International Cooperation in the Study of Russian Industrial Heritage: A Review of Ural Historiography

DOI:

Цитирование. Лахтионова Е. С. Международное сотрудничество в области изучения российского индустриального наследия: обзор уральской историографии // Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. – 2025. – Т. 30, № 5. – С. 191–198. – (На англ. яз.). – DOI:

Introduction. The relevance of the article is determined by the forthcoming 35^th anniversary (1990–2025) of Russia’s national representation in the International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage, which will mark 50 years of its existence in 2023 ¹.

According to the definition proposed by Professor V.V. Zapariy, industrial heritage is understood as a part of the material historical and cultural heritage, defined as “a set of structures and artefacts produced by society with the use of labour, which are considered quite important to be preserved for future generations” [24, p. 79].

The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that so far no one has undertaken a focused analysis of the existing bulk of extensive publications that, in one way or another, address the subject of cooperation between Russia and other countries in the study of the national industrial heritage. Such a comprehensive historiographic review is important for assessing the significance of the impact of different countries on the formation and development of the movement for the preservation of industrial heritage in our country since the 1990s.

The aim of the article is to identify the areas of interaction between Russian researchers and the international community in the sphere of industrial heritage studies through a review of Ural historiography.

Methods and materials. The author scrutinised over 30 currently available scientific publications devoted to international cooperation in the study of Russian industrial heritage. The set of scientific techniques used to achieve the research goal comprises both general scientific and special historical methods. Among the latter, the historical/typological method should be singled out, as it was used to identify the types of problems that arose within the framework of international cooperation and were faced by the involved parties at different times. The application of the comparative-historical and chronological domainspecific methods made it possible to characterise the extent of coverage of the identified problem areas across different chronological periods.

The theoretical and methodological framework used in this paper made it possible to assess the contribution made by Ural researchers – active participants in international contacts – to the study of the history of cooperation between Russia and other countries in the field of industrial heritage.

Among those who briefly touched upon the subject of international cooperation within the framework of historiographic reviews, scholars such as Kamynin [12], Kurlaev [14], and Shipitsyna [19] should be mentioned; in revealing their subject areas, they could not ignore the issue of interaction between Russia and other countries in preserving this category of historical and cultural heritage.

Analysis. The global movement for the conservation of industrial heritage originated in the 1960s in Great Britain. As other European countries joined the movement, in 1973, The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage ² (hereinafter – TICCIH) was formed with a view to exploring, preserving, and maintaining the industrial, engineering, and technical heritage in Europe and, subsequently, all over the world.

A number of Russian works are devoted to the history of this international organisation, which is explained by its significant contribution to activities aimed at preserving industrial heritage in our country. V.V. Zapariy, Russia’s national representative in the TICCIH since 2003, wrote about it in the greatest detail. He noted that “the strong point of national TICCIH organisations is the tangible experience in restructuring and adaptation of a number of industrial heritage objects to modern social needs” [25, p. 7]. That is, it is not only about the study and accounting of preserved industrial heritage objects but also their actualisation and use.

Professor V.D. Kamynin, Doctor of Sciences (History), explains the growing interest in the problems of industrial heritage protection in our country by the development of international scientific relations at the turn of the 1990s [12, p. 89]. Indeed, in 1990, Russia joined the global movement for the preservation of industrial heritage when Professor V.V. Alekseev, Doctor of Sciences (History), was elected the first national representative from Russia in the TICCIH at the VII International Conference on the Conservation of Industrial Heritage “Industry, Man and Landscape” in Brussels (Belgium). This marked Russia’s official entry into this organisation. This was highlighted by a number of researchers [1; 7; 22], many of whom quite reasonably note the positive contribution of TICCIH to this process.

Subsequently, the TICCIH’s role in the ongoing movement for the preservation of industrial heritage diminished, as repeatedly mentioned by Zapariy [23; 28]. Kurlaev explains this in one of his works by the assumption that “having exhausted the initial impetus in the early 1990s, the committee was unable to produce any impact on the preservation of industrial monuments in Russia, being outside the established structure of monument protection and preservation in Russia” [13, p. 75].

Problems in exploring industrial heritage in Russia were largely due to the lack of clear terminology and criteria for defining an object of industrial heritage and in classifying its types and categories. Originally, Russian scientists had to use terms developed by foreign scholarship [5]. E.V. Alekseeva, Doctor of Sciences (History), analysed foreign- and Russian-language concepts related to the study and preservation of industrial heritage and concluded that the terminology of different countries showed significant differences, which, undoubtedly, were reflected in the specifics of their respective policies and research practices [8]. A glossary jointly compiled with Doctor of Philosophy T.Yu. Bystrova proved to be the result of long-term research; its creation involved the study of numerous notions and terms, as well as concepts and practical methods used by researchers and practitioners all over the world [11].

Zapariy was closely engaged in elaborating appropriate terminology; this work contributed to the development of the fundamental concept of “industrial heritage” relative to the Russian reality [24]. The international term was taken as a basis 3, but its interpretation was expanded: in addition to material remnants, anthropological and socio-economic factors were also considered, which was explained by the historical peculiarities of the national industry.

Two major international events held in Russia were landmark events. In 1993, Nizhny Tagil and Yekaterinburg hosted a conference with the status of an official TICCIH inter-congress event. In 2003, the 12th International Congress of this organisation was held in Yekaterinburg and Moscow. Following each event, collections of speech abstracts of the participants were published 4. Numerous articles were published on the materials of these congresses, both those specifically devoted to them [17] and those mentioning them briefly [12, pp. 90-91; 20, pp. 124127; 28, pp. 49-50]. All authors unanimously agree that the organisation of such large-scale events under the auspices of TICCIH in Russia was a sign of respect and trust from foreign colleagues.

Scientific contacts at the international level have been maintained by Russian scientists since the early 1990s. At that time, Russia was only beginning its own path in terms of preserving industrial heritage, without having effective tools for this. Professional cooperation with international organisations and foreign specialists with rich practical experience in identifying, studying, and protecting industrial heritage sites proved very helpful. Russian scientists’ trips abroad contributed to strengthening the network of scientific contacts with organisations and institutions of a number of countries engaged in the study, preservation, and museumisation of industrial heritage monuments [16, pp. 166, 171].

In the 2000s–2010s, international scientific contacts continued [4]. This is evidenced by regular trips, with reports and papers, to other countries to attend various events. In particular, V.V. Zapariy, Russia’s national representative in the TICCIH, visited a number of countries: 2006 – Italy [29]; 2009 – Germany [27]; 2010 – Spain; and 2012 – Taiwan [30]. After each trip, he published reporting articles in which he not only covered the course of the attended congresses and conferences but also noted the effectiveness of such events, as well as the need for the participation of Russian scientists in them. Each time, foreign colleagues expressed their interest in further developing scientific contacts.

A number of major international conferences entitled “Industrial Heritage” were organised in 2005–2007 in the cities of Saransk, Gus-Khrustalny, and Vyksa, initiated and supported by N.P. Ogarev Mordovian State University (Saransk) and the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences on Russian and World Economic History. They were addressed by foreign colleagues representing scientific, educational, and public organisations. These scientific events are considered momentous for specialists engaged in the study and preservation of industrial heritage, as they made it possible to actualise this subject area and consolidate the work of scientists from different scholarly directions in different countries [28, p. 51].

Joint scientific research by Russian and foreign scientists also contributed to the exchange of experience among colleagues from different countries. A vivid example is a long-term research project by scientists from Russia and France, embodied in a number of publications [6], including an illustrated French-language monograph by V.V. Alekseev and E.V. Alekseeva devoted to the history of Ural metallurgy and its heritage [3]. The high value of this Russian-French study is confirmed by the recognition of Russian colleagues [26] and by the fact that this monograph is actively used in the educational process of some European universities, which is due not only to its scientific credibility but also to the clarity of its language.

Close Russian-French scientific contacts in the sphere of studying and preserving industrial heritage were also realised through reciprocal visits by representatives of the two countries. This included Alekseeva’s repeated lectures in France, as well as return visits to Russia by representatives of the Association for the Preservation of Industrial Heritage of the Champagne-Ardenne region and the French National Association for Industrial Heritage [10, pp. 29-30; 15; 20, pp. 131-132].

The personality factor is of great importance in any interaction. The global movement for the preservation of industrial heritage and Russia’s participation in it would be impossible without its actors. In this regard, Alekseeva’s article is of interest – the only one of its kind – on women’s contribution to the development of this movement, including in Russia [10]. The author selected not only foreign female researchers for her study but also Russian compatriots to describe the contribution of each of them to establishing international contacts between Russia and other countries.

A number of articles not focused on gender [9; 21] also address the personality factor in the development of international cooperation in studying and preserving industrial heritage. This includes, for instance, an article by S.A. Nefedov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, detailing Zapariy’s activity and scientific creativity in the field of industrial heritage preservation. As noted by

Nefedov, this scientist’s personal contribution includes not only over 80 works on the problems of studying and preserving industrial heritage, including those published and presented abroad, but also the coverage of “difficulties and problems in the development of this movement in our country” [18, p. 91], explained by Zapariy’s indepth involvement in the development of the movement for preserving industrial heritage in Russia, as well as by his opportunity to compare how this issue is addressed in other countries through personal experience.

The year 2025 will mark the 35th anniversary of Russia’s national representation in the TICCIH. Earlier, its 25th anniversary was marked by several articles by leading scholars, recognised authorities in the field of studying and preserving industrial heritage in our country [2; 28]. All of them note the great importance of international cooperation for the emergence and development of the Russian movement aimed at studying and preserving industrial heritage.

Results. Thus, in the 1990s, international cooperation in the sphere of studying Russian industrial heritage originated due to the active participation of Ural scientists in scholarly events held under the auspices of the TICCIH. The influence and contribution of the latter to the formation of the Russian movement for preserving industrial heritage are assessed positively by most domestic researchers. However, this movement did not fully develop in our country due to the lack of support from state structures.

Ural scientists have explored quite profoundly the impact of international experience in studying and preserving industrial heritage on Russian research practice. This concerns, in the first place, foreign terminology and methodology, which, undoubtedly, were successfully used by Russian scientists in developing national terms and methods.

Sharing experience within the framework of joint scientific, methodological, and research activities, both in Russia and abroad, is also a subject that has drawn significant attention from Russian scholars. Numerous papers cover particular events and assess their results and significance for the study and preservation of industrial heritage in Russia. Many publications attach great importance to the international scientific events held under the aegis of the TICCIH in Russia in 1993 and 2003.

Judging by the publications, two main centres dealing with the study of industrial heritage are functioning in our country; their representatives have actively interacted with the international scientific community. These centres are located in the Urals (Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Tagil) and Mordovia (Saransk). They host such notable scientific and educational institutions as the Institute of History and Archaeology under the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, and N.P. Ogarev Mordovia State University. Assessing the activities of these organisations, researchers note a number of directions that promote and expand international cooperation in exploring and preserving industrial heritage: joint research projects, preparation and publication of articles and monographs, and trips to other countries to attend various events. According to the authors of a number of articles, all of the above enrich our compatriots’ work and contribute to the further development of their research in the sphere of industrial heritage.

The personality aspect of international cooperation should be specifically accentuated, since it is people who promote successful interaction and the establishment of strong relationships. This aspect does not seem to have been well studied: there are only a few scattered articles that briefly highlight the contributions and activities of individual scholars, whereas this subject deserves more attention. Many scholars in our country have made significant contributions to the study and preservation of industrial heritage and have promoted international cooperation in this field since the 1990s.

NOTES

• ¹    The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage. TICCIH Congress 1973. 1975. URL: https://osf.io/c2rzs

• ²    Международный комитет по сохранению индустриального наследия. URL: https://ticcih.org

• ³    The Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage. URL: https://ticcih.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/04/NTagilCharter.pdf

• ⁴    Conservation of the Industrial Heritage: World Experience and Russian Problems. TICCIH Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Yekaterinburg, Cultural Information Bank,

  1994 ; The Transformation of Old Industrial Centres and the Role of Industrial Heritage. Presentation abstracts of the XII International Congress on Industrial Heritage, Moscow – Yekaterinburg – Nizhny Tagil, 10 – 17 July 2003. Yekaterinburg, Cultural Information Bank, 2003.