Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy: istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach 3 Mentalʹnyj landšaft, Moskovskie sela i slobody
Gespeichert in:
| Format: | Buch |
|---|---|
| Sprache: | Russian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Moskva
Nauka
2005
|
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | 569 S., [8] Bl. zahlr. Ill. und Kt., graph. Darst. |
| ISBN: | 5020102385 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cc4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV021511034 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20080214 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 060315s2005 abd| |||| 00||| rus d | ||
| 020 | |a 5020102385 |9 5-02-010238-5 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)645280322 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV021511034 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rus | |
| 049 | |a DE-473 |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy |b istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach |n 3 |p Mentalʹnyj landšaft, Moskovskie sela i slobody |c [redkollegija: L. A. Beljaev ...] |
| 264 | 1 | |a Moskva |b Nauka |c 2005 | |
| 300 | |a 569 S., [8] Bl. |b zahlr. Ill. und Kt., graph. Darst. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Beljaev, Leonid Andreevič |d 1948- |e Sonstige |0 (DE-588)136328466 |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |w (DE-604)BV020828137 |g 3 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014727656 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |e 22/bsb |g 471 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804135247148744704 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Оглавление
Введение.
I.
МЕНТАЛЬНЫЙ ЛАНДШАФТ
УСТНАЯ ТРАДИЦИЯ
И ПРОБЛЕМЫ ИЗУЧЕНИЯ МЕНТАЛЬНОГО ЛАНДШАФТА
Глава
1.
Сакральная топография Московской Руси в устной крестьянской традиции:
освящение кладбища (С.З. Чернов)
.................................................................... 13
Глава
2.
Сакральная топография Москвы: храм-кладбище-город. К постановке
вопроса (Л.А. Беляев)
............................................................................................ 29
КАТАЛОГ объектов исторического ландшафта, исторической планировки и исто¬
рического землепользования северо-востока Москвы и прилегающих территорий
Мытищинского, Щелковского и Балашихинского районов, составленный на
основании изучения устной традиции
(1990-1995
гг.), картографических и архивных
данных (С.З. Чернов)
............................................................................................................. 42
Часть
1.
Пехорский стан
....................................................................................................... 42
Часть
2.
Район Мытищ
......................................................................................................... 103
Часть
3.
Сокольники
............................................................................................................. 122
Карта расположения объектов исторического ландшафта, исторической планиров¬
ки и исторического землепользования второй половины
XIX -
первой половины
XX
в. северо-востока Москвы и прилегающих территорий Мытищинского, Щел¬
ковского и Балашихинского районов, составленная на основании изучения
устной традиции
(1990-1995
гг.), картографических и архивных данных
..................... 132
ТЕКСТЫ
Опрос старожильческого населения на территории Мытищинского, Щелковского
и Балашихинского районов, а также района Крылатское (подготовлен к печати
О.Н.Глазуновой)
.................................................................................................................... 142
Заметки собирателя (О.Н. Глазунова)
............................................................................... 142
Часть
1.
Пехорский стан
....................................................................................................... 151
Часть
2.
Село Мытищи
......................................................................................................... 257
Часть
3.
Село Крылатское
................................................................................................... 282
Уставная грамота Московской губернии, Московского уезда, Хорошевской волости,
государева села Крылацкого
................................................................................................ 290
П. МОСКОВСКИЕ СЕЛА И СЛОБОДЫ
Глава
3.
Взлет на холмы . Археологические раскопки селища Дубинкин лес-1
и освоение Теплостанской возвышенности в
XIV-XV
вв.
(H.A.
Кренке)
.... 293
Глава
4.
Древнее поселение на Голосовом овраге возле церкви Вознесения
и возникновение села Коломенского
................................................................... 326
Глава
5.
Тайнинское в
XV-XVII
вв.: дворцовый комплекс, некрополи, село
(С.З. Чернов)
........................................................................................................... 338
Глава
6.
Крылатское: царское село как памятник археологии (С.З. Чернов)
............ 360
Глава
7.
Старинное подмосковное село Троицкое-Голенищево: вопросы
исторической планировки (С.А. Смирнов)
........................................................ 416
Глава
8.
Некрополь в Московском
зоопарке на Пресне и локализация Большого
двора князя Владимира Андреевича на Трех горах (С.З. Чернов)
............. 456
Описание комплекса надгробий из Московского зоопарка (Л А. Беляев)
................... 478
Заключение по костным остаткам из раскопок на территории Московского
зоопарка
(JIM.
Алексеева)
.................................................................................................... 481
Глава
9.
Изменения в планировочной структуре Москвы в конце
XV
в.
(ИЛ. Бойцов)
.......................................................................................................... 484
Заключение (НА. Кренке, С.З. Чернов)
............................................................................ 510
Указатель имен
....................................................................................................................... 519
Указатель географических названий
.................................................................................. 527
Указатель керамических комплексов
.................................................................................. 553
Список сокращений
................................................................................................................ 554
Сведения об авторах
.............................................................................................................. 555
List of
illustration......................................................................................................................
556
Color
illustration
......................................................................................................................... 561
Summary
..................................................................................................................................... 563
Contents
Introduction
................................................................................................................................ 9
Part l.THE MENTAL
LANDSCAPE
ORAL TRADITION AND PROBLEMS OF STUDYING
THE MENTAL LANDSCAPE
Chapter
1.
The sacral topography of the early Moscow-centered Russia as reflected in the oral
peasant tradition: sanctifying a cemetery. (By
S.Z.
Chernov)
................................ 13
Chapter
2.
The sacral topography of Moscow: Church
-
Cemetery
-
City: posing the
question. (By LA. Belyaev)
..................................................................................... 29
CATALOGUE of the cultural landscape sites, historical regional planning and historical land
utilization in the north-eastern part of Moscow and on the adjoining territories of the
Mytishche, Schelkovsky, and Balashikhinsky districts. Compiled with reference to the oral
tradition research (conducted in years
1990
и т.д.
1995),
cartographic materials, and archives.
(By
S.Z.
Chernov)
....................................................................................................................... 42
Part
1.
The Pekhorka
stan
....................................................................................................... 42
Part
2.
The Mytishche area
....................................................................................................... 103
Part3. Sokolniki
........................................................................................................................ 122
Map showing the cultural landscape sites, historical regional planning and historical land uti¬
lization in the 2nd half of the 19th
- 1st
half of the 20th centuries in the north-eastern part of
Moscow and on the adjoining territories of the Mytishche, Schelkovsky, and Balashikhinsky
districts. Compiled with reference to the oral tradition research (conducted in years
1990-1995),
cartographic materials, and archives
.................................................................... 132
TEXTS
Interviewing the old residents on the territories of the Mytishche, Schelkovsky, and
Balashikhinsky districts of the Moscow Region and on the Krylatskoe territory. (Conducted
and compiled by ON. Glazunova)
............................................................................................. 142
From the journal of an interviewer (OJV. Glazunova)
.............................................................. 142
Parti. The Pekhorka
stan .
Year
1990.................................................................................... 151
Part
2.
The village of Mytishche. Year
1995............................................................................257
Parti. Krylatskoe
......................................................................................................................282
Statutory charter of His Highness s village of Krylatskoe of the Khoroshevskaya volost of
the Moscow uezd of the Moscow province
............................................................................290
Part
2.
THE MOSCOW HAMLETS AND VILLAGES
Chapter
3.
Aspiring to the hilltops . Archaeological excavation on the site of the village of
Dubinkin Les-1 and development of the Teplostanskaya elevation in the
^Мб·11
centuries. (ByNA. Krenke)
.....................................................................................293
Chapter
4.
The ancient settlement at the Golosov ravine next to the Ascention Church and the
rise of the Kolomenskaya village. (By NA. Krenke)
..............................................326
Chapter
5.
The Taininskoe place in the
15^^-Пљ
centuries: the palace ensemble, necropolis¬
es, and village. (By
S.Z.
Chernov)
..........................................................................338
Chapter
6.
The Krylatskoe place: the tzar s village as an archaeological monument.
(By SZ. Chernov)
....................................................................................................360
Chapter
7.
The ancient near-Moscow village of Troitskoe-Golenishcevo: the questions of his¬
torical regional planning. {By
S.A.
Smimov)
.......................................................... 416
Chapter
8.
The Necropolis on the present territory of the Moscow Zoo in the
Presný
a district
and the whereabouts of the Bolshoi court of the prince Vladimir, son of Andrei,
among the three hills . {By
S.Z.
Chernov)
............................................................ 456
Description of the tombstone complex from the Moscow Zoo. {By LA. Belyaev)
.................. 478
Evaluation of the osseous remains from the Moscow Zoo excavation site. {By L.I. Alekseeva)
.... 481
Chapter
9.
On the changes in the Moscow city planning at the end of the 15th century.
{By I A. Boitsov)
...................................................................................................... 484
In conclusion. {By NA. Krenke and
S.Z.
Chernov)
................................................................... 510
Index of names
........................................................................................................................... 519
Index of place names
................................................................................................................. 527
Index of
Ceramiek
complexes
................................................................................................... 553
List of abbreviations
.................................................................................................................. 554
Note on contributors
.................................................................................................................. 555
List of illustrations
..................................................................................................................... 556
Color illustrations
....................................................................................................................... 561
Summary in English
................................................................................................................... 563
In conclusion, we would like to consider the notion
of a cultural landscape once again. In our days, an inte¬
grated approach to the Russian cultural landscape offers a
new perspective on the past and on the ways the cultural
legacy shapes our modern society. Such are the ideas and
hopes underlying the present study. Here we would pon¬
der the results of this study, dwelling on the most signifi¬
cant of them; we would also sketch out the course for the
future studies in the field. We will discuss the advantages
and disadvantages of the chosen methodological
approaches, comment on the sufficiency of the used
sources and on the value of our suggested interpretations.
This publication was intended to make the results of
the archeological, paleo-landscape, historical and geo¬
graphical studies of the historical territories of the
12th-!
б 1
centuries in Moscow and its region available for
the scholars at large. All these studies were conducted in
the 1990 s by the Moscow Archeological Sector affiliated
with the Institute for Archeology of the Russian Academy
of Sciences. One of the primary interests behind this proj¬
ect was to get to the logic of the territory development,
which is determined by the natural and economic speci¬
ficity of the place. And since the territory has become our
subject, to proceed with the study, we had to identify the
structural elements of the cultural landscape. Hence, we
needed up-to-date methods to gather archaeological evi¬
dence. Traditional purely archeological objects
-
mounds, burials and ancient settlements required detailed
mapping. To properly visualize cultural landscapes, we
needed large-scale maps. To plot locations on maps hav¬
ing a scale of
1:10,000
and of
1:25,000,
we did a set of
field and archive researches. Even though a great many
old-Russian sites had been discovered before 1980 s,
none of the sites in the Moscow Region was systematical¬
ly investigated in detail, which made it impossible to ana¬
lyze settlement patterns close-up. Observation, measure¬
ment, database development took place. The historical
and present-day small-scale maps (on which some arche¬
ological findings had been recorded, which now do not
exist) were analyzed as well.
For the field researches, the existing exploration
methods were supplemented with some simple yet effi¬
cient techniques. Special attention was paid to the areas
next to the mound burials. Small-area excavations (dig¬
ging trenches) were systematically undertaken for deter¬
mining the borders of the monuments. Findings of burnt
clay were documented to mark the structural areas.
New for the Moscow Region archaeology was inves¬
tigation of the objects pertaining to ancient household
activity, which can be studied by soil scientists. Primarily,
we mean the buried household soils, which are abundant
in the region:
(1)
the soils in the flood-plain of the
Moskva-river, which were formed during low floods and
buried under the stratum of young alluvium;
(2)
the soils
on the banks in the small-river valleys and gullies buried
under the strata of diluvium; and, most important,
(3)
the
soils under raised banks of burial mounds. In the latter
case, the traces of tillage almost always were present.
Using the methods of soil science, we have found out that
the land under the mounds had been tilled not for sheer
cult purposes; on the contrary, these areas used to be farm¬
lands for a long period of time (of which severe soil ero¬
sion with shortened profile is evidence).
The conducted investigations demonstrated the effi¬
ciency and reliability of the methods of soil science when
making judgment about the past household activities and
change of the land-utilization patterns in certain localities.
However, the surveyed plots are still too few for area
mapping; their number should be sufficiently increased.
The discovery of the buried household soils dating
back to the period in question allowed us select samples
for palynological analyses, which indicated repeated
changes of the land-utilization pattern. As it turns out,
occasionally it is possible to register periods of natural
vegetation regeneration (e.g., the site of Kolomenskoye).
Since we approached analysis rather roughly (selection of
samples in columns at 5-15-cm intervals, small number of
pits), the resulting palynological
spectrums
yielded mere¬
ly general information about the character of the vegeta¬
tion. Also, we just registered the changes occurred in the
household activities, describing no particularities.
At the same time, it became clear that interpreting the
palynological
spectrums
from various genesis cuts leaves
much to be investigated. The flood-plain soil samples
(formed in the process of progressive sedimentation)
proved to be the easiest for interpretation. Much more
complicated for interpretation are the spectrum columns
of the pollen taken from under the burial mounds situated
on the banks near river-valleys. In such areas, presum¬
ably, the vertical migration of pollen along the soil cracks,
worm-paths, etc. took place.
Gradually, upon archeological investigation of
selected micro-regions, the Old Russian settlements, buri¬
als and villages began to fall into certain spatial arrange¬
ments. An attempt at further concretization of the struc¬
ture of the cultural landscape was made. We sought assis¬
tance of a landscape geographer in order to accomplish
the following: (a) to recreate the landscape as it used to be
before the Late Middle Ages by using ground-penetrating
techniques and removing some strata; (b) basing on the
observation of the natural conditions, on our knowledge
of industrial life of the
1
1th
—
13th Moscow Region com-
36*
munity, on the size of its population, to offer scientific
explanations of the position of land divisions. These
explanations and hypotheses (as a set of maps, showing
virtually recreated systems of environmental and wild life
management in particular micro-regions) are presented in
this publication. At this stage we have not yet tried out our
theory (which does not contradict any obtained archaeo¬
logical data) on the territories outside settlement areas.
Thus, the medieval cultural landscape can serve as a
subject for investigation in its own right. We singled out a
number of its structural elements, which can be studied
through interdisciplinary collaboration of archaeologists
and natural scientists. However, how to aptly synchronize
the data on the landscape evolution reconstructed by dif¬
ferent sciences is not quite clear at this stage.
The qualitative assessments obtained through the use
of the soil-geomorphologic methods are difficult to over¬
estimate. For example, now it is clear that many of the
lands on the banks of the river-valleys (which are thickly
wooded today), were frequently tilled in the 12th—13th cen¬
turies and were subject to soil erosion. However, the sud¬
den increase in alluvial deposits in the Moskva-river plain
dates to the Post-Old-Russian period. The land surface in
the Moskva-river plain of the
1
1th
—
13th centuries was
practically on the same level as it used to be in the Iron
Age, which means that in the
12*-
13th centuries defor¬
estation of the Moskva-river basin was less threatening,
compared to the years to come, and that is why it did not
upset the regularity of floods.
The midstream of the 12th-13th-century Moskva-
river remained insufficiently investigated, notwithstand¬
ing a considerable amount of archeological investigations
of the burial mounds and historical studies. In terms of
ethno-culture, this region was different from the main part
of the Suzdal territory. It gravitated towards Moscow
-
a
fortress founded on the south-western borders of the
Suzdal land (year
1156).
Being peripheral in relation to
the major centers of the Old Russian culture, this area was
located at the crossing of the Kiev-Rostov and the
Novgorod—Poochy
e
Roads.
The economic development of the Moskva-river val¬
ley of the Old-Russian period was in certain ways prede¬
termined during the Iron Age, when this very territory
used to be home to numerous selishche (here we employ
the Russian word meaning an abandoned settlement ,
rather than an archaeological term). The vegetation of this
land had known human influence. And by the time the
Slavs established permanent colonies there, the agro-land¬
scapes around the early towns contained vegetation of
various forms and of various planting successions.
Spatial arrangement of settlements of the
1
1th
—
13th
centuries changed greatly, compared to the previous cen¬
turies: the
backlands
and the basins of small rivers got cul¬
tivated. Since landscapes were dissimilar in different
micro-regions, the husbandry and economic patterns for
such regions were dissimilar, too. Studying micro-regions
of different landscapes, we were able to account for the
differences in the household priorities.
Memorials in the valley of the river Yazvenka, which
flows in the
fluvio-glacial
plain formed by sands and loam
(the Tsaritsino national reserve), may be taken as an
example of a territory where agricultural model of devel¬
opment dominates all other models. Indeed, the settle¬
ments sit close to the river edge; further up the bank-side,
for several hundred meters along the river-valley, the
farmlands stretch. The remotest part of the farmlands bor¬
ders on burial mounds. The settlements are small: each
contains just a few households. When we compare the size
of settlements with the number of burial mounds, we can
perform a demographic analysis of the settlement and
starting with the approximate number of recreated people
in such a community, we can estimate how much land
they needed to cultivate in order to support themselves.
The same model of settling and developing is typical for
the basins and other right-bank tributaries of the Moskva-
river (Setun, Gorodenka etc.). A modification of the same
model can be found in the valley of the river Neglinnaya;
the influence of the growing town of Moscow on this
neighborhood explains most peculiarities in its develop¬
ment.
Much space in this publication has been devoted to
shifting settlement and nature management patterns of the
second half of the 13th
-
first half of the 14th century.
The hilly-moraine landscapes of the right bank of the
Moskva-river, as archeological records testify, underwent
progressive development. The area of intensive develop¬
ment normally starts close to the river, running along its
bank; then it spreads upwards toward the deciduous-
spruce forests, which marked watersheds. The ridge tops
of some watersheds were already encompassed by the cul¬
tivated areas by the end of the mound time (i.e., the first
half of the 13th century).
At the very walls of the Moscow Kremlin, in the
Zaneglimenye, a new type of settlements at the top of the
watershed hill appeared already at the end of the
12th-beginning of the 13th century (presently the place is
in the yard of the former Moscow State University build¬
ing). In the 13th
-
beginning of the 14th century the settle¬
ment disappeared and its place was ploughed up. Only in
the 15th-16th centuries the development reached the top of
the hill again, where the previous settlement used to be.
Apparently, under the first Moscow Princes, when
Moscow was establishing its leadership among the
princedoms of the Land, the town would not spread west¬
wards; instead, it was rapidly growing in the north-east¬
ern, eastern and south-eastern directions, with its out¬
stretched shape
-
much like a weather vane
-
pointing the
way the political winds were blowing.
A telling example of gradual economic development
at the turn of the 13th century is the territory around the
Teplostanskaya eminence (drained by the rivers
Chertanovka, Gorodenka, Ochakovka and others); name¬
ly, the cultural landscape of the Bitsevsky park and
Tropare
vskaya recreation area. In the 12th
-
beginning of
the 13th century, the settlements, burials, and farmlands
were located in the lower parts of the valleys of the men¬
tioned rivers. Presumably, in the second half of the 13th
century, the watershed tops were partially deforested, and
the mound groups appeared there. At that time, the mound
rites were becoming a thing of the past; hence the scarci-
ty
and smallness of grouped mounds in the watershed
hills. Meanwhile (or shortly after that), the settlements
moved up the hilltops (Dubinkin Les-1 is one such settle¬
ment, which emerged next to a mound group). On the hill¬
sides near the settlements there appeared ponds fed by
springs and melting ice and snow. The crescent-shaped
impounds of these ponds are still visible against the relief
of the present-day landscape. The ponds have been
drained, but their vegetation still differs from the sur¬
rounding forest. Tops of the ravines still preserve the rem¬
nants of the dams that used to block them. Archeological
investigation of these cultural landscapes can prove yield¬
ing in the future.
It is worth noting that in the 14th—16th centuries the
lower levels of the brooks valleys were not wild. Here
were found the groups of 14th-16th-century settlements,
which sometimes were situated right on the sites of earli¬
er settlements of the 12th—13th centuries; at other times,
such settlements could be found in similar landscape and
topographic positions. That is to say that the landscape
area in question was occupied even in the minor ice age ;
hence, we have reasons to conclude that climate changes
were of no lasting consequence to the people, in terms of
their settling patterns, on the studied territory in the
13th
—
14th centuries.
A different pattern of the economic development of
the territory existed in the valley of the river Pekhorka in
the Meshcherskaya lowland. There, the narrow flood-
plain of the river was surrounded by flat
fluvio-glacial
plains formed by sands and loams and covered with pine
forests with some deciduous species. Basing on the
series of calculations and judgments about the arrange¬
ment of the mound groups, we believe that in the
12th—
ІЗ 1
centuries the farmlands did not stretch further
than
150
meters away from the river. Some settlements,
because of the landscape specifics, did not have enough
farmland to provide for their needs, which means that
the settlers depended on their crafts and trade as early as
the Old-Russian period. On the evidence of the
Exchange Charter of Dmitri Donskoi of
1381-1382,
the
Pekhorka apiculture volost (i.e., district) was posi¬
tioned here. In all likelihood, as early as the first half of
the 13th century, apiculture was an important part of
nature management in Meshchera (an area in the
Moscow neighborhood) and in some other marshy
woodlands of the Old Russia.
The settling dynamics after the Mongol invasion was
studied basing on the data from the center of the Moscow
princedom and its periphery.
During the crisis of the
1260
s
in the midstream of
the Vorya
(50
km from Moscow) out of
21
settlements
with total area of
10.8
hectares
11
settlements
-
which
constitutes
63%
of the pre-Mongol settlements area
-
went out of existence. During the second half of the 13th
century
8
new settlements appeared, and by the end of the
century the total residential area reached
9.5
hectares, or
88%
of the settlement area in year
1238.
The destruction
of the continuity in the life of the agricultural society is
evident. Oftentimes, it was not only the settlement, which
got destroyed, but also the surrounding farmlands.
On the upper Pekhorka
(20
km from Moscow) in the
first third of the 13th century there were
13
settlements
with total area of
7.3
hectares. After the Crisis, only three
settlements were destroyed, which constituted
37%
of the
pre-Mongol settlements area. During the second half of
the 13th century there appeared
8
new settlements, and by
the end of the century the total residential area was
8.3
hectares, or
114%
of the settlement area of the year of
1238.
Unlike in the Vorya volost, in the Pekhorka the struc¬
ture of the pre-Mongol settlements and the very type of
them did not undergo critical changes in the second half
of the 13(h century. Like in the Vorya (Tsarevskoye forti¬
fied settlement), there evolved the pre-Mongol complex
of settlements and fortifications, later known as the
Nikolskoye mytishche (Balashikha fortified settlement).
Another settlement appeared where the road to the city of
Pereslavl crossed the river Pekhorka. Later, in the 14th
century, this place would become the center of the
Pekhorka volost. Also the development of the Medvezhyi
Ozera region (the Bear Lakes ) started. This region was
just
2.5
km away from the settlement of the pre-Mongol
period.
The reason for such stability of the Pekhorka settle¬
ment pattern might be that the surrounding Meshchera
lands were of little agricultural promise, while they were
very suitable for apiculture. As for the river Vorya, it
flowed in the valley at the foot of the Klinsko-
Dmitrovskaya chain, and its tributaries brought the new
settlers to the moraine plain suitable for tillage. The set¬
tling behavior on the Teplostanskaya elevation south of
Moscow, as we have mentioned, followed the same pat¬
tern. There, starting in mid-
1200
s
and finishing in the
15th century, the settling centers were being transferred to
the tops of the watershed hills.
The described differences in landscapes and position,
however, can hardly account for the Pekhorka settling for¬
mation being a better continuum than the Vorya one (the
former lost
37%
of settlements; the latter,
63%).
Both
areas suffered equally great damages from the Mongols.
Pekhorka was not a safer place, since the road to Klyazma
passed through it; and the troops of Baty-khan were sure
to visit it on their way from the plundered Moscow
towards the city of Vladimir. We can understand the phe¬
nomenon of Pekhorka s vitality, keeping in mind that dur¬
ing the crises the secondary part of the settling structure
(so-called crown ) gets wrecked especially quickly,
while its central part (so-called stems and roots )
retains viability, getting its strength from the periphery.
Consequently, the regeneration of the Pekhorka economic
and household structures might have begun during the
first decades after the year
1238;
back then the yards,
tilled areas and meadows were not completely wiped out,
and certain territory development traditions were still
alive. In contrast, the Vorya area was repopulated some¬
what later, when the forsaken tillage lands and meadows
had grown woods; as for the new territory developmental
techniques, applied to the abandoned yards, they would be
neither very promising nor tempting. The peripheral posi¬
tion of Vorya in the princedom settling structure explains
the depth of demographic and economic crises the land
experienced in the 13th century, as well as the violence of
the cultural shock it felt.
The development of beekeeping craft, which meant
quick returns on investments and relatively low expenses,
made possible the economic growth of the Meshchera set¬
tlements (which were close to Moscow) in the second half
of the 13th-! 4th centuries. In all likelihood, the profits fur¬
thered development of other kinds of husbandry (includ¬
ing tillage on the hard loam soils), which really prospered
in the 14th century. At about the same time other prince¬
doms of the Norto-eastern Russia (See: the Tver birchbark
charter No
5
of the years
1310-1320,
the chronicle of the
year
1302)
also experience the rise of apiculture. One can
speak of the second revival of the craft economy in Russia
in the 2nd half of the
13*-14Љ
centuries (the first was
brought about by furriery), which helped launch pione¬
ering.
Dealing with the H*-^ 1 centuries, our micro-
regional archeological, and historical and geographical
research took in account the analysis of the land acts, tes¬
taments and contract charters of the Moscow princes, and
the genealogy of the
boyars
families, which were con¬
cerned with the prince s household management. Such
comparison made it possible to shed new light upon such
phenomenon of the early Moscow history as the existence
of the Moscow princes realm [or domains ] located
within the Moscow town walls . These walls enclosed
the area within a radius of
40-50
km from Moscow, there¬
by marking the joint property of the members of the
dynasty founded by Daniil Alexandrovich of Moscow
(1271-1303).
It turned out that the central part of the domain con¬
sisted of the large pieces of land, each of
a sectorial
shape
and home for one to three
stans
(small administrative
divisions in Russia). These sectors of land widened as
they stretched away from the walls of the Grand Prince s
Moscow. Similar land division, when two sectors of a
land
curele
positioned opposite each other constituted one
share of the prince s land, was registered near the towns
of Volok Lamsky and Yuryev-Polsky. Near Moscow,
however, by the year
1336
four sectors of prince s land
already existed, which is more than in Volok Lamsky or
in Yuryev-Polsky.
These sectors repeated the natural divisions in the
landscapes, and within these zones there formed different
types of nature management. Tillage was practiced on the
moraine elevations south of Moscow (Sosensky,
Chermnev and Ratuyev
stans ).
Farming and horse
breeding [ horse breeding way ] supervised by yasel-
nichiye [i.e. equerries ] prospered in the valley of the
Moskva-river: in the princes villages on the river below
and above Moscow. Apiculture estates
[ bortnitsi ] super-
vized by a chashnik [i.e. bowl-man ] were east of
Moscow in the Meshchera lowland (Vasiltsev, Pekhorsky,
Koshelev, Doblinsky
stans ).
The grounds for different
kinds of hunt
-
falconry (the territory called the falconry
way , supervised by the sokolnichiy [i.e. falconer ]);
bear-, wolf-, and fox hunt (the territory called pole );
game birds shooting (the territory called perevesye );
beaver hunt (the territory called bobrovnik )
-
in one
piece called Lovchi Put [i.e. the Hunting Way ] was
supervised by the lovchiy ( Huntsman ) and was locat¬
ed in the area of the Yauza swamplands [the Yauza
mytishche ] and other areas.
On the evidence of the charters, which reflect the
specifics of the way the princes managed their domains
under Dmitri Donskoy, Vasily
Temny
and Ivan
Ш,
it
became possible to anatomize the princes economy, to
examine it at the levels of social structures, nature-man¬
agement forms, and household phenomena in their
dynamics.
Thus, localization of the apiculture allotment as
described in the Dmitri Donskoy s exchange charter
(1381-1382)
in the area of Medvezhyi Ozera ( Bear
Lakes ) let us to reconstruct the peripheral part
(3
thou¬
sand dessiatinas ) of the Pekhorka apiculture volost
(8.8
thousand dessiatinas ). Prior to their being attached
to a monastery, the wild-hive beekeepers had multiple
duties: besides their labor-rent (consisted of honey and
bee-wax) they paid tribute, provided the prince s messen¬
gers with horses, built fortifications, mowed grass on the
prince s meadows; that is they performed the duties typi¬
cal of the serving population . And they went to the
Grand Prince s aldermen, Chashnik (i.e. the bowl
man ) and to Head of their volost for the law.
The apiculture villages were identified as a group of
ancient settlements dating from the 14th century and con¬
taining grey ceramics. This identification allowed us to
pinpoint the archeological signs of early apicultural devel¬
opment in the Meshchera lands: the loose network of sin¬
gle settlements, consisting of
1-3
homesteads (approx. at
2
km intervals), which appeared under various topograph¬
ic conditions, including the territories not suitable for
agriculture. The dwellers of such a settlement could main¬
tain approximately
200
dessiatinas of an apicultural
farm
[ uhozhy ].
According to the exchange charter, the
wild hives were supervized by the uzhniki
-
the
hirelings, who presumably came from the central part of
the Pekhorka volost . The latter, as the archeological data
suggest, was a group of small settlements around the vil¬
lage of Pekhra. This group of settlement formed in the
second hah? of the 13th century simultaneously with the
appearance of the settlement in the village of Pekhra.
Judging by the landscape specifics, the apiculture in the
center of the volost in the 14th century was combined
with agriculture, and existed in pure form at the periphery.
Studying of the southern part of the Vasiltsev
stan
has showed that the similar settling and household pattern
with central cluster of settlements (two villages named
Kolomenskoye on the river Grayvoronovka) and craft
singe settlements (settlement
Annino
at the upper river
Golyadanka) formed in the second third of the
ІЗ 1
centu¬
ry. This ecologically stable system of nature management
in the near-Moscow Meshchera was most likely to pros¬
per in the
2nd
half of the
1
3th-! 4th centuries.
The land charters of the last quarter of the
14*-15љ
centuries mention the existence of the serving and
volost organizations of peasants, as well as the lands of
the
ministeriais
on the territories of the prince s near-
town
stans .
Settlement groups, identified as the lands of
the serving and volost (that is, residential) population,
judging by the archeological data, appeared in the 2nd half
of the 13th
—
1st half of the 14th century. It appears that in
this period economic stability of the Moscow princes
depended on exploiting of the serving population who
paid considerable duties.
Examination of the cultural landscapes of the
Moscow neighborhood allowed a look into the era that
preceded the vast expansion of the
boyar landholding
(the
2nd half of the 14th century) and reconstructing the eco¬
nomic and social forms, which made possible the devel¬
opment of the economics in the Moscow princedom under
Daniil Alexandrovich (c.
1271 -
March
5, 1303),
Yuri Danilovich
(1303 -
November
21, 1325)
and
Ivan Danilovich Kalita
(1325-1340).
Patrimonial landowning that developed in the town
camps in the 2nd half of the 14th—15th centuries, concen¬
trated mainly at the outskirts of some
stans
and outside
the described territories (northern part of the Goretov
stan ,
the Vezhetsky
stan
north of Moscow, the Bokhov
stan
on the Klyazma river, and the Zhdansky
stan
on
the lower Klyazma). These patrimonial estates reached
2-
3
thousand dessiatinas in size (e.g. the estates belonging
to the Kvashninys and Byakontovy-Pleshcheevy in the
Goretov
stan ;
to the Velyaminovys in the Vezhetsky
stan ;
to the Dobrynskys in the Bokhov
stan ;
to the
Kolychevs in the Zhdansky
stan ,
etc.).
In the
stans
where most of the territory was the
princes , the patrimonial landowning was underdeveloped
and had some specific features. So, near perevesye , bor¬
dering on the Pekhorka, Bokhov, and Koshelev
stans ,
the small village of Revyakinskaya was situated. It was
property of Dmitri Donskoy s
boyar
Dmitri
Minin
who
died in
1368
and left it to his son and grandson (they
owned it until the 1430 s). Appearance of this estate
among the lands of the apiculture volost may be con¬
nected with the fact that the Minins traditionally held the
offices of the so-called
putny
boyars
(such as lovchy ,
etc.) and, perhaps, were responsible for putting game on
the Prince s table. Minins patrimonies on tillage lands
were located in the Kolomna and Zvenigorod uyezds
(i.e. districts ).
Micro-regional investigations show that when in
1373
Prince Dmitri Ivanovich cancelled the tysyatsky
office [a tysyatsky used to be in charge of a thousand
warriors] and created a new management system with the
Moscow deputies in charge of the treti (i.e. one-
third s ) of Moscow and other town
stans ,
these changes
did not affect the domains close to the Moscow town
walls. The domain makeup, described above, remained
the same, and the Velyaminovs kept dispatching some of
the managerial functions. Since the patrimonial lands
were, as a rule, part of the adjacent lands, their develop¬
ment in the second half of the 14th century did not infringe
upon or reduce in any way the Moscow princes domains.
The
Šimonov
monastery, founded
с
1377,
was given
big estates at the expense of the Grand Prince s chash-
nich put (villages Korovnichye and on Prerva, on
Kolomenka, Grayvoronovo in the Vasiltsev
stan ,
the
lands on the Medvezhyi Ozera in the Pekhorka
stan ).
Under Vasily II the Nikolo-Ugreshsky monastery
received lands (the Kapotenka
stan ).
Such generous gifts
can be explained only by the fact that the Grand Prince s
monasteries played a considerable role in the Church pol¬
itics of Moscow.
The shift in structure of the near-Moscow domain
finally occurred under Ivan
ΙΠ
and under Vasily
Ш.
This
shift in structure happened alongside with the expansion
of tillage territories and with unsettling of the archaic
nature management system, which used to serve as an
economic base for the Grand Prince s domain. Tension
caused by these processes is revealed by the trial materi¬
als (years
1464-1470),
during which the Prince s Butler
Bureau attempted to take the
Šimonov
monastery lands on
Medvezhye Ozero and give them back to the Pekhorka
volost .
During this period, the old crafts and trades, which
depended on the vastness of territories, were diminishing
and going out of date. Many of the hunting and other
grounds were tilled; they became property of the
ministeri¬
ais
and got the status of patrimonies and later, the status of
estates. The rest of the princes lands became the court lands
with the newly built princes mansions, which have been
archeologically marked (the Krylatskoye and Taninskoye
residences, and the Kolomenskoye architectural ensemble).
As one can see, recreation of settling, nature man¬
agement, cultural and economic patterns, checked against
the data from the Acts, substantially increases our under¬
standing of the early Moscow society. And all this is far
from being a limit of what the investigation of a cultural
landscape can yield.
The cultural landscapes, which reflect both work of
nature and that of human thought and labor, speak vol¬
umes about the people s environmental concerns, their
economic and social way of life, their mindset. Keeping
that in mind, we have attempted to approach cultural land¬
scapes by turning to the oral tradition of the
19*-20ш
cen¬
turies. Examination of the territory to the northeast of
Moscow showed that the peasants of very old settlements
still remember the names of the formerly affiliated
grounds. It was established that some of these grounds had
replaced the ^ft-lo^-centuries settlements abandoned
during the Time of Troubles. Even nowadays, in the
beginning of the 21st century, the old residents of the
Medvezhyi Ozera neighborhood make frequent use of
micro-toponyms, which derive from the names of the set¬
tlements mentioned in the Exchange charter of
Dmitri Donskoy in
1381-1382,
such as the Zhizhlevskoye
field, the Revyakino place, the village of Chudnitsa.
Linguistic enquiry showed that the names of forests
and roads, fields and meadows of this or that settlement
are far from being accidental; all of them are part of a
micro-toponymic system, which helped settlers find their
way in the area surrounding the settlement. This has at
least two implications: first, to correctly interpret
toponyms, one has to consider the landscape in its entity;
second, the micro-toponymic systems of the Russian
medieval period were informed by the original vision of
space and habitat, typical of the medieval people.
The settling-down habits and the ways of landscape
thinking, partially retained by the old residents, are
reflected not only in the toponymy, but they also found
their way into evaluative judgments of the interviewed
representative sample and are reflected in some forms of
speech, which were recorded on tape (the scripts are print¬
ed in this study). Such texts cannot be overestimated as a
source for the studies in historical anthropology.
The investigation performed in this manner and devot¬
ed to such sacral landscapes as graveyards and burials pro¬
duced unexpected results. The Orthodox Christian grave¬
yards, as the old residents who lived to see the 20th century
explained, were hallowed by the bodies of the righteous
people and preserved their sanctity while the dead contin¬
ued to be commemorated and while the people who had
buried there their kin still lived. After such a place is desert¬
ed (as it happened during the Time of Troubles in the begin¬
ning of the 17th century) and the new population arrives, the
forsaken Orthodox kladbischa [ graveyards or cemeter¬
ies ] loose their sanctity and get the name of mogilniki
[ burials and barrows ]. All new graves (and by exten¬
sion, graveyards) were sanctified anew, no matter whether
they were located in a new or old necropolis. The rite of
sanctifying turned the place of burial into an Orthodox
Christian spot, where a certain community (a village,
parish, etc.) remembered their dead, their parents (that is,
their ancestors). A mogilnik was a fundamentally different
place: a place of burial of the forgotten forbearers where
people paid their respects to the not-remembered parents .
There were also the places serving as the last abode of the
so-called zalozhennye pokoiniki [ removed deceased ,
i.e. the dead who were duried outside churchyard, such as
suicides].
This investigation brings to light some previously
unknown intellectual habits in early Moscow community
and detects anthropocentrism in the Old Moscow
Orthodox tradition. It was a human being leading right¬
eous life, created in God s likeness and capable of accept¬
ing the Savior s gift of Grace, who used to be the real cen¬
ter of the sacral spaces (graveyards, temples etc.) and the
bearer of the living sacred feelings (e.g., of the metaphys¬
ical topography actualized in the real life setting). At the
same time, when creating sacred spaces, people were not
absolutely free from the conventions inherent in the hier¬
archically organized cultural space; they were required to
recognize the sacral loci in the natural landscape.
We believe that this research considerably enlarges
the source base, explains the phenomenon of the cultural
landscape, and breaks ground (often by setting up a series
of problems) for further investigation. This study also
shows that the whole strata of cultural landscapes still
wait to be explored.
Landscape archeology can prove useful in many prom¬
ising fields of present-day research; we can name among
such the study of archeological memorials and ancient
riverbeds in flood-plains under the strata of alluvium (geo-
alluvial archeology), palynological analysis of the samples
taken from deposits, which reflect various types of sedimen¬
tation in one and the same area. A large body of knowledge
is yet to be built up around our systematic hypotheses.
This three-volume publication offers a system of
hypotheses supported by the yet delicate webbing of facts,
which calls for further research, such as excavations in the
places of ancient settlements and economic zones of the
1
1th—13th and
14*-16гІ1
centuries (tillage homesteads,
homesteads of beekeepers, beaver-hunters, kennelmen,
metallurgists, potters and others), reflecting various eco¬
nomic and cultural patterns and documented in the written
form. Such investigations can give plenty of new material
for understanding of multifarious forms of householding
and husbandry. They will allow us to understand the alter¬
ing dynamics of the economy in the Moscow-centered
Russia at various stages of its history, as well as the adap¬
tation of rural population to certain environmental condi¬
tions and actual levels of their consumption and civiliza¬
tion.
Of no small importance are integrated archeological
and anthropological researches of the B^H^-century
burials (both rural graveyards and necropolises of the
noble in monasteries), which would shed light on the bio¬
logical adaptation of people to their habitat and ways of
living. It is noteworthy that such specific studies can yield
the more adequate and verifiable results when undertaken
with particular reference to the micro-regions, which have
been already explored.
Thus we have showed that micro-regional investi¬
gations are really promising. By such micro-regions we
mean the territories of the ancient volosts and
stans ,
which were substantiated by acts, cartographic and
micro-toponymic documents, excavated and dated
archeological findings and elements of the geo-land-
scape. These historical territories may serve as focal
points for integrated studies of economy strategies, nat¬
ural and cultural adaptation of population, and of socie¬
ty formation mechanisms.
Today, the number of such sites increases. Among
the investigated micro-regions of the medieval Russia are
the Volokoslavinskaya and other volosts of the
Belozerye area; the Suzdal neighborhood; the volost of
Zhabna; the graveyards at
Luga,
Msta
and the Novgorod
land; the Radonezh estate; the
stans
of Volok Lamsky;
the Kinelsky
stan
of the Pereyaslavl uyezd ; the
volosts on the upper Don and in Chervleny Yar near the
city of Voronezh. This list is far from being complete, and
it continually is being augmented.
The significance of having such digs or windows
into the past has its rationale. We can relate to these
micro-regions, thanks to the retrospective investigation of
available relevant written data and archeological research¬
es: we are not hampered by any sufficient deficiency of
sources on these micro-regions dating back to the turn of
the 14th century; after that period the land acts are lacking.
Besides, the surviving written documents reflecting the
everyday life of the Russian Middle Ages on the territo¬
ries in question are also available (even though this evi¬
dence is scant if compared to the richness of the existing
historical documents on the Western Europe), which can¬
not be said of other Russian regions. And the scantiness of
evidence, obviously, stands in the way of new discoveries
and approaches.
It is not just that cultural landscapes give unique
access to the historical past of Russia. These units of nat¬
ural environment, chiseled by human hand and spirit, are
enduring: they still resist change. These relic landscapes
are nothing but materialized culture of the past. Since cul¬
tural landscapes are part of traditional culture of the local
population (and in that respect they are developing land¬
scapes), they are also our heritage.
The investigation methods applied to landscapes here
help look into the complicated mechanisms that make the
cultural landscapes a stable element of natural environ¬
ment. This work also breaks the ground for studying the
mental component of the cultural landscapes, which
ensures their lasting influence on the human and commu¬
nal intellect. In other words, we are getting closer to see¬
ing cultural landscapes as constituent part of cultural
ecology.
Oddly enough, as the study progresses, the history
vs. the present dichotomy becomes less suitable for
accommodating the concept of a cultural landscape. The
cultural landscapes can be better understood in terms of
the continuously updated life style of the ever-changing
human communities. At the same time, cultural land¬
scapes help preserve certain historic, ethnic, religious, etc.
elements responsible for retaining the communal identity.
Similarly, even though a person in the course if his or her
life suffers changes in body tissues, we still recognize this
person even after a long period of separation. Likewise,
the continuity in cultural landscapes goes deeper than
their cultural and stylistic make-up. In the future, basing
on the landscape research, it might become possible to
define the internal principals of self-organization, charac¬
teristic of the generally human and the specifically com¬
munal.
As our knowledge of the cultural landscapes grows,
as we get to perceive such landscapes as the unique link to
our past and the stabilizing factor in our culture and ecol¬
ogy, it gets more obvious that the principals of proper
management, protection, and wise use of natural resources
should be enforced. That is why creation of efficient
mechanisms for cultural landscape conservation is a pri¬
ority on the scholars agenda.
569
|
| adam_txt |
Оглавление
Введение.
I.
МЕНТАЛЬНЫЙ ЛАНДШАФТ
УСТНАЯ ТРАДИЦИЯ
И ПРОБЛЕМЫ ИЗУЧЕНИЯ МЕНТАЛЬНОГО ЛАНДШАФТА
Глава
1.
Сакральная топография Московской Руси в устной крестьянской традиции:
освящение кладбища (С.З. Чернов)
. 13
Глава
2.
Сакральная топография Москвы: храм-кладбище-город. К постановке
вопроса (Л.А. Беляев)
. 29
КАТАЛОГ объектов исторического ландшафта, исторической планировки и исто¬
рического землепользования северо-востока Москвы и прилегающих территорий
Мытищинского, Щелковского и Балашихинского районов, составленный на
основании изучения устной традиции
(1990-1995
гг.), картографических и архивных
данных (С.З. Чернов)
. 42
Часть
1.
Пехорский стан
. 42
Часть
2.
Район Мытищ
. 103
Часть
3.
Сокольники
. 122
Карта расположения объектов исторического ландшафта, исторической планиров¬
ки и исторического землепользования второй половины
XIX -
первой половины
XX
в. северо-востока Москвы и прилегающих территорий Мытищинского, Щел¬
ковского и Балашихинского районов, составленная на основании изучения
устной традиции
(1990-1995
гг.), картографических и архивных данных
. 132
ТЕКСТЫ
Опрос старожильческого населения на территории Мытищинского, Щелковского
и Балашихинского районов, а также района Крылатское (подготовлен к печати
О.Н.Глазуновой)
. 142
Заметки собирателя (О.Н. Глазунова)
. 142
Часть
1.
Пехорский стан
. 151
Часть
2.
Село Мытищи
. 257
Часть
3.
Село Крылатское
. 282
Уставная грамота Московской губернии, Московского уезда, Хорошевской волости,
государева села Крылацкого
. 290
П. МОСКОВСКИЕ СЕЛА И СЛОБОДЫ
Глава
3.
"Взлет на холмы". Археологические раскопки селища Дубинкин лес-1
и освоение Теплостанской возвышенности в
XIV-XV
вв.
(H.A.
Кренке)
. 293
Глава
4.
Древнее поселение на Голосовом овраге возле церкви Вознесения
и возникновение села Коломенского
. 326
Глава
5.
Тайнинское в
XV-XVII
вв.: дворцовый комплекс, некрополи, село
(С.З. Чернов)
. 338
Глава
6.
Крылатское: царское село как памятник археологии (С.З. Чернов)
. 360
Глава
7.
Старинное подмосковное село Троицкое-Голенищево: вопросы
исторической планировки (С.А. Смирнов)
. 416
Глава
8.
Некрополь в Московском
зоопарке на Пресне и локализация Большого
двора князя Владимира Андреевича "на Трех горах" (С.З. Чернов)
. 456
Описание комплекса надгробий из Московского зоопарка (Л А. Беляев)
. 478
Заключение по костным остаткам из раскопок на территории Московского
зоопарка
(JIM.
Алексеева)
. 481
Глава
9.
Изменения в планировочной структуре Москвы в конце
XV
в.
(ИЛ. Бойцов)
. 484
Заключение (НА. Кренке, С.З. Чернов)
. 510
Указатель имен
. 519
Указатель географических названий
. 527
Указатель керамических комплексов
. 553
Список сокращений
. 554
Сведения об авторах
. 555
List of
illustration.
556
Color
illustration
. 561
Summary
. 563
Contents
Introduction
. 9
Part l.THE MENTAL
LANDSCAPE
ORAL TRADITION AND PROBLEMS OF STUDYING
THE MENTAL LANDSCAPE
Chapter
1.
The sacral topography of the early Moscow-centered Russia as reflected in the oral
peasant tradition: sanctifying a cemetery. (By
S.Z.
Chernov)
. 13
Chapter
2.
The sacral topography of Moscow: Church
-
Cemetery
-
City: posing the
question. (By LA. Belyaev)
. 29
CATALOGUE of the cultural landscape sites, historical regional planning and historical land
utilization in the north-eastern part of Moscow and on the adjoining territories of the
Mytishche, Schelkovsky, and Balashikhinsky districts. Compiled with reference to the oral
tradition research (conducted in years
1990
и т.д.
1995),
cartographic materials, and archives.
(By
S.Z.
Chernov)
. 42
Part
1.
The Pekhorka
'stan'
. 42
Part
2.
The Mytishche area
. 103
Part3. Sokolniki
. 122
Map showing the cultural landscape sites, historical regional planning and historical land uti¬
lization in the 2nd half of the 19th
- 1st
half of the 20th centuries in the north-eastern part of
Moscow and on the adjoining territories of the Mytishche, Schelkovsky, and Balashikhinsky
districts. Compiled with reference to the oral tradition research (conducted in years
1990-1995),
cartographic materials, and archives
. 132
TEXTS
Interviewing the old residents on the territories of the Mytishche, Schelkovsky, and
Balashikhinsky districts of the Moscow Region and on the Krylatskoe territory. (Conducted
and compiled by ON. Glazunova)
. 142
From the journal of an interviewer (OJV. Glazunova)
. 142
Parti. The Pekhorka
'stan'.
Year
1990. 151
Part
2.
The village of Mytishche. Year
1995.257
Parti. Krylatskoe
.282
Statutory charter of His Highness's village of Krylatskoe of the Khoroshevskaya 'volost' of
the Moscow 'uezd' of the Moscow province
.290
Part
2.
THE MOSCOW HAMLETS AND VILLAGES
Chapter
3.
"Aspiring to the hilltops". Archaeological excavation on the site of the village of
Dubinkin Les-1 and development of the Teplostanskaya elevation in the
^Мб·11
centuries. (ByNA. Krenke)
.293
Chapter
4.
The ancient settlement at the Golosov ravine next to the Ascention Church and the
rise of the Kolomenskaya village. (By NA. Krenke)
.326
Chapter
5.
The Taininskoe place in the
15^^-Пљ
centuries: the palace ensemble, necropolis¬
es, and village. (By
S.Z.
Chernov)
.338
Chapter
6.
The Krylatskoe place: the tzar's village as an archaeological monument.
(By SZ. Chernov)
.360
Chapter
7.
The ancient near-Moscow village of Troitskoe-Golenishcevo: the questions of his¬
torical regional planning. {By
S.A.
Smimov)
. 416
Chapter
8.
The Necropolis on the present territory of the Moscow Zoo in the
Presný
a district
and the whereabouts of the Bolshoi court of the prince Vladimir, son of Andrei,
among the "three hills". {By
S.Z.
Chernov)
. 456
Description of the tombstone complex from the Moscow Zoo. {By LA. Belyaev)
. 478
Evaluation of the osseous remains from the Moscow Zoo excavation site. {By L.I. Alekseeva)
. 481
Chapter
9.
On the changes in the Moscow city planning at the end of the 15th century.
{By I A. Boitsov)
. 484
In conclusion. {By NA. Krenke and
S.Z.
Chernov)
. 510
Index of names
. 519
Index of place names
. 527
Index of
Ceramiek
complexes
. 553
List of abbreviations
. 554
Note on contributors
. 555
List of illustrations
. 556
Color illustrations
. 561
Summary in English
. 563
In conclusion, we would like to consider the notion
of a cultural landscape once again. In our days, an inte¬
grated approach to the Russian cultural landscape offers a
new perspective on the past and on the ways the cultural
legacy shapes our modern society. Such are the ideas and
hopes underlying the present study. Here we would pon¬
der the results of this study, dwelling on the most signifi¬
cant of them; we would also sketch out the course for the
future studies in the field. We will discuss the advantages
and disadvantages of the chosen methodological
approaches, comment on the sufficiency of the used
sources and on the value of our suggested interpretations.
This publication was intended to make the results of
the archeological, paleo-landscape, historical and geo¬
graphical studies of the historical territories of the
12th-!
б"1
centuries in Moscow and its region available for
the scholars at large. All these studies were conducted in
the 1990's by the Moscow Archeological Sector affiliated
with the Institute for Archeology of the Russian Academy
of Sciences. One of the primary interests behind this proj¬
ect was to get to the 'logic' of the territory development,
which is determined by the natural and economic speci¬
ficity of the place. And since the territory has become our
subject, to proceed with the study, we had to identify the
structural elements of the cultural landscape. Hence, we
needed up-to-date methods to gather archaeological evi¬
dence. Traditional "purely archeological" objects
-
mounds, burials and ancient settlements required detailed
mapping. To properly visualize cultural landscapes, we
needed large-scale maps. To plot locations on maps hav¬
ing a scale of
1:10,000
and of
1:25,000,
we did a set of
field and archive researches. Even though a great many
old-Russian sites had been discovered before 1980's,
none of the sites in the Moscow Region was systematical¬
ly investigated in detail, which made it impossible to ana¬
lyze settlement patterns close-up. Observation, measure¬
ment, database development took place. The historical
and present-day small-scale maps (on which some arche¬
ological findings had been recorded, which now do not
exist) were analyzed as well.
For the field researches, the existing exploration
methods were supplemented with some simple yet effi¬
cient techniques. Special attention was paid to the areas
next to the mound burials. Small-area excavations (dig¬
ging trenches) were systematically undertaken for deter¬
mining the borders of the monuments. Findings of burnt
clay were documented to mark the structural areas.
New for the Moscow Region archaeology was inves¬
tigation of the objects pertaining to ancient household
activity, which can be studied by soil scientists. Primarily,
we mean the buried household soils, which are abundant
in the region:
(1)
the soils in the flood-plain of the
Moskva-river, which were formed during low floods and
buried under the stratum of young alluvium;
(2)
the soils
on the banks in the small-river valleys and gullies buried
under the strata of diluvium; and, most important,
(3)
the
soils under raised banks of burial mounds. In the latter
case, the traces of tillage almost always were present.
Using the methods of soil science, we have found out that
the land under the mounds had been tilled not for sheer
cult purposes; on the contrary, these areas used to be farm¬
lands for a long period of time (of which severe soil ero¬
sion with shortened profile is evidence).
The conducted investigations demonstrated the effi¬
ciency and reliability of the methods of soil science when
making judgment about the past household activities and
change of the land-utilization patterns in certain localities.
However, the surveyed plots are still too few for area
mapping; their number should be sufficiently increased.
The discovery of the buried household soils dating
back to the period in question allowed us select samples
for palynological analyses, which indicated repeated
changes of the land-utilization pattern. As it turns out,
occasionally it is possible to register periods of natural
vegetation regeneration (e.g., the site of Kolomenskoye).
Since we approached analysis rather roughly (selection of
samples in columns at 5-15-cm intervals, small number of
pits), the resulting palynological
spectrums
yielded mere¬
ly general information about the character of the vegeta¬
tion. Also, we just registered the changes occurred in the
household activities, describing no particularities.
At the same time, it became clear that interpreting the
palynological
spectrums
from various genesis cuts leaves
much to be investigated. The flood-plain soil samples
(formed in the process of progressive sedimentation)
proved to be the "easiest" for interpretation. Much more
complicated for interpretation are the spectrum columns
of the pollen taken from under the burial mounds situated
on the banks near river-valleys. In such areas, presum¬
ably, the vertical migration of pollen along the soil cracks,
worm-paths, etc. took place.
Gradually, upon archeological investigation of
selected micro-regions, the Old Russian settlements, buri¬
als and villages began to fall into certain spatial arrange¬
ments. An attempt at further concretization of the struc¬
ture of the cultural landscape was made. We sought assis¬
tance of a landscape geographer in order to accomplish
the following: (a) to recreate the landscape as it used to be
before the Late Middle Ages by using ground-penetrating
techniques and removing some strata; (b) basing on the
observation of the natural conditions, on our knowledge
of industrial life of the
1
1th
—
13th Moscow Region com-
36*
munity, on the size of its population, to offer scientific
explanations of the position of land divisions. These
explanations and hypotheses (as a set of maps, showing
virtually recreated systems of environmental and wild life
management in particular micro-regions) are presented in
this publication. At this stage we have not yet tried out our
theory (which does not contradict any obtained archaeo¬
logical data) on the territories outside settlement areas.
Thus, the medieval cultural landscape can serve as a
subject for investigation in its own right. We singled out a
number of its structural elements, which can be studied
through interdisciplinary collaboration of archaeologists
and natural scientists. However, how to aptly synchronize
the data on the landscape evolution reconstructed by dif¬
ferent sciences is not quite clear at this stage.
The qualitative assessments obtained through the use
of the soil-geomorphologic methods are difficult to over¬
estimate. For example, now it is clear that many of the
lands on the banks of the river-valleys (which are thickly
wooded today), were frequently tilled in the 12th—13th cen¬
turies and were subject to soil erosion. However, the sud¬
den increase in alluvial deposits in the Moskva-river plain
dates to the Post-Old-Russian period. The land surface in
the Moskva-river plain of the
1
1th
—
13th centuries was
practically on the same level as it used to be in the Iron
Age, which means that in the
12*-
13th centuries defor¬
estation of the Moskva-river basin was less threatening,
compared to the years to come, and that is why it did not
upset the regularity of floods.
The midstream of the 12th-13th-century Moskva-
river remained insufficiently investigated, notwithstand¬
ing a considerable amount of archeological investigations
of the burial mounds and historical studies. In terms of
ethno-culture, this region was different from the main part
of the Suzdal territory. It gravitated towards Moscow
-
a
fortress founded on the south-western borders of the
Suzdal land (year
1156).
Being peripheral in relation to
the major centers of the Old Russian culture, this area was
located at the crossing of the Kiev-Rostov and the
Novgorod—Poochy
e
Roads.
The economic development of the Moskva-river val¬
ley of the Old-Russian period was in certain ways prede¬
termined during the Iron Age, when this very territory
used to be home to numerous 'selishche' (here we employ
the Russian word meaning an 'abandoned settlement',
rather than an archaeological term). The vegetation of this
land had known human influence. And by the time the
Slavs established permanent colonies there, the agro-land¬
scapes around the early towns contained vegetation of
various forms and of various planting successions.
Spatial arrangement of settlements of the
1
1th
—
13th
centuries changed greatly, compared to the previous cen¬
turies: the
backlands
and the basins of small rivers got cul¬
tivated. Since landscapes were dissimilar in different
micro-regions, the husbandry and economic patterns for
such regions were dissimilar, too. Studying micro-regions
of different landscapes, we were able to account for the
differences in the household priorities.
Memorials in the valley of the river Yazvenka, which
flows in the
fluvio-glacial
plain formed by sands and loam
(the "Tsaritsino" national reserve), may be taken as an
example of a territory where agricultural model of devel¬
opment dominates all other models. Indeed, the settle¬
ments sit close to the river edge; further up the bank-side,
for several hundred meters along the river-valley, the
farmlands stretch. The remotest part of the farmlands bor¬
ders on burial mounds. The settlements are small: each
contains just a few households. When we compare the size
of settlements with the number of burial mounds, we can
perform a demographic analysis of the settlement and
starting with the approximate number of recreated people
in such a community, we can estimate how much land
they needed to cultivate in order to support themselves.
The same model of settling and developing is typical for
the basins and other right-bank tributaries of the Moskva-
river (Setun, Gorodenka etc.). A modification of the same
model can be found in the valley of the river Neglinnaya;
the influence of the growing town of Moscow on this
neighborhood explains most peculiarities in its develop¬
ment.
Much space in this publication has been devoted to
shifting settlement and nature management patterns of the
second half of the 13th
-
first half of the 14th century.
The hilly-moraine landscapes of the right bank of the
Moskva-river, as archeological records testify, underwent
progressive development. The area of intensive develop¬
ment normally starts close to the river, running along its
bank; then it spreads upwards toward the deciduous-
spruce forests, which marked watersheds. The ridge tops
of some watersheds were already encompassed by the cul¬
tivated areas by the end of the "mound time" (i.e., the first
half of the 13th century).
At the very walls of the Moscow Kremlin, in the
Zaneglimenye, a new type of settlements at the top of the
watershed hill appeared already at the end of the
12th-beginning of the 13th century (presently the place is
in the yard of the former Moscow State University build¬
ing). In the 13th
-
beginning of the 14th century the settle¬
ment disappeared and its place was ploughed up. Only in
the 15th-16th centuries the development reached the top of
the hill again, where the previous settlement used to be.
Apparently, under the first Moscow Princes, when
Moscow was establishing its leadership among the
princedoms of the Land, the town would not spread west¬
wards; instead, it was rapidly growing in the north-east¬
ern, eastern and south-eastern directions, with its out¬
stretched shape
-
much like a weather vane
-
pointing the
way the political "winds" were blowing.
A telling example of gradual economic development
at the turn of the 13th century is the territory around the
Teplostanskaya eminence (drained by the rivers
Chertanovka, Gorodenka, Ochakovka and others); name¬
ly, the cultural landscape of the Bitsevsky park and
Tropare
vskaya recreation area. In the 12th
-
beginning of
the 13th century, the settlements, burials, and farmlands
were located in the lower parts of the valleys of the men¬
tioned rivers. Presumably, in the second half of the 13th
century, the watershed tops were partially deforested, and
the mound groups appeared there. At that time, the mound
rites were becoming a thing of the past; hence the scarci-
ty
and smallness of grouped mounds in the watershed
hills. Meanwhile (or shortly after that), the settlements
moved up the hilltops (Dubinkin Les-1 is one such settle¬
ment, which emerged next to a mound group). On the hill¬
sides near the settlements there appeared ponds fed by
springs and melting ice and snow. The crescent-shaped
impounds of these ponds are still visible against the relief
of the present-day landscape. The ponds have been
drained, but their vegetation still differs from the sur¬
rounding forest. Tops of the ravines still preserve the rem¬
nants of the dams that used to block them. Archeological
investigation of these cultural landscapes can prove yield¬
ing in the future.
It is worth noting that in the 14th—16th centuries the
lower levels of the brooks valleys were not wild. Here
were found the groups of 14th-16th-century settlements,
which sometimes were situated right on the sites of earli¬
er settlements of the 12th—13th centuries; at other times,
such settlements could be found in similar landscape and
topographic positions. That is to say that the landscape
area in question was occupied even in the "minor ice age";
hence, we have reasons to conclude that climate changes
were of no lasting consequence to the people, in terms of
their settling patterns, on the studied territory in the
13th
—
14th centuries.
A different pattern of the economic development of
the territory existed in the valley of the river Pekhorka in
the Meshcherskaya lowland. There, the narrow flood-
plain of the river was surrounded by flat
fluvio-glacial
plains formed by sands and loams and covered with pine
forests with some deciduous species. Basing on the
series of calculations and judgments about the arrange¬
ment of the mound groups, we believe that in the
12th—
ІЗ"1
centuries the farmlands did not stretch further
than
150
meters away from the river. Some settlements,
because of the landscape specifics, did not have enough
farmland to provide for their needs, which means that
the settlers depended on their crafts and trade as early as
the Old-Russian period. On the evidence of the
Exchange Charter of Dmitri Donskoi of
1381-1382,
the
Pekhorka apiculture 'volost' (i.e., district) was posi¬
tioned here. In all likelihood, as early as the first half of
the 13th century, apiculture was an important part of
nature management in Meshchera (an area in the
Moscow neighborhood) and in some other marshy
woodlands of the Old Russia.
The settling dynamics after the Mongol invasion was
studied basing on the data from the center of the Moscow
princedom and its periphery.
During the crisis of the
1260'
s
in the midstream of
the Vorya
(50
km from Moscow) out of
21
settlements
with total area of
10.8
hectares
11
settlements
-
which
constitutes
63%
of the pre-Mongol settlements' area
-
went out of existence. During the second half of the 13th
century
8
new settlements appeared, and by the end of the
century the total residential area reached
9.5
hectares, or
88%
of the settlement area in year
1238.
The destruction
of the continuity in the life of the agricultural society is
evident. Oftentimes, it was not only the settlement, which
got destroyed, but also the surrounding farmlands.
On the upper Pekhorka
(20
km from Moscow) in the
first third of the 13th century there were
13
settlements
with total area of
7.3
hectares. After the Crisis, only three
settlements were destroyed, which constituted
37%
of the
pre-Mongol settlements' area. During the second half of
the 13th century there appeared
8
new settlements, and by
the end of the century the total residential area was
8.3
hectares, or
114%
of the settlement area of the year of
1238.
Unlike in the Vorya volost, in the Pekhorka the struc¬
ture of the pre-Mongol settlements and the very type of
them did not undergo critical changes in the second half
of the 13(h century. Like in the Vorya (Tsarevskoye forti¬
fied settlement), there evolved the pre-Mongol complex
of settlements and fortifications, later known as the
Nikolskoye mytishche (Balashikha fortified settlement).
Another settlement appeared where the road to the city of
Pereslavl crossed the river Pekhorka. Later, in the 14th
century, this place would become the center of the
Pekhorka volost. Also the development of the Medvezhyi
Ozera region (the "Bear Lakes") started. This region was
just
2.5
km away from the settlement of the pre-Mongol
period.
The reason for such stability of the Pekhorka settle¬
ment pattern might be that the surrounding Meshchera
lands were of little agricultural promise, while they were
very suitable for apiculture. As for the river Vorya, it
flowed in the valley at the foot of the Klinsko-
Dmitrovskaya chain, and its tributaries brought the new
settlers to the moraine plain suitable for tillage. The set¬
tling behavior on the Teplostanskaya elevation south of
Moscow, as we have mentioned, followed the same pat¬
tern. There, starting in mid-
1200'
s
and finishing in the
15th century, the settling centers were being transferred to
the tops of the watershed hills.
The described differences in landscapes and position,
however, can hardly account for the Pekhorka settling for¬
mation being a better continuum than the Vorya one (the
former lost
37%
of settlements; the latter,
63%).
Both
areas suffered equally great damages from the Mongols.
Pekhorka was not a safer place, since the road to Klyazma
passed through it; and the troops of Baty-khan were sure
to visit it on their way from the plundered Moscow
towards the city of Vladimir. We can understand the phe¬
nomenon of Pekhorka's vitality, keeping in mind that dur¬
ing the crises the secondary part of the settling structure
(so-called "crown") gets wrecked especially quickly,
while its central part (so-called "stems" and "roots")
retains viability, getting its strength from the periphery.
Consequently, the regeneration of the Pekhorka economic
and household structures might have begun during the
first decades after the year
1238;
back then the yards,
tilled areas and meadows were not completely wiped out,
and certain territory development traditions were still
alive. In contrast, the Vorya area was repopulated some¬
what later, when the forsaken tillage lands and meadows
had grown woods; as for the new territory developmental
techniques, applied to the abandoned yards, they would be
neither very promising nor tempting. The peripheral posi¬
tion of Vorya in the princedom settling structure explains
the depth of demographic and economic crises the land
experienced in the 13th century, as well as the violence of
the "cultural shock" it felt.
The development of beekeeping craft, which meant
quick returns on investments and relatively low expenses,
made possible the economic growth of the Meshchera set¬
tlements (which were close to Moscow) in the second half
of the 13th-! 4th centuries. In all likelihood, the profits fur¬
thered development of other kinds of husbandry (includ¬
ing tillage on the hard loam soils), which really prospered
in the 14th century. At about the same time other prince¬
doms of the Norto-eastern Russia (See: the Tver birchbark
charter No
5
of the years
1310-1320,
the chronicle of the
year
1302)
also experience the rise of apiculture. One can
speak of the second revival of the craft economy in Russia
in the 2nd half of the
13*-14Љ
centuries (the first was
brought about by furriery), which helped launch pione¬
ering.
Dealing with the H*-^"1 centuries, our micro-
regional archeological, and historical and geographical
research took in account the analysis of the land acts, tes¬
taments and contract charters of the Moscow princes, and
the genealogy of the
boyars'
families, which were con¬
cerned with the prince's household management. Such
comparison made it possible to shed new light upon such
phenomenon of the early Moscow history as the existence
of the Moscow princes' realm [or 'domains'] located
within the Moscow 'town walls'. These 'walls' enclosed
the area within a radius of
40-50
km from Moscow, there¬
by marking the joint property of the members of the
dynasty founded by Daniil Alexandrovich of Moscow
(1271-1303).
It turned out that the central part of the domain con¬
sisted of the large pieces of land, each of
a sectorial
shape
and home for one to three
'stans'
(small administrative
divisions in Russia). These sectors of land widened as
they stretched away from the walls of the Grand Prince's
Moscow. Similar land division, when two sectors of a
land
curele
positioned opposite each other constituted one
'share' of the prince's land, was registered near the towns
of Volok Lamsky and Yuryev-Polsky. Near Moscow,
however, by the year
1336
four sectors of prince's land
already existed, which is more than in Volok Lamsky or
in Yuryev-Polsky.
These sectors repeated the natural divisions in the
landscapes, and within these zones there formed different
types of nature management. Tillage was practiced on the
moraine elevations south of Moscow (Sosensky,
Chermnev and Ratuyev
'stans').
Farming and horse
breeding ['horse breeding way'] supervised by 'yasel-
nichiye' [i.e. "equerries"] prospered in the valley of the
Moskva-river: in the princes' villages on the river below
and above Moscow. Apiculture estates
['bortnitsi'] super-
vized by a 'chashnik' [i.e. "bowl-man"] were east of
Moscow in the Meshchera lowland (Vasiltsev, Pekhorsky,
Koshelev, Doblinsky
'stans').
The grounds for different
kinds of hunt
-
falconry (the territory called the "falconry
way", supervised by the 'sokolnichiy' [i.e. "falconer"]);
bear-, wolf-, and fox hunt (the territory called 'pole');
game birds shooting (the territory called 'perevesye');
beaver hunt (the territory called 'bobrovnik')
-
in one
piece called 'Lovchi Put' [i.e. the "Hunting Way"] was
supervised by the 'lovchiy' ("Huntsman") and was locat¬
ed in the area of the Yauza swamplands [the Yauza
'mytishche'] and other areas.
On the evidence of the charters, which reflect the
specifics of the way the princes managed their domains
under Dmitri Donskoy, Vasily
Temny
and Ivan
Ш,
it
became possible to anatomize the princes' economy, to
examine it at the levels of social structures, nature-man¬
agement forms, and household phenomena in their
dynamics.
Thus, localization of the "apiculture allotment" as
described in the Dmitri Donskoy's exchange charter
(1381-1382)
in the area of Medvezhyi Ozera ("Bear
Lakes") let us to reconstruct the peripheral part
(3
thou¬
sand 'dessiatinas') of the Pekhorka apiculture volost
(8.8
thousand 'dessiatinas'). Prior to their being attached
to a monastery, the wild-hive beekeepers had multiple
duties: besides their labor-rent (consisted of honey and
bee-wax) they paid tribute, provided the prince's messen¬
gers with horses, built fortifications, mowed grass on the
prince's meadows; that is they performed the duties typi¬
cal of the "serving population". And they went to the
Grand Prince's aldermen, 'Chashnik' (i.e. the "bowl
man") and to Head of their 'volost' for the law.
The apiculture villages were identified as a group of
ancient settlements dating from the 14th century and con¬
taining grey ceramics. This identification allowed us to
pinpoint the archeological signs of early apicultural devel¬
opment in the Meshchera lands: the loose network of sin¬
gle settlements, consisting of
1-3
homesteads (approx. at
2
km intervals), which appeared under various topograph¬
ic conditions, including the territories not suitable for
agriculture. The dwellers of such a settlement could main¬
tain approximately
200
'dessiatinas' of an apicultural
farm
['uhozhy'].
According to the exchange charter, the
wild hives were supervized by the 'uzhniki'
-
the
hirelings, who presumably came from the central part of
the Pekhorka 'volost'. The latter, as the archeological data
suggest, was a group of small settlements around the vil¬
lage of Pekhra. This group of settlement formed in the
second hah? of the 13th century simultaneously with the
appearance of the settlement in the village of Pekhra.
Judging by the landscape specifics, the apiculture in the
center of the 'volost' in the 14th century was combined
with agriculture, and existed in pure form at the periphery.
Studying of the southern part of the Vasiltsev
'stan'
has showed that the similar settling and household pattern
with central cluster of settlements (two villages named
Kolomenskoye on the river Grayvoronovka) and craft
singe settlements (settlement
Annino
at the upper river
Golyadanka) formed in the second third of the
ІЗ"1
centu¬
ry. This ecologically stable system of nature management
in the near-Moscow Meshchera was most likely to pros¬
per in the
2nd
half of the
1
3th-! 4th centuries.
The land charters of the last quarter of the
14*-15љ
centuries mention the existence of the "serving" and
"volost" organizations of peasants, as well as the lands of
the
"ministeriais"
on the territories of the prince's near-
town
'stans'.
Settlement groups, identified as the lands of
the serving and 'volost' (that is, residential) population,
judging by the archeological data, appeared in the 2nd half
of the 13th
—
1st half of the 14th century. It appears that in
this period economic stability of the Moscow princes
depended on exploiting of the "serving population" who
paid considerable duties.
Examination of the cultural landscapes of the
Moscow neighborhood allowed a look into the era that
preceded the vast expansion of the
boyar landholding
(the
2nd half of the 14th century) and reconstructing the eco¬
nomic and social forms, which made possible the devel¬
opment of the economics in the Moscow princedom under
Daniil Alexandrovich (c.
1271 -
March
5, 1303),
Yuri Danilovich
(1303 -
November
21, 1325)
and
Ivan Danilovich Kalita
(1325-1340).
Patrimonial landowning that developed in the town
camps in the 2nd half of the 14th—15th centuries, concen¬
trated mainly at the outskirts of some
'stans'
and outside
the described territories (northern part of the Goretov
'stan',
the Vezhetsky
'stan'
north of Moscow, the Bokhov
'stan'
on the Klyazma river, and the Zhdansky
'stan'
on
the lower Klyazma). These patrimonial estates reached
2-
3
thousand 'dessiatinas' in size (e.g. the estates belonging
to the Kvashninys and Byakontovy-Pleshcheevy in the
Goretov
'stan';
to the Velyaminovys in the Vezhetsky
'stan';
to the Dobrynskys in the Bokhov
'stan';
to the
Kolychevs in the Zhdansky
'stan',
etc.).
In the
'stans'
where most of the territory was the
princes', the patrimonial landowning was underdeveloped
and had some specific features. So, near 'perevesye', bor¬
dering on the Pekhorka, Bokhov, and Koshelev
'stans',
the small village of Revyakinskaya was situated. It was
property of Dmitri Donskoy's
boyar
Dmitri
Minin
who
died in
1368
and left it to his son and grandson (they
owned it until the 1430's). Appearance of this estate
among the lands of the apiculture 'volost' may be con¬
nected with the fact that the Minins traditionally held the
offices of the so-called
'putny
boyars'
(such as 'lovchy',
etc.) and, perhaps, were responsible for putting game on
the Prince's table. Minins' patrimonies on tillage lands
were located in the Kolomna and Zvenigorod 'uyezds'
(i.e. "districts").
Micro-regional investigations show that when in
1373
Prince Dmitri Ivanovich cancelled the 'tysyatsky'
office [a 'tysyatsky' used to be in charge of a thousand
warriors] and created a new management system with the
Moscow deputies in charge of the 'treti' (i.e. "one-
third's") of Moscow and other town
'stans',
these changes
did not affect the domains close to the Moscow town
walls. The domain makeup, described above, remained
the same, and the Velyaminovs kept dispatching some of
the managerial functions. Since the patrimonial lands
were, as a rule, part of the adjacent lands, their develop¬
ment in the second half of the 14th century did not infringe
upon or reduce in any way the Moscow princes' domains.
The
Šimonov
monastery, founded
с
1377,
was given
big estates at the expense of the Grand Prince's 'chash-
nich put' (villages Korovnichye and on Prerva, on
Kolomenka, Grayvoronovo in the Vasiltsev
'stan',
the
lands on the Medvezhyi Ozera in the Pekhorka
'stan').
Under Vasily II the Nikolo-Ugreshsky monastery
received lands (the Kapotenka
'stan').
Such generous gifts
can be explained only by the fact that the Grand Prince's
monasteries played a considerable role in the Church pol¬
itics of Moscow.
The shift in structure of the near-Moscow domain
finally occurred under Ivan
ΙΠ
and under Vasily
Ш.
This
shift in structure happened alongside with the expansion
of tillage territories and with unsettling of the archaic
nature management system, which used to serve as an
economic base for the Grand Prince's domain. Tension
caused by these processes is revealed by the trial materi¬
als (years
1464-1470),
during which the Prince's Butler
Bureau attempted to take the
Šimonov
monastery lands on
Medvezhye Ozero and give them back to the Pekhorka
'volost'.
During this period, the old crafts and trades, which
depended on the vastness of territories, were diminishing
and going out of date. Many of the hunting and other
grounds were tilled; they became property of the
"ministeri¬
ais"
and got the status of patrimonies and later, the status of
estates. The rest of the princes' lands became the court lands
with the newly built princes' mansions, which have been
archeologically marked (the Krylatskoye and Taninskoye
residences, and the Kolomenskoye architectural ensemble).
As one can see, recreation of settling, nature man¬
agement, cultural and economic patterns, checked against
the data from the Acts, substantially increases our under¬
standing of the early Moscow society. And all this is far
from being a limit of what the investigation of a cultural
landscape can yield.
The cultural landscapes, which reflect both work of
nature and that of human thought and labor, speak vol¬
umes about the people's environmental concerns, their
economic and social way of life, their mindset. Keeping
that in mind, we have attempted to approach cultural land¬
scapes by turning to the oral tradition of the
19*-20ш
cen¬
turies. Examination of the territory to the northeast of
Moscow showed that the peasants of very old settlements
still remember the names of the formerly affiliated
grounds. It was established that some of these grounds had
replaced the ^ft-lo^-centuries settlements abandoned
during the Time of Troubles. Even nowadays, in the
beginning of the 21st century, the old residents of the
Medvezhyi Ozera neighborhood make frequent use of
micro-toponyms, which derive from the names of the set¬
tlements mentioned in the Exchange charter of
Dmitri Donskoy in
1381-1382,
such as the Zhizhlevskoye
field, the Revyakino place, the village of Chudnitsa.
Linguistic enquiry showed that the names of forests
and roads, fields and meadows of this or that settlement
are far from being accidental; all of them are part of a
micro-toponymic system, which helped settlers find their
way in the area surrounding the settlement. This has at
least two implications: first, to correctly interpret
toponyms, one has to consider the landscape in its entity;
second, the micro-toponymic systems of the Russian
medieval period were informed by the original vision of
space and habitat, typical of the medieval people.
The settling-down habits and the ways of landscape
thinking, partially retained by the old residents, are
reflected not only in the toponymy, but they also found
their way into evaluative judgments of the interviewed
representative sample and are reflected in some forms of
speech, which were recorded on tape (the scripts are print¬
ed in this study). Such texts cannot be overestimated as a
source for the studies in historical anthropology.
The investigation performed in this manner and devot¬
ed to such sacral landscapes as graveyards and burials pro¬
duced unexpected results. The Orthodox Christian grave¬
yards, as the old residents who lived to see the 20th century
explained, were hallowed by the bodies of the righteous
people and preserved their sanctity while the dead contin¬
ued to be commemorated and while the people who had
buried there their kin still lived. After such a place is desert¬
ed (as it happened during the Time of Troubles in the begin¬
ning of the 17th century) and the new population arrives, the
forsaken Orthodox 'kladbischa' ["graveyards" or "cemeter¬
ies"] loose their sanctity and get the name of 'mogilniki'
["burials" and "barrows"]. All new graves (and by exten¬
sion, graveyards) were sanctified anew, no matter whether
they were located in a new or old necropolis. The rite of
sanctifying turned the place of burial into an Orthodox
Christian spot, where a certain community (a village,
parish, etc.) remembered their dead, their "parents" (that is,
their ancestors). A 'mogilnik' was a fundamentally different
place: a place of burial of the forgotten forbearers where
people paid their respects to the "not-remembered parents".
There were also the places serving as the last abode of the
so-called 'zalozhennye pokoiniki' ["removed deceased",
i.e. the dead who were duried outside churchyard, such as
suicides].
This investigation brings to light some previously
unknown intellectual habits in early Moscow community
and detects anthropocentrism in the Old Moscow
Orthodox tradition. It was a human being leading right¬
eous life, created in God's likeness and capable of accept¬
ing the Savior's gift of Grace, who used to be the real cen¬
ter of the sacral spaces (graveyards, temples etc.) and the
bearer of the living sacred feelings (e.g., of the metaphys¬
ical topography actualized in the real life setting). At the
same time, when creating sacred spaces, people were not
absolutely free from the conventions inherent in the hier¬
archically organized cultural space; they were required to
recognize the sacral loci in the natural landscape.
We believe that this research considerably enlarges
the source base, explains the phenomenon of the cultural
landscape, and breaks ground (often by setting up a series
of problems) for further investigation. This study also
shows that the whole strata of cultural landscapes still
wait to be explored.
Landscape archeology can prove useful in many prom¬
ising fields of present-day research; we can name among
such the study of archeological memorials and ancient
riverbeds in flood-plains under the strata of alluvium (geo-
alluvial archeology), palynological analysis of the samples
taken from deposits, which reflect various types of sedimen¬
tation in one and the same area. A large body of knowledge
is yet to be built up around our systematic hypotheses.
This three-volume publication offers a system of
hypotheses supported by the yet delicate webbing of facts,
which calls for further research, such as excavations in the
places of ancient settlements and economic zones of the
1
1th—13th and
14*-16гІ1
centuries (tillage homesteads,
homesteads of beekeepers, beaver-hunters, kennelmen,
metallurgists, potters and others), reflecting various eco¬
nomic and cultural patterns and documented in the written
form. Such investigations can give plenty of new material
for understanding of multifarious forms of householding
and husbandry. They will allow us to understand the alter¬
ing dynamics of the economy in the Moscow-centered
Russia at various stages of its history, as well as the adap¬
tation of rural population to certain environmental condi¬
tions and actual levels of their consumption and civiliza¬
tion.
Of no small importance are integrated archeological
and anthropological researches of the B^H^-century
burials (both rural graveyards and necropolises of the
noble in monasteries), which would shed light on the bio¬
logical adaptation of people to their habitat and ways of
living. It is noteworthy that such specific studies can yield
the more adequate and verifiable results when undertaken
with particular reference to the micro-regions, which have
been already explored.
Thus we have showed that micro-regional investi¬
gations are really promising. By such micro-regions we
mean the territories of the ancient 'volosts' and
'stans',
which were substantiated by acts, cartographic and
micro-toponymic documents, excavated and dated
archeological findings and elements of the geo-land-
scape. These historical territories may serve as focal
points for integrated studies of economy strategies, nat¬
ural and cultural adaptation of population, and of socie¬
ty formation mechanisms.
Today, the number of such sites increases. Among
the investigated micro-regions of the medieval Russia are
the Volokoslavinskaya and other 'volosts' of the
Belozerye area; the Suzdal neighborhood; the 'volost' of
Zhabna; the graveyards at
Luga,
Msta
and the Novgorod
land; the Radonezh estate; the
'stans'
of Volok Lamsky;
the Kinelsky
'stan'
of the Pereyaslavl 'uyezd'; the
'volosts' on the upper Don and in Chervleny Yar near the
city of Voronezh. This list is far from being complete, and
it continually is being augmented.
The significance of having such "digs" or "windows"
into the past has its rationale. We can relate to these
micro-regions, thanks to the retrospective investigation of
available relevant written data and archeological research¬
es: we are not hampered by any sufficient deficiency of
sources on these micro-regions dating back to the turn of
the 14th century; after that period the land acts are lacking.
Besides, the surviving written documents reflecting the
everyday life of the Russian Middle Ages on the territo¬
ries in question are also available (even though this evi¬
dence is scant if compared to the richness of the existing
historical documents on the Western Europe), which can¬
not be said of other Russian regions. And the scantiness of
evidence, obviously, stands in the way of new discoveries
and approaches.
It is not just that cultural landscapes give unique
access to the historical past of Russia. These units of nat¬
ural environment, chiseled by human hand and spirit, are
enduring: they still resist change. These relic landscapes
are nothing but materialized culture of the past. Since cul¬
tural landscapes are part of traditional culture of the local
population (and in that respect they are developing land¬
scapes), they are also our heritage.
The investigation methods applied to landscapes here
help look into the complicated mechanisms that make the
cultural landscapes a stable element of natural environ¬
ment. This work also breaks the ground for studying the
mental component of the cultural landscapes, which
ensures their lasting influence on the human and commu¬
nal intellect. In other words, we are getting closer to see¬
ing cultural landscapes as constituent part of cultural
ecology.
Oddly enough, as the study progresses, the "history
vs. the present" dichotomy becomes less suitable for
accommodating the concept of a cultural landscape. The
cultural landscapes can be better understood in terms of
the continuously updated life style of the ever-changing
human communities. At the same time, cultural land¬
scapes help preserve certain historic, ethnic, religious, etc.
elements responsible for retaining the communal identity.
Similarly, even though a person in the course if his or her
life suffers changes in body tissues, we still recognize this
person even after a long period of separation. Likewise,
the continuity in cultural landscapes goes deeper than
their cultural and stylistic make-up. In the future, basing
on the landscape research, it might become possible to
define the internal principals of self-organization, charac¬
teristic of the generally human and the specifically com¬
munal.
As our knowledge of the cultural landscapes grows,
as we get to perceive such landscapes as the unique link to
our past and the stabilizing factor in our culture and ecol¬
ogy, it gets more obvious that the principals of proper
management, protection, and wise use of natural resources
should be enforced. That is why creation of efficient
mechanisms for cultural landscape conservation is a pri¬
ority on the scholars' agenda.
569 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author_GND | (DE-588)136328466 |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV021511034 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)645280322 (DE-599)BVBBV021511034 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01486nam a2200325 cc4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV021511034</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20080214 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">060315s2005 abd| |||| 00||| rus d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5020102385</subfield><subfield code="9">5-02-010238-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)645280322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV021511034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-473</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy</subfield><subfield code="b">istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach</subfield><subfield code="n">3</subfield><subfield code="p">Mentalʹnyj landšaft, Moskovskie sela i slobody</subfield><subfield code="c">[redkollegija: L. A. Beljaev ...]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Moskva</subfield><subfield code="b">Nauka</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">569 S., [8] Bl.</subfield><subfield code="b">zahlr. Ill. und Kt., graph. Darst.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Beljaev, Leonid Andreevič</subfield><subfield code="d">1948-</subfield><subfield code="e">Sonstige</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)136328466</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV020828137</subfield><subfield code="g">3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014727656</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">471</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV021511034 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T14:18:49Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T20:37:28Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 5020102385 |
| language | Russian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-014727656 |
| oclc_num | 645280322 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-12 |
| physical | 569 S., [8] Bl. zahlr. Ill. und Kt., graph. Darst. |
| publishDate | 2005 |
| publishDateSearch | 2005 |
| publishDateSort | 2005 |
| publisher | Nauka |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach 3 Mentalʹnyj landšaft, Moskovskie sela i slobody [redkollegija: L. A. Beljaev ...] Moskva Nauka 2005 569 S., [8] Bl. zahlr. Ill. und Kt., graph. Darst. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Beljaev, Leonid Andreevič 1948- Sonstige (DE-588)136328466 oth (DE-604)BV020828137 3 Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach |
| title | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach |
| title_auth | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach |
| title_exact_search | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach |
| title_full | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach 3 Mentalʹnyj landšaft, Moskovskie sela i slobody [redkollegija: L. A. Beljaev ...] |
| title_fullStr | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach 3 Mentalʹnyj landšaft, Moskovskie sela i slobody [redkollegija: L. A. Beljaev ...] |
| title_full_unstemmed | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach 3 Mentalʹnyj landšaft, Moskovskie sela i slobody [redkollegija: L. A. Beljaev ...] |
| title_short | Kulʹtura srednevekovoj Moskvy |
| title_sort | kulʹtura srednevekovoj moskvy istoriceskie landsafty v trech tomach mentalʹnyj landsaft moskovskie sela i slobody |
| title_sub | istoričeskie landšafty ; v trech tomach |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=014727656&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV020828137 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT beljaevleonidandreevic kulʹturasrednevekovojmoskvyistoriceskielandsaftyvtrechtomach3 |