Archeology of Distinctiveness: the Material World of Muscovy of the 14th–16th Centuries

Abstract

The paper sets as its goal to take a closer look at heritage of Muscovite Russia from the archeological perspective, while presenting it as an archeological culture of a kind with the inherent distinctiveness. It considers the origin of Muscovite culture after the Horde invasion and a number of case studies from the fields of architecture, ornament, funerary customs, and crafts. The end of the 14th–early 15th century marks out a chronological threshold, crossing which this “archeological culture” can be deemed self-contained. The concepts are refined with respect to the genesis of a sarcophagus and gravestone slab. The paper assesses a role of the Eastern (Islam), Eastern Christian, and West European impulses in the development of material culture of “Muscovy.”

The objective of the paper is to identify distinctive features of Muscovite State using the archeological materials. No attempts have been made to date to assess specifics of the material medium of Grand Duchy and Tsardom of Muscovy archeologically. Recently, this has become possible, since archeological map of the Rus’ of the 13th–16th centuries has been gradually filled with facts, notwithstanding a relatively poor state of knowledge of precisely this period. The first thing is to define more accurately a fate of the Vladimir–Suzdal Principality heritage in Muscovite Russia (Rus’) and, next, have a closer look at a number of case studies from fields of architecture, art/archeology, funerary customs, and craft. This will allow us to mark out chronological threshold or boundary, beyond which Muscovite Tsardom can be addressed as a distinct “archeological culture”; identify a number of its some truly peculiar and unique features; and date its establishment to the final third of the 14th–first third of the 15th century. Partially, we will touch upon more recent events up to as late as the 17th century.

Invasion. Heritage of the Vladimir–Suzdal Principality was largely transmitted to Moscow after Batu Khan Invasion at the early stage of the state recovery. Archeology successively uncovers “snapshots” of the winter of 1237–1238, which impels to assess the suffered damage as a catastrophe.¹ It present to our view (1) a system of unclaimed treasure troves; (2) fires with remains of the killed by it and burnt properties and personal belongings; and (3) mass “sanitation” graves. What is more, this happens ubiquitously; specifically, manor houses destroyed by fire with treasure troves of jewelry and common graves are uncovered one after the next in Old Ryazan; treasure trove of church works of arts and “commercial” stock of amber were found on burned manor house in Vladimir; fierceness of the battle was evidenced by mass graves in Yaroslavl; the “1238 treasure troves” surfaced in Tver and Moscow; thick (approximately 50 cm) burnt layer with bones and parched icon oklads was unearthed in Torzhok; and scenes of fire spread across the hillforts Raikovetskoe, Serensk, Yaropolch, Shepetovskoe, and others as far as Chernigov and Kiev. A political and military catastrophe of the capitals of the principalities and fortifications is self-evident: part of them was not reconstructed (Yaropolch); the others fell into decay (Old Ryazan) and lost their status (Yaroslavl); some of them slipped into dormancy for centuries, ceased growth, and reduced the area; they were no longer fortified and beatified (Vladimir and Torzhok). The crisis is manifest through as far as the places never reached by the Mongols (Pskov, Novgorod, Rostov, and Beloozero).

The counter process can, however, be seen since the end of the 13th century. New cities thrive; namely, Nizhny Novgorod, Vologda, and Ustyug. The lately less salient Pereyaslavl Ryazansky, Kolomna, and Tver undergo the rapid growth. Moscow is on the rise; as early as in the second half of the 13th century, it will comprise the entire recent area of Kremlin and expand beyond its bounds.² The small towns subject to Moscow (future princedoms), such as, Serpukhov, Zvenigorod, and Mozhaisk, will begin flourishing in the 14th century. The new world different from the world of the 12th–13th centuries in many respects will emerge in one and a half century in the North-East.

Crossing the threshold. How sure-footedly the North-Eastern culture passed the Mongolian “milestone”? What degree Moscow became its successor? This has long been debated, as well as, what kind of transformations and outside additions imparted the “Moscow distinctiveness.”

Household archeology reveals that the pre-Mongolian fashion persisted long-term; the objects specific of it are encountered in the second half of the 14th century and vanish by the 1370–1380s. Only few glass bangles survive to that time. The last slate spindle whorls disappear from everyday use. Selection of earthenware undergoes a radical change (see below). As they perish, they are replaced by new different types of ware, internalizing the new fresh influences.³

Evolutionary process dictated by the logic of the new situation is unfolding before our eyes. This did not, however, apply to the field of monumental projects. Jewelry-makers, artists, and architects could hardly expect the large orders in the devastated principalities. Stone masonry construction volume dramatically drops; erection of the stone temples (churches) ex novo intermit for 70 years.

Later, Muscovite rulers will lay special emphasis on their right to the Old Russian heritage by recording it in the architectural order. Ivan III spared a thought for “conservation” of the deteriorating Transfiguration Cathedral in Yur’ev-Pol’skii and for the Cathedral of the Dormition (Assumption) in Moscow and opted for imitating the Vladimir Cathedral that had survived from the 12th–13th century. This does not, however, prove that the first North-Eastern churches built after the Mongols directly continued the Old Russian tradition. Churches of the Moscow Kremlin dating back to the second quarter of the 14th century were indeed described much in this fashion. But none of them survived, as well as their images and/or measurements. The architectural look was guessed based on random details and frequently blundered. As a matter of fact, archeological excavations at the church sites only offered the “sci-fi-esque” versions beneath the criticism.⁴

The only exception is structural remains of the octagonal St. John Climacus’s Church (1333) on the Kremlin Central Square unearthed in the early 20th century to vanish later in the oblivion. But its exact counterpart existed in a chapel of the Late Byzantine “castle” (fortress) in Crimea!⁵

At the same time, a strong argument emerged for continuity of the pre-Mongolian line of tradition. Digging up a site of the Savior Transfiguration Cathedral from the 1290s in Tver (the first built after an interval of 70 years) revealed that the plan and, primarily, the decor inherited tradition of the Vladimir–Suzdal land from 1200–1230s with its abundantly carved facades.⁶

Churches with open front. The Tver Savior (1295) and Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow (1326) are separated by a considerable amount of time and the entire generation. Therefore, there are no grounds to believe these cities hired the same artisans and builders. Erection of Cathedral of the Dormition in Moscow was initiated by Metropolitan Peter. But where the artisans invited by him and Ivan I Kalita were coming from is anyone’s guess, since construction activity of the Metropolitan is practically unknown. It is buildings of as late as the end of the 14th–first quarter of the 15th century that will show a great deal of originality, while preserving the tradition in broad outline.⁷ Facades of the traditional cross-in-square or cross-domed space with three apses are organized in a new fashion. Running along the latters, carved frieze separates lower row of windows from clerestory, while flanking the cornice of the apses. The remaining wall plane is smooth; the facade does not provide for narthexes and side-aisles, except for layered archivolt portals with ogee top and open porches, sometimes rather elevated with the earth socle. These are “churches with open front (facade).”

Few structures dating back to the Dmitry Donskoy (of the Don) epoch (survived); but his brother Vladimir and sons Vasiliy, Yuriy, and Andrey built as many as 20 churches in several towns. At least five were erected in the Prince Dmitry favorite Kolomna⁸ and two or three in Serpukhov with surrounding area⁹ and Mozhaisk¹⁰ each. The Cathedral of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin na Gorodke and Katholikon of the Nativity in the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery (“the Storozhii monastery of St. Savva”)¹¹ (1390s–early 1430s) survived in the capital of Yuriy Dmitrievich, Zvenigorod; Katholikon of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius (1422–1423) is very similar to them. These are classical examples of buildings, featuring a carved band with the three sections and the open-type facade.¹² After the Feudal War, similar churches will appear in Moscow (Church of the Deposition of the Robe, 1484–1485) and other places. Importantly, neither churches of the second half of the 14th century with the cross-in-square interior plan,¹³ no the katholikon of Andronikov Monastery fit this scheme¹⁴; they need to be addressed separately.

Rather than being a space solution, the distinctiveness and originality of the type is expressed in that their facades are explicitly prepared to assimilate decorative bands, which ornament and structure are the true novelty. Changed and with the new look, they still represent a derivative of the white-stone architecture of the 12th–13th centuries. Their cultural transfer vector is well-defined and directly points toward the Islamic East.¹⁵ Friezes of the open-front churches bear floral compositions. Some of them are elaborately interlaced. Widely spread plain arabesque is also present. These characteristic Islamic elements appear to have been introduced to Moscow by the Crimean natives, seeking asylum due to political troubles of the 1360s, Timur’s campaign of 1395, or famine and epidemics that lasted until 1405.¹⁶  They mastered the repertoire of ornament art without necessarily being the Muslims. The majority of the Byzantine builders and cutters in Pontic Region (Prichernomor’e), in particular, were Christians, including Gregorian ethnic Armenians, Greek Orthodox people, and Catholics from Italy.¹⁷ They carved ornamental reliefs both for the Muslims (capitals of the Ozbek Han Mosque portal, 1314–1342; mihrab of Şeyhköy (Sheikh-Khoi) Mosque, 1358; and tombstone from Solkhat museum) and Christians (capitals of the Surp Khach Monastery, 1358).¹⁸ The number of examples is growing as research of the Horde era architecture in Crimea continues; these motifs are embodied in arabesques of Moscow.¹⁹

It is important to find the authentic source of the “Crimean–Moscow” carving in that, where from did it come to Crimea? The answer is provided (supplied) by ornament patterns of Trebizond and Inner Anatolia, namely, Susuz Khan Caravanserai, 13th century; buildings from the 13th–15th centuries in Niğde, Kayseri, etc.; and structures associated with the Turkic developers; Terken Khatun türbe, 1350; and in Jerusalem²⁰ and Cairo. Islamic tradition explains not only the ornament, but composition arrangement of carved frieze of Moscow; specifically, with three projecting ledges, the band of the ornament acquires negative tilt angle protecting from rain and, what is more important, satisfying an inclination of the Islamic architecture to overhanging elements of the muquarnas type.²¹

Church model with the open front and carved frieze do not deviate from the Old Russian and Byzantine traditions. But its distinctiveness arose through autochthonous transformation, simplification of the Vladimir–Suzdal “church with three narthexes,” and with involvement of the Islamized ornamental art of the Mediterranean assimilated through Pontic cities. The model will eventually dissipate in the Italian–Moscow projects of the late 15th–16th century.

Funerary art. Back to the 13th century, artisans from the Vladimir–Suzdal School were definitely engaged on the Tver Savior. But how did they manage to preserve the skills of stone-carving and pass them on to the apprentices? Where did they find clients and what did they live on? Cemeteries and graveyards seem to have become the “safe heaven.” They smoothly segued from the invasion threshold without changing their function or status. They remained a final resting place for the aristocracy, where sarcophaguses and gravestones were trimmed (hammered), thus supporting the stone mining and basic processing and carving practices in order to retain the skill level.

Let us consider this topic, steering us across the invasion threshold, at greater length. The early uniform tomb- and gravestones and box-shaped or four-side (like trapezoid or parallelepiped) sarcophaguses apparently originated as early as in the 12th century. They were hammer-trimmed at the very least in Vladimir, Rostov, and Pereyaslavl-Zalesskii until the end of the 15th century. No box-shaped coffins existed in Moscow in the 14th–16th centuries; but, rather, rectangular slabs with symmetric ornament. At this point, their shapes acquired the anthropomorphic features (in consistence with a new anthropomorphic type of sarcophagus?), as well as, subsequently, the individuality through the decor first and, next, through inscription. In the 15th–17th centuries, sarcophaguses and slabs of Moscow will become a clear tangible sign of the city’s archeological culture spread across the entire Tsardom.

Persistence of the process is perfectly exemplified by a series of tombs and slabs/ledger stones at a site of the katholikon from 1192–1196 of the Monastery of the Nativity of the Holy Mother of God in Vladimir.²² A necropolis is vast and extends into the church interior and adjacent area. Graves from the end of the 12th–14th centuries are housed in the cella (naos) and along the side-aisles inside and outside.²³ The total of 18 sarcophaguses was found; the set is definitely incomplete. The box-shaped sarcophaguses are rectangular or slightly trapezoid; the flat lids feature feebly-marked low-pitched gable along central (axis) line. There are no ornaments or inscriptions. Gable lids go back to the late 12th–13th century, while flat tops date back to the end of the 13th–14th century. Additionally, the early gravestone slabs are slightly convex along the center suggestive of rib or pitches and thin (7–9 cm). The ornament is strictly symmetric, which points toward their origin from the rectangular lids (tombstones).²⁴ Variants of the composition include the most basic border; the border and central (axis) line; border, central line, and three pairs of unfilled circles arranged in two rows with stalks (stems) at the corners; central line and large circle (“wreath”) centrally with segments at the outer angles (conventionalized acroteria). The similar ones were reported from the major church building of the Nikitskii Monastery, specifically, the slab with two lines of circles without corner elements²⁵ and fragment of sarcophagus lid with border and circles, and from the Transfiguration Cathedral, specifically, sarcophagus lid with border and central line left by indented tracing from the early 14th century, in Pereyaslavl’-Zalesskii.²⁶

The similar advancement in the decor from unfilled triangular bordered space to the elaborate compositions is observed in the Moscow Kremlin on the slabs from the mid – second half of the 14th century from graveyards of the Cathedral of the Dormition (Assumption)²⁷ and Church of the Saints Cosmas and Damian.²⁸ The missing links are found in graveyards of the Trinity Church in the Fields (na Polyakh)²⁹ and the Epiphany Monastery za Torgom (behind the trading place).³⁰ There is also a composition in Zaryad’e parallel to the “large central circle” (the 13th century?) known from Old Ryazan. All these examples consistently exhibit four-line symmetry. Earlier, this slab type was defined as the Muscovite type; but triangle chip-carving ornaments and linear-circular compositions were shown to have been inherited from the Vladimir–Suzdal artisans rather than being of the Muscovite origin. Other than that, they bridge the gap between Vladimir and Moscow in the chronological, formal, and geographical terms (aspects, perspective).

The end of the 14th–early 15th century will see the emergence in the Moscow cemeteries (graveyards) of trapezoid slabs with the ornament asymmetrical in composition.³¹ They are missing from the Nativity Monastery in Vladimir; new gravestone and tombstone models from Moscow will take over as late as in the 16th century. Shape of sarcophagus slowly transformed from the rectangular to trapezoid; whereas the emergence in the late 14th century of anthropomorphic coffin with a prominent head portion tapering towards the feet appears as fundamental novelty, which spread through Moscow. But where did it come from? In the mid-20th century, the genesis was justifiably linked to the Romanesque tradition; but the first specimens (from Bogolyubov and Suzdal) were dated much further back to the second half of the 12th century. Next, the East Christianity version was put forward based on finds of two coffins of the same kind from the Middle Byzantine period at the Caucasian coast dated to the 10th century.

The genesis has recently been clarified, but complexities still exist. Development of this type in Byzantium is unexplored; it may be rooted in the Ancient Egypt and Phoenicia. Coffin shaped to the lying body was introduced to the crusaders³²; it became one of the hybrid types in the Eastern Mediterranean art, and in Europe it was used for burials by the orders and later. No anthropomorphic sarcophagus had existed in Moscow prior to the end of the 14th century.³³ The first two from the narthex of the Church of the Savior-in-the-Woods in Kremlin has been dated to the end of the 14th century since the date of the publication.³⁴ Another six from the Ascension Convent Cathedral are dated to the time, succeeding its creation (1407³⁵). This kind of sarcophagus will be prevalent in Moscow and the allied lands in the 16th–first half of the 17th century as nowhere else. Examples have already amounted to hundreds both inside the churches and open cemeteries. This is one of the most prominent Moscow types, which remain on the fringes in other Christian countries.

Compositions on ledger stones and slabs laid onto a grave from the Tsardom of Muscovy and their epigraphy should be recognized as the perfectly Muscovite. The slabs are much more numerous than sarcophaguses. On the threshold of the 14th–15th century, their composition moved beyond the symmetrical scheme, while appealing to a lying human body figure. In fact, it is akin to sculpture, relief, and engraving of gravestone slabs from the Romanesque and Gothic Europe. Examples dated to the first third of the 15th century include ledger stones of the Metropolitans Cyprian (1406) and Photius (1431) and their analogues in the Monasteries of Moscow, graveyard in Kolomenskoe village, etc., with the expressive composition accentuated with garment details, such as, head band, belt, etc. No inscriptions are found on the slabs until the 1480s; but they will rapidly fill the field afterwards, while substantially changing the composition. Stable inscription formula will have been developed by the second quarter of the 16th century, which will stay until the last quarter of the 17th century.³⁶

Recently, the stone cross characteristic of Moscow was successfully identified; it features the specific shape with rich triangle chip-carved ornament common for the same places as the “Muscovite” (Moscow) slabs, i.e., Upper Volga region. In contrast to the latter, the boulder (fieldstone) headstones are also known westward from the territory of Belarus and in the Russian North from the pre-Mongolian times.³⁷

Compositions made of brick (the footings) with the stone-carved inscribed tablet inserts sometimes connected to the underground vault appear to be the most recent type among the Muscovite burial structures. They will last to become a major form of the status-marker monuments in the interior. Dynasty monuments in the Cathedral of the Archangel in the Moscow Kremlin (decor of the 1630s has not yet been properly studied) is a prime example of their importance.

Therefore, archeologically recorded elements of the burial rite incontrovertibly important for orthodox residents of Russia occupy a central place among the characteristic features of the Moscow archeological culture. Obviously, not every form of it has been recorded; only few transpire outward. Thus, a practice of leaving in graves a vessel (“oil lamp”) used for the dying anointment with chrism or sprinkling a deceased with chrism with wine before the burial became a distinctive feature of the Muscovite burial rite in the end of the 14th century at the latest.³⁸ It became established in Moscow (apparently, in Tver) in the 1380–1430s similar to other novelties. The rite and a practice of leaving the last dishware in the grave, in particular, is believed to be assimilated due to edifying practice of the Metropolitan Cyprian, as the vessel of this type is mentioned in his answers to questions of the first hegumen Afanasii the Elder of Vysotskii Monastery in Serpukhov. The rite is archeologically recorded from the Byzantine European provinces, Slavic Balkans, Greece, and Crimea at about the same time and some time before that. In Russia, the practice continues to the present days, thus providing for the opportunity to explore both the development of the rite and specific types of vessels; specially crafted goblets or chalices similar to chiseled wooden charka were preferred in the 14th–15th centuries. The former were crafted of well-washed clear potter’s clay with green–yellow–brown glazing, though embossed (molded) small cups are also encountered in the monastery practice. This is another attribute of the Muscovite archeological culture.

Emergence of new forms should be noted among types of the sacral objects, tracing back to the Byzantine Christianity, but particularly typical of Russia. A widely spread encolpion cross morphs into new stable forms with well-defined Western influences and abandons the equal-ended forms of the 11th–13th centuries.

Some artifacts encountered inexplicable resistance in Moscow. Thus, roof tiles³⁹ proliferated in Moscow in the 16th century and were incorporated in religious architecture until the early 18th century.⁴⁰ But it had been unknown in Russia before and was not assimilated afterwards. Roof tiles is among the most practical useful inventions dispersed from Europe throughout to Japan of all time; but Russia remains a white spot on the “roof-tile map” until the end of the 15th century. Even though it was precisely Rus’ that ensured the continuity of stone architecture from Byzantium where the roof tiles were widely adopted.⁴¹ They were known to,⁴² but disregarded in Rus’ of the 11th–16th centuries.⁴³ At the same type, floor tiles typologically akin to the roof ones immediately became everyone’s favorites.

It was believed in the 1950s–1970s that roof tiles had been known in Moscow as early as prior to the arrival of the Italian architects.⁴⁴ The conservation professionals encountered remains of polished flat roof tiles⁴⁵ on the old town churches, dating them to the 1480s.⁴⁶ Recently, the dates were shifted to the first half of the 16th century, while the ceramic history professionals date the emergence of polished black ceramics in Moscow to the second quarter of the 16th century (see below).

Europe of the 15th–16th centuries commonly features either flat (plain) or semi-cylindrical roof tiles. But the Kremlin edifices of the end of the 15th–early 16th century, namely, the Palace built by Ivan III and the Cathedral of the Archangel, were covered by tiles of a different type, specifically, terracotta tegula (box-section profile), with lip.⁴⁷ This type of tiles has an antique origin and was made by builders from the “Byzantine Commonwealth,” though its form was oversimplified in contrast to the Muscovite tiles.⁴⁸

As for the Kremlin tiles, refer to translators and glossators of Vitruvius, which enthusiastically explored antiquity architecture. In his sketch to the essay, Baldassarre Peruzzi(?)⁴⁹ awestruck by the Roman antiquarianism presents unique tables of architectural ceramics, proportional row of imbrex and tegula with the characteristic “lip,” and the laying methods. Sophisticated and accurate technical drawings reveal expertise of the author in that the other Vitruvian commentaries even do not start to compare as they lack this kind of tables. Fioravanti, a companion-follower of Filarete and the author of one of the early treatises, introduced modifications to the brickmaking technology of Moscow; apropos, his proportions coincide with the proportions specified in the treatise. Additionally, introduction of new roofing material reconstructed “after Vitruvius” can be easily assumed. High quality level of the early terracotta tiles of the Kremlin and constructively complex polished black tegulae with lips, carefully following the Vitruvius and filling the layers of the 16th–17th centuries, are of the Italian origin.

In the Tsardom of Muscovy, roof tiles covered palaces built of stones, the monastery refectories (trapeznas), and churches. They embellished the structure, made it to stand out strikingly against other buildings, and raised the status. Their adoption appears to have been promoted by reforms of Peter I. But they are gradually disappearing.⁵⁰ Tiles of the new Western forms however, do not abound in cultural layers of the towns; they were imported to Russia from Europe by sea.⁵¹ The reluctance to use the tiles in Russia puzzled Jacob von Stäehlin in the 18th century and, later, set designers engaged in construction in the end of the 19th–early 20th century A.V. Filippov and M.I. Belavanets, as they mentioned this in their writings. In the 1920s–1940s, builders of Moscow had to demonstrate the benefits of using this material; but, frankly speaking, to no avail.

It is not entirely clear, why the roofing tiles were not used in Old Russia and why the decision was made against it again in the Modern period. But these chasms are sizeable. Period of the Tsardom of Muscovy proves to be the only period in the Russian history, when the tiles consistently gain ground and become an essential element of the architecture for two centuries. This is one of the “Muscovite (Moscow)” features that reflected a direct influence of constructive European thought within the Russian domain. Abandonment of its local version in the course of constructive revolution of Peter the Great is paradoxical, but can be explained: the element naturalized: in the Muscovite construction and did not “read” as the European.

Originality of household ceramics (pottery) in Moscow is ambiguous, since it appears to be a part of the European tradition, at least typologically and technologically. Vessels from the 16th–17th centuries differ little from the ones depicted on the canvases of Pieter Brueghel or Velázquez. Not every form is identical; but the assortment and technological characteristics are the same; specifically, tableware and container-ware pitchers stand side by side with kitchen pots; dough composition, molding, and firing seek to imitate a more costly metal dishware (plate) or emulate glazed pottery (enameled stoneware) using the engobe painting.

As a matter of fact, pottery-making technology roughens even in the cities from the mid-13th century. The late 14th century is, however, characterized by fewer crude impurities, more homogenous dough, and thinner walls of the vessels. A number of the new forms appear, such as, mugs, pitchers, and large container-ware pots replicated carefully and accurately. Indeterminate fuscous color is replaced by vibrant red–brown. Firing is in kilns; sharp ringing sound. Polishing and engobe painting is common.⁵² Overall, this arises from collaboration with large ceramic centers of the Horde in the Middle (Bulghar) and Lower Volga regions and involvement of artisans from these regions together with the Muscovite potters.⁵³

Shape of the main vessel of the Old Russian cookware, that is, a pot, will also change. Edge of its rim will become sharply triangular, resembling “1” in profile, which will allow tighter closing with the lid and more secure grip by oven fork. The neck will be higher and approach the S-like shape. Beginning the first third of the 16th century, technological repertoire will be supplemented with smoke (“fume”)-fired (gray and black) ceramics, frequently polished. Together with the already common white-burning, it will become one of the most prominent markers of the Muscovite pottery-making. A specialized district will be established in Moscow in the late 15th century, namely, Pottery Settlement (Goncharnaya Sloboda), where the standard and technologically advanced dishware was fired on a large, fair to say, commercial scale. It will take a century to standardize the items.

Over the recent years, a stand-alone line has been identified in the mainstream that is linked not only to the general “Hordes” tradition background, further deriving from the Central Asian, Persian, and, later, Turkish. Records exist, suggesting the possible penetration to Moscow of the ceramic forms and decor characteristic of the Mediterranean, which is supported by finds of the vessels even from Spain.⁵⁴

The Moscow ceramics demonstrates certain features of distinctiveness, which arise due to alternately involving in the process of artisams from the Islamic world or bearers of the European tradition, taking the route both roundabouts the Europe through Genoese Crimea and directly across the Lithuanian border.⁵⁵ As new archeological facts emerge, genesis of particular forms becomes evident, while supporting the European origin of the originally or seemingly Eastern forms, such as, (canteens, aquamaniles, and kumghans).

Assimilation mechanisms: acquisition of distinctiveness. It is rather difficult sometimes to discern a trail of transfer behind an artifact. Frequently, it was not consummate or its introduction did not ensure the sustainability. A good example is an architectural ceramic tile izrazets (with characteristic rump on the back side designed for fastening). As a particularity of Moscow, it caught the eye of the architects rather early. And indeed, the ceramic tile was widely applied in facades of the buildings and for tiling the stoves Russia-wide in the second half of the 17th century. Notwithstanding, izrazets in its fully established and developed form had to be introduced to the architecture repeatedly.⁵⁶ The impulses attenuated as in the a case with the facade terracotta tiles of the late 15th century; had a touch of uniqueness in terms of the artistic character, e.g., the tiled icons on facades from the second half of the 16th century in Tver and Staritsa; and stayed within a Tsar’s court coterie as with an early stove ceramic tile. And only as late as in the 17th century, the “graft” turned out to be successfull during construction of the New Jerusalem Monastery on the Istra River and sprouted the full force.⁵⁷

Speaking of distinctiveness of Moscow archeological culture, consider arguments for the absence (absent qualia); in other words, attainment of cultural purity through consciously rejecting the existing traditions developed by civilization. Key phenomena critical for the Western cultural code, such as, theater and free-standing columns and arches, will be incorporated into the Russian culture only with the reforms of Peter I. This outlines specifics of reception by Moscow of the Mediterranean cultural circle heritage.

Birch bark manuscripts have long qualified as this kind of arguments; the first was discovered in Moscow in 1988. They are few (only four are known), but they audaciously differ from a huge body of birch bark letters of Novgorod. The former “wrongly” treat the birch bark and are written crosswise rather than endways as is right and proper. Birch bark in Moscow is a crude material for legal document drafting, rather than used for correspondence (letters).⁵⁸ Thus, Muscovites did not adopt the northern tradition in toto. And soon enough paper came.

Majority of the characteristics are of temporary nature and depend on a sociopolitical situation. Thus, there are only few markers of the syncretic Horde culture. Archeologists persevere in their search for them. But it is perfectly clear by now that they are nearly non-existent outside of the borderlands. But presence of the Islamic population except for Kasimov cannot be underpinned archeologically. The Horde influence (which does not amount to the Eastern influence) is observed in the material and artistic milieu of the North-East as late as by the end of the 14th century. It is only recently that Moscow presented to a view a distinct layer, containing the “Islamic” metal import, namely, mirrors with Arabic inscriptions, offering good wishes; signet rings with “knot of happiness”; and bracelets with zoomorphic endings.⁵⁹ Transfer of technology appears to be ensured by Russian artisans, returning from the Horde, specialists who were captured, hired, or traded by princes (knyazes) in the Horde, including Pontic towns and artisans from a circle of the visiting surozhane (merchants involved in trade with Byzantium, Italian cities, and, later, Turkey through Surozh (Sudak) town) or the house servants of the noble Horde’s people, taking service in Moscow. Intestine war in the Horde of the 1360s and defeat of Timur (1395) and subsequent famine and epidemics, lasting for the entire decade, forced them to seek asylum including in Russian Principalities. It is difficult to determine ethnic origin or religious affiliation of artisans, since the Golden Horde population appears to have been a melting pot.

To summarize, the archeology depictures distinctive elements of “Moscow culture,” type of the artifacts, as well as artistic appearances and imagery. They are overly discrete, but self-contained in their development. External impulses play an important role as in any living culture. They were highly valued due to comparatively insular nature of relations and, being transferred to new grounds, their significance occasionally grew out of proportion as in the case with architectural ceramic tiles and anthropomorphic sarcophagus. The delivery routes in themselves are intriguing and difficult to be identified. Westerly winds carry on elements of the Eastern fashion. Specimens of the European forms and technologies arrive through Crimea and Volga Region. Christians from Anatolia emerge as bearers of the Islamic motifs. The impulses are driven to the extremity, e.g., think that the early Moscow tiles have something in common with the Vitruvian practice. In a nutshell, it may not always be apparent readily, which reservoir feeds Moscow (many more examples can be given). Undeniably, principles of selection and subsequent adaptation largely maintained in Russia at the later stage are equally important. But this is to be addressed separately.⁶⁰