The Sacral and Settlement Structure of Tîrgul Chișinău in the Seventeenth Century
1. Toponym and General Structure of the Settlement
In Ottoman and regional sources of the seventeenth century, the urban formation later known as Chișinău appears under the name Tîrgul Chișinău. This designation indicates not a “classical city with a single center,” but rather a commercial–settlement agglomeration, formed around a market, a river crossing, and a system of landed estates.
During the period under consideration, Tîrgul Chișinău consisted of four landed estates (moșii) located on both banks of the river Bîc, within which distinct settlements and rural components existed. Not every functionally important settlement possessed the status of an independent estate. Thus, the commercial and craft center of Tiraj constituted a boyar domain within the estate of Buiucani, rather than a separate administrative unit.
2. Estates and Their Functional Specialization
2.1. The Estate of Buiucani and the Boyar Domain of Tiraj
(right bank of the Bîc River)
The estate of Buiucani included the village of Buiucani and the boyar domain of Tiraj, which functioned as the principal commercial and craft nucleus of the entire Tîrgul Chișinău. This area concentrated:
the market,
craft workshops,
trading courtyards,
and the river crossing.
It is estimated that this estate contained approximately 210–260 houses, making it the largest in terms of housing stock. The princely stone Church of St. Nicholas was located here, alongside several Orthodox parish churches and one or two Jewish houses of prayer serving the commercial milieu. The concentration of sacred buildings in Tiraj reflects a parochial and market-oriented, rather than monastic, character of religious life.
2.2. The Estate of Gețioani
(left bank of the Bîc River)
The estate of Gețioani represented a dense Jewish settlement with predominantly residential and commercial functions. A defining feature of this estate is the absence of Orthodox churches, which clearly distinguishes it from the other territorial units.
The number of houses is estimated at 120–150, placing Gețioani second in size after Buiucani–Tiraj. Religious infrastructure consisted of several small Jewish houses of prayer (prayer houses of the shtibl-type), which in Ottoman administrative practice were counted as distinct religious buildings despite their non-monumental character.
2.3. The Estate of Chișinău
(left bank, at the southern foot of the Mazarachievici Hill)
The estate of Chișinău was situated at the southern foot of the Mazarachievici Hill and represented an old sloboda-type nucleus. On the basis of a set of indirect indicators, this area can be identified as the location of the Karaite community of Tîrgul Chișinău.
Approximately 50–70 houses were located in this zone. The religious infrastructure included two Karaite kenesas, as well as one Orthodox church which, according to architectural and planimetric features dating from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century, may be interpreted as the result of the reconsecration of an earlier sacred building. Such transformations correspond to well-known practices of adapting non-monastic religious structures.
2.4. The Estate of Visterniceni
(left bank of the Bîc River)
The estate of Visterniceni constituted a small peripheral settlement of an agrarian and auxiliary character. It is estimated to have contained 30–50 houses. Religious life was represented by a single small Orthodox parish church, or was dependent on neighboring parishes.
3. Population and Housing Stock
With an estimated population of around 3,000 inhabitants and an average household size of 5–6 persons (typical for sloboda-type towns of the seventeenth century), the housing stock of Tîrgul Chișinău can be estimated at approximately 450–600 houses. Their distribution among the estates follows the descending order:
Buiucani (with Tiraj) → Gețioani → Chișinău → Buiucani (village) → Visterniceni.
4. Religious Buildings and the Testimony of Evliya Çelebi
The traveler Evliya Çelebi mentions 17 non-Muslim religious buildings in Chișinău, while not recording a single monastery. The reconstruction proposed here allows this figure to be explained without contradiction.
Of the 17 buildings:
a significant portion belonged to small Orthodox parish churches,
two were Karaite kenesas,
four to five were Jewish houses of prayer in Gețioani,
and one building may have represented a domestic chapel of another confession.
The absence of monasteries is explained by the functional nature of Tîrgul Chișinău as a commercial and sloboda-type hub, rather than as a princely-administrative or high-ranking sacral center.
5. Conclusions
Thus, Tîrgul Chișinău in the seventeenth century should be interpreted not as a compact city with a single center, but as an agglomeration of estates and settlements, united by a shared commercial function and toponymy. Its religious infrastructure was dispersed, non-monumental, and predominantly parochial, with a clear spatial differentiation:
the Orthodox and princely component concentrated in Tiraj,
the Jewish component in Gețioani,
the Karaite component in Chișinău,
and the peripheral component in Visterniceni.
This structure allows for a coherent correlation between the testimony of Evliya Çelebi and archaeological, topographical, and planimetric evidence from later periods.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий