Between future and eternity: a Soviet conception of heritage

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on the specific historical development of heritage’s conceptualisation within Soviet Russia from the October Revolution in 1917 to its 50th anniversary in 1967. More particularly, it intends to elicit a debate on the relation between heritage as a concept and the new understanding of space and time introduced with the October Revolution. It stresses not only the stakes of integrating, assimilating and appropriating the past, but also the ones that reside in the will to build a communist future thanks to a heritage dedicated to last for eternity. The paper thus intends to shed light on the Soviet concept of heritage and examines its peculiarities.

Keywords:

• Soviet Russia
• Soviet heritage
• revolution
• communism
• heritage conceptualisation

Notes

1. The word ‘heritage’ finds a translation in Russian in the expression cultural monument (pamiatniki kul’tury), and more precisely in ‘monuments of history and culture’ (pamiatniki istorii i kul’tury). The architectural heritage is thus designated with the expression ‘monument of architecture’ (pamiatnik arkhitektury). The notion of cultural heritage (kul’turnoe nasledie) is more common, and the expression ‘Soviet heritage’ (sovietskoe nasledie) has started to appear but is not so widespread.

2. For instance, the debates that I participated in during the international conference ‘Heritage and Revolution/Heritage of Revolution’, The Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, 16–18 November 2017, perfectly displayed these two movements in the historic field.

3. For example, in Cuba, as Pablo Alonso González examined it in his research, or in China. On this subject, see for instance: Rihal, Dorothee and Zhang, Liang 2005. ‘ La Naissance du concept de patrimoine en Chine XIX-XXe siècles’ [The birth of the concept of heritage in China, XIX-XX centuries]. Perspectives chinoises, No. 92, 59–60; Bellocq, Maylis. 2006. ‘La préservation du patrimoine culturel en RPC : pour quelle mémoire? ’ [The preservation of cultural heritage in PRC: for which memory ? ]. Perspectives chinoises, No. 96, 24–34.

4. Abbé Grégoire was one of the most famous protectors of heritage during the French Revolution and invented the expression ‘vandalism’ in 1794.

5. ‘Decree on the registration, the inscription and the monuments of artistic and ancient monuments’, Narkompros, Department of Museums and Protection of Artistic and Ancient Monuments, 5 October 1918, Gosudarstvennyj arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF), f. А-2306, op. 28, d. 2, l. 27.

6. ‘Projects of Disposal for the reparations and restorations of monuments of art and architecture, sculpture, decorative art and archaeological sites in RSFSR’, Narkompros, Department of Museums and Protection of Artistic and Ancient Monuments, GARF, f. A-2306, op. 28, d. 146.

7. Vseobcij putivoditel' po Moskvu i okrenostjam (Guide of Moscow and around), Moskva, A. Petrova, 1917.

8. ‘List of historic ensembles that have governmental significance, 1920–1924’, Glavnauka, Narkompros, GARF, f. A-2307, op. 8, d. 120.

9. Quoted by Ryazantsev during the conference ‘Revolution and Heritage, Heritage of revolution’, St Petersburg, 15–18 November 2017. Available online: http://kgiop.gov.spb.ru/media/uploads/userfiles/2017/11/20/Наследие_революции_сборник_.pdf.

10. See for instance: restoration works of the St Saviour Cathedral (GARF, f. A-2307, op. 3, d. 254) or the restoration of Shlisselburg fortress (GARF, f. A-2307, op. 7, d. 18).

11. ‘Protocol 55 of the VTSIK meeting, 20 August 1932’, GARF, f. 1235, op. 45, d. 56.

12. See the status of The Union of the Artists in the USSR, 1934.

13. For precision, see the exhibition ‘The birth of a Soviet heritage in France. The Soviet pavilion at the Expo.37’, curated by Julie Deschepper and François Gentili (Inalco, Bulac, 5 October-6 November 2017). Website: http://www.inalco.fr/evenement/exposition-naissance-patrimoine-sovietique-France

14. GARF f. A-2307, op. 3, d. 13.

15. See for instance the project of ‘Disposal of VTSIK on the protection of monuments of the revolution, of art and of work’, GARF, f. 1235, op. 141, d. 1306.

16. See for instance: ‘Note on the question of organisation of governmental protection of monuments of the revolution, civil war, history, culture and archaeology’, GARF, f. A-2306, op. 69 d. 2529.

17. ‘Note on the question of organisation of governmental protection of monuments of the revolution, civil war, history, culture and archaeology, 1939’, Material from the Secretary for utilisation and governmental protection of museums and monuments of the history, culture and art, GARF, A-2306, op. 69, d. 2529.

18. For an instructive examples that highlight the distinction between the heritage of the revolution and historical or artistic heritage, see particularly the following documents: ‘Means for the restoration of historical-revolutionary monuments in the town of Sebastopol, 1939’, GARF, f. A. 259, op. 37, d. 289 or ‘Documents on the organisation of monument’s protection in RSFSR, 26 March 1940–14 May 1941’, GARF, f. A. 259, op. 38, d. 380 or ‘Financial plan of restoration’s work of monuments of the revolution, history and culture, 1941’, GARF, f. A. 259, op. 38, d. 388.

19. See for instance: ‘List of historical-revolutionary monument, orientation for the cost of their restoration’, GARF, f. А-259, op. 37, d. 289 ; ‘Note on the ongoing works for the study and the protection of Monuments of Revolution, Culture, Art and Archaeology’ (11 June 1938–24 February 1941), GARF, F. А-259, op. 38, d. 377 ; ‘Plan for restoration works of Monuments of Revolution, History and Archaeology’, 7–31 October 1940, GARF, f. А-259, op. 38, d. 38.

20. On the new relation between the USSR and UNESCO, see more particularly these documents: ‘Documents on the participation of USSR in the UNESCO Conference at Montevideo’, 1954 (RGALI, f. 2329, op. 4, d. 315); ‘USSR Commission for UNESCO’, 1956, (RGALI, f. 2329, op. 4. d. 604), ‘UNESCO group in the Soviet Ministry of Culture’ (RGALI, f. 2329, op. 4, d. 606).

21. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf

22. For instance, the conference dedicated to restoration issues at the Hermitage in 1963 (RGALI, f. 2329, op. 18, d. 101); the symposium on monuments and society organised by ICOMOS in Leningrad in 1969 (2–9 September); the General Assembly of ICOMOS held in Moscow in 1978 dedicated to the protection of historical and cultural monuments in the USSR.

23. See for instance: ‘Documents on the participation of Soviet specialists to the protection of monuments in the frame of UNESCO, 1964, RGALI, f. 2329, op. 18, d. 101.

24. VOOPIK status, Paragraphs 2b et 2v, 6 June 1966, GARF, f. A 639, op. 1.t.1., d. 8.

25. ‘Stenogram of the VOOPIK’s Constitutive Committee’, 8–9 June1966, GARF, f. A 639, op. 1.t.1, d. 6

26. List proposed by the Governmental Inspection. See ‘Protocol 13 of the VOOPIK Architecture section meeting’, 18 September 1967, GARF, f. A 639 1.T.1 – 126.

27. ‘Protocol n°7, Meeting of the section on the question of architectural monuments, visual and popular art, 10 January 1967’. VOOPIK, GARF, f. A-639, op. 1.T.1, d. 126.

28. Ordinance of 4 December 1974, Additions and partial modification of the RSFSR Ministers Council Ordinance of 30 August 1960, ‘On the improvement of the activities liked to the protection of cultural monuments in the RSFSR’’. Available online: http://www.libussr.ru/doc_ussr/usr_8454.htm

29. Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literaturi i isskustva (RGALI), f. 674, op. 8, d. 1047, d. 1048, d. 1049.

30. Decision of the Moscow's Congress of People’s Deputies Executive Committee ‘On the inscription on governmental protection of monuments of the Soviet period’, N° 647, 23.03.1987.

31. See for instance the conference ‘State Socialism, Heritage Experts and Internationalism’. See the website: http://1989after1989.exeter.ac.uk/events/conferences/state-socialism-heritage-experts-and-internationalism-in-heritage-protection-after-1945-21-22-november-2017/