Medieval Westernizations in Russia and the Oriental factor: an archaeological approach

The paper aims to enrich the study of impact of the Orient and Islam on Russia within the so-called Russian archaeology. The need for such discourse is rooted deeply in the Russian tradition of cultural dichotomy between 'the East' and 'the West'. In essence, we believe in contacts with the East being extremely fruitful for the development of Northern Eurasia/Rus. However, we have no evidence of it being the case in archaeology, architecture or art. There is nothing similar to the forms which are typical of the civilizational frontier territories (Spain, the coast of Italy and Sicily, Balkan and Trans-Caucasian countries, etc.). Is this gap real? The archaeology of Siberia may help solve the issue. The Age of Discovery and the fall of Constantinople were a decisive factor in the competition between land and sea. Caravans became less profitable (in the mid XVI century, it was proved by the Muscovy Company's failure to create a trade route to Central Asia via Russia). This means that goods from Oriental and Southern countries reached Russia not directly but through Europe, with sailors and traders. Importantly, the rulers of Muscovy chose not Eastern but Western historical models as prototypes for their insignia. For Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich insignia were ordered in Constantinople (1660-1662) as 'replicas' of the insignia of 'Pious Emperor Constantine the Great', just as others ordered Tamerlan's, Alexander the Great's or Julius Caesar's helmets. Images of the East were attractive for Renaissance artists and that is reflected in 'ethnographic portraits' by Pisanello, Lorenzetti and de Ferrara, or in paintings depicting Eastern art objects (form carpets to spheroconical vessels). However, there is nothing of the kind seen in the art of Muscovy of the XIII to XVII centuries. Even Eastern ornaments found their way to Russian art through Europe. For example, there are only few cases known of the bacini technique being used in architectural decoration in Muscovy. Also, Tsar's richly carved stone tombs of the XVII century at the Archangel Mikhail Cathedral in the Kremlin replicate oriental patterns of Italian textiles. And vice versa, the XVII century ordinary headstones of Moscow and Kazan are directly connected to Volga Bulgaria's carved ornaments. There are also other visible examples of direct acquaintance with Eastern ornamentation in Muscovy. XV century carved friezes follow Turkic, particularly Anatolian (Cappadocian), Seljuk patterns. They were apparently introduced through Crimea (Solhat, Chufut Kale) or/and the Lower and Middle Volga (Sarai Berke, Great Bulgar). On the whole, though, the impact of the East even on the ornaments of Muscovy is limited. There is little or no evidence of that available in architecture and construction engineering. Moving beyond the Urals and across Siberia, Russians gained profits from overland trade with the Far East and Central Asia up to the XIX century. But trade and diplomatic relations with China had been only established by the end of the XVII century. It is the task of archaeology in Siberia to evaluate the real scale of exotic goods (such as porcelain) going to the European part of Russia through China in the XVI and XVII centuries.

Keywords

Authors

References