EN RO















#Exhibit of the Month

>>>

The word pafta is of Turkish origin and is used in almost identical forms in Romanian, Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian languages and some Aromanian dialects, denoting clothing accessories of a functional and decorative use, which secure or catch one's girdle, sash or belt.
Such buckles are accessories of ceremonial and everyday costumes, they were worn by both prince's courtiers and commoners in the Romanian principalities during the reign of the Phanariots, when the influence of Greek culture increased.

Throughout the Balkan Peninsula, silversmiths' workshops produced buckles very different in size, alloys, technique, style, and decoration. Turkish buckles were usually lace-like, often gilded, with many stones, emphasizing opulence. At the Bulgarians and Aromanians, they are simpler, but have a specific model and symbolism. Greek buckles are mostly silver, elegantly shaped, decorated with corals and small coins. The difference between the West and the East in this regard lies in the ability of the Turks to combine other materials with precious stones. Another feature is the predominance of floral motifs over the representations of animals and birds. The peoples under Ottoman rule assimilated these features and integrated them into their own cultures.

The buckles exhibited testify to the presence of a jewelry workshop in the town of Orhei in Bessarabia in the second half of the 19th century, and the quality of workmanship, the fine processing of the details, the complex composition denote the mastery and skill of the craftsmen.

Similar in style, these three buckles are two-piece, germinating seed-shaped, with strongly pronounced tips. The border is decorated with a garland motif, which circumscribes floral decorative elements. Hook and loop fastening is covered with a decorative button. On the reverse side, both sides are equipped with two plus two vertical straps with which the belt was attached.

The buckles are made of silver, as evidenced by the metal fineness hallmark stamp "84", applied according to the regulations on both parts of the buckle, and the hallmark stamp of the jewelry workshop in Orhei - the symbol of oak in a stylized shield. The quality of the metal and workmanship is also certified by the stamp of the assayer, moreover, one of the buckles was expertized by Dmitry Tiunov and has a "ДТ" (DT) stamp on it. On both parts of the buckle, the year of manufacture 1858 and the stamp of the assayer "ПН" (PN) are stamped. The stamp on the second buckle, the initials "МИ" (MI), indicates only the craftsman who made the product. The third buckle, made in the Orhei workshop, does not have the hallmark stamps required by law on the back side, but retains the same hallmarks stamped on the side of the products: the symbol of oak, the metal fineness hallmark stamp "84", the year of manufacture - 1871, and the initials of the assayer "КС" (KS), identified as Klim Sergeev, who worked from 1868 to 1871.

Between the 1840s and 1870s, wearing buckles became obsolete, and women's fashion completely adopted Western cuts and colors. These accessories came back into fashion around 1870 thanks to Princess Elisabeth, the future Queen of Romania. She introduced at court the fashion for the Romanian national costume, decorated with buckles. Her example was followed by the female elite of that time until the eve of the First World War. And her successor, Queen Maria, with her usual elegance and refinement, continued this fashionable tradition with in the interwar period.

Virtual Tour


Publications Journal „Tyragetia"   vol. VI [XXI], nr. 2


Old Russian art on the shores of Seine. Some notes on the
ISSN 1857-0240
E-ISSN 2537-6330

Old Russian art on the shores of Seine. Some notes on the "Holy Russia: Russian Art from the beginning to the times of Peter the Great" exhibition in the Louvre in 2010

Tyragetia, serie nouă, vol. VI [XXI], nr. 2, Istorie. Muzeologie

In the spring of 2010, the Louvre, the largest museum of France, held an exhibition of Russian art that became the most prominent event of the Year of Russia in France. The exhibition was put on a list of official matters and the presidents of both countries opened it in a formal ceremony. The visitors could see in the Louvre’s halls a refined selection of objects of the highest artistic level, an elaborate conception of the exposition’s plan, an excellent design, and a great respect for Russian culture. It took several years for Dr Jannic Durand, a specialist in Byzantine art and Louvre’s curator, and Director Henri Leyrotte to prepare the exhibition. 300 objects from 37 museums and libraries from all around the world, including 26 depositories from Russia, were put on display. It should be emphasized that the main part of the exhibition included the articles of the high artistic level, often the masterpieces. The extensive exhibition catalogue contained numerous essays on the history and art of Old Russia in different chronological periods, written by the Russian and French art historians. The catalogue entries describing the objects were done mainly by the specialists from the museums and libraries where the objects are kept. It gave an opportunity to the general public and those foreign professionals who do not know Russian to familiarize themselves with opinions of Russian specialists on some specific issues of Old Russian art. Translations into French were done skillfully and with respect to the original authors’ texts, though some truncations and stylistic editing were unavoidable, taking into account the difference in traditions of French and Russian academic schools and distinctions in mentality of French public.

In this article, the author tried to give a virtual tour around the exhibition’s halls in the Louvre, drawing the readers’ attention to the special ways in the displaying the objects, the reasons behind the objects’ selection, and their effect in the exposition space. Special attention is paid to the result (quite often, an unexpected one even for the organizers of the exhibition themselves) reached by the arrangement of the objects in the halls and showcases, their comparison, lighting, and successful design. In some cases, the article explains the motivations behind the selection of the art works that are connected to the ways Old Russian art is perceived by the European public and their interpretation of Russian history. The author is trying to explain not only the ideas that the French organizers of the exhibition wished to reveal in the exhibition halls but also the result of it, and why this result had, in fact, the enormous success among the different categories of visitors.

A very important effect of the Louvre exhibition was the breaking out of a number of stereotypes held toward Old Russian art, its relationships with Byzantine art, for example; the existence of a large number of regional painting schools with specific, apprehensible features; the high level of Russian art not only during the “time of Andrei Rublev” but also in the previous and following it centuries. The difficult work done by the Louvre during the preparation of this exhibition gave a grand result and, undoubtedly, opened a new era in the study of Old Russian art in the West.

The Louvre exhibition made such a great impression on the President of Russia and his envoy that it was decided to show it to the Russian public. Indeed, when the show in Paris ended and the objects returned back home, the exhibition was organized in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. However, it was not the same exhibition as the one in Paris. The Russian “specialists” and museum functionaries made their own, “true”, conception in exposing the Old Russian materials. Unfortunately, in both scholarly and exposition ways it happened to be very unprofessional, and possessed that which is commonly defined as “bad taste”. Even more unfortunate was the situation with the exhibition catalogue. On the account of its scholarly content, the catalogue was turned into an abridged edition and was designed in the pompous style of coffee table books. Although a significant amount of money was spent on all these efforts, and the bureaucrats from culture were satisfied, it should be admitted that the result was rather sad for the Russian public and for Russian art history as a scholarly discipline.

List of illustrations.
Fig. 1. Presidents of Russia and France at “Holy Russia” during the tour led by Jannic Durand, the curator of the exhibition.
Fig. 2. The banner of the “Holy Russia” exhibition on the building of the Louvre
Fig. 3. Model of Smolny Convent of the Resurrection in St Petersburg by F-B Rastrelli that “greeted” the visitors of the “Holy Russia” exhibition in the Louvre.
Fig. 4. “St Boris and Gleb”, the Novgorod icon of the 14th century chosen as the emblem of the Louvre exhibition. Fig. 5. The Polovets “baba” of the 12th century and showcases with archaeological artifacts of pre-Christian Russia. Fig. 6. “Deisis” from the city of Vladimir, end of the 12th century
Fig. 7. The Old Russian icons, end of the 12th-13th centuries.
Fig. 8. The Novgorod section of the “Holy Russia” exhibition.
Fig. 9. The Novgorod icons at the “Holy Russia” exhibition.
Fig. 10. Icon “John the Forerunner” from the Vasil’ev Deisus attributed to Andrei Rublev.
Fig. 11. The “Icon Hall” with icons from the iconostases of the St. Cyril-Belozersk Monastery.
Fig. 12. The showcase with provincial “northern” monuments of Old Russia.
Fig. 13. “The King and the Patriarch” – the portrait apposition of two rules of Russia of the 17th century.
Fig. 14. The hall of the 17th century with decorative tiles.
Fig. 15. “Christ Pantocrator Enthroned”, 1703 – the final accord of the “Holy Russia” exhibition at the Louvre.

Юрий А. Пятницкий
Cloisonné enamels from the former collection Alexander Zwenigorodsky and a new book by Ljudmila Pekarska, Jewellery of Princely Kiev. The Kiev Hoards in the British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Related Material
Tyragetia, serie nouă, vol. IX [XXIV], nr. 2, Istorie. Muzeologie Chișinău, 2015
Андрей Крупенко, Юрий А. Пятницкий
Restoration and attribution of The Virgin of Tenderness (a new acquisition of the Byzantine collection of the Hermitage Museum)
Tyragetia, serie nouă, vol. X [XXV], nr. 2, Istorie. Muzeologie
Всеволод Образцов, Юрий А. Пятницкий
Holy images on blades: unique swords from the State Hermitage Museum (preliminary publication)
Tyragetia, serie nouă, vol. VII [XXII], nr. 2, Istorie. Muzeologie
Юрий А. Пятницкий
Coptic textile from Count Alexey Bobrinsky's collection in the State Hermitage: the history of one mistake
Tyragetia, serie nouă, vol. X [XXV], nr. 2, Istorie. Muzeologie



 

 

Independent Moldova
Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
Bessarabia and MASSR between the Two World Wars
Bessarabia and Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in the Period between the Two World Wars
Revival of National Movement
Time of Reforms and their Consequences
Abolition of Autonomy. Bessarabia – a New Tsarist Colony
Period of Relative Autonomy of Bessarabia within the Russian Empire
Phanariot Regime
Golden Age of the Romanian Culture
Struggle for Maintaining of Independence of Moldova
Formation of Independent Medieval State of Moldova
Era of the
Great Nomad Migrations
Early Middle Ages
Iron Age and Antiquity
Bronze Age
Aeneolithic Age
Neolithic Age
Palaeolithic Age

  
  
Come to Museum! Discover the History!
  
Visit museum
Visit museum
Summer schedule: daily
10am – 6pm.

Winter schedule: daily
10am – 5pm.
Closed on Fridays.
Entrance fees:  adults - 10 MDL, pensioners, adults with moderate disabilities / disability of the 3rd degree, students - 5 MDL, school students - 2 MDL. Free access: enlisted men (...)

WiFi Free Wi-Fi Zone in the museum: In the courtyard of the National History Museum of Moldova there is Wi-Fi Internet access for visitors.






#Exhibit of the Month

The word pafta is of Turkish origin and is used in almost identical forms in Romanian, Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian languages and some Aromanian dialects, denoting clothing accessories of a functional and decorative use, which secure or catch one's girdle, sash or belt...

Read More >>


































The National Museum of History of Moldova takes place among the most significant museum institutions of the Republic of Moldova, in terms of both its collection and scientific reputation.
©2006-2022 National Museum of History of Moldova
Visit museum 31 August 1989 St., 121 A, MD 2012, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
Phones:
Secretariat: +373 (22) 24-43-25
Department of Public Relations and Museum Education: +373 (22) 24-04-26
Fax: +373 (22) 24-43-69
E-mail: office@nationalmuseum.md
Technical Support: info@nationalmuseum.md
Web site administration and maintenance: Andrei EMILCIUC

 



The National Museum of History of Moldova takes place among the most significant museum institutions of the Republic of Moldova, in terms of both its collection and scientific reputation.
©2006-2022 National Museum of History of Moldova
Visit museum 31 August 1989 St., 121 A, MD 2012, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
Phones:
Secretariat: +373 (22) 24-43-25
Department of Public Relations and Museum Education: +373 (22) 24-04-26
Fax: +373 (22) 24-43-69
E-mail: office@nationalmuseum.md
Technical Support: info@nationalmuseum.md
Web site administration and maintenance: Andrei EMILCIUC

menu
The National Museum of History of Moldova takes place among the most significant museum institutions of the Republic of Moldova, in terms of both its collection and scientific reputation.
©2006-2022 National Museum of History of Moldova
Visit museum 31 August 1989 St., 121 A, MD 2012, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
Phones:
Secretariat: +373 (22) 24-43-25
Department of Public Relations and Museum Education: +373 (22) 24-04-26
Fax: +373 (22) 24-43-69
E-mail: office@nationalmuseum.md
Technical Support: info@nationalmuseum.md
Web site administration and maintenance: Andrei EMILCIUC