Russian World Heritage Sites. What is cultural heritage? The concept and meaning of the cultural heritage of Russia

Over thousands of years of history, man has created many drawings, inscriptions, buildings, statues, and household items. From the moment of gaining consciousness, a person produces traces of his existence with incredible zeal - with the goal of impressing a future generation or in pursuit of a more practical goal. All these are artifacts, reflections of human culture. But not all of this is cultural heritage.

Cultural heritage is the creations (material or spiritual) created by a person of the past, in which a person of the present sees and wants to preserve them for the future. Heritage itself is defined as an integral part of culture, acting simultaneously both as a way for an individual to appropriate cultural phenomena, and as the very basis of culture. In other words, cultural heritage is a special part of culture, the significance of which has been recognized by generations. It is also recognized now and through the diligence of contemporaries should be preserved and passed on to the future.

T. M. Mironova contrasts the concepts of “monument” and “objects of cultural heritage.” In her opinion, the word “monument” itself means some kind of object for storing memory. While we acquired objects of cultural heritage not just for storage, but for an active attitude towards them, awareness of their value for today in the course of modern interpretation.

Two approaches to society's attitude towards cultural heritage: protection and conservation

1. Protection of cultural heritage. The condition and main requirement for maintaining an object is its protection from external influences. The object is elevated to the rank of inviolability. Any interaction with the object is prevented, except for necessary measures. The emotional basis of this attitude is a feeling of longing for the old days or an interest in rarities and relics of the past. An object is defined as a memory of the past embodied in a specific object. The more ancient an object is, the more valuable it is considered as a carrier of memory of a past era. This concept has a significant drawback. Such a carefully protected object of the past over time turns out to be something alien in an ever-changing environment. It is not filled with new content and soon risks becoming an empty shell and ending up on the periphery of public attention and ultimately in oblivion.
2. Preservation of cultural heritage. It arose in the second half of the twentieth century in connection with the complication of relations with cultural heritage monuments. It includes a set of measures not only for the protection, but also for the study, interpretation and use of cultural objects.

Previously, some individual objects (structures, monuments) were protected, which were selected by specialists using “obvious criteria”. The transition from exclusively protective measures to the concept of conservation made it possible to include entire complexes and even territories in this process. The criteria for selecting objects have expanded.

The modern approach does not imply abandonment of the protection of cultural heritage, but leads to greater expediency of this process. The results showed that the reasonable use of historical objects (buildings, territories) is more conducive to the revitalization (“return to life”) of cultural heritage monuments than focusing solely on protection. The attitude towards the monument went beyond the simple preservation of the material shell of an ancient object. Monuments of cultural heritage have become more than just reminders of the past. First of all, they became significant as a value in the eyes of their contemporaries. They are filled with new meanings.

UNESCO cultural heritage. Activities in the field of cultural heritage conservation

1972 Adoption of the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

This convention did not give a definition of the concept of “cultural heritage”, but it listed its categories:

• Monuments of cultural heritage - understood in a broad sense, this includes buildings, sculptures, inscriptions, caves. A monument is a unit of cultural heritage, defined as a specific object that has artistic or scientific (historical) value. But at the same time, the isolation of monuments from one another is overcome, since their interconnection with each other and their connection with the environment is assumed. The totality of monuments forms objective world culture.
• Ensembles, which include architectural complexes.
• Places of interest: created by man or by him, but also with the significant participation of nature.

The meaning of this convention is as follows:

• implementation of an integrated approach to assessing the relationships between cultural and natural heritage;
• was added to the protected ones a new group objects (places of interest);
• guidelines were given for the inclusion of heritage sites in economic activities and their use for practical purposes.

1992 La Petite-Pierre. Revision of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1972 Convention. The Convention spoke about those created by both nature and man. But there was absolutely no procedure for their identification and selection. To correct this, international experts formulated and included the concept of “cultural landscape” in the guidelines, which led to an adjustment of cultural criteria. To be awarded the status of a cultural landscape, a territory, in addition to being of internationally recognized value, must also be representative of the region and illustrate its exclusivity. Thus, a new category of cultural heritage was introduced.

1999 Amendments to the Guidelines for the Implementation of the 1972 Convention.
The content of the amendments was a detailed definition of the concept of “cultural landscape”, as well as a description of its types. These included:

1. Man-made landscapes.
2. Naturally developing landscapes.
3. Associative landscapes.

Cultural landscape criteria:

• the generally recognized outstanding value of the area;
• authenticity of the area;
• integrity of the landscape.

year 2001. UNESCO conference, during which a new concept was formulated. Intangible cultural heritage is a special process in human activity and creativity that contributes to a sense of continuity among different societies and maintains the identity of their cultures. Then its types were identified:

• traditional forms of life embodied in the material and cultural life;
• forms of expression not physically represented (language itself, orally transmitted traditions, songs and music);
• the semantic component of the material cultural heritage, which is the result of its interpretation.

2003 Paris. Adoption by UNESCO of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The need for this event was dictated by the incompleteness of the 1972 Convention, namely the absence of even a mention in the document of spiritual values ​​among World Heritage sites.

Obstacles to the preservation of cultural heritage

1. Representatives of different strata of society have opposing views on the advisability of preserving this or that heritage of the past. The historian sees before him an example of Victorian architecture in need of restoration. An entrepreneur sees a dilapidated building that needs to be demolished and the vacant plot of land used to build a supermarket.
2. Generally accepted criteria for the scientific or artistic value of an object have not been developed, that is, which objects should be classified as cultural heritage and which are not.
3. If the first two questions are resolved favorably (that is, the object was decided to be preserved and its value was recognized), a dilemma arises in choosing methods for preserving cultural heritage.

The importance of cultural heritage in the formation of historical consciousness

In the changing everyday life, modern man increasingly feels the need to belong to something eternal. To identify oneself with something eternal, primordial means to gain a sense of stability, certainty, and confidence.

Cultivation serves such purposes historical consciousness- special psychological education that allows an individual to join the social memory of his people and other cultures, as well as process and broadcast historical, event-national information. The formation of historical consciousness is possible only by relying on historical memory. The substrates are museums, libraries and archives. N.F. Fedorov calls the museum a “common memory” that opposes spiritual death.

Priorities for the development of historical consciousness

1. Mastering the concept of historical time - cultural heritage in various forms allows an individual to sense history, feel the era through contact with heritage objects and realize the connection of times reflected in them.
2. Awareness of the changeability of value guidelines - acquaintance with cultural heritage as a presentation of the ethical, aesthetic values ​​of people of the past; showing modifications, broadcasting and displaying these values ​​in different periods time.
3. Familiarization with the historical origins of ethnic groups and peoples through the demonstration of authentic examples of folk art and the introduction of elements of interactivity in the form of involvement in the living of traditional rituals and ceremonies.

Use of cultural heritage sites in social planning

Cultural heritage is objects of the past that can act as a factor in the development of modern society. This assumption has long been discussed, but practical implementation began only in the second half of the twentieth century. The leading countries here are America, Spain, and Australia. An example of this approach would be the Colorado 2000 project. This is a development plan for the state of the same name in America. The development was guided by the process of preserving Colorado's cultural heritage. The program was open to all, resulting in participation from all walks of Colorado society. Experts and non-professionals, government agencies and corporations and small firms - their combined efforts were aimed at implementing a program for the development of Colorado based on the disclosure of its historical uniqueness. These projects allow participants to feel themselves as carriers of the authentic culture of their native lands, to feel everyone’s contribution to the preservation and presentation of the heritage of their region to the world.

The importance of cultural heritage in maintaining the unique diversity of cultures

IN modern world communicative boundaries between societies are erased, and original ones that find it difficult to compete for attention with mass phenomena are under threat.

Thus, there is a need to instill in people pride in the heritage of their people, to involve them in the preservation of regional monuments. At the same time, respect for the identity of other peoples and countries should be developed. All this is designed to counter globalization and loss of identity

Speaker: Natalya Dushkina

Interviewer: Valeria Tabakova and Irina Shmeleva

Conservation practice historical heritage- This is an attempt at self-identification of society. We preserve architectural and cultural monuments in order to understand who we are, where we come from and where we are going. It is impossible to make predictions without touching on the topic of preserving heritage, since the formation of a society’s relationship with the past determines its present and future. By observing what is being preserved and restored in different cities and countries, we can predict how they will develop. New methods of conservation, new criteria for selecting heritage, increasing diversification of types of heritage, perhaps even selective destruction of monuments - all this will in a certain way influence the appearance and very fabric of future cities.

One of the main issues of conservation is the question of contrasting old and new, historical and modern, restorers and architects. We spoke with heritage conservation specialist Natalya Dushkina in the hope of understanding the main differences between these approaches.

Natalya Dushkina was born in Moscow into the family of a famous Soviet architect. Architect, professor at the Moscow Architectural Institute, independent expert on security issues architectural heritage, member of Docomomo, expert on world heritage at ICOMOS, Natalia is also the author of numerous articles and monographs on the history of architecture and the protection of historical sites, published in Russia and abroad.

Close

In 1964, the Venice Charter was adopted, a document that became a professional code in the field of heritage protection. However, there is still much disagreement about how to restore and what should be preserved. Why is this happening?

The Venice Charter was adopted in 1964, which was essentially still the post-war period. At that time, Europe understood that everything destroyed during the Second World War should be restored as soon as possible - this was important both from a moral and economic point of view. It seemed necessary to do it “as it was” and present the result to everyone who survived the war. Many objects were reconstructed hastily, which led to errors and inaccuracies. And it was then that the Venice Charter was born.

It was based on the negative experience of the rapid restoration of historical objects. The document begins with the words: “It is our responsibility to convey heritage objects in all the richness of their authenticity.” What does it mean? This means it is important to remember: we are temporary users of the values ​​we have inherited. We are the people who must preserve them and pass them on to future generations. From a historical perspective, we are just a negligible moment in time. Everything made by man - from the pyramids to the Eiffel Tower - is evidence of life. And if we erase them, we will erase the history of mankind.

Restored architecture of the White City, Tel Aviv, Israel / Photo: Andrew Nash /​Flickr​.com

Authenticity - key concept in understanding what it means to preserve heritage. And at the same time, this is the most controversial concept. On the one hand, authenticity is now an ephemeral, outdated concept. On the other hand, absolutely everyone understands that authenticity was, is and remains an eternal cultural value. Translating this into the language of finance, we can say that the money invested, for example, in an original drawing by Quarenghi, after 20 years can be returned in multiple amounts. And there is no need to lie here. Therefore, when I hear talk about leaving only the “idea” of the building, demolishing everything that exists and building again, I understand that this has nothing to do with restoration.

During the 20th century, Tel Aviv turned into a gray “crust”

Sometimes I hear a funny thesis: “A city is not a museum, a city must develop.” Cities have always developed. Development cannot be opposed to conservation; these are not antagonistic things. It is very important to understand that conservation is part of development.

What role do you think preservation plays in the process of cultural development in the Russian context?

Russia has its own specifics. This is the desire to get quick money, the desire to get rich quickly. All this is an echo of the post-Soviet period of “wild” capitalism. And, of course, heritage falls under these scissors, first of all, because it, as a rule, is located in the historical part of the city, where the most expensive land is. If you invest in expensive land, then you need to get maximum income - this is the rule that money dictates.

The payback from a restoration project should be long-term, in the region of 15-20 years (if it is truly a scientific project). But in Russia we see examples where well-known large companies pay for a reconstruction project in 5-7 years - this is a tiny period of time, such terms do not exist. It immediately becomes clear that this is not a restoration, but simply a repair.

In Western countries, of course, similar problems also arise. But there are specialized organizations for the protection of historical sites; they have many years of experience working with such developers; mechanisms and tools of resistance have already been developed. Moscow has very weak heritage conservation authorities. Despite the fact that they report millions of investments, successful reconstruction occurs only where there are no controversial issues. But it is still a learning process. I believe that recently many new trends have emerged, good and positive, which portend that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Graffiti - reproduction of the work of artist D. Prigov “A-Z”, Belyaevo microdistrict, Moscow, Russia / Photo by Chistova Margarita / ag.mos.ru)

What are these trends?

Not really trends, but rather conservation methodologies based financially on public-private partnerships.

The same companies that do repairs instead of restoration are introducing an absolutely correct practice: combining private and public investments to restore historical objects.

Given the colossal size of our country and the terrible state of our heritage, the only way to preserve monuments is to move towards private capital. A number of programs have been developed for this area: “ruble per meter”, “folk restoration” projects, fundraising. However, investors need to be offered something in return. Recently, amendments to Law No. 73 “On Heritage Preservation” provided for an important thing - benefits for investors. This, in my opinion, should be quite enough to attract private capital. But in reality this does not always work, only if people understand the importance of preserving a historical site.

Among other things, the position of civil society is of great importance in preserving heritage. And here too there is a positive trend. Our Moscow Arkhnadzor is a completely correct organization, a real patriotic movement, in in a good way this word.

Speaking about trends in the field of heritage conservation, it is probably appropriate to recall White City in Tel Aviv. There, during the restoration process, the owners were allowed to add several floors to the historical buildings. The city blossomed. What do you think about this project?

Tel Aviv has gone through several stages of decline. Due to climate and wars during the twentieth century, it gradually turned into a monstrous gray “crust”. The buildings there were not restored, but simply covered with cement. The city was terribly distorted. But a company emerged that understood that this city was not only a legacy and symbol of Zionism, but real symbol nation.

Many architects with inflated egos go crazy over own works

The state did not have money for restoration. Nitza Shmuk, an Israeli architect who at that time was the head of the department of heritage protection, understood that money for restoration could only be taken from the owners of the buildings. And the very concept that you spoke about was developed: to take money from building owners for the restoration of their houses, but to allow them to add several floors, thus increasing the usable area. This was beneficial for the owners.

The city was restored. Nitza Schmuck performed a miracle. Everything was reconstructed with very high quality and detail, and, most importantly, the restoration caused an absolutely incredible effect.

The London Eye, built in the historic center, London, UK

Speaking about an extraordinary approach to preserving heritage, I would like to raise the topic of completely new forms of heritage. What do you think about projects to preserve non-obvious objects, unrecognized monuments?

Not everything that glitters is valuable. And the project to preserve the Belyaevo microdistrict is a good example of this. We understand perfectly well that the 18th century church or the Shukhov Tower are valuable due to their uniqueness. The Belyaevo microdistrict is a typical object, so its value is more difficult to discern.

Nevertheless, a specific environment has formed there, a harmonious landscape, comfort of life, all these are values ​​that cannot be parted with. In addition, we have before our eyes an example of how such a simple standard environment had an effect on creative potential person - artist Dmitry Prigov.

It seems to me that the main message of the “Belyaevo Forever” project is that each generation leaves behind its values, and they must be respected. Technically, I don’t know whether it is possible to add Belyaevo to the UNESCO World Heritage List. Most likely, at the moment this is practically impossible, since even some of Le Corbusier's objects do not fall there.

You literally have to fight for every heritage site, why does this happen? What is the reason for this?

Changes are taking place in society. Even in the twentieth century, people had humanistic, spiritual values. At the present time, the pyramid of values ​​is crowned with the concept of “money”; making a profit has become more important than professional, religious or any other values.

Secondly, society is changing the way it perceives reality. The level of visualization in the world has reached incredible proportions. Previously, the main thing was the meaning, the content, but now everything is determined by the “picture”. Previously, we had a holistic perception of the world, now it is broken into fragments of a mosaic. This also applies to the preservation of everything historical. Society cares about the integrity of the picture, beauty, glamor - it doesn’t need ruins, it doesn’t need archaeology. In order to get money, you need to create a complete thing. That is why completely wild examples appear when they begin to reconstruct archaeological fragments, to complete construction of something, thereby ruining archeology as such.

The construction of the Pantheon is currently underway. The same trend is in Tsaritsyno Park. People like it beautiful pictures, and no one knows who Kazakov is, or who Bazhenov is, or who Ekaterina is, or what happened between them. People feel good there because it is clean, there is a menu of functions and there is a coherent image. The purpose of this park is to make a profit. This is a presentation of the heritage, not its restoration.

Or another example - London. UNESCO has named London the worst city for heritage conservation experiences. The fact that London is now the commercial center of the world means that everything that happens there has a direct impact on other cities. When discussing the fate of Moscow and St. Petersburg, where there are clear signs of destruction and reconstruction of the historical center, the first argument in the dispute is an appeal to London. “Why is it possible in London, but not here? We want to be as good as London." This raises the question of professionalism; in the modern world, such issues should be dealt with by professionals.

Development cannot be opposed to conservation, these are not antagonistic things

What kind of professionals are needed today?

I believe that professionals should be independent. This may sound naive, but both construction and architectural businesses can be built on a mutual agreement of the parties, be a source of profit and at the same time benefit society.

Now the world is full of incredible distortions, and a lot depends on professionalism. Nowadays many architects with inflated egos are going crazy with their own works. They want to implement their projects without looking at any institutions involved in heritage conservation. On the one hand, I understand this position of the architect, but on the other hand, we must admit that times have changed precisely thanks to the development of powerful public institutions for heritage preservation.

Rem Koolhaas explains that humanity is creating and preserving more and more heritage sites over time, at the 2010 CRONOCAOS exhibition, Venice, Italy / Photo: Designboom

In fact, there is now a battle going on in the market between those who are engaged in the restoration and conservation of the city, and those who are rebuilding it. Remember, the first studio of the Strelka Institute with Rem Koolhaas was about heritage - perhaps this is the same desire to refocus architects on the field of restoration, renovation and at the same time be the first in the market of new construction.

Rem is very smart, and therefore attractive as a professional, but at the same time it is scary. However, he is a man who can be negotiated with and offers a commercial, modern approach to restoration. Sometimes he even advocates destruction for the sake of creation. To achieve balance in such a situation, he needs to be in opposition to classical, conservative approaches. Consensus can be reached with Rem. With an intelligent person you can always find ways to solve a problem.

What will happen to the theory and practice of heritage conservation in the future - in 20, 30, 40 years?

My forecast: the 21st century is not a wild expansion of development, but a completely opposite phenomenon. In the next century, we will be faced with environmental problems, the preservation of our habitat, there will be a need for “green” architecture, and the development of old “nests”. We now produce more than we consume, and preserving our heritage will help us in the future to master and rationally use what we have. We cannot destroy anymore, since now there is no place to store so much waste. For example, I have long been bothered by the question: “Where did all the garbage left over from the demolished Rossiya Hotel go?” Humanity must stop in its desire for destruction, it must learn to correct and develop the things that it already has.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Chapter I. Analysis of the current state of the historical and cultural heritage of Russia

2.2 Archaeological heritage

2.3 Museum-reserves

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Relevance of the research topic. The historical and cultural heritage of Russia is an integral part of universal human culture, an effective lever for the formation and development of the intellect of a person, society, ethnic group, and the most important repository of historical memory. It absorbs that part of the multifaceted historical experience of society that is necessary for a person in the turbulent conflicts of our time, and which allows us to trace the inextricable connection of times - a guiding thread connecting the most ancient layers of history with the present day.

Familiarization with the historical and cultural heritage gives us not only an understanding of the past, but also knowledge of the present in the light of the meaning that we see in the future. No wonder V.G. Belinsky wrote: “We question and interrogate the past so that it explains to us our present and hints about our future.”

A comprehensive, reliable and imaginative carrier of information about the past is the historical and cultural heritage. This is a storehouse of material and spiritual components that has a personal, collective, state or other origin. The historical and cultural heritage is represented by a variety of evidence of a different nature. These include archaeological finds (household items, jewelry, tools, etc.), architectural landscapes, and other preserved objects of material culture, written sources, works of art, video and audio documents, etc.

Components of historical and cultural heritage are subject to constant danger of oblivion. This happens both under the influence of time and the forces of nature, and as a result of the activities of people who sometimes cause irreparable damage to monuments out of ignorance or malicious intent. In the work of B.C. Solovyov’s “The Secret of Progress” says that Aeneas did not take bags of money from the burning Troy, he took with him the gods and his weak father, that is, historical memory, thus laying the beginning of a new Italy. This is exactly what a person should do. Everything that remains in our memory from the past, from tradition, must be saved and saved immediately. Preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of our Fatherland is the most important, primary task of Russian society and the state. Constitution Russian Federation 1993 guarantees the right of every citizen to participate in cultural life and use cultural institutions, to have access to historical and cultural heritage. At the same time, the Constitution of the Russian Federation obliges citizens to take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage and to protect historical and cultural monuments. The social and legal reality in the field of protection of the historical and cultural heritage of Russia urgently requires changes, both in the sphere of lawmaking and in the sphere of implementation of law.

The study of issues of protection of Russian historical and cultural heritage seems very relevant, taking into account the situation that has developed in our country with monuments of historical and cultural significance at the beginning of the 21st century.

The degree of development of the problem. Despite its relevance, the issues of protecting historical and cultural heritage from environmental and anthropogenic factors have not been sufficiently studied, including in the historical and legal aspect. The evolution of the protection of the historical and cultural heritage of Russia in the second half of the 20th century. has not yet become the subject of special research. Certain aspects of this topic were considered in the works of museologists, historians and cultural experts. The theoretical basis of these studies is to a certain extent the fundamental works of S.S. Alekseeva, N.I. Vetrova, N.M. Zolotukhina, I.A. Isaeva, A.M. Bedy, Yu.A. Vedenina, V.V. Guchkova, M.E. Kuleshova and others.

The purpose of the study is to obtain new scientific knowledge about the patterns of development of legislative and organizational activities government agencies for the protection of historical and cultural heritage, as a means of protecting heritage from factors of their destruction.

The main objectives of the study include:

Study of the current state of cultural heritage in Russia;

Consideration of the main anthropogenic and natural factors of destruction of cultural heritage;

Consideration of measures that are used to preserve Russian cultural heritage.

Chapter I. Analysis of the current state of the cultural heritage of Russia

Russian cultural heritage is of unique value for the peoples of the Russian Federation and is the most important integral part of the world cultural heritage. Preservation and promotion of this heritage is the key to Russia’s tourist attractiveness.

The physical condition of more than half of the country's historical and cultural monuments under state protection continued to deteriorate in 2004 and is currently characterized as unsatisfactory. According to experts, about 70% of the total number of monuments needs to take urgent measures to save them from destruction, damage and destruction as a result of various negative phenomena and processes, special role among which environmental ones play.

It is known that the condition of cultural historical monuments largely depends on the influence of various natural factors that can lead to their degradation, and not only the buildings themselves, but also the exhibitions and funds located in them may suffer from this. Therefore, environmental monitoring of the state of museums, libraries, archives, scientific and educational institutions, having the status of especially valuable objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia, which began in the mid-1990s, continues today.

Almost every monument experiences, to a greater or lesser extent, negative impacts of various kinds. environmental factors. The most common problems are non-compliance with temperature and humidity conditions inside buildings, the presence of rodents, insects, the development of fungi and mold, flooding of foundations, basements and communications, as well as air pollution.

The environmental situations reflected in government reports for previous years continue to be relevant. In addition to them, in 2004 the following problematic factors for cultural heritage monuments became particularly acute.

Air pollution from industrial facilities, vehicles and public utilities contributes to the formation of a chemically aggressive environment and causes the destruction of natural building materials, as well as brickwork, paint layers, plaster, and decor. This is, in particular, the impact of aeropollutants on the marble bust of A.V. Koltsov and the monument to I.S. Nikitin in Voronezh, white stone carvings of the Nativity and Smolensk churches, Bishop's Garden and Park named after. Kulibin in Nizhny Novgorod; park of the Batashev estate in the city of Vyksa, Nizhny Novgorod region [Velikanov; p 114].

Contamination of the territory of monuments with waste (domestic, construction, industrial), leading to the development of biological damage to building structures, disruption of the drainage of surface water and waterlogging of soils, increasing the fire hazard. This problem was recorded in the Altai Territory, and has persisted since previous years in the cities of Samara, Syzran, Chapaevsk, Novokuibyshevsk, Tomsk and many other regions of the country.

Transport vibration has been identified as responsible for the deterioration of the condition of many historical and cultural monuments: the literary necropolis, the Bristol Hotel, the Tautomatograph cinema, the Tulinov-Vigel estate in Voronezh; buildings of the wooden architecture ensemble (11 residential buildings of the late 19th - early 20th centuries) on the street. Shuiskaya in Petrozavodsk.

Vibration caused by production was again named as responsible for the deterioration of the condition of a number of monuments in the Nizhny Novgorod region: the Assumption Church in Bogorodsk, the Znamenskaya Church in Bor, the Resurrection, Znamenskaya and Holy Cross churches in Balakhna; architectural complex in Kursk: the Znamensky Cathedral, the bishop's chambers, the gymnasium building, the Assembly of the Nobility - from the dynamic impact of JSC "Electroapparat".

Flooding by groundwater and man-made waters (a typical example is the Church of Peter and Paul in the village of Chelmuzhi, Medvezhyegorsk region of Karelia, which has been flooded for many years due to the construction of the Svir hydroelectric power station and is virtually in an abandoned state.), including due to the destruction of drainage systems (house merchant Domogatsky, Kazan convent in Kaluga), etc.

Violation of the temperature and humidity regime of monuments with subsequent distortion of their appearance due to the uncontrolled build-up of the cultural layer was noted in the cities of Karelia (Petrozavodsk, Sortavala, Olonets - damage to the walls and internal structures of monuments of the 18th - 19th centuries), also due to disruption of the ventilation systems of buildings (Korobov Chambers in Kaluga).

Dilapidation (deterioration of the technical condition) of heritage objects due to physical wear and tear or violation of protection regulations sometimes occurs in the form of weathering of brickwork seams and destruction of bricks. This situation was acutely manifested in the state of the tombstones on mass graves during the Great Patriotic War in the Krasnodar Territory.

Depopulation of rural settlements, resulting in the abandonment or ownerlessness of monuments (Karelia, Arkhangelsk region, Altai Territory, etc.): as a result, not only individual monuments are lost, but also entire historical settlements (in particular, in Olonetsky, Pudozhsky, Medvezhyegorsky and other areas Karelia).

Vandalism, manifested in the theft of monuments or their elements made of non-ferrous metals (5 historical monuments at the Sulazhgorsky cemetery in Petrozavodsk). In Kazan, purposeful (under criminal orders) dismantling of historical buildings and even their deliberate arson in order to use the vacated territory for new construction have been recorded; the same situation can be observed in Ulyanovsk.

The year 2003 was not marked by particularly catastrophic natural disasters for the monuments. As a result of the earthquake in Altai, only one monument was damaged - in the city of Aleysk. However, the basements of monument buildings in Omsk suffered from significant deviations of weather conditions from the climatic norm, for example, intense rainfall in the summer of 2003. A specific natural disaster for monuments continues to be the rise in the level of the Caspian Sea, in the coastal zone of which there are many cultural heritage sites. The threat of destruction is recorded, in particular, for 10 monuments in the Lagansky district of Kalmykia, which found themselves in the zone of flooding by sea waters.

Landslides remain a threat to mass graves in the village. Nizhny Volgograd region; numerous monuments of Kuban and Rostov region; Tobolsk Kremlin and some monuments of Ulyanovsk.

Coastal abrasion, together with erosion, is named the main risk factor for the Republic of Adygea (zone of influence of the Krasnodar reservoir), the Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug (Kama Reservoir), the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (the unique monument - Pustozerskoye fortified settlement is suffering); The erosion of the banks of the Dnieper in Smolensk suddenly made itself known.

For many average and major cities The country is characterized by the simultaneous manifestation of many environmental risk factors, mutually reinforcing each other: for example, in Tambov, there is congestion of transport routes in the historical core of the city, causing air pollution and vibration of the following monuments of federal significance: Gostiny Dvor, Women's Gymnasium, Orphanage. In the city of Uglich, Yaroslavl region, the disruption of the naturally balanced regime of groundwater as a result of the construction of the Uglich hydroelectric power station and the spontaneous transformation of infrastructure that disrupted surface flow led to the development of the process of suffusion of sand particles into the river. Volga. This led to a deterioration in the engineering and geological conditions of the city and caused a negative impact on the stability of such outstanding monuments as the Resurrection Cathedral, the Church of St. Dmitry on Spilled Blood, the Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist, etc.

Visual disturbance of the landscape continued to be one of the most common problem situations in 2004 in the regions of the country: unregulated development of landscape-valued places by dacha tracts comes almost close to religious monuments. For example, in close proximity to historical settlements and architectural monuments in the villages of Chuinavolok and Akhpoyla, Pryazhinsky district of Karelia. The historical village of Suisari in the same region, with its historical layout and buildings perfectly preserved, is surrounded on all sides by dacha cooperatives. A similar thing was also noted in the Moscow, Ryazan and Voronezh regions. In the cities of the Altai Territory, it manifests itself in the form of building up historical centers with high-rise buildings [Polyakova; p.156].

Environmentally unregulated development (Komi Republic, Ryazan, Tambov, Samara, Volgograd regions) leads to the destruction of artistically valuable and, as a rule, the most environmentally friendly landscapes from the point of view of the architectural appearance of the environment. The saturation of historical centers with administrative institutions and trade enterprises leads to an increase in vehicle and human flows, to the accumulation of negative impacts, and to visual disruption of monuments of landscape art. This situation is often due to a shortage of funds for the development of projects for monument protection zones. In the city of Zmeinogorsk, Altai Territory, in the immediate vicinity of the complex of monuments of the Zmeyevsky mine and the Zmeinogorsky silver smelting plant, a temporary modular gas station continues to operate, despite its expiration in 2003. The unauthorized allocation of land for individual residential development in the territory of historical landscapes (in park complexes) continued Leningrad region).

Unfortunately, the practice of reconstructing monuments without the appropriate permits and approvals from state authorities for the protection of monuments does not stop. In the historical part of Olonets (Karelia), construction of a shopping complex began without approval. As a result of the work performed, the historical and architectural environment was distorted and the archaeological layer was damaged. Similar situations were recorded in the historical part of Rostov-on-Don, Moscow and Novosibirsk regions.

The fire danger of individual monuments and entire complexes is increasing. In 2004, several large fires were recorded at monuments of federal significance in the city of Rostov-on-Don. The same factor was named a priority for the Ryazan region. Due to fires, monuments in the Altai region, Arkhangelsk (Izhma churchyard in the Primorsky district) and Moscow region were lost and damaged.

The results of environmental monitoring of the country's immovable cultural heritage sites in 2004 made it possible to identify the following most problematic monuments of national importance in this regard:

Monuments of wooden architecture in the Murmansk region (Assumption Church in the village of Varzuga and St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kovda); unique works of architecture of the Museum of Wooden Architecture in the village of Vasilevo-Torzhoksky district, Tver region; The house of M. Yu. Lermontov in the village of Taman in the Kuban - dilapidated;

Alexander-Oshevensky Monastery in the Kargopol region and the Novodvinsk fortress in the village of Konveyer, Arkhangelsk region - collapse of buildings due to disrepair due to lack of funds for emergency response work;

Historical development of the city of Rybinsk, Yaroslavl region - lack of users of monument objects;

Tsiolkovsky's house in Ryazan is a complex of negative urban-ecological factors;

Monuments of the Cathedral Mountain ensemble in Smolensk, towers and spindles of the Smolensk Fortress; Tambov Drama Theatre; the building of the Krasnodar Museum of Local Lore (an architectural monument of the 19th century) - the impact of the city’s industrial enterprises and transport;

Vladimir Church in the village. Balovnevo, Dankovsky district and Avtonoma Church temple complex in the village Kashary, Zadonsk district, Lipetsk region; monument of federal significance “The building where the world’s first cosmonaut Yu.A. studied.” Gagarin” in Orenburg - destruction due to insufficient attention and support;

Merchant mansions in the city of Kozmodemyansk and the Sheremetev castle in the village of Yurino of the Republic of Mari El;

The buildings of the Monastery of the Holy Spirit (Alatyr) and the Tikhvin Monastery in Chuvashia were damaged by landslides;

Monument buildings moved from the flood zone of the Cheboksary hydroelectric power station reservoir - restoration in places of displacement;

Nizhny Novgorod Kremlin and other monuments of Nizhny Novgorod - the impact of landslides, vibration and other urban-ecological factors;

Monuments of the historical center of Rostov-on-Don (M. Gorky Drama Theater, Bolshaya Moskovskaya hotel, export grain warehouses, etc.) - rising groundwater levels and background environmental factors;

Ascension Military Cathedral in Novocherkassk, Rostov Region - rising groundwater levels;

Wooden nine-domed Church of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the village. Gerasimovka, Alekseevsky district, Samara region - collapse caused by flooding from snowmelt and heavy rains after laying a road near the church;

Holy Trinity Church in Balakovo Saratov region; monuments of Sochi (Winter Theater, Art Museum, sanatorium “Caucasian Riviera” - destruction of decor, structures) - a complex of negative environmental factors;

Holy Trinity (Lenvinskaya) Church in the city of Berezniki and the Ust-Borovsky salt plant in the city of Solikamsk, Perm region - coastal abrasion, tectonics, etc.;

Memorial complexes related to the events of the Great Patriotic War on the island. Dikson - erosion, visual pollution of landscapes, neglect due to the remoteness of monuments from places of residence of the population;

Objects of cultural heritage included in the historical districts of Tomsk (“Swamp”, “Tatarskaya Sloboda”, “Voskresenskaya Mountain”);

Monuments of wooden architecture of the late XIX - early XX centuries. in Mariinsk, pos. Itatsky, the villages of Ishim, Zeledeevo, Maltsevo, Proskokovo and other settlements on the historical Siberian (Moscow-Irkutsk) highway of the Kemerovo region - natural aging without proper care.

When developing regional policy strategies in the field of preserving historical and cultural monuments, experts name the following priority areas for the protection of cultural heritage from the negative consequences of risk factors, including environmental risk:

Coordination of all types of work on lands of historical and cultural significance;

Development and approval of projects of protective zones;

Control over new construction;

Insurance of monuments;

Removal of environmentally harmful industries from the territories of monuments and from lands of historical and cultural significance;

Emergency response work, conservation of monuments;

Carrying out engineering and environmental measures (protection from vibration, stray currents, greening transport schemes cities, lowering the groundwater level, installing storm sewers, vertical planning and improvement of historical territories, bank protection works);

Staffing and financing of work on systematic monitoring of the condition of cultural heritage sites.

Chapter II. Factors of destruction of historical and cultural heritage

2.1 Historical and cultural monuments

Among the immovable objects of cultural heritage of Russia that are exposed to environmental risk factors, historical and cultural monuments that are protected by law stand out first of all direct action"On the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments."

As of the beginning of 1999, there were 86,220 objects in the State Register of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Russian Federation. Among them were 24,888 monuments of federal (all-Russian) and 59,965 monuments of local significance.

State registration of monuments in accordance with the above law is carried out according to the following main types:

Historical monuments - 24192 objects;

Archaeological monuments - 14974 objects;

Monuments of urban planning and architecture - 22,500 objects;

Monuments of monumental art - 2357 objects.

The condition of historical and cultural monuments under state protection is almost 80% characterized by experts as unsatisfactory. About 70% of the total number of objects needs to take urgent measures to save them from destruction, damage and destruction as a result of various negative phenomena and processes, including environmental ones.

Note: the shaded lines in the table correspond to categories 4 and 5 of the integrated environmental assessment of urbanized territories (State Report “On the State of the Natural Environment of the Russian Federation in 1997”, p. 340), which correspond to environmental conditions that have significant deviations from the normative ones; n. d. - no data.

In accordance with official information received from the constituent entities of the Federation, in 1999 there were more than 19 thousand historical and cultural monuments in Russia under the negative influence of environmental factors, including: under the influence of factors of natural origin - more than 7 thousand, of anthropogenic origin - about 12 thousand objects. According to expert estimates, more than 33 thousand monuments, or over 38% of the total number of cultural heritage sites in the country, are destroyed under the influence of environmental factors.

During the reporting year, in 53 constituent entities of the Federation, the complete loss of 113 monuments was recorded. Over a relatively short period of observation, 2,226 cultural heritage sites were lost. It can be assumed that the total amount of real losses in the country exceeds this figure by twice or more.

Natural risk factors for historical and cultural monuments, as in previous years, accounted for about 40% of all losses of cultural heritage sites. In this case, the main role was played by coastal abrasion (both seas and artificial reservoirs), sea transgression, landslides and land erosion.

Damage from the consequences of rising levels of the Caspian Sea, caused to monuments in the Astrakhan region and the Republic of Dagestan, is increasing (where the ancient city Russia Derbent) and the Republic of Kalmykia, as well as economic facilities in these regions.

Landslides have become a priority environmental risk factor in a number of cities in the Vladimir region; in 1999, the Zvorykin estate of the 19th century was damaged by them. in the city of Murom and a number of monuments in the city of Suzdal. Other monuments in the cities of Vladimir, Gorokhovets, Gus-Khrustalny and rural settlements areas. In the zone of landslide soils there are unique monuments of the city of Tsivilsk (Tikhvin Monastery) and the city of Alatyr (Monastery of the Holy Spirit) in the Chuvash Republic, the city of Taganrog (Vorontsovsky Descent) in the Rostov region, numerous monuments in the Republic of Tatarstan, the Volgograd region and in other regions Volga region, Trinity-Selenginsky Monastery in the Baikal region of the Republic of Buryatia, etc.

The development of landslide processes in combination with land erosion seriously threatens monuments in a number of regions of the country, in particular: the Church of All Saints of the Vazheozersky Monastery, Olonets region of the Republic of Karelia; mass graves and memorial signs on the right bank of the river. Volga in Volgograd; Holy Trinity (Lenvinskaya) Church in Berezniki, Perm Region. Severe destruction of the river bank. Sukhony in the village. Dymkovo, Vologda Region, threatens an architectural monument of the 18th century. - Church of Dmitry Solunsky. Seasonal inundation by flood waters in recent years has increasingly affected the condition of architectural monuments in the city of Veliky Ustyug, Vologda Region and the village of Starocherkassk, Rostov Region. The consequences are similar to the flooding of the territory of the monument “Skete of Patriarch Nikon” in the New Jerusalem Monastery in the city of Istra, Moscow Region, various monuments in the city of Nizhny Novgorod, cities and villages of the Nizhny Novgorod Region, and the city of Turukhansk in the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

Anthropogenic factors of environmental risk, as in previous years, dominated the country as a whole in 1999 over factors of natural origin. During the period under review, these factors manifested themselves mainly in the form of air pollution, vibration, flooding of the territory and other disturbances of the geological environment.

The consequences of air pollution were especially acute in the deterioration of the condition of structural materials and historical park ensembles. During 1999, the noted processes were recorded in almost all major historical cities of the country, including Veliky Novgorod, Volgograd, Vologda, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Kursk, Lipetsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Novosibirsk, Novocherkassk, Omsk, Petrozavodsk, Rostov-on-Don , Smolensk, Tambov, Ulan-Ude, Khabarovsk, Cherepovets.

Radioactive contamination of the environment as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant remains specific to a limited number of regions of the country. This problem is especially relevant for the Bryansk region, where there are 159 historical and cultural monuments in the radioactively contaminated territory. Among them are such monuments of federal significance as the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in the village. New Ropsk, Klimovsky district and Uspeniya in the village. Radogoshch, Komarichsky district, historical buildings of the city of Novozybkov, monuments of wooden architecture of Zlynki.

Transport and industrial vibration has a detrimental effect on individual outstanding monuments and their entire complexes in the cities: Petrozavodsk (ensemble of wooden architecture monuments on Shuiskaya Street), Vologda (fortress walls of the Kremlin), Cherepovets (historical center), Zvenigorod of the Moscow region (walls of Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery), Bryansk (monuments of federal significance - the Gorno-Nikolskaya and Tikhvin churches, the ancient quarter "Myasnye Ryady"), Lipetsk (monument to Peter 1), Elista (monument to O.I. Gorodovikov), Samara and Rostov-on-Don (historical parts of cities), in the industrial centers of the Khabarovsk Territory, Nizhny Novgorod and Tambov regions, in the city of Chelyabinsk - in connection with the construction of the metro, in the city of Kyakhta (a monument of federal significance, Gostiny Dvor or Customs), in the city of Yeniseisk (a monument of federal significance - Trinity church), etc.

Flooding of the territory remains an acute problem, especially in areas where reservoirs are created and canals are constructed. Characteristic in this regard is the Leningrad region with entire areas of monuments in flooded areas - the palace and park ensembles of Ropsha, Gostilitsy, Taitsy, etc. The consequences of the flooding of the famous Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery by the waters of Lake Siverskoye (the level of which has increased by 1.8 m in as a result of the construction of the North Dvina hydraulic system) in the Vologda region. Remains difficult situation with flooding of the territories of numerous monuments in the Novgorod region, in the basins of the Luga, Msta, Lovat, Volkhov rivers. For many years, the Church of Peter and Paul (1577) located on the shore of Lake Onega in the village of Chelmuzhi, Medvezhyegorsk region of the Republic of Karelia, has been flooded, which is associated with a rise in the lake level due to the construction of the Svir hydroelectric station. In the basements of historical buildings in the central part of Ulan-Ude during the warm season, there is a constant presence of groundwater, the increase in the level of which in the capital of the Republic of Buryatia is associated with the construction of a dam on the river. Selenge.

Another region of mass flooding of monuments remains the Volga region. Numerous monuments in Cheboksary and other cities needed urgent work to waterproof their foundations Chuvash Republic who found themselves in the flood zone of the Cheboksary hydroelectric power station. In the Republic of Tatarstan, significant damage was caused to hundreds of historical and cultural monuments. The Samara region is experiencing the consequences of flooding of coastal areas by the Kuibyshev and Saratov reservoirs.

According to available information, this problem is becoming more and more acute in large cities, including those outside the zones of influence of reservoirs. Such cities include Rostov-on-Don with its historical center, Novocherkassk with its famous Ascension Military Cathedral and some others. So widespread in cities, water leaks from water supply systems, heat supply systems, artesian wells, especially in the absence of drainage, inevitably lead to waterlogging of the foundations and walls of historical buildings, changes in the structure of soils, leaching of lime mortar from the foundation masonry and, as a result, to uneven settlement of buildings and deformation of supporting structures. The noted processes are typical for monuments in cities and villages Udmurt Republic(Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Izhevsk, the house of the merchant Bashenin in Sarapul, Trinity Church in the village of Elovo, Kez district, etc.), the cities of Omsk, Novosibirsk, historical settlements of the Krasnoyarsk Territory - Kansk and Minusinsk, the Sakhalin region and other regions. Flooding of buildings in the historical city of Mariinsk, Kemerovo region, is caused by a violation of its drainage system.

Often, flooding of a territory is superimposed on areas of atmospheric pollution, vibration and other environmental risk factors, which increases their harmful effects for all recipients, including immovable objects of cultural heritage. Typical examples of this kind in 1999 were: the building of the Noble Assembly in Penza, Gostiny Dvor in Tambov, the Dalmatovsky Monastery in the Kurgan region, the monument to V.I. Lenin at the Volga-Don shipping canal, as well as the main monument of the monument-ensemble "Mamaev Kurgan" "in Volgograd (the monument is in disrepair and needs urgent rescue work).

Relatively new environmental risk factors such as environmentally unregulated development, uncontrolled build-up of the cultural layer and visual pollution of valuable historical landscapes appeared widely and almost everywhere in the country. The noted phenomena in 1999 were recorded in the Republic of Karelia (Petrozavodsk, Sortavala, Olonets, historical villages of the Pryazhinsky district), the Moscow region (the Ostafyevo estate in the Podolsky district, Lyubimovka in the Pushkinsky district, etc.), the Samara region (the territory of the national park " Samarskaya Luka" and a number of other areas), Smolensk region, in historical villages of the Kemerovo region, etc. In some places, deforestation was recorded on lands of historical and cultural significance (Plyussky district of the Pskov region, Dmitrovsky district of the Moscow region, a number of districts of the Lipetsk region and etc.).

Often, unfortunately, numerous environmental risk factors appear together, in various combinations, enhancing the final effect. This is how, in particular, the situation develops with regard to the Dmitrov and Assumption Cathedrals, the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (all from the 12th century) and other monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal white stone architecture included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. The destructive effects on them include: sulfate-salt (powdery) destruction of white stone, various types of weathering, flooding, air and water pollution, vibration and some others. Similar processes, although to a lesser extent, are manifested at another world heritage site - the Trinity-Sergius Lavra in the Moscow region.

An environmentally aggressive environment accelerates the natural destruction of monuments due to aging processes. The noted phenomenon is typical not only for monuments of white stone architecture, but also for traditional wooden architecture in Russia. During the reporting period, experts recorded a deterioration in the condition of wooden architecture monuments both in the traditional regions of the Russian North and in the Novosibirsk region (the Church of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Seraphim of Sarov in the village of Turnaevo, Bolotninsky district), in the Altai Territory, Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Omsk and Tomsk regions, Republic of Buryatia, etc.

The results of the analysis of information on the impact of environmental factors on the state of cultural heritage in recent years allow us to draw the following conclusions:

The process of loss of historical and cultural monuments under the influence of environmental factors continues almost everywhere;

A very significant part of the cultural heritage of the regions and the country as a whole is under the influence of natural and anthropogenic environmental risk factors;

The list of environmental risk factors for heritage sites is constantly expanding; Along with the numerically prevailing traditional natural and anthropogenic risk factors (flooding of the territory, air pollution, vibration, etc.), the impact of new factors is increasingly manifested, such as visual pollution (distortion) of historical landscapes, environmentally unregulated privatization, etc.

2.2 Archaeological heritage

Archaeological research in the Russian Federation has revealed more than 100 thousand archaeological monuments, including sites, ancient settlements, settlements, burial grounds, sanctuaries, rock art monuments, mines, workshops, and areas of the cultural layer in historical cities. Of these, 15 thousand objects are under state protection, as in previous years. Information on the state of the archaeological heritage of Russia was presented in 1999 by 51 constituent entities of the Federation.

Among natural processes It should be noted the intensive destruction of archaeological monuments in coastal-marine zones. Unfortunately, the federal target program "World Ocean" does not set the task of preserving the archaeological heritage. This situation must be corrected. Effective means of preserving the archaeological heritage in these areas are the development and implementation of a monitoring program for the archaeological heritage, carrying out urgent rescue operations at the most important sites.

A special problem is the physical destruction of the cultural layer in historical cities. In large cities, it has entered a new phase, when investors are ready to pay for any excavations and fulfill all scientific standards in order to obtain land plots in the city center. Such excavations are in no way consistent with the tasks of preserving and using the archaeological heritage. The physical destruction of the archaeological cultural layer in historical cities cannot always be prevented. Often builders try to carry out work without special archaeological research. Against the backdrop of relatively prosperous Moscow, the situation in small towns in Russia looks especially depressing.

The requirement of the day is the transition from a system of recording archaeological monuments to monitoring of archaeological heritage. A number of regions are already conducting monitoring in part of their territories (Stavropol Territory, Volgograd, Irkutsk, Chelyabinsk regions).

The protracted process of adoption of the Federal Law “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” has a direct negative impact on the protection and use of archaeological heritage.

Currently time is running compilation of the land cadastre of Russia. The immediate inclusion of monument protection authorities in this work is necessary. Compiling a Register of Archaeological Lands is one of the most pressing tasks. The Ministry of Culture of Russia and the State Land Committee of Russia have begun to harmonize positions and approaches. This work has also begun in the regions of Russia. Against this background, the position of a number of subjects of the Federation that do not have information about the users (owners) of the sites within whose borders are located archaeological monuments raises serious criticism.

In the current situation, the most important measures to preserve the archaeological heritage of the peoples of Russia are:

Creation of a legislative framework capable of ensuring the preservation of archaeological heritage in modern socio-economic conditions;

Coordination of the activities of the Russian Ministry of Culture with all ministries and departments on whose territory there are destroyed archaeological monuments;

Renewal and development of the Federal subprogram for the preservation of archaeological heritage, the most important areas of which should be monitoring of identified objects, identification of archaeological monuments and their inclusion in the monitoring system, development of projects for protective zones, museumification;

Coordination of the actions of the Ministry of Culture of Russia and the State Committee for Ecology of Russia to conduct an archaeological examination as part of the general environmental assessment;

Development and implementation of archaeological monitoring at the federal and regional levels;

Participation of state bodies for the protection of immovable historical and cultural monuments of all levels in the preparation of the land cadastre of Russia.

2.3 Museum-reserves

Despite the persistence of acute organizational and financial problems in their functioning in 1999, the network of state museum-reserves in the country, which are protected by the law “On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments,” has not decreased. According to the Ministry of Culture of Russia, as of January 1, 2000, there were 88 museum-reserves approved by resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation. Their number has not changed since last year. However, it should be noted that there are a number of cultural institutions that, by decision of regional authorities, received the status of a museum-reserve, enshrined in their official name.

The environmental significance of museum-reserves (MRs) is often due to the significant size of their territories (Prokhorovskoye Field - 6 thousand hectares, Borodino - 11 thousand hectares, Solovetsky - 106 thousand hectares), as well as the territories of their protected zones. The size of the latter reaches 10 thousand hectares in Kizhi, 64.5 thousand hectares in Borodino, and almost 200 thousand hectares in the Kulikovo Pole health center. Unfortunately, vital protection zones for preserving the cultural and natural heritage of museum-reserves are simply absent in some cases, for example, in the Tsarskoe Selo MZ, Mon Repos Park, Rostov Kremlin, Kirillo-Belozersky MZ, etc. In some other cases, the regime of security zones is grossly violated.

Museum-reserves and museum-estates close to them in their functions are subordinate institutions of the Ministry of Culture of Russia and/or its regional bodies and are objects of federal or regional property. The vast majority of objects are actually specially protected historical, cultural and natural areas with very important educational, educational and recreational functions.

Due to the value and uniqueness of their exhibits, the museum-reserves that have been formed over many decades have become practically irreplaceable centers of culture not only of local, but of regional and even national significance.

There is no special monitoring of the environmental situation in the territories of the Ministry of Health, however, for the second year now, the Russian Ministry of Culture has been sending out requests with a proposal to conduct an expert environmental assessment of the territories of museum-reserves and museum-estates. This year, reports on the negative impact of environmental factors have been received for 45% of the number of reporting territories (97), of which 9 are museum-reserves, for which there was previously no information. As an analysis of the current situation shows, the environmental problems faced by museum-reserves change little from year to year. An analysis of the situation was carried out for 60 territories of the Ministry of Health, information about which is available for 1998-1999.

40 objects (66%) have certain environmental problems. One or two problematic situations were identified for 35 (58%) territories of the Ministry of Health, three each for four museum-reserves located in large industrial centers or in close proximity to them (Moscow, Yaroslavl, St. Petersburg). And only on the territory of the V. D. Polenov Museum-Reserve four problematic situations were identified, but this is most likely due to the increased attention of the administration to the state of the natural environment on the territory of the museum.

Compared to the previous year, the environmental situation has changed slightly: the prevalence of air and water pollution is practically the same, the rate of flooding of the territory has decreased by 6% and the rate of vegetation degradation has increased by 2%. At the same time, the indicator of territories without problematic situations decreased from 42 to 34%, which is fully consistent with both the recorded trends in the dynamics of environmental indicators in the country and with expert assessments in the relevant field.

Air pollution

The problems of some MH in most cases remained the same as in the previous year. From the newly received information, the situation at the Yasnaya Polyana Health Care Center attracts attention. Air pollution on the territory of the museum-reserve is significant, above the maximum permissible concentrations for forest plantations (MPC - forest) approved for Yasnaya Polyana. The main source of pollution is the chemical plant of JSC Shchekinoazot, located 2.5 km from the Mining Plant. In addition, air pollutants are the Pervomaiskaya Thermal Power Plant (2.5 km) and the Kosogorsk Metallurgical Plant (5 km), as well as vehicles moving along the Simferopol Highway and the ring road. An excess of the approved standards for the following pollutants was noted: ammonia (2 MPC-les), nitrogen oxide and dioxide (2 and 4 MPC-les), hydrogen sulfide (1.5 MPC-les), formaldehyde (3 MPC-les), methanol ( more than 2 MPC-forest), sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide (below MPC-forest).

An analysis of the dynamics of the state of the air basin over the past 5 years does not give reason to assume a sharp decrease in the level of air pollution and, consequently, a reduction in the rate of vegetation degradation (see below).

The sites of the Novorossiysk Metallurgical Plant are located in close proximity to industrial enterprises in Novorossiysk. Air pollution is significant, MPCs for suspended solids are exceeded by 2.7 times, nitrogen dioxide by 1.3 times, and formaldehyde by 5.3 times. Sources of pollution: cement factories, machine-building enterprises, Novorossiysk Sea Trade Port OJSC, Novorossiysk Ship Repair Plant OJSC and motor transport. Protected sites are adversely affected by cement dust pollution.

Vegetation degradation

MZ "Kulikovo Pole". The territory of the museum-reserve includes, in addition to steppe areas, forest plantations, park plantings, and orchards. The object is located in an area of ​​intensive agricultural development, the processes of vegetation degradation are significant. The main reasons for the degradation of vegetation are the ongoing unauthorized deforestation (beam oak forests, on Vodyanoe Polye), hunting, excessive plowing of land, in some places coming close to protected areas, intensive grazing of livestock, and in some places - high recreational load. There has been a disappearance of rare forb plants and a number of rare steppe species listed in the Red Book. The biological stability of trees and shrubs is weakening, drying out and premature death of the forest stand are noted, and there is a lack of natural regeneration of the main forest-forming species.

MZ "Yasnaya Polyana". The main reason for vegetation degradation is the negative impact of industrial emissions. The zone in which there is a threatened degree of weakening of forests (including the park part) occupies an area of ​​198.6 hectares (78%), the zone of moderate degree of weakening of forests - 55.4 hectares (22%).

Solovetsky MZ. Degradation of vegetation in the forest territory of the Ministry of Health occurs on tourist routes and in recreational areas used by the local population. The main physical parameters of vegetation degradation: trampling of ground cover, soil compaction, development of path networks. Causes of degradation: unregulated side use, uncontrolled visits to the forest territory of the Ministry of Health by unorganized tourists and the local population, damage to plants and unauthorized cutting of firewood and commercial timber.

Museum-Estate of M.I. Glinka, branch of the Smolensk GMZ. Vegetation suffers from flooding of the area. Degradation manifests itself as follows: the development of root and stem rot of soft woody species, which leads to partial death of trees, a change (deterioration) in the species composition of the grass stand, the appearance of marsh vegetation in places where it was not previously present. The dynamics of degradation are increasing.

MH "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda". The hollowness of linden trees is noted, which experts associate with soil contamination with heavy metals, in particular mercury.

Flooding of the territory

Krasnodar MZ, Temryuk Museum of Military Equipment. Significant flooding of the territory on which the museum of military equipment is located is explained by the proximity of the Azov floodplains, which are part of the Kurchansky estuaries system. The specific hydrological regime of the estuary causes landslides and flooding of nearby objects on the territory of the museum.

Problems with flooding are also noted in another branch of the Ministry of Health - the Taman Museum Complex. Groundwater erodes the territory on which the M.Yu. House-Museum is located. Lermontov. At the Hermonassa-Tmutarakan settlement, the coastline is crumbling.

Museum-Estate of M.I. Glinka, branch of the Smolensk GMZ. The reason for the flooding of the area is economic activity Smolensk nuclear power plant (nuclear power plant reservoir on the Desna River). The rise of the groundwater level in the Novospasskoye area is 2-3 m above the natural water level in the river. Gum. An increase in the level of groundwater on the estate causes the formation of wetlands, the release of groundwater to the surface in places where there was none previously, which negatively affects the state of vegetation.

Visual pollution

The main goal facing the Kulikovo Field Museum-Reserve is the preservation of the memorial territory as a carrier of objective information about the historical event. According to extensive comprehensive archaeological and paleogeographical research conducted in the supposed area of ​​the Battle of Kulikovo, a significantly greater forest coverage of the area, including watershed spaces, was revealed in Old Russian times. The modern landscapes of the museum-reserve are the result of intense anthropogenic processes that have significantly changed natural ecosystems.

Almost completely plowed areas of watersheds, above-floodplain terraces, and gentle slopes of gullies indicate the presence of processes of visual pollution, i.e., processes of loss of aesthetic appeal of the landscape due to the replacement of the very complex and diverse structure of natural complexes of the northern forest-steppe (upland oak forests and gully oak forests, steppe slopes, meadow -steppe and meadow complexes, steppe and forested watersheds) into monotonous treeless agricultural landscapes.

2.4 Protected objects of landscape architecture

In 1999, the main problem situations characteristic of monuments of landscape art, memorial estates, historical landscapes in cities, forested park areas for mass recreation of the population did not fundamentally change. However, some of them, associated with new housing and transport construction in the suburbs, with weakening control on the part of government agencies and the public, have become even more widespread in the Moscow, Tver, Tula, Pskov regions and other regions of the country.

The greatest damage to landscape architecture objects comes from the uncontrolled “sprawling” of low-rise buildings in the vicinity of large cities, the provision by local authorities of naturally valuable territories for the construction of cottages, mansions, access roads to them, and utilities. Of particular concern is the fact that a significant portion of land acquisitions for these purposes gravitate towards the most picturesque places - the banks of rivers and lakes, forest edges, clearings, etc. In addition, this process covers the most accessible recreational areas for the population of cities near roads, railways stations directly outside the city boundaries.

Thus, in the protected zone of the Moscow Bratsevo estate, it is planned to build private cottages, which will be located between the Moscow Ring Road and the estate church, on the territory of a former orchard. The significance of this project should be considered in the context of the changes that had already occurred in the estate earlier, during the construction of a ring road through its territory, and which largely devalued this historical and cultural monument, separated it from its natural environment, and sharply worsened its environmental performance. Attendance at Brattsevsky Park has decreased due to the noise and visual impact of the highway and air pollution.

The situation around many estates near Moscow requires urgent intervention. In Neklyudovo (Mytishchi district, Moscow region), where it is currently located Child Center, are coming preparatory activities for the construction of a village with mansions - by cutting down park areas. In the same area, in the former estate of the Alekseevs - Lipki, plots in the security zone have been allocated, and it is planned to cut down parklands that are dear to us, as a memory of the great theater director K.S. Stanislavsky.

In 1999, this problem became a legal precedent; the case is being considered in General Prosecutor's Office Russian Federation. On the territory of Pleshcheyevo (connected with the stay of P.I. Tchaikovsky there), cottages have already been built, the wastewater from them spreads over the areas remaining from the estate park.

Often, new settlements are built not only in violation of current environmental legislation, but also in violation of safety rules - such as the prohibition of housing construction in areas prone to flooding. Thus, in the risk zone of the Khimki reservoir, directly below its dam, in the floodplain of the river. Construction of “elite” housing is underway in Khimki. This quarter practically devalues ​​the exceptional landscape advantages of the area with a special combination of expressive relief: water, forest plantations, paths, springs. The species qualities of the Pokrovsko-Glebovsky forest park have suffered irreparable damage. This entire area gives the impression of complete abandonment: the springs are polluted, the “planting” ponds are lost, random driveways and passages appear in place of park alleys, and tree debris is not cleared.

In many cases, the factor of abandonment of historical parks comes to the fore. The former estate of A.T. is completely neglected. Bolotova - Dvoryaninovo in the Tula region. Nothing has been done to prevent the collapse of the Bogoroditsky Park he created on the river. Upert, which is increasingly turning into wild thickets. The destruction of the Tver estate Znamenskoye-Raek, a monument of Russian gardening art, continues. Forests, clearings, alleys are neglected and overgrown. The Rotunda gazebo, which had adorned the park for two centuries and was created by a famous architect, writer, inventor, and educational scientist of the 18th century, also collapsed. ON THE. Lviv.

Similar documents

Classification of cultural heritage objects and assessment of their current condition. A set of measures to preserve cultural heritage monuments, the role of legislative, economic and environmental factors. Basic modern methods of preserving monuments.

course work, added 01/14/2011


The role of legislative and economic aspects. The role of environmental factors. State policy in the field of cultural heritage protection. All-Russian public organization "All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments."

course work, added 10/20/2005


The meaning of cultural heritage. History of the development of cultural traditions of the Astrakhan region. Temples and monasteries of the city. The problem of revival and preservation of the cultural heritage of the Astrakhan region. State policy in the field of cultural heritage protection.

thesis, added 02/21/2009


Public organizations for the protection of Russian monuments. Mechanisms of interaction between the state and society in the field of preservation of cultural heritage in St. Petersburg. Public criticism of the activities of the City Administration in the field of monument protection.

thesis, added 07/07/2011


The concept and role of cultural heritage. The concept of cultural conservatism in Great Britain. Development of the concept of cultural heritage in Russia and the USA. Financing of cultural objects. Venice Convention for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage.

test, added 01/08/2017


Classification of objects of cultural heritage of the Russian Federation. Assessment of the current state of cultural heritage sites. The role of legislative and economic aspects, environmental factors. A set of measures to preserve cultural heritage sites.

course work, added 11/24/2006


The conceptual apparatus of Russian cultural heritage abroad. Problems in activities to preserve and develop Russian cultural heritage abroad. Interaction between the state and civil society in the Russian Federation in the field of culture.

thesis, added 07/03/2017


Prerequisites for the emergence of the problem of conservation and use of intangible heritage objects, their public importance as museum objects. Activities of the Russian Committee for the Preservation of Intangible Cultural Heritage under the Commission for UNESCO.

course work, added 02/18/2010


Legislative and managerial practice of preserving immovable objects of cultural and natural heritage abroad. Activities of international organizations in the preservation of cultural heritage. Protection of historical and cultural monuments in Italy and France.

thesis, added 01/18/2013


Museumification as a way of preserving and using historical and cultural heritage. Definition of the concept of “book”, taking into account the characteristics of the material medium of information. Consolidation of information resources of libraries, museums, and archives in Russia.

Legislation on the protection of historical and cultural heritage regulates public relations to establish organizational, legal and economic guarantees for the creation, preservation, dissemination and popularization of works of material and spiritual culture, the preservation and transmission of cultural traditions, the protection of historical and cultural values in order to revive and develop the Belarusian national culture and cultures of national communities of Belarus as an integral part of universal human culture.

The Republic of Belarus also hosts Scientific research problems of protection of cultural heritage, primarily historical and architectural, relating to problems of preservation and restoration individual species monuments. However, there is no specialized research institution dealing with the problems of protecting cultural monuments in our country. Research is mainly carried out at universities and academic institutes.

However, the research results did not lead to the final formation of a stable conceptual apparatus: legislative definitions allow for many different interpretations, contain internal contradictions, and do not accurately reflect the content of concepts.

The basic legal concepts in this area have long been debated in science. The greatest problems arise with the definition and delimitation of the concepts of “cultural values”, “historical and cultural values”, “historical and cultural monuments”, “historical and cultural heritage”. With the adoption of each new normative act, a confusion of concepts occurs, which ultimately causes problems with the practical implementation of legal norms. Moreover, a similar situation is noted in international legal acts, as well as in foreign legislation.

It seems that we should proceed from the fact that the concepts of “cultural value” and “cultural monuments” (historical and cultural value) do not coincide.

Cultural values ​​act as objectified results of human creativity, which, being the result of universal labor, serve as a connecting link between different generations of people and are always of a specific historical nature, being a factor in the formation of the type of personality necessary for society.3

The definition of cultural property can also be found in customs legislation. In accordance with paragraph 7 of Art. 18 of the Customs Code of the Republic of Belarus, cultural assets are objects and valuables that represent historical, scientific, artistic or other cultural value (i.e., assets are defined through their value). Such a special list has been formed only for the purpose of regulating the movement of cultural property across the customs border of the Republic of Belarus.

In all other cases, it is necessary to proceed from the relationship between cultural values ​​and cultural monuments (historical and cultural values) as a whole and a part.

Thus, cultural values ​​are material objects produced by a person or closely related to his activities and intangible manifestations of human creativity that have artistic, historical, scientific or other cultural significance. Monuments are cultural values ​​that are taken under state protection by including them in State Lists and establishing a special regime of protection and use. As for the historical and cultural heritage, it is a collective concept that includes the most distinctive results and evidence of the historical and spiritual development of the people of Belarus, embodied in cultural values.

Obviously, not every cultural value can be considered a monument. Classifying an object as a monument entails legal consequences: it is taken under state protection. And it is precisely from this that it is necessary to proceed when determining the legal regime of an object of historical and cultural heritage.

Thus, monuments are recognized as objects that have a combination of two characteristics: cultural significance and legal recognition as such.

With the adoption of the 1992 Law “On the Protection of the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Belarus,” the concept of “historical and cultural value” was introduced into scientific and practical circulation, which began to refer to all monuments accepted for state registration.

This law provides the following definitions of historical and cultural heritage and historical and cultural values.

Historical and cultural heritage is a set of the most distinctive results and evidence of the historical, cultural and spiritual development of the people of Belarus, embodied in historical and cultural values.

Historical and cultural values ​​are material objects (material historical and cultural values) and intangible manifestations of human creativity (intangible historical and cultural values) that have outstanding spiritual, artistic and (or) documentary merits and which have been assigned the status of historical and cultural value.

Now, by applying various criteria for classifying cultural heritage objects, we will try to reveal the content of the basic concepts.

Cultural values ​​are divided into:

1) Material values, the material embodiment of which constitutes their essence;

In turn, material ones are divided into:

Movable (material assets, the movement of which in space is not associated with changes in their essence and technical condition);

Immovable (material assets, the movement of which is associated with the implementation of a number of engineering measures and leads to their partial or complete loss of their characteristics).

2) Intangible values ​​(spiritual values), the possible material embodiment of which does not have a significant impact on their essence;

Intangibles, in turn, are divided into:

Fixed spiritual values, the essence of which can be completely recorded and does not depend on the further fate of their creators;

Embodied spiritual values, the essence or distinctive advantages of which are completely or partially lost with the disappearance of their creators, bearers or change social conditions their existence.

According to the law “On the Protection of Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Belarus” (Article 13), the following monuments are considered material historical and cultural values:

1. documentary monuments - acts of state bodies, other written and graphic documents, film and photo documents and sound recordings, ancient and other manuscripts and archives, rare printed publications.

2. protected areas - topographically designated areas or landscapes created by man or nature.

3. archaeological monuments are fortified settlements (ancient cities, settlements, castles), unfortified settlements (sites, villages, individual dwellings), burial mounds and ground burial grounds, individual burials, necropolises, mausoleums, fortifications, places of worship (temples, monasteries, sanctuaries, places of ritual, stone crosses, cult stones, stone sculptures, obelisks), ancient industrial and economic objects and structures, infrastructure of land and waterways, coin and clothing treasures, cultural layer, including all movable and immovable objects contained in it , as well as at the bottom of natural and artificial reservoirs.

4. monuments of urban planning - buildings, planning structure or fragments of settlements (together with the environment, including the cultural layer). Urban planning monuments, as a rule, are complex historical and cultural values.

5. architectural monuments - buildings, structures and other objects of economic, industrial, military or religious purposes, individual or combined into complexes and ensembles (together with the environment), objects of folk architecture, as well as works of monumental, fine art associated with these objects, decorative, applied and landscape art; an example of an architectural monument is the Kamenets Tower (“White Tower”) in the Brest region.

6. monuments of art - works of fine, decorative and applied art and other types of art.

7. monuments of art can be either movable (an iconostasis in a church or a painting) or immovable (for example, a monument to internationalist soldiers in the Trinity Suburb in Minsk or a bust of Eliza Ozheshko in Grodno).

In addition, cultural monuments (churches, churches) or ancient buildings and mansions as part of palace and park ensembles are decorated with art monuments. This category of monuments includes the decorative decoration of the St. Nicholas Church in Mogilev. As a rule, busts and tombstones erected in honor of prominent state figures, as well as the interior of religious buildings, are recognized as monuments of art.

8. historical monuments - buildings, structures, as well as memorial apartments and other objects associated with the most important historical events, the development of society and the state, international relations, the development of science and technology, culture and life, with the life of outstanding political, state, and military figures , figures of science, literature and art.

The historical monuments also include mass graves, mounds of Glory, busts of prominent figures and graves located in virtually every locality, and burial places of those who died for the freedom and independence of the Motherland.

The historical necropolis is individual cemeteries, graves and burials, complexes of graves and burials of outstanding government and military figures, national heroes, scientists, literary and artistic figures, mass graves and burial places of soldiers and citizens who died for the freedom and independence of the Motherland.

A historical city is an urban settlement within the territory of which immovable objects of historical and cultural heritage are located. These are monuments, ensembles, places of interest, areas of the archaeological cultural layer, elements of historical development and planning, as well as other cultural values ​​created in the past and representing aesthetic, socio-cultural, historical, archaeological, architectural, urban planning or other value acquired in the process historical development of the city. The historical city represents an integral territory.

Currently, the historical buildings of 9 cities of Belarus are included in the State List as historical and cultural value, i.e. they represent an integral urban planning ensemble protected by law. Cities with high historical and cultural potential include regional centers, as well as Novogrudok, Polotsk, Slutsk, Bobruisk, Lida. In medium and small cities of Belarus, and there are about 130 of them (for example, Zaslavl, Turov, etc.), historical zones occupy from a third to a half of the total area of ​​the urban territory.

In October 2003, the UNESCO Convention “On the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” was adopted, to which Belarus acceded on the basis of Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus No. 627 of December 29, 2004.41 An analysis of national legislation and international legal acts allows us to assert that what is formulated in the Belarusian law and the definition of spiritual values ​​described above does not strictly correspond to international legal acts. In order to verify this, let us turn to international legal acts.

Intangible cultural heritage (“non-material”, “intangible” heritage) is the customs, forms of representation and expression, knowledge and skills, as well as associated tools, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces recognized by communities, groups and, in some cases, cases, by individuals as part of their cultural heritage. Such intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is continually recreated by communities and groups depending on their environment, their interactions with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thereby promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.

At the national level, 71 objects of spiritual historical and cultural values ​​(coats of arms, folklore traditions, etc.) are included in the state register as intangible cultural heritage and are included in the State List of Historical and Cultural Values ​​of the Republic of Belarus.

Classification of cultural monuments by degree of significance:

1. monuments of world significance;

2. monuments of local significance;

3. monuments of republican significance.

This gradation of monuments is directly enshrined in Belarusian legislation (State List of Historical and Cultural Values ​​of the Republic of Belarus) by assigning a certain category of value to each object.

Depending on their properties, objects (values) accepted for state registration are divided into categories:

In 2010, the State List of Historical and Cultural Values ​​of the Republic of Belarus included 5,257 immovable heritage sites, of which 1,649 were architectural monuments; historical monuments 1187; art monuments 60; archaeological monuments 2346. In 2011 - 5278 immovable heritage sites, of which 1661 are architectural monuments; historical monuments 1192; art monuments 61; archaeological monuments 2349. Among the regions of the republic, the most immovable heritage sites included in the State List of Historical and Cultural Values ​​are located in the Mogilev region.

The highest category "0" is assigned unique monument, representing universal value from the point of view of history, art, science, aesthetics, ethnology and anthropology. The highest category “0” was assigned to Mir Castle, which in 2000 was included in the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage List. The highest category of value is also given to: Kolozhskaya (Borisoglebskaya) Church of the 12th century. in Grodno; complex of the Jesuit church in Nesvizh; palace and park ensemble in Nesvizh; Kamenets tower of the 13th century. in the Brest region; Spaso-Preobrazhenskaya Church of the 12th century. in Polotsk; defense-type church in the village of Synkovichi; arc of the Struve meridian in the Brest region.

4 items are included in the UNESCO World Heritage List in the Republic of Belarus - Belovezhskaya Pushcha (in 1992), Mir Castle (in 2000), Struve Geodetic Arc (in 2005), and the Radziwill Palace and Park Complex in Nesvezh (in 2005).

It should be said that the Law “On the Protection of Historical and Cultural Heritage” does not prescribe the procedure for including historical and cultural values ​​of Belarus on the World Heritage List. The inclusion of a national object in it is a matter of pride and prestige for the state.

Belarus is a multinational state. Since ancient times, people have lived on the territory of our country different nationalities and religions. In accordance with Art. 10 of the Law “On National Minorities in the Republic of Belarus”, historical and cultural monuments of national minorities on the territory of the Republic of Belarus are part of the Belarusian culture and are protected by the state in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Belarus. Cultural minorities (national, ethnic, religious and other communities, organizations and groups) as collective carriers of culture, equal subjects of cultural activity are themselves also cultural values ​​and are subject to international and national legal protection. The law defines the same regime of protection for unconditional monuments Belarusian origin, as well as the cultural values ​​of other peoples located in our country.

The study of the genesis of cultural heritage allows us to divide monuments into four groups. The first includes objects specially created for the purpose of perpetuating an event or personality (for example, the Khatyn memorial complex). The second group includes monuments recognized as having cultural or historical significance in the context of events associated with them (for example, the building of the First Congress of the RSDLP in Minsk). The third group consists of objects endowed with outstanding distinctive merits (for example, monuments of art, urban planning ensembles, architectural creations). And finally, the fourth group includes values ​​determined by the temporary historical factor (archaeological objects, antiques, archival documents).

Understanding the importance of preserving the cultural heritage of other peoples, states have concluded a number of international treaties. One of the main tasks solved within the framework of such interstate agreements is to ensure equal rights of national minorities to enjoy the achievements of culture - world culture, the country of residence and their nationality. The potential of monuments of other peoples and national minorities should be involved in the cultural circulation of Belarus.

The authentic cultural symbols of Russia do not need further introduction. The World Cultural Heritage sites presented on this page are among the most significant objects ever created by man. Their exceptional man-made beauty and unsurpassed aesthetic importance will amaze even the most sophisticated connoisseur of beauty.

The first to be included in the List of Cultural Heritage of All Humanity in 1990 were the Moscow Kremlin, together with the adjacent Red Square, the historical center of St. Petersburg and associated monument complexes and the Kizhi Pogost. All these objects, which Russia is especially proud of, were recognized as “a masterpiece of human creative genius.” By the way, several other Russian architectural creations also deserved such a high criterion: the Novodevichy Convent in Moscow, the white stone monuments of Vladimir and Suzdal, the Ferapontov Monastery in the Vologda region.

The true symbol of Russia - the Moscow Kremlin - does not need further introduction. Anyone who has ever been to Moscow has definitely visited Red Square and the Kremlin itself. It is worth remembering that this is the most ancient part of the city. It was here, on Borovitsky Hill, that Prince Yuri Dolgoruky founded his estate-fortress.

All guests of the northern capital, and primarily foreign ones, note that St. Petersburg is the most beautiful and artistically integral city in the world. Logical layout, including strict straight streets and numerous canals (over 400 of them), bridges, embankments, parks. And, of course, outstanding monuments of palace and church architecture, monumental sculpture. The World Heritage Site includes not only the historical center, but also the palace and park ensembles of its suburbs - the most luxurious Peterhof, founded by Peter I, Pushkin (Tsarskoe Selo), Strelna, Gatchina, as well as the historical part of Kronstadt with its fortress and forts and the Shlisselburg fortress.

Kizhi Pogost, or Spaso-Preobrazhensky Pogost, located in Karelia, is a unique masterpiece of northern wooden architecture. The “nail” of the ensemble, the Church of the Transfiguration, was built in 1714... without a single nail. As the legend says, it was built with one ax, which the master then threw into the lake, and initially without nails. Today, the Kizhi Pogost is a small space, enclosed by a wooden wall, inside which there are unique buildings, varying in height and shape. They form a single and extremely picturesque ensemble, which fits perfectly into the harsh northern landscape.

But not only the center of Russia is rich in World Heritage. The “third capital of Russia,” Kazan, also gave civilization a unique Kremlin. In its historical development, it went through several stages lasting a millennium. The wooden fortress appeared at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries; in the 12th century it was rebuilt into a stone one. From the second half of the 13th century to the middle of the 16th century, the Kremlin served as the center of the Kazan Principality as part of the Golden Horde, and then the Kazan Khanate. And then Kazan, after a long siege, was captured by the troops of Ivan the Terrible and the Kremlin was reconstructed again. Today the Kazan Kremlin is an outstanding example of the synthesis of different artistic styles and demonstrates the interpenetration of different cultures (Bulgar, Golden Horde, Tatar, Russian, possibly Italian), and reflects the originality of different - successive historical eras.

Editorial Russia-Open presents to you Russian “masterpieces of human creative genius”.