Stolen stone architecture of Russia

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

We laugh at the stereotypes that are firmly rooted in the minds of foreigners about Russia and about Russians. And we are not even aware of the fact that we ourselves are in captivity of similar cliches about ourselves. For example, what picture is drawn in your mind, an average resident of modern Russia, when you mention the phrases "Vladimir Rus", or "ancient Rus"? I will not sin against the truth if I say that for the most part, we represent Russia as follows:

The myth of an all-wooden Russia is so ingrained in our minds that even when reconstructing ancient buildings and structures, restorers often deliberately add Russian flavor to places where they never smelled. Everyone knows that Izborsk was originally built entirely of stone. Even sheds and chicken coops there are made of limestone to this day.

Let's take a look at the title photo. This building is interesting from all sides. It is immediately striking that it has only a wooden superstructure, and the "basement" floor is made of bricks. Moreover, it is clearly brought in by the soil. It did not grow into the ground, but was covered with sand and clay. This is already clear to almost everyone. Basement floors are not built of bricks, due to the instability of fired clay to moisture.

That is why a ditch was dug around the building so that groundwater would not destroy the brick foundation left over from the previous building. The timber superstructure was made much later, during the aftermath of the flood. It is noteworthy that on the roof there are "urns", or rather vases, which in the past were used as lamps. The building's restorers probably restored them to give the building its original appearance. And of course, the vases were not used for their intended purpose.

To complete the picture, here is another architectural monument of Novosibirsk:

Please, here's an all-stone building, unaffected by the flood. And this picture is observed throughout the territory of the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century. But this is practically yesterday, and earlier, maybe Russia was still made of wood? My answer is yes. In fact, for the most part it was made of wood, just as much as Europe and the rest of the land were. However, evidence of the existence of developed stone architecture in the Territory of Great Tartary is the greatest abundance. Not less than in other countries, and maybe even more.

Only to this day they have hardly survived intact, but the reason for this, most likely, was the more destructive consequences of the elements for Russia than for the same Italy with its "Eternal City". And the latest archaeological evidence gives strong evidence that this is not just a version. One of the most striking finds is the basement of one of the 12th century temples on the territory of the Bogolyubsky monastery in the Vladimir region.

The temple was probably originally a quarter taller than it is today. Because its lower floor was completely buried under drifts, which archaeologists call the "cultural layer". Even if this is a basement floor, then who will undertake to explain why it was necessary to make its parts in this form:

After all, you do not need to be a professional builder in order to understand that those elements that were underground are an order of magnitude higher in terms of quality. That is, following the logic of orthodox historians, what in the earth should be graceful, beautiful, executed at the highest technological level, and what on the surface "will come down anyway." But this is exactly what we are seeing. What was built on top of a filled-up floor, turned by the elements into a "basement", looks like a pitiful "hack".

But instead, our native historians said … You will not believe … They said that they "… discovered the remains of a temple built in the XII century, presumably by Italian craftsmen." (original article is here:

Well, what else! Of course, the Italians built churches for the Russians. Is it okay that the country of Italy appeared only in 1861, when the metro was already opened in London? After all, before that, on the site of Italy, there were scattered principalities! Our scientists cannot in any way overcome the stereotype about wooden Russia, and as soon as they come across something that does not correspond to the cliché laid down from the school bench, they fall into a stupor, and begin to look for explanations according to the jagged training manual. Since it does not look like Russian, it means it is Scandinavian. Doesn't match Scandinavian, then Italian. Well, what? The Kremlin is Moscow, Fryaziny was built …

But everyone knows very well that Moscow has always been white-stone at all times. Uglich, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Nizhny Novgorod, Vladimir, Kostroma, and all the cities of Muscovy were also built of white stone, which today is almost not preserved. It is found during excavations, and scientists are puzzling over where the Russians mined this stone. The version about the artificial origin of the stone is not even on the agenda, but meanwhile, everything suggests that this stone is not a stone at all, but concrete, among the components of which lime is the main one. Thanks to her, the blocks were white.

And our modern ideas about the stone cities of Europe have developed as a result of the impact on consciousness with modern films about the Musketeers. In fact, there was not much difference between European cities and Russians.

In general, the truth is that there was no difference between Rome and Kiev. Both there and there were both stone buildings and wood. True, there was a stone laurel in Kiev, but this is a laurel … Yeah … But what about the "Golden Gate"?

Funny? And I choked on this wording. Pay attention to the extension. In my opinion, this is the apotheosis of illiteracy! Reconstructors are building a brick building from the times of Yaroslav the Wise, and it was so firmly in their heads that everything at that time could only be made of wood that they could not help but attach a "wing" of logs. Why?!

Why, I ask, was it done ?! And what is the tower in the center in the form of a church nave? Who came up with the idea of "sticking" this building into a defensive structure? And who, in general, said that it was defensive? What do our historians know about him? Absolutely nothing! This is what this "defensive" structure looked like in 1861.

And-and-and …? What kind of fantasy do you need to have in order to be reconstructed out of these "three stones" to what now stands in Kiev, and is called "a monument of defensive architecture"? Why not assume that it was a cathedral? Or thermal baths?

There is still a bit of truth. It could really be a gate, but … Where is the gate? Before us is a small surviving fragment of some kind of gigantic structure. Yes. It really is a gate. But the gate is for us. And if you draw in your imagination the missing building, in which there was once such a door, you get a picture in the style of the creations of D. B. Piranesi. Where these gates led, we will never know. But the idea of "rewarding" the surviving opening of a completely absent building with the title of a defensive structure is too much, even for a freshman of the Faculty of Architecture. At least they would call it a "triumphal arch", and no one would have doubts for a very long time.

And in our case, it is safe to say that back in the middle of the nineteenth century in Kiev, there were traces of not our, antediluvian civilization. The one that the inhabitant of the "disappeared Slavic city" portrayed in his "paintings":

For some reason, he is considered a science fiction painter depicting fantastic ruins. But … At the same time, no one denies that he documented the excavation of Roman ruins! It turns out that where it is convenient - the architect, and where it is inconvenient - the artist is a catastrophe. And the truth is, he wasn't fantasizing. He served as a camera. Yes, the photo had not yet been invented, and during the excavation it was necessary to document everything thoroughly, in order to then recreate what was possible taking into account the level of technology of the 18th century. He is not a genius of fantastic painting. He is an artist who documented the reconstruction of antediluvian structures with photographic accuracy. And those buildings that could not be restored are considered to be fantastic. Here's what Piranesi actually did:

That's it !!! Piranesi created dozens of volumes of drawings and sketches, and in the overwhelming majority these are purely technical documents. They are unknown to the general public. The audience is delighted only with the ruinistic painting:

Very similar to the Golden Gate in Kiev, right? I mean by style, and by the same degree of destruction. There, out of three stones, the "gate-fortress" was born (they could not think of anything more stupid how to unite the incompatible - the gate, and the fortress), and in Rome three stones were called "terms". Why not a "prison", actually? After all, Piranesi was not Italian, he was a Venetian. And Venice is the city of Veneta, which, according to legend, was swallowed up by the sea. Yes, partially absorbed. I had to ride boats through the streets not on horses. And the Veneti are a Russian tribe, and they most likely spoke in a language that would be understandable to us now without a translator. And since Piranesi called it "TheRMs", it means that he meant something else, not baths at all. "Terms" could be born as a result of translation into Latin from the word "TeReM" (tower).

The Latin language was invented precisely so that different tribes could understand each other, and most importantly, interpret written documents unambiguously, without distorting the meaning, and without the help of translators. They did not speak Latin. This is a purely written language, and it was thanks to him, this dead language, that Ivan Vasilyevich Ognev could have turned into Giovanni Battista Piranesi. Just like Nikolay, Matvey and Mark, in modern sources they turned into Niccolo, Matteo and Marco Polo.