As we have seen, both the principle of provenance and the distinction between provenance and pertinence may not be sufficient in identifying what might be considered the legitimate archival heritage of Ukraine. The distinction between the provenance and pertinence of records may be particularly difficult to apply for archival Ucrainica within the former Russian Empire and Soviet Union. A more specific typology is needed in attempting to define legally the archival heritage of Ukraine in general and the components of the "National Archival Fond" of Ukraine now located in the diaspora in particular. Given a national history that is chronologically broken and often territorially dispersed, it is frequently important to identify archival components of Ucrainica abroad that, while pertinent to Ukrainian history and culture, cannot legally be defined as part of the "National Archival Fond." Usually, it is not enough simply to apply a label "archival Ucrainica" without further designation of the types or nature of the records or fragmented archival materials involved.
The problems of appropriate identification of archival "Ucrainica" are further increased with materials now held abroad because-before the recent emergence of an independent Ukraine-the distinction between "Ukrainian" and "Russian," "Polish" and "Ukrainian," or "Austro-Hungarian (or "Austrian" or "Hungarian)" and "Ukrainian" tended to decrease proportionately with the distance from the homeland, the precision of ethnic identity, or the degree of "Ukrainian" national consciousness. Indeed, in most parts of the world outside Ukraine (even in Russia proper), and especially among those that had not retained any sense of Ukrainian identity or Ukrainian national consciousness, the distinction between "Ukrainian" and the "parent" Russian, Polish, Austrian, Hungarian, or Romanian seat of government was often obliterated.
Even more misleadingly, until this decade the term "Russia" was often used synonymously with, or instead of, the more correct designation "Soviet Union" in many countries, including both England and the United States. Many people failed to recognize that Ukrainian is not a dialect of the Russian language or that Ukrainians had pretensions to independent statehood.Many second- or third-generation families whose ancestors emigrated to the United States or Canada from western Ukraine in the late nineteenth century (then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) are not even aware that they are of Ukrainian ancestry. Most of the more recent emigres from Odesa will identify themselves as "Russian" or "Jewish," for example, and have not learned the Ukrainian language. The Russian language has been dominant in eastern Ukraine for so long that many well-educated, otherwise liberally oriented ethnic Russians often deny that Ukrainian should be treated as a separate language. Numerous other examples can be adduced to show that the concept of Ukrainian distinctiveness, both linguistically and nationally, has long been discounted not only abroad, but also by Ukraine's neighbors, especially Russia.
Archival "Ucrainica" abroad may thus be found with a number of potentially different national or ethnic labels and may be subject to counterclaims by other national or ethnic groups, depending on their perceptions of the concept of "Ukrainian." This leads to the further complication that relatively few documents of present Ukrainian territorial provenance or pertinence among official foreign government records will surface with an appropriate "Ukrainian" label, although the lack of such labels may not lessen the relevance or "pertinence" of the contents to the present-day history of Ukraine. Such complex issues were not raised by earlier UNACA discussion, particularly during the decades when the term "Soviet" or "Fatherland" replaced national identities and suppressed conflicting ethnic claims or pretensions. Now that the "common Soviet Fatherland" no longer exists, such issues deserve appropriate consideration if there is to be a realistic juridical attempt to define and identify the "Ukrainian" archival legacy abroad. While it is appropriate to distinguish "Ukrainian" from "Russian" or "Belarusian," it may also be necessary to recognize a common heritage in terms of legitimate pretensions of other successor States that may simultaneously claim the same materials as part of their own national heritage.
* * *
Archival materials abroad that are of provenance in Ukraine or pertain to Ukraine while it was within the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union take many forms. They are part of many foreign record groups or documentary collections in both state and private repositories. Significant quantities of archival Ucrainica abroad have, unfortunately, not found their way to public repositories and have not been appraised or described at all. Many significant deposits risk disintegration in damp basements or unprotected attics, while many unique and valuable materials are consigned to the trash bin by later generations or subsequent tenants who have no appreciation for the potential value of such resources. Journalistic materials are especially problematic, given the difficulty of storing the various media used, the need for reusing recording media (especially in economically depressed areas), and the uncertainty of what topics of the moment will have lasting historical value.
Aggressive outreach efforts are under way today by numerous Ukrainian organizations to encourage the return of archival Ucrainica to its homeland. Similar efforts are under way in Russia, and, in some cases, there may be considerable overlap. To be sure, most of the materials brought out of the home-country by emigres or brought home by foreigners in Ukraine are too fragmentary or ephemeral to merit archival processing costs. To date, however, even those that have found their way to local university libraries, historical societies, or ethnic archives as tidbits of foreign exotica have not been adequately described nor open to research. There also is a need for Western institutions to expand the facilities available for collecting and processing those treasures that do deserve permanent preservation and whose legal owners are not prepared to transfer them to Ukraine.
Once preservation is assured in the West or in Ukraine, it is critical to follow through with professional, dispassionate description in accordance with international archival reference standards. An important component in such description is the inclusion of facts regarding provenance and subsequent migration of the archival documents in question. Many archival institutions and library manuscript divisions in Ukraine and Russia would not normally add such data to public catalog entries, but most such institutions retain accession registers that, at least, could reveal their own source of acquisition. Even if, in specific cases, there would be no reason for claims or pretensions, notations of provenance and migratory details are crucial for the full identification and utilization of the documents involved, and for the establishment of possible relationships to contiguous materials elsewhere abroad or in Ukraine itself.
In describing the varied complex of Ucrainica abroad-especially if there are any.pretensions to return or restitution in original or copy-it is helpful to distinguish basic categories of documentation or types of materials involved. Such distinctions will be helpful for the purposes of identification and discussion of potential legal claims. The legal status of the documents involved (and hence the application of international agreements, historical precedents, and professional archival practice), may vary depending on the category of documents. Most survey descriptions of Ucrainica abroad, including official discussions of Ucrainica within the context of other displaced archival materials, have not adequately identified typological distinctions. Nor have the authors of the descriptions been adequately concerned with provenance and the facts of migration. Since most have not been concerned with potential restitution (or the right to copies), they have failed to adequately delineate many complex legal problems of their present disposition.
Despite tremendous interest in various parts of the world, there has yet to be an adequate definition of what constitutes archival Ucrainica or the Ukrainian component in archival Rossica or Polonica abroad. A viable typology has not been established either of categories or types of documentation based on provenance and the circumstances of its alienation.This lack reflects a more general deficiency in international archival literature and legal practice of attempts to define the types of potentially displaced fragments of the archival heritage of any nation and the principles, procedures, and guidelines that might be appropriate in different cases for restitution or return in original or copy. Similar limitations are apparent in international archival literature promulgated by the International Council on Archives (ICA), and broader cultural restitution problems posited by UNESCO, as discussed above.
The typology presented here has grown and been revised several times, but still remains a preliminary formulation. It will require further revision in the course of discussion with professional archivists, international lawyers, and others who have tried to resolve such matters in different countries. As set forth here, categories have been defined specifically with regard to Ukrainian-pertinent documentation, growing out of analysis of Ukrainian archival history and descriptive efforts of documentation relating to Ukrainian history and culture. Some of the categories have already been mentioned above in the discussion of Ukrainian pretensions for materials held in the Russian metropolis and in reference to international precedents. In some cases, potential distinctions may not always be apparent, and in other cases, there may be overlap between categories. Still, it is helpful to try to establish appropriate categories with examples and to explain how a different legal status may often be involved.
Most archivists would undoubtedly agree that professional description with typological classification needs to be directed to two major components, namely,
Ideally, descriptive components and typological distinctions within archival Ucrainica abroad should reflect:
On the basis of international respect for the principles of territorial origin and provenance, a distinction must initially be made between archival materials created in Ukrainian lands-even when those lands were a part of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, or another State-and then alienated abroad, and those records or personal papers created abroad, including documentation created by emigre communities in the diaspora, or those legitimately acquired in the course of business by institutions, organizations, or individuals abroad. In the case of records of official or private institutions that have moved their legal base of institutional operation from one country t0 another, it will be important to identify the operational base during specific dates in the institutional charter or act of incorporation. In some cases of combined or migratory records, it may be necessary to consider dividing or subdividing the records according to dates and their country of creation.
Within this first component-the provenance and circumstances of creation-it might be appropriate in terms of defining archival Ucrainica to distinguish two main complexes of materials:
The first-or Ukrainian-complex of categories (see section l.A, "Documentation Created by the Ukrainian Government, Ukrainian Institutions, or Individuals," below) includes documentary materials created by:
To be sure, there will be cases where it may not be appropriate to distinguish sharply between "Ukrainian" and "foreign," or between the "near abroad" and the "farther abroad." Furthermore, as noted above, in terms of personal papers, major problems arise in distinguishing precisely along purely linguistic or ethnic lines.
It could be argued that these simple categories are sufficient and further typological distinctions are not necessary, but given different operative legal and cultural situations, it is appropriate to establish somewhat narrower categories that reference the place, as well as type, of institutional or individual creator.
1.A. Documentation Created by the Ukrainian Government, Ukrainian Institutions, or Individuals (13 categories):
1.A.1. Official records of earlier Ukrainian government agencies operating within present Ukrainian lands or in exile. This category would involve any possible fragments of official state records created by Ukrainian government agencies that might have been seized by other imperial regimes or taken abroad by emigres. These would include the records of the Zaporozhian Sich and the eighteenth-century Cossack Hetmanate based in Hlukhiv and Chernihiv and its local branch administrative bodies. This category would also include all of the records of the Central Rada and Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) during the struggle for Ukrainian independence after the revolutions of 1917 and the West Ukrainian National Republic. Any such parts of state archival records extant abroad, many of which were seized by later imperial powers, would now legitimately constitute part of the national archival heritage of Ukraine.
Of particular interest now is the fate of records of the UNR. It is understandable that after the collapse of the independent Ukrainian state in 1920 and the failure of the West Ukrainian National Republic, many of the leaders involved were forced to flee, taking with them some of the records of that government into exile. Additional records were created by that government in exile, for example, during the period the UNR was based in Tarnow, Poland. In the next two decades those records were widely scattered in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and Prague. During the Second World War, many were confiscated by the Nazis and further displaced. After the war, some were taken to the United States or Canada and, as mentioned in the introduction, many more were captured by Soviet authorities and brought to Kyiv and Moscow. Pending definitive arrangement and more thorough description, it isdifficult to determine which parts of the original records are preserved in Kyiv and Moscow.Obviously, records of those governments in exile are also of prime interest for Ukraine, although their legal status may involve further complications. Of a special positive note in this connection was the transfer to the Main Archival Administration in Kyiv in an official ceremony in March 1996 of documentation of the Ukrainian government (UNR) in exile from the National Archives of Canada.
1.A.2. Diplomatic or other official records and miscellaneous archival materials created abroad by Ukrainian missions or representatives of official Ukrainian institutions and organizations. There are a few important examples of official Ukrainian diplomatic representatives abroad or other institutions that were representing Ukraine and that were directly subservient to, or that were operating as branches of, official government institutions based in Ukraine itself. These would include the records of the Permanent Representative of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic in Moscow as well as various trade missions, all of which remain in Moscow.
Since Ukraine was considered an official founding member of the United Nations, Ukraine now also has a legitimate claim for the records (almost all of which remain in Moscow) of the Ukrainian missions to the United Nations (New York), UNESCO (Paris), and other official international bodies. This remains the case, despite the fact that Ukrainian representation was effectively subservient to Soviet Union representatives in most instances.
It is unlikely that Ukraine would have any legitimate pretensions for Ukrainian-pertinent files within state records of official Russian/Soviet diplomatic, consular, or intelligence units that were operating abroad under an earlier regime. For example, there may well be a few Ukrainian-related files among the records of the pre-revolutionary Russian Embassies in Paris and Washington, DC, that are now held in the Hoover Institution in California, but today these should legitimately be returned to Russia, not Ukraine.The related pre-revolutionary Russian consular records from the United States and Canada that had been held in the U.S. National Archives were returned to Moscow in 1989.
There is particular Ukrainian interest now in retrieving the foreign diplomatic records of the UNR created during the struggle for Ukrainian independence during the Civil War; most of these records remained abroad for political reasons after the failure of that government. Some of them were transferred to the USSR after World War II from various sources. For example, a few files from the UNR Embassy in Berlin that were brought from Prague with the RZIA collections are now held in Moscow.
1.A.3. Official records of central agencies charged with administration of Ukrainian lands on the part of previously governing imperial regimes.
Official records would involve those of Russia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Austria-Hungary, Romania, and Turkey. For purposes of analysis, these fall into two subcategories. The first subcategory covers records of imperial governing agencies that form separate, distinguishable groups of records that are uniquely pertinent to territories now comprising the Ukrainian successor State. As an example of central agencies under the Russian Empire, mention was made earlier of the records of the Malorossiiskii prikaz ("Little Russian" [Ukrainian] bureau) and the Malorossiiskaia ekspeditsiia Senata ("Little Russian" [Ukrainian] Department of the Senate) now held in Moscow. These form isolated groups of records specifically involved with the administration of Ukrainian lands. There are some international archival precedents for claims to transfer the originals of such records to the successor State, but given current preferences to keep the central records of an imperial government intact in the place of creation, the transfer of copies would be in order here.
The second subcategory covers remaining cases, especially under the post-revolutionary Soviet system, when government and/or CPSU agencies of central control and command did not keep separate records for highest-level decisions that affected individual union republics. This includes, for example, various files (including osobye papki) of specific interest to Ukraine during the entire Soviet period that are interspersed throughout the massive records of the Central Committee and Politburo of the CPSU and its subsidiary departments. It also includes records of various central state agencies, such as the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Gosplan, and others. Given the fact that Ukrainian-relevant files do not constitute a separate group-or even a separate sub-group (in Ukrainian or Russian archival terms a separate opyslopis')-of these records, Ukraine has appropriate pretensions to an authenticated copy of and the right of access to relevant blocks of the complete record group in order to understand and interpret individual files in an appropriate context. In this case, there could certainly be no claim for the originals, although Ukraine would have every reason to seek copies of the complete records of the governing body as needed, including all Ukrainian-specific files not already available on microfilm in Kyiv.
l.A.4. Official state records of provincial, regional, or local agencies based within Ukrainian lands created by authorities of previously governing imperial regimes (including the Communist Party of Ukraine under Soviet rule). Under the Russian Empire, for example, there is no question that local gubernia or court records, created by the Russian governor-general or gubernia administrations within the lands of successor States, would be considered of provenance within those States and hence legally part of their own archival legacies. Thus, records of the Kyiv, Volhynian, and Podolian Governorships-General are of provenance in Kyiv and, hence, part of the Ukrainian national archival heritage. Original outgoing gubernia reports to central authorities in St. Petersburg or Moscow, by contrast, would be part of the records of the central government. If there are gaps in the copies of the outgoing records that were kept locally, however, it would be fitting to request copies from the records of the central authorities.
Likewise, under Soviet rule, there would be no question about jurisdiction over local Ukrainian Communist Party, MVD, and KGB records that were created in present Ukrainian lands. However, many of these have been removed from Kyiv and remain in central Russian archives.
1.A.5. Records of official Ukrainian military units or distinctive Ukrainian components of Russian/Soviet armed forces. There have been relatively few official Ukrainian military units abroad over the centuries. Most of the scattered files of UNR military units that came to Moscow after World War II with the RZIA collections were turned over to Ukraine in 1962.
As mentioned above, the central records of the Black Sea Fleet were created, and for a long time held, in the Ukrainian port of Mykolai'v, but there are understandably dual claims to those records. Ukraine claims the records on the basis of the provenance of their creation and long-time storage; alternately, Russia claims the records on the grounds that the fleet was part of the Imperial (and later Soviet) Navy. Nevertheless, Ukraine does have pretensions on at least a part of the records of the Black Sea Fleet, according to the terms of resolution of the dispute over the fleet itself. The provision of copies of such records that would be of dual claim is in order.
Other military records for which there could be pretensions include those of Ukrainian fronts, armies, or units within imperial Austrian, Polish, Russian and Soviet armies, including local induction and operational records of local military commands. Many such local military records were removed from Ukraine by Nazi military archival authorities during World War II and have not been returned. Many other local military records were removed to Moscow either in the 1930s or after the war and deposited in central all-union military archives. These, too, would merit restitution on the basis of their provenance and initial archival location within the Ukrainian SSR.
In the case of the records of "Ukrainian Fronts" during World War II, however, it would be harder to establish definitive claim to the originals. Such high-level military units were an integral and subordinate part of the Red Army, and it would not be fitting to destroy the integrity of their records. Complete microform copies, along with complete copies of the relevant finding aids to the records of "fronts" operating in Ukraine-or of those of predominantly Ukrainian composition operating abroad-and complete records of their commanding units would be appropriate to claim.
1.A.6. Specialized Documentation from Ukrainian Lands Taken to Imperial Centers, including Ukrainian Film Productions, Audiovisual, and Other Scientific Documentation. During the Soviet period, various types of specialized documentation of Ukrainian provenance other than official state records were centralized in all-union archives in the imperial capital. These include data in numerous scientific areas such as the Central Cartographic-Geodesic Fond, the State Geological Fond, the State Fond of Data on Environmental Conditions and Hydro-Meteorology, and the Central State Fond of Standards and Technical Specifications, to name the most significant permanent depositories. These would have been considered legal deposits under Soviet law and have been declared legally part of the Archival Fond of the Russian Federation. These archives were reorganized under administration of the successor agencies of the Russian Federation but, as noted above, Jhey are administered independently of Rosarkhiv.
The Commission on Cinematography of the USSR required the deposit of the archival copy of all feature films, editing outtakes, scenarios, and related archival materials produced in all republic-level film studios throughout the Soviet Union in its centralized film archive, Gosfil'mofond, in Belye Stolby outside Moscow. Ukrainian productions for all-union television and radio were also centralized in the corresponding State Television and Radio Archive, Gosteleradiofond in Moscow. The situation with regard to documentary films and sound recordings was less centralized because, although copies of many republic-level productions were transferred for deposit in centralized audiovisual archives in Moscow, parallel audiovisual archives were also maintained on the republic level, which was not the case for feature films and television productions.
The question now is: do Ukraine and other newly independent successor States have a claim to the master films and related archival materials produced in their studios over the past fifty years? If they remain exempt from claim under current Russian archival law, does that mean that adequate copies of the data and their information systems have been granted to newly independent successor States? The current disposition of such important republic-level archival materials and original film masters of Ukrainian provenance will obviously require further negotiation, along with appropriate provisions for their preservation and copyright administration in Ukraine.
1.A.7. Records created abroad (outside the former Russian/Soviet Empire) by representatives of other non-diplomatic official Ukrainian/Soviet state institutions. Many more such "official" records exist from the Soviet period than from pre-revolutionary years because the state had such a wide function in all aspects of economic and social life, and hence records of representation abroad in many non-diplomatic spheres would also be considered official state records. In this category we would include official Ukrainian trade missions, press representatives, and Ukrainian representatives to international organizations (other than those with diplomatic status). If, in fact, the agencies were purely Ukrainian, Ukraine naturally would have pretensions for their records, while pretensions for files created by or relating to Ukrainian participants in general all-union missions would be harder to substantiate.
1.A.8. Documentation of Ukrainian non-state, private institutions such as businesses, churches, or cultural agencies not under official state control. This category would include representatives abroad of Ukrainian institutions or organizations officially licensed to conduct business within Ukraine. In most countries such records would be subject to laws of private or corporate property, although under the Soviet regime they would have most likely been nationalized.
1.A.9. Documentation of illegal or exiled organizations and individuals, including clandestine and dissident groups operating within Ukrainian lands during the Russian imperial or Soviet regimes. This category consists of much high-interest documentation of Ukrainian political parties, military and para-military organizations (such as the Ukrainian Sich Riflemen [Ukrams'ki sichovi stril'tsi] and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army [Ukrams'ka Povstans'ka Armiia-UFA]), suppressed Church groups, community groups, underground and dissident groups or individuals. However, because of their illegal and/or clandestine status under prevailing imperial regimes, legal claims or the right of recovery may be more difficult than would be the case of official, licensed, legal institutions.
During the Soviet period, large quantities of illegal (or, as it was sometimes called, "unofficial") documentation was seized by the central all-union KGB and its foreign intelligence service operating abroad, and subsequently became incorporated in all-union-level KGB records. Such documentation was also seized by local NKVD, MVD, or KGB authorities and became incorporated in Ukrainian KGB or MVD records. As mentioned earlier, major groups of Ukrainian MVD and KGB records (including significant quantities of UFA documentation) were removed to Moscow in 1991. Since these were clearly alienated records of local Ukrainian provenance, it would be out of place for imperial all-union authorities to establish definitive claim to the originals or to charge exorbitant fees for copies. Under normal international archival arrangements, such local records should be subject to claims in the same category as other local records mentioned above (see LA.4. "Official state records of provincial, regional, or local agencies..."), but Western concepts in this regard obviously have not yet been accepted in the transitional post-Soviet Russian body politic and archival world; in Moscow these files remain in agency custody rather than in public archives.It is not known how many files relating to or manuscript materials created by Ukrainian dissidents, or surveillance records of foreign Ukrainian emigres, are still maintained among former KGB records in Moscow.
In many cases, copies of some Ukrainian dissident literature and underground samizdat (Ukr. samvydav), as well as semi-published periodicals, were sent abroad for publication or broadcast by Radio Liberty and others. They are preserved in RL/RFE archives or by Ukrainian groups in the West.Many papers of exiled Ukrainian "bourgeois nationalists" also remained abroad, although some were seized by the Nazis in various European countries and subsequently brought back to Ukraine by Soviet authorities after the war. During World War II, Nazi authorities also collected many files of Ukrainian emigre organizations abroad; a few of those files of groups operating in Poland, for example, were seized by Soviet authorities at the end of the war and are now held in the former Special Archive (TsGOA; now part of RGVA) or in GA RF, while others were transferred to the fonner Central Party Archive (now RGASPI). Others are held with the Prague materials in TsDAVO and TsDAHO in Kyiv. Although records of those organizations operating abroad would be considered of foreign provenance and not subject to claim by Ukraine, there are no grounds for their remaining in Moscow.
1.A.10. Personal papers of individual Ukrainians, including Ukrainian emigres. There are many important groups of personal papers of prominent Ukrainians created in Ukrainian lands that were legitimately taken abroad by, or for, individual exiles or political or intellectual emigres. Copies or originals of important government documents have often become incorporated into private personal files of government leaders. Normally, once they have become lodged there, they would not be subject to claim or removal in most countries.
Many of these are now intricately related to subsequent personal papers created in emigration or exile. Personal papers in most countries outside the Socialist bloc would constitute "personal property" and would be subject to the laws of the creator's present country of citizenship. They would be subject to jurisdiction, according to the dispositional wishes of their creator, heir, or current owner, as well as copyright laws.
l.A.ll. Manuscript books, autographs, and collections of historical documentation. Many important collections of manuscript books and other historical documentation of Ukrainian provenance have been taken at various times to the imperial capitals of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Different principles need to be resolved in terms of pretensions for their restitution. In terms of materials held in Russia from the "near abroad," many manuscript books and historical documents were collected in Ukrainian lands by various "archeographic expeditions," starting in the early nineteenth century with the work of the Imperial Archeographic Commission. Similar examples arise in the many archeographic expeditions sent out, for example, by the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN) and the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkinskii Dom) in Leningrad, and the Library of Moscow State University during more recent Soviet decades. Also of considerable importance are ethnographic collections gathered from Ukrainian lands on expeditions by various museums and ethnographic research institutes, both before 1917 and during the Soviet period.
Local churches and remaining private holdings were stripped of their earliest manuscript treasures, which were brought to central repositories in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where they remain today. The extent to which the manuscript divisions of major libraries, museums, and other institutes in Moscow and St. Petersburg have taken in manuscript riches and folklore treasures from throughout the empire is receiving more attention in successor States following the collapse of the USSR, but few Russian cultural or scientific officials would want to consider restitution of imperial treasures. New Russian laws and presidential decrees have ruled out restitution of previously nationalized archival materials and cultural treasures, and, undoubtedly, Russian authorities will still claim that all of these seizures were legal at the time, and that institutions in Russia were responsible for their "rescue," preservation, and, in many cases, restoration. In addition, Russians are quick to point out the extent to which works of Russian and foreign art and other cultural treasures previously held in Russian lands were distributed to the former Soviet republics, especially after World War II.
In terms of the traditional or "farther" abroad, emigres account for the alienation of.vast quantities of archival materials from, and relating to, Ukraine. Along with personal papers, many emigres took with them important collections of historical documentation, manuscript books, and audiovisual materials. During the 1920s and 1930s, noted Ukrainian political figures and intellectuals who fled to the West and settled in Czechoslovakia, Germany, or other countries were able to bring with them archival materials from many important Ukrainian institutions or individuals, as well as their own personal papers. Like personal papers, in most countries outside the Socialist bloc manuscript collections would constitute "personal property" of their creator or collector. Problems now arise in how to categorize more specifically official Ukrainian state archival materials that were taken abroad by emigres. Most such materials are already subject to the laws of the countries in which their legal owners (either individual or institutional) reside. The Soviet seizure of the Russian Foreign Historical Archive (RZIA) and the associated Ukrainian Historical Cabinet (UIK) in Prague in 1945, negotiated officially as "gifts," is a special case."
The fate of Polish manuscript collections from Lviv is discussed below. In the schema used here, they would now be considered "foreign"-created collections; their migration is most relevant to the post-World War II resettlement of Polish population from western Ukraine. Somewhat different problems arise in connection with the fate of the manuscript collection of the Armenian Metropolitanate of Galicia and other Armenian manuscripts from the Lviv University Library, most of which were taken from Lviv in Nazi shipments in the spring of 1944 and are now mostly in Poland. Some manuscripts from this collection have been integrated into the collections of the Ossolineum in Wroclaw, although some parts of the collection taken earlier from Lviv are now held in Vienna. The disposition of this former collection is complicated by the fact that the collection itself has been dispersed and by the fact that its pre-1939 legal owner, the Armenian Metropolitanate, had not been reestablished in Lviv. An additional complexity arises from the fact that the Matenadaran, the official Armenian State manuscript repository, in agreement with civic and church authorities in Yerevan, has established itself as caretaker for the Armenian manuscript legacy from all over the world. Other complications regarding provenance and previous ownership arise in the case of the other Oriental and Church Slavonic manuscripts removed from Lviv at the same time.
Manuscript collections, individual rare manuscript books, famous autographs, and films and other audiovisual materials cannot always be handled according to the same principles as state archives and personal papers. The analysis of UNESCO regarding respect for assembled collections and other general principles for dealing with cultural property mentioned in Chapter 3 is relevant in this case. What is most important today for the many highly prized early Slavic manuscripts and Ukrainian autographs held abroad is the professional description of the texts and the open admission of the details of their migration and of their present location, so that scholars may know if and where the texts have been preserved. Once such description has been accomplished, an international commission of experts to evaluate claims may ultimately be the just solution in complicated cases. Whatever the outcome, as ICA and UNESCO resolutions set forth, there should be no compromise or limitation put on the right to receive complete, high-quality copies.
1.A.12. Records created abroad by private Ukrainian emigre organizations or community groups. Considerable interest will now be found in many records of emigre groups, such as cultural, church, and fraternal organizations created abroad that continued to preserve Ukrainian traditions in emigration. Many of them were in close contact with the homeland and followed developments there, both on official and underground levels. Like the papers of prominent individual emigres, they contain significant incoming correspondence or other materials of Ukrainian origin.
In the West, all such groups of records would be protected by laws respecting private or cultural property in the country where they were created or where they now reside. Thus, institutional records of Ukrainian community organizations created in Prague, Munich, Paris, or New York, however "pertinent" to Ukraine and important in terms of Ukrainian history and culture, must be considered of foreign provenance and subject to the laws of the country of their creation. Pretensions might arise, however, regarding the records of successor organizations to parent institutions in Ukraine, or those of institutions or organizations that have been reestablished in Ukraine since the collapse of Soviet rule.
During World War II, Nazi authorities appropriated many archives and scattered files of Ukrainian emigre organizations abroad. Many of those seized by the Nazis were in turn seized by Soviet authorities at the end of the war or in the immediate postwar years. The largest volume of Ukrainian emigre archival material seized abroad and transferred to the USSR are now held in TsDAVO in Kyiv, although some were requisitions by central Soviet authorities in Moscow. These materials, together with the transfers to Kyiv and Moscow in connection with the "gifts" of RZIA and UIK and extensive documentation from other emigre sources in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Germany, and other countries will be discussed in Chapter 9.
1.A.13. Collections of Ukrainian archival materials created abroad and/or Ukrainian components of other collections. Many archives or libraries of Ukrainian emigre groups abroad contain collected documentary sources or literary manuscripts and other miscellaneous archival materials of Ukrainian origin. Like the persona/ papers of emigres, they would be considered private property and are normally protected by laws respecting private cultural property in the country where they now reside. In most countries, documents legally purchased at auction or from literary dealers are considered, by virtue of purchase, the legal property of their new owners, even if their prior origins may be suspect. Where there are provisions for claims for materials with prior illegal transfers, statutes of limitation often apply. This would also be the case with Ukrainian components of other established Western archives or manuscript repositories throughout the world.
A second major complex of documentation would be records created by foreign sources (governments, semi-private or private institutions and organizations, or individuals). To be sure, under international law and accepted archival practice in many Western countries, most such documentary materials created by foreigners in, or pertaining to, Ukraine, including personal papers, records of private organizations, and especially documentation created abroad, would never be subject to claim as an official part of the national archival heritage. Some might even suggest that this broad complex of material is not really "archival Ucrainica" per se.
It should be noted, however, that in traditional scholarship and library usage, the term "Rossica" or "Ucrainica" usually referred to foreign imprints about Russia or Ukraine such as the "Rossica" collection in the pre-revolu-tionary Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg (see Preface, p. xxxv, fn. 8). In bibliophile usage abroad, the terms "Rossica" and "Ucrainica" usually implied early (pre-nineteenth century) books printed in Russia or Ukraine (including Slavonic books of Russian imperial origin) in collections outside Russia or Ukraine. More recently, the term "Ucrainica" is being prefaced with the word "archival" to extend its scope to unpublished materials. As well, it is being used both in the sense of foreign-created materials and those created in Ukraine.
Many such materials are of legitimate interest for their revelations and pertinence to Ukrainian history and culture. Many of them, as will be noted below, even contain important original "Ukrainian" documentation. Hence, these categories also require description in the context of a program for archival Ucrainica.
1.B.1. Diplomatic or consular records of official missions of a foreign state residing in Ukrainian lands, and/or Ukrainian-pertinent materials within diplomatic records of foreign missions resident in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, Poland, or other countries once exercising dominion over present-day Ukrainian territory. A wealth of Ukrainian-pertinent sources remain among diplomatic and consular records of foreign states, but there can be no question that such archival records, and the miscellaneous documentation incorporated in those records, were legitimately taken abroad. According to diplomatic precedents, even consular records of a foreign state created in Kyiv, Lviv, or Odesa should remain under the jurisdiction of the country that created them. Given diplomatic practices during recent centuries, there are no grounds for demanding the return even of high-interest, intercepted, or decoded Russian/Ukrainian documents to be found among such records. To be sure, requests would be justified for copies of documents from years already declassified and open for research in foreign archives.
The extensive Ukrainian-pertinent documentation is often difficult to locate within existing records of foreign embassies in Russia, Poland, or Austria. Rarely do they have Ukrainian-pertinent labels. Even on the highest diplomatic level, foreign governments had one embassy in the Russian Empire (and later, the Soviet Union), in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and its successor States, in Poland, and in the Ottoman Empire. Hence, for example, British Foreign Office records with diplomatic correspondence bearing the archival/record group designation "Russia," "Poland," "Austria," and so forth, contain reports and documentation from present-day Ukrainian lands that were, in different periods, part of the larger body politic. Reports from western Ukraine before 1918 would be filed with embassy records from Vienna, and hence would be part of the archival/record group "Austria," rather than "Russia," whereas the reports from the same areas during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, and again from 1919 to 1940, would have come from embassies in Cracow or Warsaw and would be filed within the archive/record group "Poland." In British records, for example, most file designations bearing the term "South Russia" require further analysis as to whether the documentation included should be considered of Russian or Ukrainian "provenance," "pertinence," or of joint Russian/Ukrainian relevance. Archivists or established subject-authority files may differ in the labels they applied, based on the extent of their geographic knowledge and ethnic sensitivity. Even if a qualified, ethnically perceptive archivist correctly assigned an official file designator to one historical period, changing boundaries may now make that designation obsolete. A subsequent archivist or indexer most probably would not have time to reexamine the contents of the files themselves before entering the label into a new index listing.
1.B.2. Records of wartime foreign military and occupation authorities in Ukrainian lands. In most instances, foreign military records have been legitimately claimed by nations that created them, and are usually viewed as the property of the invading army or navy, as is stated in the 1995 ICA Position Paper (see Appendix VII, §l.v, p. 558). Thus, the original documents of invading armies are most often found in the archives of the invading country (France during the Napoleonic wars and Germany during the two World Wars). In the course of many wars, invaders managed to evacuate their records or subsequently recover them in later military encounters or treaty negotiations. There are many examples over the centuries of military archives that were seized by invading armies and then seized again in subsequent wars. Nazi authorities during World War II were particularly diligent in this respect, and they managed to locate and seize many earlier military records in Ukraine, especially those relating to military operations against Germany during World War I-from both sides of the battle line.
According to international archival practice, as pointed out by the April 1995 ICA Position Paper, records of military occupation have traditionally been treated differently than local peacetime or civilian occupational records of an imperial regime. Clearly, occupational records involving civilian institutions and civilian populations in occupied lands should be considered as a sub-category because they are of joint heritage (interest); they are important to the occupiers as well as the countries being occupied-the aggressors as well as the vanquished. Hence, it is essential that copies be made available to both countries involved. A good example of bilateral cooperation in connection with occupation records was the German-American joint project for describing and microfilming the records of the American occupation government in Germany after World War II (OMGUS).
During World War II, Nazi forces retreating from Soviet lands attempted to destroy or evacuate with them their occupation records, and in many cases they succeeded. In some cases, however, Soviet authorities later found and seized Nazi occupation records in the West. For example, some of the records of the Reich Ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories (Reichsministerium fur die besetzten Ostgebiete-RMbO) are now held in Moscow (former TsKhlDK), although a much larger part was captured after the war by U.S. authorities and subsequently returned to Germany as the nation that created them.Similarly, a major part of the related records of the Rosenberg Special Command (Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg-ERR), which the Nazis managed to evacuate to the West, was also captured by U.S. forces and later returned to Germany. Another major group of ERR records was seized by Soviet authorities after the war; the largest group is now held in Kyiv (TsDAVO), while a few miscellaneous files are now held in Moscow (RGVA) and Vilnius. While German archives have a legitimate right to claim the Rosenberg records and those of other Nazi occupation agencies in Kyiv, Ukrainian archives will undoubtedly want copies of other Ukrainian-relevant parts of the same fonds and others from the occupation periodpertaining to Ukraine that are now held in Berlin, Koblenz, Paris, and Moscow.
1.B.3. Records of foreign non-governmental business firms, cultural, church, press, or other organizations with branch operations in Ukraine (or Ukrainian lands of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union). Many pertinent records of private institutions (including churches and religious groups, charity organizations and relief missions, business firms, the journalistic media, and political groups) that had offices or branch operations in the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union are still preserved abroad. We would also include in this category (or perhaps as a sub-category) records of international organizations, such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and others that have had missions or contacts with Ukraine. In most international practice, such records would have been legitimately taken abroad as private or corporate property. Under the Communist regime, however, foreign business and other institutional records created in the Russian Empire and remaining there were nationalized. The status of many such records may be subject to claim from the foreign institutions involved, but, at the same time, there will undoubtedly be considerable Ukrainian interest in receiving copies of records held abroad of firms that were operating in Ukraine.
In a few cases, there are specific firms or organizations that were operating only in Ukrainian lands and, thus, as a whole may be considered archival Ucrainica. In other cases, records of large firms or organizations that operated throughout the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union may contain Ukrainian-specific documentation, although, as mentioned above, it may rarely be described as such. For example, the Rosarkhiv-Hoover exhibit, "Making Things Work: Russian-American Economic Relations, 1900-1930," that opened in Moscow (November 1992) and subsequently in Palo Alto, California (March/April 1993), included many samples of important business records of American companies operating in Russia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with even a few documents of Ukrainian origin and/or pertinence.
1.B.4. Personal papers of foreigners resident in Ukraine. Personal papers of foreign visitors or those resident in Ukraine from all walks of life also have to be considered, including their writings (or the documentary materials assembled for such writings) about visits to Ukrainian lands such as Kyiv, Volhynia, or "South Russia." Although such personal papers would clearly be considered private property of their owners, they may be of considerable interest for their Ukrainian relevance. Among the many foreigners resident in Russia (or, specifically, Ukraine) over the past centuries, scholars, journalists, and diplomats have gathered extensive first-hand reports of Ukrainian and, more broadly, Russian/Soviet developments, hand copies of documentary materials, and audiovisual materials. Many have kept diaries or journals, and have written about their experiences in letters, reports, or subsequent essays.
1.B.5. Manuscript and documentary collections of foreigners resident in Ukraine. Visiting foreigners, and even officially accredited diplomats, have been known to take with them many manuscripts and historical documents that were not licensed for export under existing laws. The difficulty of proving that the materials were not purchased or exported under diplomatic immunity may make prosecution impossible. In some instances, the statute of limitations would complicate claims or pretensions.
Foreigners resident in Ukraine have also gathered official or reproduced copies of important state or underground documents and audiovisual materials. More recently, scholars are returning with microfilms and photocopies of archival documents, interviews with public or literary figures, and academics of note; they are bringing surveys and questionnaires, and sometimes even hastily constructed databases compiled during lengthy research visits and joint projects. Graphic materials, engravings, prints, drawings, maps, and photographs require special attention in the description of personal papers and manuscript collections. Film footage, sound, and more recently video recordings are of prime significance.
In our typology of archival Ucrainica abroad, as a second main complex of categories, it is essential to distinguish the date and circumstances under which documentation was removed from Ukraine. For example, were the materials in question alienated from Ukraine legally, or were they exported without regard to law? Even if the statute of limitations may now make formal legal action impossible, the knowledge of such details may serve to exert moral influence in connection with requests for copies that might otherwise be difficult to obtain. Eight categories are worth considering in this context:
2.A. Outgoing official or private correspondence with organizations and individuals abroad, together with documents or other manuscripts legitimately alienated by gifts or official presentations.
An original charter addressed and sealed by Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi or Petro Doroshenko in the seventeenth century, for example, and a document signed by Petliura or any other twentieth-century Ukrainian government or Party leader addressed to a foreign office or individual, wherever it may now be located, would normally be considered to be part of (and hence belonging to) the records of the institutional or personal addressee, not the creator. Although such documents would indeed be relevant-or "pertinent"-to Ukrainian history, there could be no legal claim for restitution of the original. By the same token, original letters of a Ukrainian writer addressed to a foreign friend or colleague could not be subject to claim. It is nevertheless crucially important to identify them as "pertinent" to the Ukrainian cultural heritage, and it would often be highly desirable to add copies to the writer's personal papers held in Ukraine.
2.B. Records or collections transferred abroad in connection with, or existing in, neighboring States or former colonies as a result of changing international borders or ecclesiastical administrative districts and/or the forced migration of ethnic populations.
Records of local government of former imperial authorities obviously belong in the territory that was governed, although it is understandable that the governing power may also require copies. Hence, state records created within present Ukrainian lands by local authorities of former imperial governing agencies based within present Ukrainian lands would legitimately be subject to claim, although the former imperial regime undoubtedly would have considerable interest in the retention of microform copies.
The issue of forced migration of ethnic populations complicates claims. The redrawing of Western Soviet boundaries, especially Polish-Soviet boundaries with the annexation of Western Ukraine, and the forced resettlement of Polish and Ukrainian populations after World War II brought major claims for the repatriation of Polish cultural objects from territories relinquished to the USSR. However, the agreements drafted by the Polish side were never signed, and what repatriation occurred was handled on an ad hoc basis through a bilateral commission with the Ukrainian SSR without any carefully defined principles or signed agreement.Although there were major archival adjustments and revindications in the postwar decades, many cases of displaced and seriously fragmented archives were never resolved.
This is complicated by the necessity of respecting the provenance of official state or semi-state records and their patrimony within the territory of their creation, and, conversely, by the necessity of respecting the cultural heritage of resettled populations. The issue is further complicated by the necessity of preserving the integrity of existing groups of state records and library manuscript collections. Thus, various compromises may be required and many problems remain unresolved. On both sides of the frontier, the immediate resolution of such problems of disposition becomes more difficult because of the frequent prior lack of adequate agreements and precise descriptions compiled for files within the series (opysy/opisi) of affected fonds (or parts of fonds involved).
In terms of non-governmental institutional bodies, church records are particularly important in this respect. For example, most of the records of the Greek Catholic diocese of Przemysl (Ukr. Peremyshl) are now held in Poland, although part of the territory of that diocese is now in Ukraine (Przemysl itself was part of Ukraine according to the 1939-1941 boundaries).Clearly, records involving the Ukrainian population of the diocese are involved. Some files are of provenance, and of direct pertinence, to western Ukraine, and some related diocesan files are actually held in Lviv.
Most of the remaining records of the Roman-Catholic archdiocese of Lviv were revindicated to Poland in 1946.Significant parts of the archive were reportedly destroyed after the Soviet annexation of the area in 1939, and some documentation was removed from Lviv at the end of the war under Nazi aegis. Most of the remaining records are now held in Lubaczow, Poland, the seat of the Ecclesiastical Administrator of the archdiocese, although some of the parchments survive in Lviv. That body of records, dating back to the fourteenth century, is of obvious Lviv provenance. However, given the forced migration of the majority of the Polish population and the Soviet suppression of the Roman Catholic Church in western Ukraine, its revindication to Poland was most appropriate. There is no question, however, that on the basis of provenance Ukraine would be entitled to complete microform copies of the documents and all relevant finding aids, although such arrangements were not suggested at the time of the transfer.
Similar problems arise in the case of records of various Roman Catholic monastic orders, such as those of the Dominican Order that were revindicated from Lviv after the war and that are now held in Cracow. In the latter case, however, some early manuscripts from the Pochai'v Monastery that were taken with the Dominican archive from Lviv could probably be subject to restitution, although the history of the religious affiliations of the monastery are complicated. Some of the manuscripts themselves could hardly be considered Dominican or of Dominican provenance, although they had become Dominican property on the grounds that the Dominican friars were responsible for rescuing the materials that might otherwise have been destroyed during the Soviet reconquest of the area.
Library manuscript collections can likewise succumb to political disruption. One of the most blatant examples of an inappropriately executed transfer of the cultural heritage of the resettled Polish population resulted in the ruthless division of the library and manuscript holdings of the Ossolinski National Cultural Institute (Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich)-the most important Polish library in Eastern Europe. The Ossolineum (as it is usually known in English) was abolished after Soviet annexation of Western Ukraine in 1939, and its library holdings absorbed along with others into the Lviv Branch of the Library of the Academy of Sciences of the UkrSSR. Part of the library holdings, along with archival materials of the former Ossolineum and a few other Polish cultural treasures from Lviv, were officially transferred in 1946 and 1947 from Lviv to Wroclaw (the newly polonized, formerly German city of Breslau). The transfer of the Polish cultural center was decreed as a "gift to the Polish people," in the wake of the resettlement of the Polish population, following the redrawing of Polish national boundaries following WWI1.
Ukrainian national and territorially pertinent claims were put forward locally in Lviv requiring that manuscripts "relating to Western Ukraine and the history of all Ukraine" and also "productions of Ukrainian writers" were to remain in Lviv. While those vague principles based on "territorial" and "ethnic cultural" pertinence were never set forth with professional guidelines, nor agreed upon by the two sides, the division took place hastily without respect for the integrity of collections or integral groups of personal or family papers. Almost half of the manuscript holdings from the former Ossolineum and related institutions remained in Lviv, but with a blatant disregard for the integrity of fonds and collections. In some cases, even numbered volumes of the same manuscript were split between Lviv and Wroclaw, to the expected detriment to subsequent scholarship.
The Ossolineum case serves as a prime example of the types of problems that can occur in the realm of library manuscript collections rather than state archives, when political expediency and vague ethnic and territorial principles dictates disrespect of professional cultural and archival traditions. The The Ossolineum case serves as a prime example of the types of problems that can occur in the realm of library manuscript collections rather than state archives, when political expediency and vague ethnic and territorial principles dictates disrespect of professional cultural and archival traditions. The The Ossolineum case serves as a prime example of the types of problems that can occur in the realm of library manuscript collections rather than state archives, when political expediency and vague ethnic and territorial principles dictates disrespect of professional cultural and archival traditions. The principle of provenance understandably may not always be foremost when library manuscript collections and personal and family collections are involved. However, the attempt to superimpose and apply the elusive principle of "territorial pertinence" or "ethnic national interest" to the extent of splitting up integral volumes of a single manuscript as well as the large collection of which it forms part goes against viable archival and scholarly standards.
A joint Polish-Ukrainian commission is now studying the matter, but passions currently run so high over the issue that the claims and counterclaims will be difficult to resolve within the foreseeable future. If the original manuscript collections themselves are not eventually reintegrated in the manner in which they were created, it will be most important in this and similar cases to exchange quality microforms of the manuscripts and all relevant finding aids (including historical descriptions and card files), together with a dispassionate preparation of professional manuscript descriptions and the identification of the present location of the holdings. Also to be included would be a correlation between present and previous catalog numbers of those holdings located elsewhere. The preliminary microfiche editions of the Ossolineum catalog series in 1989 could provide a starting point, and new digital techniques provide an opportunity to facilitate the task and simplify electronic searching.
In terms of manuscript collections, many Latin and Polish manuscript books, incunabula, and early printed books from the University of Lviv Library were also evacuated to Poland in April 1944. Evacuated under the supervision of Polish specialists from Lviv who themselves were being forcibly encouraged to resettle in Poland, the shipment included medieval Latin illuminated manuscripts from the Abbey of Tyniec (near Cracow) and many important Polish manuscripts. Given the postwar fate and depoloniza-tion of Lviv University under Soviet rule and the suppression of the Roman Catholic Church, it is hard to argue today that these manuscripts are a legitimate part of the Ukrainian national archival heritage. After the war, the evacuated manuscripts and early imprints were officially claimed by Soviet authorities as having been seized by the Nazis from Lviv during the war, but without knowledge of their evacuation or actual fate.Later, when it was discovered they had been found in Poland, an official claim was filed by Soviet authorities. In the course of diplomatic negotiations, however, the claim was amended to cover only the "non-Polish" materials. Reportedly, some of the manuscripts and early printed books were prepared for return to Lviv, but the Roman Catholic, Polish, and Oriental manuscripts remain in Poland, and Soviet authorities never insisted on restitution, given the Polish, Latin, and Roman Catholic orientation of the texts.
2.C. Official Ukrainian archival materials created in Ukraine and removed from Ukrainian lands by imperial governing authorities.
Over the centuries, many archival materials of Ukrainian provenance have been removed from the country by imperial authorities and are still held in the former imperial capitals. For example, parts of the records of the Zaporozhian Sich, the Crimean Khanate, and the Cossack Hetmanate, which at one time or another were removed to imperial capitals, remain in archives there. Extradition is more difficult in cases when the files have been rearranged and incorporated into central records of imperial authorities. These and many other archival seizures during the Soviet period have been mentioned earlier.
2.D. Non-official archival materials created in Ukraine and removed by imperial governing authorities.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, successor States have begun to claim various cultural treasures alienated to the imperial capitals. Attention is also focused on the Soviet tendency for centralized collecting points for various specialized types of archival materials, from geodesic and geological data to archival copies of feature films, which would not normally be considered records of state or public archives in most countries of the world. A similar but less straightforward case is that of academic and scholarly collections brought together in imperial capitals. The example of manuscript books, folklore, and ethnographic materials collected from Ukrainian lands by academic and museum archeographic expeditions from Moscow and Leningrad has already been discussed above.
2.E. Archival materials seized in wartime by enemy authorities or looting by individual soldiers.
Many of the points mentioned above would also be applicable to archival materials and other cultural treasures looted in time of war. Yet, historically, archival materials and other cultural property looted in wartime have often been handled differently. As detailed above, the 1954 UNESCO international convention dealing with the protection of cultural property-including archives-in time of armed conflict, updated the earlier conventions signed at the Hague in 1899 and 1907. The convention itself makes specific mention of manuscripts, books, and archives, but it is limited to provisions for "protection." A protocol signed on the same day has a paragraph ensuring restitution or return after the cessation of hostilities. Since the convention itself is not retroactive and does not require restitution of cultural treasures looted in previous wars, it can be circumvented by countries not bound by the previous 1907 Hague convention; the latter has an unambiguous prohibition against seizing cultural treasures and archives as spoils of war. Generally, in the late twentieth century there has been a reaffirmation by UNESCO and ICA of international agreements outlawing wartime booty in cultural property and, particularly in the realm of archives, affirming the principles that archives, even when subject to past seizures, should be returned or restituted to the country of their creation.
Throughout the centuries, wars on Ukrainian soil have been the occasion for the loss, destruction, and seizure of archives, but the details have yet to be set forth with sufficient documentation. The Second World War and its aftermath was more costly in archival displacements than any previous war in history, as I will show in Part II of this book. Documentation of the displacements is still under way. There is also a new awareness in Ukraine of the extent to which displaced cultural treasures from Ukraine that were restituted by the Western Allies have not necessarily been returned to Ukraine. As far as can be determined in the archival sphere, however, almost all of the archival materials that were evacuated by the Nazis were recovered and returned to Ukraine.
2.F. Materials legitimately removed as personal or corporate property, such as business records or personal papers of Ukrainian emigres or their families.
Laws in different countries at different times may govern the right of removal, and the nationalization of archives under the Soviet regime complicates claims. Records of officially registered "joint ventures" may be more complicated in terms of export possibilities. Normally, records of private firms and individuals under the laws of most Western countries are not subject to state control. In Russia and Ukraine, however, the long period of Soviet rule has left a tradition of strong state control over the cultural heritage of both nations.
The new Russian archival law extends state archival control and prohibition of export to private papers of cultural or political leaders deemed belonging to the "non-State part" of the Archival Fond of the Russian Federation. Ukrainian law, on the other hand, is not yet clear in regard to the right to pretensions or claims on the papers of important Ukrainian emigre political leaders or cultural figures that were taken abroad in political or cultural emigration. Law in most foreign countries would consider such alienated materials protected as private property, especially if the emigre or his heirs were already citizens of a foreign country. The extent of the legal "gray area" of such claims, increased by time (and the legally defined statute of limitations in many countries) will mean that claims for repatriation in original and copy will largely rest on goodwill and ad hoc arrangements in individual cases.
2.G. Archives or other manuscript cultural treasures deliberately alienated by commercial sale abroad by the state, undercover agents, or private individuals.
Another complicating factor in establishing and arbitrating claims for cultural , treasures is that some of the items sought in the West or claimed by Soviet authorities in the postwar restitution process were actually sold abroad during the interwar period. Information has long been available in the West about the extensive sale of cultural treasures in the 1920s and 1930s-including rare manuscript books-by the Soviet regime or its undercover agents to help o support industrialization and the creation of a war machine. Documentation of sales from Russian holdings has been impressive, particularly with regard to imperial collections from Moscow and St. Petersburg.
In some cases, Ukrainian materials were involved; they were rarely described as such, however. It is well known, for example, that ancient gold artifacts from Ukrainian lands were seized in the 1920s and taken to Moscow and Leningrad; some were sold abroad by Soviet authorities. Other treasures were melted down for gold or silver, including elaborate silver bindings from religious manuscripts. More research and precise retrospective descriptive efforts are necessary to identify the Ukrainian component, and the extent to which Ukrainian archival materials or manuscript books were involved.
With democratization and abandonment of Communist Party myths, archives are being opened. This will aid the location of such alienated manuscripts and follow the paths of other archival treasures abroad. The most sensational recent revelations published in Russia to date have been based largely on Western publications.But some new Russian research is getting under way on this important subject, including the issue of sales from the Hermitage.
Research on the subject has been starting in Ukrainian archives. For example, lists, were recently uncovered in Kyiv of 2,669 silver and other valuable religious artifacts appropriated from Ukrainian churches during the famine of 1922, most of which were sold as precious metal.Documentation has also come to light regarding the sale of cultural valuables from the Museum of Art of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Muzei mystets'tva YUAN). These treasures, sold over the protest of museum specialists in Kyiv, included twenty Western masterworks in 1928, such as a 1512 Gobelin tapestry sold for 150,000 rubles that was featured in the Illustrated London News in 1930 as "one of the finest Gothic tapestries at present in England," followed by forty works of Western art in 1930 and eight in 1931. Thus far, however, no information has appeared regarding manuscript materials of Ukrainian provenance among the materials sold abroad.
More recently, in the context of the current economic crisis, there have been alarming tales of a new wave of black-market sales of Ukrainian library and museum treasures abroad, but full documentation of such transactions is not available. Obviously, it is tremendously important for the sake of preserving the Ukrainian archival heritage to stop further outflow and profiteering at the expense of culture. Should that deny an artist the right to sell his works abroad? Some still argue that the artist would not have such a right if his productions were financed by state subsidy. But what about struggling dissident artists, without work or subsidy, or those today no longer financed by the cultural subsidies that existed under Soviet rule?
In most countries and in most cases, there would be no legal grounds for seeking the return of cultural treasures that were legally sold and repurchased without compensation to present owners. More questions will arise, however, if there is proof that the sales were made illegally for personal profit or gain. Whatever the circumstances of the sale, it is important to identify and document the alienated objects as well as the facts of their migration and sale.
2.H. Manuscripts and archival materials illegally alienated from Ukraine by theft or unauthorized export.
The problem of prosecuting theft and illegal traffic in cultural property is exceedingly difficult on an international level. As mentioned above, the extensive traffic in stolen and illegally exported cultural property led UNESCO to enact a convention in 1970 dealing with the problem, which is now supplemented by the UNIDROIT convention. However, those conventions are not applicable retroactively and are effective only in cases where the countries involved have ratified them. Hence, they cannot be directly applied to cases involving archival Ucrainica abroad, most of which was alienated before 1970. The problem of illegal export was mentioned above in regard to manuscripts collected by visiting foreigners and diplomats and is also pertinent below in the consideration of emigre collections abroad.
Auction galleries in many countries are usually required to exhibit items offered for sale in advance, to provide an opportunity for legitimate claims regarding potentially stolen property. Subsequently, the law in many countries assures legal ownership to those who purchase such items in good faith, despite the fact that they may have at one time been contraband. Furthermore, relevant statutes of limitations would apply in cases of acquisition long ago. Since many such alienated treasures were subsequently legally purchased abroad and, with new legal owners, have since risen tremendously in value, it is doubtful that the funds required for their repurchase and return to their homeland could be a high priority in many cases. Most important today is their precise identification in terms of origin, which might encourage present private owners to make testamentary bequests or tax-deductible donations to their original home.
The present location of archival Ucrainica and its arrangement within its current archival context are important factors in determining the possibilities for return or copies of the materials involved. Additional notation is needed of all prior locations, legal owners, and dates of transfer. The actual repository where the materials are presently located, however, is often much less important than the physical arrangement of the materials involved.
The most important considerations in connection with the present arrangement are as follows: the extent to which the documents can still be identified as an integral group of records; the extent to which the documents have been removed from the context of their creating body of records; and, in the case of documents that have been removed from their original body of records, the extent and time of which they may have been incorporated into other fonds or into individual private papers, or that they have become part of artificially assembled collections.
A major issue bearing on prospective restitution efforts is the case of what Western archivists would call "incorporated records," whereby such documents may be considered differently than they would be if they still constituted an integral fond or group of institutional records. Here, the internationally recognized archival principle of respect for the integrity of fonds may sometimes be at odds with displaced fragments that have become incorporated into integral groups of foreign archival records. Given the strong need for respect for the integrity of fonds as noted above in the ICA "Professional Advice" and "Position Paper," documents or files abroad from, or pertaining to, Ukraine that have become incorporated into integral groups of foreign archival records would normally not be subject to claim except in copy. Such was the case with the Rosenberg documents that had been incorporated into Nuremberg Trial records mentioned above (p. 157nl5), or other documents that have been presented as official exhibits in court cases and therefore, by law, must remain part of the court records. Similarly, state documents, or copies of state documents, that have been incorporated into private papers would not normally be subject to retroactive claim by state archives as part of state records. In cases of incorporated records or manuscripts, more thorough documentation of their provenance, significance, and the circumstances of their alienation abroad will be required in order to justify any pretensions for their transfer or restitution.
Similar problems apply to documents that have been incorporated into or now form part of a famous and long-established manuscript collection. Because international norms usually also respect the long-established collections, it is also important to note the earlier physical location and past arrangement of the materials in question, and the circumstances under which they have been "incorporated" into other fonds or collections.
An intermediary situation, but still with the potential for conflict, may be relevant in many instances, whereby individual manuscripts, autographs, earlier charters, or groups of documents may have been integrated into larger institutional holdings in a library, institute, or historical society without regard to their provenance. Such documents may have been rescued or purchased in good faith from those who conveyed them abroad or from intermediary dealers. These documents might thereby be considered part of the collection of that repository and given a permanent archival home. Yet when their displaced location has been discovered, the original repository may still want to submit a claim. Their status as part of a new artificial collection may not have the same moral or legal weight as documents that have been newly incorporated into official state records. Yet given the UNESCO respect for collections, the fact of their legal purchase, and the lapse of time usually involved, it would be difficult to substantiate claims in most countries, despite the fact of what may have been their illegal or inappropriate removal from their original group of records or their illegal or quasi-legal transfer at some point of their migration. The more valuable the document in question, the more difficult equitable resolution of claims becomes. In many such cases, it will only be goodwill and arbitration, rather than legal standards or principles, that can find a satisfactory solution.
In considering pretensions for return, restitution, or copies, it is also crucial to examine carefully any specific agreements or other relevant legal factors that could affect the present status and ownership of the documents in question, such as pretensions from previous owners. In the case of gift or bequest, there may be letters of deposition or transfer. In the case of purchase, there may be a certificate of origin or a bill or contract of sale. There may have been a prior purchase from an auction house or dealer by the collector who later bequeathed the collection. In some cases, specific groups of documents may be subject to prior bilateral or international agreements. More important than the character of the repository or institution (state, semi-official, or private) where archival Ucrainica may reside today is the reference to their current archival arrangement (as discussed above) and their status of "legal proprietorship." The legal status of the documents involved and the application of international agreements and historical precedents may vary with such distinctions.
Many of the problems in this discussion arise from the fact that at present there are no adequate internationally agreed-upon conventions, agreements, or detailed accepted procedures or formulae for archival restitution (or return, if we recognize the UNESCO distinctions in the use of these two terms). Although there have been general ICA recommendations, there also are no commonly recognized rights to copies of archival materials from, or relating to, different countries now located abroad. As shown in Chapter 3, such matters have not been adequately covered by earlier UNESCO and ICA discussions, resolutions, or agreements.
Two other major problems involve the lack of recognition of private property and the extent of nationalization under the Soviet Union, both of which carry over into the post-Soviet Ukrainian republic. Even today, many Ukrainian archivists lack sensitivity to the status of private archives abroad, and to the fact that, in many countries, national archives are legally founded to deal only with records created by official government bodies. The many decades of the Soviet system of centralized state command administration and disrespect for private rights may, in some cases, lead to a lack of respect for private property abroad: few Western countries provide for such a broad government-sponsored archival program as was known in the Soviet Union and continues with the new Russian-and Ukrainian-archival laws today. Many Ukrainian-related materials still remain in private hands and legally constitute private property in the countries where they are held, not being subject to any type of governmental archival control.
* * *
Ukrainian archivists and other intellectuals today understandably place a high priority on the identification, location, and, if possible, retrieval of displaced or "lost" Ukrainian culture abroad. Nevertheless, the long-standing mutual secrecy and conspiratorial suspicion between Soviet authorities and Ukrainian and other emigre communities abroad have grossly impeded the flow of information in both directions. During the Cold War decades, the insular, chauvinist possessiveness with which many Soviet archival authorities tended to view all Ukrainian/Soviet-related archival materials abroad as their just patrimony-regardless of the circumstances of their creation, alienation from the homeland, or the wishes of their legal owners-aroused suspicions and negative reactions on the part of Ukrainian emigre communities abroad. In turn, this impeded the possibility of equitable arrangements for access and photocopies for a long time. In some instances, Ukrainian emigre groups even feared publishing descriptions of the materials they held or making information about them known in public catalogs for fear that Soviet authorities would find and attempt to hijack (i.e., seize or "recapture") the materials. They had been known to do so in the post-World War II decade. The Soviet seizures of the Russian Historical Archive (RZIA) and the Ukrainian Historical Cabinet (UIK) in Prague in 1945, the Petliura materials in Cracow and Vienna, and other emigre collections have established a Cold War context in the archival world that will be hard to overcome in the minds of older emigres abroad.
The categories set forth above require further clarification and refinement, but they should serve as a basis for subsequent discussion. It has been clear from the above discussion that "provenance" and the "integrity of fonds" usually weigh heavier than "functional pertinence" and/or "territorial pertinence"; nonetheless, clarification is required with typological distinctions in individual cases. Such terms require precise definition and amplification in regard to the circumstances of migration and understanding the current and prior archival arrangement. Greater detail is also needed for descriptive components that denote national, ethnic, linguistic, or religious affiliation.
As we have seen, in some cases, neither previous ownership nor the place of preservation can be the sole determining factor in the resolution of dispositional claims. Special factors often have to be examined on a dc facto basis in individual cases. Such issues deserve clarification, and, where possible, codification and incorporation into detailed working recommendations such as in the international legal framework suggested above as a potential role for ICA. Guidelines already established by the UNESCO committee may help, but archival materials, as should be clear from the analysis above cannot simply be handled as "cultural property." What is most important today is a new post-Soviet willingness to analyze and resolve such issues from a multi-national perspective, with a new international sensitivity to the problems involved in disputed claims, and a willingness to see appropriate resolution on a professional archival level in the context of international law and international archival practice.
Now that we have tried to examine the international legal context of displaced archives and possible typological distinctions regarding the nature and disposition of the materials involved that might lead to claims or restitution, we turn to the ruthless world of war and its Cold War aftermath, where "civilized nations" paid little heed to law or to recognized international principles in the archival realm.
1 For example, at the height of the movement for independence in 1990, as was widely reported on television, visiting British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when asked if her country would consider establishing an embassy in Kyiv, replied that the British government does not have a consulate in Texas. See the helpful discussion on this point in the brochure by Frank Sysyn, "Russia or the Soviet Union? There Is a Difference" (Cambridge, MA: Ukrainian Studies Fund, [1986?]). back...
2 The present chapter is revised from my conference presentalion in Moscow in December 1993 regarding the parallel problem of defining the Russian archival legacy abroad. The typology that follows is adapted for Ukraine from Ihe preliminary typology for Rossica published as "Arkhivnaia Rossika/Sovetika: K opredeleniiu ? topologii russkogo arkhivnogo naslediia za rubezhom," in Trudy IAI 33 (Moscow, 1996): 262-86, and in Prnblcmy zaruhezhnoi arkhivnoi Rossiki, pp. 7-43. For an initial and less detailed calegorization of archival Rossica abroad, see the presentalion by Vladimir Kozlov at the same Moscow conference: "Vyiavlenie ? vozvrashchenie zarubezhnoi arkhivnoi Rossiki: ??? perspektivy,"/W?ra/fir / noveishaia istorii 1994 (3): 13-23. back...
3 Details about the wartime and postwar fate of the Petliura Library and widely scattered UNR records are documented in my article, "The Odyssey of the Petliura Library and the Records of the Ukrainian National Republic during World War II," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 22: 181-20S. A companion piece "The Postwar Fate of the Petliura Library and the Records of the Ukrainian National Republic" is published in Harvard Ukrainian Studies 21(3-4): 395-462. back...
4 Concerning the fate of the records of the pre-revolutionary Russian Embassy in the United Slates, see John H. Brown, "The Disappearing Russian Embassy Archives, 1922-1939," Prologue 14 (Spring 1982) 1: 5-13. The fact that they were legally transferred for deposit in a private archive during a hiatus in diplomatic relations with the USSR complicates legal claims. Nevertheless, transfer documents quoted by Brown affirm the proviso that the records would be returned to Russia when a legitimate government was established there. Microfilms of these records have recently been given to Russia as part of the Rosarkhiv project with the Hoover Institution. back...
5 The formal restitution ceremony took place in Moscow in May 1989 during the meetings and under the auspices of the U.S.-USSR Commission on Archival Cooperation. Microfilm copies remain in the U.S. National Archives, and microfilmed copies of files from Russian consulates in Canada remain in the National Archives of Canada. back...
6 These are now held in GA RF, fond 5889, 36 units, 1918-1926. See more details in Chapter 9. back...
7 These transfers were subject to offical protest and petition for return, but as noted above, the files themselves remain in Moscov, and Ukraine has been obliged to pay a high price for microfilm copies. back...
8 See the published series, Arkhiv Samizdat, issued by Radio Liberty (RL) and the microfiche collections prepared by IDC. The bibliographies published while the materials were still in Munich cover independent imprints and local periodicals retained in RL facilities in Munich. Under the auspices of the Open Media Research Institute (OMRI), supported by the Soros Foundation, the RL/RFE archives have been transferred from Munich and are now organized in the Open Society Archive in Budapest, which opened in March 1996 as a public research archival center under the newly established Central European University. back...
9 Further discussion of these materials follows in Chapter 9. See, for example, the files of Ukrainian nationalist political organizations in Poland during the 1930s held among the records of the Heeresarchiv, Zweigstelle Danzig, RGVA, fond 1387K/2, nos. 7 and 8. back...
10 " As an example of the most blatant right-wing Russian statements and claims, see the article in Pravda (which has been adopting an extreme nationalist position in this regard): Vladimir Teteriatnikov, "Ograbiat li vnov' russkii narod? Tragicheskaia sud'ba tsennostei, peremeshchennykh v rezul'tate Vtoroi mirovoi \o\ny "Pravda 73 (22 May 1996): 4. In his list of "offenses" in terms of transfers from Russia and restitution of cultural treasures, the author (now an American citizen) includes a number of transfers to former Soviet republics, including Ukraine. back...
11 " See further discussion of these materials in Chapter 9. See also my earlier discussion in "Archival Rossica/Sovietica Abroad-Provenance or Pertinence, Bibliographic and Descriptive Needs," Cahiers du Monde russe et sovielique 34(3) 1993:463-65. back...
12 See also my specific references to the Armenian manuscripts in Grimsted, Archives: Ukraine, pp. 574-77 (especially nos. NL-390-NL-396). As explained in scholarly literature cited there, some of the manuscripts held before 1939 by the Lviv Armenian Uniate Archbishopric are dispersed in different collections in Lviv, Vienna, and Wroclaw, as well as in Warsaw. See further discussion in Chapter 11. back...
13 The RMbO records captured by American authorities were microfilmed together with the records of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR); thus, the microfilm publication series (EAP 99) includes both record groups intermingled. See Guides to German Records Microfilmed at Alexandria, VA, no. 2S: Records of the Reicli Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, 1941-1943. All of those records were subsequently returned to Germany and rearranged. back...
14 The records of the Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg (ERR) captured by the American Army were eventually filmed as part of the same microfilm publication series (EAP 99) intermingled with the records of the RMbO (see previous note). After their return to Germany they were processed and described as a separate record group (Bestand NS 30). They are now held in the new archival facility in Berlin-Lichter-felde. back...
15 See Chapter 8 for further discussion of ERR. Other highly important Rosenberg documents, however, were "incorporated" into Nuremberg trial records, copies of which were made available to all of the Allies. A few additional original Rosenberg files remain in the Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation (CDJC) in Paris, and a few remain in the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (N1OD, earlier R1OD) in Amsterdam, and in YIVO in New York City. Other ERR files were incorporated into OMGUS restitution records in US NA and BAK. back...
16 See the bilingual catalog of the exhibit, Chtoby dela shli: Rossiisko-amerikanskie ekonomicheskie otnosheniia, 1900-1930 gg.lMaking Things Work: Russian-American Economic Relations, 1900-1930. An Exhibition Catalog for a Joint Historical Exhibit of Documents and Photographs Organized by the Hoover Institution of War, Revolution, and Peace and the Committee on Archival Affairs of the Russian Federation (Roskomarkhiv) (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1992). back...
17 " The original Polish claims are explained from a legal standpoint by Wojciech Kowalski, Likwidacja skutkow wojny w dziedzinie kultury, 2nd ed. (Warsaw: Instytut Kultury, 1994), esp. pp. 85-90 (the text of documents is found on pp. 177-87); also see the English-language version, Liquidation of the Effects of World War II in the Area of Culture (Warsaw: Institute of Culture, 1994), pp. 84-88. For the fate of Polish cultura-l treasures from Lviv, see the impressive study by Maciej Matwijow, Walka ?wowskie dohra kultury w latach 1945-1948 (Wroclaw: Towarzystwo Przyjacioi Ossolineum, 1996). back...
18 " See the habilitation dissertation by Krystyna Wrobel-Lipowa, Rewindykacja
archiwaliow polskich zZSSR w latach /945-1964 (Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-
Sklodowskiej, 1982). back...
19 The older part of the Przemysl diocesan records are held in the local state archive in Rzeszow. See the brief coverage of this and other Church archives in Poland in the directory by Hieronim Eugeniusz Wyczawski, OFM, Przygotowanic do studiow w archiwach koscielnych (n.p.: Wyd-wo "Calvarianum," 1989|I990|). back...
20 Matwijow, Walka olwowskie dobra kultury, pp. 123-24. back...
21 See the annotations to the finding aids prepared in the interwar period for the Roman Catholic Church archives, when they were still in Lviv, as listed in Grimsted, Archives: Ukraine, pp. 48()-X 1 . More details are given in Chapter 11. back...
22 Although there is no published description of these materials, I had an opportunity in the 1980s to examine some of the finding aids in Cracow, thanks for the Dominican archivist there, Father Mazur. It was my understanding that at least some of them were removed under German auspices at the end of the war, but according to Matwijow, Walka ?wowskie dohra kulniry, pp. 123-24, they were transferred in May 1946. back...
23 See the thorough account by Matwijow, Walka ?wowskie dohra kulniry, pp. 71-114, and Matwijow's survey listing of the Ossolineum manuscripts remaining in Lviv-"Wniosek rewindykacyjny zbiorow Zaktadu Narodowego im. Ossolinskich-Re.kopisy," 'n Wniosek rewindykacyjny, pp. 36-47. See further details in Chapter 11 back...
24 For example, a claim addressed to American authorities from Soviet occupation authorities in Germany has been found for a long list of early printed books and incunabula that had been seized from Lviv-US NA, RG 260 (OMGUS), Ardelia Hall Collection. back...
25 Regarding the Soviet claims and negotiations over the transfer from Poland, see Matwijow, Walka ?wowskie dobra kultury, pp. 156-57. Matwijow has been unable fully to document this matter. See also Matwijow's article, "Ewakuacja zbiorow polskich ze Lwowa w 1944 r.," Rncznik Lwowski 1995/1996: 31-46. See citations of earlier descriptions with correlation to present call numbers for those now in Warsaw (Biblioteka Narodowa) in my Arc/lives: Ukraine, pp. 574-77. back...
26 See more details in Chapters 5 and fi. See also my article, "The Fate of Ukrainian Cultural Treasures during World War II: The Plunder of Archives, Libraries, and Museums under the Third Reich,".lahrbiicher fiir Geschiclite Osteuropas 39(1) 1991: 53-80. See also the Ukrainian booklet version (which has appended documents), written with the collaboration of Hennadii Boriak, Dolia skarbiv ukra'ins'koi kul'tury pid clias Dniho'i sviiovn'i viiny: Vynyshchennia arkhiviv, hibliotek, muze'iv (Kyiv: Arkheohrafichna komisiia AN URSR, 1991; 2nd ed., Lviv, 1992). back...
27 See the extensive study on the sale of art by Robert C. Williams, Russian An and American Money, 1900-1940 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980); and P. N. Savitskii, Razrushaiushchie svoiu rndinu (snos pamiatnikov iskusstva ? rasprodazha muzeev SSSR) (Berlin: Izd. Evraziitsev, 1936). Extensive documentation and a recent bibliography about the sale of books as well as art is provided in the introduction by Robert H. Davis, Jr. and Edward Kasinec, in Dark Mirror: Romanov and Imperial Palace Library Materials in the Holdings of the New York Public Library: A Checklist and Agenda for Research, comp. Robert H. Davis, Jr. (New York: Norman Ross Publishing, 1999). See also the earlier articles by Germaine IZhermenal Pavlova, "The Fate of the Russian Imperial Libraries," Bulletin of Research in the Humanities 87(4) 1986-1987: 358-403, esp. 370-403, and Robert H. Davis, Jr. and Edward Kasinec, "Witness to the Crime: Two Little-Known Photographic Sources Relating to the Sale and Destruction of Antiquities in Soviet Russia during the 1920s," Journal of the History of Collections 3(1) 1991: 53-59. back...
28 For example, A. Mosiakin, "Prodazha," Ogonek 6 (4-11 February 19X9): 18-22; 7 (11-18 February 1989): 16-21; 8 (4-11 March 1989): 26-29. The Mosiakin series draws heavily on the Williams study cited above. back...
29 The short, popular book by lurii N. Zhukov, Operatsiia Ermitazh: Opyt istoriko-arkhivnogo rassledovaniia (Moscow: Moskvitianin, 1993), is also significantly based on the Williams study; although the author has done some additional archival research predominantly in foreign trade records in RGAE (earlier TsGANKh) and GA RF (previously TsGA RSFSR), he has not used the archives of the Hermitage itself. A scholarly analysis by Elena P. Borisova, "Vlast' ? istoriko-kul'turnoe nasledie natsii: Organizatsionno-pravovoe oformlenie eksporta muzeinykh tsennostei v kontse 1920-30-x godakh," mRossiiskaia gosudarstvennost': Opyt ? perxpektivy iznchcniia: Mareria/y mezhvuzovskoi nauchnoi konferentsii, 1-3 iiunia 1995 g. Chteniia pamiati profcssora T. P. Korzhikhinoi (Moscow: 1AI RGGU, 1995), pp. 95-99, details the institutional context created for the export of cultural treasures at the end of the 1920s and early 1930s. back...
30 See, for example, DAKO, R-2412/2/268 (sprava 269 is a carbon copy), "Opis' muzeinykh predmetov, vydelennykh iz chisla tserkovnykh tsennostci Ukrainy," lists church artifacts collected from throughout Eastern Ukraine. back...
31 DAKO, R-2412/2/195, including a certified copy of secret documents from the YUAN Museum of Art (fols. 12-13). See the Illustrated London News 19 August 1930: 4. Copies of documents regarding paintings sold for export from the same museum, despite numerous staff objections, are to be found in the same file and the adjacent file no. 194. These sales of Western art abroad from the Museum of Art (YUAN) are the same ones that were revealed in an undocumented article by Konstantin Akinsha, "i`otechestva-Pechal'naia istoriia 'Adama ? Evy,'" Ogonek 51 (17-24 December 1988): 32-33. Although Akinsha did not identify his sources, he explained to me that his article was based on documents found in Kyiv museum files; he did not find other documents revealing the sale of art of Ukrainian provenance. back...
32 DAKO, R-2412/2/194. back...
Copyright © 2017 - State Archival Service of Ukraine
All rights reserved