In the capital, there are many places with intriguing histories that few people are aware of
Kiev is divided into ten administrative units — districts. Each of them is comparable in size to a small town. The districts have their own histories, traditions, and interesting spots. Kashtan NEWS shares and reminds us of fascinating facts about the districts of Kiev. Last time, we discussed areas known as Mysholovka, Zvyrynets, Batyeva Gora, Lyssa Hora, Chorna Hora, Cherepanova Hora, Korchuvate, Feofaniya, Hipodrom, ExpoCenter, Ice Stadium. Today, we will talk about the museum in Pyrohiv.
Location
The National Museum of Folk Architecture and Life of Ukraine, known as the Open-Air Museum in Pyrohiv, is situated on the southern outskirts of Kiev, in the Holosiivskyi district, near the former village, now area of Pyrohiv. The museum's exhibition covers an area of 133.5 hectares and represents an architectural and landscape complex showcasing folk architecture and lifestyle from all regions of Ukraine.
1 History of its establishment
The area of Pyrohiv has been inhabited since prehistoric times, as established by archaeological research. The settlement with the modern name was first mentioned as "Pyrohivka" in 1627 when it was owned by the monks of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.
The creation of the museum in Pyrohiv is conventionally considered to have begun on February 6, 1969, when the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR adopted a resolution "On the establishment of the State Museum of Folk Architecture and Life of the Ukrainian SSR." This event was preceded by numerous public initiatives and an open letter from prominent Ukrainian scholars and cultural figures urging the establishment of a museum of folk culture in the Ukrainian capital. The founder of the museum is rightfully considered to be the head of the Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments, Petro Tronka — he personally chose the museum's location and ensured the land allocation for it.
2 The strategy and concept for the arrangement of exhibits in the museum were based on principles such as preserving and recreating traditional Ukrainian architecture, promoting folk crafts and trades, and researching folk art through the reflection of historical and ethnographic regions of Ukraine.
The museum and party nomenclature
The process of creating and filling the museum's collection was challenging and extended over seven years. During this time, the project initiators faced numerous obstacles, arising not so much from the search and selection of exhibits but due to intrigues from the then-party nomenclature.
Here is how the museum's founder Tronka recalls this situation in one of his interviews:
“It happened that a dismantled windmill was transported in a truck past the building of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine on Ordzhonikidze Street. Perhaps Volodymyr Vasylovych Shcherbytsky saw it from the window, but most likely, ‘well-wishers’ reported on the gathering of patriarchalism. In general, the first secretary of the Central Committee called me and said: ‘Petro Tymofiyovych, what rubbish are you hauling? Don’t you have anything better to do?’ I calmly replied: ‘You will one day thank me for this rubbish.’
When the construction of the first phase of the museum was completed in 1976, Tronka continues, members of the government were invited to its opening.
“I called Shcherbytsky, and he told me: ‘First, we need to see what you’ve done there.’ Prior to this, the second secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, Sokolov, had told him who knows what: the funds were wasted, it’s all rotten, nobody needs it, and besides, it smells of nationalism.”
Nevertheless, members of the CC of the Ukrainian SSR, led by Shcherbytsky, came to Pyrohiv a few days before the museum's opening. According to Tronka, they were shown around the exhibition area for four hours.
“There, the miller was grinding flour, a blacksmith was shoeing horses, and girls were strumming banduras — it was beautiful! After the tour, I suggested to Volodymyr Vasylovych to write down his impressions in the guestbook. He wrote: ‘Thank you, dear comrades, for the museum.’ – ‘What did I tell you?’ Volodymyr Vasylovych replied: ‘Such things happen, Petro,’” shared the museum's founder.
The museum's exhibition was officially opened to visitors in 1976. At the time of its opening, the area covered 120 hectares, housing over 150 structures — monuments of Ukrainian architecture and lifestyle. All of them were grouped into five exhibitions: Central Dnipro Region, Poltava Region, Slobozhanshchyna, Polissia, and Podillia.
Decades later, on July 21, 2008, President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko granted the museum national status by his decree.
The development of the museum
The museum was designed to be divided into several functional zones. The main zone was the exhibition area, which housed ethnographic monuments and examples of traditional folk architecture. Following that were, so to speak, adjacent areas: administrative-scientific, exhibition pavilions, a restaurant for 300 visitors, a concert field for 10,000 spectators, a research institute of ethnographic museology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and a production and economic section that contained workshops for restoration work and utility buildings.
3 The dismantling, conservation, transportation, restoration, and installation of old buildings, utility structures, wooden churches, and windmills in new locations were carried out by the museum's specialized restoration workshop. Simultaneously, the museum staff engaged in the search and collection of valuable ethnographic artifacts, samples of decorative and applied arts, folk clothing, furniture, wooden and clay dishes, musical instruments, etc.
Initially, the collected museum collections were housed in several locations: in the 19th building of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, in the building of the former church on Luteranska Street, and partially in auxiliary structures directly within the museum's territory.
As a result of painstaking work, to date, the museum's territory features 277 architectural exhibits of folk construction from the 16th to the 20th centuries. The homesteads with rural houses and utility buildings were formed with documentary accuracy and grouped according to the planning features of settlements in various historical and ethnographic regions of Ukraine.
Moreover, the museum's funds contain over 80,000 items of household goods, folk art works, and tools.
In particular, the museum's exhibition showcases unique collections of windmills, water mills, blacksmith shops, huts, barns, village councils, church-parish schools, priests' estates, taverns, grain mills, houses, cellars, granaries, chicken coops, and cellars, among others.
4 Some exhibits necessary for creating the exhibitions could not be found, so they were restored under the guidance of historians, carefully adhering to all authentic details.
“Despite the fact that identical types of houses, utility, and production structures were built throughout Ukraine, the construction features of each region have a number of characteristic traits, determined not only by natural and climatic conditions but also by ethnic traditions,” emphasize the museum staff.
The “Lasyi Piryh” in Pyrohiv
Unfortunately, the museum has not escaped the so-called “construction” scandals, as developers are just as actively seeking land plots around the museum in Pyrohiv as in the center of Kiev.
The history of these encroachments began in 2004–2007 when the Kyiv City Council leased land plots around the museum to the Agro-Combine "Khotivskyi." Since then, numerous court proceedings surrounding these lands have been ongoing, resurfacing with varying intensity.
However, the attempts by developers to carve out a piece of land in Pyrohiv gained particular intensity during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych. Currently, various "businessmen" plan to build approximately 240 hectares of high-rise buildings and shopping centers near the museum.
5 A year ago, thanks to the intervention of the Kyiv prosecutor's office, a court's decision was executed to return six hectares