Kazan had long figured large in my city “do list” ever since, over 40 years ago, I first saw Eisenstein’s “Ivan the Terrible” with its magnificent representation of the city’s siege and the defeat of the Tatar Khans. Of course the Kremlin ensemble, built and rebuilt since the siege, can only faintly echo these events but, when we eventually visited in May 2007, we discovered plenty of interest (and controversy) there. Whilst, beyond, lies a handsome city whose style and substance should place it ahead of many other similar-sized European cities (population 1 million +) for a visitor’s attention.

The Kremlin surrounding wall is capped in parts with wooden roofs and spires – several of which, perhaps incongruously and certainly un-authentically, sport the UNESCO WH logo (photo 1) – Kazan is clearly proud of its inscription! Inside is a melange of buildings, both religious and secular, from 16th to 21st (!) century – including 17th century towers, a 16th century cathedral and monastery buildings (other churches were destroyed in Stalin’s time and the monastery became a tobacco factory), a 19th century Governor’s house (still used as the presidential palace) and finally THAT mosque opened as recently as June 2005 (5 years after inscription)! All are joined by a long avenue faced by other classical buildings (photo 2). A fine plan of the complex with “mouse-overs” is on the Tatar President's Web site!

The previous post raises a number of issues regarding the authenticity of the Kremlin and the words used by UNESCO to support its inscription. The site certainly provides an interesting example of the genuine problems in determining “authenticity”. Given the history of Kazan since its capture by Russia in 1552 it is hardly surprising that the Kremlin contains buildings of many periods. These reflect changes brought about by fire, revolution and indeed periods of prosperity and, to me, don’t seem to create a true problem. But is UNESCO trying too hard to be “inclusive” in identifying a “synthesis of Russian and Tatar influences” and in describing it as “the only surviving Tatar fortress with traces of the original town-planning conception”? These were not obvious and it all looked pretty Russian to me.

One certain “Tatar influence” is the modern Qolsharif mosque. How did UNESCO so easily accept the building of the first mosque on the site since 1552? In its evaluation ICOMOS merely states - “The new mosque that is being built within the complex can be understood as new construction in a historic context, where it contributes to the traditional continuity and a balance between the different cultural elements of the place. It should be noted that, considering the character of the site, such a new building should be considered to be strictly exceptional.” Indeed it is perhaps unreasonable for WHS to be frozen as at the moment of inscription. After all, those 19th century buildings were new once and are now considered “authentic” so why not allow a (good) 21st century building if it reflects the continuity of use in this era?

Of course one can fully understand the desire of the Tatars to assert their culture within the republic in which they comprise 52% the population. One of the reasons we wanted to visit Kazan was to see something of this republic in the heartland of Russia which had declared independence in 1990 (supported in a referendum in 1992). Perhaps wanting to avoid the fate of Chechnya, and sensing the reality of its bargaining position, it reached a compromise in 2000 by which it became a constituent republic of the Russian Federation but with special provisions for autonomy (negotiations still continue on the exact nature of these). As a result it seemed to us to be doing quite well on its oil wealth – support Putin, don’t rock the boat and you will be given a good deal of latitude to develop your country and culture as you wish. I guess many other European “nation states” are struggling with the same issue – including UK and Spain! The mosque represents an interesting manifestation of this compromise – but that doesn’t make it an acceptable intrusion into the architectural ensemble – I personally didn’t find it a harmonious addition. And it makes UNESCO’s stance against development at many other sites less logically tenable.

Perhaps my distaste towards the mosque was enhanced by the inordinately long time spent there by the standard Kremlin tour! You can’t just take your shoes off as in mosques elsewhere but (except for the guide!) have to put on the “over-slippers” beloved of Russian museums to protect their floors. But this again demonstrates the uneasy status of the mosque – part museum/national monument, part mosque. As tourists (whether infidel or not!) we had to climb the special stairs and look down on the main chamber (empty of the “faithful” although we were told that it is used twice per day (Elsewhere I have seen twice per year?) for prayers) to be given all the construction facts – which seemed to boil down to Russian materials and Turkish labour and skills. Frankly, I was pleased to get out.

Across the road lies the Annunciation Cathedral. Used for various “profane” purposes during the Soviet period its (extremely heavy) interior restoration has only recently been completed and, like the mosque, it too seems to double as, primarily, a museum and, less frequently, as a religious building. Interestingly, the restoration was ordered in 1995 at the same time as the decree to build the Mosque. Another example of Tatarstan trying to be totally even-handed as between religions! It was even granted a “big event” to mirror the opening of the mosque 1 month earlier with the receipt on July 21 2005 of a historic copy of the Icon of our Lady of Kazan given to the Russian Orthodox Church by Pope John Paul II. But that is yet another story! In short, a visit to the Kazan Kremlin should provide you with myriad strands of interest to follow up and many useful reference points for understanding Russian history and society from medieval times to the present!