Since the middle of the 20th century, research in different countries has further developed scientific concepts, and implemented new projects to conserve and exhibit Architectural and Archaeological Monuments that exist in the natural landscape (Tichý, Drnovský, Dohnálková and Slezák 2009; Grekov 2012; Paardekooper 2012; Gogová 2016; Drobný 2017). In the last decade, work has been accomplished to stabilize the material structure of multi-object complexes, and the objects themselves, in existing sites known as museum reserves in the Ukraine. A number of scientific concepts have been established to help create new conservation areas that include Architectural and Archaeological monuments. Researchers have presented artistic and technical museum design decisions regarding for Open Air Museum’s spaces (Tytova 2009; Oleksijenko and Severin 2009; Vitchenko 2009; Vitchenko 2009a; Regional peculiarities of immovable monuments of Ukraine 2017; Safonova 2018).
The purpose of this article is to consider the general approaches to museification of Archaeological Monuments, utilizing the study surrounding developing a new “Archeopark - Archeodrom” in the Ukrainian village of Peresopnytsia (Rivne Region) to show the possibility of creating an integrated natural and archaeological Museum Reserve (also known as an ecomuseum).
Museification of archaeological monuments
As of 2015, about 100,000 archaeological monuments were known to exist in Ukraine. Among them, about 1,000 Late Paleolithic monuments have been studied. There are more than 52,000 specific monuments that have been documented. In 2013, 592 state museums and reserves existed in Ukraine (Kozhyshko and Tytova 2014).Since the second half of the 20th century a new scientific direction has actively developed in European Museology and Monumentology: Archaeological Scansenology, one task of which is the development of concepts for creating museum exhibitions in situ, providing the exhibition of archaeological complexes and individual objects discovered during Architectural and Archaeological research.
In the 1980s - 90s, Czech archaeologists and museologists, Prof. K. Sklenař and I. Pleinerová, PhD, Slovak archaeologists Prof. T. Kolník, PhD, and J. Bartá, and Russian archaeologist and historian Prof. A. Kuratov proposed the term “Archaeological skansen” (Sklenař 1983; Kolník 1989; Kuratov 1990; Pleinerová 1998; Bartá 1996). French ethnologist and archaeologist, Prof. A. Leroy-Guran, utilizes the term “archeodrom” for the “experimental settlements” created on the basis of data developed from archaeological experiments (Leroy-Guran 1984).
“Archeopark,” an element of natural and archaeological systems, is an historical and cultural museum-reserve (an Open Air Museum: “Skansen”), which is based on immovable archaeological monuments of various types and types, which are left in situ. They are also concentrations of monuments that are deemed impossible to preserve on the site of detection, but the natural landscape of the area allows one to declare the territory as one of geological, archaeological, or natural-archaeological reserves.An integral part of the organization of the “archeopark” in situ is the museification of the discovered complexes and/or individual objects that have been found. “Archeoparks” can also be considered as “imaginable museums” (“archeodroms”–“experimental settlements”), created in a natural park or in a specially-designated area, for which the development of concepts for protection zones of archaeological sites is not needed.
Thus, it is possible to distinguish archaeological scansenology - an interdisciplinary scientific discipline, which is an integral part of applied museology. The object of the study is “archeoparks” of different subtypes: in situ, archaeological “Disneylands,” “archeodroms,” “experimental settlements,” and “imaginable” museums. The subject of this science is the exposure mapping (modeling, reconstruction) of the archaeological context both in situ and in “imaginable” museums.
Conducting museification as a technological process depends on the appearance, type and state of preservation of the archaeological complex or individual object. The museification of archaeological monuments should consist of the following stages: archaeological, archaeological and architectural, if necessary, geological and hydrological research, conservation, and in exceptional cases, restoration and reconstruction of open constructions, engineering improvement of territory and the creation of an exhibition based on immovable and movable monuments. At the same time, it is necessary to solve a complex set of problems: which monuments are to be shown in situ, i.e. museification? Is it possible to exhibit and, in general, is it possible to preserve a particular monument in its natural environment in the open air?
Taking into account research conducted by the archaeologist Prof. O. Bader (Bader 1978), the classification of variants within the museification of immovable objects of archaeological heritage in the Ukraine that are already being exhibited, or those that can be preserved in situ, can be represented in the following manner:
1. Grouped by types of monuments, with further appropriate classification.
2. Classified by their method of conservation: a) within the natural landscape; b) in a combined setting: a pavilion within the natural landscape, and with objects in the open air.
Classification options also stipulate the classification of archaeological monuments in accordance with their material structure: whether rocks are contained; the nature of building materials and construction, etc. Geological engineers are greatly important in the preservation of archaeological heritage (Underground guarded area of the historical territory Ryzan Kremlin 1995; Vjazkova 2016).
The authors considered the structure of “archeoparks” in situ in the context of “zones (restricted areas) of protection at the archaeological monument.” The zones are:
1. Objects of museification; zone around the monument (the zone at the archaeological cultural level);
2. Underground protection zones;
3. Protection zones;
4. Zone of landscape protection;
5. Zone of monument influence composition;
6. Zone of the building control;
7. The proposed infrastructure zone (scheme).
Let’s briefly describe the functional purpose of each of the selected zones. 1. This is the zone of distribution of the archaeological cultural layer. It provides, where possible, the exposure of objects in situ. 2. The allocation of this zone is particularly important for archaeological and architectural monuments of the Antique period and the Middle Ages. 3. This assumes that the preservation and restoration of the area is the primary approach to managing the monument. This should provide for modern engineering improvements of the area. 4. This takes into account the distant landscape backgrounds, the layout and the composition ratio of the new building with the archaeological monument. It mostly concerns monuments of archaeology from the Antique period and the Middle Ages, which are currently in a state of ruins, and in terms of their local infrastructure, sit in certain cities and neighborhoods. 6. This area also increasingly refers to the archaeological and architectural monuments of the Antique, Slavic-Rus, and Late Middle Ages. Securing the underground area around a monument of archaeology in an “archeopark” in situ must coincide with the boundaries of distribution zones, buffer zones, and protected landscape zones, with an area of influence around the compositional monument and, thus, would be included in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th security zones. In turn, the zones bordering the development of regulations and infrastructure must match.
Besides, it is notable that in delineating scientific concepts of in situ “archeoparks” it is necessary to have approval and monitoring by geological engineers to ensure the safekeeping of the natural archaeological setting and surroundings. It is important to foresee and monitor the geological state of open air immovable monuments if they are to be structured within an archeological museum.
Considering archaeological monuments’ museification to be part of the technological process, the authors are of the opinion that it is necessary to provide the engineering-geology assessment before open air museums’ objects are conserved.
The Peresopnytsya museum complex
The “Peresopnytsya” Cultural and Archaeological Center is located in the village of Peresopnytsya in Ukraine’s Rivno Region. It opened to the public in 2011 and was developed by P. Tolochko of the Institute of Archaeology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, and the archaeologist B. Prischepa from Rivne State Humanitarian University. The museum exhibition plan, including scientific and educational programs, was developed by M. Fedoryshin. Together with B. Prychepa, he developed the concept of the “Archeodrom” Museum of Skansen, the 12th-13th century Prince’s City, with full-scale mock-up reconstructions.
The museum complex includes the following:
-a partially reconstructed 12th-13th century Peresopnytsya hill fort
-a 1:1 scale reconstruction of a 12th century homestead at Peresopnytsya, now named the “Homestead of a member of the Prince’s armed force”
-a reconstruction of the 12th century fortress
-an Old Rus shooting range
- a reconstruction of a 12th century potter’s oven (author А. Оlenich)
-a stone cross located in the 12th-13th century Pastivnik ravine cemetery
-the Museum building housing the Archeological Museum and a museum housing the Peresopnytsya Gospels (project architect: V. Коvаl’chuk)
-the wooden St. Nicholas Church with an 18th century Belfry (according to M. Fedoryshin; 19th сentury by O. Zukova)
In 1989, the village added a memorable sign reading “Peresopnytsya the Gospels” (1556–1561) written in the ancient Ukrainian language (author К. Litvin). (Figs. 1–10). Research conferences and seminars, and theatrical festivals are taking place at the “archeodrom.” The permanent archaeological exhibition will bring museum visitors to the area. (Prychepa and Voityuk 2011; Fedorychin 2013; Zhukova 2013; Fedorychin 2016; Fedorychin 2016a).
Archaeological monuments have been studied since 1898 (investigations by K. Melnik-Antonovich). The considerable contribution to the study of objects that sit in the open air in Peresopnytsya was completed in the second half of the 20th century by V. Sholomjanec-Terskij, S. Terskij (Terskij 2003).
Research continues under the direction of B. Prychepa (Prychepa 2016). Late Paleolithic artifacts in Peresopnytsy located in the eastern neighborhoods and objects of Neolithic Age Linear pottery from 5000 BC are found in the Zаmostya ravine. There are also well preserved objects from 8th–10th centuries and 12th - the first half of the 13th centuries.
“Archeopark - archeodrom” is located in picturesque surroundings on the Stubla river. The small village lacks different kinds of industrial enterprises, including factories and other small workshops and manufacturers. This is one of the few points in the Ukraine’s Pivne Region which, in environmental terms, is promising for recreation and tourism, as well as can be improved for local excursions. All this makes it possible to put a question on the establishment on the basis of Cultural and Archaeological Natural-Archaeological Museum-Reserve (ecomuseum). It can consist of the following complexes: an Ecomuseum with a monographic exhibition describing specific elements of local nature and natural monumentology activities; an Ethnological Museum with an exhibition explaining the regional traditions, crafts, and inhabitants from the Rivne Polissya; an “Archeopark” with an in situ exhibition, which includes museification of the open air complexes dating from the Early Slavic Age, Kievan Rus; an “Archeodrom” with a section explaining “Stone Age Architecture” with a reconstruction of a domestic dwelling and Linear pottery from the Neolithic Age. It is necessary to have a separate building for the Archaeological Museum with storage area and a laboratory to study and preserve artifacts. It is also necessary to create new infrastructure including camping sites, hotels, etc.
Thus, the best way to display in situ architectural and archaeological monuments is by organizing an Open Air Museum. To save the open air constructions, it is necessary to develop designs for different types of exhibition spaces and pavilions. There is a need to systematically implement geo-ecological monitoring preservation of objects in the open air out of doors.
Further development of the Cultural and Archaeological complex in Peresopnytsia will provide an opportunity to “revive” eco-ethno-archaeological tourism in this region.
The use of different conservation methods on archaeological monuments depends on the type of object, its preservation, as well as on the type of exhibition display selected:
1. Open exhibition. The authors foresee the exposure of the remains of the complex or object in situ (museification of the cultural layer will be throughout the finds’ distribution area). The monument should act as an integral object of the museum display in the open air. This refers in particular to Neolithic Age archaeological and architectural monuments.
2. Fragmentary open exhibition display. The authors foresee the creation of an in situ exhibition located on separate excavation lots in the open air. The cultural layer is only partially museificated. The monument, thus, acts in the form of “fragments” of the object of the museum display.
3. Half-open (combined) exhibition display. The authors foresee the creation of an in situ exhibition within built pavilions and under sheds.
4. Exhibit monuments within a built pavilion (this mostly refers to the “open settlements” of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic Ages).
5. “Closed” exhibition space (semi-subterranean or underground) for sites discovered in caves. The authors foresee the display of the cultural layer in special underground showcases.
6. If it is impossible to preserve the cultural layer and separate lots of an archaeological monument of great scientific significance, the authors recommend a protected area within the boundaries of the spread of the cultural layer.
The other side of the widening cultural layer, where the adjacent territory allows, we can arrange a pavilion with a monographic exhibition devoted to the history of the study archaeological monument. For the visual representation of the hypothetical construction of the interior of the oldest buildings of the Stone Age, it is advisable to use the eco-ethno-archaeological approach. This results in full-scale reconstruction mock-ups or on a certain scale, which can become original exhibits within the complex. One can use the latest computer technology to help create and place diorama reconstructions.
Implemented projects and future museum complexes will provide an opportunity to expand visitor and tourism activities at archaeological monuments across Ukraine.
Table 1. Methods used in museum practices to preserve Archaeological and Paleontological monuments (domestic dwellings and annexes) and fossil bones in the Pleistocene and the Early Holocene.
Scheme. Zones identifying restricted areas of an in situ“Archeopark.”
Bader, O. N. “The museification of archaeological monuments.” Soviet Archaeology, 1978, no 3, pp. 138–153. (In Russian.)
Bárta, J. “Skanzen Slovenskégo praveku.” Slovensko, 1996, no 4. pp. 56–58.
Drobný, T. “Archeopark Pavlov (Stánek Múz pod Pálavou).” Museologica Brunensia, 2017, S. 06, Č. 1, s. 72–74.
Fedorychin, M. Peresopnytsya annalistic (chroniclistic) the 12th–14th сenturies. Drogobich: Colo, 2013.
Fedorychin, M. The History of the Peresopnytsya Monastery. Drogobich: Colo, 2016.
Fedorychin, M. “Peresopnytsya Heritage potential in Modern times.” In Andyal G. V. (ed.). Scientific collected articles at Zacarpathians Open Air Museum of Folk Architecture and Life. Matters of international scientific practices conference “Researches, preservation, reconstruction and popularities of Cultural Heritage” (Uzgorod, May 26-27, 2015). Uzgorod: Oleksandr Garkushya Publishers, 2016a, issue 3, pp. 159–165. (In Ukrainian.)
Gogová, S. “In fondo and in situ Archaeology in Slovakia.” European Journal of Science and Theology, April 2016, vol. 12, no 2, pp. 245–252.
Grekov, N. I. “Organization of Exhibitions for Archaeological and Architectural Monuments in a Historic City (based on historic Moscow city research).” Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2012. no 5, pp. 630–637.
Kolník, T. K. Pamiatkovej úprave antických stavieb na Slovensku. Vlastivedný časopis, 1989, vol. 38, no 3. pp. 122–126.
Kozhyshko, B. V. and Tytova, O. M. “Museology in the Ukraine: state and perspectives.” In Tytova, O. M. (ed.). Scientific articles at the Center of Monumentology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ukrainian Society of Protection of the Historical and Cultural Monuments. Kyiv: Centre of Monumentology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ukrainian Society of Protection of the Historical and Cultural Monuments, 2014, issue 26, pp. 136–144. (In Ukrainian.)
Kuratov, A. A. “Archaeological scansens.” In Ivanov Vjacheslav V. (ed.). Traditional spiritual culture of North European peoples: ritual and symbol. Institution of higher learning. Siktivkar: Siktivkar State University, 1990, pp. 90–102. (In Russian.)
Leroi–Gourhan, A. Pincevent. Сampement magdalénien de chasseurs de rennes. Montereau (Sein–et–Marne). Paris: Imprimerie National, 1984.
Oleksijenko, A. M. and Severin V. D. “An Open Air Museum: The Conception of Exposition System of Historical and Archaeological Preserve “The Verhny (Upper) Saltiv.” Bulletin of Kharkiv State Academy of Design and Arts, 2009, no 8, pp. 86–98. (In Ukrainian.)
Paardekooper, R. “The Value of an Archaeological Open-Air Museum is in its Use.” Understanding Archaeological Open-Air Museums and their visitors. Leiden: Sidestou Press, 2012.
Pleinerová, I. “Reconstrukce archeologických objektů (RAO)–Občanské sdružení pro popularizaci archeologie.” Archeologické rozhledy, 1998, vol. 50, no 2, pp. 494 – 496, 511 – 518.
Prychepa, B. and Voityuk, O. “Reconstruction of Old Rus stove in the Peresopnytsya Rivne Region.” In Kozak, D. N. (ed.). Archaeological Research in the Ukraine 2011: A collection of scientific articles. Kyiv: Volynski starozitnosti (antiquities), 2012. pp. 409–410. (In Ukrainian.)
Prychepa, B. A. Pogorynni towns in the 10th-13th centuries. Rivne: PP Dyatlyk, 2016. (In Ukrainian.)
Griffen, L. O. and O. M. Tytova. (eds.) Regional peculiarities of immovable monuments of Ukraine. Kyiv: Centre of Monumentology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ukrainian Society of Protection of the Historical and Cultural Monuments, 2017. (In Ukrainian.)
Safonova, T. R. The Design of Exhibitions of Architectural Monument Fragments. PhD Thesis. Lviv Politechnic National University of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. Lviv, 2018. (In Ukrainian).
Sklenař, K. “Skansenove expozice pravekego stavebnictvi.” Muzejní a vlastivědná práce, 1983, vol. 21, no 4, pp. 194–201.
Terskij, S. Peresopnytsya: Local Lore. Rivne: “Azalya,” 2003. (In Ukrainian.)
Tichý, R., Drnovský, V., Dohnálková, H. and Slezák, M. “Archeopark pravěku ve Všestarech: základní teze.” Živa archeologie – Reconstrukce a experiment v archeologii, 2009, no 10, s. 83–89.
Tytova, O. M. “Some actual questions of Cultural Heritage’s preserve in the Ukraine.” In Tytova, O. M. (ed.). Collection of scientific articles from the Centre of Monumentology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ukrainian Society of Protection of the Historical and Cultural Monuments.Kyiv: Centre of Monumentology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ukrainian Society of Protection of the Historical and Cultural Monuments, 2009, issue 16, pp. 5–10. (In Ukrainian.)
Romanova, E. B. (ed.) Underground guarded area of historical Ryzan Kremlin. A. G. Kupcov. Ryzan: Style, 1995. (In Russian.)
Vitchenko, D. M. “Modern methods in archaeology regarding the guard and use of immovable monuments.” Bulletin of Kharkiv State Academy of Design and Arts, 2009, no 13, pp. 14–22. (In Ukrainian.)
Vitchenko, D. M. “Symbolic indication in archaeology regarding the conservation of immovable monuments (in the example of an ancient fortification).” Bulletin of Kharkiv State Academy of Design and Arts, 2009a, no 14, pp. 8–17. (In Ukrainian.)
Vjazkova, O. E. Theory, methodology and practice of engineering-geological research of natural-archaeological systems. PhD Thesis. Russian State Geology University, S. Ordžonikidze. Мoscow, 2016. (In Russian.)
Zhukova, O. V. “The creation of Archeoparks as part of the museum landscape in the Ukraine (exemplified by the Cultural and Archaeological Center Peresopnytsya).in Savickij, O. D. (ed.). Siverchina in the history of Ukraine: acollection of scientific articles. Kyiv – Gluchiv: Centre of Monumentology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and Ukrainian Society of the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments; National Reserve “Gluchiv,” 2013, issue 6, pp. 17–21. (In Ukrainian.)