Published in Russian: Çàãðàåâñêèé Ñ.Â. Çîä÷åñòâî Ñåâåðî-Âîñòî÷íîé Ðóñè êîíöà XIII–ïåðâîé òðåòè XIV âåêà. Ì.: Àëåâ-Â, 2003. ISBN 5-94025-046-7
The book formed the basis for a dissertation for the degree of Ph. D. in Architecture, specialty 18.00.01 ("Theory and history of architecture, restoration and reconstruction of historical and architectural heritage ")
The epoch of Daniil of
The following text was translated from Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been edited.
So it can be used only for general introduction.
Considering the architecture of the Moscow Principality era Daniil Alexandrovich (1276-1303), Yuri Danilovich (1303-1325) and Ivan Kalita (1325-1340), we first have to access the results of archaeological research of the assumption Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin, conducted by V. Fedorov and NS shelyapinoy in 1960-1970-s.
VI Fedorov argued that the excavations have
revealed the assumption Cathedral Myshkin and 1472-1474 years, the assumption
Cathedral 1326-1327 years and the
Fig. 22. The plans of
"1326-1327 years" (incorrectly reconstructed V. Fedorov). Thin contour;
- Cathedral 1472-1474 years. A dotted outline;
- Cathedral 1475-1479 years. Bold outline.
Numbers and shading
VP Vygolov believed that masonry adopted V. Fedorov for the remains of the Cathedral 1326-1327 years, actually belongs to Krivtsov chapel, added in 1459 to the 1326-1327 period170. Researcher rightly argued inability presence in 1326-1327 period plinfyanogo floor, a fragment of which was discovered V. Fedorov171because at this time plinfa in the Moscow Principality was made. Not typical for the early post-Mongolian architecture and piles-the hand is the shorties under the Foundation, discovered V. Fedorov in the excavation attributable to 1326-1327 period172.
In this regard, the General picture
reconstruction presented in Fig. 22, is shifted. After Vpolicy173 we
have every reason to believe that the fragments attributed V. Fedorov to
"the temple of the end of XIII century" (hypothetical "
Fig. 23. Zoomorphic console XVII century, classified Vagner to the XIV century.
And the results of the excavation wall brickwork attributable to "the temple of the end of XIII century, VI Fedorov summarized as follows:
"...Discovered the following fragments of
masonry under the Central part of the existing assumption Cathedral: 1) the
bottom of the post (h cm) of white-stone blocks with a peculiar canted (but not
the header) treatment with an adze; it without Foundation piles of small
cobblestone yellow-gray izvestkovo-sandy solution... 2) to the South pole
preserved part of the wall, executed in the same technique as the
Fig. 24. The plans of
The conclusion that "the temple of the end of the XIII century, the plan is shown on Fig. 22, and is the first Cathedral of the assumption, and the great temple, reconstructed V. Fedorov as 1326-1327 years, never existed, supported by historical motivational model.
H. Wagner, assuming after V. Fedorov
comparability size of cathedrals 1326-1327 and 1472-1474 years (the internal
space of about
In pre-Mongol Russia we have not seen a strong relation between the status of the Cathedral and its dimensions - for example, in Galicia, Przemysl, Turov, Belgorod and small southern Russian towns, St. George and Proske were diocese181 but the big six cupolas of the cathedrals was not. In total, fifteen dioceses great cathedrals had six. But the relationship between the size of the city and the city's main Cathedral was straight (only a limited capacity builders).
Consequently, it is unlikely moved to Moscow in early 1320-s Metropolitan Peter (de jure he was transferred to the Department in 1325, de%182), not considered for themselves humiliating to last for several years in a wooden Church, insisted that the first183 the white-stone Church, built inexperienced Moscow builders, was comparable in size to the Vladimir and Rostov cathedrals. In addition, the low reliability of the latter was already known184.
VP Vygolov, noting that "the desire to hyperbolicity dimensions of early Moscow cathedrals of Ivan Kalita, especially the assumption that looks obviously far-fetched and little resemblance to reality"185, gave reasons associated with economic opportunities of Moscow, and also with the fact that in the case of large sizes 1326-1327 period by the architect of the Cathedral 1472-1474 years it would not have to take as a model the "great and high Church" Vladimir assumption Cathedral186.
All this leads us to accept the view, K. Romanov and N. Voronin about the approximate with the%187 and consider the position of these researchers (which was shared by the author of this book188 additional confirmation of the fact that "the temple of the end of XIII century"opened V. Fedorov and NS shelyapinoy, and there is the Cathedral of the assumption 1326-1327 years.
In 2003 the author of this book with the kind assistance of TD Panova had the opportunity to see two excavations Fedorov and NS shelyapinoy.
Examination of the North-West of the site (Fig.
22 marked with the letter "A") has fully confirmed the assignment
found the remnants of a pillar (the photo of the author, see Fig. 25) to
In the South-Eastern excavation (Fig. 22 marked
with the letter "B") VI Fedorov and NS shelyapina revealed the
remnants of the white-stone cladding. Probably, it belonged to the Eastern wall
of the South porch of the
Fig. 25. The basis of the North-Western pillar of the assumption Cathedral 1326-1327 years.
Fig. 26. The inner corner of the Northern wall of the Western porch, and the Western wall of the assumption Cathedral 1326-1327 years (from left later whitewashed brick walls).
During the investigation of these excavations the
author of this book examined the orientation of the cardinal all segments of
the Cathedral Kalita, disclosed V. Fedorov and NS shelyapinoy. All details are
available in order to approve the plan of the
Therefore, we may safely assume that shown in Fig. 22 the reconstruction of the location and plan of the temple, which VI Fedorov was attributed to the late thirteenth century189is adequate reconstruction of the location and plan of the assumption Cathedral 1326-1327 years.
And now you can take another look at Fig. 25, 26 and 27. It is seen that the "semifinished" processing and the size of the white stone blocks, masonry walls and pillars of the assumption Cathedral 1326-1327 years is almost identical to the wall masonry St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamenskoye (Fig. 4) given the fact that the latter were subjected to weathering 500 years longer. In the land of white stone still significantly better than the air - these are the properties of limestone, in natural conditions, lying deep under the ground.
In the Church of John the Baptist in the Settlement clutch less accurate, larger joints, but its General nature of semifinished "processing is the same as in St. Nicholas Church and the assumption Cathedral Kalita.
It should also be noted that in the foundations of the Cathedral Myshkin and Krivtsov V. Fedorov and NS shelyapinoy was disclosed well-treated white stone detail in the secondary use the%
The same imposts we see on the portals of the St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye.
Fig. 28. Impost portal assumption Cathedral 1326-1327 years in the secondary use.
Let us turn to the information we have about other churches of the first third of the XIV century in the Moscow Kremlin.
In the early 1990-ies VV kavelmaheru and TD
Panova UDA190. Then, uncovered, superficially examined and
photographed the remains of the white stone building octagonal shape (Fig. 29).
Researchers have shown that these remains belonged to the first bell
Fig. 29. Remains of a Church-bell of St. John Climacus. Photo 1913.
Found clutches could not belong to the Foundation of wooden belfry, or even be a casting pit under the bell. There are a number of reasons:
- first, so powerful, yet polubutovye, foundations for the wooden belfry nobody would strike did not;
- secondly, the casting pit under the bell could not be octagonal shape;
- thirdly, octagon had angled blade (Fig. 29).
What Church-belfry 1329 was dismantled in 1505, without waiting for the construction of a new bell tower of Ivan the Great), despite the fact that it has detected an octagon was in the centre of the Cathedral square and new construction does not interfere, is easily explained: in connection with the enormous stresses resulting from the buildup of large okopnik bells192, octagon 1329 could at the beginning of the XVI century to come to the state of emergency or even collapse. In connection with these "force majeure" and began construction near the bell tower of Ivan the Great, which was moved to the throne of the ladder.
And the lower part of the old octagon could be used for a long time: at this place until the XVII century there was "a tract under the bells"193, and a wooden belfry on this site, shown under the item. 25 on the famous plan of the Moscow Kremlin ("Kremlinand") XVI and XVII centuries (Fig. 30), could be erected on the remnants of the Church 1329.
Fig. 30. "Kremlingaz". Fragment.
Thus, we must fully agree with V. kavelmaherom
and TD Panova that found in 1913 polubutovaya clutch octagonal shape belongs to
About masonry walls octagon researchers wrote: "It is rough, the faces of the blocks and the front surface "crumpled", fitting joints is not perfection, "bed" processed slowly and do not have the characteristic undercut, - in other words, the laying was conducted on the dense solution, not "fill", as in the famous monuments of Moscow and Zvenigorod the end of the XIV-the first quarter of the XV %194 (Fig. 31).
Fig. 31. Laying the Church-belfry of St. John Climacus. Fragment of the picture of 1913.
Such masonry walls of the building 1329 allowed to spend a completely reasonable Parallels with St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye and the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Gorodnya Tver region - the latter researchers also dated XIV century195.
About the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Gorodnya we will have the opportunity to talk in chief 3 and now, from opening Kavelmahera and TD Panova to the observation made by the author of this book in relation to the fragments of the wall masonry stored in the Lapidarium of the Moscow Kremlin196 and with a high degree of probability attributable to the Cathedral of our Saviour on the Bor.
Fragments of a vegetative ornament of the XIV century, found at dismantling of the temple in 1932-1933, been the subject of many publications and scientific discussions197 and, apparently, has diverted the attention of researchers found that same wall blocks built in 1330.
Facing the size of these blocks is on average 30
Fig. 32. Wall unit Cathedral of our Saviour on the Bor.
In the brochure "Of the early post-Mongolian architecture of North-Eastern Russia" on the basis of studies of the Church of John the Baptist in the Settlement, the Nikolskaya Church in Kamensky and the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Gorodnya the author expressed the hypothesis that the temples of Ivan Kalita were built in typical style, combining the rough-treated wall masonry with well-treated parts198. Introduction to the excavations under the assumption Cathedral and fragments of Lapidarium of the Moscow Kremlin confirmed this hypothesis.
Another archaeological discovery that could shed light on the "dark times" - the end of the XIII-the first third of the XIV century - was made in 1978-1983 V. kavelmaherom, who together with You and Sporovsky archaeological research in the Kolomna Kremlin. Researchers have found a "third" use (in the continental laying the foundations of the assumption Cathedral XVII in theSince the Foundation laying of the Cathedral of the XVII century was raw stone, almost every one laid on the clay blocks, preserved bedding mortar.
About the first fragment - walling the block where the well preserved ornament - Kavelmaher wrote: "Judging from roughly processed faces of stone, rough edges and "Matin" surfaces, laying was performed without priceski and fitting blocks of dense solution and a wide seams"199.
The second segment was represented by a fragment of the cap is somewhat reminiscent of Gothic "Sapozhok the%200. Pictures of these fragments in situ in the "third" use201 see Fig. 33, 34 and 35.
Fig. 33. The foundations of the Dormition Cathedral in Kolomna (excavations under the direction Kavelmahera). In the bottom row visible piece of the cap in the "third" use.
Fig. 34. Ornamental block of Kolomna excavations under the direction of Kavelmahera.
Fig. 35. Fragment of the cap from the Kolomna excavations under the direction Kavelmahera.
Kavelmaher also noted that the excavation of the foundations of the Cathedral of Dmitry Donskoy, made in 1969 MH aleshkovskii and BL Altshuller, was seen white-stone window lintels and a number of other blocks, as in "third" use202.
A conclusion from the study rests of a solution
in this footage was made following: they probably had to belong to the
building, built several decades (if not centuries earlier (Cathedral of the don
- SZ) and, probably, not masters of
The assertion that these remains belonged to the building, built several decades until the Cathedral of the don, is confirmed by the fact that they are visibly weathering and repeated whitewash204 - therefore they spent a long time in the open air.
Later in the same report Kavelmaher noted the
proximity of the way of processing fragments found, respectively, to the wall
masonry and architectural decoration "Gorodische" Church. The
researcher concluded that the same style of work of craftsmen who built a
stone Church in Kolomna Kremlin (preceded the
Eventually CENTURIES is%205 (that is, not before 1280-ies) and not later than the middle of the XIV century206.
So, according to archeology we are the Church of
John the Baptist in the Settlement and the St. Nicholas Church in the
And since, as we have shown in the main 1, no other convincing datings are not available, we may confidently believe: churches in Kamenskoye and Settlement was built not later than the first half of the XIV century.
We take this date as the most rigorous and will try to narrow down the method of historical and motivational model. Let's start with "Gorodische" Church.
In autumn 1300 Daniil Alexandrovich Moscow has
Kolomna was the most important border crossing in
But in 1303 Daniil Alexandrovich died, and in
1307 Yuri Danilovich has committed a serious political error executing Prince
Constantine Ryazan208. Yaroslav, son of
And now remember conclusion Kavelmahera (see item 4 of this Chapter) about the identity of the style of work of craftsmen who built the Church in Kolomna Kremlin prior to the Cathedral of Dmitry Donskoy, and "Gorodische" Church.
Hardly a "transition period"
(1301-1306) in Kolomna was conducted any stone construction. So if the temple
in the Kremlin and "Gorodische" Church was built 1300 years (inclusive),
they built more
The temple prior to the Cathedral of the don, was
in Kolomna Kremlin and the
On the basis of military-strategic
considerations, we see that there is no sense to build both churches together
(hence strengthen both the fortress) was not in
Of course, the "extra" fortifications
did not happen, but spending on strategically unnecessary serfdom construction on
the "other" side of the river (the military-strategic importance of
the rivers we discussed in paragraph 3 main 1)
Similar arguments apply against the stone
construction of the
Yes, and from sudden Horde attacks by
"field" the Kremlin was poorly protected -
We may conclude that the fortress Settlement with 1307 became a military-strategic alternative Kolomna Kremlin (on Settlement could be and yard Yuri Danilovich210). The lower the strategic status of this fortress - such as the strengthening of the Episcopal court - is unlikely: it is too powerful shafts.
Apparently, his exceptional is the site of
ancient Settlement remained until the time of the don, when the Kremlin with
Thus, the most preferred option of Dating Kolomna temples is the following: the Church in the Kremlin prior to the Cathedral of the don, and the Church on the site was built with a small time interval, allowing a single style of the masters (maximum of ten to fifteen years), but the first - not later than 1300 years, and the second - not earlier 1307. The temple in the Kremlin p%
The dedication of the altar of the Church in Kolomna Kremlin prior to the Cathedral of the don, we do not know. But it is unlikely he was the assumption: a dedication to a more consistent status of the Cathedral, and in Kolomna during its membership of the Ryazan Principality diocese, of course, could not be.
We will try to determine more precise Dating of "Gorodische" Church. This will help us an incorrect split of its plan (Fig. 6), speaking first of all about the fact that the Church of John the Baptist is a typical "fortress" Church ("fortress" we will call the temples, erected simultaneously with the construction of fortifications, and was in case of emergency to play the role of "chief towers").
In the early XXI century, when most researchers
quite rightly seeks to highlight the liturgical function of temples, version on
the role of churches as a potential "main towers of fortresses may seem
like a relic of Soviet times. But, first, we are in any case not going to
consider the potential fortification function "Krepost the%Recall and
translate the XV century Jewish war" Josephus: "the Church Bo castle
was the castle itself, aka Detinets"211. And in the
Of course, no serious assault, no Church did not survive - in the end, the attacker could take a battering RAM and knock the door. Or arrange around the temple wood, set fire to it and strangle defending smoke. But the basics of martial arts suggests that the construction of the fortress must not neglect any opportunity to strengthen:
- first, it is theoretically possible that hold a few extra hours - then wait for reinforcements;
- secondly, the presence of the fortress at least a symbolic citadel need for diplomatic reasons. During the capture of the city walls enemy head of defense is unable to negotiate with the rushing crowds of enemy soldiers, so he shut himself up in the citadel and until the enemy is preparing for its assault has time to negotiate an honorable surrender;
- fourth, if the capture of an enemy border fortresses protecting the citadel "to the last" allow the defender to inflict a lot more damage and therefore complicate it further promotion deep into the country.
And since in the vast majority of ancient fortresses no other strongholds was not, then the princes and magistrates were obliged to provide and resistance in the temples. And the priests in any case, this did not prevent - remember the heroic defense of Nicholas uleyminskogo monastery near Uglich, during the Polish-Lithuanian intervention in the early XVII century. Monastery tradition, which has no grounds not to trust, says that after taking the poles of the outer fortifications of the monks continued to fight in the Cathedral, and then besieging did the digging and damaged the foundations, after which the temple collapsed. From this we can draw the following conclusions:
- in the Cathedral were prepared large stocks of food and water - otherwise there would be besieged could not hold out for a few weeks, while the poles were digging. Consequently, the protection of "the main tower" was planned in advance;
- fire from the Windows of the Cathedral was so effective that the poles failed to knock out the door, nor impose a temple with wood, and they were forced to spend the time and effort to maintain the tunnel.
In this regard, it is highly likely that the reels "fortress" temples were built (or were held during the siege), wooden platforms for archers, which could climb the ladder. In any case, in churches Kamensky, Gorodnya and Mozhaisk (as in many other Russian "serfs" temples of XI-XV centuries), under the dome was a rectangular mouth is
Note that shoot out the Windows of the drum
zakomaras practically do not interfere. For example, in the "serfs"
temples of scale Nikolskaya and "Gorodische" churches "dead
zone" in a hypothetical shooting from the Windows of the drum is less than
In the light of all said about
"fortress" temples seems likely that Yuri Danilovich began hastily to
strengthen the Settlement immediately after loss of Ryazan - in 1307, and at
the same time (most likely, "capturing" in the care of Ryazan
considerable financial resources), he began to build "Gorodische"
Church. A similar situation occurred in pre-Mongol times: in 1152 funds
"captured" by Yuri Dolgoruky in the care of
The construction of fortifications usually done as quickly as possible, because in that time the fortress vulnerable to a potential enemy. We can with certainty say that in the beginning of XIV century just as hastily erected and "serfs" temples. But haste, and nothing else - neither "poverty"or "malokvalifitsirovannostyu" builders - can be explained by indirect angles and non-parallel walls of temples, as neatly partition plan by virtue of any master. But only if he has enough time.
In addition to concerns about a "serf"
status "Gorodische" the Church we can lead and considerations of
the Grand prestige. In Kolomna Kremlin Ryazan once built a stone Church,
and it is likely that Yuri Danilovich made every effort in his own Kolomna
fortress was also a Church, built of stone. In the words BL Altshuller (said of
Consequently, we may assume that the most
probable date for the construction of the
And it is not surprising that the hastily built the Church of John the Baptist, despite the potentially strong design concept " pylon, after a hundred years has come215), then most likely the quadrangle and apse "Gorodische" the Church would have been shifted completely.
Look whether to confirm our vision of the
situation with "Gorodische" Church Dating St. Nicholas Church in the
The first argument relates Nicholas Church is not just the first half of the XIV century and to its beginning - the name of the settlement where it is located. This name is too subject to be random.
Generally speaking, in pre-Mongol, and in the post-Mongol North-Eastern Russia with names for new towns and villages were the problem - was active colonization of the region, and the imagination of the princes and their advisers were not enough. Variants of names was motivated not so much:
- "old Russian" (Vladimir, St. George,
- "gidronimicheskaya" (
- the names of the princes of Vladimir Yuriev -
in addition to "old Russian" motivation,
- natural features (Borovsk Berezuevsk, Hill, several Vyshgorod and others);
- economic features (Volokolamsk - in addition to "gidronimicheskaya" motivation, Medyn, TESEV, Kolchugino, Khotkovo, and others);
- any "special features" (Vereya, Kolomna, Teeth and other).
It was a lot of "anonymous" cities (the Settlement, Gorodets, Town, Gorodnya, Gorodesk and others). Unmotivated names were very few.
And because the village Kamenskoe first Anatoliy%D216 there probably were supposed to be any quarries, or stone temple. And long before 1325, since the title have emerged.
Most likely, in the beginning of XIV century near
Kamenetskym quarries were. Around there are huge deposits of white stone217.
Any shallow excavation in any of the nearby ravines rests in the top layer of
limestone. Stone covered the bottom Bunks, and a Warm stream, at the confluence
of which is situated in Nara Kamenskoe. On the opposite Bank of the Creek Warm
author excavated cluster of fragments of stone, like the quarry dump218.
Abandoned quarries are in the village Ryzhkov (
Having explored, but not developed deposits of white stone could hardly serve as motivation names Kamensky - practically in all the South-Western suburbs stone is not necessary to get information, they covered the bottom of all streams and rivers.
Therefore, it is likely that in the beginning of
XIV century in Kamenskoye or close to it were developed quarries. But
except for the construction of the Nikolskaya Church, of these quarries to
carry construction materials still had nowhere - white stone temples of Moscow
(as with almost all of the pre-Mongolian North-Eastern Russia) was built from a
much closer myachkovsky developments and near Kolomna, Serpukhov and Mozhaisk
had their outputs quality limestone220. And hardly someone would be
far to carry the stone for the
Hence, the presence in the beginning of XIV century in Kamenskoye quarries directly indicates the presence there at the same time and the stone Church.
Perhaps, we shouldn here to conduct a serious analysis of such very unlikely variants of motivation of the name of the village of Kamenka, as the presence of pre-Mongolian time in a wild forest region between Moscow and Kaluga estates any legendary or%
Perhaps ignoring researchers such an obvious
But in fact, it is hardly justified to call a
river that empties into Naru about Kamensky. This spring stream with a length
of not more than
But even assuming the unlikely case of primacy of the name of the river Kamenka (somehow renamed into Warm stream at a later time), it's a Slavic name suggests close by the river (respectively, and next to Kamensky) long before 1325 were quarry. It follows from this, as we have already shown, and the presence in the town of stone%2
Thus, we may date the St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye earlier in 1325.
And to offer a more precise Dating of the
As we saw in paragraph 3 main 1 regarding the Church in Kamenskoye this argument was not quite correctly applied BL Altshuller. But the incorrect use of "military-strategic" argument in no case can not be a ground to refuse from it.
We are talking not about the XVI century (and even more than about the later time), when the economy of Moscow Rus is so strong that stone cult building could be everywhere and almost regardless of wars, fires and morov. In XIII-XV centuries the construction of a small stone churches required a huge effort and mobilization of resources of the entire state, and there is no doubt that the princes had identified priority areas for funding and mobilization of the workforce, given the "military-strategic" argument (which includes and ideological impact on the subject of mobilization of the population, and propaganda influence on potential opponents).
This "military-strategic" reasoning helped us to clarify the date of the Church in the Settlement (see item 6 of this Chapter). Let's possible to apply it correctly to the temple in Kamenskoye.
To do this we have to analyze the
military-strategic situation in the South-Western outskirts of Moscow
Principality in the time when the border was the river Nara - from the second
half of the XIII century (the beginning of existence of the Principality of)
until the middle of the XIV century. And first of all it is necessary to
determine with whom at that time bordered on
First of all is the Smolensk Principality, whose
Smolensk Principality passed in with the224.
Therefore, in the beginning of XIV century Mozhaisk and Kolomna were important
fortresses on the border between the vassals of the Horde (respectively, from
But the stretch of the border South of the
Smolensk Principality (from the middle Bunks to its confluence with the eye)
had a much greater strategic value. Formally, this was only the border line
In pre-Mongol times the upper princedom was
located on the North-Eastern outskirts of the
From the mid-forties XIII century, this Prince
gradually withdraw from southern Russian lands under the control of the Horde,
including their sphere of influence in
And about Chernihiv, we know that in 1261, there
reigned-in-law, Cornflower,226. Most likely,
Was it in the second half of the XIII century
Chernigov Principality vassal of
Strengthening the Duchy of Lithuania began in the
middle of XIII century, and perhaps earlier. In 1245 Lithuanian troops attacked
Torzhok and Bezhetsk, but would the%227. In 1259
And in 1280-ies Lithuanians attacked the
The distance between
In the middle ages, the fortress as possible were
built so that at any point between the two garrisons could have time during the
day - both to "insure" against attempts to bypass enemy strongholds.
Therefore, the distance between the FORTS was to be no more than two days',
i.e. about 50-
So, more than stokilometrovy parcel of the
Moscow-Lithuanian border (i.e. the border between the two actual empires - the
But the important points South-Western border of
Another such "triangle"
Mozhaysk-Ruza-Zvenigorod - covered the Western border. From the nearest to the
capital points of these "triangles" - Przemysl and Zvenigorod to
Thus, at the end of the first half of XIII-XIV century on the%
When in the middle of the XIV century Muscovite-Lithuanian border was moved further to the South-West and the border river became Protva, in this defensive system the role of the outposts started to play Borovsk and Vereya, and is Kamensky, as we showed in paragraph 3 main 1, disappeared.
But, speaking of the first half of the XIV century, we can say with confidence: although in Kamenskoye not preserved ramparts, the settlement was properly secured (as rightly believed Altshuler231).
In Soviet times, Kamenskoe was "Central
manor farm. Padding the ravines, go to
Perhaps in the future will be able to organize in Kamenskoye archaeological investigations to search for the remnants of the shafts, and now only note that, unlike neighboring Ryzhkov (typical villages), Kamensk - typical settlement Cape type, and rolls over the cliffs to Nara and the Warm stream there could never be (and in most of these settlements232). However, the contours of the%
Then we can talk about the old Russian
However, the Kamenskoye as a town again, we can only speak in the broad sense of any of a fortified settlement, a large tenements there probably wasn't too uninhabited land was around. Most likely, Kamenskoe played primarily the role of the fortress, which had been the garrison and the "underlings", and the main "townsmen" people could live, for example, in the next Ryzhkov. However, exclude the possibility of finding a small tenements with the "floor" side of the fortress (or for a Warm stream) we have no right.
Perhaps a fortress in Kamenskoye existed in the
pre-Mongolian time - as "progressive strengthening of the Vladimir-Suzdal
land directly on the border with the Principality of Chernigov. But Kamensky
status in this case could be limited to a fortified military camp, otherwise
Suzdal chronicle is unlikely to have conceded a "town in
So, in the beginning of XIV century is%8
For mozhaiskom were possession of
And only for Kamensky were upper Principality,
which are either included in the sphere of influence of
Therefore, we can say that in the first half
of the XIV century Kamenskoe was the only border fortress of the
This unique status makes Kamensky erection of a
stone temple is absolutely natural. And most likely that this temple, unlike
the Church of John the Baptist in the Settlement, was built on the donations of
the Horde (at least, on the means intended for payment of the Horde
"exit" - a tribute). Hence, their increased bigger size
Note that for soliciting funds from the Horde
Russian princes could be accentuated fortification role of the temple. But, in
principle, the Horde could easily Finance and border religious buildings, to
make a decent impression on
Let us pay attention to a curious situation: if our hypothesis is correct on the allocation of funds for the construction of the St. Nicholas Church of the Golden Horde "exit", then the Church in Kamenskoye is the first and the last post-Mongol temple (from the invasion of Batu to Ivan III, built jointly by all principalities of North-Eastern Russia. In other words, the temple of the land.
In light of the above look at the dates.
From 1295 to 1304 years, the situation in
In 1304 Andrey Alexandrovich died, and between
As we saw in paragraph 7 of this Chapter, the
Church in Kamenskoye could not be built later in 1325. So, Tver and
Let's try some more to clarify the Dating. In
1312 Khan died Tokhta and reigned Uzbek. In Horde, the transfer of power has
always caused serious internal problems, and it is unlikely khans at this time
can take care of strengthening the far borders. So,
And since, unlike "Gorodische", in St. Nicholas Church so obvious traces hasty construction is not observed (and agreement on its construction between Moscow, Tver and Horde could take a long time), Dating temple in Kamenskoye we can conditionally accept 1309-1312 years.
Note that at this time in
Up until the Dating of the assumption Cathedral
of the Founding of the monastery near Tver 1260-
But it was unprecedented and use in the early
1320-ies the wooden Church as the Cathedral of the Russian Metropolia,
including Sophia, Sophia Novgorod, Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Chernihiv
and the assumption Cathedral in
We may conclude that in the state, and Church
politics of North-Eastern Russia at the beginning of XIV century in the most
difficult economic and political conditions of the Mongolian yoke dominated
exclusively by the "pragmatic" motivation.
Active offensive strategy Daniel of Moscow, his
sons and grandsons of struggle against opponents primarily on distant borders.
And, indeed, for nearly 90 years - from Duden to Tokhtamysh (from 1293
to 1382) - the enemy never attacked the walls of
But even if we count from
The pragmatic approach of the princes and the Church hierarchs to ramosmania confirmed by the fact that once in Moscow in 1326-1333 years was built "sovereign minimum" churches (the assumption Cathedral with Petroverigsky the chapel - Cathedral, the Cathedral of our Saviour on the Bor - house, the Church of St. John Climacus is the bell tower and the Church of Archangel Michael - the burial vault), Ivan Kalita is%
Stone temples practically not been built during the reign and semen Ivanovich Proud (1340-1353), and Ivan the red (1353-1359) - only in 1350 was built a chapel at the Cathedral of our Saviour on the Bor237.
© Sergey Zagraevsky