Why the Monument to Minin and Pozharsky Was Moved: Its Location and the Excavations

The monument to Minin and Pozharsky originally stood in the central part of Red Square, opposite the entrance to the Upper Trading Rows. In the summer of 1931, it was moved towards St Basil’s Cathedral because its former position obstructed demonstrations and parades. Excavations in 2021 near the present pedestal showed that traces of old paving survived at the new site and that builders reused carved white-stone elements when constructing the foundation. The archaeological finds do not, by themselves, reveal how the sculpture was transported.

The history of the monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow encompasses Martos’s choice of site, its unveiling in 1818, its relocation in 1931 and excavations near its present foundation. Archaeological evidence helps us study the site, but does not reconstruct the route taken to move the monument.

Why a monument intended for Nizhny Novgorod was erected in Moscow

Funds were initially raised for a monument in Nizhny Novgorod, but in 1811, at the request of the sculptor Ivan Martos, a decision was made to erect it in Moscow. The plan was to commemorate the events associated with Nizhny Novgorod with an obelisk. The dedication to Minin and Pozharsky remained, but Moscow was chosen as the site for the monument.

According to the State Historical Museum’s historical account, the idea for the monument arose among members of the Free Society of Lovers of Literature, Science and the Arts in 1803. By 1804, Martos had prepared a plan for the future monument; according to the museum’s chronology, he made the first model later. In 1808, the Academy of Arts held a competition at the initiative of Nizhny Novgorod residents; the sculptor’s revised design won. From 1 January 1809, engravings depicting the proposed monument were sent to the provinces together with an announcement inviting subscriptions.

This explains why the monument is described as having been funded by public donations. Money was collected over several years, and work continued after 1812. Yet calling it a ‘people’s monument’ should not obscure the sculptor’s decision: Martos proposed placing the future monument in Moscow, the city the militia of 1612 had fought to liberate. The Historical Museum cites the sculptor’s request as the basis for the choice made in 1811.

How the design evolved before installation

Martos conceived the first model before the War of 1812. Stepan Pimenov, Andrey Voronikhin, Feodosy Shchedrin and other artists from the Academy of Arts also took part in the 1808 competition. According to the Historical Museum’s chronology, Martos substantially revised his winning design from the earlier version. The monument therefore cannot be seen as a sudden artistic response to the events of 1812: by then, the project already had a history of competitions, work on the composition and fundraising.

Martos completed the small model by mid-1812 and the large one by early 1815. The sculptural group took its final form after the decision to erect it in Moscow.

The gap between the conception and unveiling of the monument reveals two historical perspectives. It commemorates Minin and Pozharsky as participants in seventeenth-century events, but was completed by a society that had lived through the War of 1812. The museum quotes an early description that links the memory of the two ordeals. This shows how contemporaries understood the work; it does not mean that the two wars are depicted as the same event, or that Minin’s gesture portrays an event of the nineteenth century.

How Ivan Martos chose the site on Red Square

Martos placed the monument in the centre of the square, closer to the Upper Trading Rows and opposite their entrance. Today’s GUM occupies the same side of the square as the former trading rows; the monument now stands farther south, in front of St Basil’s Cathedral.

The museum’s account distinguishes between two decisions: the authorities approved installation on Red Square, while the sculptor chose the exact spot. This distinction matters when interpreting the monument. Its central position made the figures part of the open square and left room around them for a large public ceremony. The façade of the trading rows gave viewers a clear point of reference. Looking only at present-day photographs, one might mistakenly assume that Martos always intended the monument to stand beside the cathedral wall.

By Historical Museum’s chronology, the decision to place the monument on Red Square was accompanied by approval of an inscription honouring Minin and Pozharsky and bearing the date 1818. The source reads ‘In the year 1818’, while a historical and cultural heritage assessment report gives the variant ‘in the year of 1818’. This difference in the transcription of the inscription does not change the chronology: the date refers to the monument’s unveiling, not its relocation towards the cathedral in 1931.

Why today’s GUM was not the backdrop to the monument’s original setting

In 1818, the old Upper Trading Rows stood opposite the monument, with a neoclassical façade by Osip Bove. The present GUM building came later. According to GUM’s own history, Alexander Pomerantsev won the competition to design the new trading rows in 1889, and they opened on 2 December 1893. The old buildings were demolished beforehand. Today’s GUM therefore helps identify which side of the square held the monument’s original site, but it does not reproduce the façade that Martos used as a point of reference when choosing the location.

Two different changes to the square can become conflated in our memory. In the late nineteenth century, the architecture on the trading side changed; in 1931, the sculpture itself was moved. When comparing an old drawing with today’s view, one should not expect to find the arcades and glass roofs of the later shopping arcade in an image from 1818. The museum’s description, ‘opposite the entrance to the trading rows’, remains a valuable guide: it points towards the monument’s former position, even though the façade along that side was later rebuilt.

What the figures and reliefs conveyed

In historical and cultural expert assessment Martos’s explanation is quoted: Minin takes Pozharsky by the hand and points towards Moscow, while the prince prepares to rise. The shield and sword unite the two figures in a single action. This is an artistic image of a call to action and a shared purpose, rather than a documentary reconstruction of their meeting. Understanding the sculptor’s intentions helps us appreciate how the open square and the direction of Minin’s gesture worked together in the original setting.

The relief on the front of the pedestal depicts donations to the militia; the one on the back shows the expulsion of the enemy. According to the Historical Museum, a pupil of Martos depicted the sculptor and his sons among the donors. Including his own family links the seventeenth-century subject to the period when the monument was created; it does not make the scene a literal record of those involved. The bronze group survived the move in 1931, but its relationship with the surrounding façades changed.

What happened when the monument was unveiled in 1818

The monument was unveiled on 20 February 1818 according to the Old Style calendar, or 4 March according to the New Style calendar. Alexander I and members of the imperial family attended the ceremony, and a guards parade passed in front of the monument. This detail makes its later relocation a particularly telling change in how the square was used: a ceremonial procession accompanied the sculpture’s unveiling, while regular mass events in the twentieth century required its original site to be cleared.

During restoration, the museum found traces on the pedestal where metal numerals reading ‘1817’ had been attached. Specialists linked them to a plan to unveil the monument earlier; the ceremony itself took place in 1818. The trace of the earlier date is valuable as evidence that the plan changed, not as a reason to date the unveiling a year earlier. The source also says that the emperor’s expected visit to Moscow did not take place at that time.

How the large sculptural group was made and delivered

Preparing the monument for its original installation involved two major pieces of workshop craftsmanship. On 5 August 1816, Vasily Yekimov cast the bronze group, about 4.5 metres high, in a single pour from a wax model in St Petersburg. An account by Martos himself, published by the Historical Museum, describes how the mould ruptured and some molten metal escaped; the craftsmen stopped the leak and completed the casting. This detail reveals the technical risk hidden behind the monument’s finished surface.

Samson Sukhanov made the pedestal from three granite monoliths quarried in Vyborg Governorate. On 21 May 1817, the bronze and stone were sent by water from St Petersburg to Moscow. The cargo passed through Nizhny Novgorod, where it received a ceremonial welcome, and arrived at Krasnokholmsky Bridge on 3 September. The places where the monument was made and the route by which it was delivered remind us that the spot Martos chose on the square was only the final stage of a project many years in the making.

That same day, Stepan Degtyaryov’s oratorio ‘Minin and Pozharsky, or the Liberation of Moscow’ was performed at the Assembly of the Nobility. The ceremony on the square was followed by music in another hall in the city.

Why the monument was moved in the summer of 1931

The Historical Museum explains that the monument was moved to clear the central part of Red Square for demonstrations and parades. In the summer of 1931, it was moved from the Upper Trading Rows towards the façade of St Basil’s Cathedral, where it stands today. Establishing precisely how and along which route it was moved would require a separate documentary source: the museum’s chronology confirms the reason, the year and the two locations, but does not describe every technical step of the operation.

The question of where the monument to Minin and Pozharsky originally stood can therefore be answered by comparing landmarks. Its former site was closer to the trading rows, roughly in the middle of the square; its present site is beside the cathedral at the southern end. A written description alone is not enough to mark the precise outline of the first foundation on today’s paving. That would require plans and measurements.

The move changed how the sculpture is seen. In the nineteenth century, the figures stood in the middle of the square, where viewers could walk around them against a succession of façades. Beside the cathedral, they came into closer proximity to one of Moscow’s most recognisable buildings. This follows from comparing the two documented locations; it is not a claim about Martos’s intentions in 1931, as the sculptor had died almost a century before the move.

The Historical Museum explains the reason for the move, while the Russian Historical Society reports that the structure was damaged during the move. Both accounts matter, but neither describes how the move was carried out. They establish the reason for the 1931 decision and one of its consequences without attributing to the workers a particular method of transport that the sources do not mention.

The structural damage sustained during the move should not be confused with the later corrosion of the internal framework. Restorers linked that corrosion to moisture trapped in the moulding material, which caused the iron inside the bronze shell to deteriorate. The account of the move helps trace the monument’s conservation history, but it does not replace a technical diagnosis.

What archaeologists found beneath the present pedestal

Beneath the granite pedestal lies a substantial foundation built when the monument was moved in 1930–1931. In its rubble fill, archaeologists found reused architectural elements made of white stone, including parts of columns and carved decoration. They provide physical evidence of how the builders made the new foundation, but do not establish where each stone came from.

The Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences reportedthat, in May–June 2021, an expedition led by Leonid Belyaev investigated 151 square metres beside the monument. The work took place before a pavilion was installed for the restoration and reached depths of 25 to 108 centimetres. Even this shallow excavation exposed the upper part of the foundation and the adjacent layers of the square.

Archaeologists described moulded blocks, a column base, a capital and fragments of ornamental cornices. They date broadly from the 16th to the 18th century; researchers associate some pieces with earlier architecture. One possible source is buildings in the Moscow Kremlin dismantled in the 1920s. The authors of the report present this connection as a hypothesis. They record no inscriptions or other evidence that would securely identify the building from which each fragment came.

What makes the discovery striking is that a 20th-century foundation contains parts of much older structures. The age of a reused block is not the age of the new foundation. It shows what material the builders used when moving the monument, not when the monument was erected or where its original foundation stood.

What the carved stones can tell us

Some fragments retain dentils — small rectangular projections beneath a cornice — as well as oval and leaf motifs. The carving shows that these are architectural elements, not random building rubble. Researchers attribute them to different buildings and allow for a broad date range from the 16th to the 18th century. Their presence in the same rubble fill does not mean they once decorated a single façade: the material could have come from several demolished buildings.

The expedition compares individual details with architecture from the reigns of Ivan III, Vasily III and Ivan IV. It presents a possible link to Kremlin buildings dismantled in the 1920s as a hypothesis. Similarities in the carving help researchers discuss dates and architectural parallels, but do not identify where each stone came from. Records of the material’s removal, or an exact match between a fragment and a known building, would provide stronger grounds for such an attribution; neither appears in the published report.

This is the key distinction between the discovery of the foundation and an urban legend. Archaeologists did find reused carved masonry in the foundation at the monument’s new location. They did not find a documented ‘foundation of the ancient Kremlin’, nor did they trace every block back to the place where it was removed. The lack of a precise provenance does not diminish the find: it offers direct evidence of building practices during the monument’s relocation.

Which historic pavements survived near the monument

Near the present pedestal, the expedition found two early 19th-century pavements at different levels. They were built differently. One uses rounded cobbles laid in a geometric pattern that the researchers likened to parquet; the other consists of split stone on a bed of sand. These surfaces help reveal what the square looked like before later alterations.

The researchers compared the excavated sections with engravings from the 1820s–1850s, early photographs and images of Soviet parades. Before the excavation, paving of this kind was thought to have been lost or was known only from small fragments. The find beside the cathedral, however, does not pinpoint the monument’s former position opposite the shopping arcades. It reveals the history of the part of the square to which the monument was moved in 1931.

How the two pavements differ

Archaeologists called the rounded-cobble pavement ‘parquet’ because of its geometric pattern. Stones measuring 25–30 centimetres are laid in squares and diagonals, with smaller stones measuring 7–12 centimetres filling the gaps. This paving rested directly on the ground. The second layer consists of split stone on a deep bed of sand. The two differ in both their surface patterns and the construction beneath them, leading researchers to identify two separate phases of work.

According to the report by the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the split-stone pavement may date to around 1804, while the patterned one may date from after the fire of 1812. The authors put question marks beside these dates; they cannot be treated as exact years of construction. The second layer’s proximity in date to the monument’s unveiling in 1818 does not prove that the pavement was laid specifically for the ceremony. The excavation was beside the present foundation, whereas the monument originally stood opposite the shopping arcades.

For comparison, the researchers used an 1825 engraving based on a drawing by Auguste Cadolle, a photograph of the square from 1856 and Arkady Shaikhet’s 1924 photograph of a cyclists’ parade. The images show the stone pattern in the setting of the square, while the excavation reveals how the paving was built and how its layers relate to one another. Taken before the monument was moved, the 1924 photograph records the paving as it appeared in the early 20th century. None of these images replaces archaeological observation, but together they offer a more reliable reconstruction of the surface than a single later photograph.

The 2021 publication merely raised the possibility of recreating the historic paving near the monument. It did not say that the excavated site would be opened to visitors. The finding is that the research established the existence of old pavements previously known mainly from images and small fragments. A claim that passers-by today can see the very cobbles laid in 1818 would require a fresh examination of the paving after the restoration work.

How the area by the cathedral was improved before the monument’s unveiling

The account of the history of St Basil’s Cathedral on the State Historical Museum website dates significant work around the building to 1817: wooden stalls and booths were removed, and the ground was levelled. This shows that the area where the monument would later stand was changing during the very years when it was being made and brought to Moscow, although it was then intended for another location on the square.

The museum’s account provides context for the archaeologists’ hypothesis that paving was laid after the fire of 1812. Between the war and the monument’s unveiling, the city was improving the square and the approaches to the cathedral. But the museum’s date for those improvements does not document the laying of the particular ‘parquet’ pavement found in the 2021 excavation: its description of the work does not mention paving. Attributing that section precisely would require a building record, a plan or other independent evidence linking the excavated paving to the levelling of the area in 1817.

What earlier finds reveal, and the limits of their interpretation

The excavation yielded fragments of 12th- and 13th-century pottery, decorative tiles associated with the history of St Basil’s Cathedral, and everyday objects from later centuries. Their presence shows that the site has many historical layers. It does not mean the sculpture stood here in ancient times: the monument was placed at its present location in 1931.

The Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences also notes the remains of buildings overlying the old pavements. The authors suggest that construction of these buildings may have brought ancient pottery closer to the surface. This explanation fits the observed sequence of layers; the publication does not establish exactly when each fragment was moved.

The white-stone architectural pieces in the foundation and the two pavements answer different questions. The former reveal building practices at the time of the move; the latter show how the square was paved beforehand. The ancient pottery points to an earlier phase of activity at the site. Treating all three groups of finds as a single ‘mystery of the monument’ would obscure how each came to be in the excavation and how much can be established about it.

Why ancient material was found in an upper layer

Large fragments of 12th- and 13th-century pottery were found between the pavements and in the upper centimetres of the disturbed archaeological layer. Researchers suggest that later building work may have shifted the soil, bringing these ancient objects so close to the surface. The age of a vessel and the age of the layer into which it was later deposited are different things. A single pottery fragment therefore cannot establish that the entire excavated area was a 13th-century Moscow surface.

The same group of finds included architectural tiles associated with the history of St Basil’s Cathedral and everyday objects from the 16th to the 19th centuries. They speak to the use of the surrounding area at different times, but do not suggest that the monument itself has ancient origins. The expedition’s authors reported that the finds had been transferred to the museum at St Basil’s Cathedral. This indicates that the objects would be preserved and studied, not that every one would go on permanent display.

The excavation covered 151 square metres, with a planned depth of 25 to 108 centimetres. The work was limited to preparations for the restoration pavilion. Its conclusions therefore concern the area examined beside the monument’s present foundation, not the whole of Red Square. The excavation offered a rare opportunity to study the area’s upper layers, but it did not produce an exact map of every lost building or a technical account of the first foundation opposite the shopping arcades.

How restoration helped reveal the monument’s history

The 2021–2022 restoration took place at the monument’s present location. A heated pavilion was built for the restorers; on 13 January 2022, the sculptural group was lifted from its pedestal and moved onto a worktable inside the pavilion. This allowed the metal and the base to be examined without taking the monument away from Red Square.

Why the restoration workshop was set up on the square

The State Historical Museum chose to carry out the work on site to avoid the risk of damaging the bronze group in transit. Before the pavilion was built, archaeologists examined the area beside the pedestal; preparations for the restoration prompted the 2021 excavation.

The State Historical Museum announced that restoration of both reliefs was complete; specialists also repaired Pozharsky’s helmet and restored its missing ear guard.

What exactly was damaged inside the bronze

In report by the Russian Historical Society dated 1 November 2022, based on materials from the Ministry of Culture, explains the hidden danger. Remnants of the iron framework used in casting had corroded and expanded, deforming the bronze shell. The moulding compound retained moisture and intensified the process. This is a more precise explanation than the impression that restoration was needed merely to refresh the patina or regild the lettering.

Restorers removed 172 kilograms of moulding compound from Minin’s figure and 282 kilograms from Pozharsky’s: 454 kg in total. The museum’s figure of more than 500 kg refers to the filling material and corroded framework taken together. Once the composition of the removed material is taken into account, the two figures do not conflict. The restorers also reinforced the plinth with stiffening ribs and replaced the pads where the sculptural group rests on the pedestal. This work was intended to preserve the structure, not to alter the figures’ gestures.

The return of the bronze group to its pedestal on 13 July 2022 marked the end of the main phase of work. Work on the stone, inscription and surrounding area continued. Following the full restoration, the monument was formally unveiled on 31 October 2022, as reported by the Russian Historical Society. Earlier announcements had mentioned November or 4 November; those projected dates should not be mistaken for the date of the ceremony itself. The distinction helps avoid a familiar error in the monument’s chronology: its original unveiling had itself been postponed from 1817 to 1818.

How to read the monument on Red Square in light of this history

St Basil’s Cathedral helps locate the monument to Minin and Pozharsky after its move in 1931: Martos’s bronze group and its granite pedestal stand beside the cathedral in the southern part of Red Square. To picture the original setting, look towards the area opposite the line of the Upper Trading Rows, closer to the middle of the open square. The bronze group was unveiled in 1818; its surroundings changed later.

Excavations in 2021 showed that old paving survives near the present pedestal and that reused stones form part of the monument’s foundation. The publication of photographs of the excavation does not mean these remains are visible on the square. The research gives us a clearer picture of the site and calls for care when describing its ‘original’ appearance.

Keeping four dates distinct

The monument’s history is marked by a sequence of decisions: Moscow was chosen in 1811, Martos’s work was unveiled in 1818, it was moved beside St Basil’s Cathedral in 1931, and the ground around its new foundation was investigated in 2021. Each date answers a different question. The year on the pedestal records the first unveiling, not the age of the white-stone blocks in the foundation. Its present position reflects a twentieth-century decision, although the bronze group dates from the early nineteenth century.

Two landmarks are enough for a visual comparison: the line of the Upper Trading Rows and the façade of St Basil’s Cathedral. The museum’s written description, however, does not provide a surveyed outline of the original site, and today’s GUM has replaced the earlier trading rows. The position of the first pedestal on the present paving can therefore be marked only approximately. This preserves the distinction between a known general location and a precise position that the sources examined do not establish.

The excavation adds a hidden chronology of the site to the visible sculpture: two nineteenth-century paved surfaces, the 1931 foundation and reused carved stonework. Photographs taken by archaeologists do not mean that all these layers can be seen on the square. Distinguishing what is visible from what research has established helps us understand the monument more precisely: where it can be seen, where it once stood and what still needs documentary confirmation.

What is protected in the monument’s present setting

In historical and cultural heritage assessment of Red Square sets out the monument’s protected features under a Ministry of Culture order dated 30 December 2016. Its urban setting characteristics include the monument’s location in the southern part of the area under study. It also lists sightlines from Vasilyevsky Spusk, the Resurrection Gate passage, Kremlyovsky Proyezd, Varvarka Street and Ilyinka Street. The assessment describes the ensemble as it exists after the move, while acknowledging that Martos’s original setting was different.

The same document separately identifies the arrangement of the figures, the shield, the sword, both reliefs and the inscription as artistic features of the monument. When considering its setting, it is therefore useful to distinguish Martos’s surviving work from the changing urban relationships around it. The 2021 archaeological excavation added another point in time: the material beneath the present pedestal. This sequence of decisions across different eras helps explain why the monument’s surroundings today differ from those Martos chose.

The key point is that the move was more than a cosmetic repositioning of the sculpture. It changed the work’s place on the square and required a new foundation, which has itself become a source of historical evidence. Archaeologists do not, however, claim to know exactly which Kremlin buildings each white-stone block came from, and they qualify their dating of the paved surfaces.

Red Square Tour ‘Heart of the Capital’ passes through Vasilyevsky Spusk and past St Basil’s Cathedral. Here, the monument’s present site can be compared with its former position opposite the trading rows, while keeping sight of the distinction between what visitors can see and what the excavations have revealed.

Sources

1. State Historical Museum: Monument to Minin and Pozharsky
2. Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences: 2021 excavations near the Monument to Minin and Pozharsky
3. Excursion "Heart of the Capital"
4. The History of GUM: The Old and New Upper Trading Rows
5. Report on the State Historical and Cultural Assessment of Red Square
6. Historical Museum: the history of St Basil’s Cathedral and the 1817 improvements to the surrounding area
7. Russian Historical Society: completion of the monument’s restoration in 2022