CC BY
13УДК 725.94(07)
On Organization of Exhibition Areas
for Archaeological-and-Architectural Monuments
in a Historic City
(based on Moscow historic city research)
Nikolay I. Grekov*
Siberian Federal University 79 Svobodny, Krasnoyarsk, 660041 Russia 1
Received 19.03.2012, received in revised form 25.03.2012, accepted 4.04.2012
Being a scientific source for cognition of the past, architectural-and-archaeological monuments discovered during excavations have always been important for the society. They influence people emotionally and esthetically. Display of ancient constructions as museum exhibits on the site is the most efficient way to preserve architectural-and-archaeological monuments. Ways of such ancient constructions display must meet the requirements of functional and artistically picturesque integration of a monument discovered by the archaeologists with the elements of modern environment. Centuries-old development has left a great number of valuable architectural-and-archaeological monuments for Moscow. The problems of discovery, preservation and display of Moscow’s architectural-and-archaeological heritage are extremely complicated due to Moscow’s status of a capital city and historic city centre steadiness. It is necessary to arrange the historic centre zoning taking the most valuable sectors of the cultural layer into account and to design reconstruction projects of the city wards occupying the sites ofprospective archaeological research. Solution of the problem of architectural-and-archaeological monuments preservation and their contemporary use on the territory of Moscow requires much experimental work the results of which might influence the ways of the historic centre reconstruction.
Keywords: architectural-and-archaeological monument, archaeological museum, display of an ancient construction as a museum exhibit on the excavation site, MOSCO W, exhibition, archaeological research
Point of view
There is a large number of historic and cultural monuments on the territory of Russia. Their most numerous group is constituted by architectural-and-archaeological monuments, the remains of architectural and urban design masterpieces either discovered during archaeological excavations or situated on the ground in the form of ruins.
* Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected]
1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
The remains of ancient constructions are characterized by a significant informational potential. Architectural-and-archaeological monuments existing in the form of the ruins are usually deprived of the opportunity of their utilitarian use but they gain the significance of a scientific source for cognition of the past. Enormous emotional-and-esthetic influence on
people rates architectural-and-archaeological monuments among historic relicts which are visited by the tourists most willingly. According to the opinion of N.N. Voronin, a famous researcher of architecture, . .in comparison with other movable finds an architectural monument is important as an immovable architectural object created on a definite site at a definite period of time under certain local circumstances. An architectural monument is a result of a complicated technical and artistic process, it is a many-sided, complex source making it possible to judge both its industrial-and-technical and ideological and artistic sides” (Voronin, 1954: 41).
The role of historic-and-cultural heritage has been always significant. A monument in its culturological aspect is the means helping every generation and individual to define and understand their place in a historic process. Architectural-and-archaeological monuments create the sense of the space authenticity that plunges a visitor into temporal layers of the past epochs and at the same time leads to the understanding that a visitor is in inseparable bonds with the culture that disappeared (Novoselov, 1999).
The USSR practice of archeological masterpieces display as museum exhibits on excavation sites (“in situ”, that is on the construction place of an ancient installation) started in the 50-s of the last century already. At that time the specialists were ready to display unique antiquity monuments located on the Black Sea coast. Those were the remains of Chersonese and Tanais settlements discovered by the archeologists. Later they created archeological reservations in Kerch (Panticapaeum), Anapa (Gorgippiya), Georgia (Taishebaini), near Kazan (Velikiye Bulgary), etc. (Bulatov, 1997). Scores of the projects of archeological masterpieces and complexes display as museum exhibits on excavation sites are designed nowadays. But still it has to be mentioned that the reservation
practice considerably legs behind a wide scope of archaeological discoveries. Shapeless remains of the excavated cultural layer and feeble and unsharp horizontal projections of ancient constructions, in the majority of cases destined to a total destruction, are very often seen on the site of an ancient settlement after regular field excavations.
Example
Material marks of almost millennial history of national architecture development are concentrated in Moscow. The capital of Russia is a magnificent example of an urban organism continuous existence. The curve of historic development convincingly shows the rise and decline, flourishing growth and total end of life periods. Moscow chronicles have registered everything but the total end of life. Such centuries-old development presented the city with exceptionally rich architectural-and-archaeological heritage having precious scientific-and-historical and cultural value.
Moscow can be with certainty considered an original architectural-and-archaeological complex. The city developed straight on the remains of the medieval centre of appanage and grand princedoms, which was the capital of the centralized Russian state afterwards. Moscow cultural layer with its thick stratifications contains hundreds of ancient monuments the majority of which are looking forward to their researcher.
Architectural-and-archaeological monuments are a very important scientific-and-historic source, a materialized document of the past times history: national culture, building and construction, social relations, etc. Even when only the remains of the installation walls or foundations are discovered, a monument carries out its functional role as a scientific source often deprived of the latest cultural stratifications.
- The Kremlin
- Kitay-gorod ■ 1 - Bely Gorod (White Town)
LI - Skorodom
Fig. 1. Main areas forming Moscow historic centre
The problems of discovery, preservation and display of an architectural-and-archaeological heritage of any historic city are always complicated. For Moscow this complexity increases manifold. It is not due to the fact that the capital of Russia is a modern city where an intensive urbanization process leaves its marks on a historic environment condition (nowadays it is typical to many large cities of our country and abroad). The duration of Moscow’s existence can’t be regarded an obstacle for architectural archaeology development either as other cities went through not shorter (and very often even much longer) historic ways. According to modern view, almost millennial existence of the historic settlement called “Moscow” makes it possible to rate the city among “young” European capitals. There are two reasons that make Moscow different from other historic settlements. The first on is that a historic centre of the city formed during feudalism period has remained unchanged with a surprising steadiness for many centuries (Fig. 1).
The second reason is that after Moscow became a capital it moved off other Russian historic cities due to its political status again.
As it is known, the name “Moscow” is first mentioned in the chronicles of 1147. The archaeological research of Zaryadye, jointly made in 1949-1951 by the Museum of History and Reconstruction of Moscow and the Institute for the History of Material Culture under the USSR Academy of Sciences, contributed to more precise knowledge of Moscow origin. The area of 2300 square meters was under excavations in Zaryadye. According to the specialists, this unique district of the capital was not only an important scientific-and-historic source but an original “in-the-open-air” museum. Apart from numerous stone remains of various destinations, lower parts of wooden blockhouses were preserved in almost primordial condition in humid soil of Zaryadye with its fine preservation qualities. Fragments of an ancient city beautification were also discovered here. They are much older than those in the cities of Western Europe (Veksler et.al., 2002).
Unfortunately, there is not even the slightest mark of Moscow intricate streets. After quite a short archaeological research a gigantic “Russia” hotel complex was built on the place of ancient Zaryadye. It was designed in accordance with
the fashion of the 70-s of the previous century: a cumbersome glass and aluminum building not suiting the Kremlin ensemble and unique historic surroundings (there is a great number of prominent masterpieces of Russian architecture of XV-XVIII centuries there) due to its size and plastic art fronts. By the present the building has been demolished. But it has been done only to let another project neither less ambitious as per its size and architecture to come true. The carried out project, nevertheless, foresees a more careful treatment of Moscow historic heritage. In particular, they plan to restore Nikola Mokriy church demolished during “Russia” hotel construction and to try to display several fragments of ancient installations on the site (in new premises interiors).
There is another example. Fragments of ancient fortification - Kitay-gorod wall -remained under the passages of New Lubyanka and Old Lubyanka squares. Small remains of Kitay-gorod walls are preserved on Teatralnaya Ploschad (Theatre Square) (Sverdlov Square in 1919-1991), in Mokhovaya street and in Kitaiskiy proezd. The quality of brickwork caused many troubles when the underground passage builders demolished these walls: past nomads’ raids, time and destructive influence of the environment were weak against a monumental masterpiece of ancient architects.
In 1959 the first excavations were carried out on the Kremlin territory. As a result the remains of the fortress wooden walls of the beginning of the XII - the end of the XIII centuries were discovered. A part of the fortification became an exhibit of the Museum of History and Reconstruction of Moscow after dismantling and special treatment. Discovery of tsar’s stone chambers remains was another significant event for the archeologists.
The arterial transport highway of central Moscow - the Garden Ring - runs straight over
the remains of Skorodom, the biggest fortress in Ancient Russia. The building of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour (in the 70-s of the previous century open-air swimming pool “Moscow”, popular among the Muscovites, was situated here) is near the remains of a unique fortification building of the XVII century - Semiverkhaya Tower constructed by Fedor Kon’. The majority of “Russia” movie theatre visitors are even unaware of the fact that Dmitrovskaya and Tverskaya highways joined at this place in ancient times. One of Bely Gorod (White city) towers built on piles, a magnificent specimen of an engineering thought of Moscow architects of the XVI century, was also situated here.
Architectural-and-archaeological heritage of Moscow is enormous but not infinite. Scientific archaeological observations and research, that were caused in the 30-s of the previous century by the metro construction, are in full swing nowadays. As a result a considerable number of monuments in various parts of the capital have been under the research. Its planning system itself is an original monument to the ancient Russian urban design art.
Construction of the underground railway has always been an extremely complex task both from its technical side (utility lines laying) and its social side (penetration into the zone of social contacts). A set of problems during the underground railway designing and construction causes the saturation of the city’s cultural layer with architectural-and-archaeological monuments. At the same time it provides great chances for unusual realization of a city infrastructure in which architectural-and-archaeological heritage will take its certain place during underground environment organization (Grekov, 1983). Modern methodology of ancient monuments preservation during underground works presupposes dismantling of fragments of open archaeological objects and their relocation to a safety place with a subsequent return to
the site set aside for exhibiting. Immediate conservation of “in situ” objects is necessary for the most valuable monuments. In case a design correction in order to change a metro line is possible it must be necessarily done for the sake of maximal preservation of the most valuable areas of archaeological reservation.
There are enough examples of a successful co-existence of ancient and new architecture in modern and foreign practice. This practice proves that the best way to preserve an architectural-and-archaeological monument and to implement its exhibition-and-cognitive value is often its display as a museum exhibit on its construction site (Andrew^ Wallace -Hadrill, 2011). The ways of such architect ural-and-archaeologicalmonumenls display can be various in each particular case. But all of them must be base d on one tendency, and namely runotional and artistic'-and-picturesque integration of a monument discovnred by the archenlogists in the process of its research wtththe elements of modern environment (Grekov, 1985). The essence of the problem is generally in search for the most efficient forms of architertural-and-archaeologicae monumenCs representation.
Conclusion
Consistent and prospective solution of the problem consisting in Moscow architectural-and-archaeological heritage preservation seems possible without coming into conflict with the capital city development. The main step in solving this problem is a historic city centre zoning when the most valuable areas of the cultural layer and further reconstruction design of a set of districts located on the sites of prospective excavations are taken into account.
Archaeologically Moscow historic centre territory can be divided into four main city formation areas: the Kremlin, Kitay-gorod, Zaneglimenye, Zamoskvorechye (Fig. 2). These areas can be assumed as a bacis for organization soifonarchitectural-and-archaeological exhibition areas.
Thr moin exhibition route must connect these zones in a chronological nrder, starting with Che Kremlin and finishing with Zamoskvorechye. Building of special exhibition facilities or not large archaeological museums foc display of emall materiol finds, pktures, plictos, models, ceconstructions, etc. near
□□□ - exhibition route development
<§> - archaeological museums,
protective exhibition hall, monuments display “in ritu”
Fig. 2. Organization of architectural-and-archaeological exhibition areas: 1 - “the Kremlin”, 2 - “Kitay-gorod” 3 - “Zaneglimenye”, 4 - “Zamtskvотechye”
Fig. 3. Moscow. Voskresenskiy (Kuryatniy) Bridge, XVI-XVII centuries on the left: excavations of the bridge in Manezhnaya square, 2004 on the right: bridge abutments, displayed in the Moscow Archaeology Museum, present day condition
excavation sites must be foreseen in every zone. Display of Voskresenskiy Bridge fragments, a msnument to the architecture of the XVI -XVII centuries, on the excavation site in 1997 can be regarded as one of the initial stages of such work (Fig. 3). The monumenr is exhibited at the depth of 7 meters, in the premises of thr Morcow Archaeology Museum at present. Ruins reconstruction is differently regarded by the seecialists foe tfe reason that real remeina of the bridge are difficult to distinguish from the “antique” imitation. Modern brickwork is applied to its reconsteuction; the interior includes marble columns which close authentic parts cf the ancienf bridge abutments. Tfis finally deludes many visitors. As only one edge ot the andext construction is displaeed at the exhibition, a visitor fails to get a full impression of the excavated monument (Medved, 2004).
Creation of certain archaeological exhibition zones united by a common concept is necessary for the right comprehension of a huge city, understanding of the meaning put into the capital
iompositiob ay the architect.. Undoubtedly, the problem isn’t exhausted by creation of archaeologicxl zones and excavatiox of the objects with their subsequent conservation.
Preservation and contemporary use of arcbitectural-and-arctaeological monuments
on the territory of Moscow will require great experimental worh tfe results of which can have serious influence even on the way of the whole historic centre reconstruction.
Every year the specialists discover new, non-researched architectural-and-archaeological monumenls of Moscow, widen the ancient complexes excavation areas which have been under the research for decades. “The score of archaeological monuments can be regarded similar to accient chronicle s with the pages scattered around and lying in neglect. The task is to collect and keep these pages...” (Yanin, 1988: 458). These famous Russian architect’s words can’t be but agreed with, but architects, restorers and historians must be equally responsible for solving this task.
References
V.B. Belyayev, “Ways of the Capital’s Development”, Urban Design, 6 (2010), 40-42, in Russian.
N.M. Bulatov, “Problems of Archaeological Monuments Display as Museum Exhibits on the
Site”, in Archaeological Factor in the Planning Organization of the Territory (Moscow, 1997), 109111, in Russian.
E.V Dyachenko, “Pedestrian Tourist Routs in Moscow”, Architecture and Building of Moscow, 4-552 (2010), 38-50, in Russian.
N.I. Grekov, “Preservation and Contemporary Use of Architectural-and-Archaeological Monuments (Based on Ancient and Early Medieval Monuments Research)”, Author’s abstract of candidate of architecture dissertation (Moscow, 1985), in Russian.
N.I. Grekov, “Architectural-and-Archaeological Monuments in the Structure of the Underground”, Underground Building, 5 (1983), 24, in Russian.
V.P. Korotayev, “Moscow Underground Space Use”, Architecture and Building of Moscow, 1-543 (2009), 39-44, in Russian.
O.G. Litvinova, L.S. Romanova, “Foreign Experience of Historic-and-Cultural Heritage Preservation”, Vestnik of Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, 1 (2009), 74-92, in Russian.
A.N. Medved, Display of Russian Archaeological Monuments on Excavation Sites (Past and Future) (Moscow, 2004), in Russian.
M.P. Nazarova, “Information Potential of Urban Architecture Monuments”, City Sociology, 2 (2009), 41-45, in Russian.
N.V. Novoselov, The Subject of Architectural Archaeology. The Report at ‘the History and Archaeology of Medieval Europe and Russia’ Seminar Section Meeting of Historical Society at St. Petersburg European University (St. Petersburg, 1999), - rusarch.ru/novoselov1.htm, in Russian.
E.V. Peretyagina, “Objects of Historic-and-Cultural Heritage as a Resource of Tourist Business Development in a Historic City”, Vestnik of Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, 3 (2008), 117-122, in Russian.
L.D. Petrakova, “Restoration and Adjustment of Architectural Monuments”, In the World of Scientific Discoveries, 6-2 (2010), 362-366, in Russian.
L.S. Romanova, O.G. Litvinova, “On the Results of Fundamental Research on the Development of Architecture-and-Building Heritage Preservation Theoretical Bases”, Vestnik of Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, 2 (2010), 55-71, in Russian.
K.A. Solovyev, “A City Cloister, Problems of Preservation an Display on Sites of the Church Antique at the Turn of XIX-XX Centuries”, Vestnik of Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building, 7 (2007), 207-211, in Russian.
E.E. Solovyeva and E.A. Belosludtseva, “Issues of Cultural Heritage Protection: Problems and Prospects”, Architecture and Building of Moscow, 3-545 (2009), 24-33, in Russian.
T.V. Vavilonskaya, “The Strategy of Architectural-and-Historic Environment Renewal (Based on Samara Research)”, Building and Reconstruction, 3-23 (2009), 68-72, in Russian.
A.G. Veksler and VYu. Pirogov, “Moscow’s Bely Gorod (White city) Wall. Historical Essay and Archaeological Research”, Architectural Heritage, 54 (2011), 61-79, in Russian.
A.G. Veksler, “Architectural-and-Archaeological Heritage of Moscow. Research and Display on Sites”, Architectural Heritage, 52 (2010), с.5-19, in Russian.
N.N. Voronin, “Architectural Monument as a Historic Source (Notes to Statement of a Question)”, Soviet Archaeology, XIX (1954), с.41-76, in Russian.
V.L. Yanin, I sent you the birch bark... (Moscow, 1998), in Russian.
S.V Yargin, “On Moscow Reconstruction Mechanisms”, Architecture and Building of Moscow, 1-555 (2011), 40-45, in Russian.
A. Wallace-Hadrill, Herculaneum. Past and Future (Frances Lincoln, 2011).
Об организации экспозиционных пространств памятников археологической архитектуры в историческом городе (на примере Москвы)
Н.И. Г реков
Сибирский федеральный университет Россия 660041, Красноярск, пр. Свободный, 79
Раскрываемые в процессе раскопок архитектурно-археологические памятники сохраняют значимость для общества как научный источник познания прошлого и вызывают эмоционально-эстетическое воздействие на зрителей. Музеефикация - показ древнего сооружения как музейного экспоната на месте создания, является наиболее эффективным способом сохранения архитектурно-археологического памятника. Способы музеефикации древних сооружений должны отвечать требованиям функциональной и художественнообразной интеграции раскрытого археологами памятника с элементами современного окружения. Многовековое развитие оставило Москве большое количество ценных архитектурно-археологических памятников. Проблемы раскрытия, сохранения и показа архитектурно-археологического наследия Москвы необычайно сложны из-за ее столичного статуса и устойчивости исторического ядра города. Необходимо провести зонирование исторического центра с учетом наиболее ценных участков культурного слоя и разработать проекты реконструкции кварталов, находящихся на месте перспективных археологических исследований. Решение проблемы сохранения и современного использования архитектурноархеологических памятников на территории Москвы потребует большой экспериментальной работы, результаты которой могут оказать влияние на пути реконструкции исторического центра.
Ключевые слова: архитектурно-археологический памятник, археологический музей,
музеефикация, МОСКВА, экспонирование, археологические исследования.
