Mahiloŭ's Main Square: A Belarusian Urban Metamorphosis Through Post-Colonial Lenses
Mahiloŭ’s Slavy [Glory] Square, the most central and oldest in the city, has changed at least six names over the approximately 500 years of its existence, always being in the vortex of city’s events and transforming to meet the needs of another era. How the square’s concept was changing, together with toponyms? And what does this case tell about the history of colonialism in the region?
It has been more than three decades since East-Central Europe did away with socialist regimes. Nevertheless, relationships between post-communist countries and their former ideological and political center, Russia (and Moscow as its capital), develop in very different ways. The Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 once again made us think about the role that the Russian Federation has played and is still playing in the region. It also brought to the forefront the colonial nature of the various instruments of violence Russia employs.
Thus, the streets of occupied Ukrainian cities are named after Russian/Soviet public figures (in that context, the heritage of Russia and that of the USSR become one). Monuments to Soviet leaders, which Ukrainian cities managed to get rid of under the decommunization policy, are being restored. Furthermore, Ukraine’s museums are robbed of cultural heritage treasured in them, while the latter is transported to Russian museum vaults. Religious and other architectural heritage sites are also destroyed during military operations, accidentally or intentionally (Mallard, 2023). At the same time, artifacts, buildings, and their elements, as well as entire spaces are destroyed (that is, eradfication takes place). In other words, the public space of towns and cities in the conquered territories is consciously transformed to create a totally new identity (Chepaitene, 2010, p. 244).
In fact, today’s Russia is guided by the same approaches towards neighboring countries and their cultural heritage as the Russian Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries, or the Soviet Union in the 20th century. Each of them considered itself a center, a metropolis, and its neighboring countries (primarily Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kazakhstan) or parts thereof as territories they can potentially gain access to or, in other words, colonize. Individual authors from former USSR countries, for example: Igor Bobkov (Belarus), Madina Tlastanova (Russia/Sweden), and Janis Riekstins (Latvia), actively resort to decolonial methods in their work. Let’s try to understand what this can mean for culturally significant locales within Belarusian cities, illustrated by exploring the main square of Mahiloŭ as a prime example.
Belarus in the Arms of the «Big Brother»
The assortment of tools used by Russia in the course of expansion of Belarusian cities has its own specifics and history. The process of russification of Belarus became especially acute after 2020, when, as a result of undemocratic elections in the country, mass repressions began. They affected all domains of Belarus’ public life, including culture, as the state began to perceive Belarusianness and freedom of thought as synonymous to dissent and opposition to the authorities.
Alongside with that, the erection of monuments to public figures that align Belarus’ history with Russia’s, and the selective restoration of 19th-century buildings, which fosters a provincial city atmosphere, contributes to intentional alteration of the city’s symbolic landscape. The current change in Belarus’ cultural landscape impacted by Russian politics must be considered from a broader chronological perspective. Historical records allow us to talk about the purposeful change of Belarusian cities (tangible and intangible) since the 18th century, when the Belarusian lands became part of the Russian Empire, and later, in the 20th century, when BSSR was made an exemplary republic of the USSR. Modern documents and media resources allow us to say that this policy persists. Drawing on A. Quijano’s concept of the ’coloniality of power’ (2007), we can say that Belarus, while formally independent since 1991, remains deeply rooted in its colonial past. The Belarusian society continues to be shaped by the political, social, and hierarchical structures that were first established during the Russian Empire and later evolved throughout the USSR era.
Two Centuries of Russian Cultural Influence on Belarus (1772-1991)
Undoubtedly, until the beginning of the 20th century, Belarus did not exist as a single and independent national entity. Nevertheless, Belarusian culture has a rich history that dates to the principalities of Polotsk and Turov. It grew through the merging of Baltic and Slavic territories around Novogrudok, leading to the creation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Later, it joined with Poland to form the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Throughout this journey, Belarusian culture greatly contributed to and was enriched by its neighbors — Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine.
By the late 18th century, political dynamics in Europe led to the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was divided between the three neighboring powers: the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, and Austria-Hungary. As a consequence of the partitions in 1772, 1793, and 1795, the entire ethnic territory of Belarus came under the dominion of the Russian Empire. This predetermined the historic fate of Belarus, which fell under Russia’s influence for the centuries to come.
Russia, historically gravitating toward centralized power and uniformity, introduced a systematic policy to homogenize the newly annexed territories with its existing regions. The transformation of urban and rural landscapes in Belarus was also a significant aspect of this process, taking several key directions:
development of new master plans followed by restructuring of cities, often ignoring their historical planning structure
transformation of towns into villages, which constrained their further development
changing the toponymy of cities and towns
the conversion of Catholic and Uniate churches into Orthodox ones, which involved significant alterations to their style, aligning them (as well as the local Orthodox churches) with the architectural norms of Russian churches.
The new master plans developed in the Russian Empire in the 18th century in the then fashionable classicist manner completely ignored the renaissance, and in some places even medieval structure of Belarusian cities. New plans were often «drawn up» in the empire’s center, by Russian architects who completely overlooked the local topography (Chernyavskaya, 1973, p. 31). Given the location of the Belarusian lands on the empire’s western borderline and their strategic status in the event of military operations, in the 19th century the Russian state started to design and build fortresses in Belarusian cities. Babrujsk (1811) and Bearscie (1831) were especially «lucky»: their medieval centers were purposefully destroyed only to be replaced with brick forts. Residents were resettled to new neighborhoods erected away from the old city (Lokotka, 1997, pp. 132-135). A similar fate awaited the Hrodna Old Town. However, fortunately, a less radical option was chosen. Defensive forts arose not in the heart of historical Hrodna, but around it.
Under tsarist policies, towns that were once central to Belarusian settlement systems were barred from urban development. This was because, by Russian law, they weren’t classified as cities and thus lacked the legal basis to claim urban status The absence of city status led to the progressive disenfranchisement of the town’s residents, as it hindered "the development of an urban middle-class culture and the growth of cultural and educational opportunities«(Sorkina, 2010, pp. 88-89). Towns that could have become the foundation for the development of a network of Belarusian cities were gradually losing their urban development potential accumulated over the previous centuries (ibid.).
The network of street names in Belarusian cities and towns evolved organically over the 16th to 18th centuries. Most often, street names were tied to sites of cult (e. g., Dominican Street) or the direction where the street led (e. g. Vilenskaya Street). Sometimes streets were named after representatives of a certain social (Tatarskaja [Tatar — hereinafter, translator’s note] Street) or professional (Garbarskaya [Labourer’s] Street) group. Thus, a transparent system of street names helped residents navigate the urban space. In the 19th century, following the annexation of Belarusian territories into the Russian Empire, there was a marked increase in the renaming of city streets. It surged in the 1860s, which can be seen as a response to the 1863-1864 uprising in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Names associated with Catholicism were particularly affected (Daminikanskaja [Dominican] = > Sabornaja [Cathedral] Street). The state-sanctioned new urban names were given symbolic or more neutral meanings. In the 19th and 20th centuries, in line with the policy of memorialization, a new stage of renaming streets took place, and the urban toponymy of Belarus became quite consistent with the Russian cultural tradition (Kutuzauskaja, Aliaksandrauskaja, Pushkinskaja Streets etc.) (Gordeev, 2017, pp. 214-219).
Upon renaming the streets associated with the Catholic church, religious sites themselves changed beyond recognition. Distinctive contributions of local architectural schools, which creatively adapted Renaissance and Baroque styles that had come to Belarus from Western Europe, were irretrievably lost. Furthermore, a significant campaign against Catholic and Uniate churches was launched and later led to their replacement. This, in turn, spurred the widespread construction of Orthodox churches in the central squares of cities and villages. The new religious policy of the tsarist authorities of those times is evidenced by the following lines: «... Russian Orthodox churches should serve as centenarian witnesses of the great renaissance of Orthodoxy and Russian national identity in the North-Western region, innately Russian, which suffered for so long under the yoke of Latin-Polish propaganda...» (Firinovich, 2010, p. 850).
1917: In the Blaze of Revolution
The Russian Empire was transformed first into Soviet Russia, and then into the USSR (1922). Despite the attempts of the Belarusian people to create an independent republic on the ruins of the empire, Belarus remained under Russia’s influence. The shift from a monarchical to a socialist ideology didn’t halt the transformation of urban spaces. In fact, it hastened these changes. Property of the upper class, for which there was no place in the new proletarian state, was the first to suffer. At best, the buildings were robbed and repurposed for different functions, such as schools or collective farm offices. At worst, they were neglected for decades and slowly decayed into ruins.
An example of degradation of the urban environment of Polotsk (1812, 1912, 2006). All religious buildings were destroyed by the state (Russian Empire or the USSR) in 1865, 1912, 1940s, 1964. 1. Drawing by C. Faber du Faur, 1812 2. Photo by S. Prokudin-Gorsky, 1912. 3. Photo by A. Zelenko, 2006. Link
Religious structures fared even worse with the onset of the USSR’s anti-religious campaign in the 1920s, which resulted in the systematic closure and subsequent demolition of many places of worship in Belarus. Western Belarus, which was then (1921-1939) part of Poland, did not undergo demolition of that scale. Meanwhile, cities and towns in eastern Belarus, influenced by the «building a new world» urban planning ideology prevalent before the war and after it during restoration, saw extensive destruction of their architectural landmarks and historical urban landscapes. «Such a state policy contributed to a decrease in the cultural potential of localities in the eastern region, and to a steady trend of complete overhaul of the historical and architectural environment, which had been formed over the centuries, thus shaping a new urban realm» (Gabrus et al., 2003, p. 276).
During World War II, Belarusian cities experienced all the severities of wartime. Nevertheless, in many urban centers complexes of historical buildings could have made it to restoration, as the Soviet Union even received reparations for some damaged architectural monuments in the post-war period. However, in the 1940s-50s, the urban fabric was thoroughly reshaped (especially the capital city of Miensk and other large cities). This was accompanied by a drastic overhaul of toponymics to align with the tenets of Soviet ideology. For instance, in the 1940s, several dozen streets in Minsk were named after Russian writers, cultural figures, and military leaders who were in no way connected with Belarus (Chekhov, Vasnetsov, Nakhimov). Later, in the 1960s, the list of street names associated with revolutionaries (Kalinin, Plekhanov, Kotovsky) and heroes of the Great Patriotic War expanded. At the same time, toponyms associated with Belarusian culture were still few in number, which may partially indicate the degree of its marginalization in post-war Belarus (Kazakevich, 2011, p. 25). Due to its metropolitan status, Miensk exemplifies this process most vividly. At the same time, it represents general trends for the entire BSSR.
Independent Belarus (or not?)
After gaining independence in 1991, the Republic of Belarus has begun to pursue an independent foreign and domestic policy. It was no longer necessary to look back at the «big brother» and wait for Moscow’s approval.
Nevertheless, in the early 1990s, unlike neighboring Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Ukraine, Belarusian society and policy did not undertake full-fledged critical rethinking of the historical baggage that had accumulated over more than two centuries spent by Belarus under the rule of the Russian Empire, and later the USSR.
The older generation in Belarus, which in socialist times was called «the most Soviet of all Soviet [countries]» (Chernyavskaya, 2011), retained a special nostalgia for this period. In the mid-90s it contributed greatly to the support of the government’s course for rapprochement with Russia. The Belarusian society, which didn’t even have time to enjoy its own independence properly, began to converge with the Russian one. Belarusian cultural environment found itself under Russia’s significant influence after decades of intentional Russification, inter alia, simply because it was hard for the Belarusian cultural market to compete with the corresponding, ten times larger Russian one.
Surely, in the urban landscapes of the late 20th to early 21st century, the expansion was not as noticeable as it was in the media realm. Unlike the era of the Russian Empire, there was no need to greenlight or even plan urban redevelopment projects without considering the historical context of the cities, as often happened during the Russian Empire. Nor was it necessary to name streets and squares after people who had nothing to do with Belarus, which was a common practice in the 20th century under the USSR. However, Russian cultural influence was still observed in some areas of urban space development in Belarusian cities.
First of all, this concerns monuments and sculptures related to Russian history. They appear in Belarusian cities as gifts from Russian cultural foundations or with the assistance of the Belarusian Orthodox Church, which is inseparable from the Moscow Patriarchate. It should be noted that such approaches in promoting historical figures with a markedly Russian imperial position are quite common in the Belarusian context. The story from Viciebsk is quite memorable. It began in 2014 with the installation of an equestrian monument honoring Algirdas, the Grand Prince of Lithuania and later ruler of Viciebsk. This event sparked significant activity among pro-Russian activists, bolstered by support from the city administration and the Orthodox Church. Consequently, Viciebsk saw the erection of a statue of Alexander Nevsky, a figure with tenuous links to the city. However, in the narrative of modern Russian propaganda, Nevsky is lauded as an extraordinary historical icon and a symbol of resistance against Western forces (KM, 2016)
And in Mahiloŭ, with the support of the Kuban foundation «Alley of Russian Glory», a bust of Alexander Pushkin was unveiled in 2015 near the library college bearing his name. The fact that this is the third monument to Pushkin, who merely passed through this place, in the city, which barely has any monuments to Belarusian historical figures, could somehow be explained (Lukashuk, 2015). But the inscription of lines from the poem «To the Slanderers of Russia» on the monument’s pedestal reveals a profound misunderstanding of the historical context. This poem was composed in response to the 1830-1831 uprising that engulfed present-day Belarus, Poland, and Lithuania, and was an act of defiance against the Russian Empire’s rule:
Or it is new for us with Europe to debate?
Or Russian is by wins just left? <...>
With much steel lances being like final,
Won’t meet the Russian land all you?
So send to us your speaking heads now -
Your irritated «dear sons»:
There’s place for them in fields of ours
Among the coffins that are lost
(Translation by I. Skryagin)
Or perhaps such a «Trojan horse» from a Russian cultural foundation became yet another opportunity to remind the Belarusian society of its true position in the hierarchical system «metropole — dependent territory». Still, it should be noted that after a while the contradictory lines were removed from the pedestal due to the citizens’ sharply negative reaction.
Mahiloŭ’s Main Square: Contexts Change, Space Changes
The city of Mahiloŭ is an illustrative example for a more detailed consideration of the Russian cultural influence on the space of Belarusian cities. Although it is currently a typical regional center in eastern Belarus, at certain points in time Mahiloŭ played an important role in the region and was the stage for pivotal historical events. It was here that Russian Empress Catherine II and Emperor Joseph of Austria-Hungary convened, shaping the destiny of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by agreeing to its partition among three European powers in the late 18th century. Additionally, in the early 20th century, it served as the headquarters for Nicholas II, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Empire. For a short period in the 1930s, Soviet Mahiloŭ had every chance to become BSSR’s capital. All these processes somehow affected the change of its architectural, urban planning and even toponymic landscapes, since the city was inscribed in various political and, even more importantly, cultural contexts.
Mahiloŭ’s Slavy [Glory] Square, the most central and oldest in the city, which has changed at least 6 names over the approximately 500 years of its existence (Handlovaja [Trade] / Hubiernatarskaya [Governor’s] / Dumskaja [Duma] / Svabody [Freedom] / Savietskaja [Soviet] / Slavy [Glory] Square), has always been in the vortex of urban events, transforming to meet the needs of the era.
Mahiloŭ as Part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Handlovaja Square — the Center for Free Craftsmen and Merchants
The Handlovaja [Trade] Square was first mentioned in 1526 in connection with the construction of the Mahiloŭ «big castle» for defensive purposes due to the aggravation of relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Moscow Principality. The square was located just between the castle and the Nahorny Pasad [Mountain Throne], while streets diverging from it indicated directions to the cities closest to Mahiloŭ — Shklou, Bykhau, Mstislaul and Vilna.
One of the oldest images of Mahiloŭ (1765-1767). A fresco from the Church of St. Stanislaw with a panorama of the city. Link
During the same period, in 1577, Mahiloŭ received the Magdeburg rights, according to which the townspeople were freed from feudal duties, received guarantees for free trade and crafts, and the creation of workshops. Magdeburg rights allowed the city to establish its own authorities: a magistrate and a court. The city hall housing them was erected in the city square and for many years became Mahiloŭ’s main symbol (Kishik, 2015, p. 48).
The town hall was originally built of wood and changed its location several times over its existence. In 1679, a stone city hall was built with the money of wealthy city dwellers. Thus, the ensemble of the main commercial and administrative square of Mahiloŭ gradually took shape.
It is noteworthy that the transition from the 16th to the 17th century marked the golden age of Mahiloŭ, elevating it to the second most significant and flourishing center in the Great Duchy of Lithuania after Vilna. By 1637, Mahiloŭ had achieved parity with the latter in terms of rights and boasted a population of 15,000. The 17th century also heralded a time of cultural and religious blossoming in the city, evidenced by the establishment of the sole Orthodox diocese within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the emergence of the distinctive Mahiloŭ Baroque architectural style (Chernyavskaya, 1973, p. 13).
Mahiloŭ as Part of the Russian Empire: Hubiernatarskaya Square as a Place of Central Government
Belarusian cities «welcomed» the 18th century being part of a new state — the Russian Empire. The process of absorption of the cultural heritage of the Belarusian lands was gradual. However, 3 stages can be identified in it (1772, 1792, and 1795). As a result, all the lands of today’s Belarus were annexed by the Russian Empire. This period coincides with grandiose urban planning transformations, caused not only and not so much by the growth of the cities of the Russian Empire, but also by reasons stemming from the «state policy for socio-economic, ideological and cultural assimilation of the vast territories annexed to Russia: Novorossiya, the Black and Azov Sea regions, the Crimea and the Baltic States, as well as the Belarusian territory» (Chanturia, 2020, p. 177).
A few years after the first partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1772), Mahiloŭ became the center of the province, which gave impetus to certain urban planning processes. The city’s transformation began with the main commercial and administrative square of the city — the Handlovaja (Trade) Square. According to the project, the flat wedge-shaped section of the market was to feature two-story buildings: houses of the vice-governor and his advisers, a building combining the functions of a court, medical administration and archive, as well as a building for public offices. This new urban planning ensemble was supposed to emphasize Mahiloŭ’s new status as a provincial center (Kishik, 2015, p. 150). At the same time, the name of the square was changed from Handlovaja to Hubiernatarskaya [Governor’s].
During the Classicist era, the square underwent significant transformations, characterized mainly by the introduction of a geometric layout and distinct ensemble features. However, most importantly, reconstruction led to a profound shift in both the square’s purpose and the roles of surrounding buildings, reflecting the domestic policy agenda of the new ruling state (Chanturia, 2020, p. 403).
The free city of Mahiloŭ, which for a long time had the city hall encompassing a magistrate and a shopping arcade at its heart, turned into a regular provincial city with a standard set of buildings typical of any other provincial center of the Russian Empire. Urban planning transformations, of course, went beyond the city center. They impacted its entire structure: ancient city streets were straightened and expanded. As a result, the city’s medieval structure gradually adjusted to the classicist vision communicated by Saint Petersburg, the new political center.
Hubernatarskaya Square with the town hall, governor’s palace and ruins of Mahiloŭ Castle in the foreground (fragment) Drawing by M. Lvov, 1800. Link
Mahiloŭ under the Soviet Rule: Creating a New Square for the New Capital
At the dawn of the 20th century Mahiloŭ became one of the centers of the Russian Empire (after Petrograd and Moscow), where the fate of the revolution was decided. Specifically, during the First World War, the city hosted the headquarters of the Supreme Commander and Emperor Nicholas II. As a result of the struggle that began between supporters of the old (Imperial) and new (Soviet) authorities, the headquarters failed to evacuate to Kiev, and in November 1917 the Mahiloŭ Council recognized the Soviet government. After the end of the First World War, in 1919, a manifesto was announced in Smolensk on the establishment of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Byelorussia (BSSR), which included the Mahiloŭ province, and Hubiernatarskaja square was renamed to Savetskaja [Soviet].
As a result of the long process of formation of Soviet Belarus in the 1920s and 1930s, during which the administrative borders of districts, regions, and the republic as such were constantly redrawn, Mahiloŭ changed its status several times, first being a center of a province in the Homiel district, then the center of the Mahiloŭ district, and later the county. Finally, in 1938, Mahiloŭ became the center of a region, which included 21 districts (Architecture of Belarus: Encyclopedic Reference Book, 1993, p. 275).
The new era and the ambitions of the young Soviet state called for a completely different city size and urban scale. Furthermore, the domestic and international political situation developed in a way that gave Mahiloŭ every chance to become BSSR’s next capital. Following conclusion the Riga Peace Treaty in 1921, BSSR’s western border split the ethnic territory inhabited by Belarusians into two parts, while the state border with Poland happened to be a mere 30 km away from Minsk, BSSR’s capital city. Given the strained relations with capitalist Poland, on December 2, 1937, BSSR’s government requested Moscow’s permission to shift the capital from Miensk to Mahiloŭ.
In connection with that, in early 1939, the Belgosproject Institute crafted a socialist redesign plan for Mahiloŭ, guided by the BSSR Council of People’s Commissars’ resolution from March 17, 1938. This plan aimed to preserve the city’s historic fabric while «radically modernizing its urban grid of streets and squares», as outlined by Elizarov (2011, p. 10). The plan envisioned laying a new transport axis in the latitudinal direction (today Mira [Peace] Avenue), north of the historical center, and creation of a new Lenin Square, which was assigned a new administrative role in the future capital. The old Savietskaja Square was too small to represent the new government bodies and consisted of layers from different eras, sometimes too contradictory in relation to the new socialist ideology. Establishment of a new city center with a multi-story building for the Soviet government and a monument to Lenin put an end to the leading role of the square by the castle, which in different centuries had been a symbol of the city’s economic thriving, and later of its integration into the political system of the Russian Empire and subordinacy to St. Petersburg.
Nevertheless, according to the draft master plan, the historical center was to be rebuilt, while its architectural dominants of the late 16th- early 20th century, that is, the ensemble of the Handlovaja/ Hubiernatarskaja/ Savetskaja Square (featuring the city hall, governor’s house, provincial government, city council and archive), Bishop’s Palace, temples (of the Epiphany, Three Saints, Resurrection and Nicholas) and churches (of St. Anthony and St. Stanislav) were to be demolished, as they were deemed incompatible with a «model socialist city-center of the BSSR» (Elizarov, 2011, p. 10). In line with the era’s penchant for grandiosity, Savetskaja Square was intended to be replaced with a new one, two to three times larger. This expansion was to accommodate a major thoroughfare, linking Lenin Square—the new city center—with the emerging residential districts across the Dnieper in Liupalava/ Zadniaprouje.
Despite the support of the USSR leadership, the transfer of the capital to Mahiloŭ progressed very slowly due to insufficient resources (for instance, Mahiloŭ received a little more than 20 out of the originally requested 350 million rubles), as well as the reluctance of the Minsk bureaucrats to change their fairly well-established way of life (Elizarov, 2011, pp. 6-7).
In 1939, following annexation of Western Belarus to BSSR, its border moved to the west, and Minsk turned out to be in the center of the republic. Thus, the issue of moving the capital to Mahiloŭ became irrelevant. Even before the war, having undergone serious destruction of historical, primarily religious heritage in the process of transformation of a «provincial» city into a «capital», Mahiloŭ did not become the new capital of BSSR.
Plan of the Hubernatarskaya Square with adjacent blocks (reconstruction), 1890, Link
The plan of Savetskaya Square from the general plan of Mahiloŭ, developed by Belgosproekt, 1939, Link
Post-War Mahiloŭ: Restoration/ Destruction of the Square and its New Ideological Meaning
After the Second World War, despite the city being largely in ruins, a significant number of historical buildings in the center remained intact. A special commission established in 1944 acknowledged the need for their post-war reconstruction.
Soviet Square in the 1950s The buildings that survived the war will soon be demolished. Photo from the archive of Yu. Chanturia. Link
Even though Miensk retained its metropolitan status, some ambitious projects in Mahiloŭ were still implemented. For example, the Lenin Square ensemble with the House of Soviets (now the Mahiloŭ Regional Executive Committee) and the NKVD building with an internal prison (now the Belarusian-Russian University). Yet, most importantly, the pre-war general plan for Mahiloŭ fostered a lasting disregard for the city center’s heritage in the decades to come.
The new general plan for the restoration and reconstruction of Mahiloŭ in 1947-50, developed by the Belgosproekt Institute, among other things, provided for the reconstruction of Savietskaja Square and the buildings located in it, as well as its inclusion in the city’s recreation area and cessation of traffic there. Unfortunately, reconstruction also implied demolition of historical buildings, for instance, the Epiphany Fraternal Monastery, which, although damaged during the war, was supposed to be restored. In the end, the monastery was demolished in 1957. Despite being designated as an architectural monument with restoration plans in place before 1953, Mahiloŭ City Hall was demolished for 10 thousand rubles to «clear Savietskaja Square of buildings deemed valueless.» (Resolution No. 469, 1956). Right after the war, plans were made for imposing high-rise blocks in the neoclassical style that was popular at the time to replace the destroyed buildings. Yet, between 1952 and 1955, these were substituted with standard five-story buildings instead. The location of the former city hall was quickly developed with a Ferris wheel, colloquially termed by Mahiloŭ’s residents as the ’Devil’s Wheel«.
Thus, in the course of post-war restoration Mahiloŭ’s old-time outlook was gradually bulldozed. The city received nothing outstanding in return and gradually turned into an ordinary regional center of the USSR.
In 1982, the former site of the medieval market’s shopping arcade and the later-developed, war-ravaged public buildings of Hubernatarskaya Square were replaced with the «To Fighters for Soviet Rule» memorial complex. This site was heralded as «an artistic representation of the people’s revolutionary, military, and labor achievements throughout their fight for Soviet governance» (An Overview of Historical Monuments and Belarusian Culture. Mahiloŭ region, 1986, p. 39). The figure of a woman symbolizing victory was chosen as the altitude and semantic dominant of the complex. The construction of such an openly ideological monument in the square called Savietskaja created «... a valuable integral „node of symbols“ that conveyed to the visitors a fairly clear, one-sided message using visual, aesthetic, technical, discursive and other means» (Chepaitene, 2010, p. 245).
The choice of this location for Mahiloŭ’s new symbol was deliberate: the memorial complex, perched on the elevated bank of the Dnieper River, has emerged as a key focal point in the city’s landscape, serving both symbolic and navigational purposes.
The issue of reviving another symbol of the square — the Mahiloŭ City Hall — was first raised within less than 20 years following demolition of this architectural monument. And already in the late 1970s and early 1980s, archaeologists A. Trusov and I. Chernyavskaya conducted archaeological studies of its foundations and the area around them to draft the necessary rationale for the architectural restoration of the city’s symbol. Based on these and other studies, a project for the historical reconstruction of the Mahiloŭ City Hall was developed.
The idea of restoring the city hall strangely echoed the public mood that prevailed in the second half of the 1980s. At that time freedom was in the air and everyone had a feeling that changes were soon to come. Thus, the foundations of the city hall became the place of unauthorized rallies in Mahiloŭ for a good reason. The dreams of reviving the city’s symbol coincided in time and space with the dream of national revival. Meanwhile, Savetskaya Square again became a place where priority issues of both city and national scale were resolved with the citizen’s participation.
An unauthorized rally in the 1990s in Savetskaya Square. Source: screenshot of the Belsat documentary «Mahiloŭ Democrats»
Mahiloŭ in Independent Belarus: In Search of a New Identity
In 1992, following Belarus’ independence, the restoration of the city hall garnered support from S. Gabrusev, the inaugural democratic chairman of the Mahiloŭ City Executive Committee. That same year marked the ceremonial laying of the building’s cornerstone. Unfortunately, due to the lack of funds, construction did not go beyond the zero cycle. Furthermore, the leadership of the city executive committee changed, alongside an overall power shift in the country, and the restoration project, which was associated with S. Gabrusev’s endeavors, turned out to be low-priority and even dangerous for the new nomenclature.
Nevertheless, thanks to the caring citizens, as well as the cultural community of Mahiloŭ, the city administration supported the idea of restoring the town hall, and in 2004-2005, project works began to reconstruct this historic building. Finally, in July 2008, grand opening of the restored city symbol took place (Pushkin, Ageev, 2017, pp. 158-165).
Interestingly, the same period when the city «gave a green light» to restoration of one of the main architectural symbols in the Savietskaja Square, saw the launch of the process of its deeper rethinking. So, in 2005, at the initiative of the city authorities, discussions began on renaming Savietskaja Square to Heroes Square. Representatives of the Mahiloŭ Oblast Executive Committee expressed the idea that the title " Savietskaja" no longer corresponds to modernity and, thus, needs replacement. But the underlying motive for this initiative was the upcoming grand commemoration in 2005, marking the victory of the Soviet Union—and by extension, Belarus—in the Great Patriotic War. The idea arose among veteran activists that Mahiloŭ should be awarded the title of Hero City for its defense in 1941. Sure enough, the question arose who was entitled to decide upon this and on whose behalf the city should be awarded, because the Soviet Union had ceased existence more than two decades ago. Could it have been Moscow as the former center of the Soviet state? But this would only emphasize the already dominant role of Russia in Belarus’ cultural and ideological field (Ustinovich, 2005).
When the ambitious plan to award Mahiloŭ failed, the Veterans Council came up with another initiative — renaming Savietskaja Square into Heroes Square and installing 115 busts of Heroes of the Soviet Union. Neither did this idea receive support from the city authorities or activists. It was not even presented to the general public, like many other issues related to the city’s toponymic heritage.
The urbanistic review of the square went alongside infusing it with meaningful conceptual elements. Thus, in 2009, at the initiative of the Sokolinaya Gora district of Moscow (a so-called twin city of Mahiloŭ) a bust of the last emperor of the Russian Empire, Nicholas II, was cast and presented to Mahiloŭ. Mahiloŭ authorities suggested installing it in the viscinity of the Savetskaya Square, where his headquarters was located during the First World War. But, as it turned out from public surveys, the attitude of Mahiloŭ residents to the Russian autocrat was ambiguous, so the bust had to be hidden in the museum «to avoid vandalism» (Back to Mahiloŭ... 2013).
The dust settled only for a while, as in 2017 the idea of honoring the place where, in a sense, the fate of the Russian Empire was decided, was brought up again. «In one of the city’s most historic squares, in front of the town hall a commemorative plaque honoring the headquarters was installed. It can be assumed that this was a kind of a compromise for installing a monument to Nicholas II. It’s important to highlight that the last emperor’s legacy was already integrated into the square’s symbolic landscape. This is evident since 2008, when the temple dedicated to the Holy Royal Martyrs and all New Martyrs of the 20th century was consecrated within the former Mahiloŭ castle are, forming a unified space with Savetskaya Square. There is a long story behind implementation of this memorial church to Nicholas II and his family. It reflects the ideological confrontation between supporters of different views on the history of Mahiloŭ, a city that was part of both European and Russian history.
The idea of erecting a church in Savetskaya Square was first proposed by the inaugural chairman of the Mahiloŭ City Executive Committee, Gabrusev. The church was intended as a tribute to the victims of Stalinism, aligning with the societal drive in the 1990s to reassess its dramatic past. Some priests even voiced the idea of replacing the memorial to the «Fighters for Soviet Rule» with a symbolic church. Surely enough, for many citizens, primarily war veterans, this was too radical a step, so the choice fell on the castle. However, this time, historians and those well-versed in the city’s past objected to construction atop a medieval castle with a rich cultural layer. Their resistance led to the gradual abandonment of the plan.
However, in the early 2000s, as discussions about restoring Mahiloŭ’s city hall gained momentum, Orthodox activists revived the proposal to construct a church within the castle grounds. This time, however, the concept was reimagined to honor Nicholas II and the tragically slain royal family. It is hard to determine if there was a strategic intent to claim the historical center’s territory and lead the initiative. However, the development of Savetskaya Square has long been a point of contention among influences from various epochs — Ancient Europe, Imperial Russia, and the Soviet era — each vying for the city’s identity. However, in 2004 the Department of Historical and Cultural Heritage Protection allowed the construction of a church on Castle Hill, conditional upon mandatory archaeological research.
Unfortunately, mutual understanding and constructive cooperation between the archaeological group, the builders of the church and their Orthodox patrons did not work out. Thus, due to numerous violations during construction, the cultural layer of one of the oldest parts of Mahiloŭ was irretrievably damaged, which resulted in the launch of a criminal case (Neurido, 2007). In 2014, after several years of construction, the church was consecrated.
That same year, in connection with the reconstruction of Savietskaja Square, the Mahiloŭ City Executive Committee voiced the idea to rename it Slavy [Glory] Square. Taking advantage of the opportunity to be heard, the Mahiloŭ public association «People’s Magistrate» appealed to the executive committee with its proposal — not to rush to change the name, but to hold a local referendum so that the residents of Mahiloŭ would express their opinion about the future name. Moreover, the «People’s Magistrate» offered its own version — Ratushnaja [City Hall] Square. However, the city residents’ opinions were ignored, and Savietskaja Square was renamed Slavy Square. This was announced by Chairman of the Mahiloŭ City Executive Committee V. Tsumarev during the official celebration of Independence Day. The square was not only renamed, but also gained new symbolic elements: the reconstruction ushered in numerous red and green flags, symbolizing the state’s claim over the space.
However, this right has been challenged more than once, for example, during the protests of 2020, when the main square of Mahiloŭ again, as in the 1990s, became a place of manifestation of public activity of Mahiloŭ residents, and hundreds of white-red-white flags fluttered on it.
Conclusion
The considered example of Mahiloŭ’s oldest square reflects the dynamic shifts in its physical form and symbolic content, mirroring the historical eras it has witnessed — Middle Ages, Modern Times, Contemporary Times — and its affiliation with various states, including the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian Empire, BSSR/USSR, and Belarus. The provided examples not only illustrate the transformation of the square’s urban planning, architecture, and cityscape due to the policies of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, but also highlight the ongoing reevaluation in the Republic of Belarus — both independent and influenced — where echoes of a deep-rooted, interdependent history with the former metropole and its capital, Moscow, persist.
Mahiloŭ’s central square, much like Belarusian society, is experiencing an extended period of transformation and transition, grappling with its historical legacy as it navigates the complex choice between European, Russian, Soviet, and Belarusian identities.
Annex
Sources:
Mallard, T. (2023, September 7). Damaged cultural sites in Ukraine verified by UNESCO. UNESCO.
Access mode: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/damaged-cultural-sites-ukraine-verified-unesco
Access date: September 10, 2023Todorova, M. (2009). Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Access mode: https://amper.ped.muni.cz/~jonas/knihy/03_globalni_svet_umeni_a_politika_identity/Maria%20Todorova,%20Imagining%20the%20Balkans.pdf
Дата доступу: 1 верасня 2023Quijano, A. (2007) Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality Cultural Studies, 21:2, pp. 168-178.
Access mode: https://pybarra.weebly.com/uploads/6/8/7/0/687099/__quijano_coloniality_and_modernity_rationality.pdf
Access date: September 1, 2023Architecture of Belarus: an Encyclopedic Reference Book (1993). Minsk: Belarusian Encyclopedia Publishing House n. a. Petrus Brovka. Editors: A. Voinau et al.
Gabrus, T., Kulagin, A., Chanturia, Yu., Tkachev, M. (2003). The Lost Legacy. Minsk: Belarus.
Gordziejew, J. (2017). Urbanonymic Discourse in Post-Soviet Belarus. Acta Baltico Slavica. Polska – Litwa – Białoruś. Historia, która dzieli i łączy. Vol. 41, pp. 212-250.
Access mode: https://www.academia.edu/37861791/%D0%A3%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%96%D0%BC%D1%96%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%B4%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81_%D1%83_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%96
Access date: August 30, 2023Elizarov, S. (2011) Mahiloŭ as the Capital of the BSSR: A Project That Was Not Implemented Belarusian Historical Journal No. 5, pp. 6-10.
Access mode: https://elib.gstu.by/bitstream/handle/220612/27122/6-10.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
Access date: September 1, 2023Collection of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Belarus. Mahiloŭ region (1986) Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, Institute of Art, Ethnography and Folklore. Edited by Marcelev , S. (chief editor) and others. Minsk: Belarusian Encyclopedia Publishing House n. a. Petrus Brovka.
Kazakevich, A. (2011). The symbolism of the place: The forgetting and fragmentation of the "Soviet" in the landscape of Minsk. The Untouchable Reserve: A Debate About Politics and Culture. № 6(80).
Access mode: https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/neprikosnovennyy_zapas/80_nz_6_2011/article/18467/
Access date: September 3, 2023Kishik, Yu. (2015). The Belarusian City. Minsk: Belarus.
KM (2016, June 20). Kravtsevich, A.: the monument to Alexander Nevsky in Viciebsk is an expansion of the "Russian world". Radio Free Europe
Lakotka, A. (1997) Belarusians. Volume 2: Architecture. Institute of Art, Ethnography and Folklore. Minsk: Technology.
Lukashuk, Z. (2015, June 8). The scandalous poem on the bust of Pushkin was approved by Mahiloŭ officials. Euroradio
Neurida, D. (2007, July). Bulldozed History. Our Mahiloŭ.
Access mode: https://pdf.kamunikat.org/download.php?item=12399-1.pdf
Access date: September 7, 2023Pushkin, I., Ageev, A. (2017). The Civil Society and the State. The Formation of the Belarusian Self-Governance Mahiloŭ: BGUT.
Access mode: https://www.bgut.by/sites/default/files/userfiles/EF/GD/files/85-2017_ageeu_a_r_pushkin_i_a_gram_supolnasc_2017_03.pdf
Access date: September 5, 2023Radio Free Europe (2013, November 1). There is a debate in Mahiloŭ again: is it worth honoring the memory of Tsar Nicholas II?
Resolution No. 469 (1956, July 20). of the Executive Committee of the Mahiloŭ City Council of Workers' Deputies "On the demolition of the city hall tower in Sovetskaya Square" Mahiloŭ History Archive.
Access mode: https://mogilev-history.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
Access date: September 1, 2023Sorkina, I. (2010). Towns of Belarus in the late XVIII-first half of the XIX century. Vilnius, EHU.
Ustinovich, M. (2005, December 25). Sovetskaya Square in Mahiloŭ will be given a new name, but not a historical one Radio Free Europe
Firinovich, A. (2010). The regulatory framework of the relations of the Government of the Russian Empire to the Roman Catholic Church in the 60s of the 19th century. The history of religions in Ukraine: A scientific yearbook Book I, pp. 845-852.
Access mode: https://www.religio.org.ua/index.php/religio/article/view/1359/1359
Дата доступу: 5 верасня 2023Chanturia, Y. (2020). The Belarusian Urban Planning Art: Medieval Heritage, Renaissance, Baroque, Classicism in the System of European Architecture. Minsk: Belarusian Science.
Chernyavskaya, T. (1973). The Architecture of Mahiloŭ. From the History of Planning and Development of the City. Minsk: Science and Technology.
Chepaitene, R. (2010). Cultural Heritage in the Global World. Vilnius: EHU.
Chernyavskaya, Yu. (2011). The most Soviet of all Soviet ... The Inviolable Reserve, No. 4.
Access mode: http://www.intelros.ru/readroom/nz/neprikosnovennyj-zapas-78-42011/11235-samaya-sovetskaya-iz-vsex-sovetskix.html
Access date: September 10, 2023
