30 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 Spatial Grammar Description An account of the resource [HOLD FOR INTRO TEXT]<hr /> Geographical feature manmade or natural 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 Iandal 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 Spatial Grammar Description An account of the resource [HOLD FOR INTRO TEXT]<hr /> Geographical feature manmade or natural 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 Baydar Valley Description An account of the resource The Baydar valley was one of the most aesthetically pleasing corners of the entire south. In the words of Lady Craven, it was an “enchanting and magnificent spot intended by nature for some industrious and happy nation to enjoy in peace.” Baydar won accolades from others as a “Tauric Elysium” blessed with abundant water and cultivated such that (in the words of Vladimir Bronevskii) “everywhere there are ploughed fields, bahçe and shady forests of oak and kizil; walnut-trees; everywhere springs and sources babble; everywhere nature is charming and everywhere there is abundance, richness, and a pleasantly varied landscape.” 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 Biographical Sketches Description An account of the resource Brief biographies of men and women whose names crop up in the sources, in this project, and in the book. Please note that the mirzas described in the "mirza sketches" are not included here.<hr /> Person An individual. 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 Elizabeth, Lady Craven 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 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 Neglect Description An account of the resource In December 1786, Prince Grigorii Potemkin ordered Governor Vasilii Kakhovskii to search out and collect as many ancient coins and medals as possible. Kakhovskii dutifully passed the order along to the district land captains (all of whom were Tatars), as well as the mayors and commandants of the towns of Bahçesaray, Evpatoriia, <st1:place w:st="on">Balaklava</st1:place>, Arabat and Karasubazar. Curiously, nothing turned up, save for sixty-five coins dating from the reigns of Timur (Tamerlane) and the first three Giray khans (14th-15th centuries). Potemkin promptly returned these to their owners, explaining that he was interested only in “true antiquities”; that is, items at least 1,000 years in age, “from the period of the Greeks and Romans. Turkish and Tatar items [were] not needed.” In other words, from the earliest days of Russian rule, politics and ideology shaped the way antiquity would be defined and the way the built landscape would be managed. Potemkin was not the only man with opinions on this topic. Some shared the prince's taste for the classical era. <a href="http://dighist.fas.harvard.edu/projects/beautifulspaces/items/show/910" target="_blank">Peter Simon Pallas</a>, the famous naturalist, for example, described his scramble over the narrow fortified cliffs at Dziva Rock and Kuchuk Issar and his subsequent exuberance at the discovery of an ancient ruin in a level clearing. He marveled at the white marble column standing in a glen and at the ignorance of the "superstitious natives" who chipped off small pieces and ground them into a fine dust to be consumed for unknown purposes. Others lamented the seeming disregard for the cultural landscape - both Greek and Tatar - by Russian settlers. Anthony Grant, an English visitor to Crimea, complained that in the years since annexation “Beautiful mosques and minarets; public fountains and aqueducts, the pride and the great glory of the Moslem; public edifices, however imposing and sacred, were overthrown; trees were cut down, tombs rifled, the relics of the dead cast abroad, swine fed out of coffins, and the monuments of antiquity annihilated.” Though many likely harbored no ill will toward the monuments and ruins they found, most farmers and soldiers were preoccupied with the task of producing the large quantities of building materials needed for building houses, government offices, and churches. The large cut stones and marble slabs of existing walls and foundations presented a far more attractive alternative than purchasing materials from local quarries or foreign sources. For nearly three decades, a proliferation of ruins was an unintended consequence of the construction of estates and towns across the peninsula, from Evpatoriia to Kerch. Sources: А. Стевен, "Дела архива Таврическаго губернскаго правления, относящияся по разыскания, описании и сохранения памятников старины в пределах Таврической губерний," ИТУАК (t. 13: 33-34). Peter Simon Pallas, Travels through the Southern Provinces of the Russian Empire, vol. 2 (London, 1803): 148. Anthony Grant, An Historical Sketch of The <st1:place w:st="on">Crimea (</st1:place><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">London, </st1:place></st1:city>1855): 109-110. 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 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 Classical terrain Description An account of the resource The most famous Crimean ruin is that of Chersonesos (Chersonesus, Khersones) near Sevastopol. Peter Simon Pallas was so impressed with this site that he described the area as "truly classic ground": ground that yielded bits and pieces of Greek antiquity at every step. [HOLD FOR NEATLINE OF EXCAVATION WORK] https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/beautifulspaces/original/1deb80ddb30ded690cb991fee1c8c594.png e1cd153f69be503559c0ec968c9fe6e7 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 The pleasure palace of Aşlama Neatline Display Neatline Exhibit 39 Neatline Record 222