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

Medieval household monuments of a flat and foothill zone of the Average Priterechya (some issues of study)



UDK 39 (4/9)

MEDIEVAL HOUSEHOLD MONUMENTS of the FLAT and FOOTHILL ZONE of the AVERAGE PRITERECHYA (SOME ISSUES of STUDY)

© 2009 H.M. Mamayev

Institute of humanitarian researches of Academy of Sciences of the Chechen Republic, Revolyutsii Ave., 13, Grozny, 364024, academv_chr@mail. gi

The Institute of Humanitarian Researches of the Academy of Science of Chechen Republic, Revolutcia Ave, 13, Grozny, 364024, academy_chr@mail. ru

Some questions of studying early medieval ancient settlements and settlements in the main territory of flat and foothill regions of the Average Priterechya (Chechnya and Ingushetia) are considered. The main attention is paid to relevant aspects of a subject — identification of objects, reliability of localization and cultural characteristic, etc. Obvious existence of "problem" situations assumes use for their solution of a complex of sources — contemporary records, the published materials and archaeological collections. The further research of the considered category of monuments out of such approach is represented unpromising.

In clause some questions of studying medieval settlements in the basic territory ofplain-foothill areas of Average Pritereche (Chechen Republic and Ingushetia) are considered. The basic attention is given actual aspects of a theme of-identification of objects, reliability to localization and the cultural characteristic and etc. Obvious presence of "problem" situations assumes use for their decision of a complex of sources — the contemporary records, published materials and archeologic collections.

History of a research of household monuments of the early Middle Ages of flat and foothill regions of that part of the North Caucasus which is defined by the Average borders Priterechya including generally Chechnya and Ingushetia [1] contains many decades, taking the place both in the general arkheo-logo-historiographic reviews [2-4], and in the is-tochniko-historiographic developments which are directly concerning only the considered era [5, 6].

However this topic is still not covered fully neither in actually source study, nor in historiographic parts as even M.H. Bagayev and R.D. Arsanu-kayev's special reviews stated above are limited in time (M.H. Bagayev - for 1969; R.D. Arsanukayev - for 1984) are also incomplete. Work of the first of researchers regarding household monuments remained neopublikovannoy1, the selection of materials, last on time, having been a step forward in a certain measure, left many ambiguities, being reflection of interpretations of the beginning of the 80th of the 20th century

Lacunas and contradictions already at primary level of collecting and processing of data, in the description of history of accumulation of field materials, in accounting of monuments, etc. [8] remain one of notable gaps. Data on a number from them (localization, landscape and topographical, dimensional characteristics, etc.), sometimes even known, contain inaccuracies; the example is Shelkozavodskoye ancient settlement [9]. Certainly, some complexity in relation to the majority of household monuments to the considered territory explaining, in particular, emergence of different names in the same ancient settlements and settlements consists in their multiple layers - from early iron to a late sredneveko-

1 Sections relating to funeral monuments are recently published [7].

Viy. Therefore the same object often appears in reviews of researchers of various eras under different "names" or, on the contrary, under almost coinciding names different monuments disappear (partly such a situation can speak numerous changes of names of the settlements of Chechnya and Ingushetia).

So, for example, M.H. Bagayev, provided data on early medieval Mezhdugorodsk (more precisely - Mezhdugorsk) the ancient settlement, leaning on the small collection of ceramics stored once in funds CHIRKMA, but the location of a monument was not specified [5, page 62]. Proceeding from the fact that sat down. Alkhan-Kala (the former village Alkhan-Yurtovsky, former Ermo-lovskaya) 2 it was renamed into Medjugorje after 1944, it would be possible to believe that the speech also in this case goes about the known Alkhan-Kala ancient settlement especially as funds of the museum contained quite numerous lifting material from this monument, a part from which was collected by local historian M.P. Sevostyanov in the 40-50th of last century. However in this case under the name Mezhdugorskoye the small monument of generally Scythian time on the cape formed by the mouth of the river Gekhi and the right bank of the Sunzha River disappears. It turned out that it was already included in the list of household monuments E.I. Krup -

These 2 numerous renamings of the last cause still confusion not only in researchers of household monuments. So, M.P. Abramova, considering podkurganny catacomb burial grounds on the Sunzha River, pointed to two different necropolises of this type - Alkhan-Kala and Alkhan-Yurt, "having moved" a part of barrows of the first to the right bank of the Sunzha River, to the place of modern Alkhan-Yurta [10, page 10, 17] because at the end of the 19th century A.A. Bobrinsky who dug out several barrows on the Alkhan-Kala necropolis called them alkhan-yurtovsky by the name of the Cossack village put on the place of the former Chechen settlement on the left river bank.

new [11, page 161-162]. The same object, but already under "name" of the Gekhinsky 2nd settlement of Scythian time is known to V.B. Vinogradov and V.I. Markovin [2, page 113].

Existence on it an early medieval layer, probably, and will remain undecided as it already then was washed almost away, and the ceramics described by M.H. Bagayev quite answers characteristics of skifo-Sarmatian time, but not the early Middle Ages. E.I. Krupnov, judging by materials of his card file of settlements and ancient settlements which is stored in RAS news Agency archive (F-13, No. 40, further - E.I. Krupnov's card file), also doubted a monument odnosloynost though definitely in this respect did not express.

By the way, near it, in 200-300 m is higher (?) on the left bank of the river Gekhi, according to the same card file, also small early medieval ancient settlement of "alano-Hazaria culture" (by the definition accepted in the 40-50th of last century) which is not considered in M.H. Bagayev and R.D. Arsanukayev's reports was located.

It should be noted that E.I. Krupnov in fact was the first researcher who generalized data on the household monuments, known by the beginning of the 60th, in the considered territory. Data on 17 settlements and ancient settlements the monograph [11] where data on monuments at which cultural beddings are present as well early and medieval (medieval) layers with the indication of datings, etc. were provided in the section on household objects of the Coban culture contained it

Among other ancient settlements at villages are mentioned here. Nogay-Mirzayurt (Brotherly), Adu Yurtas (Right-bank) and the settlement on the left coast of the river Argun (against the place of confluence of river in it Sharo-Argun) [11, page 152165]. Concerning the first none of the subsequent researchers paid attention to that fact that E.I. Krupnov provided data not about the object opened by A.P. Kruglov at the same settlement [12, page 8], and probably, about other, new monument what also other localization indicates. Therefore here he, as a rule, attentive to works of predecessors, referred only to collecting materials of the local historian M.P. Sevostya-nov. However the latest reports in relation to vicinities of Brotherly (Nogay-Mirzayurt) contain instructions only on one household object of the considered circle opened by A.P. Kruglov [2, page 123; 6, page 143-144].

As for the ancient settlement at villages. Adu Yurtas from this list who arose here inaccuracy (apparently, E.I. Krupnov confused names of villages in consonance. Ali Yurtas at whom monument examined A.P. Krug-lov [12, page 8-9] and to whom actually and E.I. Krupnov [11, page 152], from villages referred. Adu Yurtas located considerably to the east on the same right coast of the Terek River) later it was noticed by the caucasiologist. It is confirmed by what in card file materials he noted: "The settlement at page. Right-bank (yvshy) Ali Yurtas (from above the correct correction of "Adu Yurtas", but it was made after a release of the monograph of 1960 - H.M.) on the right coast of Terek

opposite to the village Nikolaev the Grozny region". Further V.B. Vinogradov, having specified the name of the settlement in which the monument was found according to A.P. Kruglov - Ali Yurtas, nevertheless left a binding of the most "kruglovsky" ancient settlement to the village Nikolaev - i.e. besides to the Adu Yurta who was called already Right-bank [13, page 114]. The situation finally got confused after in V.B. Vinogradov and V.I. Markovin's work it was divided into two objects - the Right-bank settlement and the Right-bank ancient settlement with the reference to the same A.P. Kruglov [2, page 120]. Meanwhile in the neighborhood of villages. Right-bank (the former Adu Yurta) really there are two early medieval ancient settlements opened by M.P. Sevostyanov in 1949 [6, page 145-146].

Concerning the settlement on the left coast of the river Argun it should be noted that found it

A.item. Kruglov dated Scythian time only one type of ceramics here, having determined all other lifting material by a Middle Ages era [12, page 13]. Later E.I. Krupnov carried it to single-layer monuments of the specified time; also defined then this settlement called Chishkinsky the 2nd

V.B. Vinogradov with V.I. Markovin, having referred in addition to investigations of the last [2, page 109-110] 3. Obviously, this conclusion was decisive and for M.H. Bagayev - the monument did not appear in its list of early medieval household objects, but later it is given at R.D. Arsanukayev [6, page 156].

The situation with the known chernore-chensky monuments at Grozny is up to the end not clear. According to the last published data, in vicinities Chernorechya two early medieval ancient settlements and the settlement are found [6, page 151, 156]. However everything is represented more difficult.

In 1945 T.M. Minayeva opened on a stream 2 Chernorechye - the right inflow of the Sunzha River, to the west of the settlement of Chernorechye (it Alda) - the big settlement consisting of two parts: east with finds of Scythian time and the early Middle Ages and western (bigger) where also significant amount of the researcher, zolotoordynsky, according to, ceramics [14, page 427-428 was revealed; 15]. In 1948 M.P. Sevostya-nov surveyed again the same monument where the ceramics, "similar was especially allocated... on zolotoordynsky". But at the same time the local historian mentioned deep ditches and gate - i.e. in this case the speech kind of went about the ancient settlement [15, page 186-187]. It seems that here in the description of a monument for bigger "pokazatelnost" lines of two objects - "minayevsky" of the settlement and Black rechenskogo the medieval ancient settlement opened by the local historian not earlier than 1948 in a South western part of the settlement of Chernorechye were integrated [16, page 213].

Existence in the territory of the last once household monument of time interesting us destroyed and which is built up already in new - the latest era,

3 It is misunderstanding as in the report of 1956 on investigations in Are -

the gunsky gorge V.I. Markovin directly specified that the settlement opened by A.P. Kruglov was not examined.

is confirmed

by materials of excavation Chernorechensko-go of the catacomb burial ground located in the same southwest part of the settlement [17]. According to the author of the report S.N. Savenko, a part of necropolis Ш-^ of centuries was blocked by the cultural layer containing finds of US-K and XP-XVI of centuries and even later time, however any signs of an early layer, including an era of early iron, it was revealed not. By the way, data of the Chechen toponymics also indicate existence here once strengthenings and it is quite probable that the latest finds from the last belong by the time of emergence here of the aul of Alda which cultural remains blocked this earlier monument. The aul arose on this site of a right bank of Sunzha, probably, no later than the beginning of the 18th century However, all these toponymic materials badly are dated, and in general the situation with movement Aldov is quite tangled. According to A. Suleymanov, Bukh1an-Yurt (Chechen name of Alda) was located originally at the southern slopes of Syuir-court [18, page 463, 464], i.e. on the right side of ruble Goy (Goyta) - is obvious where it was recorded by I. Gildenshtedt in 1771 [19, page 50, sn. 36]. However further it placed Bukh1an-Yurt on the left side from the specified small river, but not on the place of its latest arrangement, etc. [18, page 466].

The earliest instruction on arrangement of Al-dy on the place present Chernorechya is the card of the second half of the 18th century [20, an insert] which date can be corrected by I. Gildenshtedt's message stated above. Judging by the published data and kind consultation of T.S. Magomadova, oykony Alda in Russian-language documents of the 17th century it is not found at all and, therefore, so far the first mention of the name belongs to the document of 1732, but it is not possible to determine the location of the aul by these data yet [20, page 171].

But in already mentioned report E.I. Krupnov in relation to Chernorechyyu pointed to two settlements of early Scythian time containing the remains and later eras [11, page 162] which, probably, were meant also as the Middle Ages. One of them (II according to E.I. Krupnov) is definitely identified with the "minayevsky" settlement of 1945 enough (with the reference to "opening" by his M.P. Sevostyanov in 1948), the second (I according to E.I. Krupnov), located at the mouth of the same small river / stream (2 Chernorechye according to T.M. Minayeva) was, obviously, it is revealed the local historian in 1950 [16, page 213; 2, page 114] 4. However so far remains not entirely clear why both same monuments (?) in V.B. Vinogradov's report are mentioned already as ancient settlements, i.e. the strengthened settlements - Aldynsky 1 and 2 (as on the above-stated Chernorechensky ancient settlement of early materials it did not appear, it could not get to this number) [13, page 118]. The same objects (as the reference points and cultural characteristics given by E.I. Krupnov coincide) a little later in V.B. Vinogradov and V.I. Markovin's work also atte-

4 In localization of the last there is an inaccuracy - this inflow of the Sunzha River falls into the last to the west, but not to the east Chernorechya (Alda).

stutsya as ancient settlements where as defensive works in one case the ditch is specified [2, page 114]. Or the speech nevertheless goes about other monuments? The last is improbable and the explanation of a situation most likely is in strong belief of that time of E.I. Krupnov in lack of strengthenings on household antiquities of Scythian time of the North Caucasus therefore multilayered monuments with later strengthenings and were described by it in relation to the specified time only as settlements without defensive works - emergence of the last belonged to the 4-3rd centuries BC [11, page 166-167].

Thus, it turns out that in the Region of Chernorechya there were at least three medieval ancient settlements and the settlement.

The Grozny 1 ancient settlement (in article of 1967 of the same author it is carried to the category of not strengthened settlements) is mentioned in the known work of V.A. Kuznetsov among not numerous early medieval household monuments of Chechnya [21]. But this monument is not specified in one of the reports given above. The explanation for it, probably, is that the ceramics collection collected on it by M.P. Sevostyanov and which was once stored in funds of the Checheno-Ingush republican museum of local lore (OS 1764) had also the second designation "Samashki", i.e. most likely treated one of two well-known monuments - to 1 or 2 Samashki ancient settlements [2, page 56-57]. Unfortunately, more precisely not clearly.

In general the reason of similar discrepancies and long search of the truth, in our opinion, is in lack of comparable cartographic data and extreme laconicism of the verbal description topographical oriyentirov5. Unfortunately, the author of the attempt of a research of household monuments, last on time, declaring extreme importance and need of study the last [6, page 142], does not try to understand similar situations.

It is possible to give as one more example of "disagreements" Achalukskoye settlement mentioned without what - or reference points and bindings [6, page 154-155] therefore and remains unclear in the neighborhood of what of three settlements - Top, Average or Lower Achalukov - it can be located, also, as well as on what outskirts of the Shawl there is a settlement of the same name [6, page 158], etc. It is easy to increase number of similar situations.

By the way, it is incorrect to allocate as independent monuments of the settlement, adjacent to ancient settlements and being natural parts of the last [2, page 57; 6, page 154]. It is clear, that similar approach, it seems, expands coverage of the considered household objects. But it is known that "prigorodishchensky" settlements arose not only in case of fortification construction on a part of the territory occupied by them, but could be formed outside strengthenings in case of overpopulation of the last, act in quality

5 Today these problems, at least partly, can be avoided, using the satellite system of global positioning (GPS), but such opportunity appeared only recently.

production zones (potter's workshops, etc.), but at the same time to remain "appendages" of ancient settlements. Other interpretation (for example, in case of asynchrony of layers) demands the special analysis.

Probably, owing to the reasons noted above (what can be characterized as insufficient study) in general also the fact that early and medieval household monuments of Chechnya and Ingushetia took speaks and take quite modest place in the generalizing works of the past and the beginning of this century on early medieval archeology of the North Caucasus [21].

Problems of interpretation of materials, in particular, issues of studying ceramics, its chronology are not less difficult; fortification constructions, etc. Here it is impossible to agree with a statement that the ceramics - the most mass material of household monuments of Chechnya and Ingushetia, data on which generally rely on observations of 25-30-year, is studied rather in detail [6, page 164]. The situation is different what is confirmed also by the analysis of results of a research of the most known monument in the considered territory - the Alkhan-Kala ancient settlement [22, page 58; 23; 24] 6. Unfortunately, materials of one more early Middle Ages of an object, important for archeology, - the Gudermes settlement (besides considered as "narrow" in the chronological plan) - are also still published fragmentary [25]7.

Stated quite enough for a conclusion that in studying household monuments of an early medieval era in the considered territory the urgent need is the detailed analysis of all fund of materials including published and also further introduction into circulation of data on the surveyed and partially dug out objects long ago. Only on such basis the further research of medieval settlements and ancient settlements of the Average Priterechya can be continued - his need is obvious.

Literature

1. H.M. Mamayev. The population of a plane zone of the Average Priterechya during an era of the early Middle Ages: avtoref. day.... edging. east. sciences. M, 1985.
2. V.B. Vinogradov, V.I. Markovin. Archeological sites of Chechen-Ingush ASSR (materials to the archaeological card). Grozny, 1966.
3. V.B. Vinogradov, E.A. Aseeva. To the history of archaeological studying Chechen-Ingush ASSR (1965-1984). Armavir; Grozny, 2002.
6 In articles of the author published in "The bulletin of Academy of Sciences of the Chechen Republic" (2008, No. 1), through an oversight were removed references in the main texts - they remained only in footnotes. I hope that the attentive reader will find necessary matches in lists of references.
7 Under the terms of the edition I am limited in use of literature and therefore in this case I send to the specified publication, one of the last on this subject where there is also a bibliography.
4. S.B. Burkov. Archeological sites of a foothill and plane zone of Ingushetia: history of study and prospect of a research//Uchen. zap. schools gymnasiums Nazran. Issue 1. Nazran, 2002.
5. M.H. Bagayev. Early medieval material culture of Chechen-Ingushetia: yew.... edging. east. sciences. M, 1970.
6. R.D. Vaynakhi and Alana's Arsanukayev. Alana in the early medieval history of Chechen-Ingushetia. Baku, 2002.
7. M.H. Bagayev. Culture of mountain Chechnya and Dagestan in the ancient time and Middle Ages. There are the 12th century AD M., 2008 6th century BC. S.B. Burkov. Account and mapping of monuments of material culture of Ingushetia//Izv. higher education institutions. Sowing. - Kavk. region. Societies, science. 2007. No. 6.
9. About the Shelkozavodsky ancient settlement of Hazaria time on Terek//Materials and researches on archeology of the North Caucasus / V.B. Vinogradov [etc.]. Armavir, 2003. Issue 1.
10. M.P. Abramova. Early Alana of the North Caucasus Sh-at centuries of M., 1997.
11. E.I. Krupnov. Ancient history of the North Caucasus. M, 1960.
12. A.P. Kruglov. Archeological excavations in Chechen-Ingushetia in the summer of 1936//ChINIIYaI Notes. T. 1. Grozny, 1938.
13. V.B. Vinogradov. Sarmatians of Northeast Caucasus. Grozny, 1963.
14. T.M. Minayeva. Archaeological investigations in the valley of the Sunzha River//Sb. tr. The Stavropol state. ped. Inta. Stavropol, 1958. Issue 13.
15. M.P. Sevostyanov. From experience of excursion and tourist work with pupils//Izv. Grozny institute and museum of study of local lore. Grozny, 1951. Issue 2-3. M.P. Sevostyanov. Routes of excursions and campaigns on the Grozny region (for the aid to heads of campaigns)//Izv. Grozny regional museum of local lore. Grozny, 1956. Issue 7-8.
17. V.B. Vinogradov, S.N. Savenko. New materials from catacomb burial grounds 1U-U centuries AD of the district of Grozny//Archeology on new buildings of the North Caucasus (19861990). Grozny, 1991.
18. A. Suleymanov. Toponymy of Chechnya. Nalchik, 1997.
19. Gildenshtedt I.A. Puteshestviye across the Caucasus in 17701773 SPb., 2002.
20. N.G. Volkova. The ethnic structure of the population of the North Caucasus in XVIII - the beginning of the 20th century. M, 1974.
21. V.A. Kuznetsov. Alania tribes of the North Caucasus. M, 1962.
22. K.V. Voronin, V.Yu. Malashev. Funeral monuments of an era of bronze and early Iron Age of a flat zone of the Republic of Ingushetia. M, 2006.
23. H.M. Mamayev. About chronology of the Alkhan-Kala ancient settlement//Reflection of civilization processes in the archaeological cultures of the North Caucasus and adjacent territories (Anniversary XXV Krupnovsky readings on archeology of the North Caucasus): tez. dokl. Vladikavkaz, 2008.
24. H.M. Mamayev. From the history of archaeological studying Chechnya (to the 70 anniversary of the beginning of work of the Checheno-Ingush archaeological expedition of GAIMK and the North Caucasian archaeological expedition of IIMK)//Vestn. Academies of Sciences of the Chechen Republic. 2008. Issue 1.
25. P.V. Sokov, I.V. Skopetskaya. About ceramics finds with the terr- (Chechnya)//Materials and researches on Xie's archeology -

ritoriya of the Gudermes settlement of Hazaria time right Caucasus. Armavir, 2005. Issue 5.

Came to edition On May 14, 2009

Stephen Lee
Other scientific works: