The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Experience of studying monuments of skifo-Sarmatian and early medieval time of mountain Chechnya and Dagestan in the 19th century.



ISTORIYA of the PEOPLE of DON AND NORTH CAUCASUS

© 2005 M.H. Bagayev

EXPERIENCE of STUDYING MONUMENTS of SKIFO-SARMATSKOGO And EARLY MEDIEVAL TIME of MOUNTAIN CHECHNYA AND DAGESTAN In the 19th century

Arkheologo-etnografichesky studying the Northeast Caucasus, as well as all Caucasus, began with the first academic expeditions of the Russian Academy of Sciences to these edges. So, in 1768-1770 the Caucasus was included in number of the territories of the Russian state registered by Academy for complex researches [1, page 13]. Field scientific researches of the first Russian academicians became history of domestic science as a "physical" or "academic" expedition of 1768-1774 [1, page 13]. In forty years, from 1768 to 1808, the Caucasus became an object of researches of three academic expeditions of RAS under the leadership of I.A. Gildenshtedt's academicians, in 1768-1774; Pallas's P.-S. in 1793-1794 [2]; G.Yu. Klaprota in 1807 and 1808 [3]. They collected unique material on history, ethnography, linguistics, folklore and other scientific disciplines. At the same time any of these expeditions did not set archaeological tasks for itself [4, page 25-26]. The thing is that studying archeology even in the RAS began later [5, page 2], than the specified expeditions were conducted. So, only in 1804 for the first time in Russia the Moscow society of history and antiquities is created. And only in 40 years, in 1846, in St. Petersburg the Russian archaeological society, and in 1859 - the Imperial archaeological commission will be organized. In 1864 the Moscow archaeological society was founded [5, page 2].

The first archeological excavations in the North Caucasus were carried out in 1849 by the representative of the Russian archaeological society A. Fir-kovich [4, page 26; 6, page 352]. Bronze and iron objects were found in Chechnya in 1850 at Vozdvizhenskaya's fortress on the river Argun (near the modern village Old Atagi) at construction works [4, page 26]. Archaeological studying Chechnya also begins with these finds [7, page 15]. After that interest in archeological sites of the republic increases in the circle of representatives of scientific organizations of St. Petersburg and Moscow from year to year. So, in 1871 the famous academician-caucasiologist A.P. Berger presented to the II All-Russian archaeological congress a note about archeology of the Caucasus. The worthy place in it was taken by land monuments of stone architecture of Vainakhs [4, page 27]. Similar attention was paid to many ancient and medieval monuments of Chechnya and by preparation and holding the V archaeological congress in Tiflis in 1881. After it more active process of accumulation of archaeological objects began. It became thanks to efforts of representatives St. Petersburg

Academy of Sciences and almost all above-mentioned scientific organizations and the commissions and also employees of the museums, big army of local historians then later collectors redeemed unique archaeological objects from locals. In such way were acquired by the famous Austrian archeologist Fr. Ganchar remarkable archaeological collections I of a millennium BC are the I millennium AD in "the settlement of Chinuhui" in the Argun gorge and were taken out to Austria where are stored in the Vienna museum [8]. Buying up of ancient objects by visiting people, unfortunately, generated in the local environment treasure hunting and "... at the end of the 19th century, treasure hunting and injurious destructions of ancient monuments accepted the catastrophic sizes" [9, page 9]. Especially violently such business prospered in Chechnya what article "Chechen archeologists" which was issued in 1895 [10]1 confirms.

Meanwhile Chechnya continued to attract attention of capital scientists. So, in 1886 the expedition of the Moscow archaeological society organized by professor V.F. Miller worked here. Her employees studied in the mountains of Chechnya medieval architectural monuments [14]. In two years, in 1888, archaeological researches in Chechnya were conducted by the chairman of the Imperial archaeological commission A.A. Bob-rinsky. He surveyed barrows and household monuments in the neighborhood of settlements Alkhan-yurt, Alkhan-Kala, Urus-Martan, Kulara, Alda, etc. [15, page SSY-SSHH1; 4, page 35-36]. Since 1888 the representative of Tsar's military authorities N.S. Semyonov begins to conduct raskopochny and sobiratelsky work, publishing the messages about the archeological excavations sated with the facts in the local press [16]. Actively the official of local administration, the local historian G.A. Vertepov works in Chechnya. In 1900-1901 he dug out more than twenty barrows near villages. Urus-Martan [17], and materials of this excavation were transferred to the Hermitage [18, page 20]. In the first decade of the 20th century at the village of Feldmarshalskoy (on the left coast of the river Argun at its exit from mountains to the plain) burials of USh-1H of centuries were investigated podjesauly by F.S. Pankratov who was published under the pseudonym F.S. Grebenets [19, 20].

In hands of fans of antiquities many archaeological collections occurring at different times, including skifo-Sarmatian and early medieval time gradually collected. Among them there is a number of unique objects from a mountain zone of Chechnya.

1. Sharoyevsky 1st finds. It is about bronze figurines of people and animals and also the brothel terminating in the head of a deer. They were found in the 2nd half of the 19th century in the Argun gorge, at the village of Sharoy [21, page 50; 22, page 132-146; 23; 24, page 372; 25, page 5]. Finds of the 5th century BC are dated [9, page 69, No. 341].
1 Today this terrible trade, also as well as across all Russian Federation, revived in Chechnya again. Vandals break off graves of the ancestors excavators, bulldozers and other mechanisms [11, page 65-66; 12, page 3; 13, page 176], and the found things market in the "black" market.
2. Khimoysky finds. The objects found at the village of Khimoy in riverheads Sharo-Argun belong to the same time. The bronze figure of a sheep at which the terminations of legs are issued in the form of ringlets (height of a find of 8 cm), and strongly stylized deer figure entered a complex (legs are connected in pairs). Height of a subject is 11 cm. Besides them, pendants in the form of a bird, fibula and fragments of hryvnia were found here. Things are stored in GIMe for No. 54746 [9, page 70, No. 346].
3. Shatoyevsky 1st find. It is a bronze female figurine. It is found in the neighborhood of villages. Shatoi. It has big shoulders, the placed hands bent in elbows. Bases of sex are underlined. Height is about 20 cm. According to P.A. Golovinsky, in Shatoi found on several dozen copper (bronze-? - M of B.) figurines, "laid carefully not in a grave, and especially in the earth". It, according to him, a figure of rams, goats, deer, naked people in hats. P.S. Uvarova's meeting includes bronze cast figurines of people. Are stored in GIMe for No. 57766 [23, page 251, No. 348; 9, page 70, No. 348; 25, page 52, No. 69]
4. Shatoyevsky 2nd find. It represents the forged flat iron figurine with a two-faced head from bronze (on the head a cap in the form of a cap). The right hand is pressed to a breast (left is broken off). Height is 32 cm [23, page 251; 9, 1966, page 71, No. 349].
5. Ishkoroysky find. It is a bronze fibula of arbaletny type of the 10-12th centuries. Found in the neighborhood of the village by Ishkory (Oskhora) in riverheads Sharo-Argun. It is stored in GIMe [9, page 72, No. 355]1.
6. Ishkaroysky find. On Mount Petkhoy-Lam slope in the Sharo-Argunsky gorge at the village Ishkary (Lashkira) found a fibula of U1-H of centuries of arbaletny type. It is stored in GIMe [9, page 81, No. 426].
7. Hatuninsky 1st find. The village of Hatuni is to Entre Rios Bass and Hulkhulau, in their headwaters. From the neighborhood of the aul in 1891 there is a big bronze zone buckle executed in animal style (UN-GU of centuries BC). It is stored in the State Hermitage [9, page 9697, No. 517; 25, page 53, No. 85].
8. Hatuninsky 2nd find. In 1887 in the neighborhood of the village of Hatuni the bronze figure with a mutton head was found. It is possible that it comes from the burial ground which was found near the village in the same, 1887. It is possible that N.S. Semyonov in 1887 exactly here conducted excavation of stone boxes [9, page 97, No. 518, 519].
9. Mesketinsky finds and burial ground. Mesketa - the settlement on the left coast of the river Aksay. Here things of late Scythian time were found. Among them there are 3 pins, stone navershy maces [25, page 54, No. 101]. Probably, in 1902 I. Dolbezhev found in the neighborhood of the village soil
1 By the way, at the same village, but in 1928 the local A.D. Sheripov found the bronze cast figures of people and animals dated UG-GU of centuries BC [9, page 69-70, No. 343]. It is possible that all sharoyevsky finds come from one burial ground or from a uniform sanctuary.

burial ground of Scythian time. Separate burials were under stone blockages. Things are stored in GIMe for No. 43927. Then V.I. Dolbezhev explored, far off from the aul, the burial ground from stone boxes. At the same time vessels, a beads on point duty, lamellar temporal pendants were found. Possibly, the burial ground is dated the I millennium BC [9, page 104, No. 570, 571].

10. Nozhay-Yurtovsky find. Nozhay-yurt - the central village of the area of the same name, in a right bank of the river Aksay. Near the settlement at the end of the 19th century the bronze zone buckle - umbon, relating to the 6-4th centuries BC was found. It is stored in the State Hermitage [9, page 104-105, No. 572].
11. Kuren-Benoysky find. Kuren-Bena (Bena) - the settlement in headwaters of the river Gums. For No. 1740 the finds found here in 1897 N.S. Semyonov - a bronze pin with a ledge, a figured buckle in the form of the spread bird and openwork rectangular metal plates buckles of Scythian time [9, page 106, No. 582 are stored in the State Hermitage; 26, page 164, tab. XXXI, 4, 5, 7, 9].

The similar picture is observed also in the next mountain Dagestan. Here, also as well as in Chechnya, many bronze anthropomorphous and zoomorfny figures are found. For example, P.D. Tararin's excavation (1882) of "a small barrow" in the neighborhood of the village of Chaliyakho is significant. The researcher found in him 88 anthropomorphous figurines. In 1883 the French traveler G. Bapst in mountain Dagestan, near the village of Kidero carried out small excavation and also found several bronze anthropomorphous figures. In 1885 on the same place where G. Bapst dug, K. Rossikov put an excavation and found several figurines. All these finds were introduced for scientific use [27, page 37-42; GAIMK Archive, 6 for 1836]. But more fully they are published and interpreted by A.A. Zakharov [28, river 65-113], V.I. Markovin [29, page 74-124], L.I. Abakarov and O.M. Da-vudovym [30, page 63, fig. 23-26; 31, page 30-31].

Thus, on an initial stage of a research in the mountains of Chechnya and Dagestan, archaeological things fell into hands of scientists or through the third parties, or thanks to accidental excavation of local historians. Objects from mountain Chechnya, most likely, were dug out by locals and delivered to the plain where were sold to collectors or local historians (except for some excavation N.S. Semyonova and V.I. Dolbezhe-va).

However the mountain zone of the Northeast Caucasus, generally still remained "a white spot". Difficulties of penetration into it involved less researchers, than flat and foothill areas. Even the archaeological works developed in the Caucasus in connection with preparation and carrying out in 1881 of the V Archaeological congress in Tiflis practically did not concern mountains of the Northeast Caucasus [32, page 11-12]. Such situation, in our opinion, developed for the objective reasons. Except difficulties of penetration, researchers were not uvere-

ny that they will find highly art or financially valuable things in mountains [33, page 12]. But also the fact that expeditions to mountains where could rob, kill or steal any of members of an expedition, with the subsequent sale in slavery [1, page 16 were unsafe was the important cause; 34, page 193; 35, page 36-42; 36, page 180; 37, page 524-528].

Nevertheless, it was already impossible to stop forward process of accumulation of objects of old times of a mountain strip of the Northeast Caucasus.

Moreover, chiefs of expeditions and also travelers and local local historians constantly printed articles about results of the search, accompanying them with historical interpretations [10; 14; 21, page 50; 22, page 132-146; 23; 24, page 372; 38, etc.].

Today these publications, despite some wrong judgments of authors, became important sources at illumination of any given pages of history of the Caucasian people. For example, the academician D.N. Anuchin, without having found in the mountains of Dagestan of traces of an era of a stone, rejuvenated the ancient history of Dagestan and believed that this region is developed by the person only during a metal era [24, page 449]. The opinion of the academician V.F. Miller was even more disputable. "hasty and obviously wrong conclusion about allegedly eternal cultural backwardness of the people of the Caucasus was stated to them" [39, page 21]. V.F. Miller wrote: "The Caucasus was always the remote remote place lying far from the cultural centers" and therefore the "savages" inhabiting "mountain slums of the Caucasus", always, allegedly, had to "lag behind the Western European cultural countries for the whole centuries" [9, page 10; 14]. Insolvency of this thesis was called in question in 1910 by the largest archeologist V.A. Gorodtsov [40, page 315]. And further it is proved by the unique monuments of world value opened on Central and Northeast Caucasus Mountains [4, 7, 11, 25, 26, 31, 32, 41-44, etc.].

Thus, the picture of initial studying monuments of the 6th century BC - in a mountain zone of Chechnya and Dagestan demonstrates 12th century AD that a mountain part of the Northeast Caucasus by the beginning of the 20th century was studied extremely poorly [29, page 113; 31, page 9; 32, page 11-12; 42, page 20; 45, page 5; 46, page 6]. Justice of this conclusion is especially emphasized at the publication of fine materials from excavation of the Big Buynaksk barrow by E.I. Kozubsky and F.A. Afanasyev at the very end of the 19th century where they investigated 26 graves [47]. But materials were issued only in A.A. Zakharov's publications in 1930-1931 [28, river 183-216] and after M.P. Abramova who gave their total detailed characteristic, scientific interpretation and dating taking into account new archaeological researches in the Caucasus. In this extensive work the thorough analysis of all burials and also a funeral ceremony and stock of the Buynaksk barrow [31 is presented, to page 12, 31; 48, page 54-73; 49, page 115-143].

On strong belief of the Dagestan archeologist O.M. Davudov, materials of this burial ground allow to track the consecutive line of development of material culture of the Albanian time and early environments -

nevekovya and also to characterize contacts of tribes of plane Dagestan with steppe iranoyazychny and adjacent Caucasian tribes. "However, - the archeologist emphasizes, - by the time of excavation of a big Buynaksk barrow (end of the 90th of the 19th century) of data on material culture of Dagestan of the Albanian time were very poor and the value of a monument remained not realized" [31, page 30-31].

After these researches, up to the 30th of the 20th century the monuments of Dagestan of the Albanian time were not studied. Museum collections were replenished thanks to collecting the accidental finds collected by the staff of the museums: A.M. Zavadsky (1903), A.K. Serzhputovsky (1910), A.L. Mloko-sevich (1911-1914), etc. [31, page 31].

As we see, by the beginning of the 20th century the archaeological map of the Northeast Caucasus, and in particular its mountain part, looked quite desert.

Systematic archaeological studying Dagestan and Chechnya began only since 1936 when here the Leningrad archaeological expeditions of A.P. Kruglov (1936 and 1939), M.I. Artamonova (1937, 1938) organized by the Institute of History of Material Culture (IHMC) began to work. Especially volume works were carried out by A.P. Kruglov. He surveyed many places of the region that allowed it to allocate the monuments included in the kayakentsko-harachoyevsky culture of an era of bronze and also monuments of later time [31, page 31].

In general archaeological activity of the academic expeditions and also work of representatives of many scientific organizations of Russia and just fans of old times in the territory of the Northeast Caucasus, including in Chechnya and Dagestan, till 20th of the 20th century deserves the appreciation. They laid the foundation for the subsequent largest archaeological opening of the North Caucasian archaeological expeditions of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. At the same time, would be not fair not to note that by this time in studying edge there was a considerable reserve.

Since a significant expedition of I.A. Gildenshtedt and prior to the beginning of the 20th of the 20th century, for more than 150 years, there was a process of accumulation of archaeological sources occurring at different times on ancient and medieval material and spiritual culture of Chechens. All expeditions from St. Petersburg and Moscow did not adhere to any system in the activity, except for vypolneniye of the government tasks connected with consolidation of the Russian Empire on its outskirts. Archeological excavations had accidental character, often pursuing the aim of replenishment of private collections of rarities. Any researcher did not set any archaeological and historiographic tasks of studying the local people for himself. Household monuments were underestimated, did not even fix them, with rare exception (A.A. Bobrinsky). It was focused on Christian monuments which in the North Caucasus was very much [50]. For example, in 1886 to professor of MSU V.F. Miller, according to the instruction from Moscow archaeological

societies, "collecting of data on the monumental remains of ancient Christianity was put into the forefront" (IAC, iSSS). It was a peculiar search of the soil for preservation and strengthening of Christianity in the Caucasus. The central archaeological institutions of tsarist Russia - the Archaeological commission (St. Petersburg) and Archaeological society (Moscow) - really were not organizing, especially the organizations planning archaeological work. Attention was a little paid to theoretical questions. The technique of field researches was at a low level. There was no business connection of the central institutions with the local museums, research societies and certain local historians. Researchers even of attempt to approach seriously any historical generalizations or scientific systematization of all material on eras and territories except for the edition of the catalog of collections of the Tiflissky museum of P.S. Uvarova [5i] did not become.

But nevertheless as E.I. Krupnov noted if we have plentiful collections of the most various and archaeological sources occurring at different times collected prior to the beginning of the 20th century now, then we are obliged to these as richness of the monuments which remained from antecedents of tribes and the people of the Caucasus and thanks to efforts of heads of all central academic expeditions, as well as efforts of that group of local intellectuals local historians, patriots of the edge for which the archeology was not either specialty, or a debt of service [4, page 4G]. Many of them were guided not only instructions from above, but also own selfless ideas of the scientist's debt to science and society [i, page of i4].

In i9i4 of all archaeological researches in the Caucasus were stopped in connection with the beginning of i-y of world war [4, page. ZB-3S], and then revolutions of i9i7 of and civil war of i9iS-i92G of

After these events there comes new and brighter and fruitful period in archaeological studying the mountain country.

Literature

1. T.K. Shafranovskaya, Yu.Yu. Karpov. From the translator and the editor//Gilden-shtedt I.A. Puteshestviye across the Caucasus in i77G-i773 of of SPb., 2GG2.
2. Pallas P. - S. Bemerkungen auf einer Reise in die südlichen Statthalterschaften des Russischen Reiches in der Jahren i793 und i794. Leipzig, i799.
3. Klaproth I. Reise in der Kaukasus und nach Georgien unternommen in den Jahren iSG7 und iSGS. Bd. i, 2. Berlin; Halle, Sh2-Sh4.
4. E.I. Krupnov. Ancient history of the North Caucasus. M, 196g.
5. K.A. Smirnov. To institute of archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences seventy five years//Archaeological bulletin. M, i994. No. i(i7).
6. A. Firkovich. Archaeological investigations in the Caucasus//ZRAO. iS57. T. 9.
7. V.I. Markovin, R.M. Munchayev North Caucasus: Essays of ancient and medieval history and culture. M, 2GG3.

S. Hancar F. Kaukasische Spoossenibeln. Eurasia septentrionalis Antigua. XXI. Helsinki; Wien, i93S.

9. V.B. Vinogradov, V.I. Markovic. Archaeological instructions of Chechen-Ingush ASSR: Materials to the archaeological card. Grozny, 1966.
10. N.S. Semyonov. Chechen archeologists//Natives of Northeast Caucasus. SPb., 1895.
11. V.I. Kozenkova. At sources of mountain mentality. The burial ground of an era of late bronze - early iron at the aul of Serzhen-Yurt. Chechnya (Materials on studying historical and cultural heritage of the North Caucasus. Issue 3). M, 2002.
12. M.H. Bagayev. The history of relationship of nomads and natives of the Northeast Caucasus//Desht- and Kipchak and the Golden Horde in formation of culture of the Eurasian people: Materials mezhdunar. nauch. - prakt. konf. On April 10-11, 2003 M., 2003.
13. V.I. Kozenkova, S.N. Savenko the XXII Krupnovsky readings on archeology of the North Caucasus Yessentuki - Kislovodsk, 2002//RA. 2004. No. 1.
14. MillerV.F. Tersky region: Archaeological excursions//IAC. Issue 1. M, 1888.
15. UAC, 1888.
16. Tersky Regional Sheets. 1890.
17. UAC, 1900, 1910
18. O.A. Artamonova-Poltavtsev. The culture of the Northeast Caucasus during the Scythian period (on materials of an expedition of 1937-1938)//SA. 1950. No. 14.
19. F.S. Grebenets. The most ancient burial grounds in the Assinsky gorge//Terskiye of the sheet. 1914. No. 54-56.
20. F.S. Grebenets. Across Alkhanchurovskaya and Sunzha the valley//Tersky sheets. 1914. No. 58-60 (Vladikavkaz).
21. A.P. Ippolitov. Ethnographic essays of the Artunsky district//SSKG. Tiflis, 1868. T. 1.
22. KondakovN.P. Russian treasures. SPb., 1903.
23. V.I. Golovinsky. Chechens//Sb. data on the Tersky region. Issue 6. Vladikavkaz, 1878.
24. D.N. Anuchin. Report on a trip to Dagestan in the summer of 1882//Izv. Russian geogr. islands. SPb., 1884. T. 20. Issue 4.
25. V.I. Kozenkova. Coban culture: East option//SAI. Issue B2-5. M, 1977.
26. V.I. Kozenkova. Typology and chronological classification of objects of the Kabansk culture. East option//SAI. Issue B2-5. M, 1982.
27. A.V. Komarov. The short review of archeological finds in the Caucasian region for 1882//Izv. Caucasus. about-va history and archeology. Tiflis, 1884. T. 1. Issue 2.
28. Zakharov A.A. Contributions to Caucasian Archaeology. A large burrow in Dagestan//ESA. V. Helsinki, 1930.
29. V.I. Markovin. Materials on archeology of a mountain part of East Chechnya//NPP. T. 7. Issue 1: History. Grozny, 1966.
30. A.I. Abakarov, O.M. Davudov. Archaeological map of Dagestan. M, 1993.
31. O.M. Davudov. Material culture of Dagestan of the Albanian time (3rd one or IV century BC of century AD). Makhachkala, 1996.
32. Magomedov R.G. Ginchinsaya culture. The mountains of Dagestan and Chechnya during an era of average bronze. Makhachkala, 1998.
33. R.M. Munchayev. Main results and prospects of historical and archaeological studying Dagestan//Materials nauch. sessions on stories of the people of Dagestan. Makhachkala, 1954.
34. F.V. Totoyev. Development of slavery and a slave trade in Chechnya//Izv. ChINIIIYaL. Grozny, 1958.
35. Aliroyev.Yu. Language, history and culture of Vainakhs. Grozny, 1990.
36. Shidlovsky 10. Notes about Kizlyar//Zhurn. Ministries of foreign affairs. Part 4. SPb., 1843.
37. Berger A.P. Alexey Petrovich Yermolov and his kebinny wives in the Caucasus (1816-1827). The II Russian old times. Prince 9. SPb., 1884.
38. P.S. Uvarova. Burial grounds of the North Caucasus//IAK. Issue 8. M, 1900.
39. E.I. Krupnov. What tell monuments of material culture of Chechen-Ingush ASSR. Grozny, 1961 about.
40. V.A. Gorodtsov. Household archeology. M, 1910.
41. R. Munchayev Lesser Caucasus at the beginning of a bronze age: the Neolithic, eneolit, early bronze. M, 1975.
42. M.S. Gadzhiyev. Ancient city of Dagestan: Experience historical and topographical and socio-economic analysis. M, 2002.
43. M.P. Abramova. The central Ciscaucasia in Sarmatian time (3rd one or IV century BC of century AD). M, 1993.
44. M.G. Gadzhiyev. Early agricultural culture of the Northeast Caucasus. Era of the zneolit and early bronze. M, 1991.
45. V.G. Kotovich. Archaeological works in mountain Dagestan//MAD. T. 2. Makhachkala, 1961.
46. D.N. Atayev. Mountain Dagestan in the early Middle Ages (on materials of archaeological excavations of Accident). Makhachkala, 1963.
47. F.A. Afanasyev. Prehistoric motives in vicinities Timur-Hassan-Shura//the Caucasus. 1899. No. 231.
48. M.P. Abramova. A big Buynaksk barrow//Archaeological instructions of wounds - not medieval Dagestan. Makhachkala, 1977.
49. M.P. Abramova. Buynaksk barrow//Ancient medieval archaeological instructions of Dagestan. Makhachkala, 1980.
50. V.A. Hristianstvo's smiths in the North Caucasus till 15th century Vladikavkaz, 2002.
51. P.S. Uvarova. Collection of the Caucasian museum. T. 5: Archeology. Tiflis, 1902.

List of reductions

The NPP - the Arkheologo-etnografichesky collection. Grozny.

ZRAO are Notes of the Russian archaeological society. SPb.

IAK - the Imperial archaeological commission.

ISAA is Institute of the countries of Asia and Africa.

MAD are Materials on archeology of Dagestan.

IAC - Materials on archeology of the Caucasus.

MSU - Moscow State University.

The UAC - Reports of the archaeological commission.

RA - the Russian archeology. M

SA - the Soviet archeology. M

SAI is the Arch of archaeological sources. M

SPb - St. Petersburg.

ChINIIIYaL - the Checheno-Ingush research institute of history,

language and literature.

Chechen state university On July 4, 2005

Stefan Wolfgang
Other scientific works: