The article deals with the political opposition as an integral component of a democratic society and legal state. It is emphasized that in the public life of any democratic country, the relationship between political opponents are being built between the authorities and the opposition, that is, the opposition is an objective phenomenon of social life. The functioning of the opposition is an inherent element of the political system of any democratic state and the basis for the development of civil societyThe main institutional element of oppositional structures are parties that receive the status of the opposition or the ruling in the competition for power through elections. The effectiveness of the activities of the political opposition depends on many factors, including: legislative definition of the status of the opposition; guarantees of its rights; cohesion forces; the presence of an authoritative leader.Focuses on the fact that political events 20132014 in Ukraine testify to raise the issue of the opposition as part of the political process and the need of its normative definition within national legislation. Additionally, the events of this period led to transformation of the powers of the institutions of state power, a return to the Constitution of 2004, the formation of illegal military groups, weakening the impact of the centre on the individual fields of struggle of political elites, the opposition in Parliament, which has become a constant factor and actually paralyze the effectiveness of the legislative authority of the state, etc. A pressing need at the present stage there is a strong democratic government, consolidation of all political forces of the coalition and the opposition) to preserve stability and interethnic consent, thwarting the attempts to split the country along ideological and national characteristics.In this context, it is emphasized that today the special urgency is got with a set of problems related to the legislative provision of the activity of political opposition. In Ukraine the problem of the parliamentary opposition is still without legal solutionsThe conclusion is made, that today the political process in Ukraine requires improvement of the legal base for the functioning of political parties and the need for a normative definition of the political opposition in the framework of public law and political science. ; У статті досліджується політична опозиція як невід'ємний компонент демократичного суспільства і правової держави. Підкреслюється, що у суспільному житті будьякої демократичної країни відносини між політичними опонентами будуються по лінії владаопозиція, тобто опозиція – це об'єктивне явище суспільного життя. Функціонування опозиції є невід'ємним елементом політичної системи всякої демократичної держави та основою розвитку громадянського суспільства.Головним інституційним елементом опозиційних структур виступають партії, які набувають статусу опозиційних чи правлячих у ході змагання за владу через вибори. Ефективність діяльності політичної опозиції залежить від багатьох факторів, зокрема: законодавче визначення статусу опозиції; гарантії її прав; згуртованість сил; наявність авторитетного лідера.Наголошується на тому, що політичні події 20132014 рр. в Україні свідчать про актуалізацію проблеми опозиції як складової політичного процесу та необхідність її нормативного визначення в межах державного законодавства. Крім того події цього періоду привели до трансформації повноважень інститутів державної влади, повернення до конституції 2004 р., формування незаконних військових формувань, ослаблення впливу центру на окремі області, боротьби політичних еліт, протистояння у Верховній Раді, які перетворилися в постійний фактор і фактично паралізують дієвість законодавчого органу держави тощо. Нагальною потребою на сучасному етапі є сильна демократична влада, консолідація усіх політичних сил (коаліції і опозиції) для збереження стабільності і міжнаціональної згоди, протистояння спробам розколоти країну за ідеологічними і національними ознаками.В цьому контексті підкреслюється, що сьогодні особливої актуальності набуває комплекс проблем, пов'язаних з законодавчим забезпеченням діяльності політичної опозиції. В Україні проблема парламентської опозиції досі залишається без юридичного вирішення.Робиться висновок, що сьогодні потреби політичного процесу України передбачають удосконалення правової бази функціонування політичних партій та необхідність нормативного визначення політичної опозиції як у межах державного законодавства, так і науки. ; У статті досліджується політична опозиція як невід'ємний компонент демократичного суспільства і правової держави. Підкреслюється, що у суспільному житті будьякої демократичної країни відносини між політичними опонентами будуються по лінії владаопозиція, тобто опозиція – це об'єктивне явище суспільного життя. Функціонування опозиції є невід'ємним елементом політичної системи всякої демократичної держави та основою розвитку громадянського суспільства.Головним інституційним елементом опозиційних структур виступають партії, які набувають статусу опозиційних чи правлячих у ході змагання за владу через вибори. Ефективність діяльності політичної опозиції залежить від багатьох факторів, зокрема: законодавче визначення статусу опозиції; гарантії її прав; згуртованість сил; наявність авторитетного лідера.Наголошується на тому, що політичні події 20132014 рр. в Україні свідчать про актуалізацію проблеми опозиції як складової політичного процесу та необхідність її нормативного визначення в межах державного законодавства. Крім того події цього періоду привели до трансформації повноважень інститутів державної влади, повернення до конституції 2004 р., формування незаконних військових формувань, ослаблення впливу центру на окремі області, боротьби політичних еліт, протистояння у Верховній Раді, які перетворилися в постійний фактор і фактично паралізують дієвість законодавчого органу держави тощо. Нагальною потребою на сучасному етапі є сильна демократична влада, консолідація усіх політичних сил (коаліції і опозиції) для збереження стабільності і міжнаціональної згоди, протистояння спробам розколоти країну за ідеологічними і національними ознаками.В цьому контексті підкреслюється, що сьогодні особливої актуальності набуває комплекс проблем, пов'язаних з законодавчим забезпеченням діяльності політичної опозиції. В Україні проблема парламентської опозиції досі залишається без юридичного вирішення.Робиться висновок, що сьогодні потреби політичного процесу України передбачають удосконалення правової бази функціонування політичних партій та необхідність нормативного визначення політичної опозиції як у межах державного законодавства, так і науки.
Kryzys druku – spowodowany, jak się wydaje, digitalizacją i transformacją mediów cyfrowych – stanowi jeden z problemów współczesnego dziennikarstwa. Z tej też przyczyny w ciągu trzech ostatnich lat na Ukrainie gwałtownie (o 3 mln egzemplarzy, tj. 27%) spadł obieg prasy drukowanej. W najtrudniejszej sytuacji znajdują się lokalne środki przekazu, które od 2016 roku z rąk władz stopniowo przechodziły do sektora własności prywatnej. Spóźniona reforma doprowadziła do sytuacji, w której wydawnictwa bez doświadczenia w biznesie mierzą się z poważną recesją: niektóre już ogłosiły koniec działaności, inne ledwo przetrwały we współczesnych warunkach rynkowych. Konwergencja mediów niesie ze sobą groźbę marginalizacji mniejszych publikatorów i – co za tym idzie – ich odbiorców, których głosy nie zostaną wysłuchane. Dzieje się to już w sektorze prasy centralnej, ponieważ najpotężniejsze media drukowane należą do największych spółek: Star Light Media, UMH Group, Inter Media Group, 1 + 1 Media i Media Group Ukraine, których właściciele angażują się w ukraińską politykę. Odmawia się natomiast wsparcia lokalnej niezależnej prasie. Ukraina może pójść drogą wielu innych krajów europejskich stosujących się do teorii "spirali cyrkulacyjnej". Według niej gazety o najwyższym nakładzie otrzymują więcej środków pochodzących z reklam oraz prenumeraty, natomiast mniejsze tytuły otrzymują pomoc państwa w celu zachowania pluralizmu myśli, zapobiegania zanikaniu małych publikacji oraz uniknięcia zbyt dużej koncentracji środków masowego przekazu. Projekt ten opracowano w 2016 roku, аle nie został zatwierdzony przez rząd, utrzymywał bowiem zależność gazet od władz publicznych i korupcjogenny model dystrybucji funduszy. Sytuacja niepewności jest korzystna dla władz, ponieważ pozwala wpływać na wydawców, zwłaszcza podczas wyborów. W czasie recesji finansowej wydawnictwa łatwo poddają się sugestiom polityków i dokonują nadużyć polegających na wypuszczaniu materiałów obliczonych na wsparcie wizerunkowe działaczy. Badacze mediów odnotowali 28,1% tego rodzaju publikacji w prasie regionalnej. Negatywny wpływ na sektor medialny mają również stały wzrost taryfy pocztowej za dostarczanie prasy oraz redukcja stacjonarnych oddziałów Ukrposzty, które także znajdują się w recesji finansowej. Innym problemem jest brak regulacji w sprawie statusu mediów elektronicznych, które często zaangażowane są w piractwo własności intelektualnej, co negatywnie wpływa na media drukowane. Odbiorcy w młodym і średnim wieku rzadko są czytelnikami gazet, dlatego czasopisma muszą przekształcać swoje treści w materiały dostępne online. Prasa szuka dodatkowych kanałów przyciągających uwagę czytelników w Internecie, korzysta ze stron internetowych, sieci społecznościowych, hostów wideo, różnych modeli konwergencji, rozmaitych technologii. Centralne środki przekazu – w przeciwieństwie do mniejszych, regionalnych – szybko dostosowały się do panujących trendów. Ponad połowa lokalnych mediów nadal jednak nie ma witryny internetowej. Z powodu niskiego poziomu tabloidyzacji mediów drukowanych mało przydatne jest tworzenie popularnych kanałów informacyjnych, takich jak infotainment. Ledwie w odosobnionych przypadkach wydawnictwa podejmują starania przejścia od tradycyjnej informacji do komunikacji z czytelnikami, a redaktorzy próbują wykorzystywać modele crowdsourcingu i croudfundingu do generowania treści oraz zbiórki funduszy na wsparcie i rozwój nowych pomysłów. Od 2017 roku Lokalna Agencja Wsparcia Mediów uczy kreowania nowoczesnych treści i zarabiania na reklamach – rezultatem są 23 witryny internetowe agencji, liczące sobie 130 700 użytkowników i 620 000 wyświetleń (2018 rok). Mimo kryzysu potrzeba informacji nie maleje, czas pokaże zatem, w jakim formacie istnieć będzie ukraińska prasa. Możliwe, że – podobnie jak w Polsce – będzie to już przede wszystkim gazeta internetowa. ; The print crisis – caused, it seems, by the digitization and transformation of digital media – is one of the problems of contemporary journalism. For this reason, over the past three years, the circulation of the printed press in Ukraine has sharply decreased (by 3 million copies, ie 27%). The most difficult situation is that of local media, which since 2016 have gradually been transformed into private ownership by the authorities. The delayed reform has led to a situation where publishing houses with no experience in business are going through a serious recession: some have already closed, some have barely survived under modern market conditions. The convergence of the media carries the risk of marginalization of smaller publishers and, consequently, of their recipients, whose voices will not be heard. This is already the case with the central press, as the most powerful print media belong to the largest companies: Star Light Media, UMH Group, Inter Media Group, 1 + 1 Media and Media Group Ukraine, whose owners are involved in Ukrainian politics. On the other hand, support for the local independent press is refused. Ukraine can follow the path of many other European countries following the "circular spiral" theory. According to her, the highest circulation newspapers receive more advertising funds and subscriptions, while smaller titles receive state aid in order to maintain pluralism of thought, prevent the disappearance of small publications and avoid excessive media concentration. This project was developed in 2016, but it was not approved by the government as it maintained the news-papers' dependence on public authorities and a corrupt model of fund distribution. The situation of uncertainty is beneficial for the authorities as it allows publishers to be influenced, especially during elections. During a financial recession, publishing houses easily succumb to politicians' suggestions and make abuses consisting in releasing materials designed to support their image. Media researchers recorded 28.1% of such publications in the regional press. The media sector is also negatively affected by the steady increase in the postal tariff for delivering the press and the reduction of Ukrposzta's stationary branches, which are also in the financial recession. Another problem is the lack of regulation on the status of electronic media, which is often involved in piracy of intellectual property, which negatively affects the print media. Young and middle-aged audiences are seldom readers of newspapers, so they need to transform their content into online material. The press is looking for additional channels, attracting readers' attention on the Internet, using websites, social networks, video hosts, various convergence models, various technologies. Central media – as opposed to smaller, regional ones – quickly adapted to the prevailing trends. More than half of the local media still doesn't have a website. Due to the low tabloidization of printed media, it is of little use to create popular news channels such as infotainment. Only in isolated cases do publishers make an effort to shift from traditional information to communicating with readers, and editors try to use crowdsourcing and croudfunding models to generate content and raise funds to support and develop new ideas. Since 2017, the Local Media Support Agency has been teaching how to create modern content and profit on advertisements - the result is 23 agency websites with 1,307,000 users and 6,200,000 views (2018). Despite the crisis, the need for information has not diminished, so time will show the format in which the Ukrainian press will exist. It is possible that – as in Poland – it will be primarily an online newspaper.
The article examines the historical prerequisites for the formation of the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism, analyzes its main provisions, and its impact on the foreign and domestic policy of the independent Ukrainian state. The Ukrainian national idea was formed in the late 19th first half of the 20th century. It was based on three fundamental provisions: the Russian state is the enemy of Ukrainian independence and therefore in the interests of Ukraine its weakening, and even better disintegration; the Russian population in Ukraine is a very serious obstacle to the formation of an independent Ukrainian state, and therefore it should be assimilated; the independence of the Ukrainian state can be guaranteed only by close cooperation with European countries, which will help it in defending its independence in the confrontation with "Asian" Russia, as Ukraine is a European country, part of Europe. On the basis of these ideological provisions it was supposed to form a Ukrainian identity. As the article emphasizes, the national Ukrainian idea in this form contains a very large charge of conflict with Russia, inevitably leads to a clash of their geopolitical interests. The proclamation of Ukraine's independence in 1991 meant the emergence of a second Russian state, whose population had to be transformed into a Ukrainian nation. The ruling political elite of the country with the support of the Ukrainian intelligentsia as the ideological basis for the construction of the Ukrainian nation state and the Ukrainian nation adopted the basic tenets of the Ukrainian national idea, which was formed in the first half of the 20th century and put them at the basis of its foreign and domestic policy. All Ukrainian Presidents, though with varying degrees of determination and consistency, implemented them. Kiev's policy of strengthening the country's independence implied independence from Russia, which is seen as the main threat to the national security of the young Ukrainian state. The article states that the presidential elections of 2019 and the defeat of P. Poroshenko showed that the majority of Ukrainian society does not accept such an identity. They need an identity on other principles, which in Ukraine have not yet developed and are not visible. So far, there are no political forces, political party, that could formulate them and put them in the basis of statehood and nation-building. The current President V. Zelensky in his policy is guided by old ideas and visions. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of the New Independent States, Russia did not immediately realize the scale of the challenges and threats to the country's security from Ukraine. Sobering occurred under the influence of the "Orange Revolution", when Kiev abandoned the policy of multivectors and began to pursue a pronounced pro-Western policy. At the same time, Moscow begins to realize that it will not be able to enter the community of democratic states on its own terms, and begins to position itself as an independent center of power, opposing the West. Strengthening its positions in this confrontation, it connects with the consolidation of the post-Soviet states around itself within the framework of integration projects, first EvrAzES, and then the EAEU. Moscow linked their successful implementation with Ukraine's participation in their implementation, because it believed that without it these projects would not be effective. However, Kiev did not want to support these plans, focusing "on entering Europe". According to the author, from that moment the foreign policy strategies of both countries began to differ in principle and the two countries from strategic partners turned into geopolitical rivals. The West supported Kiev in its pro-Western foreign policy, considering it as an element of deterrence of Russia's great-power ambitions. Both Moscow and the West tried to drag Kiev to their side. The coup d'etat carried out by nationalist forces in Kiev in February 2014 seemed to mean the West's victory in this peculiar tug-of-war. In response, Moscow annexed Crimea and supported the struggle of the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR against the Kiev government. As a result, Ukraine has embarked on a tough confrontation with Russia, seeing it as an aggressor and an enemy. The author of the article comes to the conclusion, that overcoming the confrontation between them will take a lot of time and effort and for the foreseeable historical perspective the relations between them will be based on the principles of the zero-sum game. In these circumstances, there is no need to talk about partnership and cooperation, as it is a question of relations between two hostile States. The most that can be expected is to maintain a "cold peace" between them. But such a state can be achieved only if relations between Russia and the West are normalized, and a new Cold War is eliminated. ; В статье рассматриваются исторические предпосылки формирования идеологии украинского национализма, анализируются его основные положения, и ее влияние на внешнюю и внутреннюю политику независимого украинского государства. Украинская национальная идея сформировалась в конце XIX – первой половине XX века. В ее основе лежали три основополагающих положения: российское государство — это враг украинской независимости и поэтому в интересах Украины его ослабление, а еще лучше распад; русское население на Украине — это очень серьезное препятствие на пути становления независимого украинского государства, и поэтому оно должно быть ассимилировано; независимость украинского государства может быть гарантирована только благодаря тесному сотрудничеству с европейскими странами, которые помогут ей в отстаивании своей независимости в противостоянии с «азиатской» Россией, так как Украина является европейской страной, частью Европы. На основе этих идейных положений предполагалось сформировать украинскую идентичность. В статье подчеркивается, что национальная украинская идея в таком виде содержит в себе очень большой заряд конфликтности с Россией, неизбежно ведет к столкновению их геополитических интересов. Провозглашение в 1991 году независимости Украины означало появление второго русского государства, население которого нужно было преобразовать в украинскую нацию. Правящая политическая элита страны при поддержке украинской интеллигенции в качестве идейной основы строительства украинского национального государства и украинской нации взяла на вооружение основные постулаты украинской национальной идеи, которая оформилась в первой половине XX века и положила их в основу своей внешней и внутренней политики. Все украинские Президенты, хотя и с разной степенью решительности и последовательности, их реализовывали. Политика, проводимая Киевом, по укреплению независимости страны, подразумевала и подразумевает независимость от России, которая рассматривается как главная угроза национальной безопасности молодого украинского государства. В статье указывается, что президентские выборы 2019 года и поражение П. Порошенко показали, что большая часть украинского общества такую идентичность не принимает. Нужна идентичность на иных принципах, которые на Украине пока еще не сложились и осязаемо не просматриваются. Пока что не видно тех политических сил, той политической партии, которая могла бы их сформулировать и положить в основу государственности и нациостроительства. Нынешний Президент В. Зеленский в своей политике руководствуется старыми идеями и представлениями. После распада Советского Союза и образования Новых независимых государств, Россия не сразу осознала масштаб вызовов и угроз безопасности страны со стороны Украины. Отрезвление произошло под влиянием «оранжевой революции», когда Киев отказался от политики многовекторности и начал проводить ярко выраженную прозападную политику. В это же время Москва начинает осознавать, что она не сможет войти в сообщество демократических государств на своих условиях, и начинает позиционировать себя в качестве самостоятельного Центра силы, противостоящего Западу. Укрепление своих позиций в этом противостоянии она связывает с консолидацией постсоветских государств вокруг себя в рамках интеграционных проектов сначала ЕврАзЭС, а затем ЕАЭС. Их успешную реализацию Москва увязывала с участием в их осуществлении Украины, т.к. полагала, что без нее эти проекты не будут эффективны. Однако Киев не захотел поддержать эти планы, ориентируясь «на вхождение в Европу». По мнению автора, с этого момента внешнеполитические стратегии обоих государств стали принципиальным образом различаться и обе страны из стратегических партнеров превратились в геополитических соперников. Запад поддерживал Киев в проведении им прозападного внешнеполитического курса, расценивая его как элемент сдерживания великодержавных амбиций России. Москва и Запад старались перетянуть Киев на свою сторону. Государственный переворот, осуществленный националистическими силами в Киеве в феврале 2014 года, казалось, означал победу Запада в этом своеобразном перетягивании каната. В ответ Москва присоединила Крым и поддержала борьбу самопровозглашенных ДНР и ЛНР против киевской власти. В результате Украина встала на путь жесткой конфронтации с Россией, видя в ней агрессора и врага. Автор статьи приходит к выводу, что преодоление конфронтации между ними потребует немало времени и сил и на обозримую историческую перспективу отношения между ними будут строиться на основе принципов игры с «нулевой суммой». В этих условиях говорить о партнерстве и сотрудничестве не приходится, так как речь идет о взаимоотношениях двух враждебных государств. Максимум, на что можно рассчитывать — это на поддержание«холодного мира» между ними. Но и такого состояния можно будет достигнуть только при условии нормализации отношений между Россией и Западом, устранения новой «холодной войны».
International audience ; In the mid-19th century, Emperor Alexander II was carrying out large scale liberal reforms in Russia. In the course of these reforms, a problem was put forward about public preservation of historical monuments and archaeological sites as national cultural heritage. A step to this direction was undertaken in 1859 when the Imperial Archaeological Commission (IAC) was organized in Saint-Petersburg. Over the second half of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Commission remained the single State body concerned with archaeology and protection of sites and monuments on the territory of Russian Empire. In its activities, this Institution combined scientific research, organizational, monitoring and controlling functions. In the present monograph mainly created by the collective of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, the history of the first archaeological institution in Russia is systematically presented and analysis of its activities proposed for the first time. The organization of IAC was preceded by a long process of formation of the interest of the Russian society to the archaeology. The immediate precursor of IAC was the "Office of Archaeological Researches" founded in 1841 by the Minister for Home Affairs Lev Perovsky (1796–1856). The activities of the Office were concerned with investigations of archaeological sites of Kerch and Bosporos, Chersonesos, kurgans in the surroundings of Vladimir and Suzdal and settlements of the Golden Horde on the Volga River. During this period, the main principles which afterwards lay in the foundation of IAC were established. After the death of Lev Perovsky, the investigations were entrusted to Count Sergey Stroganov (1794–1882). The result of this appointment was that the assistant of Lev Perovsky and his nephew Count Alexey Uvarov (1824–1884), who planned to stand himself at the head of Russian archaeology, left Saint-Petersburg and moved to Moscow where in 1864 he founded the Moscow Archaeological Society in opposition to the Imperial Archaeological Commission. The confrontation between two Institutions however became actually a stimulus for the progressive advancement of the science and protection of monuments of antiquity. In 1857, Sergey Stroganov proposed to organize the "Main Archaeological Commission". That project became the basis of IAC, the statute of which was approved on February 2, 1859, by Emperor Alexander II. That statute secured for the Commission the right to conduct "earthen excavations", monitoring of the discoveries of hoards and archaeological objects in Russia and supervision over building activity at archaeological sites. The principles underlying the foundation of IAC were partly oriented to France and its "Commission des Monuments Historiques" (1837). The experience of the activities of IAC was used in organizing archaeological institutions in some European countries (Austria, Italy). The activity of IAC may be subdivided through three periods connected with its chairmen: 1859–1882 when Sergey Stroganov was the chairmen of IAC, 1882–1886 when it was headed by the Director of the Imperial Hermitage Museum Alexander Vasil'chikov (1832–1890), and 1886–1918 when the Commission was directed by Count Alexey Bobrinskoy (1852–1927). Originally, the staff of the Commission consisted of eight persons. In the activity of the Commission, such famous historians and archaeologists took part as Ivan Zabelin (1859–1876), Vladimir Tiesenhausen (1825–1902) and Nikodim Kondakov (1876–1891). Initially, the Commission was housed in the palace of Stroganov in Nevsky Prospect in Saint-Petersburg. The activities of the Commission have established the system of regulation of archaeological researches in Russia, which with several alterations existed until the beginning of the 21st century. This system was based on the "Otkryty list" (laissez-passer) as individual authorizations for researchers to conduct excavations with the indispensable submission of a report to the archives of the Commission. This practice has initiated the creation of the unique corpus of sources for the archaeology, architectural monuments and sites of different nations and modern states of East-Central Europe and Asia. The main activity of the Commission in 1859–1886 included excavations of sites of the Scythian culture and Classical Greek antiquities on the Taman Peninsula, in the Crimea (Kerch, Bosporos) and on some other territories, now in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the widespread opinion that the Commission studied exclusively the Classical and Scythian antiquities is incorrect: already then the first investigations in Siberia, Central Asia were conducted as well as studies of sites of the Bronze and Stone ages in Northern Russia. The finds came predominantly to the collections of the Imperial Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg and Historical Museum in Moscow. Another important responsibility of the Commission was the acquisition of monetary hoards and treasures of historical objects found on the territory of Russian Empire. The first investigator of hoards was a curator of the Hermitage collections Julian Iversen (1859–1900). Simultaneously, the Commission consulted the restoration and conservation activities of the Ministry of Home Affairs, primarily for the monuments of the defensive architecture and church buildings. For that purpose, the staff of the Commission included a representative of the Academy of Arts Feodor Solntsev (1859–1892). Protection of the monuments of archaeology also was an important task of the Commission. In 1866, Sergey Stroganov achieved the prohibition of treasure-hunting in Russia. The Commission, as the central state institution, actively collaborated with provincial Statistic Committees and Archive Commissions in the field of studies and protection of local monuments and sites. During the chairmanship of Alexander Vasil'chikov, the reforms of the Commission's activities were prepared. These reforms took place already under Count Alexey Bobrinskoy. In 1886–1887, an interdisciplinary program for studies of Slavic-Russian archaeology, the eastern Black-Sea region, Siberia etc. was developed. During that period, the Commission was moved to an office in the Winter Palace in Saint-Petersburg. On March 11, 1889, Emperor Alexander III approved by his decree the exclusive right of the Commission to conduct archaeological excavations and to license their execution on state and public lands. Simultaneously, the Commission, together with the Academy of Arts, was charged with supervision over restoration and protection of objects of art and architectural monuments. In 1890, the "Regulations for the Archaeological Commission and Academy of Arts on the order of consideration of petitions about restoration of historical monuments" were approved. Beginning with 1894, special sessions of IAC began to consider projects of restorations an conservations. The main specialists of IAC in the branch of restoration were Petr Pokryshkin (1870–1922), Konstantin Romanov (1882–1942) and Dmitry Mileev (1878–1914). The Commission got also Vladimir Suslov (1857–1921), Nikolay Sultanov (1850–1908), Ieronim Kitner (1839–1929) and Georgy Kotov (1859–1942) to take part in the architectural restorations. These activities resulted in establishment of standards of modern scientific restoration, using primarily the archaeological approach, which are efficacious even in the 21st century. Among the most successful restoration projects of IAC, noteworthy are the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Nereditsa hill near Novgorod, Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour at Berestovo in Kyiv, the Saint Boris and Gleb church at Kolozha in Grodno, the Saint George church in Yuryev-Polskoy, Cathedral of the Dormition of Mother of God in the Moscow Kremlin, Ipatyevsky Monastery in Kostroma, Ferapontov Monastery in Vologda region, Bakhchisarai Palace in Crimea, Smolensk and Pskov city walls etc. Among the most important problems of IAC in the restoration issues were its relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. As early as 1893, the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827–1907) confirmed that restoration of churches must be conducted with permission of the Commission, however in practice many churches were disfigured by illiterately made repairs. Part of the difficulties proceeded from contradictions in Russian law. Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had succeeded in developing an algorithm of its relations with the clergy, during the World War I, under the conditions of the general crisis of the Russian State and society, the Synod attempted to withdraw religious monuments from the public control.The new objectives and expansion of the geography of researches of IAC demanded a new staff of the Commission. That approval was received in 1888 and 1902. The membership of the Commission included Alexander Spitsyn (1858–1931), Nikolay Veselovsky (1848–1918), Vasily Latyshev (1855–1921), Boris Farmakovsky (1870–1928) and others. Alexey Bobrinskoy actively used his right of appointment of corresponding members and honorary members of the Commission. Among the corresponding members appointed in 1886–1917 were Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906), Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Samokvasov (1843–1911), Innokenty Lopatin (1839–1909), Alexander Bertier-Delagard (1842–1920), Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky (1863–1919), Yulian Kulakovsky (1855–1919), Nikolay Pantusov (1849–1909), Valentin Zhukovsky (1858–1919), Vladimir Malmberg (1860–1921), Sergey Zhebelev (1867–1941), Emil Roesler (?–?), Alexey Markov (1858–1920), Nikolay Marr (1864–1934), Mstislav Farmakovsky (1873–1946), Alexander Malein (1869–1938) and others. There was yet another category of assistants of the Commission — supernumerary members. They included Nikolay Pokrovsky (1848–1917) — an expert on Christian archaeology and Orthodox art, Vladimir Antonovich (1834–1908), Bohdan Khanenko (1849–1917), Ernst von Stern (1859–1924), Mikhail Rostovtsev (1870–1952), Alexey Shirinsky-Shikhmatov (1862–1930), Feodor Braun (1862–1942), Nikolay Bulychev (1852–1919) et al.In 1909, the 50th anniversary of the Commission and 25th anniversary of the activities of its chairman Alexey Bobrinskoy became something like summing up of the results of the works of IAC. The special role of the Commission is noteworthy regarding the studies of Scythian and Greek and Roman antiquities. The commission excavated about fifty 'Royal' kurgans containing rich Scythian burials from which the artistic gold objects are housed now in the Special Treasury of the State Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg. Studies of Bosporan sites were continued: the Commission was in charge of the Kerch Museum of Antiquities which directed the archaeological excavations in this region. The museum was headed by Alexander Lyutsenko (1807–1884), Stepan Verebryusov (1819–1884), Fedor Gross (1822–1897), Karl Dumberg (1862–1931) and Vladislav Shkorpil (1853–1918). Funerary catacombs, important Classical, Jewish and Christian antiquities were here discovered. Since 1888, according to an order of Emperor Alexander III, IAC was entrusted with the direction of researches in the area of the Tauric Chersonesos and its surroundings. Karol Kościuszko-Waluszyński (1847–1907) was appointed the head of the excavations in Chersonesos. During the later years, the excavations were directed by Robert Loeper (1865–1918) and Leonid Moiseev (1882–1946). Under the direction of the Archaeological Commission, living blocks, buildings and necropolis dated to the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods had been discovered and investigated, as well as several dozens of Christian churches and basilicas. In 1902, the systematic excavations of Olbia began under the direction of Boris Farmakovsky, and in 1904 – the archaeological researches of Berezan Island began under the direction of Ernst von Stern. An expansive project came to be that of excavations in 1908–1914 of one of the first medieval stone church of Eastern Europe — the Church of the Tithe in Kyiv conducted under the direction of Dmitry Mileev. During the period of 1890–1914, the Commission was financing altogether up to twenty expeditions annually throughout more than fifteen provinces and regions of Russian Empire. It must be noted however that the level of understanding of archaeological evidence gained remained behind its accumulation. In the field of the archaeology of the Stone Age, the studies of the Commission revealed several important Neolithic sites of Eastern Europe. In 1905, Alexander Spitsyn discovered a Paleolithic site at Borshevo, Voronezh region. The same researcher also wrote in 1915 a synthetic and generalizing work on the Russian Paleolithic where he had summarized the results of archaeology of the Early Stone Age in Eastern Europe and comprehensively characterized the sites of Caucasus and Siberia. Nevertheless, it must be noted here that the major researches on the Stone Age were carried out the sphere of activities of the Commission.During investigations of archaeological sites of Siberia separated by thousands kilometers from the scientific centers of European Russia, the Commission maintained close relations with local archaeologists and ethnologists directing their efforts and licensing their excavations. At the funds and on the instructions of the Commission, the archaeological sites of Siberia were studied since the 1860s by Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Klements (1848–1914), Alexander Adrianov (1854–1920) and other scholars.Members of the Commission participated personally in investigations of antiquities of the Caucasus and Ciscaucasia. In 1887, Dmitriy Bakradze (1826–1890) proposed a program of archaeological exploration of the area of Sukhumi, and in 1889 IAC carried out description and photographing of objects of Georgian Christian art from sacristies of churches and monasteries in Georgia. Since 1892, Nikolay Marr conducted longstanding investigations of the ancient Armenian capital Ani, medieval towns, fortresses and churches (Dvin, Akhtamar). Simultaneously, the explorations of sites of the Bronze and Middle Ages (dolmens, the Maikop kurgan and the Koban culture) were carried out through the efforts of Nikolay Veselovsky and Emil Roesler.The initiative of studies of architectural and archaeological monuments in Central Asia also mainly belongs to IAC. In 1900s–1915, IAC just kept under control the works in this region, gathered and distributed local collections and stray finds through museums. Photographing of architectural, ethnographic and historical monuments was conducted. The first archaeological excavations are connected with the names of Nikolay Pantusov who investigated in 1860s–1890s Christian Nestorian cemeteries near the Syr-Darya River, and Nikolay Veselovsky who continued archaeological and architectural researches since 1884 until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1890 and 1896, Valentin Zhukovsky observed several archaeological sites. In the 1880s, Alexey Bobrinskoy and Vladimir Antonovich developed a program of interdisciplinary research in the field Slavic and medieval archaeology on the territory of Ukraine. Excavations of kurgans were started in the Dnieper River region, Bielorus' and Novgorod region. At Gnezdovo near Smolensk, the Commission organized in 1890s-1900s excavations of kurgans and the settlement which initiated researches in the Viking Age in Eastern Europe. The systematization of mediaeval Slavic archaeology was proposed by Alexander Spitsyn. Of note is the IAC's contribution to studies of mediaeval archaeological sites of Eastern Europe. These included the Malaya Pereshchepina hoard found in 1912 — the supposed funerary complex of Khan Kubrat, excavations of the settlement of Mayatskoe conducted by Nikolay Makarenko (1877–1938) in 1908–1909, sites of Ugro-Finnish and Baltic tribes — Lyadinsky and Lyutsinsky necropolis investigated in 1889–1891 by Evdokim Romanov (1855–1922), Vladimir Sizov (1840–1904), Vladimir Yastrebov (1855–1899) et al. The archaeology of the region of Perm of the 8th-9th centuries and sites of the Vyatka region also were included in the sphere of interests of IAC, inter alia due to the fact that a very rich collection of local archaeological materials belonged to Sergey Stroganov. Alexander Spitsyn proposed the first archaeological periodization of the Perm and Kama regions local history and distinguished a number of local archaeological cultures. By 1917, the Commission was a serious academic institution both in the branch of architectural and archaeological researches. It became the organizing centre of Russian archaeology actively collaborating with public structures and planning new directions of researches. It is exactly inside the academic community rather than at the communistic authority after the October 1917 that the idea sprang up to transform the Commission into the "Academy of Archaeological Sciences" in order to focus efforts of its members exclusively onto the scientific sphere. In October of 1918, Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875–1933) approves the new regulations of the Russian State Archaeological Commission. Nikolay Marr became its chairman whereas Alexey Bobrinskoy had to emigrate. On April 19, 1919, the decree on the foundation of the Russian Academy for the History of Material Culture was signed by the chairman of the Bolsheviks government Vladimir Ulyanov. In the early August, elections to the new Academy took place. The Academy was housed in the Marble Palace in Petrograd. We should regard August 7, 1919, as the first day of the Academy for the History of Material Culture and the last day of the history of the Archaeological Commission.On the basis of the Imperial Archaeological Commission and Academy for the History of Material Culture the modern archaeological institutions of Russia have emerged. The practices established by the Commission were put into the foundation of the present-day regulation of archaeological researches and the system of protection of archaeological sites. The experience of the Commission undoubtedly indicates that the protection of the cultural heritage may be effective only in the case where it is carried out within an academic system. The protection and restoration of historical monuments must be subdued to scientific goals and architectural researches. The role of IAC manifested in the establishing national archaeological and site protection systems of the European and Asiatic countries which once constituted the Russian Empire. The editorial activities of IAC have been reflected in 65 titles of periodicals and nonperiodicals: Reports of IAC, Proceedings of IAC, and Materials on the Archaeology of Russia etc. Nikodim Kondakov's publication "Russian Hoards" (1896) and Yakov Smirnov's "Oriental Silver" (1909) are special contributions to the Art history. The materials of IAC kept in the Manuscript and Photographic departments of Scientific archives of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg (9,030 files and over 100,000 photographic imprints and negatives) conceal unique possibilities for future scientific discoveries and constitute an invaluable contribution of the Commission to studies and preservation of archaeological and cultural heritage of the World.
