Skip to main content
На сайті проводяться технічні роботи. Вибачте за незручності.

Without a historical passport

The State Register of immovable monuments of Ukraine: where desirable is passed for reality
28 January, 00:00

Recent mass media publications have appeared about the State Register of immovable monuments of Ukraine, particularly because architectural and city planning transformations in historical cities of Ukraine have lead to conflicts, and often to construction-related scandals. Property developers are particularly fond of the State Register as it is decisive in matters related to the protection of monuments.

They threaten with the “law about the protection of cultural heritage,” and the State Register: so to say, the monuments included in the register cannot be changed, and in addition protection zones must be planned for them. Does the State Register really exist, who forms it and on what basis?

According to the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 1760, from December 27, 2001, the functions of registration by the state of monuments of architecture, town planning, and landscape art are assigned to the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction; monuments of history, archeology, and monumental art – to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Soon the Cabinet of Ministers adopted one more resolution – “On including monuments of history, monumental art and archeology of national importance to the State Register of immovable monuments of Ukraine.” This “list of monuments of history, monumental art of national importance, and archeology which are included in the State Register of immovable monuments of Ukraine,” prepared by the Ministry of Culture, became its addendum. Thus, after the adoption of the resolution in 2001, the State Register didn’t exist as such: it was only a list of objects which were to be included in it.

In September 2009 a new resolution was passed which generally didn’t change anything. This document, entitled “The List” (not the State Register!), makes a striking impression. The solution chosen in it for numeration astonishes immensely: could someone manage to invent this in the 21st century, in the era of computer technologies? In each of 25 oblasts and the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol the numeration starts with No. 0001; this number is preceded by a two-digit index of oblast, by which the numbers of monuments differ. Let us imagine that an index was confused (this, unfortunately, does happen). We would end up with 27 objects with identical numbers. This situation can result in not receiving costs for restoration, removal from the state registry by mistake and other problems. Did the compilers of “The List” think about this?

The titles of the monuments included in the statewide list, obviously, must be unified in a certain way. However, the difference between a “church foundation” and a “brick church foundation,” between “ruins” and “foundations and remains of walls“ can hardly be professionally explained. There is no explanation from the viewpoint of monuments protection between a “site of ancient settlement,” a “multilevel site of ancient settlement,” and a “cultural layer of ancient settlement site.”

A generic confusion of objects is a kind of trademark of “The List.” The church in the village of Matsoshyn, Lviv oblast, was included in “The List” as a monument of monumental art, 13 archeological monuments in Kherson oblast, due to negligence of compilers of “The List,” became monuments of history. The building of the State academic theater of Russian drama in Kyiv, named after Lessia Ukrainka (Bergonie Theater), became a monument of archeology. “The defenders of Sevastopol communal grave,” containing over 400 highly artistic gravestones entered the list under the common protection number together with the temple of St. Mykola in the category “monuments of archeology.” In addition, this complex is not differentiated according to its constituents. However, it is convenient for someone: until the complex contains at least one gravestone, it will be regarded in the record as an existing monument!

The consequences of the objects included in “The List” are a separate matter. One can start with the monuments of archeology: “the cultural layer of ‘the town of Yaroslav’,” “the handicraft district of the ancient Kyiv – Klov,” “the town of Volodymyr – the fortified center of ancient Kyiv.”

Since the exact boundaries of the similar objects are not determined in the city structure, it would be worth finding out what legal consequences any economic or construction activity on the territory of these monuments will carry. An analogous problem concerns the archeological complex “the ancient town of Tiritaka in Kerch,” the location of which is indicated as the entire “district Arshyntseve.” How can the Ministry of Culture ensure protection of such territorially indefinite archeological objects? Even more interesting is the situation with the death place of the Kyiv prince, Sviatoslav Ihorevych, the location of which is the entire village Mykilske-on-Dnipro (Dnipropetrovsk oblast). The situation with archeological objects which are under the category of historical monuments in “The List” is not any better (here the compilers of “The List” obviously hurried too much: most of them were to be included in the State Register as monuments of architecture according to the principle characteristic). Some of them also don’t have exact addresses. For example, the “Complex of buildings of Kyiv-Mohyla academy (ensemble of the Fraternal Monastery)” is indicated in “the district between Kontraktova square and Skovorody, Voloska and Illinska streets.” “The building of the “Presidium of the National Academy of sciences” has a surprisingly strange address: “54 Volodymyrska street, the area between Shevchenko boulevard and Khmelnytsky street.” More examples can be provided.

Even a cursory review of the 2009 version of the “The List” leads to an inconsolable conclusion: the overall desultory nature of the approach, and haste in forming the State Register, led to an exceeding number of mistakes. “The historical passport of the nation” turned out to be a hastily made forgery, and consequently the State Register of immovable monuments will continue to be a “phantom.”

Delimiter 468x90 ad place

Subscribe to the latest news:

Газета "День"
read