The article deals with the largest manor buildings of the Golden Horde cities of the Lower Volga region. These are multi-room houses with walls made of baked and mud bricks. In the center of the building there was a large main hall, vestibule rooms adjoined it from the south and north, and the east and west wings were occupied by living and utility rooms. Golden Horde manor houses are compared with the palace and manor buildings of China, Mongolia and the Middle East. The influence of the architecture of these countries led to the emergence of buildings of an original type: the typical Central Asian layout was taken as a basis, and the principles of space organization were borrowed from Central Asia.

Keywords: Golden Horde, Lower Volga region, manor buildings, palaces of Mongolia, China, Middle East, manor buildings of Khorezm.

Introduction

The Golden Horde cities of the Lower Volga region did not arise as a result of long-term economic development, but on the orders of the Khan in a short time in a zone where there were no stable traditions of settlement. These circumstances determined the peculiarity of their structure. The cities in the Golden Horde were a cluster of aristocratic estates and were not divided into a citadel and a trade and craft settlement, like most medieval cities of the East and West. They also lacked fortifications, which contributed to the growth to a huge size. The manor-street character of urban development was preserved throughout the entire existence of the Golden Horde [Fedorov-Davydov, 1994, pp. 12-16]. The estates of the feudal nobility and well-to-do citizens occupied a significant area - 5 000 - 10 000 m 2 [Yegorov, 2000, p. 268]. Probably, in this regard, all the estates studied at the moment have been excavated only partially. Nevertheless, their structure is well studied. A large estate consisted of the owner's house, servants ' quarters, outbuildings, had its own pond (house) and was surrounded by a fence (duvalom). Often on this territory there were craft workshops, the products of which were used inside the estate and, if there was an excess, could go to the market. The size, layout and design of the central building depended on the property status and social status of the owner. For well-to-do artisans, it could be a simple house of one or several rooms; in the estates of the nobility, large multi-room, richly decorated buildings were built, which can be considered palaces.

Among the Golden Horde manor houses studied in the Lower Volga region, there are buildings that have a fairly clear and developed layout. They are divided by meridian walls into several rows of rooms. The central row consists of the entrance vestibule, located on the south side, and the main hall, which is the compositional center of the building. If there is another entrance on the north side, there may be another vestibule, but it is not required. To the left and right of this row of rooms are living and utility rooms. Some manor buildings were excavated and put into scientific use quite a long time ago, while others were built on the same site.-

page 102
gie - in recent years. In this paper, all known buildings of this type are considered for the first time in a complex. The main task is a detailed analysis and search for the origins of their complex, well-developed layout.

Manor buildings in the cities of the Lower Volga region

The large manor house (usadba 1), excavated in 1976 at the eighth excavation of the Saltpetre Settlement, was almost square in plan (Fig. 1), 23.8 x 24.2 m (Fedorov-Davydov, 1994, pp. 53-57), it is composed of large - format mud bricks. The building was divided by two meridian walls into three rows of rooms. In the center of the middle line was a large rectangular hall (Fig. 1, 5). It was accessible from the courtyard through vestibule rooms located on the north and south sides. In the vestibules along the walls were L-shaped soufs. In the northern and southern parts of the hall, the floor was higher than in the central one. On the northern platform of the floor, a podium is built, paved with baked bricks. In the podium, the remains of wooden pillars that supported the canopy were preserved. The floor of the middle part of the hall was also made of brick. In the center was a square swimming pool, which was fed by a canal running from the courtyard through the south vestibule under the paved floor. A similar channel, extending to the north, diverted excess water from the pool.

From the west and east to the central hall adjoined rooms for various purposes. In the north-western part of the building there was a block of three living rooms (Fig. 1, 1, 2, 4), connected by sliding passageways to each other, as well as to the central hall and courtyard. To the south of them was a large uninhabited room (Figs. 1, 3), the floor of which was paved with burnt bricks. Two sliding passageways led into the hall and out. The eastern row of rooms consisted of the same non-residential room with a brick floor located in the north (Figs. 1, 6), and two residential rooms with kans and soufs (Figs. 1, 7, 8). All of them were connected by passageways, forming a single block that had exits to the central hall and the outer one courtyard. Thus, the rooms adjacent to the central hall in the first period of the house's existence formed four separate sections: the north-west and south-east blocks of living rooms, the south-west and north-east halls. At the same time, residential and non-residential premises of the two halves of the building were located symmetrically diagonally.

1. Usadba 1 of the Saltpetre Settlement (according to [Fedorov-Davydov, 1994]).

In the future, in just a few decades of its existence, the house underwent numerous alterations. Many rooms were blocked off, divided in two, soufs with kans and hearths were arranged in non-residential premises, old passages were laid and new ones were cut through. Probably, some kind of centrifugal processes took place among the inhabitants of the house, which led to the fact that the number of residential sections increased and they became more isolated. Isolation was achieved by laying out old passageways and constructing new ones so that each residential block was connected either only to the courtyard or only to the hall. During this period, the central hall was no longer the center of the social life of the house, but was used as a courtyard. In the end, it was completely abandoned and turned into such a courtyard with an earthen floor.

Approximately 500 m to the north of the considered manor, another one (manor 2) was studied at the XV excavation, the house of which had a similar layout and was built in the same construction technique (Fig. 2) [Zilivinskaya and Alekseychuk, 2003]. Its walls are made of large-format raw bricks using the same masonry techniques. The building was also square, but somewhat smaller (20 m on the C-Y axis and 19.5 m on the W-H axis). The rooms were arranged in three rows. The only entrance was in the center of the south wall and led to a vestibule paved with baked bricks, with sufs along the meridian walls. Further on, in the middle row, there was a large (14.4 x 5.9 m) reception hall (Figs. 2, 2). In its southern part, on the floor, you can see-

page 103

2. Manor 2 of the Saltpetre Settlement.

a-raw brick; b - baked brick; c-lime coating; d - wood.

divided U - shaped elevation, lined with bricks. In the middle of the hall there is also a part of the floor made of bricks laid diagonally and framed by a border of two rows of bricks. At the north wall was a podium in the form of a tightly packed mass of earth.

In the western and eastern rows of rooms there were three living rooms, which had exits to the central hall. The south-west and south-east were the most ceremonial among them (Figs. 2, 3, 6). These rooms were almost identical in size, with their internal structures mirrored. U-shaped soufs were added to the southern, eastern and western walls; kans were built along the outer meridian walls and facing north with furnaces. The principle of symmetry was preserved here throughout the life of the house. The floors in the south rooms were made of burnt brick with turquoise inserts, the walls were plastered with lime mortar and decorated with stamped ganche decor. Some differences were observed in the details of the decorative decoration.

The middle rooms in the rows (Figs. 2, 4, 7) were economic and residential, as evidenced by the presence of a large number of stoves and tandoors, as well as a modest design. Initially, their layout was also mirrored: kans were located along the northern walls of the furnace to the hall, and U-shaped soufs adjoined the outer walls. However, the interior was subsequently rebuilt many times, and the symmetry was broken. The rooms located in the northern part of the house (Figs. 2, 5, 8) were ordinary living rooms and were almost never rebuilt.

Thus, despite some differences, the houses of the two estates have a similar layout. Moreover, the shape and size of the mud brick, the masonry system and a number of other construction techniques suggest that these houses were built by the same craftsmen. However, in Manor 2, the building has a more developed layout. Here the principle of symmetry is more fully observed, and the central hall is really a compositional center, since the living rooms are connected only to it. The layout of the manor house 1 seems more archaic. In the first period of its existence, it had two axes of symmetry, one of which ran along the C-Y line, and the other along the diagonal of the building. The lack of development of the composition is also reflected in the presence of some of the rooms with exits to the outside, cutting the external walls of the building, despite the fact that the central hall, with which these rooms are somehow connected, opens into the courtyard with two ayvanses. The space of the manor house 2 is closed, because it has only one exit.

The largest manor structure currently known in the Lower Volga region is the palace building, which was investigated during the XI excavation in 1977-1981 in the same aristocratic area of the Saltpetre Settlement as the other two estates (Fedorov-Davydov, 1994, pp. 57-59). It was a multi-room house with exterior walls of baked brick. The interior walls were half-timbered: the base was laid out of baked and mud bricks, a frame was built on top of wooden beams, the space between which was filled with mud bricks laid "in a herringbone pattern". The building was partially destroyed, so its dimensions can only be estimated approximately: the length along the C-Y axis is 32.5 m, the width must exceed 40 m, if the structure is symmetrical relative to the central part.

The central position was occupied by a suite of state rooms. It began with an extensive entrance with steps on the south side of the building. Subsequently, the steps were replaced with a ramp. A doorway led to a lobby lined with L-shaped soufs. Next came ras-

page 104

3. The estate on Tsarevskoye gorodishche (according to [Fedorov-Davydov, 1994]).

- a-alabaster coating; b - baked brick; c-sand; d - raw brick.

connecting vestibule with entrances to several rooms. Two passageways running along the meridian walls connected it to the central hall.

Rectangular in plan, the hall, elongated along the S-S axis, had a length of 15.8 m, a width in the middle part of 9.4, in the south and north - 7.4 m. In the southern part there was a raised platform laid out with bricks on lime mortar. It was flanked to the east and west by passageways leading out of the vestibule. In the middle part of the hall, narrow soufs were placed along the walls. To the north was another rise, also faced with brick, but larger in area than the southern one. From the east and west of it were passages leading to the northern rooms. Sufas surrounded the 7.4 x 7.4 m figuratively paved area on four sides. In its center was a large nausea*. The floor is paved with two types of slabs: large-sized square ones are laid out with a border along the edge, a square bordering the toshna, and paths running from its corners forming a cross-shaped figure, and the space between the paths is filled with hexagonal brick tiles. Directly around the toshna was a frame made of ordinary bricks. The walls of the hall were decorated with large mosaic panels consisting of figured polychrome elements with gilding. To the north of the hall were two other rooms-probably, like on the south side, the vestibule and ivan.

To the west and east of the main part of the palace were rooms arranged in rows along the C-Y axis. The eastern end of the building was partially destroyed: two lines of rooms can be traced here. On the west side, the rooms were arranged in three rows. In total, about 35 residential and utility rooms were examined. In addition to the usual rooms with sufa and kan, there was a home bakery with several tandoor bars, a storeroom with millstones for grinding grain, a bathroom and a children's room, on the plastered walls of which many children's drawings were scratched [Ibid., p. 58]. The rooms were connected to each other by means of corridors and distribution vestibules. Thus, the palace building at the XI excavation site had a more complex layout. However, the presence of a central suite of rooms, consisting of the main hall and adjacent to it from the south and north aivans and vestibules, puts it on a par with other houses of a similar layout.

In the second period of its existence, the building of an aristocratic estate in the eastern district of the Tsarevskoye settlement had a similar layout [Mukhamadiev and Fedorov-Davydov, 1970, pp. 153-155]. Its brick walls were completely dismantled, and they had to be traced by footprints in the mainland (Figure 3). The rectangular building, elongated in the latitudinal direction, had dimensions of 24 × 17 m. It faced south, which was emphasized by two round towers attached to the south-west and south-east corners. The middle row of rooms consisted of a lobby and a hall with a podium or iwan in the northern part. On the east and west sides of the central hall were rooms that were probably residential.

Two palace buildings were studied at the Akhtuba settlement located 56 km from Astrakhan upstream of the Akhtuba River (Plakhov, 2008). One building was completely opened, the other - partially, but its layout as a whole can be evaluated.

The first building is rectangular in plan, measuring 36.5 x 21.2 m, with a long axis oriented along the 3-B line with a slight deviation (Fig. 4). The walls of baked bricks on clay mortar had a thickness of 0.75 - 1.0 m. The north-west and north-east corners of the building were reinforced with three-quarter towers. The interior space between the walls is covered with a leveling layer up to 1.7 m thick, and the floors are laid on it. The author of the excavations calls this backfill a platform [Ibid., p. 125], but this definition seems to be unsuccessful. A platform can be considered a specially constructed base on which the entire building is built. Here we have a fence inside the perimeter of its walls.

The entrance to the building was on the south side. A large ramp led to an open ivan on this side, the walls of which were plastered with lime plaster. This was followed by a large main hall (Fig. 4, 1). It was square in plan (9.85 x 9.85 m), with a niche-

* Toshna (toshnau, tashna, tashnau) - a device for washing hands in the form of a well in the floor of the room and a "sink" decorated in the upper part of the well.

page 105
ivanom in the northern part (Fig. 4, 1a). In the middle of the hall, massive brick foundations were found from four columns that probably supported the dome. In the eastern part of the room, a section of the floor paved with burnt bricks on lime mortar and remnants of plaster on the walls were preserved.

Three small rectangular rooms adjoined the ivan of the main hall (Figs. 4, 4-6). Thus, in the building on the Akhtubinsky hillfort, as well as in the manor houses of the Selitrenny and Tsarevsky hillforts, the middle row of rooms is allocated, including the ivan and the main hall. Outside, another room was added to the northern wall of the building, which the author of the excavations called the rear ivan of the pavilion type [Ibid., p. 132]. All that remained of the structure was a mud platform surrounded by walls of baked bricks. Most likely, it was added later.

On both sides of the central part of the building there were two rows of rooms, the purpose of which cannot be determined, because the floors and internal structures in them were completely destroyed. The largest room was located in the south-eastern corner (Fig. 4, 16). By analogy with other similar buildings, it can be assumed that there was another "small" hall for receptions. Adjacent to it were a complex G-shaped room with a protrusion at the base (Figs. 4, 14) and a small room (Figs. 4, 15). Two other rooms in this block were almost identical in both shape and size (Figs. 4, 7, 8 ).

On the other side of the central hall, in the south-western corner, there was also a room of a rather large area (Fig. 4, 11). From the east, it was adjoined by a small room (Fig. 4, 13) and a room whose dimensions allow us to see in it a distribution vestibule (Fig. 4, 12), connecting the central hall with three rooms (Fig. 4, 10, 11, 13). The rest of this block was occupied by four similar-sized rooms.

All the rooms had a rich design. During the dismantling of the rubble, fragments of lime plaster and floors made of baked bricks with tile inserts, architectural and decorative details made of ganch, panjar lattices with colored glass were found in them. A fallen block of the facade wall, decorated with a frieze, has been preserved. One strip of this frieze was composed of majolica polychrome inserts with floral ornaments, the other consisted of several belts of ornaments made of turquoise - colored tile bricks and ground bricks - "crackers". The bricks of the front surface of the facade wall were sanded. According to V. V. Plakhov, the frieze was located at a height of about 4.7 m [Ibid.], therefore, the height of the building could be about 5 m.

As already mentioned, the complete absence of internal structures does not allow us to reliably judge the purpose of both the entire building and its individual rooms. The author of the excavations considers it administrative [Ibid., p. 139]. Nevertheless committed-

4. Usadba 1 on the Akhtuba settlement (according to [Plakhov, 2008]).

5. Usadba 2 on the Akhtuba settlement (according to [Plakhov, 2008]).

page 106
but there is a clear similarity in the layout of this building and the large manor houses of other Lower Volga settlements. The fact that some of its premises could have been residential and heated is indicated, in particular, by the remains of vertical chimneys in the form of ceramic pipes with traces of soot on the inside and lime mortar on the outside. Among the finds there are samples of household ceramics (jugs, kumgans, bowls) and animal bones. Most likely, it was a manor building of the palace type.

The second building on the Akhtuba settlement was partially excavated, but its layout is similar to the first one (Figure 5). The walls are also made of baked bricks. 5, 1) with a niche-ivan in the north-eastern part and four columns in the middle. On both sides of it were other rooms, only a small part of which was affected by the excavations.

Analysis of the layout of manor buildings

It is interesting to understand the origins of the developed and stable layout of the houses of this type, which are the most significant manor buildings built according to a clearly developed plan. They have a core consisting of the main hall and rooms connected to it, so we can assume that the owners of such houses were representatives of the upper strata of the Golden Horde population. In addition, the large number, complex differentiation of premises, and their rich design make it possible to consider some buildings as palaces. It is difficult to assume that the developed layout of these buildings arose independently in the cities founded by former nomads. Its origins should be sought among the peoples who had a fairly high building culture by the XIV century, and palaces, castles and rich manor houses should be considered as possible analogues.

First of all, it makes sense to compare the buildings under consideration with the palaces of Mongolia itself. The description of Ogedei's palace in Karakorum was left by G. Rubruk: "This palace resembles a church, having a ship in the middle, and its two sides are separated by two rows of columns; the palace has three doors facing south. In front of the middle door, there is the described tree [wine fountain] inside, and the khan himself is sitting on an elevated spot on the north side, so that everyone can see him. There are two staircases leading up to his throne... The space located in the middle between the tree and the stairs... it remains empty; it is there that the one who gives him the cup is placed, as well as the ambassadors who bring gifts; the khan himself sits there above, as if a certain god. On the right side of it, that is, on the west side, men are placed, and on the left - women. The palace extends from the north of Nayug" [1997, p. 155]. Thus, Rubruk described a building whose interior space is divided into naves by rows of columns. Excavations of the alleged Ogedei Palace in Karakorum by the expedition of St. John the Baptist. Kiselyov, as well as studies of synchronous palace buildings on the river. Khirkhira, Kondui town, and Den-terek hillfort have shown that they were built in Chinese traditions (Drevnemongolskie Gorody, 1965, pp. 138-165, 329-369). These buildings were multi-columned compositions on high earthen platforms lined with brick and stone. The bases of the wooden columns that supported the roof were massive granite blocks, square or cylindrical projections. The roof was made of water-filled tiles with characteristic end disks and tides. The buildings had no heating and were used only for ceremonial purposes [Ibid., p. 159]. True, modern researchers consider the Ogedei Palace in Karakorum to be a 13th-century Buddhist temple [Huttel, 2005, pp. 145-146], but the purpose of other palace buildings is not in doubt.

The planning and design principles of Chinese architecture were already established by the third century and have been preserved throughout the history of China. When planning, the "feng shui" rule was of great importance, according to which buildings were located along the C-Y axis with a mandatory southern orientation of the facade. Palace complexes were built on the principle of "gong". Inside the rectangular space, bounded by high walls with ornate gates on the south side, were ensembles of various buildings, often connected by ramps and covered galleries. The main (ceremonial) building was located on the S-S axis, consisted of a single room divided by columns into naves, and was never combined with living quarters. The rest of the buildings were located on the sides of the facade to it. It was mandatory to observe mirror symmetry with respect to the central axis. During the construction of buildings, a mud platform was first constructed, which was lined with burnt bricks or stone blocks. A wooden frame was placed on it, formed by a system of racks and beams, the gaps between the outer racks were filled in the lower part with wooden panels, above - with wooden lattices. The roof was made without rafters and was connected to the frame supports by brackets - "dougun". The roofs had different designs, but all were characterized by a significant height and a large mass, since they were covered with heavy tiles [Lou Qingxi, 2002, p. 4-21; Xiao Mo, 1999, p. 7-24]. Exo-

page 107
Based on these canons, researchers also reconstruct Mongolian palace complexes [Maidar, 1971, p. 90-91; Maidar and Pyurveev, 1980, p. 58-62; Minert, 1990, p.95-104].

The Kublai Palace in Khanbalik, described by Marco Polo, also had a Chinese appearance. It occupied a considerable area, enclosed by two rows of walls with a gate on the south side. Inside there were various pavilions, and in the center was the main building with a high roof made of irrigation tiles of different colors [Marco Polo Book, 1997, p. 250-251]. There were receptions and feasts, about which Marco Polo also writes in detail: "At a feast, the great khan sits at the table like this: his table is much higher than other tables; he sits on the north side facing south; on the left side next to him sits the eldest wife, and on the right hand, much lower, the sons and their heads fall at the feet of the great Khan; and the other princes sit at other tables, even lower down. Wives sit in the same way. The wives of the sons of the great Khan, his nephews and kinsmen - on the left side, lower, and behind them, even lower, sit the wives of barons and knights. Everyone knows their place, where they should sit according to the order established by the great Khan" [Ibid., pp. 255-256].

In the buildings with the main hall in the Golden Horde, nothing Chinese can be traced. These were multi-room buildings made of mud and baked bricks, consisting of front, residential and utility rooms. Nevertheless, the descriptions of Rubruk and Marco Polo may shed some light on the nature of the receptions that took place in the main hall. It is significant that the entrance to it was on the south side, and the dais, on which the owner of the house probably sat, was in the northern part. Guests and household members were located on the sides (this is evidenced, for example, by the sufs on the east and west sides of the hall in the estate 3 of the Saltpeter Settlement). That is, the organization of the grand hall space in the manor houses of the Golden Horde corresponds to that in the palaces of Mongolia. By the way, such an organization of space is typical for any Mongolian dwelling. The Mongols still place yurts with the door to the south and consider the northern part of them the most honorable, while the yurts of the Turks are located at the entrance to the southeast [Kondratieva, 1935, p. 28; Zhukovskaya, 1988, p. 16]. V. L. Yegorov also pointed out that the orientation of the Golden Horde houses to the south was influenced by the Mongolian tradition [1970, p. 187]. The Chinese form and orientation of palace buildings were adopted by the Mongols almost unchanged, since this corresponded to their spatial concepts and did not contradict traditions [Minert, 1990, p.95].

Another region in which you should look for prototypes of Golden Horde palace buildings is the Middle East, and above all Central Asia. Most researchers who studied architecture and construction in the cities of the Golden Horde noted the influence of the traditions of Iran and Central Asia (Ballod, 1923, p. 118; Grekov and Yakubovsky, 1950, p. 268; Smirnov, 1976). This is indicated primarily by building materials and equipment. Raw brick was used everywhere in the Middle Ages, but its size and masonry system on the Saltpeter Hillfort exactly correspond to the Central Asian ones (Voronina, 1950). Architectural decor in the form of irrigation bricks, carved ganch, terracotta, panjar lattices is also borrowed from the architecture of Central Asia (Fedorov-Davydov, 1994, p.166).

The layout of palace buildings and manor buildings of the Middle East that are typologically close to them from the second millennium BC to the 12th century was analyzed by S. G. Khmelnitsky [1992, p. 211-231; 1997, p. 9-84; 2000, p.169-190; 2004; 2006, p. 13-32]. In addition to being representative, they served as an aristocratic dwelling, buildings of social, administrative and religious purposes, garrisons, etc. At the same time, the function of the "center of power"was decisive. The planning structure that contributed to the best expression of the relationship between power and citizenship was the courtyard-ivan composition, consisting of a large rectangular courtyard and a ivan open to the courtyard, located on the continuation of the courtyard axis. In the chamber version, the courtyard was replaced by a hall, and the ivan was replaced by a niche. Beginning in the 9th century, two small rooms were arranged on either side of the ivan, which also opened into the courtyard with arched passages. Thus, a three-part structure was created. Often there was a small domed room behind the central ivan, which S. G. Khmelnitsky interprets as a kind of" backstage " or small reception hall [2004, p.255; 2006, p. 16].

The researcher divides the palace complexes of the yard-ayvannaya composition into two groups. The first category includes buildings with a large courtyard surrounded on all sides by various rooms (Fig. 6). Palaces of this" imperial " type are typical of Sasanian Iran (Firuzabad, Damgan) and the Arab Caliphate (Ukhaydir, Mshatta), and are found in Central Asia (manor A in Yakka-Parsan oasis, palace in Shahriar- arke, Palace of the Termezshahs) [Khmelnitsky, 1997, p. 10-21; 2000, p. 77]. The buildings of the second group also contain yard-ayvan complexes, but they are not a compositional center, but are included in the complex and often asymmetric structure of the building. Their courtyards are small or even turned into halls. This group includes not only

page 108

6. Palace complexes of the yard-aiwan composition.

A - palace in Shakhriar-arka; B-manor A in Yakka-Parsan oasis; C-palace of the Termezshahs (according to [Khmelnitsky, 1997]).

palaces of high-ranking rulers (Toprak-kala, Khulbuk), but also castles of rural feudal lords and even city dwellers ' dwellings (for example, on Varakhsh) [Khmelnitsky, 1992, p. 254-255; 1997, p. 22-30].

The same courtyard-ayvannaya (or rather, salno-ayvannaya) layout can be clearly traced in the Golden Horde manor houses. It is particularly pronounced in manor 1 on the Akhtuba settlement (see Fig. 4), where the central row of rooms of the building consists of an open ivan facing the courtyard, a square hall with a ceremonial ivan and a small room located behind it. There are two small rooms on the sides of the ivan of the central hall. The south-eastern corner of the building is very interesting. It is occupied by a room almost equal in area to the central hall. From the north and west, it is adjacent to a complex room configuration. Here we see another planning technique known in the architecture of Central Asia - a reception hall located in one of the corners of the building, with an L-shaped couloir adjacent to it. This layout is typical for pre-Islamic castles (Jumalak-tepe, Saryk-tepe), urban dwellings (Panjikent), palaces (Kafir-kala, Varakhsha) [Khmelnitsky, 2000, p. 59, 67, 80, 89, 144 - 145, 172, 175 - 179]. Thus, this estate combines a courtyard-ayvannaya layout with an asymmetric one, typical for castles of the 4th type according to the classification of S. G. Khmelnitsky district [Ibid., p. 67]. Building 2 on the Akhtuba ancient settlement, which was partially excavated, was probably arranged in a similar way. The same type, most likely, can be attributed to the house of the estate on Tsarevskoye gorodishche in the second period of its existence.

It is somewhat more difficult to reconstruct the main hall of the estate 3 of the Saltpetre Settlement, since the walls of the building were dismantled to the ground and only trenches remained from them. In the only brief description of this building, the main hall is considered as rectangular in plan, with elevations in the southern and northern parts, framed from the east and west by passageways, and a square platform in the center with two soufs on the east and west sides [Fedorov-Davydov, 1994, pp. 57-58]. Meanwhile, this room can be considered as a hall with four aivans. In the center of it is a square area of 7.4 x 7.4 m. In the northern part, the hall connects with a large front ivan, whose floor level is higher than in the hall. There are narrow corridor - like rooms on either side of Ivan, and one or two more rooms behind him. That is, the entire complex of premises typical of courtyard-ayvannoy buildings is clearly distinguished here. Another aiwan, symmetrical to the northern one, of the same width, but less depth, is located in the southern part of the hall. The floor level is also raised, and there are two small rooms on the sides. Two iwans are located on the east and west sides of the hall. Their depth is quite small (approx. 80 cm), and the floor level is also raised. Perhaps they were used as benches for visitors during receptions. Chetyrehayvannaya layout as a development of the yard-ayvannoy scheme is found in the residential architecture of the Middle East since the early Middle Ages. A courtyard with four aiwans was common in the residential architecture of Khorasan. This planning technique is presented in the Akyr-Tash Palace of the VIII century. in the south of Kazakhstan, in the palace of the XII century in the Shakhriyar Arch of Merv, in the Southern Palace of the Ghaznavid complex Lashkari Bazaar of the XI-XII centuries [Khmelnitsky, 1992,

page 109
p. 214-216; 1997, p. 9 - 13, 30 - 33; 2000, p. 55-56; 2006, p. 20]. Later, the four-bay layout became traditional for public buildings, such as mosques, madrassas, and caravanserais.

Despite the obvious similarity of the Golden Horde manor houses of this type with the palace and manor buildings of the Middle East, it is impossible not to note a significant difference in the orientation of the main rooms. In the Golden Horde, they are organized according to" Mongolian " principles, i.e. the entrance is always on the south side, and the main aiwan is on the north side. In the Middle East, front rooms are oriented in an arbitrary way. For example, in the northern complex of the "upper palace" in Khulbuk, there were several courtyard-ayvan groups, and all of them had a different orientation [Khmelnitsky, 1997, pp. 28-29].

The houses of estates 1 and 2 on Selitrenny Gorodishche are small, square in plan, built of mud bricks. Their interior space is divided by meridian walls into three rows of rooms. The main halls that occupy the central part of the middle line are rectangular and strongly elongated. There are no Aivans here, but in general, the hall has the same structure as the houses in the estates of the Akhtuba settlement and the estate of 3 Selitrenny: in the center there is a figuratively paved area of square or close to square shape, and the southern and northern parts are distinguished by a different system of floor masonry. In manor 2, a U-shaped figure is laid out with bricks in the southern part, which can be perceived as a hint of Ivan. The place of honor of the owner of the estate in the northern part of the hall is represented by a sufa or podium with a canopy. Such an elevation, on which the owner's ottoman was located, is found in the early Middle Ages as often as the throne ivan. A four-poster podium was found in the "red hall" of the early medieval Varakhshi Palace and in the Urta-Kurgan Castle (Khmelnitsky, 2000: 57, 174-175). Analogs of such small compact buildings as buildings 1 and 2 on the Saltpeter Hillfort can be found among the rural estates of medieval Khorezm.

Several houses of a similar plan were excavated by P. N. Kozhemyako at the Krasnorechensk settlement in Kyrgyzstan [1967, p. 53-90; Baipakov, 1986, p. 154]. They belonged to representatives of the well-to-do strata of the population and date back to the X-XII centuries. The plan of the house is close to a square. The entrance led to a small vestibule, which was connected by a narrow corridor to a hall where soufs were made along the walls decorated with carved alabaster panels and carved plaster painted in different colors. Along the perimeter of the building were living rooms, also opening into the central hall. The author of the excavations defines it as a ceremonial room for receptions of guests (Kozhemyako, 1967, p. 85-86).

Some similarity is observed in the Golden Horde houses of this type with the rural manor buildings of Khorezm in the XII-XIII centuries [Nezdik, 1976, p. 74 - 81, 89 - 90, 94 - 96]. E. E. Nezdik divides these buildings into two groups: with a central hall and with a central corridor [Ibid., pp. 182-183]. The first type is represented by houses whose compositional center was a hall, square or rectangular in plan [Ibid., p. 182]. In the homestead buildings of Khorezm, it was usually no larger than other rooms and served as a distribution vestibule, corridor or utility room with hearths. In terms of proportions and arrangement of rooms, houses with a central corridor are closer to the Golden Horde ones (Fig. 7). They are divided by walls into three approximately equal parts. The middle line is occupied by a long, wide corridor. The rooms, as in the Golden Horde houses, are located on both sides of the central row. They are connected to the corridor by vestibules. In other words, the structure of these houses is the same as in the Golden Horde, and the premises named after them are called

7. Manor houses of the Kavat-kala oasis in Khorezm.

A-N1; B-N60; C-N43 (according to: Nrazik, 1976; Khmelnitsky, 1997).

page 110
E. E. Nezdik corridors, in their location and proportions are identical to the central halls. Such buildings include houses N1, 43 and 60 in the Kavat-kala oasis, part of a large residential complex N2 in the Daryalyk-kul tract, house N2 in the settlement of Aigeldy and N18 in the settlement of Akcha-Gelin [Ibid., p. 77 - 79, 94 - 95, 97 - 99, 133 - 134].

Despite the clear similarity in the layout, there are a number of differences between the Golden Horde and Khorezmian houses: the use of different building materials (raw brick and pakhsa), different interior design, but most importantly-a different perception of the organization of the building space. As already mentioned, in the Golden Horde, manor houses faced south with the entrance, and the central axis of the building ran along the C-S line, which is a Mongolian tradition. In Khorezm, the main entrance could be located either from the south or south-east, or from the north or north-west side. The use of the central room was also different. In Khorezm, the central hall or corridor had an economic or distribution purpose, and the guest room (mikhman khan) was located in one of the side rooms. In the Golden Horde, it was the main part of the building, a hall for large receptions, although there were other ceremonial rooms for less solemn events. Perhaps these small halls were similar in purpose to the mihman-hana of Central Asian houses.

Very significant is the redevelopment that was made in the Golden Horde period in one of the houses with a central corridor (N 43) in the Kavat-kala oasis [Ibid., pp. 80 - 82]. Initially, the main entrance to the building was located on the north side (Fig. It led to an ornate vestibule that connected to an elongated distribution hall, with a small vestibule opening into the courtyard at the southern end. In the XIII-XIV centuries. the house was rebuilt. The passage through the main north lobby was laid, and the building was connected to the street only through the south small vestibule. In the northern part of the hall, a U-shaped structure with walls made of burnt brick was erected. E. E. Nezdik considers this structure as a place of honor for the owner of the house [Ibid., p. 82]. Perhaps it is a kind of imitation of the front ivan. It is interesting that the same structure was found in the main hall of the palace complex of the XIV-XV centuries on the Akchiy hillfort in Kyrgyzstan (Zaurova, 1977). Here we investigated the estate, which in its layout is very similar to the estates 1 and 2 of the Saltpeter settlement. Its similarity to the manor houses of the Lower Volga region was also noted by G. A. Fedorov-Davydov [1994, p. 76]. The late dating of the monument allows us to see the Golden Horde influence.

Conclusion

Thus, the origins of the layout of the Golden Horde houses with a central hall are located in Central Asia, and if the courtyard-aiwan (in this case, salno-aiwan) composition presented in the estate 3 of the Saltpetre settlement, on the Akhtu-bin and Tsarevsky settlements, is characteristic of the entire Middle East, then the layout of houses 1 and 2 on the Saltpetre settlement Most likely, it comes from Khorezm. The close connection of these buildings with Central Asian architecture is also indicated by some construction techniques (the use of baked and large-format raw bricks, masonry systems, the design of the corners of buildings with three-quarter towers) and decorative elements (figuratively paved floors, panjara lattices with colored glasses, ganche architectural details). However, despite such a strong Central Asian influence, it is impossible to see direct borrowing here. Houses with a courtyard and a central hall have a pronounced axis of symmetry along the C-Y line. Living rooms in them are located on the east and west sides of the courtyard or hall, and from the south and north there are small vestibule or utility rooms. If there is a main hall, the entrance to it is always from the south side, and the place of honor of the owner is in the northern part. That is, based on buildings of typical Central Asian layout, the inhabitants of the Golden Horde cities applied to them their own principles of space organization, brought from Mongolia and, possibly, China. As a result, there were buildings that can be considered an original version of the well-known planning schemes in the Middle East. It should be noted, however, that these conclusions apply only to the central part of the Golden Horde (Lower Volga region), where all the currently known manor houses were found. In other areas, the situation may be somewhat different, but only further archaeological research can clarify it.

List of literature

Baipakov K. M. Medieval urban culture of Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1986, 255 p. (in Russian)

Ballod F. V. Privolzhskie "Pompeii", Moscow; Pg.: State Publishing House, 1923, 131 p.

Voronina V. L. Drevnyaya stroitelnaya tekhnika Srednoi Azii [Ancient construction equipment of Central Asia]. - 1950. - N3. - p. 3-36.

Grekov B. D., Yakubovsky A. Y. The Golden Horde and its Fall. - M.; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950. - 478 p.

page 111
Drevnemongolskie goroda [Ancient Mongolian cities] / S. V. Kiselev, L. A. Evtyukhova, L. R. Kyzlasov, N. Ya. Merpert, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1965, 371 p.

Egorov V. L. Housing of the New Barn // Volga Region in the Middle Ages, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1970, pp. 172-194.

Egorov V. L. Cities of Russia and the Golden Horde in the XIII-XIV centuries-general and special // Tr. GIM. - 2000. - Issue 122: Scientific heritage of A. P. Smirnov and modern problems of archeology of the Volga-Kama region: materials of the scientific conference-pp. 263-273.

Zhukovskaya N. L. Categories and symbols of traditional culture, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1988, 195 p.

Zaurova E. Z. Excavations at the ancient settlement Akchiy / / Ketmen-Tube. Frunze: Ilim Publ., 1977, pp. 106-127.

Zilivinskaya E. D., Alekseichuk S. I. Usadebnoe zdanie na XV raskope Selitrennogo gorodishcha [The manor building on the XV excavation of the Saltpeter Settlement]. - Donetsk: Donetsk, nat. un-t Publ., 2003, vol. 3, pp. 295-345.

The Book of Marco Polo // Giovanni del Plano Carpini. History of the Mongols; Guillem de Rubruk. Journey to the Eastern countries; The Book of Marco Polo, Moscow: Mysl, 1997, pp. 192-381.

Kozhemyako P. N. Excavations of the townspeople's dwellings of the X-XII centuries at the Krasnorechensk settlement // Ancient and early medieval culture of Kyrgyzstan. Frunze: Ilim Publ., 1967, pp. 53-90.

Kondratieva, M. I., On the yurt-like buildings of Outer Mongolia, SE. - 1935. - N3. - pp. 2-36.

Lou Qingxi. Traditional architecture of China. Beijing: Intercontinental, China Publishing House, 2002, 175 p.

Maydar D. Architecture and urban planning in Mongolia. Moscow: Stroyizdat Publ., 1971, 241 p.

Maidar D., Pyurveev D. From nomadic to mobile architecture, Moscow: Stroyizdat, 1980, 214 p.

Minert L. K. Mongol urban planning of the XIII-XIV centuries / / Central Asia and neighboring territories in the Middle Ages. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1990, pp. 89-106.

Fedorov-Davydov G. A. Mukhamadiev A. G., Excavations of a rich estate in a New Barn / / SA. - 1970. - N 3. - pp. 149-162.

Nezdik E. E. Rural housing in Khorezm (X-XIV centuries). Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1976, 256 p. (in Russian)

Plakhov V. V. Palace buildings of the late 14th century near the village. Komsomolsky in the Astrakhan region // Steppes of Europe in the Middle Ages. - Donetsk: Donetsk, nat. un-t, 2008, vol. 6, pp. 125-141.

de. Rubruk G., Travel to the Eastern countries / / Giovanni del Plano Carpini. History of the Mongols; Guillem de Rubruk. Journey to the Eastern countries; The Book of Marco Polo, Moscow: Mysl, 1997, pp. 88-190.

Smirnov A. P. Sredneaziatskie elementy v arkhitekturke i stroitel'nom dele Volzhskikh Bolgar [Central Asian elements in the architecture and construction business of the Volga Bulgarians]. Srednevekovye pamyatniki Povolzhya [Medieval monuments of the Volga region], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1976, pp. 3-7.

Fedorov-Davydov G. A. Zolotoordynskie gorody Povolzhya [Golden Horde cities of the Volga region]. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1994, 232 p. (in Russian)

Khmelnitsky S. Between the Arabs and the Turks: Early Islamic Architecture of Central Asia. - Berlin; Riga: Gamajun, 1992. - 342 p.

Khmelnitsky S. Between the Samanids and the Mongols: Architecture of Central Asia in the XI-early XIII centuries. - Berlin; Riga: Gamajun, 1997. - Part 2. - 230 p.

Khmelnitsky S. Between Kushans and Arabs: Architecture of Central Asia V-VIII centuries. - Berlin; Riga: Gamajun, 2000. - 290 p.

Khmelnitsky S. Arkhitektura srednevekovykh dvortsov Tsentral'noi Azii [Architecture of medieval palaces in Central Asia]. Transoxiana, Moscow; Tashkent: R. Elinina Publishing House, 2004, pp. 252-265.

Khmelnitsky S. Huttal Palaces: Ideas and forms of Civil architecture in Central Asia of the IX-XII centuries. Berlin: Sawadowski-Verlag, 2006, 148 p.

Hiittel H.-G. Der Palast des Ogedei Khan - Die Ausgrabungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Institute im Palastbezirk von Karakorum // Dschingis Khan und seine Erben: Das Weltreich der Mongolen. - Bonn: Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepublik Deutshland; Munchen: Staatliches Museum fur Volkerkunde, 2005. - S. 140 - 146.

Xiao Mo. Chinese Architecture. - Beijing: Culture and art public house, 1999. - 208 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 10.07.09.

page 112

Permanent link to this publication: