Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2018.208
Mariusz Filip
The identity of Slovincians1 is a subject of a wide range of controversies in the field of Slavic studies. The root of the conflict between supporters of the ethnic distinctiveness of Slovincians, and opponents who suggest Slovincians are a part of the Kashubian ethnic group (and thus an ethnographic group), is the past work of Aleksandr Hilferding2, a Russian linguist and ethnographer who was the first to describe this group’s history and culture. He claimed that Slovincians and Kashubians were the last Slavs on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea to oppose Germanisation since early medieval. Hilferding’s theses were the basis of the canonical history of Slovincians, in which this ethnic group had roots to a tribe of the same name. In the middle of the 19th century, Slovincians living between Lake Gardno and Lake Łebsko were indeed the westernmost group of Slavs living in Pomerania, or more precisely on the eastern frontier of western Pomerania (ger. Hinterpommern). They commonly switched to the German language and assimilated a German ethnic identity as late as the start of the 20th century. As a consequence, Slovincians who found themselves living in Poland after World War II were seen as Germans and were subjected to displacement by settlers and administrators of the region. The Polish intellectual elite, however, did not forget about the Slavic origin of the region’s inhabitants and demanded leaving them on the Polish soil and suggested their re-Slavisation, or de facto Polonisation. Sadly, only a tiny part of that society, living in the village of Kluki, was saved from displacement, and the Polonisation of the group had little success due to majority of Slovincians relocating in the 20th century to Germany. Such a vision of Slovincian history and calling them a “tribe” or “ethnic group” has bred doubt amongst scholars. Using archival materials and, to a lesser extent, archeological
{"title":"A tribe after all? The problem of Slovincians’ identity in an anthropological approach","authors":"Mariusz Filip","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2018.208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2018.208","url":null,"abstract":"The identity of Slovincians1 is a subject of a wide range of controversies in the field of Slavic studies. The root of the conflict between supporters of the ethnic distinctiveness of Slovincians, and opponents who suggest Slovincians are a part of the Kashubian ethnic group (and thus an ethnographic group), is the past work of Aleksandr Hilferding2, a Russian linguist and ethnographer who was the first to describe this group’s history and culture. He claimed that Slovincians and Kashubians were the last Slavs on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea to oppose Germanisation since early medieval. Hilferding’s theses were the basis of the canonical history of Slovincians, in which this ethnic group had roots to a tribe of the same name. In the middle of the 19th century, Slovincians living between Lake Gardno and Lake Łebsko were indeed the westernmost group of Slavs living in Pomerania, or more precisely on the eastern frontier of western Pomerania (ger. Hinterpommern). They commonly switched to the German language and assimilated a German ethnic identity as late as the start of the 20th century. As a consequence, Slovincians who found themselves living in Poland after World War II were seen as Germans and were subjected to displacement by settlers and administrators of the region. The Polish intellectual elite, however, did not forget about the Slavic origin of the region’s inhabitants and demanded leaving them on the Polish soil and suggested their re-Slavisation, or de facto Polonisation. Sadly, only a tiny part of that society, living in the village of Kluki, was saved from displacement, and the Polonisation of the group had little success due to majority of Slovincians relocating in the 20th century to Germany. Such a vision of Slovincian history and calling them a “tribe” or “ethnic group” has bred doubt amongst scholars. Using archival materials and, to a lesser extent, archeological","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":"145-168"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67786112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/SPBU19.2018.201V
Виталий Ананьев, I. Katsaridou
: The paper focuses on a collection of photographs recently (2016) donated to the Museum of Byzantine Culture of Thessaloniki, Greece, by Georges Kiourtzian, a Byzantine scholar associated with the College de France in Paris. The 17 mounted silver-prints date from the October Revolution of 1917 and portray the destruction by bombardments of churches and other monuments in the Kremlin, Moscow. Once part of the archive of Thomas Whittemore, the American Byzantine scholar, the photographs were discarded by the Byzantine Library in Paris, only to be collected by Georges Kiourtzian and then to find their way to the collection of the Museum of Byzantine Culture. This paper sheds light on the complicated itinerary of those photographs: from their production as documentation, to their use as propaganda material, to the Byzantine Library and their eventual discarding, and finally to their new life as museum artefacts in the Museum of Byzantine Culture. The disputed narratives of the photographs are revealed, along with challenges and potentials that reorganization and integration in this recent museum presents for unravelling contested dynamics of the collection.
本文关注的是最近(2016年)捐赠给希腊塞萨洛尼基拜占庭文化博物馆的一组照片，这些照片是由巴黎法兰西学院的拜占庭学者Georges Kiourtzian拍摄的。这17幅装裱银版画的年代可以追溯到1917年十月革命，描绘了莫斯科克里姆林宫教堂和其他纪念碑遭到轰炸的情景。这些照片曾经是美国拜占庭学者托马斯·惠特莫尔(Thomas Whittemore)档案的一部分，后来被巴黎的拜占庭图书馆(Byzantine Library)丢弃，后来被乔治·柯兹安(Georges Kiourtzian)收藏，后来又被拜占庭文化博物馆(Museum of Byzantine Culture)收藏。本文揭示了这些照片的复杂历程:从它们作为文件的制作，到它们作为宣传材料的使用，到拜占庭图书馆和它们最终的丢弃，最后到它们作为拜占庭文化博物馆文物的新生活。这些照片的有争议的叙述被揭示出来，以及在这个最近的博物馆中重组和整合所带来的挑战和潜力，以揭示这些收藏的有争议的动态。
{"title":"This obscure object of desire: object, photography, museum and damaged churches","authors":"Виталий Ананьев, I. Katsaridou","doi":"10.21638/SPBU19.2018.201V","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/SPBU19.2018.201V","url":null,"abstract":": The paper focuses on a collection of photographs recently (2016) donated to the Museum of Byzantine Culture of Thessaloniki, Greece, by Georges Kiourtzian, a Byzantine scholar associated with the College de France in Paris. The 17 mounted silver-prints date from the October Revolution of 1917 and portray the destruction by bombardments of churches and other monuments in the Kremlin, Moscow. Once part of the archive of Thomas Whittemore, the American Byzantine scholar, the photographs were discarded by the Byzantine Library in Paris, only to be collected by Georges Kiourtzian and then to find their way to the collection of the Museum of Byzantine Culture. This paper sheds light on the complicated itinerary of those photographs: from their production as documentation, to their use as propaganda material, to the Byzantine Library and their eventual discarding, and finally to their new life as museum artefacts in the Museum of Byzantine Culture. The disputed narratives of the photographs are revealed, along with challenges and potentials that reorganization and integration in this recent museum presents for unravelling contested dynamics of the collection.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67786384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2020.103
D. Alimov, Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Churzin, M. Daniš, M. Dmitriev, A. I. Filyushkin, J. Hackmann, L. Ivonina, A. V. Kuz’min, A. Martyniouk, Mihailo V. Popović, Anti Selart
Summary: The discussion, devoted to the consideration of the papers of Alexander Filyushkin and Alexey Martyniuk, took part at the special section of the Petersburg Historical Forum. The participants are from Russia, Austria, Slovakia, Estonia, Germany etc. Participants in the discussion highlighted the problematic points in the study of the history of the Eastern European region: the difficulty of defining the geographical and chronological framework, the problems of an established terminology, the break in the historiographic tradition, the need to search for new methodological tools and, at the same time, to verify the correctness of its application. Arguments were expressed both “for” and “against” the pro- posed thesis of Alexey Martyniuk about the “Byzantinization” of the history of Old Rus’. Most of the speakers spoke in favor of overcoming the situation of “national fragmentation” of the medieval history of Eastern Europe. The development of that research perspective that would allow us to see the history of this region as the history of a single space, which has its own dynamics, its own “rhythms” and its own characteristics, which are not reducible only to the common history of modern states and nations. The importance of comparative studies was emphasized — the need, when considering the history of Old Rus’ and the Eastern Slavs in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times, to refer to the experience of studying the history of the southern and western Slavs, Byzantium and the medieval Balkans, the regions of the Baltic and Black Seas and, in the end, not to be afraid the search for typological parallels in “distant lands and eras” — in the history of Antiquity, the medieval Latin world, classical Western European Modernity. The discussion showed the importance of historians’ reflection on the subject and method of their research, as well as the need for constant professional dialogue between representatives of different national schools and historiographic traditions.
{"title":"How to study the history of Eastern Europe today? Discussion","authors":"D. Alimov, Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Churzin, M. Daniš, M. Dmitriev, A. I. Filyushkin, J. Hackmann, L. Ivonina, A. V. Kuz’min, A. Martyniouk, Mihailo V. Popović, Anti Selart","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2020.103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2020.103","url":null,"abstract":"Summary: The discussion, devoted to the consideration of the papers of Alexander Filyushkin and Alexey Martyniuk, took part at the special section of the Petersburg Historical Forum. The participants are from Russia, Austria, Slovakia, Estonia, Germany etc. Participants in the discussion highlighted the problematic points in the study of the history of the Eastern European region: the difficulty of defining the geographical and chronological framework, the problems of an established terminology, the break in the historiographic tradition, the need to search for new methodological tools and, at the same time, to verify the correctness of its application. Arguments were expressed both “for” and “against” the pro- posed thesis of Alexey Martyniuk about the “Byzantinization” of the history of Old Rus’. Most of the speakers spoke in favor of overcoming the situation of “national fragmentation” of the medieval history of Eastern Europe. The development of that research perspective that would allow us to see the history of this region as the history of a single space, which has its own dynamics, its own “rhythms” and its own characteristics, which are not reducible only to the common history of modern states and nations. The importance of comparative studies was emphasized — the need, when considering the history of Old Rus’ and the Eastern Slavs in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times, to refer to the experience of studying the history of the southern and western Slavs, Byzantium and the medieval Balkans, the regions of the Baltic and Black Seas and, in the end, not to be afraid the search for typological parallels in “distant lands and eras” — in the history of Antiquity, the medieval Latin world, classical Western European Modernity. The discussion showed the importance of historians’ reflection on the subject and method of their research, as well as the need for constant professional dialogue between representatives of different national schools and historiographic traditions.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67786390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2020.202
A. Selin
History of Muscovite estate shaping in “German towns” in 1550s–1580s is closely connected with Novgorod, Pskov, Rzheva Pustaya as servicemen communities. These servicemen were the source for new landowners in the lands taken by Muscovites to the West from Narova river. Only Rzheva Pustaya was more or less studied already. The paper is an attempt to generalize the data on number and personal content of “German towns” landowners (mostly on sources of 1582) and to study the issue of the significance of the experience of making estates in Livonian lands for the day-to-day culture of Muscovite servicemen. Geography of Russian landownership in Livonia is under consideration. Also the historiographical discussions of the reasons of Russian Livonia project fail is studied in the article. Special attention is paid to the issue of Muscovite landowners evacuation from Livonia after military defeats of 1580–1582. Record books of Rzheva Pustaya and Novgorod Vodskaya pyatina included notes of the towns and districts in Livonia that have been left by the landowners. Other record books of North-Western Muscovy only mention the new strata of servicemen “new landowners of German towns”. Special groups of “Rugodiv and Juryev newly baptized [tartars]” and “Cossacks from Govye” were also separately mentioned in the record books. In the last period of Livonian War not only Livonia itself but also some border districts of former Novgorod land were left by Muscovites. In 1582–1583 the Moscow Government also took responsibility for the landowners from that lost districts. V. A. Arakcheev noted the order on the land security of those servicemen issued between January 23 and March 4, 1583. In early 1580s the landowners of “German towns” received estates in “abandoned lands”. Later Court lands were spread between them.
1550 - 1580年代莫斯科“日尔曼城镇”的地产塑造历史与诺夫哥罗德、普斯科夫、普斯塔亚等军人社区密切相关。这些军人是莫斯科人从纳罗瓦河向西夺取的土地的新地主的来源。只有Rzheva Pustaya已经或多或少地被研究过了。本文试图概括关于“德国城镇”地主的数量和个人内容的数据(主要来自1582年的资料)，并研究在利沃尼亚土地上建造庄园的经验对莫斯科军人日常文化的意义。俄罗斯在利沃尼亚土地所有权的地理问题正在考虑之中。并对俄罗斯利沃尼亚工程失败的原因进行了史学上的探讨。特别值得注意的是，在1580-1582年的军事失败后，莫斯科地主从利沃尼亚撤离的问题。Rzheva Pustaya和Novgorod Vodskaya pyatina的记录簿包括土地所有者留下的利沃尼亚城镇和地区的笔记。西北莫斯科公国的其他记录只提到了新的军人阶层“德国城镇的新地主”。“新近受洗的鞑靼人”和“来自戈夫耶的哥萨克人”等特殊群体也分别在记录簿中被提及。在利沃尼亚战争的最后阶段，不仅利沃尼亚本身，而且前诺夫哥罗德土地的一些边境地区也被莫斯科人留下了。1582年至1583年，莫斯科政府还对失去的地区的土地所有者负责。V. A. Arakcheev注意到1583年1月23日至3月4日期间发布的关于这些军人土地安全的命令。1580年代早期，“德国城镇”的地主在“废弃土地”上获得了地产。后来宫廷的土地在他们之间分散。
{"title":"«Expelled from Livonia»: Towards the issue of the arrangement of landowners of «Old» and «New German towns» after the Plyussa Treaty 1583","authors":"A. Selin","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2020.202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2020.202","url":null,"abstract":"History of Muscovite estate shaping in “German towns” in 1550s–1580s is closely connected with Novgorod, Pskov, Rzheva Pustaya as servicemen communities. These servicemen were the source for new landowners in the lands taken by Muscovites to the West from Narova river. Only Rzheva Pustaya was more or less studied already. The paper is an attempt to generalize the data on number and personal content of “German towns” landowners (mostly on sources of 1582) and to study the issue of the significance of the experience of making estates in Livonian lands for the day-to-day culture of Muscovite servicemen. Geography of Russian landownership in Livonia is under consideration. Also the historiographical discussions of the reasons of Russian Livonia project fail is studied in the article. Special attention is paid to the issue of Muscovite landowners evacuation from Livonia after military defeats of 1580–1582. Record books of Rzheva Pustaya and Novgorod Vodskaya pyatina included notes of the towns and districts in Livonia that have been left by the landowners. Other record books of North-Western Muscovy only mention the new strata of servicemen “new landowners of German towns”. Special groups of “Rugodiv and Juryev newly baptized [tartars]” and “Cossacks from Govye” were also separately mentioned in the record books. In the last period of Livonian War not only Livonia itself but also some border districts of former Novgorod land were left by Muscovites. In 1582–1583 the Moscow Government also took responsibility for the landowners from that lost districts. V. A. Arakcheev noted the order on the land security of those servicemen issued between January 23 and March 4, 1583. In early 1580s the landowners of “German towns” received estates in “abandoned lands”. Later Court lands were spread between them.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67787339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2018.204
A. Mikhaylova
{"title":"«Montenegrin cap» as a visual chronicle: to the problem of reflection of history in ethnographic artifacts (on materials of the Russian Museum of Ethnography)","authors":"A. Mikhaylova","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2018.204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2018.204","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":"57-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67786585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/SPBU19.2018.209
K. Mustafin, I. Alborova, A. Semenov, V. Vishnevsky, Art Museum-Preserve
IntroductIon and HIstorIcal context The main aim of the research was to make a haplogroup testing for a Russian medieval burial and to look at its possible analogs in other medieval DNA samples. For the test object two skulls excavated in 1989 from the Radonezh cemetery dating back to the 16th–17th centuries were chosen. The first reason for that choice was a serious significance of the region in late medieval Russian history and the second reason was the good quality of preservation of the skulls. The excavations were made by the Sergiev Posad (former Zagorsk) State History and Art Museum-Preserve expedition, and the leader of the excavations was Dr. V. I. Vishnevsky. Radonezh was a Russian medieval town near the Sergiev Posad. To the end of XVIII century Radonezh became a small village but before it was the center of the parish of the same name. It is situated about 55 km north-eastfrom Moscow. The first settlement of Radonezh was founded in the 11th century, probably by Novgorod Sloven of Krivichi settlers near the preceding Finno-Ugric villages. The settlement of the entire Radonezh region followed the river Vorya, flowing into the Klyazma river. In the first millennium AD, there was a typical fortified settlement of the Finno-Ugric population in the middle course of the Vorya. At the end of 11th–12th centuries, a group of the villages of Slavic Krivichi was located there, and they are known in archeological literature due to well-preserved monuments of kurgan (mound) burials in the middle Vorya. Settlements with the name Radonezh existed in the past in the Smolensk area, at the head of the Oka river (at the junction of the modern Kursk and Orel regions) and in the middle reaches of the Kirzhach river (Vladimir region). Most early settlements in the Moscow area, analogs of early Radonezh, ceased to exist during the Mongol invasion in the mid-13th century and were not renewed afterwards1.
{"title":"Haplogroup analysis for a Medieval Russian burial оf 16th–17th centures in Radonezh (Moscow Area)","authors":"K. Mustafin, I. Alborova, A. Semenov, V. Vishnevsky, Art Museum-Preserve","doi":"10.21638/SPBU19.2018.209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/SPBU19.2018.209","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductIon and HIstorIcal context The main aim of the research was to make a haplogroup testing for a Russian medieval burial and to look at its possible analogs in other medieval DNA samples. For the test object two skulls excavated in 1989 from the Radonezh cemetery dating back to the 16th–17th centuries were chosen. The first reason for that choice was a serious significance of the region in late medieval Russian history and the second reason was the good quality of preservation of the skulls. The excavations were made by the Sergiev Posad (former Zagorsk) State History and Art Museum-Preserve expedition, and the leader of the excavations was Dr. V. I. Vishnevsky. Radonezh was a Russian medieval town near the Sergiev Posad. To the end of XVIII century Radonezh became a small village but before it was the center of the parish of the same name. It is situated about 55 km north-eastfrom Moscow. The first settlement of Radonezh was founded in the 11th century, probably by Novgorod Sloven of Krivichi settlers near the preceding Finno-Ugric villages. The settlement of the entire Radonezh region followed the river Vorya, flowing into the Klyazma river. In the first millennium AD, there was a typical fortified settlement of the Finno-Ugric population in the middle course of the Vorya. At the end of 11th–12th centuries, a group of the villages of Slavic Krivichi was located there, and they are known in archeological literature due to well-preserved monuments of kurgan (mound) burials in the middle Vorya. Settlements with the name Radonezh existed in the past in the Smolensk area, at the head of the Oka river (at the junction of the modern Kursk and Orel regions) and in the middle reaches of the Kirzhach river (Vladimir region). Most early settlements in the Moscow area, analogs of early Radonezh, ceased to exist during the Mongol invasion in the mid-13th century and were not renewed afterwards1.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67786160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2020.205
Maria L. Zavorina
The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the Palaeologan architecture of Thessaloniki. Based on the analysis of approaches to the facades organization, iconographic and compositional features of the facade decor, an attempt is made to clarify the local specifics of the Thessalonikan architecture and establish the patterns of its development. Among the main features that form the architectural identity of Thessaloniki are: a combination of metropolitan and provincial traditions, rethinking and combining retrospective elements in line with current stylistic trends, rooted in the traditions of Byzantine architecture and rejection of Western European stylistic elements. In its development, Thessalonikan architecture went through two stages, each of which is marked by an appeal to the traditions of previous periods. The first stage (late 13th – first third of the 14th century) is characterized by intensive development of the local variant of the Palaeologan style based on combination of the traditions of Constantinople, Epirus, Nicea, Northern and Southern Greece. These searches are carried out on the basis of the same architectural type and show three different approaches to the organization of facades in a combination of metropolitan and provincial stylistic paradigms (vertical and horizontal systems of articulation, architectural decor and retrospective vocabulary of ceramoplastic decorative elements). The monuments of the second stage (1350s – 1378) are marked by typological variety and show a tendency to reproduce and interpret local architectural models from the first third of the 14th century. The dynamics of the development of Thessalonican architecture does not allow to characterize this center as conservative, and the retrospectiveness of the Palaeologan architecture of Thessaloniki seems to be a creative method of local masters rather than a qualitative characteristic of their works.
{"title":"Façade Decoration of Palaiologan Churches in Thessaloniki: Specificity and Evolution of the Local Approach","authors":"Maria L. Zavorina","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2020.205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2020.205","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the peculiarities of the Palaeologan architecture of Thessaloniki. Based on the analysis of approaches to the facades organization, iconographic and compositional features of the facade decor, an attempt is made to clarify the local specifics of the Thessalonikan architecture and establish the patterns of its development. Among the main features that form the architectural identity of Thessaloniki are: a combination of metropolitan and provincial traditions, rethinking and combining retrospective elements in line with current stylistic trends, rooted in the traditions of Byzantine architecture and rejection of Western European stylistic elements. In its development, Thessalonikan architecture went through two stages, each of which is marked by an appeal to the traditions of previous periods. The first stage (late 13th – first third of the 14th century) is characterized by intensive development of the local variant of the Palaeologan style based on combination of the traditions of Constantinople, Epirus, Nicea, Northern and Southern Greece. These searches are carried out on the basis of the same architectural type and show three different approaches to the organization of facades in a combination of metropolitan and provincial stylistic paradigms (vertical and horizontal systems of articulation, architectural decor and retrospective vocabulary of ceramoplastic decorative elements). The monuments of the second stage (1350s – 1378) are marked by typological variety and show a tendency to reproduce and interpret local architectural models from the first third of the 14th century. The dynamics of the development of Thessalonican architecture does not allow to characterize this center as conservative, and the retrospectiveness of the Palaeologan architecture of Thessaloniki seems to be a creative method of local masters rather than a qualitative characteristic of their works.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67787435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/SPBU19.2018.210
C. Halperin
{"title":"The Early Modern Muscovite state reconsidered","authors":"C. Halperin","doi":"10.21638/SPBU19.2018.210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/SPBU19.2018.210","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":"181-196"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67786201","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.21638/spbu19.2020.201
Norbert Angermann
The paper describes the trade activity of Russian merchants in Livonia (in the widest sense of the term, including Estonia), which was under the rule of Sweden and Poland in the 17th century and later only under the Swedish rule. The main purpose of Russian merchants in the beginning of the 17th century was Reval (Tallinn) and later Narva. They also visited Riga and much less Dorpat (today’s Tartu). The author was able to identify new evidence of this by working in the archives of Baltic cities. Shopping yards for Russian merchants were established in Riga, Narva and Dorpat, which served as living quarters and a place for storing and selling goods. Interesting information about this is provided by the accounts of German farm administrators in Narva and Derpt, which are analyzed in this article for the first time. Russian guests in Livonia were mainly middle and minor merchants, as well as representatives of the largest trading companies in Novgorod and Pskov, commissioners of the tsars and, on the other hand, artisans, peasants and fishermen. Their activities served the extensive European trade in linen, hemp, leather, fat and fur as the main Russian supplies. The Livonian inhabitants were also supplied with industrial and agricultural products. The number of visitors to Livonia from northwest Russia and beyond was significantly higher than the number of Livonian merchants trading in Novgorod, Pskov and Moscow.
{"title":"Russian merchants in Livonia in the 17th century","authors":"Norbert Angermann","doi":"10.21638/spbu19.2020.201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu19.2020.201","url":null,"abstract":"The paper describes the trade activity of Russian merchants in Livonia (in the widest sense of the term, including Estonia), which was under the rule of Sweden and Poland in the 17th century and later only under the Swedish rule. The main purpose of Russian merchants in the beginning of the 17th century was Reval (Tallinn) and later Narva. They also visited Riga and much less Dorpat (today’s Tartu). The author was able to identify new evidence of this by working in the archives of Baltic cities. Shopping yards for Russian merchants were established in Riga, Narva and Dorpat, which served as living quarters and a place for storing and selling goods. Interesting information about this is provided by the accounts of German farm administrators in Narva and Derpt, which are analyzed in this article for the first time. Russian guests in Livonia were mainly middle and minor merchants, as well as representatives of the largest trading companies in Novgorod and Pskov, commissioners of the tsars and, on the other hand, artisans, peasants and fishermen. Their activities served the extensive European trade in linen, hemp, leather, fat and fur as the main Russian supplies. The Livonian inhabitants were also supplied with industrial and agricultural products. The number of visitors to Livonia from northwest Russia and beyond was significantly higher than the number of Livonian merchants trading in Novgorod, Pskov and Moscow.","PeriodicalId":41089,"journal":{"name":"Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67787294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：