26 10 510 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 Among the Ruins Description An account of the resource Ruins are among the most powerful elements of the built environment in Russia's southern empire. For much of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Tavrida itself was seen, from a certain perspective, as one sprawling, glorious ruin. The province was strewn with burial sites, churches, fortifications, and cities that had fallen into various states of disrepair, suffered catastrophic destruction, or otherwise been subsumed within deep layers of soil and rock.  The presence of architectural monuments, ruined and otherwise, played nearly as important a role in the toponymy of the region as geological and hydrographical features. Cliffs and streams, clearings and ancient walls and burial mounds: such features lent their names to the places they shaped. They did more than that. For much of the tsarist period, the surest way to navigate the rocky and tumultuous southern coast was by following rough directions and goat paths, calibrating one's course according to rocky outcroppings, views of the sea, and ruins. Claims to these ubiquitous and treacherous sites were empowering. Knowledge of them was valuable, even vital, to any claim to possession of the peninsula. This narration explores this idea in greater depth and maps the archaeological politics that helped define the significance of Crimea from a global - as well as an intensely local - perspective. Related galleries: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/collections/show/19" target="_self">Uvarov's Antiquities</a>; <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/collections/show/25" target="_self">Keppen's Antiquities</a> Related article: Kelly O'Neill, "<a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/560940/pdf" title="link to pdf (log in to Project Muse via your library for full access)" target="_blank">Constructing Russian Identity in the Imperial Borderland: Architecture, Islam, and the Transformation of the Crimean Landscape</a>," Ab Imperio 2 (2006): 163-192.  <hr /> Narration fragment 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 Köhler's startling list Description An account of the resource In 1804 the Academy of Sciences commissioned archaeologist <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/items/show/737" target="_blank">Karl Köhler</a> to examine and evaluate the various monuments of the former khanate.  Köhler fell ill and could not complete his work that year, but he returned to the task in May 1821 and completed it by year's end.  Köhler submitted his findings to the minister of education and spiritual affairs, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, in December. His report divided the Greek, Genoese, Tatar and Turkish monuments of Crimea into two classes: those beyond repair but worthy of preservation, such as kurgans, graves, and the foundations of ancient buildings, and those that could be restored through “relatively small expenditures” of time and money. “These monuments are particularly important for [the study of] ancient history and geography,” Köhler explained, “and must be preserved from the damage that might be rendered them out of ignorance.” The dividends, he promised, would have a political, as well as an academic aspect, for while the French and English, “have shown great enthusiasm for the homogeneity of the antiquities of their respective fatherlands,” these were nowhere near as numerous or as ancient as the “priceless monuments in Crimea.” Köhler's List <ol> <li>Evpatoriia mosque</li> <li>Mausoleum at Eski Yurt</li> <li>Balaklava fortress</li> <li>Mangup fortress</li> <li>Genoese fortress at Sudak</li> <li>Turkish bath at Feodosiia</li> <li>Feodosiia Friday mosque</li> <li>Fortress and mosque at Eski Sarai</li> </ol> Remarkably, 5 of the 8 monuments (and 74% of the budget of 44,100 rubles) were allocated to Turkish and Tatar monuments. Köhler thus became the first Russian official to acknowledge, and in fact insist on, the value of preserving the cultural landscape of the khanate. His opinion was not common currency in the imperial capital. Having reviewed the report, Golitsyn issued his opinion on the matter of Crimean antiquities: “Protecting the remains of Turkish and Tatar constructions is not as useful as protecting those of the Greeks and Genoese,” explained the minister, for the former could hardly be considered part of true “antiquity.” The fortresses at <st1:place w:st="on">Balaklava</st1:place>, Mangup and Sudak therefore deserved the lion’s share of expenditures. In fact, instead of allocating funds for restoration, Golitsyn confirmed the official plan to convert the main mosque in Feodosiia into a church and tear down the Turkish baths in order to make way for an expanded city square. The mosques and burial sites at Eski Yurt, Eski Sarai and Evpatoriia were simply not the concern of the imperial government. The mufti was welcome to solicit contributions for their restoration from the local population and, if need be, from the entire Muslim population of the empire. The Senate and State Council accepted Golitsyn’s proposals, leaving the fate of several major monuments squarely in the hands of whatever private individuals – presumably beys or mirzas – might have the requisite wealth and devotion necessary to spare them further ruin. 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 Dachas Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context gazetteer Description An account of the resource In simplest terms, a dacha was a portion of land given out by the tsar. The apportioning of land to servitors and favorites was hardly an innovation, but over the course of the eighteenth century the dacha became ever more closely associated with the expansion of the empire. Early in the century, Peter I imbued the dacha with a distinctly strategic character, distributing grants both as a form of incentive and a coercive strategy for affecting the physical transformation of his new capital at St. Petersburg. Devoid of any associations with wellness, leisure, comfort, or domesticity – this came later in the nineteenth century – the earlier iteration of the dacha referred to a plot of uninhabited, unbuilt, uncultivated land located some distance away from the proprietor’s primary residence. A diligent proprietor might convert it into an usad'ba (country estate), with formal or mature gardens and permanent dwellings, or into an agriculturally-productive site – a farm, an orchard, a cultivated woodland. The essence of the dacha was that it implied a dynamic relationship between owner and property and the conversion of empty spaces into usable, definable places. Related narration: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/exhibits/show/dachageo" target="_self">Dacha Geography</a> <hr /> Dacha property Property Note Display Description This vast dacha consisted of 27,333 desiatinas (over 73,000 acres) near the source of the Bel'bek River; in or near the villages of Kokkoz, Markur, Kuchkuluz, Ianchu, Enisala, Fotisala, Otarchik, Karlu, Ajrul, Gavri, Tatar Osmankoi, B.Uzenbash, K.Uzenbash, Bogatyr. Three-quarters of the land was suitable for cultivation. Ownership Note Colonel Megmetsha Bey Kantakuzin (1787); Judicial Councillor Efstafii Notara (1794) Dacha Grant Year 1787 Attestation 1794 Dacha Reports; 1802 Dacha Reports 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 Kokkoz Belbek River patchwork 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 Dachas Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context gazetteer Description An account of the resource In simplest terms, a dacha was a portion of land given out by the tsar. The apportioning of land to servitors and favorites was hardly an innovation, but over the course of the eighteenth century the dacha became ever more closely associated with the expansion of the empire. Early in the century, Peter I imbued the dacha with a distinctly strategic character, distributing grants both as a form of incentive and a coercive strategy for affecting the physical transformation of his new capital at St. Petersburg. Devoid of any associations with wellness, leisure, comfort, or domesticity – this came later in the nineteenth century – the earlier iteration of the dacha referred to a plot of uninhabited, unbuilt, uncultivated land located some distance away from the proprietor’s primary residence. A diligent proprietor might convert it into an usad'ba (country estate), with formal or mature gardens and permanent dwellings, or into an agriculturally-productive site – a farm, an orchard, a cultivated woodland. The essence of the dacha was that it implied a dynamic relationship between owner and property and the conversion of empty spaces into usable, definable places. Related narration: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/exhibits/show/dachageo" target="_self">Dacha Geography</a> <hr /> Dacha property Property Note Display Description According to the 1794 report, this dacha consisted of 2,900 desiatinas, nearly all of which was suitable for cultivation. Ownership Note Provincial Secretary Grigor'ev; Colonel Kulikovskij Dacha Grant Year 1788 Attestation 1794 Dacha Reports; 1802 Dacha Reports 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 Koktash patchwork 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 Dachas Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context gazetteer Description An account of the resource In simplest terms, a dacha was a portion of land given out by the tsar. The apportioning of land to servitors and favorites was hardly an innovation, but over the course of the eighteenth century the dacha became ever more closely associated with the expansion of the empire. Early in the century, Peter I imbued the dacha with a distinctly strategic character, distributing grants both as a form of incentive and a coercive strategy for affecting the physical transformation of his new capital at St. Petersburg. Devoid of any associations with wellness, leisure, comfort, or domesticity – this came later in the nineteenth century – the earlier iteration of the dacha referred to a plot of uninhabited, unbuilt, uncultivated land located some distance away from the proprietor’s primary residence. A diligent proprietor might convert it into an usad'ba (country estate), with formal or mature gardens and permanent dwellings, or into an agriculturally-productive site – a farm, an orchard, a cultivated woodland. The essence of the dacha was that it implied a dynamic relationship between owner and property and the conversion of empty spaces into usable, definable places. Related narration: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/exhibits/show/dachageo" target="_self">Dacha Geography</a> <hr /> Dacha property Property Note Display Description According to the 1794 report, this dacha consisted of 767 desiatinas. Ownership Note Anna Aleksandrovna Polekucha (lady of the bedchamber) Attestation 1794 Dacha Reports 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 Konrat women 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 Dachas Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context gazetteer Description An account of the resource In simplest terms, a dacha was a portion of land given out by the tsar. The apportioning of land to servitors and favorites was hardly an innovation, but over the course of the eighteenth century the dacha became ever more closely associated with the expansion of the empire. Early in the century, Peter I imbued the dacha with a distinctly strategic character, distributing grants both as a form of incentive and a coercive strategy for affecting the physical transformation of his new capital at St. Petersburg. Devoid of any associations with wellness, leisure, comfort, or domesticity – this came later in the nineteenth century – the earlier iteration of the dacha referred to a plot of uninhabited, unbuilt, uncultivated land located some distance away from the proprietor’s primary residence. A diligent proprietor might convert it into an usad'ba (country estate), with formal or mature gardens and permanent dwellings, or into an agriculturally-productive site – a farm, an orchard, a cultivated woodland. The essence of the dacha was that it implied a dynamic relationship between owner and property and the conversion of empty spaces into usable, definable places. Related narration: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/exhibits/show/dachageo" target="_self">Dacha Geography</a> <hr /> Dacha property Property Note Display Description According to the 1794 report, this dacha consisted of 4,737 desiatinas (12,791 acres) in or near the villages of Kansil (Kangil), Kaiash. The properties were located along the banks of the Kacha and Alma rivers and had been purchased from Megmetsha Bey. Ownership Note Collegiate Assessor Kromida Dacha Grant Year 1787 Attestation 1794 Dacha Reports; 1802 Dacha Reports 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 Konstantinovka Alma River Kacha River 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 Dachas Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context gazetteer Description An account of the resource In simplest terms, a dacha was a portion of land given out by the tsar. The apportioning of land to servitors and favorites was hardly an innovation, but over the course of the eighteenth century the dacha became ever more closely associated with the expansion of the empire. Early in the century, Peter I imbued the dacha with a distinctly strategic character, distributing grants both as a form of incentive and a coercive strategy for affecting the physical transformation of his new capital at St. Petersburg. Devoid of any associations with wellness, leisure, comfort, or domesticity – this came later in the nineteenth century – the earlier iteration of the dacha referred to a plot of uninhabited, unbuilt, uncultivated land located some distance away from the proprietor’s primary residence. A diligent proprietor might convert it into an usad'ba (country estate), with formal or mature gardens and permanent dwellings, or into an agriculturally-productive site – a farm, an orchard, a cultivated woodland. The essence of the dacha was that it implied a dynamic relationship between owner and property and the conversion of empty spaces into usable, definable places. Related narration: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/exhibits/show/dachageo" target="_self">Dacha Geography</a> <hr /> Dacha property Property Note Display Description A dacha composed of 651 desiatinas (1,756 acres), of which 100% was considered suitable for cultivation. Ownership Note Kamer-Junker of the Court of Her Imperial Majesty Zvereva Dacha Grant Year 1792 Attestation 1802 Dacha Reports 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 Kontugaj 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 Portrait of Antiquity Description An account of the resource Crimea was (and still is) uniquely studded with fallen slabs, old foundations, ancient walls, gravestones, and mounds of earth that have grown incrementally over the years to cover the bones of past lives. On my first visit to Sevastopol a friend explained that every good rain dislodged chards of pottery, the occasional coin, and other sundry treasures. And sure enough, when we went trekking in the mountains above Laspi later that week - keeping a sharp eye out for wild boar - I found three small bits of pottery, the edges worn smooth but the greens and blues of their surfaces still vivid. My friend chuckled and dismissed them as insignificant - the pieces dated to the fourteenth or maybe fifteenth century, after all - but I savored the extraordinary feeling of that small weight in my palm, sun-warm and heavy with historical memory. In 1837 the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg published a remarkable study On the Antiquities of the Southern Coast of Crimea and the Tavridan Mountains. The book's author, Peter Keppen, spent 5 years living in Crimea while serving as assistant to the chief of silk production (shelkovodstvo). During that time he traveled almost obsessively, collecting material for his geographical and archaeological projects. In the dedication (addressed, of course, to Tsar Nicholas I), Keppen describes Crimea as "the most charming of all the countries prospering" under Romanov rule. His book lovingly documents the location, history, and status of inscribed stones, marble columns, churches, and tombstones, but the bulk of material details defensive towers and walls. Keppen saw Crimea - in antiquity - as a territory divided between a savage, predatory north and a luxuriously beautiful south hemmed in by the Tauride (or Tavridan) mountains on one side and the Black Sea on the other. The fortified line that separated one from the other was, to him, one of the two organizing features of Crimean space (or of its antique space anyway). The second feature was sedimentation. Keppen was acutely aware of the way in which the passage of time imprinted itself on the landscape. At one point he describes finding the remains of an ancient fortification with thick walls of "wild stone" on the heights of Ayudag. "And is it surprising?" Keppen asks. "One must remember that this place has not been inhabited since 1475. And since then the spring sun has warmed the mountain tops and new growth has sprung from the depths of the earth no fewer than 360 times. 360 times over autumn storms have torn the leaves from trees and ripped the grasses, each year creating a new layer to cover any traces of human existence!"(170) Keppen would tell you that to see Crimea, one had to dig.  This collection contains all of the sites (though not all of the individual stones!) discussed in On the Antiquities of the Southern Coast. It includes 4 mausoleums, 9 Greek churches, and 58 fortifications. Each and every one was a ruin even before Keppen laid eyes on it.  Related gallery: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/collections/show/19" target="_self">Uvarov's Antiquities</a> Related narrations: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/collections/show/37" target="_self">Among the Ruins</a> & <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/collections/show/40" target="_self">A Monumental Inscription </a>Related source map: <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/item/898" target="_blank">Keppen's Antiquities</a><hr /> Antiquity Building or item from the past. In most contexts, an antiquity belongs to the ancient, classical, or possibly medieval period. In Crimea and in the Russian south more broadly, archaeologists and collectors used the term to describe the material legacy of the ancient Greeks, Byzantines, Genoese, Karaims, Ottomans, and Crimean Tatars who inhabited the region prior to Russian conquest. Site or Artifact Type description Greek church (ruins) Type of Antiquity "Display Description" ghfghdhdfhghg Type2 Display Description what? 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 Kopsele Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Petr Keppen, O drevnostiakh IUzhnago Berega Kryma i Gor Tavricheskikh (Sankt Peterburg, 1837): 17-19. [<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=-PAKAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA51&ots=5dsqBqEsOO&dq=%D0%BE%20%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8F%D1%85%20%D1%8E%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0&pg=PA18#v=twopage&q&f=true" target="_blank">go to the page</a>] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Stanford Library copy of Keppen's work was digitized by Google Books. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1837 Description An account of the resource Ruins of a Greek church Neatline Display Neatline Exhibit 36 Neatline Record 217 Greek church ruin 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 Abandoned Villages Description An account of the resource At the moment, this collection presents the contents of a list of sites abandoned in 1778 by various elements of the Christian population of the Crimean Khanate. Between July and September 1778, a grand total of 31,098 people (half the Christian population of the khanate) deserted Crimea and moved to Russian territory on the shores of the Sea of Azov. Empress Catherine II and a handful of powerful men on the ground clearly engineered this relocation, which has been described as everything from an episode of deportation to one of voluntary migration.  Catherine II's government spent 130,000 rubles in the process, but the results were priceless. The loss of thousands of Greeks, Georgians, and Armenians dealt a heavy blow to the khanate's economy (they tended lucrative gardens and orchards, cultivated vineyards, and dominated maritime trade through the Black Sea and beyond). Sahin Girey Khan's position was weakened beyond repair (already perceived as a lackey of the empress, his inability to halt the migration made clear Russia's lack of concern for the khan's ability to rule). An anxious Ottoman government deployed a fleet to Aktiar (the future site of Sevastopol) in August, only to be repulsed. Negotiations for a new peace settlement between St. Petersburg and the Porte got underway soon thereafter. The resulting Treaty of Ainali-Kavak secured the independent status of the khanate and required the removal of all Russian troops. This was no favor to the khan however. His position was tenuous at best; without the support of the empress's troops, he had precious little support. It wasn't long before the political situation in Crimea deteriorated, necessitating the return of Prince Potemkin and, by April 1783, the annexation of the khanate to Russia. <hr /> Abandoned place 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 Koz Description An account of the resource 74 Greeks abandoned this area in 1778. According to Bronevskii, Kozy had been emptied by emigration. A few Tatars remained and a few Mariupol Greeks had returned. “The Greek church," he wrote, "standing in between two mosques (the best example of religious tolerance in Russia), the ruins of an ancient Goth khram, the cracked walls of the remaining homes, vacant plots of land, broken pieces of marble which once decorated the fallen buildings, give the village a sepulchral aspect: one might think that it was not long ago seized and destroyed by enemies.” (Bronevskii 1815, page 126) Greek settlement 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 Abandoned Villages Description An account of the resource At the moment, this collection presents the contents of a list of sites abandoned in 1778 by various elements of the Christian population of the Crimean Khanate. Between July and September 1778, a grand total of 31,098 people (half the Christian population of the khanate) deserted Crimea and moved to Russian territory on the shores of the Sea of Azov. Empress Catherine II and a handful of powerful men on the ground clearly engineered this relocation, which has been described as everything from an episode of deportation to one of voluntary migration.  Catherine II's government spent 130,000 rubles in the process, but the results were priceless. The loss of thousands of Greeks, Georgians, and Armenians dealt a heavy blow to the khanate's economy (they tended lucrative gardens and orchards, cultivated vineyards, and dominated maritime trade through the Black Sea and beyond). Sahin Girey Khan's position was weakened beyond repair (already perceived as a lackey of the empress, his inability to halt the migration made clear Russia's lack of concern for the khan's ability to rule). An anxious Ottoman government deployed a fleet to Aktiar (the future site of Sevastopol) in August, only to be repulsed. Negotiations for a new peace settlement between St. Petersburg and the Porte got underway soon thereafter. The resulting Treaty of Ainali-Kavak secured the independent status of the khanate and required the removal of all Russian troops. This was no favor to the khan however. His position was tenuous at best; without the support of the empress's troops, he had precious little support. It wasn't long before the political situation in Crimea deteriorated, necessitating the return of Prince Potemkin and, by April 1783, the annexation of the khanate to Russia. <hr /> Abandoned place 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 Kozlov Description An account of the resource 172 Greeks, 2 Catholics, 1,304 Armenians together with 70 Georgian slaves, and 1 Wallachian abandoned this area in 1778. Armenian settlement Catholic settlement Greek settlement slaves Wallachian settlement