, railway stations, etc.), as well as in the special attitude of our ancestors to work. For the factory floor should be perceived not only as "an unnamed temporary functional volume, but as an expression of people's ideas of a certain period about work" ^{[4, p. 355]}.

And while the activities of government agencies and public organizations for the preservation of industrial heritage in the USSR and the Urals have been studied quite well ^{[20; 21]}, the role of any particular individual in this area has not been studied at all, especially regarding the 1960s and 1980s. However, there are a number of studies that note the contribution of some scientists, cultural figures and education in the preservation of industrial heritage in Russia and abroad, since 1991 This is an analytical article by E. V. Alekseeva about the role and contribution of such prominent leaders of the world movement for the preservation of industrial heritage as M. Nisser, L. Bergeron, G. Dorel-Ferre, E. Cassaneles, and many others ^[2]. She also raises the topic of women's participation and their role in the global movement for the preservation of industrial heritage, including naming among them our compatriot, MV Kuzova, who is currently a member of the Expert Council on Industrial Heritage, a member of the International Committee for the Preservation of Industrial Heritage (TICCIH), Deputy Director for Industrial Heritage of Nizhny Tagil museum-reserve" ^[1]. Two more articles have been devoted to the contribution of Russian scientists and teachers to the study and preservation of industrial heritage monuments in recent decades: S. A. Nefedov on Vladimir Vasilyevich Zapariye, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor at Ural Federal University, national representative at TICCIH ^[26], as well as E. V. Zaitseva, E. A. Azorkina, A. S. Alekseychik on the role of Yekaterinburg scientists and teachers in the study and preservation of this category of historical and cultural heritage ^[16]. However, it should be noted that the above-mentioned publications are devoted to assessing the role and contribution of scientists, museum workers, teachers and other specialists who worked with the national or global industrial heritage after 1991.

The activities of Alexander Sergeyevich Terekhin (1928-1993) as an architect, including those who devoted himself to the study and preservation of wooden architecture monuments of the Perm region, came to the attention of scientists as part of the review of his biography ^{[15; 30]}, or the history of the Perm regional branch of the VOOPIK ^[25], or the history of the creation of the architectural and ethnographic museum "Khokhlovka" ^[24]. However, its role and participation in the identification of monuments of industrial heritage has not yet been studied.

In this regard, the scientific novelty of this study is determined by the lack of scientific papers on the topic, as well as by the complex of unique sources involved in the preparation of this article. These are mainly unpublished materials from the Perm State Archive of Socio-Political History, as well as from the personal fund of Alexander Sergeyevich Terekhin, stored in the State Archive of the Perm Region (F. R-1785). Among them, it is necessary to single out A. S. Terekhin's reports on the results of expeditions, references and memos compiled by him for government agencies, correspondence, drafts, reports and articles of the scientist. Some of them are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. In addition, published legislative and other normative legal acts of the RSFSR were used.

The research methodology is represented by a set of methods. These are general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, proof), as well as special historical ones: the chronological method allowed us to consistently analyze the stages of A. S. Terekhin's activities aimed at identifying and studying the monuments of industrial architecture of the Kama Region since the 1960s; historical-genetic and historical-comparative methods allowed us to establish that the desire to A. S. Terekhin's preservation of monuments of industrial heritage, including in the form of wooden architecture, corresponded to global trends, and was also conditioned by the state policy of the USSR.

In the 1960s and 1980s, Alexander Sergeevich was a senior lecturer at the Department of Architecture of the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the Perm Polytechnic Institute (1960-1972), a senior researcher at the Laboratory of Complex Economic Research at the Institute of Economics of the Ural Scientific Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences (until 1978), associate professor, Head of the Department of Architecture and Graphics at the Faculty of Rural Construction of the Perm State Agricultural Institute (until 1987). ^[29]. In addition, he was a member of the Presidium of the Perm regional branch of the VOOPIK ^{[25, p. 162]}, and was also one of the authors of the "Code of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Perm Region". The annual scientific and practical conference "Terekhinsky Readings" is held in memory of this researcher of Ural architecture.

The identification of monuments was a priority and one of the most important stages in the State's efforts to protect historical and cultural monuments. This was spelled out in various normative legal acts, for example, in Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR No. 1327 dated 08/30/1960 "On further improvement of the protection of cultural monuments in the RSFSR" ^{[28, pp. 147-149]}, Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR No. 473 dated 05/24/1966. "On the state and measures to improve historical and cultural monuments in the RSFSR" ^{[28, pp. 150-152]}, the Law of the RSFSR of 12/15/1978 "On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments" (art. 12) ^{[17, p. 376]}.

The further fate of the monuments depended on the effectiveness of this stage. This was also understood by A. S. Terekhin, who in the early 1960s drew attention to the need to apply a scientific approach to the identification and preservation of monuments of industrial wooden architecture. In a certificate prepared by him in 1964 for the Department of Culture of the Perm (Industrial) regional Executive Committee, it was noted that the Perm region has a considerable number of monuments of wooden architecture, but there is no information about them either in literary sources or in archival materials. Therefore, from the scientist's point of view, it was necessary to conduct a comprehensive expedition to identify and study them ^{[6, l. 1]}.

In this regard, at the initiative of A. S. Terekhin, a number of expeditions were organized in the second half of the 1960s in order to identify, survey and assess the degree of preservation of these objects. The researcher wrote about the importance of identifying monuments of industrial architecture: "The only unique industrial structures of their kind are the brine towers (standing above the wells), salt works and salt barns. On the territory of our country, such wooden structures have been preserved only in one place in the area of the city of Solikamsk (Borovsk is a district of the city – a former village). Ust-Borovaya. These are some of the oldest industrial structures in our country" ^{[6, l. 1]}. He noted their great historical and cultural value: "Despite the fact that they were built at the end of the XVIII – beginning of the XIX century, in their design, shape, size, etc., they date back to the folk industrial architecture of the XV-XVI centuries, created in the salt fields of the Urals by unknown craftsmen" ^{[6, l. 2]}. Also among the monuments of industrial architecture that needed to be preserved, the scientist named the sawmills of the Solikamsk district and the town of Cherdyn ^{[6, l. 2]}.

In 1965, based on a certificate from A. S. Terekhin, the Department of Culture of the Perm (Industrial) Regional Executive Committee prepared and sent a letter to the Department of Museums and Monument Protection under the Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR with a request to help organize and finance expeditionary and research activities to identify and study monuments of wooden architecture throughout the Perm Region ^{[12, l. 33]}.

One of these scientific expeditions took place from July 26 to August 4, 1967. Its purpose was to identify not only new monuments of wooden architecture, but also to inspect the condition of those already studied. The results obtained had to be recorded using photography and cinematography. The expedition consisted of 2 people: A. S. Terekhin and R. V. Lyaginskova, cinematographer of the Sverdlovsk Film Studio ^{[12, l. 1]}. It is noteworthy that A. S. Terekhin's report indicates that despite the fact that the expedition was designed for a longer period, it had to be interrupted 5 days earlier, because there was not enough money to continue and complete it, which was not transferred in time by the Department of culture of the Perm Regional Executive Committee to Solikamsk, where the trip ended ^{[12, L. 1]}. Also, some places planned by the organizers, where notable wooden buildings and structures could be located, turned out to be inaccessible due to poor road conditions ^{[12, l. 2]}.

As part of the expeditions of the late 1960s and early 1970s, organized on the initiative of Terekhin and with his participation, not only the architecture of a civil and ecclesiastical nature, but also objects of industrial architecture were examined: the wooden building of the factory administration of the Alexandrovsky (Lytvensky) iron-smelting and iron–making plant in the city of Alexandrovsk, the building of the factory administration of Vsevolod-Vilvensky An ironworks, a stone saltworks converted into a boat base in the village of Lenva. In Solikamsk, 9 saltworks, 3 salt lifting towers, 3 barns, and 6 salt bins were examined ^{[12, l. 3]}. All the studied objects were recorded on photographic and film film. Terekhin personally made photographs, drawings, and drawings of the surveyed objects, the results of which were preserved in his personal collection in the State Archive of the Perm Region ^{[7; 12]}.

In his report, A. S. Terekhin came to the following disappointing conclusions: "All monuments of wooden architecture are in serious condition, often dilapidated, deprived not only of qualified supervision, but of surveillance and protection of any kind" ^{[12, l. 5]}. Among the recommendations, the specialist pointed out that "decisive and urgent measures are required to saving wooden architectural monuments – one of such measures is the creation of a wooden architecture reserve in the near future" ^{[12, l. 5]}.

It should be noted that the practice of creating open-air museums was not new at that time either for the USSR or for the world community. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was an increase in the number of such museums in our country, which was due to the development of domestic and foreign tourism, the growing welfare of the people, as well as the desire of representatives of science and the progressive part of the Soviet public to preserve rapidly disappearing objects that represent part of not only domestic but also world cultural heritage ^{[31, pp. 6-7]}. Therefore, A. S. Terekhin's proposal to organize the first open-air museum of wooden architecture in the Urals was in line with all-Union trends.

In order to launch this process, Alexander Sergeevich did not sit still, and not only wrote to all state authorities, but also went public with this problem. So, he participated in presentations on the need for their preservation at the Ural zonal meeting of architects on July 8, 1971 ^{[5, l. 1-7]} and the All-Union Conference "Cultural Monuments of the Russian North" on July 7-12, 1966 in Arkhangelsk (report on the topic: "Problems of creating a wooden architecture reserve in the Perm region") ^{[11, pp. 1-6]}. By the way, at the last conference, the idea of creating the same nature reserve in Perm as in Arkhangelsk was approved ^{[7, l. 26]}. At the end of his report, A. S. Terekhin said: "The successful completion of this task is possible with the active participation of the general public, the entire population. Only through the efforts of many organizations and people can the issue of the creation be finally resolved and a reserve of wooden architecture of the Kama region be created" ^{[7, l. 26]}.

In addition, Alexander Sergeevich repeatedly voiced the problems of preserving industrial architecture in a number of television programs in the mid-1960s, including on All-Union television ^{[7, l. 13-20]}. Perhaps it was the publicity of these problems that played a crucial role in the organization of the expeditions of the late 1960s, which were mentioned earlier.

The process of identifying monuments cannot but be accompanied by activities to study them. Therefore, in addition to participating in field surveys, A. S. Terekhin conducted research on industrial heritage monuments (by the way, not only in the Perm region, but throughout the Kama region), collecting bit by bit and studying information in central (Central State Archive of Ancient Acts, Central State Archive of the Leningrad Region) and regional (State Archive of the Perm Region, State Archive of the Sverdlovsk Region archives, museums (Pushkin House, the State Historical Museum, the Perm Regional Museum of Local Lore, the Solikamsk Museum of Local Lore) and libraries (the Lenin State Library of the USSR, the Gorky Perm Regional Universal Library). All these materials were deposited in his personal fund and testify to a serious scientific approach to the process of identifying and studying information about the monuments of industrial heritage that existed at that time.

Among the latter, his attention was focused not only on the monuments of wooden architecture of the Kama region, but also on other industrial heritage sites: the Egoshikhinsky Copper smelter (Perm) ^{[8, l. 1-4; 13, l. 1-10]}, the Kynovsky Ironworks (Kyn work settlement, Lysvensky district) ^{[9, l. 1-4]}, the Pozhevsky Ironworks the factory (Pozhva work settlement, Yusvinsky district) ^{[9, l. 5-6]}, the Chermoz ironworks ^{[9, l. 7-8]} (Chermoz), a watermill in the village of Syra (Suksunsky district) ^{[10, l. 5-6]}, etc.

The final result of the monument identification activities was to include these sites in a special list and then register them with the state. As a result of A. S. Terekhin's participation in the identification of industrial heritage monuments, some of them were registered with the state in the 1970s and 1980s. Thus, according to the decree of the Perm Regional Executive Committee No. 20 dated January 21, 1975 ^{[27, l. 6-11]}, the following industrial heritage sites were placed under state protection: the building of the factory office of the Ochersk Ironworks, buildings and structures of the Ust-Borovsky saltworks, the building of the blast furnace shop and the dam of the Pozhevsky Ironworks.

Speaking about the very distant consequences of A. S. Terekhin's activities in identifying industrial heritage sites, it should be noted that in the 1970s only a part of these preserved monuments of wooden industrial architecture would be restored and transported to the Architectural and Ethnographic Museum "Khokhlovka", opened to visitors in 1980. And by the end of the 1980s, the buildings and structures of the Ust-Borovsky Saltworks will be partially museumized and will form the "Museum of Salt of Russia" in the future.

Thus, the importance of A. S. Terekhin's role in the identification of industrial heritage sites cannot be overestimated. Starting in the 1960s, he was one of the first to publicly voice the problem of preserving monuments of industrial wooden architecture in the Kama region. To determine the number of remaining industrial heritage sites, as well as the degree of their preservation and value, he had difficulty organizing a number of expeditions to cities, villages and villages of the Perm region. A. S. Terekhin personally participated in the survey of monuments, producing drawings, measurements, drawings and photographs of objects. These materials were later used to certify some objects in order to register them as monuments of local importance. In addition to field surveys, the scientist collected and studied all possible information about industrial heritage sites in central and regional archives, museums and libraries. The result of his activity was the creation of the Architectural and Ethnographic Museum "Khokhlovka", as well as the museification of buildings and structures of the Ust-Borovsky Salt Factory, some of which, by the way, were transported to Khokhlovka ^{[23, p. 17]}.