First Half Of Fifteenth Century Research Articles

Anthropomorphism and Zoomorphism in the Ornamental Art of the Crimean Tatars

The author of the article reveals the problem of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images in Islamic art, particularly in the Turkic ornamentation of the Crimea. Superficial, unscientific interpretations of motifs and ornamental compositions often lead to the search for and appropriation of anthropomorphism without appropriate research, loose interpretations of motifs, and the creation of a new mythology. Despite conservative views regarding the categorical denial of the permissiveness of the image of a person, there are many surviving works of fine and decorative art that confirm an opposite tradition. Currently, there are practically no studies of anthropomorphism and zoomorphism in the Turkic ornamentation of the Crimea, their typological and artistic features, and their symbolic context. Based on the material of decorative and applied art of the Crimean Tatars from the fourteenth century to the present, examples of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic ornamental images are provided in the article. They are stylized objects – fully, partially, or in the form of a silhouette – reflecting the surrounding real world of living beings. Complete naturalistic images (birds, fish, animals, insects) are found on objects until the first half of fifteenth century, and then starting again from the second half of eighteenth century. From the sixteenth to the first half of eighteenth centuries, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic motifs were depicted in a stylized form. The author of the study reveals the symbolism of the most common motifs, along with the typological and artistic features of the images. As a result of the study, it was revealed that the color, silhouette, and figurativeness of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images in the Crimean Tatar decorative and applied art depend primarily on the material, technique, and functional purpose of the created object. In addition to images on objects, anthropomorphism is present as the silhouette of objects.

«Рукописный портулан Каспийского моря 1519 года» Весконте Маджоло как источник по исторической географии Прикаспия

Research objectives: To conduct a detailed comparative analysis of the toponymic source known as “Hand Drawn Portolan of the Caspian Sea (1519)” by Vesconte Maggiolo, and ascertain the range and chronology of its sources. Research materials: At the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there were a few navigational maps – portolan charts – created in Italy which contained rather precise outlines of the coastline of the Caspian Sea. The present Portolan excels all earlier items in terms of precision of the depicted topographical realities of the region. The quality of the map we are examining was surpassed only in the seventeenth century after Peter I’s hydrographic expeditions. The high level of shoreline’s precision also strongly suggests that the map was based on authentic topographic input. Maggiolo’s map contains 136 geographical names. Results and novelty of the research: For the first time ever in domestic scholarship, we conducted a comparative historical analysis of the hand drawn portolan chart of the Caspian Sea. We also proved the correlation of some toponyms of the West Caspian region with the Timurid and local sources that covered the military campaigns of Amir Timur in the region. In our view, the “Hand Drawn Portolan Chart of the Caspian Sea (1519)” created by Vesconte Maggiolo is one of the most notable among similar works. It finds many common features with the portolan from the island of Lesina, but also contains some common elements with the Mallorca cartographic school and Fra Mauro, Egerton MS 73, and Egerton MS 2083. This research allows us to extend and systematize our understanding of Italian cartography in relation to the Caspian region. It also details or adds some facts about the presence of Europeans in this region during the Golden Horde era. Based on this topographic and toponymic analysis, we furthermore come to a conclusion that the portolan in question is derived from a protograph created in the first half of fifteenth century, reflecting the realities of the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

Élites campesinas en el entorno de la ciudad de Valencia: los Castrellenes

This paper seeks to analyse economy of a well-to-do peasant family settled in the urban fringes of the city of Valencia, capital of the kingdom, in the first half of fifteenth Century. The death of the head of the family, due to the plague, made emerge the solidarity of the relatives, who took care of the orphans. Thanks to the memorial of rents we can assess the economic strategies of a wealthier peasant family, the importance of markets and the city and countryside relations.

後期ビザンツ地方行政と専制公, 尊厳公, 副帝称号

The highest court titles, despot (δeσποτης), sevastokrator (σeβαστοκρατωρ), and Kaisar (καισαρ), had very important roles in the Late Byzantune Empire. The holders of these titles, normally members of the imperial family, had considerable influences not only on the political scene, but also on the provincal administration as they were the highest position of its apparatus. On the administrative role of the title holders, many scholars have explained that it had the same character as the Western appanage, and that the administration did not depend on his their titles, but simply on that they were a member of the imperial family; their administration was basically private, since it had no foundation in the Byzantine theory of government. I make my examination, therefore, in comparison with that Byzantine administrative apparatus and office of the governor considering its continuity.There are many cases which one and the same person had both the office of governor (κeψαλη) and the court title. In such cases, the administrator more often signed himself, or was mentioned by others, as the latter rather than the former in documentary sources. This custom indicates that that person tried to raise his authority by using the court title which indicated his higher social status. It was probably an omission of formality as well because there was no need to refer oneself as the lower class of the kephali. And the absence of that reference after the second half of the fourteenth century indicates that this formal omission became more prevalent.Substantially, there is no difference in the administratorship before and after 1349, when the Emperor Ioannis VI Kandakouzinos (1347-54) appointed his relatives as the administrator of imperial territory. The administration of the despots was definitely different from that of the co-Emperor Matthaios Kandakouzinos (1353-57), whose authority involved real autonomy. Though their authority was rapidly enlarged, it was not established as private (except for the case of Thessaloniki in the first half of fifteenth century) or autonomous. They lacked their own diplomacy and the rights to inheritance. Especially in the Morea, from Manouil Kandakouzinos (1349-80), the first, to Dimitrios Palaiologos (1449-60), the last, all the despotai were apparently the imperial governers rather than the private landlords. Although the tendency of feudalization continuously developed in the imperial territory, these administrators did not originate from that tendency.