From 1869 to 1914, archaeological congresses were actively held every three years in various cities of the then Russian Empire. Their significance for Ukrainian archaeology and historical scholarship is immense. As part of these events, the preparatory committee organized various archaeological expeditions, and during the congresses themselves, it arranged excursions and exhibitions. All papers presented at each congress, as well as the proceedings of the congresses themselves, were published as separate books by a special editorial committee. Discussions raised new challenges and questions in the field of archaeology. And, of course, this stimulated the local community’s interest in the antiquities of their region. Under the influence of the congresses, various archaeological societies and museums sprang up in some provincial cities. A total of fifteen such congresses were held. However, the 16th Congress, which was scheduled to take place in the summer of 1914 in the city of Pskov, never took place, despite the preparatory work that had been done. A few days before the opening, when participants had already begun arriving in the city, a mobilization was announced throughout the country—World War I had begun.
Of course, Kharkiv and its residents played an active role in all of this. That is precisely what we will be discussing today. The renowned archaeologist Count Alexei Sergeyevich Uvarov was the driving force behind the establishment and organization of these archaeological congresses. In 1859, this brilliantly educated man married a woman 15 years his senior. When Uvarov received a gold medal in 1881 for his contribution to the development of archaeology, he had the inscription “To My Beloved Colleague” and presented it to his wife, Praskovya Sergeyevna (née Princess Shcherbatova, who was born and spent her childhood at the family estate in the village of Bobrik, Lebedinsky District, Kharkiv Governorate). However, I am certain that quite a few readers are very familiar with this remarkable woman. In the article by B. P. Zaitsev and A. F. Paramonov, “Countess P. S. Uvarova—Chairwoman of the 12th Archaeological Congress,” we read the following:
There are few historical figures whose portrayals can be found in the immortal novels of great writers. In Leo Tolstoy’s novel *Anna Karenina*, for example, the character of Kitty Shcherbatskaya reveals the author’s personal feelings toward a young woman who had long captivated his imagination. “Everything was illuminated by her. She was a smile that lit up everything around her,” or “…the charm of that small, fair-haired head, with its expression of childlike clarity and kindness, resting so freely upon her stately maiden’s shoulders. The childlike expression on her face, combined with the delicate beauty of her figure, constituted her special charm…” Who else could this enchantress be but the young Princess Praskovya Shcherbatova, who later became the wife of Count A. S. Uvarov?
The count, who was obsessed with archaeology, was truly lucky to have such a wife—young, beautiful, and intelligent. In her memoirs, Praskovya Sergeyevna recalls:
…On November 26, the count sent my mother a note asking permission to visit us that afternoon. He arrived around three o’clock and asked for my hand in marriage. After speaking with my mother, he asked to speak with me in private. He spoke about himself, saying that he was much older than I was, did not enjoy high society, was devoted to science, and feared that his habits and way of life might seem difficult and boring to a young woman like me. I replied frankly that I had fallen in love with him because he was more serious than others, and that I promised to be not only a good wife to him but, if he would allow it, his helper as well. Our parents gave us their blessing…
After Count Uvarov’s death in 1884, all subsequent congresses (to be precise, from the 7th to the 16th) were organized and yielded significant scientific results precisely thanks to his devoted wife, the lovely Slobozhanka Praskovya Sergeevna.
It should be noted that scholars from our city have participated in archaeological congresses since their very inception. At the First Archaeological Congress in Moscow (March 16–28, 1869), three representatives from Kharkiv University were present: Nikifor Dmitrievich Borisyak, Pyotr Alekseevich Lavrovsky, and Alexander Afanasyevich Potebnya. At the Second Congress, held from December 7 to 20, 1871, in St. Petersburg, our city was represented by Gennady Fedorovich Karpov and Amfian Stepanovich Lebedev.
At the Third Archaeological Congress in Kyiv (August 2–16, 1874), Nikifor Dmitrievich Borisyak, who was in attendance, presented a paper titled “A Few Words on the Latest Archaeological Finds in the Kharkiv and Yekaterinoslav Provinces”. This congress is of great significance for the ethnography of Ukraine. After all, in the atlas *Proceedings of the Third Archaeological Congress in Kyiv*, published in 1878 by the distinguished Kyiv scholar and archaeologist Fyodor Kondratyevich Volkov, featured exceptionally beautiful Ukrainian ornaments that accompanied his presentation at the congress, “Distinctive Features of South Russian Folk Ornamentation.” Incidentally, this work remained for a long time the only study of Ukrainian ornamentation as such.
The second congress held on Ukrainian territory took place only 10 years later, following the Fourth Archaeological Congress in Kazan (July 31–August 16, 1877) and the Fifth in Tiflis (September 8–21, 1881). It was decided to hold the Sixth Congress in Odessa. Among the nine people representing our city and region, the list of participants includes some familiar names: Nikolai Fedorovich Sumtsov, Dmytro Ivanovych Bahalii, Dmytro Ivanovych Yavornytsky… The latter two scholars also traveled together to the 7th Archaeological Congress, held August 6–20, 1887, in Yaroslavl. And at the 8th Congress in Moscow (January 8–24, 1890), Dmytro Ivanovych Bahalii delivered a paper titled “A General Survey of the Antiquities of the Kharkiv Governorate.” His main goal was to refute the widely held public opinion that the lands of our beautiful region were of no archaeological interest.
No less interesting was the 10th Archaeological Congress, held from August 1 to 15, 1896, in Riga. Among the representatives from Kharkiv at the congress was Andrei Yuryan, the founder of Latvian musical folklore studies and the composer of the first national vocal-instrumental and symphonic works, who is still honored in Latvia to this day.
The speech by the distinguished Kharkiv historian Alexandra Yakovlevna Efimenko drew thunderous applause from the entire audience. Later, this remarkable woman from Kharkiv became the first woman in the Russian Empire to receive an honorary doctorate in history.
During the 11th Archaeological Congress, held in Kyiv from August 1 to 20, 1899, the delegation from the Kharkiv Governorate already numbered 15 people. Alexander Augustovich Kopf delivered a presentation titled “On the Antiquities of the Lebedyn District of the Kharkiv Governorate.” Dmytro Ivanovych Bahalii presented “On the Necessity of Transforming the Kharkiv Historical Archive into a Central Archive.”
As it turned out, the implications of this report for our city were quite significant.
After hearing the report by A. I. Markevich, V. S. Ikonnikov, P. N. Milyukov, and Countess P. S. Uvarova proposed that the Congress Council immediately initiate a petition to transform the Kharkiv Historical Archive into a central historical archive, applying the staffing levels of either the Kyiv or Vilnius archives to it. This proposal was unanimously adopted by those present.
The 12th Archaeological Congress, held from August 15 to 27, 1902, is generally considered one of the largest in history due to the quality of its organization, the number of guests in attendance (402 participants, including more than 60 professors and private lecturers), and many other factors, is generally considered one of the largest such events in the history of these gatherings. It took place not just anywhere, but in our beloved city. Countess Praskovya Sergeyevna Uvarova, whom we already know, notes in her memoirs that
Kharkiv was the only city that, for 32 years, declined the honor of hosting a gathering of scholars within its walls. Neither my husband nor I could explain this phenomenon to ourselves; but finally the ice broke, and at the close of the Kyiv Congress, the Kharkiv representative asked me to place their request to host the congress on the agenda in Moscow, which was done. Kharkiv as a city is not particularly interesting—neither in terms of its buildings nor its people—and therefore all the interest in the congress stemmed from the university and those professors who took an interest in it, among whom Nikolai Fedorovich Sumtsov, Dmytro Ivanovych Bahalii, Dmitry Vlasyevich Aynalov, and Yegor Kuzmich Redin.
She also noted that the success of the event was largely due to the fact that, for the first time in the history of these conventions, the city government provided assistance to the organizers.
… The supportive attitude toward the congress on the part of all members of the public and municipal administrations, as well as the entire university staff, remained unwavering throughout the entire period of preparations for the congress, nor during the convention itself, which enabled the Preparatory Committee not only to survey the Kharkiv Governorate but also to undertake a systematic survey of the Kursk, Voronezh, Chernihiv, Poltava, and Yekaterinoslav Governorates, and even parts of the Don Military District and the northern part of the Taurida Governorate…
Although, of course, Praskovya Sergeyevna is being a bit disingenuous here. After all, it was Dmytro Ivanovych Bahalii who first raised the issue of holding the Archaeological Congress in Kharkiv during the Sixth Congress in Odessa. However, following the death of Alexei Sergeyevich Uvarov, his wife and colleagues did not dare to hold the event in a little-known region. Consequently, after Odessa, the congress was held in Yaroslavl, a city rich in historical antiquities. But be that as it may, the scope and scale of the 12th Archaeological Congress in Kharkiv remain impressive to this day. Thanks to the efforts of Kharkiv scholars, the exhibition held as part of the congress featured rich, interesting, and informative collections that comprehensively reflected the historical past not only of Sloboda Ukraine but also of Left-Bank Ukraine.
The “Album of the Exhibition of the 12th Archaeological Congress in Kharkiv,” published a year later, with its excellent descriptions and numerous photographs, remains a vivid testament to this to this day.
Many papers were presented in all sections, so the published proceedings of the congress—*Proceedings of the Twelfth Archaeological Congress in Kharkiv* and “Proceedings of the Kharkiv Preparatory Committee for the Organization of the 12th Archaeological Congress” total more than 2,000 pages. To give an idea of the scale, I will cite a few works on ethnography and kobzar tradition (without going into the numerous presentations on topics such as archaeology, the history of Kharkiv, archival science, and ecclesiastical antiquities):
Babenko, V. A., “Kobzar Tradition in the Kharkiv Governorate”;
Vasilenko, V. I., “On the Question of Regional Ethnography”;
Vetukhov, A. V., “Materials of the Committee on Kobzars and Lyrniks”;
Ivanov, V. V., “Artels of the Blind: Their Organization and Current Status”;
Ivanov, V. V., “Folk Medicine in the Kharkiv Governorate”;
Ivanov, V. V., “From the Internal Life of Sloboda Ukraine”;
Kraskov, A. N., “The Evolution of Housing and Clothing Among Peasants in the Immediate Vicinity of Kharkiv”;
Krist, E., “Kobzars and Lyrniks of the Kharkiv Governorate”;
Malinka, A., “Information on Kobzars and Lyrniks”;
Pokrovsky, A. M., “On Goldsmithing in the Kharkiv Governorate”;
Sumtsov, N. F., “On the Patronage of Kobzars and Lyrniks”;
Tikhovsky, P. I., “Kobzars of the Kharkiv Governorate”;
Khotkevich, I. M., “A Few Words About Bandura Players and Lyrniks.”
Interestingly, the convention organizers decided to showcase the poetic heritage of the Ukrainian people to the delegates who had traveled from all corners of the empire. Therefore, on August 19, an ethnographic concert was held for all convention participants. The kobzars and lirniks from the Kharkiv, Poltava, and Chernihiv provinces who performed on stage made a stunning impression on the audience with their masterful playing. A correspondent for a leading music newspaper noted in his report that “credit must be given to the Kharkiv kobzars; from a technical standpoint, they have perfected their craft to the highest degree.”
Because many newspapers wrote about the concert—which was the first attempt to play the bandura in front of a live audience—we can still find out its full program today:
A donation jar for the performing musicians was placed at the entrance to the hall. By the end of the concert, it contained about 112 rubles. Baron Joseph de Bay, a renowned French writer, archaeologist, and traveler who was present at the concert and a member of the Paris Geographical Society, was so enthralled by the performance that, according to the recollections of his contemporaries, he asked: “Why has this instrument (the bandura), with its superb timbre, been abandoned and neglected by Russian society, which has clung, like children, to an overseas toy—the mandolin—or the pitiful, soundless balalaika?”
At its closing session, the 12th Archaeological Congress in Kharkiv resolved to petition the Minister of the Interior to put an end to police persecution of bandura players and lyre players. Subsequently, a petition on this matter was drafted right here in our city and signed by all the delegates to the congress.
Konstantin Bich-Lubensky concludes his article—dedicated to the aforementioned concert and published in one of the leading music periodicals of the time, *The Russian Music Gazette*—with the following words: “Without delving into the scholarly aspects of the congress and its lofty goals, one cannot fail to speak highly of this humanitarian endeavor. Bandura players and lyre singers are not professional beggars; they are poor blind men who earn their meager livelihood through music and song, just like other musicians; moreover, they are the sole guardians and bearers of the musical and poetic heritage of the Little Russian people, and for this reason alone they deserve not persecution and oppression, but rather sympathy and care, given their helpless condition due to blindness. Honor and glory to the 12th Archaeological Congress in Kharkiv, which stood up for the blind and hungry Ukrainian bayans!”
But I would like to conclude today’s text with a telling quote from an article about the Kharkiv Archaeological Congress, published in the monthly journal *Kyivska Starina* (No. 11, 1902):
…While there had been experience with organizing archaeological exhibitions at previous congresses, the organizers of the ethnographic exhibition were tasked with pioneering a new endeavor, and Kharkiv has the honor of hosting the first Little Russian ethnographic exhibition, — the younger sister outpaced the older one; what the older Kyiv was supposed to do, the younger Kharkiv accomplished. It was a bit embarrassing for the people of Kyiv to hear Prof. Machulsky say, among other things, in his speech at one of the sessions: “The 12th Archaeological Congress has clearly shown us that the center of Little Russian interests has shifted somewhat and is now concentrated here, in the Kharkiv region. This is where the lifeblood of Little Russian life beats; here we have found many figures imbued with the interests of the people…”
- About the military pilot school and the airfield in Kharkiv… - 04.11.2020
- Kharkiv Artisans and the 1887 Exhibition - 17.08.2020
- Nikanor Savich—A Political Career by Mistake - 13.07.2020