1 10 16 https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/beautifulspaces/original/6d81536b2d0be476bbd389052453e21c.jpg 3bc35e49a69b734e8995d1a68b28e7a1 https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/beautifulspaces/original/6832e6b0270ffc559e018b849d58422e.jpg 5785b3fc05f910cf2bca96dd3e7e858f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Repository Slavic and East European Collections, The New York Public Library; New York Public Library Digital Collections (<a href="http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e3-3459-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99" target="_blank">go to the record</a>) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource View of the Imperial Palace of Orianda in Crimea Haupt Ansicht des kaiserlichen Schlosses Orianda in der Krimm. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Werke der höheren Baukunst für die Ausführung erfunden von Schinkel (<a href="http://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e3-3459-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99/book?parent=72337480-c6ba-012f-e5e3-58d385a7bc34#page/1/mode/2up" target="_blank">view as a book</a>) (Potsdam, 1848) The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Art & Architecture Collection, The New York Public Library Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Created by Karl Friedrich Schinkel  Lithography by H. Mützel  Published by Ferd Riegel Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1848 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Digital image courtesy of the New York Public Library Description An account of the resource Chromolithograph of the "Palace of Orianda" designed by Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781 – 1841). architecture landscape lithograph palace sea southern coast Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Gurzuf Description An account of the resource This was the first major European-style house built on the southern coast. It belonged to the military governor of New Russia, Armand Emmanuel du Plessy, duc de Richelieu. Richelieu acquired the 380-acre property at Gurzuf for 4,000 rubles in 1808 and promptly commissioned an architect in Odessa to design the estate house. Construction was hampered by the lack of good roads and labor, but Richelieu was able to throw a five-day house-warming party for what contemporaries described as his “Greek style” house in September 1811. Richelieu did not visit again. By the time Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich stayed at Gurzuf in 1816 (for lack of anywhere else to spend the night) the house was a near ruin. Count M. S. Vorontsov acquired the estate in 1824 as real estate values began to skyrocket. He sold it in 1834 to I. I. Funduklei (governor of Kiev 1839-1852 and later controller-general of the Duchy of Warsaw), for 100,000 rubles - a tidy profit. Funduklei cultivated the vineyards and accumulated an impressive wine cellar. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Natal’ia V. Bogdanova, “Dom Rishel’e v Gurzufe,” in ed. Zhanna Amfiteatrova, Frantsuzy v Krymu (Simferopol’: Vidavnitstvo Ragima Gumbatova, 2004): 58-61. Natal’ia V. Bogdanova, “Imenie I.I. Fundukleia v Gurzufe (1834(35)-1881 gody),” in ed. V.P. Kazarin, Mir usadebnoi kul'tury: II Krymskie Mezhdunarodnye nauchnye chteniia (Simferopol’: “Krymskij Arkhiv,” 2002): 18-22. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Küçük Lampat Description An account of the resource Lieutenant-General A. M. Borozdin, governor of Tavrida 1807-1816, built what was widely considered to be a lovely two-storey house at Küçük Lampat near Alushta. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Massandra Description An account of the resource Count Vorontsov’s mother-in-law, A. V. Branitskaia, purchased Massandra from Sof’ia Pototskaia and placed it in her son-in-law’s control until her grandson, for whom she intended the estate, reached maturity. Largely by virtue of its productive vineyards and orchards, Massandra became the economic crown jewel of Vorontsov’s holdings, while Alupka acquired the most fame. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Alupka Description An account of the resource Vorontsov acquired the land around Alupka piecemeal from 226 Tatar inhabitants between 1823 and 1825. He spent the equivalent of over 37,000 silver rubles in the process. Vorontsov developed the estate between 1828 and 1848 with revenues from the wine produced at Massandra. The celebrated Alupka palace, designed by Edward Blore, was perched amid a wild landscape of rock and cliff running down to the sea and surrounded by the houses of local Tatars (some of whom he convinced to resettle away from the palace grounds in exchange for his building them a new mosque). In 1837 this served as the setting in which Vorontsov entertained the tsar, his family and extended entourage in grand style, with fireworks displays and lavish dinners. The palace was by far the most spectacular demonstration of what contemporaries described as “oriental” or “asiatic” flair in Crimea. Alupka was “renowned far and wide,” according to Kohl, “for its architectural and Hesperian splendours,” the designs of which alone were rumored to have cost upwards of 60,000 rubles. But it was even more re<st1:personname w:st="on">mark</st1:personname>able for its marriage of Gothic and eastern elements. The western side of the palace resembled a medieval castle wall with fortifications, while the northern façade was done in the Tudor style. The southern and most famous façade meanwhile gained the nickname “<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Alhambra</st1:city></st1:place>” because of its two-storey horseshoe arch, slender minarets, and a deeply-recessed niche with an Arabic inscription reading “There is no God but Allah.” The project, still incomplete in the early 1840s, was expected to run Vorontsov seven million rubles, but Kohl was not impressed. He faulted the local marble with which it was built for its “greenish cast,” the large windows that did not fit the Gothic styling, and the location of the castle itself with only the “gray desolate sea” for a view. Inside, he found some of the rooms splendid, but criticized the books and pictures which decorated them as “by no means re<st1:personname w:st="on">mark</st1:personname>able.”  Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Vorontsov, Zapiski Gubernatora (Odessa: Optimum, 2003), 177; A.P. Pal’chikova, “Iz istorii Alupkinskogo majorata Vorontsovykh,” in ed. V. P. Kazarin, Rossiia i Krym v sud’be Vorontsovykh: II Krymskie Vorontsovskie Chteniia. Materialy (Simferopol: “Krymskij Arkhiv,” 2000): 67; Bragina & Vasil’eva, Khoziaeva i gosti, 110-118 & 122; Kohl, 463-464. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Miskhor Description An account of the resource Lev Aleksandrovich Naryshkin, a general and wealthy cousin of Mikhail Vorontsov, built the estate of Miskhor in the 1830s, gracing it with a park of cypress and cedars and a house known as “Little Alupka” in a nod to his kinsman. Naryshkin acquired the estate through marriage: his wife, Countess Ol’ga Stanislavovna Pototskaia, inherited it from her mother, Sofiia Konstantinovna Pototskaia, who in turn received it from Potemkin himself. The Naryshkins pleased their many guests with minaret-shaped chimneys, as well as window casings in the typical eastern style. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Foros Description An account of the resource Prince Kirill Aleksandrovich Naryshkin, another of Vorontsov’s cousins and a member of the State Council, built the now famous estate at Foros. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Gaspra Description An account of the resource Gaspra had been an ancient Greek settlement and a Tatar village. Prince A. N. Golitsyn built the palace between 1831 and 1836 in the neo-Gothic style favored by Vorontsov. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Koreiz Description An account of the resource Koreiz, one of the oldest settlements in Crimea, was a lively spot with several shops, eating-houses and mosques; during Princess Anna Sergeevna Golitsyna’s tenure, it was also a center of missionary activity. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Estates Description An account of the resource From the 1830s onward Crimea was a favored venue for prominent displays of wealth by powerful members of the ruling elite generally associated with the gulf-side imperial capital far away to the north. Rather than recreate the architecture of St. Petersburg on the Black Sea, many of those well-connected and well-to-do landowners made a conscious effort to accentuate the foreignness – perhaps even the exotic nature – of Crimea in the architecture of their estates and palaces. For some, the distinctiveness of the landscape was rooted in its Greek legacy. Russians and foreigners alike, inspired by the classical revival in architecture sweeping across Europe, pointed excitedly to the tangible residue of this legacy which suddenly placed Tavrida on the intellectual and cultural map of western civilization. Grecian elements therefore dominated many early nineteenth-century buildings. Other landowners – particularly the most wealthy and well-connected – played up the more exotic “Asiatic” legacy of Tavrida in their domestic landscapes. These nobles found it not just aesthetically pleasing but also empowering to incorporate elements of the local architectural tradition and natural landscape. In this they were no different than imperial elites elsewhere. In Russia, private residences were of particular importance to the articulation of the imperial presence in the borderland precisely because they were anything but private. Country houses and palaces were essentially public spaces, meant to attract the gaze of peers and peasants alike. The dignitaries, travelers and other visitors who penned detailed descriptions of Alupka, Gaspra, and Gurzuf inscribed these structures into the symbolic landscape of the province, but even on their own, the usad’by served as daily reminders of the reality of imperial authority to those who inhabited neighboring villages and worked in estate orchards and vineyards. Of course, not all landowners were wealthy enough to build palaces or manor houses that could accommodate such lavish public spectacles. The majority of those who did command that level of wealth were not provincial nobles, but members of the ruling elite who owned estates but neither registered in the Tavrida noble register nor otherwise participated in daily life in the province. The bulk of Tavrida’s registered nobles were not part of the ruling elite, nor were they distinguished for their wealth. In 1789 Governor Zhegulin pointed out to Potemkin that many of the (non-Tatar) officials in Tavrida were quite small-time Little Russian nobles or Polish szlachta who owned between five and thirty-five serfs. The low population density of the province together with the freedom of the native population from serfdom prevented landowners from accumulating wealth in the form of souls until well into the nineteenth century. However, most nobles (96% of non-Tatars and 88% of mirzas) in 1815 for example did own land from which they presumably drew sufficient income to maintain an honorable lifestyle. Of the 225 nobles registered between 1830 and 1853 for whom I have property data, 65% owned either arable or pasture land, and another 12% owned land in the form of orchards, gardens or vineyards. The remaining 23% owned houses and/or household servants and peasants, but did not mention landholding in their entries. Among ennobled mirzas, 96% owned land of some kind. Interestingly enough, they enjoyed average holdings three times larger than those of others, and a number of mirzas accumulated (or maintained) considerable annual incomes.<hr /> Elite residence Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mukhalatka Description An account of the resource Natal’ia Kirilovna Zagriazhskaia, the eldest daughter of the famous (former) Hetman of Ukraine K. G. Razumovskii, had owned Mukhalatka and passed it to her daughter, Kochubei's wife.