ON THE HISTORY OF FORMING OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL «MEMORY PLACES» IN KYIV IN THE EARLY 19TH CENTURY: THE DISCOVERY OF GOLDEN GATE AND COMPILATION OF THE FIRST BOOK ON IT

Abstract

The sample of defensive architecture of the 11th century the Kyiv Golden Gate, excavated 190 years ago, is a rare example of an archeological site that has not only survived up today but is also integrated into the social, cultural and scientific space, has added to the category of museums, and become a hallmark of Kyiv. In some publications the modern understanding and evaluation of the site is extrapolated for the entire period of its post-excavation existence. It is believed that the Golden Gate in previous centuries as well impressed its contemporaries and was the object of interest of ordinary citizens, and the government used them as a symbol of a certain political and ideological nature.
 Sources of the first half of the 19th century, close in time to the excavations of the Gate, allow us to significantly adjust the idea of the reception of the site in the social and cultural space of the city. They show that the authorities showed no signs of interest in using the Golden Gate to «visualize» the history and create an image of the «good past» in the mass consciousness. On the contrary, the first steps to form a «social and cultural infrastructure of memory» (I. Irvin-Zaretska) were taken by private persons. The organization and carrying out of the Golden Gate excavations, efforts to preserve them, informing the public, making «advertising» images and inscriptions, demonstration of the excavation site, and finally writing the first book — were performed by State Councilor K. Lokhvytsky and merchant (who received the nobility) M. Samoilov. For both ordinary fans of antiquities this activity was a social elevator which raised to higher status floors.
 The author of the first book on the Golden Gate M. Samoilov due to communicative competence was able to collect the necessary material and mastered in the merchant milieu the forms of social relations, in particular the network gift exchange. Relying on the help of Kyiv Metropolitan Eugene (Bolkhovitinov), amateur archaeologist K. Lokhvytsky and historian M. Berlinsky, M. Samoilov created a solid work, which was later used by M. Zakrevsky and positively evaluated by S. Vysotsky.
 Historical sources show that there was no uniformity in the perception of the Golden Gate even among the cultural elite, the site was mostly on the periphery of the attention and care of the authorities. However, persons who in the first half of the nineteenth century acted as «mnemonic characters», have laid the foundations for the interpretation of the Golden Gate as a «memory place».