Architectural-city building heritage of South Ural (abstract on competition uch. step. doctor of the architecture, 2009)
In given article the fragment of the author's abstract of the dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the doctor of architecture of Ponomarenko E.V. on a theme “is resulted the Architecturally-town-planning heritage of Southern Ural Mountains” Moscow, 2009.
Ponomarenko Elena Vladimirovna
ARCHITECTURALLY-TOWN-PLANNING HERITAGE OF SOUTHERN URAL MOUNTAINS
01/18/01 – the theory and architecture history, restoration and reconstruction of an historical and architectural heritage
The dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of the doctor of architecture
Reconstruction of cities of Southern Ural Mountains becomes more and more actual problem. At the decision of problems of such reconstruction it is very important to consider historically developed design principles and character of building. The originality of shape of historical settlements is defined by presence in each of them of such characteristic features, as expressiveness of a silhouette and a panorama, scale, communication of building with a landscape, originality of monuments of architecture, local architecturally-art and building traditions. Loss of all these features leads depersonalization settlements. In the conditions of world cultural integration the role of regions that demands finding-out of historical and cultural laws and features of their development more and more increases. Definition of specificity of regions with a considerable quantity ethnic and subethnic groups, such as Southern Ural Mountains is especially difficult. The increased interest to cultural including to architecturally-town-planning traditions of ethnic groups it is defined by coexistence of two interrelated tendencies in world community development: formation of uniform information, economic, technological space, i.e. globalisation process, and, at the same time, the isolation tendency, actualisation of ethnic phenomena in local cultures.
Now revival of cultural traditions of ethnic groups of region is observed. This process is expressed in restoration, reconstruction and building of new buildings of various faiths, the national centers, libraries etc. Steady growth of public and scientific attention to town-planning and architecture as parts of a cultural and spiritual heritage is simultaneously observed.
As a whole the current state of an architecturally-town-planning heritage of Southern Ural Mountains causes serious concern. The region territory is surveyed non-uniformly. Monuments collapse in connection with accruing economic activities and under the influence of natural factors. Their preservation and restoration is made in insufficient volume. The reasons of it first of all consist in absence of historical and architectural basic plans of historical cities, projects of security zones and ground cadastres. As a result of nonprofessional reconstruction unique objects (a factory complex “Thresholds” Satkinsky area, foundry and metal works in Minjare, etc.).
Listed above the reason do actual studying of a heritage of Southern Ural Mountains, history of development of its architecturally-town-planning culture.
Degree of a level of scrutiny of a theme
In a modern science of researches of a heritage of Southern Ural Mountains it is a little. Basically it is works of regional specialists and historians: V.S.Bozhe, A.V.Degtyaryov, M.M.Yeliseyev, V.S.Kobzova, M.P.Mochalovoj, V.D.Olenkova, G.H.Samigulova, E.I.Skobelkina, A.V.Shamsutdinova and others in which the material on separate architectural monuments is collected.
Cities of Average and Northern Ural Mountains are most studied. Articles and N.S.Alfyorov, R.M.Lotarevoj, A.A.Starikova's monographies and l are devoted Cities-factories. P.Holodovoj. In E.A.Animitsy, E.N.Bubnova, N.I.Bugaevoj, V.L.Koljasnikova's works, A.V.Lemigova, N.N.Ljaptseva considers questions of development of the Ural not factory settlements. In these works some South Ural cities are mentioned also, but their full research was not spent.
At the heart of the researches of an ancient stage of development of region spent by the author works of archeologists lie: O.N.Badera, G.V.Beltikovoj, A.A.Bers, E.M.Bers, V.A.Borzunova, N.B.Vinogradova, A.A.Vybornova, V.F.Geninga, V.V. Geninga, A.V.Epimahova, V.A.Oborina, G.B.Zdanovich, V.A.Ivanov, T.V.Kovalevoj., L.N.Korjakovoj., L.JA.Krizhevsky., G.N.Matyushin, M.F.Obydennova, V.T.Petrina, K.V.Salnikova, V.S.Stoklosa, A.D.Tairova, A.F.Shorina and others. However, in one work, owing to specificity of an archaeological science, development of architecture and town-planning of Southern Ural Mountains is not considered. The most considerable etnografo-geographical works across Southern Ural Mountains XVIII – first half of XIX-th century belong to participants of the scientific expeditions which have brought the huge contribution to formation of system of moving of Southern Ural Mountains and in studying of edge. These are I.K.Kirilova, V.N.Tatischev, I.G.Gmelina, I.I.Lepyokhin, P.S.Pallasa, I.P.Falka's works. In group “the general works” P.I.Rychkova, V.N.Vitevskogo, E.F.Zjablovsky, I.V.Zhukovskogo, V.I.Genina, V.M.Cheremshanskogo, I.L.Debu, V.P.Semenova-Tjanshanskogo, V.V. Zverinskogo, V.A.Vesnovskogo's works are allocated. The considerable material for researches of settlements of Southern Ural Mountains, especially in XIX century, is given by works of historians of the Cossack armies: N.Borodina, F.M.Starikova, M.Golubyh. The group of memoirs of travellers and fiction contains interesting data on settlements of Southern Ural Mountains. These are memoirs: M.A.Krukovskogo, N.N.Lendera, V.A.Zhukovskogo, D.L.Mordovtseva, N.G.garina.
In the big degree the present research of an architecturally-town-planning heritage leant against works of domestic historians and theorists of architecture of A.V.Bunin, N.F.Guljanitsky, E.I.Kirichenko, M.V.Nashchokinoj, T.F.Savarensky, A.S.ShChenkova and others. Including “history of town-planning art” and multivolume work “Russian town-planning art”.
Coincidence of some the essential moments in development of regions does actual for the given research studying of the works considering cities of Siberia and other next regions. It is necessary to allocate V.V. Kostochkina, V.I.Kochedamova, N.P.Kradina, N.L.Krasheninnikovoj, B.N.Ogly, T.S.proskurjakovoj, V.A.Shkvarikova's works.
Features of an ethnic originality of a heritage help to understand S.S.Ajdarova, G.N.Ajdarovoj, V.P.Orfinskogo, V.I.Tsareva's works. Thereupon certain interest is represented by the works devoted to Muslim architecture and town-planning: V.L.Voroninoj, B.G.Kalimullina, V.V. Konstantinovoj, I.I.Notkina, A.M.Pribytkovoj, G.A.Pugachenkovoj, S.I.Rudenko, N.N.Haruzina, N.H.Halitova, A.R.Shirgazina, S.N.Shitovoj. For studying of problems of preservation and use of regional monuments G.V.Esaulova's devoted to definition of potential of an architecturally-town-planning heritage in ecology of culture the works have Great value.
As a whole it is necessary to notice that the special researches devoted to a heritage, town-planning and architectural development of Southern Ural Mountains it was not spent.
The work purpose is definition of the basic stages and features of formation of settlements and evolution of architectural forms in Southern Ural Mountains, and also revealing of a cultural value of an architecturally-town-planning heritage of region and main principles of its preservation and use.
The primary goals of research:
- to analyse conditions, preconditions and factors which have defined formation of the architecturally-spatial environment and a heritage of Southern Ural Mountains in historical dynamics;
- to consider system of moving of Southern Ural Mountains on each of stages of its development, to define the most considerable architecturally-town-planning monuments;
- to reveal the basic types of lay-out of settlements at each stage, to characterise laws and features of their development, to reconstruct formation process;
- to analyse the most typical architectural ensembles and constructions of the South Ural cities;
- to formulate the basic problems of preservation and use of an architecturally-town-planning heritage and to plan ways of their decision.
Object of research – an architecturally-town-planning heritage of Southern Ural Mountains: system of moving and various types of settlements of region; their lay-out, the most typical ensembles and objects, and also the ordinary building, considered in historical dynamics.
Object of research – laws and features of formation and functioning of an architecturally-town-planning heritage of Southern Ural Mountains at different stages of development of region.
The research technique is based on the complex historical and architectural analysis of the most typical types of the South Ural cities, settlements and monuments. A leading method of research is the historical and architectural analysis and generalisation of archival materials, the natural data, ethnographic and historical evidences.
In quality of source bases are used by the author mainly natural researches, descriptions of eyewitnesses and archival sources, many of which are introduced in a scientific turn for the first time. On a dissertation theme materials of fifteen central and regional archives and museums are studied. Including: Russian State Archive of Ancient Certificates, Russian State Military-historical Archive, Russian State Historical Archive, State Archive of the Orenburg region, Incorporated State Archive of Chelyabinsk region, Archive of Chelyabinsk Society of Protection of Monuments of Architecture, Archive of Archaeological Laboratory of Ural State University, Cartographical Department of State Russian Library, State Scientific Research Museum of Architecture of name AV Shchusev, Chelyabinsk Regional Museum of Local Lore, and also city museums of local lore: Silver-tongued orator, Troitsk, Satka, Kyshtym, Miass, Verhneuralska. In these archives and museums the extensive material of cartographical sources XVIII and is analysed XIX centuries: provincial cards; cards of ambits of fortresses; district plans; plans of fortresses; plans of cities, villages and the Cossack villages of Orenburg, Ufa and Perm provinces; plans and drawings of cities-factories and their separate constructions; plans of factory villages; plans of tap of mines and miner settlements; plans of factory summer residences. The material under plans, facades and photos of characteristic constructions, including nowadays lost is collected. Materials Berg-board and the Senate, and also Mountain department, Office of the Main thing of factories of board, Orenburg and Perm mountain principalities are considered. The regular material of natural inspections of monuments of architecture is collected: Inspections of a historical part of cities and settlements (is administrative-trading, cities-factories, villages, the Cossack villages), measurements of fortresses and characteristic constructions of building of cities and settlements, photofixing and sketches.
The numerous published sources – works of the Arabian, Persian, West European and Russian geographers, travellers of the early Middle Ages, XVIII and XIX centuries, including members of the academic expeditions are studied. Interesting data are taken from thematic collections and periodicals.
Sources of regional studies XVIII – beginnings ХХ contain centuries an interesting actual material, visual supervision, personal estimations of those facts and the events their authors were which witnesses. These sources across Southern Ural Mountains can be divided into some groups: the general works on provinces (Orenburg, Ufa, Perm), including special group make works of historians of the Orenburg and Ural Cossack armies; encyclopaedias, directories and dictionaries; special researches; memoirs and fiction; periodicals of last years. From the point of view of historical development process of formation of an architecturally-town-planning heritage can be presented as a chain of discrete conditions of an artificial inhabitancy. The basic characteristics of each stage are defined by a concrete historical situation which is determined by variety of factors (climatic, cultural, economic and political). Change of a concrete historical situation conducts to revaluation of an architecturally-town-planning heritage and to its transformation which is carried out through activity of architects.
The system approach assumes application of the historical and genetic, architectural and town-planning analysis (typological, stylistic). It is especially important that such approach considers many aspects national, confessional, an ethnic and subethnic originality of a heritage. It is of great importance for Southern Ural Mountains, during all periods of history of the population differing by the big variety. Consideration of architecturally-town-planning traditions from the point of view of development of the cultural environment allows to reveal structure of a heritage of region, its elements and system communications, and also laws of development.
The region of Southern Ural Mountains is defined within the limits of the Orenburg province of the middle of XIX century Such borders are defined not by administrative division, and climatic, historical and economic features of development of territory. When it is demanded by the logician of a statement, the nearest adjacent areas are partially considered. Ural Mountains share to Polar, Subpolar, Northern, Average and Southern Ural Mountains. Southern Ural Mountains are a geographical concept. It includes territory of Chelyabinsk and Orenburg areas, and also partially Bashkiria. Around the cities of Kyshtym and the Silver-tongued orator the water separate ridge turns to the southwest, the convex party to Siberia. Beginning from mountain Jurmy, Ural mountains are divided by longitudinal valleys into three parallel spurs. Average is ridge continuation, east is called as Ilmensky mountains, and western – Urengojsky range. Further to the south the relief breaks up to insignificant heights – General syrt and Guberlinsky mountains, which separate ridges reach Aral pool. The most important sign of a choice of borders of region accepts an area of moving of Orenburg Cossack army as specificity of town-planning of Southern Ural Mountains was in many respects defined by processes of formation of Cossacks. In the south, towards Siberia and Kazakhstan, it is necessary to consider as an extreme South Ural city Orenburg. It finished the exhibition line going from Irbit in Average Ural Mountains, through Troitsk and Orsk. All mentioned administratively-shopping centers were economically and are administratively connected with factories.
Chronological borders cover the period since the most ancient times on 1917 the analysis of historical and architectural process in Southern Ural Mountains has allowed to reveal five basic stages of evolution of town-planning and architectural forms: ancient, medieval (VI – the beginning of XVIII centuries), Russian colonisation (second half XVIII century – 1850th), industrial revolution (1860th – beginning ХХ century) and Soviet. Their borders are defined by spasmodic changes of the factors forming architecture of region.
Though the heritage is open system and constantly replenishes, in modern culture of Southern Ural Mountains special value has revealing and studying of monuments and architecturally-town-planning traditions pre-soviet the period. One of problems of the present work is rehabilitation pre-soviet
heritages in the architecturally-town-planning environment of region. The historical destiny of Southern Ural Mountains has developed so that the file of the Soviet heritage is very great and demands separate research. At the same time traditions pre-soviet the period reflect a historical originality of region. The big stage on duration before occurrence of Russian population in Southern Ural Mountains has defined primary ethnogenesis and addition of traditions of moving.
Scientific novelty of research is defined by that this first complex historical and architectural research of Southern Ural Mountains completely considering an architecturally-town-planning heritage of region and covering development of all basic types of cities and settlements: – it is revealed, studied, generalised and the complex of the earlier not published materials is entered into scientific use; among them: archival cards and plans of provinces, districts, cities, villages, villages, villages, mine settlements, archival photos and projects of churches, mosques, public and residential buildings; author's inspections of settlements and measurements of architectural monuments;
- For the first time it is considered extensive pre-russian a layer of an architecturally-town-planning heritage, the big file of an archaeological material is entered into sphere of an architecturally-town-planning science and its communication with the subsequent development of architecture and region town-planning is tracked;
- The periodization of architecturally-town-planning development of Southern Ural Mountains is developed, key elements of an architecturally-town-planning heritage and system communications between them are revealed;
- For the first time the heritage is investigated in historical and cultural unity, is considered as complete system;
- For the first time town-planning traditions are considered as consequence of ethnic cultural traditions of the people occupying territory of region; thereupon existence in region various ethnically determined deign elements which co-existed within the limits of the general plan of settlement led to uniformity is proved.
The personal contribution of the author, except the received results of research, consists in:
- Full-scale inspection of territory of Southern Ural Mountains within the limits of the declared region, revealing, the description and photofixing of 126 cities and settlements, and also 432 monuments of architecture;
- Carrying out of measurements of fortresses Naslednitsky and Nikolaev;
- Inspection and the publication of a significant amount of general layouts of the Cossack villages, such as: Paris, Fershampenuaz, Varna, Berlin, Leipzig and others.
Protection subject are:
- Laws and features of process of architecturally-spatial development of territory of Southern Ural Mountains at the basic historical stages;
- Features of influence of welfare and natural factors specific to Southern Ural Mountains on formation of elements of an architecturally-town-planning heritage of region;
- Features of development characteristic design structures of various types of settlements of Southern Ural Mountains in historical dynamics;
- Sources, a historical periodization of development of architectural forms in region;
- Principles of preservation and use of an architecturally-town-planning heritage in region.
Practical value of research consists in possibility:
- On the basis of the revealed new knowledge to spend complex regular restoration of monuments of architecture of Southern Ural Mountains, to simplify a research stage at reconstruction carrying out;
- More soundly to enter in the historical architectural environment new objects of building, keeping thus individual shape of a city;
- To use architecturally-town-planning traditions in modern architectural practice;
- More full to involve a heritage as a tourist resource;
- To use the received results of research in lecture and practical courses on stories of architecture and town-planning of Ural Mountains, and also in course designing for students – critics and architects of South Ural state university;
- The laws of development of architecturally-town-planning culture of region revealed in work will promote deepening of researches in area of history of town-planning and architecture of Southern Ural Mountains.
- It is spent in the form of performances at annual international, All-Russia and regional conferences, including “ Architectural inheritance” Research Institute of Theory of Architecture and Urban Planning (1999 – 2008), “Traditions and innovations in domestic spiritual culture” (2001 – 2008), etc.;
- Results of research are published in two monographies, in magazines “Academia. Architecture and building” and “Housing construction” in scientific collections Research Institute of Theory of Architecture and Urban Planning, historical (art criticism branch), architectural and architecturally-building faculties of South Ural state university, Chelyabinsk state academy of culture, Chelyabinsk museum of local lore, Bulletin of South Ural state university, Bulletin of Chelyabinsk state university, on Internet;
- Results of research and materials are used as a course of lectures and in degree designing for students of South Ural State University (2003 – 2009);
- The basic conclusions of work take root into practice of preservation of a heritage and reconstruction of historical cities of region (projects of restoration of manor of a merchant of Osipov and a summer residence of merchants of Jaushevyh in Troitsk in Chelyabinsk region, 1993; Trinity churches Presvjatoj in Wasp of the Perm edge, 2007; churches of Icon of Iversky Divine Mother of the item Interlake Verhneuralsky area of Chelyabinsk region, 2008).
- Dissertation positions became a basis of performance of the research works which have been carried out under the direction of the author under grants Russian Foundation for Humanities: “Architecturally-town-planning culture of Southern Ural Mountains XVIII – first half of XIX-th century” (the project 05-04-85403а/U, 2005-2006) and “Architecturally-town-planning culture of Southern Ural Mountains of second half XIX – the XX-th century beginnings” (the project 07-04-85406а/У 2007-2008), and also under the Russian Federal Property Fund grant “Formation of a cult architectural heritage of Southern Ural Mountains XVIII – first half of XIX-th century” (the project 07-06-96004 2008-2009). Structure and dissertation volume. Work is presented in two volumes. The first volume consists of the introduction, five heads, the conclusion, the bibliography and the list of the accepted reductions. The second volume includes the appendices containing historical inquiries on the most considerable monuments, and a graphic part.
THE WORK MAINTENANCE
Part I. An antiquity heritage
Within the limits of this period it is possible to allocate still variety of smaller stages of development of architecture and town-planning: a paleolith and mesolit (to VI thousand BC), a neolith (VI – II thousand BC), bronze (XIV – VIII centuries BC) and iron centuries (VII century BC – V century AD). It is established that the major factors which have affected a heritage, were: climatic and landscape features, process ethnogenesis territories, development of outlook of protoethnic groups.
The ancient period has brought the considerable contribution to a region heritage. During a paleolith epoch in Southern Ural Mountains the major cult monuments – the center of cave sanctuaries similar to the European Ex-Kantaberijsky region were generated. These are caves: Idrisovsky, Muradymovsky, Kuljurt-Tamaksky, Smelovsky. Kapova and Ignatevsky caves where Paleolithic painting is found are Most interesting.
Archeologists unanimously carry South Ural cultures of Stone Age to prafinno-Ugrian. Development of beliefs has defined formation of system of sacrally significant places of region – caves, mountains, trees, stones. Land sanctuaries are known only the neolith period, but, possibly, existed and earlier.
The town-planning heritage of a paleolith was made by the land and cave parking located independently. There were two types of a lay-out of settlement – linear and group (cumulus). In development inhabited a construction the dominant role was played by a social system and outlook, a climate and presence of building materials. The landscape of Southern Ural Mountains combined forest-steppe and forest-tundra elements, there were no large large forests. In mesolit in region there was a formation of wood, forest-steppe and steppe zones. Therefore in the constructive relation of dwelling evolved from a cave and a tent to frame-and-pillar designs, later has appeared blockhouse. For a paleolith and mesolit were characteristic centric dwellings (round and oval). Then there were extended houses with functional zoning, and during a bronze epoch – the complexes of constructions united by covered transitions.
The first contacts concern a neolith under statements of linguists between prafinno-ugrians and praindo-Iranians. During this epoch in connection with changes of requirements of a society there was a grouping of settlements in the certain territory belonging to a separate tribe. The arrangement of settlements on the same reservoirs, as during the previous period that testifies to successive development of space (Jurjuzansky, Zverinogolovsky, etc.) is characteristic. There was a tendency to division of settlements and dwellings on zones: inhabited, economic, industrial.
Development of beliefs has defined distribution of the land sanctuaries consisting of two connected circles. They have been territorially adhered to natural objects and burial grounds. For the first time there is a type of a sanctuary with highly located stone-pisanitsej and a ritual platform under it (on the river Vishera). Dwellings of a neolith owing to change of public conditions began to build the big area that stimulated working out karkasno-stolbovoj designs.
The bronze age became a new considerable stage in architecture and town-planning formation. On a boundary III and II thousand BC there was a warming of a climate and occurrence of a semidesertic landscape. It has defined changes in economic way of the population and rupture of external relations. By XIV century BC the region north have occupied ancient European cultural populations, and the south – Iranian. Architecturally-town-planning types in territory between the rivers Ural Mountains and Tobol were formed under the influence of contacts of East Europe both Asian protoethnoses, on the one hand, and wood and steppe inhabitants with another. To Southern Ural Mountains new Iranian tribes (arias) – carriers sintashta cultures migrated.
In connection with changes of relations in a society settlements of all groups of the population became the centers of territories on which it was conducted pastoral an economy. There was a uniform strengthened line along the rivers – distance between settlements and a lay of land stole up so that to establish alarm connection by a smoke or light of fires. Along with it there were not strengthened settlements. Planirovochnye receptions were based on features of a landscape and represented successive system. The unique phenomenon of town-planning of a bronze age were the strengthened settlements sintashta cultures which for today it is found nearby 20. In adjacent regions there are burial places sintashtintses, but only in Southern Ural Mountains the group of settlements in compact territory along east slopes of Ural ridge is found. Three are most well investigated from them: Arkaim, Sintashta and Mouth. Settlements differed the roundish or oval form. Their lay-out practically did not depend on a landscape. For example, Arkaim consisted of two rings of the defensive works entered each other, two circles of dwellings – external both internal, and a central square. There were four inputs located on parts of the world.
There is O.A.Ulchitskogo's opinion that sintashta settlements were some kind of expanded the big dwellings (instead of protocities), not carrying any cult functions. A number of archeologists, also, believes that sacral functions at sintashtintses had been allocated only burial places. However it is represented wrongful to consider difference of a lay-out sintashta settlements from later samples the basis for such conclusions. They, as well as later cities, were the is administrative-religious centers organising certain territory. Undoubtedly, Arkaim was under construction on a coherent plan from developments by system of communications. The composition submitted to the rules which had a religious-ceremonial basis. The fact of manufacture of metal during the considered period had sacral sense. Accurate centricity lay-out, in a certain measure, can be recognised by continuation переднеазиатской traditions of building round in respect of temples. For example, such as a temple of Tepe of Havre in Northern Mesopotamia (III thousand BC), a temple of Dashly-3 in Northern Afghanistan (XVII century BC), a temple of Kutluk-tepe in Bactria (V century BC), a temple Which-krylgan-kala in Khoresm (IV century BC). It is characteristic that these constructions too have been connected with local pre-islamic cults zoroastrian sense.
It is established that settlements sintashtintses became an embodiment of the architecturally-town-planning traditions introduced in region. Systems of defensive strengthenings and the storm water drain in that finished kind in which they here existed, could be generated only for a long time. The architectural features embodied in Arkaim, have something in common with the receptions existing in territory Anatolys and Central Asia which have been highly developed in a neolith. For example, settlement Hadzhilar and Demirchiujuk (Anatoly) possessed similar, though and not till the end of developed a lay-out. On the average a current of Amu Darya the rests of settlements with a lay-out similar to Arkaim and Sintashte concerning to IX – to VII centuries BC are found: Usty-kala, Shor-depe, Odej-depe in the Chardzhevsky oasis and Sazakly-depe, Hazarek-depe in Garabekevjuleksky oasis.
Principles of formation of dwellings differed the continuity based, in particular, on prevalence of wood as a building material. During a bronze epoch the further development the type frame-and-pillar has received houses, was less often applied blockhouse. The phenomenon of a steel of dwelling allocated from a general series sintashtintses which too were frame-and-pillar, but differed accurately generated structure with functional zoning of space on entrance, sleeping and ritually-economic parts. In last there was a cellar, a well and the furnace. In the early Iron Age in northern part of edge there lived settled tribes, the southern part belonged to the nomadic communities different at various times. For the analysis of a heritage of nomads it is necessary to expand region of Southern Ural Mountains territorially since these communities moved far for the borders accepted in research.
Two ways of development of territory, characteristic for settled and nomad tribes co-existed. At settled population the continuity of town-planning principles remained: the strengthened settlements were the centers for a file of not strengthened settlements, settled down the uniform lines crossing territories of tribes along the rivers. The way of development of territory and space nomadic culture was based on erection on it of significant constructions for the given ethnic group, especially memorial character. From the remained monuments of nomads barrows with the deep spacious tombs which walls have been focused on parts of the world are most interesting.
Inhabited constructions of Iron Age, various on a lay-out and a design, were following step to development of the architectural receptions meeting in a bronze age. Thus, skills of building succession were transferred.
The system of sacral places and region burial grounds in Iron Age has considerably developed. Settled population burials differed special orientation in space – not on parts of the world, and in a direction to the river which, possibly, played the important role in a funeral ceremony. Earlier settled tribes had a spatial orientation of burial places and settlements only on parts of the world.
Thus, it is possible to recognise as the most considerable monuments of an antiquity:
- a paleolithic cave cult complex;
- “the country of cities” sintashta cultures of a bronze age;
- occurrence of a nomadic way of development of territory – building of barrows as stationary spatial reference points.
All monuments considered and the subsequent periods can be divided on “traditional” types which were generated and it is long occurred in Southern Ural Mountains, and “introduced” types which have appeared in region together with the migrating population. The ancient period connection of an architecturally-town-planning heritage of Southern Ural Mountains is established with areas Aralo-Kaspija, Central Asia, Anatolys and Siberia.
Part II. Middle Ages monuments (VI – the beginning of XVIII centuries)
Character of development of territory of Southern Ural Mountains forces to expand time borders of the medieval period till XVIII century In work preconditions and the factors which have affected formation of an architecturally-town-planning heritage are considered. Major of them were: geographical, climatic and landscape features; occurrence in territory of region of all known nomadic communities; gradual formation bashkir, kazakhs (Kirghiz-cossacks), komi-permjatskogo, the udmurt people; migrations of Russian population; development of beliefs and culture of ethnic groups; addition of building culture and mental preferences of the population in the field of architecture and town-planning.
Main principles of moving there was a coexistence of nomadic and settled ways of development of space and an arrangement of settlements on the rivers as to the basic highways. The majority of settlements of settled population were not strengthened. The strengthened settlements in the early Middle Ages met small, average and big. In XIV-XV centuries one more type – manors of feudal lords was generated. The analysis of descriptions of settlements testifies that the plan form, continued to be defined by a lay of land. The lay-out remained irregular, gravitating to centric or linear.
Change of typology of settlements and constructions in many respects was a consequence of new migrations of ethnic groups of the population. Expansion of Russian town-planning culture has begun with southern borders of region in XVI century and has proceeded in a XVII-th century on northern boundaries of territory. Fortresses and jails (Cossack small towns) were an appreciable innovation in system of moving which has begun its basic changes. It were Ufa – 1574, Menzelinsk – 1586, Birsk – 1574, small town Solevarennyj (Tabynsk – 1574). The analysis of system of moving has shown that in the late Middle Ages there was a conscious successive arrangement of settlements which built on places of former settlements of nomads (Ufa, Birsk, Menzelinsk, etc.).
Russian fortresses and jails (Cossack small towns) were under construction duly fortifications, but without the graphic plan on “to lists”. The relief played a huge role in addition of the form of strengthenings and design settlement structures. It defined an irregularity, affectation streets and their characteristic radial arrangement. It is possible to consider such composition of Russian fortresses as successive development design principles of more ancient strengthened settlements.
Apartment houses of the early Middle Ages continued local architectural traditions which passed from a population protoethnic group to a formed nationality. They represented constructions frame-and-pillar and carcass designs. There were semidugouts rectangular in the plan. The lay-out of these houses was similar to a premise for divine services at Udmurts – quale which existed in the South Ural villages to a XIX-th century. With arrival of Russian there were traditional forms of architecture of Cossacks – frame houses from the wooden boards bound by a rod and covered with clay.
The system of sacral places of Southern Ural Mountains differed the greatest continuity. Earlier were actively used as again constructed sanctuaries, and, including, cave. Many caves and stones were known since the period of a paleolith and kept the value till New time. Rituals spent there and use of caves by eremites testify to it.
Monuments of nomads have remained worse, than a settled population heritage. Turkis had both mobile, and stationary types of dwellings which built on seasonal platforms (winter and summer). With known care, leaning against the archaeological data, and also on certificates of contemporaries and travellers of a XVIII-th century, it is possible to assert that the nomadic population in the gold-horde period had large stationary seasonal settlements. Nomadic communities in certain degree adopted town-planning traditions of settled population, as Russian, and Volga Bulgarii. Their winter settlements under the certificate of contemporaries (Cossacks) could represent the strengthened small towns. Portable dwellings – yurtas – were round in the plan with dome-shaped top. On luxury and convenience they often did not concede to houses of settled neighbours.
Barrows concern a heritage of nomads VI – XIV centuries (including “with moustaches” consisting of one big barrow and departing from it on the east of two bow-shaped ridges), sacrificially-pominalnye complexes and burial grounds which were a prototype of the subsequent pagan sanctuaries. The important place in a heritage of nomads occupied stone anthropomorphic steles, marking “the” space and movement ways to it. To the funeral-memorial early Muslim complexes which have was the original transitive form from sacrificially-funeral fences to the mausoleums belonged to constructions also. The space concluded in funeral circles, was allocated with sacral sense, and honoured certain it come. The following stage of development of cult-memorial constructions – the mausoleums gold-horde time which were erected over burials of legendary fellow tribesmen. In the late medieval period (since XIV century) met demon portal and the portal mausoleums which were under construction of a stone, a brick and adobe. To demon portal to type the mausoleums Hussein-beka, Small Kesene, Zhangyz-Agash, Teptjari concerned. The portal mausoleums: Atchergat on the river Uvelke, Tepljari, the mausoleum of Round-khan, Kesene. The architectural tradition of building of the mausoleums has developed under the influence of the Muslim centers of Central Asia and gold-horde cities of the Volga region. It is necessary to consider as the closest prototypes tent monuments of Khoresm. These mausoleums were widely used for departure both Islamic, and pagan rites in medieval and the subsequent periods.
As a whole, the most considerable monuments of the Middle Ages:
- barrows and sacrificially- memorial complexes of nomads, including “barrows with moustaches”;
- stone anthropomorphic stele nomads;
- the Muslim mausoleums the gold horde period;
- the first Russian fortresses (Ufa, Birsk, Menzelinsk, etc.).
Part III. A heritage of the period of the Russian colonisation of region (second half XVIII – 50th years of a XIX-th century)
Formally territory of Southern Ural Mountains already belonged to Russia, but the quantity of Russian settlements in region was very small. Since the second quarter of a XVIII-th century the most important factors which have affected formation of an architecturally-town-planning heritage of a steel: full-scale Russian colonisation of edge; activization of trade with the people of Central Asia, India, Persia; working out of minerals and iron and steel industry origin; gold mining occurrence; distribution on won territories of orthodox culture, struggle against split; a policy of Russia in the field of building of regular fortified cities, distributions of architectural Baroque tastes and classicism; migrations and a population multinationality; geographical, climatic and landscape features.
In spite of the fact that as a whole from second half of XVIII-th century the population of Southern Ural Mountains becomes settled, till the end of century the group “remained nomadic” villages which arose and disappeared depending on resettlements of inhabitants.
At the heart of settled system of moving of region three basic elements lay: former settlements, building of the Russian strengthened lines and industrial development of edge. It allows to allocate three types of monuments of town-planning of the considered period.
The first are cities and village which have arisen as strong points on a place of former settlements (Ufa, Birsk, Menzelensk, etc.). Despite numerous attempts to order building, the central parts of settlements not quite corresponded to regular town-planning principles. There were the radial elements caused by a landscape.
The second type are fortresses and the redoubts based within the limits of strengthened lines after building of Orenburg in 1735. Their plans differed a regularity, were used “standard projects” which as a whole were observed. The most part of fortresses settled down on plain, and only the river sometimes broke a squared shape of strengthenings (Verhneuralsk, etc.) . Rather large settlements had forstate. It is necessary to allocate fortresses with strongly pronounced trading appointment – Orenburg and Troitsk. At them on a river opposite side exchange court yard have been constructed. Coincidence of an arrangement of fortresses to more ancient settlements (Miassky fortress, Chelyabinsk) was often observed. It was defined by that the major factors, a platform choice, as well as earlier, requirements of defence and affinity of the river were defining. Cities-factories were under construction, basically, along Ural ridge in mountain and foothill areas. Presence of two rivers (navigable transport and non-navigable for a dam), and also presence of ore and the wood which were fuel was necessary. For South Ural factory settlements the smaller size, than at среднеуральских was characteristic. It has been caused by that all factories belonged to private owners, is frequent less rich, than in Average Ural Mountains. Only two of them have been transferred in treasury in the end a XVIII-th century. The role has played and the limited quantity of wood in region. An accessory to private persons and character of a relief have affected an especial irregularity of a lay-out of cities-factories of Southern Ural Mountains. The analysis of plans shows that at observance of the general principle of a rectangular lay-out inhabited files seldom were parallel each other and, as a rule, repeated character of a relief: Kyshtym, Kasli, Satka, the Silver-tongued orator, etc. is frequent even within one file selitby groups of rectangular sites had different directions. Pond and river presence is composite led to absence of isolation of building and its visual communication with a surrounding landscape. Such volume natural dominants as mountains, reservoirs, large forests played large role in spatial structure of cities-factories and, often were more considerably, than artificial constructions. It is possible to name the town-planning project of the beginning of a XIX-th century specific to Southern Ural Mountains creation of the New linear area which has expanded territory of region for the account the Kirghiz-kajsatskih of the earths. Villages were named in honour of victories of Russian army (Paris, Berlin, Fershampenuaz, Varna, Chesma etc.), from the moment of the basis have received the confirmed regular plans with the area of the large sizes for the Cossack circle in the center. New linear fortresses (30th of XIX century) from which have remained Naslednitsky and Nikolaev, it is possible to carry to monastic type with towers. They did not correspond to a level of development of artillery of a XIX-th century. Building during this period of such retrofortresses is not characteristic for history of architecture of the Russian empire. It is the most probable that they were a tribute of tradition of building of masters of Dalmatovsky monastery.
Formation of the heritage which have reached us of ethnic groups of region concerns second half XVIII – the middle of XIX centuries. The basic part of the population of Southern Ural Mountains to the XVIII-th century middle was made by Bashkirs. In the west both the northwest there lived Bulgarians and Udmurts, in the north – descendants ugric (khanty) in the south and the southeast the Kirghiz-kajsaki (Kazakhs). As a result of migrations (compulsory resettlement of Cossacks) Christian and Islamic confessional groups in region have received non-uniform structure. To Christian (orthodox, Lutheran and Catholic) to creed Russian concerned, ukrainians, nagaybaki (baptism Tatars), germans, poles, etc. Feature of region the significant amount of Moslems (bashkir, kazakhs, tatars), including immigrants was. Pagans – maris (cheremis), mordovians, udmurts (votyaks) were the third confessional group.
On formation of a town-planning heritage considerable influence was rendered by a policy of Russia in the field of distribution regular design principles which were necessary for combining with features of traditions of groups of the population, with their time household way distinct from Russian. In a XVIII-th century for a lay-out of settlements and manors of Muslim and pagan groups of the population the smaller regularity, than for Russian was characteristic considerably, ukrainian, etc. Settlements consisted of the small quarters uniting near relations. Groups of houses incorporated informed court yard. At a pagan part of the population, including it is formal baptized families, especially free placing of constructions, their arrangement under different corners to each other was marked. Presence of a summer premise (the second house), were simultaneously a house temple. In first half of XIX-th century character of an ethnic heritage varies, design receptions were based any more on national traditions, and on regular principles. Nevertheless, in national architecture principles of a regulation of building and regular reorganisation of villages were often observed only outwardly. The real internal device of manors was defined by national household preferences. The analysis of descriptions shows that houses of Muslim and pagan groups of the population could have facades in classical style and absolutely others a lay-out and internal space.
The nomenclature of dwellings was defined mainly by two factors: ethnic traditions and presence of building materials. In northern wood zone from logs time summer constructions were often carried out even, in a steppe zone mud huts, semidugouts and land dwellings from raw a brick prevailed. One more kind of mass building were “exemplary” houses constructed under projects, sent from the center in appendices to plans of settlements. Manors of plant owners and managing directors are characteristic also.
Architecture occurrence in a Baroque taste in region has coincided with the basis of Russian fortresses – second third of XVIII-th century. Baroque monuments in Southern Ural Mountains are individual. Since 70th years of a XVIII-th century in region – there was a classicism. There is A.M.Raskin's opinion that classicism as a whole in Ural region has extended only in the XIX-th century beginning. The analysis of monuments carried out by the author shows that in Southern Ural Mountains churches in classical style are already enough characteristic in last third of XVIII-th century. Style delay, basically, is peculiar to other types of monuments. On the other hand in architecture of churches baroque elements which remain throughout all first fifty years of a XIX-th century are appreciable. It speaks numerous reorganisations of temples and stability of traditions in the region kept away from capitals. For example, typical for baroque mining industrial zones octagon end are present at John Predtechi's church in Kyshtym (1771) . Similar forms meet in middle Urals architecture – Spaso-Preobrazhenskiy church in village Kashirino of Kungursky area (1745), not remained Old-Zlatoust church in Yekaterinburg (1755 – 1768). Classicism has passed in a mature stage from the end 10 – 20th years of a XIX-th century (rural churches: Znamensky with Voskresensky, Pokrovsk in village of Big Kujash, etc.).
Special value for heritage formation had occurrence in Southern Ural Mountains in the beginning of a XIX-th century of factory architects. These architects create ensembles of mature and late classicism in the Silver-tongued orator and Kasljah. The stylistic analysis of monuments shows that for mature classicism M.P.Malakhov, A.I.postnikova, I.I.Svijazeva's creativity and variety not established is necessary, is frequent not professional architects. The period of late classicism is connected in Southern Ural Mountains with F.A.telezhnikova, Henry Gopiusa's activity and, in certain degree, with A.P.Bryullov's projects. Monuments of late classicism are characteristic rather modest decor and a plane composition of facades. Industrial and civil building of Southern Ural Mountains have mutually enriched each other in decorative area. The lines peculiar to industrial building, – the rationalism, the underlined monumentalism, were often introduced in civil and cult buildings. And on the contrary, factory constructions decorated forms, characteristic for civil architecture. In cities-factories there are interesting examples of cult constructions of mature classicism. Are allocated churches – Vvedensky in Minjare and Sretensky in Ileke. An unusual element of a heritage became basilica church with two belltowers in Katav-Ivanovske who has been executed according to personal tastes of customers (Beloselsky-belozerkih).
Because of remoteness of region the style architecture took root gradually, there was a mixture of classical and folklore elements in a decor (plates instead of capitals, horizontal corbels on trunks of columns, brackets nonclassical forms, niches and platbands of the Old Russian drawing, a typical Ural ornament “step icicles” etc.). For the South Ural classicism simplification of drawing of order elements, for example, profiles of eaves is characteristic also. On the other hand, in registration of traditional dwellings lines of style architecture (original variants of pilasters, ornament tapes “were observed a meander”) . In singularity of decorative decisions resulted, also, use of characteristic local materials, especially pig-iron from which carried out lattices, columns and many other elements. The continuity of materials and a decor in the big degree spoke in the collective way of building of that time. In Southern Ural Mountains local masters (for example, from the Dalmatovsky monastery) worked.
Thus, in Southern Ural Mountains it is necessary to recognise as the most considerable monuments of the considered period:
- the strengthened lines and Russian regular fortresses of these lines;
- ensembles of the centers of cities-factories of Southern Ural Mountains: Kyshtym, the Silver-tongued orator, Kaslej, Katav-Ivanovska and others which are in different degree of safety;
- ethnic settlements nagaybakes в and other nationalities (Paris, Fershampenuaz, etc.);
- new linear fortresses and villages (Nikolaev, Naslednitsky, Berlin, Varna, etc.);
- separate monuments of industrial, cult, public and inhabited architecture.
Part IV. A heritage of an epoch of industrial revolution (60th years XIX – the XX-th century beginnings)
In second half XIX – the XX-th century beginning the factors influencing formation of a heritage have considerably changed. Now it were: railway building; a reshaping and industry development, multistructural economy; the further working out of minerals; a state policy in the field of a city building in Ural Mountains and in Siberia, resettlement movement; science occurrence about a city, progressive ways of the organisation of building business and laws on management of a city in the Russian empire; formation of new stylistics of architecture (the Russian-Byzantian, Neorussian styles, a modernist style, neoclassicism); features of region and its multinational population; geographical, climatic and landscape characteristics. Building of factories and factories as city-forming the factor in Southern Ural Mountains had smaller value, than in the central Russia. In comparison with XVIII – first half of XIX-th century national and climatic factors start to play more modest role. Reselenchesky movement has not changed essentially ethnic structure of the population of region, but in most big cities some confessional groups have increased to the level, allowing to build a cult building. It has led to mass occurrence in region of churches and synagogues.
According to these city-forming factors generated hierarchy of cities and settlements in system of moving of edge. There were new town-planning types – railway junctions and miner settlements. The sizes of the is administrative-trading and factory settlements which arrangement corresponded to the basic branches of railways have in steps increased. Other settlements have stopped in development. In separate branch it is possible to allocate resettlement building so its scale in railway junctions was great. The centers of the largest settlements were exposed to consolidation at the expense of placing on sites of additional buildings. Round cities belts of housing estates were formed. Some new factories have been based, for example, Balashovsky domain in Ashe and Karabashsky, but as a whole development of cities-factories in the end of XIX – the beginning of XX centuries was not active. Qualitative re-planning has not occurred, quantitative growth of settlements around almost invariable centers was observed only. More others have increased Miass that was defined by gold mining growth. The building which has reached us of a historical part of the majority of administrative cities of region has developed in the end of XIX – the XX-th century beginning. There were new types of buildings and the architectural styles answering to economic-political conditions.
As well as as a whole to Russia, cities of Southern Ural Mountains developed at the expense of merge to suburbs. Such extensiveness of growth has led to picturesqueness of a lay-out. The analysis of general layouts shows that in Southern Ural Mountains their irrationality, presence of waste grounds and a strip farming was observed. Industrial revolution has caused new level of an accomplishment of cities to a life, but the largest settlements equipped with modern conveniences only. In rather profitable factories where there was a manufacture modernisation, volume-spatial characteristics of industrial territories have considerably become complicated. The areas of factories have increased, there were large-scale horizontal elements – the big sizes shops, warehouse buildings. More variously a steel vertical dominants, first of all factory pipes and the open equipment, pendant roads, cooling towers, etc. Introduction of new types of transport – rope-ways, vertical lifts, and also railways – has made essential changes to a composition of factories. Feature of the South Ural cities-factories is preservation of large industrial territory in city center. If as a whole factories were in cities of Russia on periphery and did not influence composite and stylistic features of the center in cities-factories the industrial territory continued to define shape of the central part of settlement actively. The vast scale of industrial territory with the new equipment and transport changed also scale of the center of a city-factory.
In the architectural decision of building has lost the paramount value the natural-climatic factor. Use of building materials has ceased to depend on their indispensable presence in the given natural zone of region. The architecture stylistics have changed. In temple architecture in 1850 – 1880th years appear at first Tonovsky style, and then Russian-Byzantian (churches of the Odigitrievsky monastery in Chelyabinsk, a cathedral in Orenburg, etc.).
Neorussian style has appeared simultaneously with capitals in the end of 1850th years (a building of Tsejhgauza of a steppe army in Orenburg – 1855, etc.) . Further for region typically mixture of variants of Neorussian style. In 1880 – 1890th years the version with the plastered surface of walls and an abundance of a various decor has extended: Old Russian, order and, especially, the baroque. The Old Russian decor is more characteristic for cult architecture, and modelled baroque – for private residences. “brick” style was widely adopted after erection by Samaro-Zlatoustovskoj of the railway, i.e. with 1890 for 1917. It for 20 years later, than in capitals. In 1890th years it differed some dryness of details, simplicity and clearness of volumes. Subsequently “brick” style has developed and even has got not the decorative elements peculiar to it borrowed from order system and monuments of Neorussian style. In the beginning these XX-th centuries two styles in architecture of region have intertwined. In “brick” style there were Gothic and order motives of a decor. In cult and inhabited architecture it is sometimes difficult to carry a construction to this or that direction. Invariable there were only more simple, than in Neorussian style, volume decisions of buildings. The modernist style has appeared at the very end of a XIX-th century, i.e. style delay in comparison with capitals practically was not. Its early stage can be characterised as the international version. Private residences on avenue of Communards, 45 and on street Komsomol, 44 in Orenburg are characteristic the house of a merchant of A.A.Matsa in Orsk, and also. After 1905 in Southern Ural Mountains the modernist style decor has started to intertwine with order elements and there was an eclectic variant of style (railway station in Orsk, Valeev's shop in Chelyabinsk, a passage of Jaushevyh in Troitsk, bank on street Lenin, 28 and a building on street of Kirov, 9 in Orenburg). There was also an original variant in which the general principles of a modernist style intertwine with a characteristic decor “brick” Directions (Osobnjak Aksenova in Orsk, the National house in Kyshtym, school in village Brodokalmak).
The wooden modernist style combined following to capital samples with traditional receptions of a lay-out, a design and a decor, characteristic for local masters. Especially often decorative forms of a modernist style intertwined with a carving of wooden facades. Besides, in a tree stone forms of a modernist style – towers, belvederes were simulated also. The greatest volume expressiveness was showed in merchant private residences (Dantsingera, Ryabinin in Chelyabinsk, etc.) . The reference to a sculptural decorative detail is characteristic, and colour tile panels practically were not applied. The main place among modernist style constructions in Southern Ural Mountains was occupied with trading buildings, there was a significant amount of private residences, slightly less than profitable houses and public buildings. For cult wooden architecture the most conservative organisation of building was characteristic. Churches in villages were erected by local masters. Therefore there were buildings of a traditional design and architecture, but is frequent with purely decorative elements of a classical decor (Muratovka, Tjuljuk, etc.).
The neoclassicism has extended in Southern Ural Mountains, as well as in the central Russia, in the end of 1900 – 1910th years. It has been presented in architecture of public buildings and city private residences. Characteristic examples are: a building of an insurance society on street Soviet, 60 in Orenburg (1916, арх. I.F.Kuretsky), the national house in Chelyabinsk, a private residence in Orenburg on street of Kirov, 28 (1912), private residences in Satka.
Muslim ethnic groups of the population at external use of new architectural styles kept design receptions and decor elements, characteristic for their tradition (for example, harems). The Most considerable monuments of second half XIX – the XX-th century beginnings in Southern Ural Mountains are:
- ensembles of the centers of historical cities: Verhneuralsk, Troitsk, Chelyabinsk and others;
- ensemble of the city-factory of Miass;
- emigrant small town in Chelyabinsk;
- characteristic railway constructions;
- separate monuments of industrial, cult, public and inhabited architecture.
Part V. Principles of preservation and use of a regional architecturally-town-planning heritage
Almost all periods of development of region are embodied in monuments of architecture, archeology, history and monumental art. The archaeological heritage is especially interesting by a combination of monuments of different groups of the population of many epoch in rather small territory. The great interest is represented by objects of cult architecture XVIII – the XX-th century beginnings. Along with orthodox temples the heritage includes remained mosques, Catholic churches and synagogues.
During the Soviet period in Southern Ural Mountains there was a systematic destruction of cult buildings. Variety of monuments is in a dilapidated condition and demands urgent preservation and restoration. The general character of destructions differs in горнозаводской and in a steppe zone. Churches of factories during the Soviet period basically were used as warehouses. Their end has been lost, but facades have kept the initial shape. In some cases facades of temples have been deformed was attached. Rural temples in a Soviet period, as a rule, were not reconstructed and collapsed gradually though and it is intended. There are buildings the lost end, but walls is more often collapsed, the part of domes, a belltower etc. Especial alarm causes a condition of wooden temples which continue to suffer now from vandalism of local residents. The Muslim cult heritage has remained much worse the Christian. The most interesting objects are in Orenburg, the Orenburg region and the city of Troitsk of Chelyabinsk region.
Ponomarenko E.V. The dissertation author's abstract on competition of a scientific degree of the doctor of architecture on a speciality 01/18/01 – the theory and architecture history, restoration and reconstruction of an historical and architectural heritage [http://archi.ru/lib/e_publication_for_print.html?id=1850569778]
Comments of experts of Челябэнергопроект: