The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History



I.V. Belich

Article is devoted to the analysis of publications of one of early drawings of the city of Tyumen of the end of XVII — the beginnings of the 18th century, to specification of time and circumstances of its origin and also the probable authorship which is perhaps connected with drawing school of family of S.U. Remezov. On the basis of the maintenance of inscriptions on the drawing and with attraction of separate known plans of Tyumen and descriptions of the ancient settlement of Chim-gi/Tsymgi-Tura of XVIII — the middle of the 19th century are given topography of the city and Tsarev of the ancient settlement (which was called also Kuchumovy) as parts of Tsymgi-Tura, their fortification and parameters. In comparison with sizes of the Kremlin and posad of Tyumen the beginnings of the 17th century and a boundary of the 17-18th centuries it allows to present scale of this monument of archeology of medieval Tyumen which is nowadays lost.

Drawing of Tyumen of a boundary of HUN-HUSH of centuries, Tyumen Kremlin / city, Tyumen (Chimgi/Tsymgi-Tura, Tsarevo) ancient settlement, ancient settlement Isker, "Horografichesky book", S.U. Remezov, G.F. Miller, N.A. Abramov, P.M. Golovachev.

We will note at once that written sources of the past: Muslim chronicles, the Western European compositions and even the Russian (Siberian) chronicles — do not report it is more correct than the uniform certificate which would inform us at least of a superficial mention of how the capital of the Tyumen khanate — Chimgi-Tura looked — Tsymgi-Tura ("The cespitose city/fortress") during its existence (is more detailed: [Belich, 2009. Page 13-34]). It is not necessary to speak about archaeological data, unfortunately, as this oldest city of Western Siberia of an era of the Middle Ages was wiped out during late building of Tyumen [Archaeological heritage..., 1995. Page 68] (but the cultural layer still in places remained) [Matveev, etc., 2006. Page 62-64]. Nevertheless separate materials on the basis of which it will be possible to size up scales of Tsymgi-Tura and mentally to present its shape and also to look at the town-planning past of Tyumen, nevertheless is at our disposal.

1. The drawing of Tyumen of the end of XVII — the beginning of the 18th century

In the first part of article it will be a question of plans and drawings of Tyumen of Modern times — in particular about one of them where except subjects to its historical building there are data on topography of this monument of archeology. As it is demanded by a subject historiography, at first will address modern editions in hope to receive the data interesting us. It is a little of them, and information is duplicated. So, in one of them "The plan scheme of placement of town-planning blocks in Tyumen" is given. In an explication it is told: "As follows from the historical plan (we gathered it from the official site of the city), in Tyumen the following town-planning blocks are allocated: 3. Ancient Chingi Tura. 1. Russian fortress. 2. Posad of the Russian fortress. 6. Ilyinsky convent. 4. Yamsky settlement. 5. Trinity Monastery. 7. Bukhara (at the left) and Tanning settlement" [Arsyukhin] (fig. 1).

This "the historical plan" at E. Arsyukhin, however, as well as on the website, is not dated. But we will find the similar scheme in other edition where it is possible to read: "Here the latest plan of Tyumen characterizing its building at the end of the 17th century" [Matveeva, etc., 1994. Page 169] 1. At the same time authors of the book submit "The scheme of building of Tyumen 17th century" as "the latest plan of Tyumen" in comparison with "the earliest and detailed description of ruins of Chimgi-Tura... in an explication to the plan of Tyumen 1766" [In the same place. Page 166, 169-170]. Let's show the scheme of the 17th century (fig. 2) and we will notice that from all "town-planning blocks" in it two are marked — "By Tsarevo the ancient settlement" and "the Tatar-Bukhara settlement". In the text "Archaeological travel across Tyumen." will mention "The Tyumen jail", opposite to it "through the log the ancient settlement", and "on le - is noted only by Tsarevo


From here "The scheme of building of Tyumen of the end of the 17th century" removed, for example, to "the Guide & #34; PTI FYuTE". Tyumen region" (M.: Vanguard, 2005. Page 82) and in other publications.

vy coast of Tura... the Tatar-Bukhara settlement is shown Big, almost in a third of the general building," [In the same place. Page 169-170] (my italics. — I.B.). It seems that authors used a certain original of the drawing of the end of the 17th century on the basis of which they also executed "The scheme of building of Tyumen 17th century".

Fig. 1. "Plan scheme of placement & #34; town-planning блоков" in Tyumen" (on: [Arsyukhin])

Fig. 2. "Scheme of building of Tyumen 17th century: 1 — Tsarevo the ancient settlement; 2 — the Tatar-Bukhara settlement" (on: [Matveeva, etc., 1994. Page 169])

So far as the source from where this scheme was recreated, them is not called, we need to find it also. It seems that it is kind of borrowed from "The scheme of Tyumen of the beginning of the 18th century" from the monograph by V.I. Kochedamov [1977. Page 88] (fig. 3). And the scheme is reproduced with designation of two objects which directly were in sight of archeologists: "Tsarevo ancient settlement" and "Tatar-Bukhara settlement". And all other four sectors: "city" with the posad, "the Yamsky settlement", "maiden" and "men's" monasteries are presented by contours of dotted lines and straight lines without dung.

Fig. 3. "Scheme of Tyumen beginnings of the 18th century. Fig. of the author: 1 — Chimgi-Tura; 2 — the city; 3 — the posad; 4 — the Yamsky settlement; 5 — the Tatar or Bukhara settlement; 6 — the maiden monastery; 7 — monastery" (on: [Kochedamov, 1977. Page 88])

It seemed, we traced the mysterious drawing of the end of XVII or the beginning of the 18th century if not one but, concerning the following circumstances. First, the drawing/scheme in V.I. Kochedamov's research author's, so he is also signed: "Drawing of the author"; it is created not on graphic, and on text archive materials and the published data of XVII — the first third of the 18th century 2 and, therefore, has character of reconstruction. There is also a version of this drawing: "The scheme of the area and initial settling of Tyumen" in V.I. Kochedamov's article of 1963 which became nowadays rare book [1963 ampere-second. 86, fig. 2]. Secondly, and the most surprising that this drawing is designated in his book of 1977 as "The scheme of Tyumen of the beginning of the 18th century" whereas in the description of the city accompanying this scheme, the review of its objects is given for the beginning and the first quarter of the 17th century

So, we learn from this review that "since 1605 it was formed there (for river. Resident of Tyumen. — I.B.) Yamsky settlement. Besides, in connection with development of trade relations for the Tura River the Tatar-Bukhara settlement was formed. Near the Yamsky settlement, on the cape of the floodplain of the Babarynki River, the monastery was put... but till 1622 had no church. Approximately in the same years on the bank of the Tura River, to the southeast a jail, the Maiden monastery with Ilyinsky church was founded. Thus, at the beginning of the 17th century in Tyumen there was a structure usual for the Russian city: actually the city or the Kremlin, the posad, settlements and monasteries covering approaches to the city" [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 85; 1977. Page 88-89].

But at what here in that case "The scheme of Tyumen the beginnings of the 18th century" which in the archaeological guide "grew old" to XVII (drawing) or until the end of the 17th century (text)? In date and mechanical transferring of the drawing is not similar to a simple typo neither in that, nor in other case. As the considered schemes differ from historical realities of the end of XVII — the beginnings of the 18th century according to the drawing of that time which we will soon address. Now not before, to find out the reasons which led authors of those and other books to errors, but under consideration separate of them concerning the drawing of Tyumen interesting us we will be forced to stop to orient. And in this episode we will begin to recognize that V.I. Kochedamov's drawing/scheme reflects a gradostruktura of Tyumen nevertheless not for the beginning of XVIII, and on the first quarter of the 17th century

In general it is necessary to tell that these (and similar to them) schemes are quite conditional. So, on "The scheme of building of Tyumen 17th century", brought in "Archaeological travel...", "The Tyumen jail" is shown in the form of a linear figure with semicircular ledges on corners and one in the West -


Judging by footnotes, in particular: RGADA. T. 214 (The Siberian order, but without indication of the inventory and the file number). Stb. 25; Tyumen in the XVII century. M, 1903; G.F. Miller. History of Siberia. M.; L., 1941. T. 2.; etc.

ache parts — obviously, five of its towers. However on "The scheme of Tyumen" does not have the beginning of the 18th century of V.I. Co-chedamova of it. According to it, the Kremlin in 1593-1596 was protected with "chopped walls with eight towers" [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 86; 1977. Page 61-62, 87]. What it reflected in the author's drawing "Tyumen Jail of the 17th Century" [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 89. Fig. 3; 1977. Page 59]. But on Remezov's drawing provided by it "the Hail Tyumen" from "The office drawing book", signed by V.I. Kochedamov "Tyumen. 1701", these towers six [Kochedamov, 1977. Page 90] 3, and in Remezov's drawing of Tyumen from "The short Siberian chronicle (Kungur)" — seven [The short Siberian chronicle..., 2003. Page 139] 4.

On the submitted schemes the Tyumen Kremlin, or "city", is located on the cape formed from East side of the Tura River and the log — from western. Opposite to it through a hollow the ostanets "Tsarevo the ancient settlement" (Chimgi-Tura at Kochedamov), by the little the city surpassing in the sizes is noted. And on the left coast of the Tura River punktirno (at Kochedamov — the shaded semi-oval) marked the "Big Tatar-Bukhara settlement" which had "nearly a third of the general building" of Tyumen. On the basis of such schemes to speak about the actual sizes of objects, especially "Tsareva of the ancient settlement" together with other parts of Tsymgi-Tura, naturally, is not necessary.

But the perimeter of fortress is known: according to "The patrol book of 1624" it made 260 sazhens [Tyumen in the XVII century, 1903. C. 17, 144]5. "The Perechnevy list of Tyumen 1697" gives a detailed view of coverage of the city of the 1660th: "From new Spasskaya Tower pryaslo towards river. Residents of Tyumen to a naugolny tower had 33.5 it is put off (71.4 m). From it on the Resident of Tyumen to an average tower — 39.5 it is put off (84.1 m). From an average tower to angular — 37 it is put off (78.8 m). Here the wall turned towards the Tura River, having the narrowest party. From an angular tower to Yegoryevsk 13.5 sazhens (28.8 m) had Pryaslo, and behind this tower to angular to Tura — only 7 it is put off (14.9 m). Length of walls from Tura to an average tower and from it to angular was 44 and 40 is put off (93.7 and 85.2 m). Then the wall turned to Spasskaya Tower and went on 14 is put off (29.8 m), further the tower was adjoined by the mandative log hut constructed in a wall in 1684 of 10 is put off (21.3 m)" [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 90] 6. Total: 238.5 sazhens on perimeter that is 21.5-24 sazhens less, than were in the 1620th

Proceeding from these parameters it is possible to calculate the square of the city and, probably, "Tsareva of the ancient settlement" in the 17th century, but about it further. Let's address the image extremely interesting and as we will see, the unique drawing of Tyumen published in the book "Tyumen in the XVII Century" published in Moscow in 1903 and republished in 100 years in Tyumen [Tyumen in the XVII century, 1903, 2004]. The drawing print — "The plan of ancient Tyumen" was placed by P.M. Golovachev as the annex to the book in I.A. Chukmaldina's edition, and there are no data on him in the documents published in it. Apart from the probability that emergence it has to be referred to the 17th century — judging by the title of the book. Though in "Introduction" he in details stipulates dating of "Plan" what we still will address in the appropriate place. But, in order to avoid discrepancies, nevertheless we will designate this drawing as "The plan of Tyumen of the end of XVII — the beginning of the 18th century" (fig. 4)7.


"The office drawing book" — the last from three atlases of Remezov, made from 1701 to the 1730th and united the materials of its activity (in which took part and his sons) generally from 1701 to 1713 which collected in family archive including "The drawing of the earth of the Tyumen city". Materials and earlier period [Goldenberg, entered 1990. Page 200-208; Dergacheva-Skop, Alekseev, 2008. Page 479-534].

L.A. Goldenberg [1990. Page 221] considers that "Chronicle the Kungur" is created "about 1709-1710". But paper on which it is written "is dated the middle of the 70th — the end of the 80th of the 17th century". There is an option of an explanation of early dating of paper on plug-in sheets: "the text is written down before illustrations" [the Remezovsky chronicle, 2006. T. 2. Page 31].

V.I. Kochedamov [1963 ampere-second. 86] believes that in it the description of the first chopped city of 1593-1596 is given. According to P.N. Butsinsky [2003. Page 74-75, 336, a comment 22], "the city of Tyumen was again built in 1622" what "positively points the document to", found it in Miller's affairs (Portf. No. 45. Tetr. 5. — A comment of the Item B.) in which "the new city had in a circle of the 260th sazhen".

The reference to materials of archive is given: GATO (nowadays GUTO GAT. — I.B.). T. 47. Op. 1. 563. But these data in places disperse from data of "The list of the Tyumen policeman of 1696" on which in 1668-1687 "in process of near that city and there were 236 towers sazh. 3-archin" [Tyumen in the XVII century, 2004. Page 80].

Because of bad condition of the drawing which P. Golovachev used and unimportant quality of the image from it in the book of 1903, in the edition of 2004 the drawing was cleaned. Doubting a printing possibility of the publication of the drawing, the author of article tried to show this "Plan", having scanned it from the new edition.

of Fig. 4. The plan of Tyumen of the end of XVII — the beginning of the 18th century (on: [Tyumen in the XVII century, 1903, 2004])

Not that the modern researchers dealing with any given issues of history and town planning of Tyumen, including also its archaeological component, did not notice a print with the historical drawing. On the contrary, in the listed above editions the portrayal from it was reproduced repeatedly. But, I will emphasize, the portrayal which did not allow authors of these works to appreciate the importance of the drawing and truly to date it finally. It is not sure, but I incline to a thought that on the basis of only time of the edition Golovachev of a drawing illustration in 1903 the authors of the archaeological guide, publishing a scheme portrayal from it, annotated it as "The plan of Tyumen 19th century" [Matveeva, etc., 1994. Page 170, 171] (fig. 6).

How it was possible to accept, for example, two lines of chopped serf strengthenings designated on it: the city and the posad inherent in Tyumen 17th century and being in 1741 [Miller, 1996. Page 296-297], but which did not exist, probably, already by the end of the 18th century, and in the 1850th was definitely not [Abramov, 1998. Page 388], for the city map of the 19th century?

A question which archeologists, probably, will find it difficult to answer today. But, perhaps, they appeared in delusion as were guided not by this edition, and, most likely, on V.I. Kochedamov's work 1977 in which this drawing is designated as "The plan of Tyumen of the end of the 18th century. From the book & #34; Tyumen in XVII столетии" 1903". We give also it for descriptive reasons (fig. 7). And comment on it: "As it is obvious from the plan of Tyumen of the end of the 18th century, a line out of the city followed area topography. The territory of the city located between Tura and the Resident of Tyumen had kind of the cone-shaped form, being sharply narrowed when approaching to the Kremlin standing on the cape of the coast. At the same time regular tracing of the network of streets formed by crossing of the big extended directions going from an external jail to the Kremlin and the streets laid perpendicularly to them from the coast of Tura to the coast of Tyumen" [Kocheda-mov, attracts attention 1977. Page 88, 91].

Fig. 5. The plan of Tyumen of the end of XVII — the beginning of the 18th century. Fragment 1

Fig. 6. "Plan of Tyumen 19th century: 1 — Tsarevo the ancient settlement" (on: [Matveeva, etc., 1994. Page 171])

Fig. 7. "Plan of Tyumen of the end of the 18th century. From the book & #34; Tyumen in XVII столетии" 1903"

(on: [Kochedamov, 1977])

Here, actually, and everything that follows at V.I. Kochedamov from the analysis of a portrayal of this plan. No arguments certifying its reference by the end of the 18th century, accompanying this plan in an illustration of the edition of A.I. Chukmaldina of explanatory inscriptions to the various objects represented on it by the author are given. And in essence the paramount information potential allowing to be certain notion of many objects in the city, its fortification, scale with the posad in general and also about "the Tsarevy ancient settlement" as a component of Tsymgi-Tura also consists in them.

Therefore before passing to statement of the description of topography of this ancient settlement, it is necessary to find out time of drawing up the drawing. But for this purpose for the lack of the original would have to carry out an architectural and historiographic discourse if all objects which are not noted on the plan, then the residents of the Russian/Siberian city, most significant for orthodox culture — its temple constructions. Author of article of subjects and zanyalsya8.

On the drawing 8 cult constructions are shown. In the city — one construction (without inscription). Obviously, it is the Annunciation Church put in 1700 and consecrated in 1704. Out of walls of the Kremlin are designated: "church of Gracious Saviour", in 2 quarters to the southeast from it Church of Elijah the Prophet, in 5 quarters further "church Znameniya Presvyatyya of the Virgin". On east outskirts of the posad "the Alekseevsky maiden Monastery with church of the Assumption Presvyatyya of the Virgin", western — Archangel Michael Church is outlined; behind the mouth of river. Residents of Tyumen two constructions are signed "chapel". All churches are represented conditionally as stone. But it is known that Tyumen until the end of the 18th century had only one stone building. Decree of the tsar Pyotr Alekseyevich to the Tyumen voivode "... about construction for load of treasury of Anbar stone, and on that Anbar stone" followed cathedral church on December 27, 1699. Put church on May 31, 1700, on October 31, 1704 it was graduated without bell tower and received a name — Blagoveshchensk. Why on the drawing it is not signed? Because its construction under a name not clear still was planned. Nikolsky (Kre-stovozdvizhenskaya) the stone church put in 1775 for the Resident of Tyumen is constructed in 1791. But it is not designated on the drawing as there is no Znamensky Cathedral built in 1786 on the place of the wooden church of the Sign of the Mother of God which burned down in 1776 here. There is on it and no stone Church of the Saviour built in 1796 instead of the early church which burned down in 1766; There is no Mikhaylo-Arkhangelsk stone church which is built up in 1791 on its ashes of 1766 of Voznesenskaya the stone church put in 1789 too. Without speaking about the Ilyinsky stone church put in 1833 and ended in 1836-1851; the stone Vsesvyatsky church founded in 1833; The Edinoverchesky stone church constructed in 18441854 [Miller, 1996. Page 296-297; Assembly sources, 1993. Page 156; Abramov, 1998. Page 393-397; Tyumen between the past., 2006. Page 13-103; Architectural heritage., 2008. Page 230-231, 248-251; etc.]. It turns out, the part of the temples stavleny in the 18th century, on the drawing is not shown. Therefore, it could be made not earlier than 1704 — date of construction of Annunciation Church and not later than 1786 — Znamensky Cathedral, but not at the end of XVIII and, especially, not in the 19th century

The certain data relating to the question raised earlier are in V.I. Co-chedamova article of 1963. Important the fact that in it he refers to a source of the drawing and places, probably, a portrayal from it [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 91. Fig. 4]. It is similar to that that it is shown in his book of 1977 (fig. 7). The source is not called, but, according to the footnote, it and consequently, and the original of the drawing, is stored in funds of the Central (nowadays Russian) state archive of ancient acts (RGADA. T. 199. Portf. 365. Part 2. 14. L. 3).

I did not manage to get acquainted with this source yet. Therefore we will be limited to what is known at the moment. The main thing — the required original of the drawing is in numerous materials of "portfolios" of G.F. Miller which were formed by the historian in 1734-1742 during his 10-year travel across Siberia. These materials made 7 big volumes / parts of portfolio No. 481 of fund of Miller in RGADA, the II—IV parts of them included replies to questionnaires of the scientist from office of the Tobolsk province [Elert, 1990. Page 38] 9. But the traveling description of a trip of Miller from Tobolsk to Tyumen 1741 when he for the first time visited and described Tyumen, got to portfolio No. 517 [In the same place. Page 63; Miller, 1996. Page 297]. It is known that at the first stage of the Academic expedition (1733 — the beginning of 1734) Miller did not stop in Tyumen, hurrying to get to Tobolsk. Its travel across Siberia "began after four-months stay in Tobolsk", and Tara was the first district city on this way. In Tobolsk Miller started studying the Siberian archives [Elert, 1990. Page 18 — 19, 21].

It follows from this that the drawing of Tyumen (or the copy from it) got to Miller in 1734 in Tobolsk. I am based, first, on what two options of the beginning of "The description of the Tarsky County in Siberia" written by Miller's hand, A.H. Elert found in a portfolio at No. 365. Secondly, the questionnaire received on September 12, 1734 by office of Kuznetsk — the district city following after Tara, contained a number of new requirements of the historian, including to send "geodetic drawings or inventories to road measures" if those were in office [In the same place. Page 21, 42; RGADA. T. 199. Portf. 365. Part 2. 6. L. 1—2]. Obviously, the inquiry resulted from the previous acquaintance of the scientist to similar drawings that happened in Tobolsk. Therefore, the drawing of Tyumen was available in the Siberian office even before Miller's arrival to Tobolsk. From here the lower date of drawing up the drawing should be limited to the beginning — the first third of the 18th century. This the conclusion intermediate for the present will be agreed with V.I. Kocheda-mov's position stated in his article of 1963. He writes in it: "In the documents of the Siberian order of the project of the Tyumen Kremlin which reached us did not remain. In this regard the earliest of the known plans of Tyumen, perhaps one of drawings of the lost project is of special interest. It is executed on the copy of earlier plan of Tyumen (fig. 4. Here fig. 4 and 5). The plan has one curious detail. On the drawing drawn by brown ink the contour from red lines covering the southern part of a city jail and the floor space located at its walls with Gostiny Dvor, Church of the Saviour and a part of houses is imposed. It coincides with the provided project description of the Tyumen Kremlin. The parties of a red contour have about sizes: 40, 60, 65 and 60 sazhens (85,2, 127,8, 138,5 and 127.8 m)" [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 92].

Under "the project description of the Kremlin" the following fragment given by it in the same article from the formal reply of the Tyumen voivode Tukhachevsky in the Siberian order addressed to the sovereign Peter I means. "To volume to all I the lackey made your drawing with a measure and originally... and where to put the new stone city and on that drawing I appointed your lackey paint and on that the Sovereign to the drawing about the building on Tyumen of the stone city... both on which place and on what money what you would be the Great Sovereign Pyotr Alekseyevich... you will specify". The voivode immediately reported that for construction of the stone city it is necessary to sweep away 23 yards, old cathedral and Gostiny Dvor; the part of the Kremlin had to occupy the floor space behind the walls of a wooden city jail. And then it was told: "and the drawing having connected and sheaves having tied from damage in a voshchina and having sealed sealing wax of your Great Sovereign the press through mail it is sent to Moscow" (RGADA. T. 214. Stb. 1377. L. 47. Tsit. on: [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 92]).


The foundation was laid for purposeful collecting various materials by means of questionnaires by Miller during his stay in Tara in June, 1734 [Elert, 1990. Page 20]. The analysis of maintenance and evolution of the main questions of questionnaires of Miller see in the same place [Page 16 — 28]. Along with the main questions the scientist included in questionnaires many additional requirements (including on the archival documents which were available in offices), "reflecting specifics of that city and county where the next questionnaire was sent" [In the same place. Page 28].

When this formal reply with the drawing "about the building on Tyumen of the stone city" were sent to Moscow, in article not utochnyaetsya10. However it is clear — at the Tyumen voivode O.Ya. Tukhachevsky. The decree of the tsar Pyotr Alekseyevich on February 22, 1700 "to Siberia to Tyumen to the steward and the voivode Osip Yakovlevich Tukhachevsky from now on to print a vsyakiya of business I orlovoit the press" [Assembly sources, 1993. Page 156], specifies that it occurred after its receiving. As Peter I's diploma to the Tyumen voivode O.Ya. Tukhachevsky and the scribe K. Bekishev "about creation in Tyumen of a new expanded jail on the place destroyed by the fire", put an end to requirements of Moscow for the project of the stone Kremlin and in general stone construction in Tyumen, is dated on January 27, 1705 [In the same place. Page 223] 11 so far as it is possible to claim that the formal reply and the drawing "about the building on Tyumen of the stone city" were sent by Tukhachevsky to the Siberian order no later than the end of 1704. Therefore, the drawing was prepared during the period between 1700-1704

However that was represented by that drawing, is unknown as, I will remind, on V.I. Kochedamov's researches, in documents of the Siberian order of the project of the Tyumen Kremlin did not remain. I believe, there are certain bases to agree with what the earliest of the known plans of Tyumen found it in G.F. Miller's funds in RGADA is valid "submits one of drawings of the lost project". Perhaps, even initial. As an argument for this purpose serves, in particular, that the drawing "was executed on the copy of earlier plan of Tyumen". On it actually "the contour from red lines is imposed", kind of representing prospect of a nodal plan of the architect it is essential to extend the Kremlin at the expense of range taking place behind its southern chopped wall with an area ditch with church of Gracious Saviour, the floor space with benches, Gostiny Dvor and also parts of houses.

The second argument is that the stone building of the church which is in the city on the drawing is displayed, but without the name whereas all other temples of the posad are designated. Why? Because in fortress during that time there were two wooden churches: Annunciation of the Virgin and Virgin's Christmas. The second, "the collapsed wooden church" Miller still found in 1741, and the Annunciation Church which was located near it at him, certainly, was the stone, replacing "walls a part of a fortification" from Tura [Miller, 1996. Page 296-297]. But at the time of drawing up the drawing his author / church were not defined what of two names of the Mother of God will find projected (put yet?) here stone building of cathedral. Therefore on the drawing its name not ukazano12. For the same reason there is no name of church and in two of its estimated drawings. This author's version is difficult demonstrable though it is not so far from reality as it seems to me.

Other, more difficult question is natural: what to mean by "the copy of earlier plan of Tyumen" on which the red contour planned only the prospect of expansion of the Kremlin on it, now the new drawing. The solution of this question demands not only the addressing the original of the considered drawing, but also its exhaustive source study and paleographic analysis. What now (because of inaccessibility of the original and unimportant quality of an illustration from it) it is not possible to carry out fully.

Nevertheless the preliminary and at the same time reliable answer to the matter nevertheless is available for us. First of all I will refer to authoritative opinion of researchers of the Russian literature of the Middle Ages and Modern times from Novosibirsk E.I. Dergacheva-Skop and V.N. Alekseev. According to their conclusion based as on the manner of tracing of "Plan" and its symbolics, and on stylistics of a cursive writing of all inscriptions which are available on it, the paleography of the drawing belongs "somewhere to the beginning of Peter's time". According to E.I. Dergachevoy-


On a context: "soon" as "from the Siberian order the journeyman Savva Mikhaylov and bricklayers Vasily Koptelev, Nikita Mikhaylov and Alexey Grigoriev was sent to Tyumen in the spring of 1700 stone affairs", subscribed "strongly to build the Tyumen stone Kremlin" [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second. 92].

11 according to V. Kochedamov, after the fire of Tyumen 1695 when almost all posad died, the Siberian order thought of construction of state buildings from fire-resistant materials: "the project of the stone Kremlin is developed, but only Annunciation Church" [Kochedamov, 1963 ampere-second was constructed. 91; 1977. Page 89-90].

V. Kochedamov considers that found him in funds of the Siberian order (RGADA. T. 214. Prince of 1451. L. 298) "two inept color drawings — 1706 with the inscriptions placed in them" are the images of Annunciation Church giving "an idea of its original form" [1963 ampere-second. 93]. But in drawings, judging by the illustrations given by it in article and also two types of Annunciation Cathedral attached by P. Golovachev to his book of 1903, the name of this church does not contain in inscriptions.

Skop, "the drawing is prepared at the very end of 17 plus two-three years of the 18th century". And, by the preliminary estimate leaning on their long experience of study and excellent knowledge of the Siberian drawing school "this drawing is executed probably by someone from S.U. Remezov's family — it

sons" that extremely interested them.

Now as it was promised, came it is time to give P. Golovachev's judgment — the first publisher of this drawing opened for them in operating time with "the Siberian materials in archives of St. Petersburg and Moscow" what also his first book "Tyumen in the XVII Century" was result of [2004. Page 7]. About "the enclosed plan of ancient Tyumen" it writes in "Introduction": "The original of the enclosed plan of Tyumen has 13 vershoks (58 cm — I.B.) in length and MLL of vershoks (51 cm) width. The Dutch paper on which the plan is executed has the watermark — the coat of arms relating undoubtedly, by 1701 as it is established modern (the beginning of the 20th century — I.B.) paleographic naukoy14. Thus, 1701 is the chronological term from which it is possible or to depart for several years in the 17th century or, on the contrary, to step in XVIII therefore also the plan needs to be carried or to the end of XVII, or by the beginning of the XVIII century. & lt;...> The Left top corner of the plan where there were probably some exact chronological instructions, unfortunately, is torn off. The most interesting part of the plan, & #34; город" to the greatest regret, survived not in desirable safety; especially some church which would give the chance more precisely to define scheduling time (the new temple — Annunciation Cathedral or old — the Virgin's Christmas, burned down in 1700) suffered. Also the Voyevodsky yard was damaged, and it especially is sad that it is given on the plan in the typical drawing. Churches are also presented in drawings, but not schematically, and it gives the grounds to assume that they are to a certain extent reproduced in their natural, original form. The same can be told also about Alekseevsky convent. In conclusion it is necessary to notice that the reproduced plan — the best and detailed of all plans of the Siberian cities and jails of the end of XVII which reached us and the beginning of the XVIII centuries" [In the same place. Page 30-31].

So, before obtaining additional data and specification of source study and paleographic details drawing up the considered drawing or plan of Tyumen it is possible to date quite surely the end of XVII — the first years of the 18th century. Means, before us — really most early, "the best and detailed" — from the known plans of Tyumen. And, certainly — one of drawings of the lost project of its stone Kremlin as it was assumed earlier by V.I. Kochedamov. To such dating it also came at first in the article 1963 in which designated the portrayal presented to them from this drawing as "The plan of Tyumen of a turn of the 17-18th centuries" [1963 ampere-second. 91] 15.

Thus, there should not be doubts that we deal with very significant source on stories of town planning of Tyumen which demands further and fixed consideration in aspect of the analysis of historical building of Tyumen. But within this article we will stop only on separate comparisons of its planning to "the Tsarevy ancient settlement" and Chimgi/Tsymgi-Tura.

"Chingi-tura (Chimgi-Tura), Tsarevo the ancient settlement — we will consult for clarity in "The Tyumen encyclopedia" — an archeological site, the capital of the Tyumen khanate... Was located on 2 capes formed by ravines: Key log, log Lyamin-Kul and coast of river. Residents of Tyumen and


Records of the author (Tobolsk, August, 2006). I express gratitude for E.I. Dergacheva-Skop's consultations and

To V.N. Alekseev, with whose help it was succeeded to read inscriptions, hardly distinguishable on an illustration of the drawing.


Without original it is difficult to date paper on which nacherchen the plan. And still we will specify that filigree with the coat of arms of Amsterdam and a warranty combination of AG of possessory character (A. Galiar) is dated 1702-1722 L.A. Golden-berg [1967. Found out page 17] that the Alexandria paper with filigree not earlier than 1702 was applied by Remezov in

1703-1704. Therefore, the drawing can be dated precisely 1703-1704

That change of its position with the drawing given in the monograph of 1977 as "The plan of Tyumen of the end of the 18th century" is also paradoxical. Following phrase: "From the book & #34; Tyumen in XVII столетии"" — confuses. Considering it, he writes: "At the same time tracing of the network of streets formed by crossing of the big extended directions going from an external jail to the Kremlin standing on the coast of the cape attracts attention" [1977. Page 91]. What raised doubts: tracing of network of streets? But about "regularity of building, unusual to the cities of that time" of Tyumen assuming the accurate system of streets to them it was told above. And for this purpose he urged to look narrowly at "the earliest of the remained city maps of 1696. The Tyumen Maxim Fedorovich Strekalovsky of iconics of that time" [In the same place] could be his originator. That for the plan meant — remained a secret (about Strekalovsky's drawings of cm: [Goldenberg, 1966. Page 70-72]). Perhaps change of its position is caused by acquaintance to the plan of Tyumen 1775 which is also representing the project: along with the occurring location of quarters, streets and churches on it in other color also future planning of the city [Konovalova, is put 2005. Page 447-448]. But there other registration, scale, without speaking about inscriptions. In a word, it is not clear.

Tura within Tyumen. Strengthenings consisted of 3 lines: the 1st ditch with shaft began from the log, the next to Spasskaya (Lyamin-Kul) St., reached Key and there were 600 sazhens of length; the 2nd line of strengthenings was in the 1st and halved the big cape; the 3rd - through 50 sazhens, protected the extremity of the cape as the last boundary. The citadel on the small cape was turned into the island for what across it dug through a wide ditch. Now it is busy with the housing estate and stadium" [Matveeva, 2004. Page 397]. Such is in brief and rather late topographical characteristic and also a modern situation of the lost monument of archeology of the late Middle Ages.

But we had an opportunity to some extent to restore earlier historical toponymics of this part of Tyumen and topography of this archeological site. For this purpose we will address a fragment 2 drawings of Tyumen of the end of XVII — the beginning of the 18th century (fig. 8). At first sight — anything entertaining. But the main information consists here not so much in the graphic representation of this educated logs of "the small river of the Resident of Tyumen" and "A cherry bayarak" of the extended cape how many in inscriptions to it. Let's begin with the main thing, perhaps, instructions on the fact that, unlike all known plans and descriptions of a historical part of Tyumen, the citadel which before was available on this small cape — well familiar "Tsarevo the ancient settlement" — is designated here as "Empty by Kuchyumovo Gorodishche".

Fig. 8. The plan of Tyumen of the end of XVII — the beginning of the 18th century. Fragment 2

Quite unusually in a historical link, as well as it is strange that this moment in scientific literature was noted before by nobody. Meanwhile such name of the ancient settlement, remarkable as a toponymic reality, is submitted extremely interesting. As can confirm a certain period of stay of a rate of the powerful governor of the Siberian khanate here — Kuchuma whose main residence in the second half of the 16th century was located on Irtysh — in annalistic "a hail Siberia", or Kashlyk (ancient settlement Isker) [The Siberian chronicles, 1907. Page 115-116, 184, 262, 318, 319, 331; Pignatti, 1915; Belich, 1997; Zykov, 1998; etc.]. It is appropriate to note the following.

The earliest mention of "The Tyumen ancient settlement" and also about "Old" and Novaya Gazeta of Siberia meets in a royal order to the police officers directed for a meeting with the Polish ambassador in the spring of 1586: "And the sovereign of a goroda in the Siberian earth in Old Siberia and in New did

Siberia, on the Tyumen ancient settlement and on Ob on lips of Irtysh..." (tsit. on: [Preobrazhensky, 1972. Page 49]). Though as in this regard A.A. Preobrazhensky truly noted, here "the desirable is given for valid" — to build Tyumen, Tobolsk was only planned [In the same place. Page 50; Rezun, 1982. Page 18] 16. Remarkably to put desire of the Moscow sovereign the cities instead of grads of the Siberian kingdom: Tobolsk — on the place, "that Old Siberia nowadays will catch", but in 1586 there still there was "the Siberian hail" [The Siberian chronicles, 1987. Page 129]; Tyumen — in "New Siberia, on the Tyumen ancient settlement". Therefore, in 1586 Tsymgi-Tura lay in ruins and was called the Russian service class people "The Tyumen ancient settlement".

When it/it was renamed into Tsarevo the ancient settlement, unambiguously it is difficult to tell. In general in the Trans-Ural region the word "ancient settlement" began to be applied by copyists in the 20th of the 17th century for a dung of the natural boundary serving as a topographical reference point by drawing up patrol and census books. So, N.A. Balyuk showed that the geographical sign was the main marker at land surveying of lands and accounting of arrangement to a posa?

Carrara Linda Anna Maria
Other scientific works: