Content uploaded by Pavlo Shydlovskyi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pavlo Shydlovskyi on Jul 06, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTÍCULOS
Complutum
ISSN: 1131-6993
191Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
Svitlana Ivanysko
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 64/13, Volodymyrska Street, City of Kyiv, Ukraine, 01601
s_ivanysko@knu.ua
+380954801734
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3824-1371
Gennadii Kazakevych
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 64/13, Volodymyrska Street, City of Kyiv, Ukraine, 01601
kazakevych@knu.ua
+380664768525
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2690-860X
Pavlo Shydlovskyi
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 64/13, Volodymyrska Street, City of Kyiv, Ukraine, 01601
prehist@knu.ua
+380965731707
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6771-812X
https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/cmpl.95930 Recibido: 20/09/2023 • Aceptado: 22/04/2024
EN Abstract. This paper discusses the devastating impact of the Russo-Ukrainian war on cultural
heritage in Ukraine. It highlights the destruction and plundering of cultural sites and artifacts in
a broad historical context. The study traces the Russian historical narrative and its connection
to state ideology, emphasizing the ideological use of archaeology to support territorial claims of
nowadays Russia. The authors discuss the impact of the military conflict on museums in Ukraine
since 2014. The article details the challenges faced by museums during the conflict, including
the occupation of Crimea and certain areas of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson
regions, as well as the destruction and relocation of museum collections. The analysis high-
lights the severe consequences of hostilities on Ukraine’s archaeological heritage. The loss of
archaeological sites and museum collections due to conflict-related activities, looting, and de-
struction is emphasized. The paper discusses the challenges faced in monitoring and docu-
menting these losses and proposes initiatives to address the crisis. Finally, the authors provide
some recommendations on minimizing the consequences of war for objects of cultural heritage,
stressing that these recommendations could be useful for any country, even if its involvement in
a large-scale military conflict currently seems unlikely.
Keywords: Ukraine; Russo-Ukrainian war; archaeology and politics; cultural heritage; museum;
archaeological landscapes; destructions.
ES El patrimonio cultural en la guerra ruso-ucraniana: una víctima
del conflicto
ES Resumen. Este artículo discute el impacto devastador de la guerra ruso-ucraniana en el pa-
trimonio cultural en Ucrania. Destaca la destrucción y el saqueo de yacimientos y artefactos
culturales un amplio contexto histórico. El estudio rastrea la narrativa histórica rusa y su co-
nexión con la ideología estatal, enfatizando el uso ideológico de la arqueología para apoyar
las reclamaciones territoriales de la Rusia actual. Los autores discuten el impacto del conflicto
militar en los museos de Ucrania desde 2014. El artículo detalla los desafíos afrontados por los
museos durante el conflicto, incluida la ocupación de Crimea y ciertas áreas de las regiones
de Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia y Kherson, así como la destrucción y reubicación de co-
Cultural Heritage in the Russo-Ukrainian War: a
Victim in the Conflict
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 191QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 191 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
lecciones de museos. El análisis destaca las graves consecuencias de las hostilidades en el
patrimonio arqueológico de Ucrania. Se hace hincapié en la pérdida de sitios arqueológicos y
colecciones de museos debido a actividades relacionadas con el conflicto, el saqueo y la des-
trucción. El documento analiza los desafíos enfrentados en el monitoreo y documentación de
estas pérdidas y propone iniciativas para abordar la crisis. Finalmente, los autores proporcionan
algunas recomendaciones para minimizar las consecuencias de la guerra para los objetos del
patrimonio cultural, haciendo hincapié en que estas recomendaciones podrían ser útiles para
cualquier país, incluso si su participación en un conflicto militar a gran escala actualmente pa-
rezca poco probable.
Palabras clave: Ucrania; guerra ruso-ucraniana; arqueología y política; patrimonio cultural; mu-
seo; paisajes arqueológicos; destrucciones.
Sumario: Introduction. Imperial ambitions and archaeology as a reason to justify Russian
invasion. Museums of Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian war. Archaeological heritage.
Concluding remarks. References.
Cómo citar: Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. (2024): Cultural Heritage in the Russo-
Ukrainian War: a Victim in the Conflict. Complutum, 35(1): 191-214.
1 The statistics is constantly renewed on the UNESCO’s web-site: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/dama-
ged-cultural-sites-ukraine-verified-unesco?hub=66116 [Actualizada el 02/04/2024]. Acceso el 31/03/2024.
Introduction
Ten years ago, it was almost impossible to
imagine that a significant part of Europe
would soon turn into a zone of military con-
flict on a scale unprecedented since the end
of World War II. The brutal, unprovoked ag-
gression of the Russian Federation against
peaceful towns and villages resulted in nu-
merous human casualties, the forced dis-
placement of many people, massive eco-
nomic losses, and damage to infrastructure
and communications. War, like any other type
of destructive activity, negatively impacts
people’s lives, the economies of countries,
and the world in general. The military con-
flicts that have occurred in recent decades
around the world show that cultural heritage,
including archaeological sites, becomes one
of the most vulnerable segments of social
life. For example, the invasion of Iraq caused
intensive looting of the archaeological sites:
the total area of the looting was much great-
er, than all archaeological investigations ever
conducted in southern Iraq (Stone 2008, p.
137) During the conflict in Syria the cultural
heritage suffered significantly from direct
bombing and damage to archaeological
sites, military use of archaeological areas,
civil occupation of archaeological sites and
historical monuments, illegal construc-
tion and illegal excavations (Sabrine 2002,
P. 223). The protection of cultural property
during armed conflicts requires joint efforts
from civil authorities, military command-
ers, international organizations and the
academic community (see: Radin 2011; Rush
2012; Johannot-Gradis 2015).
In Ukraine, as of 13 March 2024, UNESCO
has verified damage to 346 sites since 24
February 2022, including 127 religious sites,
31 museums, 154 buildings of historical and/
or artistic interest, 19 monuments, 14 libraries,
1 archive1. The war in Ukraine belongs to the
type of conflicts in which the cultural heritage
is not just a victim of hostilities, but one of the
reasons for the conflict itself. Some of the sites
and cultural institutions were damaged during
military actions, while others were plundered
and/or misappropriated by the Russian offi-
cials. The legislative framework for protection
of the cultural heritage, both national and in-
ternational, appeared to be almost inefficient
under conditions of the full-scale military con-
flict (Okhrimenko 2022: 53-55). The ongoing
war, which appears to be far from its conclu-
sion, raises many questions of great impor-
tance not only for Ukraine but for any modern
nation. How and why can cultural heritage be-
come a matter of military conflict? What spe-
cific damages can modern warfare inflict on
the cultural heritage of a particular country? Is
it possible to protect objects of great histori-
cal and archaeological value from the ravages
of military actions? The aim of this article is to
provide answers to these questions.
Imperial ambitions and archaeology as a
reason to justify Russian invasion
Vladimir Putin declared the so-called “de-
nazification of Ukraine” as one of the chief
goals of his invasion, which, in fact, means the
192 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 192QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 192 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
demolition of Ukrainian national identity, his-
tory, and public memory. Hüseyin Saltan in his
recent publication (2023) argues that Russia’s
invasion attempt against Ukraine emerged
as a military result of both the preservation
of its historical heritage and a geopolitical
obsession. In particular, he states that the le-
gitimacy of ultra-nationalist groups in Ukraine,
“state-based ethnocentric policies”, as well
as “the gradual cultural cleansing policies of
both the people and the government in the
process of constructing a national identity
during and after the events called Euromaidan
or the Revolution of Honor” formed the basis
of Russia’s propaganda for military action
against Ukrainian nationalism (ibid., p. 21). In
fact, the in 2019, five years after the annex-
ation of Crimea by Russia, the only far-right
political party with clear anti-Russian agenda
(“Svoboda”) gained only 2,16% of votes and
failed to get to the parliament. The same year
Vladimir Zelenskyy was elected as a President
of Ukraine – a person of Jewish origin, who
used to speak Russian on daily basis and pre-
viousely was deeply involved in the Russian
entertainment and film industry. Meanwhile,
Saltan clearly emphasizes the true reason of
the Russian invasion in Ukraine in his paper:
“it was unthinkable for many Russians that
“Little Russia” - Ukraine - was not a part of
Russia” (ibid., p. 15).
Seven months before the full-scale inva-
sion, Putin published an essay titled “On the
Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,”
in which he stated that “Russians and
Ukrainians were one people – a single whole,”
who created Ancient Rus – a state with a sin-
gle religion, language, and ruling dynasty, with
its capital in Kyiv, “the mother of all Russian
cities.” Even after the state’s decline, its pop-
ulation maintained a common language, faith,
and an aspiration to reunite under the rule
of the Moscow tsar. Later, it was the Polish
elite and some Austro-Hungarian-backed
Ukrainian intellectuals who formed “the idea
of the Ukrainian people as a nation separate
from the Russians.”2
There can be little doubt that the roots
of the current conflict between Russia and
Ukraine lie in this historical narrative, which
was actually produced by Russian nation-
alistic historiography to justify the territori-
al claims of the Russian empire in Central
Europe. One might admit that the entire
concept of ‘Ancient Rus’ (or ‘Kyivan Rus’ as
it was called later) was a very important part
2 The article by Vladimir Putin is available on the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library web-site: https://www.prlib.ru/en/
article-vladimir-putin-historical-unity-russians-and-ukrainians [Actualizada el 12/07/2021]. Acceso el 05/09/2023
of Russian state ideology since the times of
the Grand Duchy of Moscow. In the 19th – ear-
ly 20th centuries, Russian historians argued
that Kyivan Rus was the earliest Russian state
inhabited by the so-called “Single Russian
ethnicity” or “Old Russian ethnicity” (Yusova
2005: 384-394).
From linguistic and archaeological points
of view, this theory seems very anachronistic.
In the case of accepting it, one must also ac-
cept the fact that during the Middle Ages, a
single ethnic identity could exist on such a vast
territory from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The
origin of the name Rus is unclear (Danylenko
2004). Since the 9th and 10th centuries, it was
used either as an ethnic label to identify the
Vikings of Eastern Europe or as the name
for the Middle Dnipro area with the center in
Kyiv. Various Slavic chiefdoms dominated this
territory until the Vikings established a ruling
dynasty with a capital in Kyiv in the early 9th
century. They formed an early medieval em-
pire along the trade route from Scandinavia
to Byzantium, similar to those established by
Charlemagne or Cnut the Great in the West.
The population of Rus consisted of separate
communities that possessed complicated
mixture of identities, and were connected to
each other mostly by the church and political
power of the prince (Plokhy 2006: 10-48).
In the mid-13th century, Rus dissolved due
to the Mongol invasion. In the North-West
of the former Rus, the Moscow princedom
emerged. Later, it appropriated the name Rus
and became the Tsardom of Rossja (Greek
transcription of the word Rus). From the ear-
ly 18th century, it was named the Russian
empire. Meanwhile, the lands of Ukraine
were incorporated into the Lithuanian and
Polish states which in 1569 formed a single
state – Rzeczpospolita (Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth). The economic exploitation
and Catholic expansion in lands where the
majority of the population were Orthodox fu-
eled conflict, resulting in an uprising under
the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi that
broke out in 1648. The events of the next few
years were commonly called the “civil war”
within Rzeczpospolita in Polish historiog-
raphy, while within Russian historical narra-
tive they are seen as a popular uprising for
“Ukraine’s reunification with Russia”. In fact,
it was rather a conflict of private interests,
which soon exposed unresolved social con-
tradictions and grew into a large-scale strug-
gle of the Orthodox population of Ukraine for
193Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 193QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 193 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
self-determination. This struggle, in which
the leading role was played by the Ukrainian
Cossack military organization, resulted in the
creation of a state headed by a Cossack het-
man. Political instability, as well as an unfa-
vorable international situation, led to the fact
that in 1653, the Cossack State entered into
Muscovite Russia with broad autonomy rights.
Over the next few decades, Ukraine became
the scene of bloody ethnic and religious con-
flicts fueled by expansionist ambitions of
Moscow, Warsaw, and the Ottoman Empire
(Plokhy 2015, p. 73-107).
The Russian government, since the late
17th century, tended to narrow the rights of
Cossack autonomy. After Ivan Mazepa’s un-
successful attempt to withdraw Ukraine from
the sphere of Russian influence during the
Northern War, direct rule of the Collegium
of Little Russia (1722-1727) was actually in-
troduced. Attempts by Pavlo Polubotko and
other Cossack leaders to find a compromise
on the preservation of Ukrainian autonomy
ended in their imprisonment. In 1764, the
hetman’s institute was eliminated; in 1775,
the Zaporozhian Sich, the symbolic center of
Cossackdom, was destroyed. Finally, in 1786,
the last signs of autonomy were abolished.
Since then, Ukraine has been completely in-
corporated into the Russian Empire. During
the next century, the Russian ruling elites di-
rected their efforts toward the assimilation of
the Ukrainian population. The decree issued
by the Minister of Interior Pyotr Valuev in 1863,
as well as the so-called Ems Ukaz issued by
Emperor Alexander II in 1876, banned the
use of the Ukrainian language in print, school
teaching, church life, theatre, and so on (see:
Remy 2016).
Despite significant differences in language
and culture, most Russian officials and schol-
ars denied the existence of Ukrainians and
Belarusians as separate national entities.
At the same time, they celebrated the great
symbolic role of Kyiv and some regions of
Ukraine in Russian state and nation-building.
Archaeology, as an emerging discipline, had
to adapt itself to this ideological narrative
(Klejn 2012; Shephard 2016).
Since 1712, local authorities throughout
Russia were encouraged to search for antiq-
uities and send them to Saint Petersburg to
enrich the collections of the Russian imperial
metropolis. Russia began to appropriate arti-
facts found in the lands of Ukraine at the same
time when the first systematic archaeological
excavations began in the second half of the
18th century. The Scythian burial Melgunovsky
Kurhan (Lyta mohyla) was one of the first
cases. The treasure, which included an iron
akinake-sword with a handle covered with
gold in a gold-plated wooden scabbard, silver
elements of a stool from an Assyrian palace,
a gold diadem, 17 massive gold plates in the
form of eagles, and many other artifacts, were
transferred to the Kunstkamera museum in St.
Petersburg, and then to the Hermitage.
In 1859, Alexander II established the
Imperial Archaeological Commission (IAC)
– a state institution that coordinated and or-
ganized all excavations. Since 1889, it was
the only authority that issued permits (“Open
letters”) for archaeological field studies. Such
permits obliged archaeologists to submit “all
the most valuable and interesting findings”
for consideration by the Commission and the
emperor himself. It is not surprising that al-
most all such findings removed from Ukraine
and other countries subjugated to Russia later
replenished the collections of the Hermitage
and other museums located in Saint
Petersburg and Moscow. This practice contin-
ued even after the Russian empire ceased to
exist and the Bolsheviks established their rule
in Ukraine. The most significant treasures of
Scythian gold, valuable artifacts from Greek
colonies of the North Pontic area, as well as
religious icons and mosaics from Ukrainian
churches dating from the Rus period, were
moved to Russia and never returned.
The creation and representation of collec-
tions of archaeological findings from the terri-
tory of the Russian empire and the USSR had
significant ideological meaning. It contributed
to the creation of the concept of “Fatherland’s
history” (‘otechestvennaja istorija’), according
to which all lands incorporated into Russia
were historically connected from the earliest
times. The concept of unified ‘Fatherland’s
history,’ coined in the Russian empire and
Stalin’s USSR, is still relevant in present-day
Russia. Moreover, it is actively promoted
outside Russia to justify claims on its former
provinces (Konstantinova 2023).
The exhibition “Scythians: Warriors of
Ancient Siberia,” organized by the State
Hermitage and held in the British Museum
in London from September 2017 to January
2018, is one of the most recent examples of
this approach. Although the exhibition’s name
focused the viewer’s attention on Siberia, the
exposition included a vast number of find-
ings made in the territory of Ukraine. Among
them were golden Scythian artifacts from
Lyta Mohyla, Solokha, and Chortomlyk buri-
al mounds, which are currently part of the
Hermitage’s collection. An edited volume
that accompanied the exhibition (Simpson,
Pankova 2017) did not even mention that these
artifacts came from the territory of Ukraine.
194 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 194QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 194 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
Instead, the book includes a foreword by the
Hermitage director in which the Iron Age
Scythians are uncritically equated with mod-
ern Russians:
Scythians are also present in the
Russian national psychology in the form
of ‘the Scythian war’. Historical sources
relate that when attacked the Scythians
pretended to flee in defeat, drawing
the enemy deep into the steppe, where
they suddenly turned on them and de-
stroyed them. Such was their response
to Achaemenid forces. And in modern
history Russia too has made use of its
vast territory to apply the same tactics
to war. Such was Russia’s response to
Polish, Swedish, French and German
invasions (Piotrovsky 2017: 8).
In 2022, Mikhail Piotrovsky, in his interview
with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, strongly support-
ed the Russian invasion in Ukraine, claim-
ing that “We are all militarists and imperials”
(Kishkovsky 2022). This point of view, repre-
sented by one of the key figures in the Russian
academic milieu, shows that the imperial per-
spective is still relevant when it comes to the
cultural heritage of countries that were for-
merly part of the Russian empire/USSR.
Museums of Ukraine during the Rus-
so-Ukrainian war
At this stage, it is possible to conditionally dis-
tinguish two periods in the Russian-Ukrainian
war (and, correspondingly, two stages in the
activity of museums during this time):
1. February 2014 - February 24, 2022;
2. After February 24, 2022 (Ivanysko 2023).
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine be-
gan in February 2014 with the occupation
of Crimea, the organization of pro-Rus-
sian rallies in cities in the east and south of
Ukraine, and the occupation of certain areas
of Luhansk and Donetsk regions. Museum
institutions in these territories automatically
fell under occupation or were under the threat
of destruction due to hostilities. The central
government of Ukraine was not prepared for
hostilities, and museum collections were not
evacuated. Even information about these col-
lections can be considered lost. According
to the registers of the Ministry of Culture and
Information Policy, as of 2014, there were 99
museums in Crimea, 24 in Donetsk Oblast,
and 23 in Luhansk, which housed hundreds of
3 See the Russian Goskatalog database: http://projects.pandan.eusp.org/goskatalog
thousands (perhaps millions) of movable cul-
tural heritage items (Kulturni tsinnosti 2017: 7).
The fates of the museum institutions in
Crimea and the temporarily occupied terri-
tories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions were
different. The occupation of Crimea was, in
a sense, “bloodless,” with no hostilities tak-
ing place. Museums were reformatted and
re-registered in accordance with the legisla-
tion of the aggressor state. Russia immedi-
ately began to include the Crimean museums’
collections in its register of cultural heritage
objects, the state museum fund, and the na-
tional property of the Russian Federation,
seizing and declaring as its property not only
the territory but also the cultural heritage.
Among them are almost 150 objects listed in
the UNESCO catalogs (Kulturni tsinnosti 2017:
5-6).
As of June 7, 2023, more than 248,000
museum objects from Crimean museums (un-
der the designation Krasnodar Territory) were
included in the State Catalog of Russia, ac-
knowledging the fact of theft. Among them are
items from the Ievpatoriia Museum of Local
History (the museum building is included in
the State Register of Immovable Monuments
of Ukraine) - 27,086 items; the Crimean
Republican Museum of Local History “Central
Tavrida Museum” - 17,438; the Historical and
Archaeological Reserve “Naples of Scythia”
(the capital of the Crimean Scythians) - 7,614;
Feodosia Museum of Antiquities (founded in
1811, one of the oldest historical and archaeo-
logical museums of Ukraine) - 11,479; Museum
“Sudak Fortress” - 8,854; Bakhchisarai State
Historical and Cultural Reserve - 21,356;
National Reserve “Tavrian Chersonesus”
(included in the UNESCO World Heritage
List in 2013) - 6,145; Kerch Historical and
Archaeological Museum (founded in 1826)
- 13,5743. In some cases, museum objects
were physically relocated from Crimea
(Tavrian Chersonesus, Sudak, Central Taurida
Museum, Feodosia National Art Gallery, etc.)
to the territory of the occupying state (Kulturni
tsinnosti 2017: 6). This fact, along with the ob-
servation that these objects serve Russian
ideology, was even noted by UNESCO (Follow-
up to decisions 2021: 5-6, 11, 20).
The Russian Federation also claimed mu-
seum objects that were taken from Crimean
museums to the Netherlands for exhibition
even before the start of the Russo-Ukrainian
war. Court hearings lasted about 10 years, and
in the end, the court made a decision in favor
of Ukraine. There was an active discussion on
195Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 195QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 195 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
this issue in the legal field, which did not al-
ways take into account the normative frame-
work of the museum legislation of Ukraine (for
example, Kasinec, Šuška 2020). The result
of the court hearings was a correct decision
that the items will be temporarily stored in the
state-controlled territory of Ukraine until the
de-occupation of Crimea4.
Crimean institutions and their collections
now serve Russian propaganda, but the mu-
seums and objects themselves hold no value
for the occupation authorities. Thus, the
Bakhchisaray Reserve, which was included in
the preliminary list of UNESCO World
Heritage Sites in 2013, suffered serious dam-
age. In 2015, local residents pointed out the
emergency state of the monument. During
the implementation of the “restoration” proj-
ect, developed by the company from
Simferopol called “Kiramet,” with the general
contractor being Atta-group from Moscow
(both without experience in the field of resto-
ration), the unique 18th-century paintings
4 https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/articles/cevpz4gek0no
were damaged. Authentic beams and roof
tiles were also cut and destroyed, and cracks
appeared on the walls of many buildings
(Kulturni tsinnosti 2017: 6-7; Mekhed 2017;
Holubov 2018; Morozova 2018). The former
director of the reserve points out that the au-
thenticity of the objects has essentially been
lost (Malynovska 2018; Rzheutska 2019). The
2021 UNESCO report recognized the delib-
erate nature of such actions (Follow-up to
decisions 2021: 11-12). By the beginning of
2022, the results of this restoration by
non-professionals were already visible
(Nekrecha, Hakh 2022). Illegal excavations in
Crimea (including on the territory of the re-
serve and the world heritage site - Tavrian
Chersonesus) and constructions initiated by
the occupiers (for example, the construction
of an observation square in Tavrian
Chersonesus, which endangers the authen-
ticity of the monument) are leading to the de-
struction of immovable heritage (Follow-up
to decisions 2021: 5-7, 9-12).
Fig.1. Local History Museum of Makariv, Kyiv region. In the spring of 2022, the town was under partial occupation,
and fighting was taking place directly in it. The museum was looted by the occupiers, some of the exhibits were
destroyed (for example, a wooden statue of Christ by a local artist). From the left - the director of the museum, V.
Gedz, demonstrates the warhead of the GRAD projectile, which hit the territory of the Kyivan Rus hillfort (Photo by
P.Shydlovskyi, October 2022)
The fate of the museums in Luhansk and
Donetsk regions was markedly different.
These were territories where active hostili-
ties were taking place, and museum
institutions were not shielded from physical
destruction. One of the first to suffer was the
“Isolation” Art Center, the premises of which
were converted into a prison and a torture
196 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 196QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 196 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
chamber (Slipchenko 2014). The art project
team managed to evacuate part of the col-
lection; however, the most valuable works
could not be removed because they were in-
tegrated into the architecture and landscape
of the space. In August 2014, due to artillery
shelling, the building of the Donetsk Regional
Museum of Local Lore was destroyed. (It had
been one of the largest museums in Ukraine
until 2014, housing approximately 150,000
storage units). The museum lost its collec-
tions, and the institution and its employees
had to be relocated to Kramatorsk. Financial
challenges ensued, affecting employee sal-
aries, premises, and other aspects (Stepura
2021).
Fig.2. The building of the “Museum of Antiquities”, which housed the regional library for youth in the city of Chernihiv.
In March 2022, the Chernihiv Regional Youth Library became one of the first cultural monuments to be partially
destroyed as a result of a Russian missile strike. This is a unique architectural vestige, which has a protected status,
was built at the end of the 19th century and is also known as the Tarnovskyi building (Photo by V. Skorokhod, Institute
of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2022)
The Luhansk Regional Museum of Local
Lore had to relocate twice: first from occupied
Luhansk to Starobilsk, and after a full-scale
invasion, from occupied Starobilsk to Lviv
(Tsybulska 2022). The director and employ-
ees had prepared the collections for evac-
uation from Starobilsk before the full-scale
offensive, but events unfolded rapidly, making
evacuation impossible. Consequently, the
museum lost its collections twice - first in
Luhansk and then in Starobilsk.
The events of 2014-2015 highlighted the
challenges faced by both museum institu-
tions and authorities (both central and local)
during hostilities. These challenges includ-
ed the actual vulnerability of museums, their
197Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 197QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 197 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
collections, and employees, the inability to
evacuate museum collections and staff, and
the absence of a unified electronic record
system in Ukraine. As a result, not only ob-
jects but also information about them can be
considered lost. Some museum objects were
irreparably destroyed, while others were pre-
served, but all documentation remained in the
occupied territories.
The issue of restitution, which involves the
return of cultural values illegally removed from
Ukrainian museums after 2014, has become
more pressing. Significant efforts will be re-
quired to prove Ukraine’s ownership of these
items, given the lack of documentation and the
absence of electronic accounting in Ukraine.
Therefore, in December 2020, a scandal erupt-
ed due to the gift by the President of Bosnia
and Herzegovina to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Russia of an icon that was taken from
occupied Luhansk. Only thanks to old invento-
ry marks was it possible to prove that the icon
belonged to Ukraine (Teslia 2020).
Additionally, museum institutions face diffi-
culties when relocating, including finding new
premises, securing financing, maintaining a
team, and acquiring new collections, among
other challenges.
At the end of 2021 and the beginning of
2022, as intelligence from leading world
countries warned of an imminent full-scale of-
fensive, the issue of evacuating museum col-
lections became relevant once again. Some
museums, such as the Luhansk Regional
Museum of Local Lore, previously relocated
to Starobilsk, began preparations for evacua-
tion but were unable to complete the process
in time. Others were not granted permission
to do so by local administrations (Borsukova
2022; Mamonova et al. 2022; Yankovskyi
2022; Kunytskyi 2023). In any case, neither
the central nor local authorities, nor the mu-
seum institutions themselves, were fully pre-
pared, necessitating a reaction to the rapidly
evolving circumstances. After February 24,
2022, the beginning of the full-scale Russian
offensive on Ukraine, museums disassem-
bled their exhibits, maintained strict secrecy,
and evacuated their collections to safer loca-
tions. Employees lived within the museums to
ensure the safety of the collections (Levada
2022; Prokopenko 2022; Higgins 2023a).
The National Committee of the International
Council of Museums (ICOM) and the Ministry
of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine
5 See Map of cultural losses project by the Ukrainian Cultural Fund: https://life.pravda.com.ua/cultu-
re/2022/04/6/248121/ https://ucf.in.ua/en/news/culture_loss
6 Official statistics by the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy, April 8, 2024. Available at https://mcip.gov.ua/
news/cherez-rosijsku-agresiyu-v-ukrayini-postrazhdaly-ponad-tysyachu-pamyatok-kulturnoyi-spadshhyny/
compiled a red list of cultural heritage items
from various museum institutions that repre-
sent Ukraine’s history and are under threat of
illegal seizure and theft.
The entire heritage of Ukraine, encom-
passing both cultural and natural elements,
is under threat of destruction, as Russian
missiles have the potential to reach any part
of Ukraine, and even beyond5. Reports of the
destruction or damage to museum institu-
tions appeared in the mass media early on:
as early as February 25, the historical and lo-
cal history museum in the village of Ivankiv,
Kyiv region, which housed paintings by Maria
Prymachenko, was destroyed (though some
paintings were saved by museum employees)
(Smorzh 2022). Makariv Local Lore Museum,
Kyiv region, was robbered by the occupiers
(Fig. 1). In March, air bombs damaged the
buildings of architectural monument muse-
ums, such as the Okhtyrka Museum of Local
History and the Regional Youth Library in
the building of the Museum of Antiquities in
Chernihiv (Fig. 2). On May 7, a direct missile
hit completely destroyed the National Literary
and Memorial Museum of Hryhorii Skovoroda.
Museums in the Kharkiv region are consis-
tently being destroyed (Merkulova 2023).
A missile attack on Kyiv on October 10,
2022 caused partial window damage at the
Khanenki National Museum of Art, the Taras
Shevchenko National Museum, the Kyiv Art
Gallery, the National Museum of Natural
History of the National Academy of Sciences
of Ukraine, the Kyiv History Museum, and the
memorial museum-apartments of Mykola
Bazhan and Pavlo Tychyna (Kotubei 2022)
(Fig. 3). While the museum collections were
not affected in the latter case, the institutions
suffered financial losses and had to quick-
ly repair the buildings (architectural monu-
ments) before the autumn-winter season. In
June 2023, the Russian Federation commit-
ted another act of destruction of cultural her-
itage: as a result of the explosion of the dam
at the Kakhovka HPP, about 10 museums were
in the flood zone, including the homes-mu-
seums of the artist Polina Raiko and Ostap
Vyshnia, which were completely submerged
(Bilash 2023). This list of destruction and
damage could go on. As of March 25, 2024,
the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy
had counted more than 1024 damaged or de-
stroyed objects of cultural heritage in Ukraine,
with over 80 museums and galleries affected6.
198 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 198QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 198 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
At the end of February 2022, events unfold-
ed too rapidly, and some museum institutions
in Ukraine found themselves in newly occupied
areas. Museums in territories controlled by
Ukraine and in the temporarily occupied terri-
tories encountered different yet similar chal-
lenges simultaneously (Kliushnychenko 2023).
Saving the lives of museum employees was
the foremost priority. After the full-scale offen-
sive, the task of evacuating museum employ-
ees arose, both from the controlled and occu-
pied territories. However, evacuating from the
occupied territory was significantly more chal-
lenging, with reports in the mass media about
the abduction and interrogation of museum
workers (Mamonova et al. 2022; Tsybulska
2022). Some museum workers and their fami-
lies sought refuge in safer places in Ukraine
and around the world, becoming refugees,
while others joined the ranks of the Armed
Forces of Ukraine and the Territorial Defence
Service to defend their homeland with weap-
ons in hand. Some museum workers chose to
remain in their cities and towns to safeguard
the museum collections to the best of their
ability. In effect, museum employees in Ukraine
put their lives at risk every day. In April 2023,
employees of the Kupiansk Regional History
Museum were tragically killed during a missile
attack (Borsukova 2022; Larin 2023).
Fig.3. The consequences of missile attack on the center of Kyiv on October 10, 2022. As a result of the attack, a
number of architecture monuments, museums and university buildings were damaged. One of the rockets hit the
territory of the park in front of the buildings of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, as a result of which
the exhibition of the KNU Archaeological Museum was damaged (Photo by P. Shydlovskyi, October 12, 2022)
199Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 199QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 199 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
Fig.4. Modern exhibits of Ukrainian museums. On the left - the exhibition “Fascism = Ruscism” in the Chernihiv
Historical Museum (Photo by P. Shydlovskyi, March 2023). On the right - an exhibition at the National Museum of the
History of Ukraine (Photo by S. Ivanysko).
Another urgent problem was ensuring
the preservation and evacuation of museum
collections. As mentioned earlier, in reality,
museums were not prepared for evacuation;
they had to carry it out after the start of a full-
scale offensive. While it could be organized
in the territories controlled by Ukraine, the
collections from the occupied territories are,
in most cases, lost. Thanks to the initiative
of some individual managers, the most valu-
able items from the collections were evacu-
ated or hidden (Borsukova 2023; Tsybulska
2022). However, some museum workers be-
came collaborators and assisted the occu-
piers in looting the museums they worked
in. Thus, despite limited access to informa-
tion, it became known that the collections of
several museum institutions were removed.
For instance, the Melitopol Museum of Local
History, as well as local history and art mu-
seums in Mariupol and Kherson (Chernovol
2022; Mamonova et al. 2022; Shyian 2022;
Yankovskyi 2022). Archaeological exhibits
were taken from the “Kamiana Mohyla” muse-
um in the Zaporizhzhia region to the “Tavrian
Chersonesus” reserve in Crimea, seemingly
for an exhibition. As history shows, museum
objects from such exhibitions held in Russian
museum institutions are rarely returned.
Activists noticed packing materials apparent-
ly prepared for the “evacuation” of Crimean
museums already at the end of 2022. In May
2023, museum objects from the “Tavrian
Chersonesus” reserve were similarly taken to
Veliky Novgorod (Albul 2023). Determining the
exact number of museum objects stolen by
Russia is a lengthy and challenging process.
Documentation has also been exported, and
the return of these valuable items will be a
protracted endeavor.
Museums in the territory controlled by
Ukraine or evacuated from the occupied ter-
ritory must restart their activities. For evacu-
ated institutions, the challenge of restoring
statutory and financial documentation and re-
taining museum staff has arisen. Other muse-
um institutions have commenced the process
of documenting the impact of military actions
in Ukraine and informing the world about the
events in the country (Fig. 4).
Museum institutions and individual em-
ployees are joining forces to support each
other during these difficult times. The Heritage
Rescue Headquarters and the Museum Crisis
Center have been established, and initiatives
that existed before the full-scale invasion
continue to provide assistance to museums
in coping with new challenges. One should
mention also the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage
Online (SUCHO) that began on March 1, 2022
as an emergency response effort organized
by three digital humanities practitioners,
and quickly grew to over one thousand vol-
unteers who are collaborating online to digi-
tize and preserve Ukrainian cultural heritage
(Dombrowski, Kijas, Majstorovic 2022).
Despite the disassembled exhibits, mu-
seum life in Ukraine has not come to a halt.
200 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 200QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 200 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
New exhibitions, cultural events, and displays
of museum objects from Ukraine abroad
are ongoing (Horlach 2022; Horlach 2023;
Tsupko 2023). Trainings and courses are be-
ing organized on how to operate during times
of crisis, and foreign colleagues are visiting to
learn from the experience of museums during
times of conflict (Higgins 2023a,b).
Museum work and the preservation of
monuments are highly sensitive areas, es-
pecially in the face of economic and politi-
cal challenges. The Russian-Ukrainian war,
particularly the onset of full-scale hostilities,
has highlighted the vulnerability of this field
and raised pressing issues that must be ad-
dressed. It is evident that the mechanism for
evacuating museum institutions should be
improved, possibly with the involvement of
international organizations. Additionally, the
digital documentation of museum collections
in Ukraine should be enhanced, as the data
from these registries can be utilized in the
restitution process for cultural valuables.
It’s worth noting that civil society has
played a significant role in addressing the
challenges faced by museum institutions and
employees following the full-scale offensive.
The museum community has come together
to assist affected institutions and staff, and
various events are being held to promote
Ukrainian culture and inform the global com-
munity about the events unfolding in Ukraine.
The proactive involvement of civil society, in-
cluding dedicated preservationists and mu-
seum professionals, demonstrates a commit-
ment to making maximum efforts to rebuild
the cultural sector, restore monuments, and
repatriate exported cultural treasures.
Archaeological heritage
The consequences of hostilities are particu-
larly devastating for archaeological heritage,
given the irreparable nature of archaeolog-
ical sites, their inseparable connection to
the landscape and ecological environment,
and the universally valuable information that
can be obtained through research (Ivakin,
Shydlovskyi 2022).
The most significant loss for Ukrainian
archaeology has been the looting of muse-
um collections that ended up in occupied
territories. Irreparable losses resulted from
the absence of well-developed protocols for
protecting museum collections during bomb-
ings and evacuating assets from frontline ar-
eas. Effective evacuation procedures were
7 See the official report on the Human Rights Watch web-site: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/20/ukraine-rus-
sians-pillage-kherson-cultural-institutions
not in place, and the Ministry of Culture and
Information Policy of Ukraine did not provide
clear instructions, materials, or organization-
al support for rescue operations regarding
museum assets (Levada 2022). This problem
remains unresolved, even with the constant-
ly shifting frontlines in the south and east of
our country. In such conditions, the losses
are staggering, with hundreds of regional lo-
cal history museums falling victim to looting.
Among the most well-known are the muse-
ums of Kherson, Melitopol, and Mariupol. The
collections of the Kherson Museum of Local
History, along with those of other museums
in the city, were systematically transported to
occupied Crimea, indicating large-scale theft
of Ukrainian cultural heritage by the Russians.
The Human Rights Watch documented
looting of museums and cultural institutions in
Kherson from March 2 to November 11, 2022.
During this period, Russian officials looted the
Kherson Regional Art Museum, the Kherson
Regional Museum, St. Catherine’s Cathedral,
and the Kherson Region National Archives.
From an archaeological perspective, the pil-
lage of the Kherson Regional Museum, which
possessed a collection of about 180,000
objects, appears especially devastating.
According to the Human Right Watch, “from
October 24 to 26 about 70 people, most in
civilian clothes or apparently part of Russia’s
Federal Security Service (FSB), looted the mu-
seum. They left the flora and fauna collection
untouched but pillaged almost everything else,
including silver, Scythian gold, imperial Russian
medals, ancient Greek vases, and World War II
relics.”7 The Melitopol Museum of Local Lore
was recognized for its remarkable collection
of Scythian gold, the traces of which have
now been lost. The Mariupol Museum housed
unique archaeological resources, including the
collection from the excavations of the Mariupol
Neolithic Cemetery by the renowned Ukrainian
archaeologist Mykola Makarenko. The muse-
um itself suffered greatly due to the hostilities
that occurred directly in the city, and the surviv-
ing exhibits were looted by the occupiers, with
reports indicating that remnants were trans-
ported to occupied Donetsk (Shydlovskyi et al.
2023, p. 6-8).
During the Russian attack and occupation
of parts of Ukraine, criminal groups became
particularly active, with the aim of illegally ob-
taining archaeological objects for subsequent
sale and placement in private collections both
within Ukraine and abroad (Hardy 2022).
201Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 201QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 201 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
Fig.5. The “Princely” mound in Chernihiv damaged as a result of a rocket attack (Photo by P.Shydlovskyi, March
2023).
The question of archaeological monitoring
As a result of the unprovoked aggression
by the Russian Federation, we are witness-
ing the large-scale destruction of historical
landscapes and the damage to thousands
of archaeological sites that were either in the
process of research or had not even been un-
covered yet.
Determining the extent of the losses to ar-
chaeological sites is currently impossible with
certainty. First, the factors causing damage
to archaeological objects must be identified.
The following phenomena or actions can be
attributed to these factors:
– The destruction of sites due to direct mil-
itary operations on the frontline, such as
rocket attacks, artillery shelling, and mor-
tar fire. It is worth noting that this war pri-
marily involves remote warfare character-
ized by powerful artillery attacks, including
missile strikes, a “wall of fire”, artillery and
tank duels, and more. These actions result
in the most severe damage to landscapes,
including archaeological sites (Fig.5).
– The destruction of sites caused by the
construction of modern military facilities
like dugouts, trenches, firing positions,
and observation posts. During the Russian
troops’ offensive in the spring of 2022, the
northern, eastern, and southern regions of
the country were under threat of occupa-
tion, and the exact stopping point of this
offensive was uncertain. Consequently, the
entire country practically turned into a net-
work of checkpoints, dugouts, trenches,
and observation posts, built with the par-
ticipation of the entire population. Under-
standably, such activities led to significant
landscape transformations. Similar activi-
ties occur on both sides of the front, but
it’s important to recognize that our actions
to establish military facilities were a re-
sponse to a treacherous invasion, and we
had no other option but to protect lives and
homes first. In this context, the destruction
of parts of monuments and cultural layers
was a necessary response to a real threat
of enemy attack (Fig.6).
– The use of monuments as modern military
facilities. It’s clear that in both past eras
and contemporary warfare, topographi-
cally prominent features of the landscape,
such as high points, riverbanks, terraces,
lakes, swamps, and ravines, are strate-
gically significant. An analysis of military
operation maps in Ukraine confirms that
both warring parties fully utilize the topo-
graphical features of the terrain (with the
understanding that our troops have the
advantage, defending our own land). The
frontlines are often located along rivers,
terraces, watersheds, and defensive, ob-
servational, or fire structures are strategi-
cally positioned considering the terrain’s
features. Consequently, anthropogenic
202 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 202QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 202 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
landscape features like mounds, ramparts,
ditches, and ancient hillforts also become
crucial points on the landscape, as they
either directly mark or themselves serve
as prominent landscape features. For in-
stance, burial mounds, ranging from the
Early Iron Age to the Late Middle Ages,
were traditionally built on the highest
points of the terrain, and as a result, they
have become convenient locations for
modern military facilities (Fig.7).
– Looting of archaeological sites. Such ac-
tions can be observed on both sides of
the conflict. Notably, the monument pro-
tection system hardly functions in front-
line areas and the “gray zone,” making
it difficult to track the actions of looters,
who aim to remove archaeological ob-
jects from their context and sell them. Ille-
gal excavations were repeatedly reported
in the liberated territories of the Luhansk
region during surveys conducted from
2016 to 2021.
– Acts of vandalism targeting visible archae-
ological objects, including known cases of
vandalism against ancient architecture
and megalithic sculptures from the Early
Iron Age to the Middle Ages. One of the
most well-known cases is the shelling of a
group of Polovtsian sculptures near the
city of Izium in the Kharkiv region (Shyd-
lovskyi, Telizhenko, Ivakin 2022).
Fig.6. Dugouts and defense structures in the ancient rampart of the Scythian hillfort near the village of Khodosivka,
Kyiv region. (Photo by P. Shydlovskyi, October 2023)
However, monitoring the state of archae-
ological heritage objects faces significant
challenges because the vast majority of mon-
uments, including settlements and burial
grounds, exist in an “unregistered state,” and
assessing the extent of damage requires spe-
cialized research. Several major issues hinder
the process of recording the destruction of
archaeological sites:
a. The matter of object registration. The
problem arises from the fact that, even before
the war, archaeological object registration
was severely lacking. For years, some regions
failed to provide information about newly
discovered archaeological objects to the cen-
tral executive body responsible for cultural
heritage protection—the Ministry of Culture
and Information Policy of Ukraine. According
to Ukrainian legislation, only an object includ-
ed in the State Register of Immovable
Monuments of Ukraine is officially recognized
as a monument. Consequently, applying a full
set of site protection measures to newly dis-
covered objects is challenging. The same ap-
plies to documenting losses and damage—
how can one document the damage caused
to an archaeological object if that territory is
not officially designated as an archaeological
203Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 203QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 203 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
site? The protection of archaeological heri-
tage is in crisis, largely due to several factors,
with the primary one being the lack of docu-
mentation for the vast majority of archaeolog-
ical sites. This lack of documentation prevents
these territories from obtaining monument
status, creating additional difficulties in ac-
cessing archaeological areas during monitor-
ing and reducing the number of officially re-
corded losses caused by invaders (Shydlovskyi
et al. 2023).
Fig.7. Modern fortifications on the territory of the Kyivan Rus hillfort of Oster with the remains of 11th century
architecture, Chernihiv region. (Photo of the Archaeological Landscapes Monitoring Group, 2023)
Currently, cultural heritage protection ac-
tivities in Ukraine primarily focus on “visible”
heritage objects, such as architectural monu-
ments, religious structures, and monumental
artworks (Fig. 8). The figure of approximately
1024 damaged cultural heritage objects cit-
ed by the Ministry of Culture and Information
Policy of Ukraine hardly accounts for archae-
ological sites (Shydlovskyi, Kuijt, Skorokhod
et al. 2023). Unlike architectural and monu-
mental art vestiges, archaeological objects
remain hidden, and their discovery is con-
tingent on direct field research, including ar-
chaeological surveys and excavations. Many
archaeological objects are only uncovered as
a result of catastrophic events such as floods,
earthquakes, or, in our case, military actions.
Therefore, recording the loss of a certain site
requires immediate creation of monument
protection documentation, which includes,
among other things, cultural and chronologi-
cal attributions. This documentation process
204 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 204QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 204 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
can only be carried out with direct fieldwork on
the site and requires collaboration between
archaeologists and site protection experts.
b. Another challenge in monitoring the
state of archaeological heritage is the issue
of access to objects. Currently, many frontline
territories in the Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk,
Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions are inac-
cessible for any fieldwork due to direct threats
to life and health. However, demining and re-
construction processes have already com-
menced in de-occupied territories in the Kyiv,
Zhytomyr, Chernihiv, and Mykolaiv regions.
Nonetheless, work in these de-occupied ter-
ritories is significantly hindered by limited ac-
cess, requiring coordination with military ad-
ministrations, the Territorial Defense Service,
and other entities within the power bloc.
Northern territories bordering Belarus and
the Russian Federation have been placed un-
der heightened security measures, including
bans on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), patrolling, and more. Consequently,
much time is devoted to coordinating actions
with various authorities during monitoring
activities.
c. The direct risk to life must also be con-
sidered. When conducting work in de-occu-
pied territories, there is a significant danger of
encountering minefields, as well as threats
from artillery and mortar attacks and the infil-
tration of saboteur groups (Fig. 9). This risk is
particularly pronounced in the border territo-
ries of Chernihiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv regions,
which are constantly shelled from the Russian
Federation’s territory.
Fig.8. The Church of the Ascension of the beginning of the 20th century, destroyed as a result of a rocket attack in
the village Lukashivka, Chernihiv region. (Photo by P. Shydlovskyi, October 2023)
205Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 205QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 205 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
Fig.9. Damaged by military trenches and mined territory of a Bronze Age settlement near the village of Bilohorodka,
Kyiv region. (Photo by P. Shydlovskyi, March 2023).
Initiatives and solutions in archaeological
landscapes monitoring
Despite the overall decrease in the number
of field archaeological research projects in
Ukraine, a significant shift in research topics
is evident. The ongoing war has necessitat-
ed a shift from academic research and proj-
ects focused on academic problems to more
pressing concerns related to the preservation
and monitoring of both natural and cultural
heritage. At the regional level, initiatives have
emerged aimed at safeguarding heritage, in-
cluding the efforts of public organizations and
volunteer groups involved in evacuating and
preserving museum collections, as well as
documenting damage to heritage sites.
Between 2016 and 2021, the process
of documenting archaeological losses in
the territories of Luhansk and Donetsk re-
gions controlled by Ukraine was initiated
by an expedition led by S. Telizhenko from
the Institute of Archaeology of the National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Telizhenko
also compiled the manual “Archaeological
Sites and Warfare,” outlining the actions to
be taken when discovering objects of ar-
chaeological significance for military per-
sonnel. The manual was published with the
assistance of the Union of Archaeologists
of Ukraine (Telizhenko 2020). It is notewor-
thy that the initiative to monitor the con-
dition of monuments in areas threatened
by military actions has largely been driv-
en by public and scientific initiatives, with
limited involvement from state institutions
(Telizhenko 2023).
In the summer of 2022, the Institute
of Archaeology of the National Academy
of Sciences of Ukraine established the
Monitoring Archaeological Expedition, tasked
with documenting the loss of archaeological
heritage resulting from military aggression by
the Russian Federation.
To gain an approximate understanding
of the war’s impact on archaeological heri-
tage, it is essential to initiate the process of
documenting the destruction of landscapes.
Moreover, this endeavor should encompass
various fields, including archaeology, ecology,
geology, biology, and more. Archaeological
monitoring should serve as a catalyst for re-
vamping the system of object documentation
to a new level, involving the creation of a da-
tabase linked to digital maps and the delinea-
tion of territories affected by military actions.
Given the limitations on remote landscape
observation, these studies should primarily
rely on direct fieldwork by archaeologists, in-
cluding reconnaissance and test excavations
of war-affected areas. Satellite images and
aerial data should complement the creation
of archaeological maps, though access to
such data is currently restricted.
In response to these challenges, represen-
tatives from multiple scientific, educational,
and museum organizations formed an initia-
tive known as the Archaeological Landscapes
Monitoring Group. This group includes
206 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 206QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 206 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
practicing archaeologists and monument ex-
perts from institutions such as the Institute
of Archaeology of the National Academy
of Sciences of Ukraine, the Ukrainian State
Institute for Cultural Heritage, the Faculty
of History of Taras Shevchenko National
University of Kyiv, the National Museum of
the History of Ukraine, and several public
organizations.
The German Archaeological Institute (DAI)
has played a significant role in supporting
monitoring activities. Through an individual
grant to Alla Bujskikh from the Institute of
Archaeology of the NAS of Ukraine, the DAI
has enabled the implementation of the proj-
ect “Ukrainian Archaeological Heritage
Threatened by War: Saving and Protection.”
This project focused on the Kyiv, Chernihiv,
and Mykolaiv regions, which were either under
occupation or directly impacted by hostilities.
The project involved surveying several well-
known archaeological sites in these regions.
Fig.10. Medieval mound cemetery of the 10th-11th centuries “Boldyni Hory” in the center of Chernihiv. The cemetery
area was significantly damaged as a result of rocket attacks and the construction of fortifications (Photo by P.
Shydlovskyi and V. Skorokhod, 2023).
207Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 207QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 207 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
One of the main objectives of this initiative
is to conduct monitoring work in the de-occu-
pied territories of Kyiv and Chernihiv regions
(Bujskikh et al. 2023). Two separate units—Kyiv
and Chernihiv—were established to examine
several sites, particularly prominent hillforts
from the era of Kyivan Rus, which include
Makariv, Motyzhyn, Biloghorodka, Tumasch,
Vyshhorod, Chernihiv, Sedniv, Oster, and oth-
ers. The works have revealed damage to the
Makariv hillfort from rocket attacks, signifi-
cant landscape alterations near Bilohorodka,
damage to the Vyshgorod fortress due to
rocket attacks, and extensive damage to the
Shestovytsia barrow cemetery from the 10th
to 11th centuries AD in the Chernihiv region
(Kuijt et al. 2024).
A striking example of the destruction of
the archaeological landscape is the situation
with the medieval mound cemetery of Boldyni
Hory (Hills) in the city of Chernihiv. This cem-
etery, located in the city’s southwest on the
terrace of the Desna River, has always been a
cherished local site and a protected archaeo-
logical area. The Boldyni Hory mound ceme-
tery, a nationally significant monument, is part
of the burial mound necropolis of the ancient
city of Chernihiv from the 10th century AD. Its
destruction occurred in February 2022 during
the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of
Ukraine and the Chernihiv region (Fig. 10).
During the early stages of the Russian
troops’ attack, Chernihiv was partially encir-
cled, and intense battles took place on the
city’s outskirts. This resulted in damage to
medieval architecture from the Kyivan Rus era,
religious structures, and numerous archaeo-
logical sites within the city and its surround-
ings. Military installations, trenches, and dug-
outs were established within the burial ground
area, causing damage to around ten mounds.
The expedition recorded 27 trenches and two
shell impacts. The damage to specific em-
bankments and the space between mounds
could lead to further erosion, displacement of
artifacts and burials, impairment of the area’s
aesthetic appeal, and more. Moreover, ruined
barrows can attract treasure hunters, further
exacerbating looting of individual mounds.
The work in Kyiv and Chernihiv regions in-
volves not only identifying destroyed areas of
sites and assessing the condition of monu-
ments that were under occupation but also
entering metadata into a database with pre-
cise mapping of monument boundaries. This
process will facilitate the necessary docu-
mentation for registering these objects in
the State Register of Immovable Monuments
of Ukraine. With the arrival of spring, plans
are in place to expand these efforts to cover
lesser-known sites, including camps, set-
tlements, ground and barrow burials, while
simultaneously establishing local focus
groups of archaeologists and preservation-
ists in other regions of Ukraine (Shydlovskyi,
Kornienko, Ivakin 2022). A certain result of
the work of the Archaeological Landscapes
Monitoring Group was the publication in
2023 of the collection of works in VITA
ANTIQUA almanac “Culture Heritage and the
War: challenges and solutions” (Shydlovskyi,
Ivanova eds. 2023).
Following the destruction of the Kakhovka
Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) by Russian
military forces on June 6, 2023, water levels
in the Dnipro River in the area began to re-
cede rapidly, revealing areas that had been
submerged for centuries. These areas con-
tain objects from various historical periods,
including World War II, the Cossack era, and
numerous archaeological eras, including the
Upper Palaeolithic.
During the construction of the Kakhovka
Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) in the 1950s,
the territory, deemed extremely valuable from
environmental, historical, and cultural per-
spectives, was submerged. The flooding not
only affected modern settlements but also
submerged numerous archaeological objects
beneath the waters of the Kakhovka Reservoir.
Now, due to a rapid decrease in the water lev-
el across the entire reservoir area, as well as
downstream territories of the Dnipro River and
its tributaries, new challenges have emerged
concerning the protection of archaeological
heritage. In the autumn of 2023, an archae-
ological survey by the Monitoring Expedition
of the Institute of Archeology of the NAS of
Ukraine together with the Khortytsia National
Reserve took place on the territory freed from
water, in a result of which a number of archae-
ological sites were discovered and facts of
destruction and robbery of archaeological
heritage objects were recorded.
Specifically, illegal excavators have be-
come increasingly active, employing metal
detectors to search for valuable items washed
away by the receding waters. They are not only
seeking valuable objects but are also causing
further harm to archaeological sites that have
been damaged or have become more acces-
sible due to coastal erosion, shallowing of
territories, and other factors in the Kherson,
Mykolaiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Zaporizhzhia
regions. In response to this situation, and
after consulting with archaeologists and
preservationists, the Ministry of Culture and
Information Policy of Ukraine has taken the
initiative to create a comprehensive histori-
cal-archaeological expedition. The mission
208 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 208QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 208 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
of this expedition includes documenting the
damage to archaeological sites resulting from
breaches of the dam and changes in water
levels, depending on the region, as well as
salvaging movable objects associated with
these sites.
The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has es-
tablished an interdepartmental Coordination
Center for the preservation of cultural heri-
tage and cultural values in the territories af-
fected by the destruction of the Kakhovka
Hydroelectric Power Plant. The government
has also directed regional military adminis-
trations in Dnipro city, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv,
and Kherson, in collaboration with local
self-government bodies, the National Police,
and the Territorial Defense Forces of the
Armed Forces of Ukraine, to immediately re-
strict public access to the areas affected by
the destruction of the Kakhovka HPP.
Among other public initiatives that deal
with the preservation of cultural and museum
heritage, which does not directly concern ar-
chaeological sites, is The Heritage Emergency
Response Initiative (HERI) and Museum Crisis
Center. Of great importance are projects and
activities whose purpose is to record the loss
of visible heritage using modern remote meth-
ods and 3D and VR technologies. In the fu-
ture, these data will become the basis for cal-
culating the damage caused by the aggressor
state to the cultural heritage of Ukraine. 8
Concluding remarks
The Russo-Ukrainian war has brought ne-
glected problems to the forefront, making
them relevant and focusing attention on
them, even as it laid bare issues that were
previously overlooked by governments and
bureaucracies. The war is not over yet, so the
precise number of the lost and damaged ob-
jects of cultural heritage is still to be counted.
However, some significant conclusions could
be made already at this point.
Firstly, the notion that the era of imperialist
conquest and inter-ethnic conflict is over and
will never be repeated, at least in Europe, has
proved to be wrong. Against the background
of the growing popularity of radical ideologies,
no one can guarantee that war will not break
out in one or another region of the world.
Adherents of neo-imperialist and militaristic
views seek justification for their rightness in
a distorted reading of history. We must admit
that the manipulation of cultural heritage in
the modern world can be used as a powerful
propaganda tool. That is why the academic
8 https://www.mccukraine.com/ , https://war.city/
community around the world should concen-
trate its efforts on building and popularizing
historical narratives based on the values of
humanism and the equality of all nations and
cultures.
Secondly, the entire conflict between
Russia and Ukraine clearly demonstrates what
particular damages to objects of great cultur-
al value could be caused by modern warfare.
Full-scale war primarily involves powerful ar-
tillery and missile attacks that bring tremen-
dous destruction to all types of buildings and
archaeological sites. This kind of remote war-
fare causes severe damage to archaeological
landscapes as well. Another significant issue
is the destruction of sites caused by the con-
struction of dugouts, trenches, firing posi-
tions, and observation posts. Burial mounds,
ramparts, ditches, and ancient hillforts still
hold certain tactical value on the battlefield.
Finally, objects of cultural heritage have be-
come the first and foremost victims of looting
and vandalism. It’s not just about the misap-
propriation of museum collections by occupi-
ers, but also the illegal excavations of archae-
ological sites that remain defenseless against
metal detectorists.
Thirdly, civil authorities and academic insti-
tutions are unable to prevent or stop the war.
However, their activity could potentially min-
imize the consequences of war for objects
of cultural heritage. Such objects should be
registered, documented, and digitalized as
comprehensively as possible. The govern-
ment must develop protocols for protecting
museum collections during bombings and
evacuating assets from frontline areas. If hos-
tilities cannot be avoided, local authorities
should provide clear instructions, materials,
or organizational support for rescue opera-
tions regarding museum assets. These rec-
ommendations can be useful for any country,
even if the involvement of that country in a
large-scale military conflict currently seems
extremely unlikely.
In the face of the threat of losing a part of
Ukraine’s cultural heritage due to aggression,
the significance of this heritage is undergo-
ing a profound reassessment within society.
An understanding of the importance of pre-
serving and studying objects of historical,
anthropological, ethnographic, and archaeo-
logical value is taking shape. The struggle of
Ukrainians for independence also represents
a fight for humanistic values, including re-
spect for the cultural and natural heritage of
all mankind, a value of paramount importance.
209Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 209QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 209 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
References
Albul, S. (2023): Okupanty rozghrabuvaly muzei-zapovidnyk «Khersones Tavriiskyi» u Krymu.
LB.ua, 23 May 2023. [URL: https://lb.ua/culture/2023/05/23/556673_okupanti_rozgrabu-
vali.html?fbclid=IwAR1w-WrbY3um6suv3FXcJGdkE1dv-IPTSbSI3MRTbgvIe4F5PiBxh-
7g0U2s]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024]. Acceso el 23/05/2023.
Bilash, K. (2023): Budynok-muzei Poliny Raiko – pid vodoiu. LB.ua, 7 June 2023. [URL: https://
lb.ua/culture/2023/06/07/559359_budinokmuzey_polini_rayko_pid.html?fbclid=IwAR-
23R55iVkNW5OdbZnPPG4uR36EX7wWLrZOeITV4ZsDg_w2oLfFslEH5_5E]. [Actualizada el
09/04/2024]. Acceso el 07/06/2023.
Borsukova, O. (2022): Mariupol ne pohodzhuvavsia na evakuatsiiu muzeinykh eksponativ, koly
tse bulo mozhlyvo – Tkachenko. Ukrainska pravda. Zhyttia, 30 April 2022. [URL: https://life.
pravda.com.ua/culture/2022/04/30/248472/]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024]. Acceso el
30/04/2022.
Borsukova, O. (2023): «Riatuvala eksponaty v okupatsii»: kolehy zghaduiut dyrektorku muzeiu
v Kupiansku, yaka zahynula vid obstrilu RF. Ukrainska pravda. Zhyttia, 27 April 2023. [URL:
https://life.pravda.com.ua/society/2023/04/27/254022/]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024]. Ac-
ceso el 27/04/2023.
Bujskikh, A.V., Ivakin, V.H., Shydlovskyi, P.S., Zotsenko, I.V. (2023): Pamiatky arkheolohii pid chas
viiny: polovyi dosvid ta yurydychnyi aspekt (na prykladi robit MAE u m. Kyievi ta Kyivskii oblas-
ti u 2022 r.) [Archaeological Sites During the War: field experience and legal aspect (on
the example of the Archaeological Monitoring Expedition works in Kyiv and Kyiv region in
2022)]. VITA ANTIQUA, 14. Culture Heritage and the War: challenges and solutions: 36-59,
https://doi.org/10.37098/VA-2023-14-36-59 .
Chernovol, K. (2022): Okupanty pid vyhliadom «evakuatsii» pohrabuvaly Khersonskyi khudozhnii
muzei. UNIAN, 6 November 2022. [URL: https://www.unian.ua/society/novini-hersona-ro-
siyski-okupanti-pograbuvali-hersonskiy-hudozhniy-muzey-12036201.html]. [Actualizada el
09/04/2024]. Acceso el 06/11/2022.
Dombrowski, Q., Kijas, A., Majstorovic, S. (2022): Digital Cultural Heritage Under Attack: Saving
Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Online (SUCHO). Text and Image: Essential Problems in Art His-
tory, 1(13): 6-12, https://doi.org/10.17721/2519-4801.2022.1.01
Danylenko, A. (2004): The name “Rus” In search of a new dimension. Jahrbücher für Geschichte
Osteuropas, 52.1: 1-32.
Follow-up to decisions and resolutions adopted by the Executive Board and the General Con-
ference at their previous sessions (2021): Part I: Programme issues, E. Follow-up of the
situation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine). [URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.
org/ark:/48223/pf0000378910?fbclid=IwAR3LX1lau-U81jszefMskmTWZeVZL-aX-QA-
WkDZieOIY5RXxXrb8PB1FDfE]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024]. Acceso el 10/09/2021.
Johannot-Gradis, C. (2015): Protecting the past for the future: How does law protect tangible and
intangible cultural heritage in armed conflict? International Review of the Red Cross 97, no.
900: 1253–75.
Hardy, S.A. (2022): Looting of Antiquities from Ukraine by soldiers, collaborators and ordinary
criminals, trafficking to and through russia and dealing and collecting in Western Europe,
since 2014. In: Shydlovskyi, P.S., Kornienko, M.V., Ivakin, V.H. (eds.). Scientific and Practical
Seminar ‘Protection and Preservation of Archaeological Heritage of Ukraine’ (November 23,
2022, Kyiv, Ukraine): Abstracts. Kyiv: Center for Conservation of Archaeological Objects: 15,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7424472
Higgins, C. (2023a): Curating the war: Kyiv museum exhibits objects left by Russian soldiers.
The Guardian, 22 April 2023. [URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/22/cu-
rating-the-war-kyiv-ukraine-museum-exhibits-objects-left-by-russian-soldiers?fbclid=I-
wAR3H_NjjQY3XtNgMchhj5RMszNjibYDSqEO5n-FZELrr0kFt7Ix3uQZHv9Q]. [Actualizada
el 09/04/2024]. Acceso el 22/04/2023.
Higgins, C. (2023b): War has shown Ukrainians – and the rest of us – why museums are so im-
portant for telling our stories. The Guardian, 27 May 2023. [URL: https://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2023/may/27/war-ukrainians-museums-telling-stories?fbclid=I-
wAR3YUWPzoFj5abUjE8H7XRCHg8yvWksqjBOGSHx1fbt5c6OUitOgpA-kjvw]. [Actualiza-
da el 09/04/2024]. Acceso el 27/05/2023.
Holubov, O. (2018): Pamiatka pid zahrozoiu. Pro «rekonstruktsiiu» Khanskoho palatsu. Krym. Realii,
26 July 2018. [URL: https://ua.krymr.com/a/29391676.html]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024].
Acceso el 26/07/2018.
210 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 210QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 210 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
Horlach, P. (2023): Roboty ukrainskykh myttsiv XX-XXI stolittia vystavliat u nimetskomu Drezde-
ni. Suspilne. Kultura. [URL: https://suspilne.media/culture/428844-roboti-ukrainskih-mit-
civ-xx-xxi-stolitta-vistavlat-u-nimeckomu-drezdeni/]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024]. Acceso
el 26/03/2023.
Horlach, P. (2022): U Muzei Khanenkiv pokazhut piatyhodynnu operu pro stvorennia svitu. Sus-
pilne. Kultura. [URL: https://suspilne.media/culture/280878-u-muzei-hanenkiv-prezen-
tuut-patigodinnu-operu-pro-stvorenna-svitu/]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024]. Acceso el
12/09/2022.
Ivakin, V., Shydlovskyi, P. (2022): Ukrainian archaeological heritage under threat of Russian ag-
gression: problems and prospects. In: The Protection of Heritage in Time of Conflict. RESQUE
Annual General Meeting Conference (17 September 2022), 12-15, https://doi.org/10.5281/ze-
nodo.8311770
Ivanysko, S.I. (2023): Stanovyshche muzeiv Ukrainy v period rosiisko-ukrainskoi viiny (za mate-
rialamy media-resursiv) [Museums of Ukraine during the russian-Ukrainian war (based on
media sources)]. VITA ANTIQUA, 14. Culture Heritage and the War : challenges and solutions:
94-108, https://doi.org/10.37098/VA-2023-14-94-108
Kasinec R., Šuška M. (2020) Case of the Crimean treasures – to whom should the treasures
be returned? Науковий вісник Ужгородського Національного Університету, серія
«Право», 62: 15-19 [URL: https://visnyk-juris-uzhnu.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/4.
pdf]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 04/03/2021.
Kishkovsky, S. (2022): ‘No one can interfere with our offensive’: Hermitage director Mikhail Pi-
otrovsky compares Russian export of culture to country’s ‘operation’ in Ukraine, The Art
Newspaper, 24 June 2022. [URL: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/06/24/no-one-
can-interfere-with-our-offensive-hermitage-director-mikhail-piotrovsky-compares-rus-
sian-export-of-culture-to-countrys-operation-in-ukraine]. [Actualizada el 09/04/2024].
Acceso el 24/06/2022.
Klejn, L. (2012): Soviet Archaeology: Trends, Schools, and History. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kliushnychenko, O.V. (2023): Vyklyky viiny dlia muzeiv Ukrainy (Challenges of war for museums in
Ukraine). VITA ANTIQUA, 14. Culture Heritage and the War: challenges and solutions: 60-71,
https://doi.org/10.37098/VA-2023-14-60-71
Konstantinova, M. (2023): Russia: New school history books seek to justify Ukraine war. Deut-
sche Welle, November 8, 2023. [URL: https://www.dw.com/en/russia-ukraine-war-history-
school-books/a-66498211]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 08/11/2023.
Kotubei, O. (2022): Chervonyi korpus, muzei, «Ukrainskyi dim»: budivli yakykh kulturnykh in-
stytutsii poshkodyly rosiiski rakety. Suspilne. Kultura. [URL: https://suspilne.media/cul-
ture/292400-cervonij-korpus-muzei-ukrainskij-dim-budivli-akih-kulturnih-institucij-posko-
dili-rosijski-raketi-fotoreportaz/]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 11/10/2022.
Kuijt, I., Shydlovskyi, P., Donaruma, W. 2024. The Russia-Ukraine War has caused a staggering
amount of cultural destruction – both seen and unseen. The Conversation, February 23, 2024.
https://theconversation.com/the-russia-ukraine-war-has-caused-a-staggering-amount-
of-cultural-destruction-both-seen-and-unseen-221082 [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Ac-
ceso el 23/02/2024.
Kulturni tsinnosti v umovakh vedennia boiovykh dii ta na tymchasovo okupovanykh terytoriiakh:
mizhnarodnyi dosvid y Ukraina, 2017 (ohliadova dovidka za materialamy presy, Internetu ta
neopublikovanymy dokumentamy za 2015-2016 roky). DZK, 2017, Issue 3/5. [URL: https://
nlu.org.ua/storage/files/Infocentr/Tematich_ogliadi/2017/cinnosti.pdf]. [Actualizada el
10/04/2024]. Acceso el 23/02/2024.
Kunytskyi, O. (2023): Evakuatsiia kultury: chy mozhna bulo vriatuvaty vtracheni obiekty. DW, 10
February 2023. [URL: https://www.dw.com/uk/evakuacia-kulturnih-cinnostej-do-i-pid-cas-
vijni-ci-mozna-bulo-vratuvati-vtracene/a-64658810]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso
el 10/02/2023.
Larin, Yu. (2023): Raketnyi udar po Kupiansku: Pid zavalamy zahynula dyrektorka kraieznavcho-
ho muzeiu. Dumka, 26 April 2023. [URL: https://dumka.media/ukr/war/1682494806-raket-
niy-udar-po-kup-yansku-pid-zavalami-zaginula-direktorka-kraeznavchogo-muzeyu]. [Ac-
tualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 26/04/2023.
Levada, M. (2022): Muzea ukraińskie po 24 lutego 2022 roku. Wiadomości Archeologiczne,
LXXIII(73): 293-305, https://doi.org/10.36154/wa.73.2022.14
Malynovska, N. (2018): Elmira Ablialimova: Krymskotatarska kultura zavazhaie okupantam. Hlav-
kom, 23 April 2018. [URL: https://glavcom.ua/interviews/elmira-ablyalimova-krimskota-
211Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 211QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 211 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
tarska-kultura-zavazhaje-okupantam-491867.html]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el
23/04/2018.
Mamonova, H., Raievskyi, D. Lohvynenko, T. (2022): “The Ministry of Culture has never contacted
me.” Director of Melitopol Museum Lieila Ibrahimova tells about how the Russians stole Scyth-
ian gold, about captivity, interrogations, and local collaborators. Babel, 6 May 2022. [URL:
https://babel.ua/texts/78370-ministerstvo-kulturi-zi-mnoyu-zhodnogo-razu-ne-zv-yazalo-
sya-direktorka-melitopolskogo-muzeyu-lyeyla-ibragimova-pro-te-yak-rosiyani-vikrali-skif-
ske-zoloto-pro-polon-dopiti-ta-miscevih-kolaborantiv?fbclid=IwAR3bUvucNGkHhxHYr-
ZHEGFdyFySA78I71hF3u63v86LLNX4zbxC6KVNIYb4]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acce-
so el 06/05/2022.
Mekhed, N. (2017): Ministerstvo kultury Ukrainy zanepokoiene cherez roboty v Khans-
komu palatsi v Bakhchysarai i zvernulosia cherez tse do UNESKO. DW. [URL: https://
www.dw.com/uk/%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%B-
D%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%
8E%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%BF%D0%BB%-
D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D1%80%D1%84-
%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7-%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B-
D%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D-
0%BB%D0%B0%D1%86-%D1%83-%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%87%D0%B8%
D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97/a-41246084]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024].
Acceso el 05/11/2017.
Merkulova, N. (2023): Na Kharkivshchyni nemaie zhodnoho muzeiu, yakyi ne postrazhdav vid ob-
striliv. Gromada Group, 17 April 2023. [URL: https://gromada.group/news/statti/25699-na-
harkivshini-nemaye-zhodnogo-muzeyu-yakij-ne-postrazhdav-vid-obstriliv]. [Actualizada el
10/04/2024]. Acceso el 17/05/2023.
Morozova, T. (2018): Znyshchennia kulturnoi spadshchyny Krymu. Vykonavtsi. Tsentr zhurnal-
istskykh rozsliduvan, 24 March 2018. [URL: https://investigator.org.ua/ua/news-2/206815/].
[Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 24/03/2018.
Nekrecha, K., Hakh, O. (2022): Velyka trishchyna na kulturnii spadshchyni. Do choho pryzvela rosiiska
«restavratsiia» Khanskoho palatsu v Bakhchysarai, Krym. Realii, 11 February 2022. [URL: https://
ua.krymr.com/a/krym-bakhchysaray-khanskyi-palats-trischyna-restavratsia/31698925.html].
[Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 11/02/2022.
Okhrimenko, M. (2022): Protection of cultural heritage during wartime in Ukraine: legislation
and practical aspects of implementation. Text and Image: Essential Problems in Art History,
1(13): 52-66. [URL: https://txim.history.knu.ua/article/view/148, https://doi.org/10.17721/2519-
4801.2022.1.05]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 31/08/2022.
Piotrovsky, M. (2017): From Siberia with love. Scythians: warriors of ancient Siberia (St. J. Simpson,
S. Pankova, eds.) London, Thames and Hudson: 8-9.
Plokhy, S. (2006): The Origins of the Slavic Nations Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and
Belarus. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Plokhy, S. (2015): The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine. New York: Basic Books.
Prokopenko, M. (2022): Ponad 40 dniv v oblozi: yak riatuvaly kolektsiiu Chernihivskoho istorychnoho
muzeiu. Suspilne. Kultura. [URL: https://suspilne.media/culture/241184-ponad-40-dniv-v-ob-
lozi-ak-ratuvali-kolekciu-cernigivskogo-istoricnogo-muzeu/]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024].
Acceso el 19/05/2022.
Radin, M. (2011): Rescue during the Belgrade bombing: An example of museum staff initiative.
Protecting Cultural Heritage in Times of Conflict: Contributions from the participants of the
International course on First Aid to Cultural Heritage in Times of Conflict (S. Lambert, C.
Rockwell, eds.), International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of
Cultural Property, Rome, 1-5.
Remy, J. (2016): Brothers or Enemies: the Ukrainian National Movement and Russia from the
1840s to 1870s. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Rush, L. (2012): Working with the military to protect archaeological sites and other forms of cul-
tural property. World archaeology, 44(3): 359-377.
Rzheutska, L. (2019): Dolia khanskoho palatsu v Bakhchysarai, DW, 19 March 2019. [URL: https://
www.dw.com/uk/%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F-%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B-
D%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B-
F%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%83-%D0%B2-%D0%B1%D0%
B0%D1%85%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97-
%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B0-
212 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 212QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 212 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5-%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B-
D%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C-%D0%B4%D0%BE-%D0%B-
C%D1%96%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B-
D%D0%B8%D1%85-%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%B2/a-47967316]. [Ac-
tualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 19/03/2019.
Sabrine, I. (2022): The Management of Syrian Archaeological Heritage Before and During the
Syrian Conflict: A Comparison Study. Community Heritage in the Arab Region Values and
Practices (A. Badran, S. Abu-Khafajah, S. Elliott, eds.), Springer, Berlin: 209-234.
Saltan, H. (2023): Reasons for ‘’Ukraine Nationalism’’ of the Invasion of Russia: The Conflict Area
of European Culture and Soviet Heritage. Journal of International Relations and Political Sci-
ence Studies, (8): 1-26.
Shepard, J. (2016): Back in Old Rus and the USSR: Archaeology, History and Politics. The En-
glish Historical Review, 131(549): 384-405. [URL: https://academic.oup.com/ehr/article-ab-
stract/131/549/384/2450351?redirectedFrom=fulltext, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cew104].
[Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 26/04/2016.
Shydlovskyi, P., Ivanova, O., eds. (2023): Culture Heritage and the War: challenges and solutions.
VITA ANTIQUA, 14. Kyiv: Center for Paleoethnological Research.
Shydlovskyi, P.S., Kornienko, M.V., Ivakin, V.H., eds. (2022): Scientific and Practical Seminar ‘Pro-
tection and Preservation of Archaeological Heritage of Ukraine’ (November 23, 2022, Kyiv,
Ukraine): Abstracts. Kyiv: Center for Conservation of Archaeological Objects (in Ukrainian),
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7424472
Shydlovskyi, P., Kuijt, I., Skorokhod, V., Zotsenko, I., Ivakin, V., Donaruma, W., Field, S. (2023): The
tools of war: conflict and the destruction of Ukrainian cultural heritage. Antiquity, 97(396):
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2023.159.
Shydlovskyi, P., Telizhenko, S. Ivakin, V. (2022): Archaeological Heritage as a Target during War.
The European Archaeologist, Issue 74 – Autumn 2022, European Association of Archaeolo-
gists, 36-43, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7492858.
Shydlovskyi, P.S., Telizhenko, S.A., Ivakin, V.H. (2023): Archaeological Monitoring in War-Torn
Ukraine, The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 14:2, 154-180, https://doi.org/10.1080
/17567505.2023.2209835
Shyian, O. (2022): Rosiiany vykraly zakhovane skifske zoloto z muzeiu okupovanoho Melitopolia.
Mistsevi kolaboranty dopomohly hrabuvaty muzei. ZAXID.NET, 28 April 2022. [URL: https://
zaxid.net/rosiyani_vidnayshli_shovane_skifske_zoloto_v_muzeyi_okupovanogo_melitopo-
lya_n1541851]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 28/04/2022.
Simpson, St. J., Pankova S., eds. (2017): Scythians: warriors of ancient Siberia. London, Thames
and Hudson.
Slipchenko, K. (2014): Vriatuvaty riadovoho Levitana. U mistakh, zakhoplenykh terorystamy,
zalyshylysia beztsinni khudozhni artefakty. ZAXID.NET, 18 August 2014. [URL: https://zaxid.
net/vryatuvati_ryadovogo_levitana_n1318968]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el
18/08/2014.
Smorzh, P. (2022): Yak riatuvaly Ivanivskyi muzei z kartynamy Marii Prymachenko. Ukrin-
form, 29 April 2022. [URL: https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3494824-ak-ratuva-
li-ivankivskij-muzej-z-kartinami-marii-primacenko.html]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Ac-
ceso el 29/05/2022.
Stepura, A. (2021): Muzei pereselenets z Donetska zibrav ponad 700 eksponativ z 2016 roku. Sus-
pilne. Novyny. [URL: https://suspilne.media/126450-muzej-pereselenec-z-donecka-zibrav-
ponad-700-eksponativ-z-2016-roku/]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 03/05/2021.
Stone, E. C. (2008): Patterns of looting in southern Iraq. Antiquity, 82(315): 125-138.
Telizhenko, S. (2023): Viina v Ukraini: novi vyklyky dlia arkheolohii (The War in Ukraine: new chal-
lenges for archaeology). VITA ANTIQUA, 14. Culture Heritage and the War : challenges and
solutions: 24-35. https://doi.org/10.37098/VA-2023-14-24-35.
Telizhenko, S., ed. (2020): Arkheolohichni pamiatky i viina (Archaeological sites and the war).
Kyiv: Union of Archaeologists of Ukraine (in Ukrainian), 24-35 [URL: https://www.academia.
edu/77162779/]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024].
Teslia, O. (2020): Ekspert poiasnyv, yak vkradena z Luhanska ikona cherez Balkany potrapyla
do Lavrova. Hlavred, 19 December 2020. [URL: https://glavred.net/ukraine/ekspert-obyas-
nil-kak-ukradennaya-iz-luganska-ikona-cherez-balkany-popala-k-lavrovu-10232504.html].
[Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 19/12/2020.
Tsupko, A. (2023): Ukrainian icons from the Khanenko Museum will be exhibited in the Louvre.
OTF Magazine, 8 June 2023. [URL: https://donttakefake.com/u-luvri-vystavlyat-ukrayins-
213Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 213QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 213 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
ki-ikony-z-muzeyu-hanenkiv/?fbclid=IwAR07H3nk5PZGbnkfRJ69U-x7MGnKGIdl65m-
p12o3ShFHPXDQgPgoCqOK-Ng]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 08/06/2023.
Tsybulska, Ya. (2022): «Duzhe ne khochetsia, shchob nash Skhid asotsiiuvavsia u liudei z sepa-
ratystamy» - yak pid chas viin Luhanskyi muzei evakuiuvavsia do Lvova. Terytoriia teroru, 21
July 2020. [URL: https://museumterror.com/publications/%D0%B4%D1%83%D0%B6%D
0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D1%85%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8C%
D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%89%D0%BE%D0%B1-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88-%D1%81%-
D1%85%D1%96%D0%B4-%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%86%D1%96%D1%8E%D
0%B2/]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Acceso el 21/07/2022.
Yankovskyi, O. (2022): Okupatsiini syly RF hrabuiut muzei pivdnia Ukrainy: shcho vyvezly i yak yoho
povernuty? Radio Svoboda, 3 May 2022. [URL: https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/novyny-pry-
azovya-rosiya-hrabuye-muzeyi-ukrayiny/31831906.html]. [Actualizada el 10/04/2024]. Ac-
ceso el 03/05/2022.
Yusova, N. (2005): Henezys kontseptsii davnoruskoi narodnosti v istorychnii nautsi SRSR 1930-ti
– persha polovyna 1940-kh. Vynnytsia, Konsol.
214 Ivanysko, S.; Kazakevych, G.; Shydlovskyi, P. Complutum 35(1) 2024: 191-214
QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 214QUINTAS_Complutum35(1).indd 214 3/7/24 18:203/7/24 18:20
