Abstract: The subject of the study is the role of large industrial enterprises in the daily life of Sevastopol in the early 1980s on the example of the Sevastopol instrument-making plant "Parus", since 1980 renamed the Sevastopol instrument-making plant named after V.I. Lenin. The authors motivate the choice of this enterprise as an example and object of research by the fact that the plant was one of the most significant enterprises both for Sevastopol and for the entire instrument-making industry of the Soviet Union. Based on archival sources, the authors consider in detail the specific episodes of the plant's activities that influenced the lives of citizens and the appearance of the city. In particular, the article discusses the activities of the plant for the construction and commissioning of residential buildings and infrastructure facilities, the organization of children's leisure. In addition, the authors tell about the activities of the enterprise itself to improve the working conditions of workers, as well as about the work of the Komsomol organization. The authors come to the conclusion that the instrument-making plant "Parus" played a significant role in the life of Sevastopol, especially one of the districts of the city - the Northern side: the enterprise developed and demonstrated success, created new jobs, expanding the range of products, and improved working conditions. Thanks to the plant, new residential buildings (apartment buildings and dormitories), kindergartens, shops, a library, and infrastructure facilities were built. Most of these buildings on the North Side of Sevastopol exist and are still used for their intended purpose. Also, the authors, relying on archival sources and, above all, reports of office documentation, state that much attention was paid to children's leisure, health improvement and education.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the peculiarities of the use of archival documents in studying the history of Soviet industrial enterprises based on the large, city-planning enterprise of the local traditional industry – Sevastopol plant of shipboard lighting engineering “Mayak”. The authors meticulously examine different types of archival documents and their informational potential for studying operation of the enterprise. The focus of attention is the acts of acceptance and transfer report, annual reports on the workforce, salaries and regulation, as well as the materials of the trade union, and other documents. The article is based on previously unpublished archival documents on the history of Sevastopol industry that have not been previously introduced into the scientific discourse. The author explore separate episodes of the history of the plant, its establishment, evolution, and key results. The main conclusions lies in determination of the types of archival documents, which were most informative in studying the history of the enterprise. The authors indicate that archival funds, and annual reports in particular, are well preserved and contribute to examination of operation of the enterprise. It is underlined that Sevastopol plant of shipboard lighting engineering “Mayak”, which virtually ceased to operate after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, was one of the most significant and dynamically developing industrial enterprises of the city in the 1960s – 1970s. It is worth noting that currently there are projects aimed at the revival of industrial potential of Sevastopol, one of which is the technology part on the territory of the former plant “Mayak”.

Abstract: The article exposes the particularities of using material from private papers and oral history in filling the gaps of the sources on the history of industrial enterprises in Sevastopol, based on the example of food industry production enterprises. The article presents the results from interviews conducted by the author with employees, veterans, and enterprise managers; analyses the possibilities in using private archives for the restoration of the losses in the source base for the history of the Soviet industry in Sevastopol; reviews the methodology of searching for interviewees, working with materials from personal possession and oral history; assesses the significance of such data for the studied period. The author affirms that only a comprehensive review of all the source groups – archival data and record documentation, representative material, sources in private possession – permits to reconstruct the picture of an enterprise’s functioning. A scholar studying the Soviet industry in Sevastopol often faces the problem of the enormous losses in the source base, of fragmentary, badly preserved archival funds. In such cases, resorting to the material from oral history, private collections, and individuals–eyewitnesses of events becomes indispensable. The period in question provides a unique possibility not only to study, but also to actually create new historical sources for future generations of researchers, to preserve the memory of the industrial tradition and of the at times difficult, heroic pages in the city’s history.