(Al) Settlement of Alanic TribesSettlement of Alanic Tribes

summer 2011 51

51

Anthropology & Archeology of eurasia, vol. 50, no. 1 (Summer 2011), pp. 51–73.© 2011 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.ISSN 1061–1959/2011 $9.50 + 0.00.DOI 10.2753/AAE1061-1959500103

D.S. Korobov

Settlement of Alanic Tribes in Various Areas of the North Caucasus According to Archeological Data and Written Sources

The recently published work by the French historian C. Zuckerman summa-rizes the discussion about the areas settled by the different Alanic tribes in the North Caucasus. It is interesting to compare these conclusions with the distribution of the catacomb burial rite, which is considered to be a specific “ethnic marker” of the Alanic presence. The present paper gives updated information about the occurrence of catacomb burials on the basis of cemeter-ies excavated in the past decade. On the whole, analysis of the occurrence of early medieval catacomb burial rites as compared with data from written sources allows us to determine the hypothetical areas of habitation of several Alanic tribes mentioned in (Ashharatsuyts) Armenian Geography.

One of the most interesting and important written sources on the history of peoples of the south of Eastern Europe during the Early Medieval period is the famous Armenian Geography (Ashharatsuyts), formerly attributed to Moses Khorenatsi but now considered the work of the geographer Anania Shirakatsi. Two versions have been preserved: one extensive and the other brief. Their analysis has occupied historians for over a hundred years.

Recently published works of Constantin Zuckerman in French and Russian (Zuckerman 2000, pp. 531–94; Tsukerman 2005, pp. 65–84) summarize the century-

English translation © 2011 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 2008 “Rossiiskaia arkheologiia.” “K voprosu o rasselenii alanskikh plemen severnogo Kavkaza po dannym arkheologii i pis’mennym istochnikam,” rossiiskaia arkheologiia, 2009, no. 1, pp. 64–76.

D.S. Korobov is a senior researcher at the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Federa-tion Academy of Sciences, Moscow.

Translated by James E. Walker.

52 ANThrOpOlOGy & ArCheOlOGy OF eurAsIA

long discussion of the area inhabited by Alans in the North Caucasus, reconstructed on the basis of analysis of Armenian Geography. Based on the works of his pre-decessors (V. Miller, J. Marquart, S.T. Eremian, R.H. Hewson, V.A. Kuznetsov, V.B. Kovalevskaia, and others), and also drawing on other written sources of the period (Procopius of Caesarea, Menander, Constantine Porphyrogennetos), the author comes to an original hypothesis regarding the various areas of settlement of several Alanic tribes mentioned in Armenian Geography. Zuckerman places them from west to east in the following order: Alans, Aš-Tigor, Digor, and Awsurk. The author provides a map that schematically shows the areas where specific Alanic communities lived (Tsukerman 2005, fig. 1).

It seems interesting to compare Zuckerman’s conclusions with archeologi-cal data marking the presence of an Alanic population in the region in the Early Medieval period. There are two basic concepts of the spatial distribution of Alanic antiquities in the North Caucasus during this period, proposed by Kuznetsov and Kovalevskaia.1

In his studies, Kuznetsov initially examined three local versions of Alanic culture: western, central, and eastern (1962, p. 56). Later he turned his attention to distinguishing two basic versions of the Alans’ Medieval culture: western and eastern (1973, pp. 64–72). The author tried to link the two local versions of Alanic culture with the two ethnic groups mentioned in the written sources: the Asi in the western part of the North Caucasus and the Alans in the east (1992, p. 30).

Less than ten years after Kuznetov’s studies came out, Kovalevskaia identified two basic landscape zones where the population lived: piedmont and mountain (1981, p. 84). Her work also provides grounds for dividing the Alanic culture into western and eastern versions (Kovalevskaia 2005, pp. 117, 173, 174). F.Kh. Gutnov (1993, pp. 7, 37, 38) and M.P. Abramova (1997, pp. 140–48) have also written about the division of North Caucasus Alans into western and eastern groups.

Zuckerman’s study generalizes the experience of previous researchers and reanalyzes written sources that list the tribal groups of Alans. As a result of com-prehensive analysis, he distinguishes four groups of Alanic tribes, two of which (Alans proper and Aš-Tigor) are joined in the western part (Alania), while the other two (Digor and Asi/Awsurk) make up the eastern part (Asia). Based on the logic of the written sources, primarily Ashharatsuyts, the regions where these tribal groups settled are determined: the Alans occupied the upper reaches of the Kuban; the Aš-Tigor, Kabarda and the Piatigorsk region, including the Kislovodsk Basin; and the Digor were located in Ardoz, which Zuckerman correlates with eastern Kabardino-Balkaria and western Ossetia. To the east of them lived “non-Digor Asi,” called the Awsurk tribe in the source (Zuckerman 2005, pp. 69–77).

It should be noted that far from all those who have studied the written tradi-tion regarding Alans support such a new view of the settlement of Alanic tribes in various areas. For instance, in his compendium, recently translated into Russian, A. Alemany, analyzing information in Ashharatsuyts, follows Hewson’s opinion and divides the Alanic tribes into two groups: the western Alank’Aš-Digor, comparable

summer 2011 53

to the western Ossetian-Digor, and the eastern Alank’ yArdoz ašxarhin, correlating with the ancestors of the eastern Ossetian-Iron (Aleman’ 2003, pp. 370, 371).

Despite the sometimes sharp criticism of Zuckerman’s hypothesis (Gagloiti 2006), interest lies in comparing his depicted patterns of Alanic settlement with the archeological realities currently at our disposal. First we have to decide what type of archeological source at this time can most fully reflect local peculiarities of the distribution of Alanic culture in the North Caucasus. Of course, to identify various tribal groups it is important to determine the elements of material culture that reflect the self-identification of each tribal group of the ancient population, make it unlike other groups, and so have some unifying principle in the context of the overall tribal entity. Types of settlements and dwellings, characteristic details of clothing, or the decoration of earthenware and how it is made could serve as such elements. Unfortunately, none of these types of archeological sources have been studied fully enough to compare them within the North Caucasus. All that is left is data on burial rites, an indicator of local peculiarities of the population’s culture in the era preceding the widespread prevalence of world religions.

It is generally acknowledged that the characteristic burial rite for Alanic tribes of the North Caucasus was burial in so-called T-shaped catacombs (with the axes of the entrance pit/dromos and the burial chamber perpendicular to each other). This type of burial structure has a stable tradition over practically a thousand years: having first appeared in the third–second century b.c.e. (Kovalevskaia 2005, p. 151), it spread widely in the Caucasus in the second half of the second century c.e. (Malashev 2007, p. 493) and survived until the Mongol conquest in the thirteenth century (Kuznetsov 1973, p. 62). Some scholars link other types of burial structures (burials in cists, graves, grave pits, vaults, or under rock shelters) with Alanic tribes, but they all require serious argumentation (e.g., see Kovalevskaia 2005, p. 174). At present, we can state the following established view of the catacomb burial rite in the Medieval period as an ethnic marker: not all Alans buried their dead in catacombs, but most of those buried in catacombs can be reliably classified as Alans (Abramova 1997, p. 140). Craniological data are very important in this case, according to which the majority of those buried in catacombs had a dolichocranial appearance that is associated with Iranian-speaking tribes (Afanas’ev 1992, pp. 83–96).2 This point of view can be considered generally acknowledged, but it is not the only one: criticism of it is found in Abramova’s study (1997, pp. 137–54).

This author has already analyzed the whole array of burials in catacombs in scientific circulation in 1999. By that time, 1,220 catacombs containing 1,600 burials had been published and described in archeological reports (Korobov 2003, pp. 10, 11).a A list of the sites is given there, citing the literature and excavation reports (pp. 335–42, Appendix 1).

On the basis of cluster analysis, eleven groups of catacomb cemeteries were distinguished according to their spatial proximity (geographic longitude and latitude), and diachronic characteristics of the burial rite typical of each of the ter-ritorial groups that were distinguished were given (Korobov 2003, pp. 34–121).


On the whole, this confirmed the view of Kuznetsov, Kovalevskaia, Abramova, and Gutnov, who divide Alanic tribes into two basic groups: western and eastern (Korobov 2003, p. 120).

In the past decade, as a result of archeological excavations conducted in the North Caucasus, at least 1,500 new catacombs from the period of interest to us (second–ninth century c.e. ) have been studied. However, this material remains unpublished, and there is frequently no access even to reports documenting the excavations. There is only fragmentary information on studies at catacomb cem-eteries published in the form of summary reports or notes in the Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia collection (e.g., see Atabiev 1998, pp. 13–16; Dzattiaty 2001, pp. 128, 129; Kadzaeva 2004, pp. 87, 88). Thus, for now, it is not possible to fully use the information about these burials. For this reason, I mostly have limited myself in this article to general data about the location of catacomb cemeteries and the number of burials studied. As a result, information was used on 113 catacomb cemeteries of the second–ninth century, in which 1,500 catacombs were studied.

To illustrate the extent of the catacomb burial rite in the North Caucasus in its diachronic development, the material is presented for four chronological periods: second half of the second–end of the fourth century c.e., end of the fourth–first half of the fifth century c.e., second half of the fifth–first half of the eighth century c.e., and second half of the eighth–end of the ninth century.

Such a segmentation of the material illustrates the Alans’ involvement in basic historical events in the Caucasus that are known to us from written sources: the era preceding the Hunnic conquest (first period), movement of tribes in the process of Hunnic campaigns and the Great Migration of Peoples (second period), involve-ment in the confrontation between Byzantium and Sasanian Iran (third period), and, finally, the movement of tribes as a result of the policy of the Khazar Khaganate during its wars with the Arabs (fourth period). In this case, the use of a broader time span, from the second half of the fifth through the first half of the eighth century c.e., seems justified, since this time can be characterized as a period when Alans lived stably in Central Ciscaucasia and as a result of previous settlement Alanic tribes occupied certain regions and lived there constantly (Albegova 2007). Precisely this settlement of Alans in various areas of the Caucasus in the fifth–eighth century, in the interlude between historical cataclysms that led to migrations of large tribal groupings, that is reflected in Armenian Geography, is of special interest as the theme of this article.

Of the 113 catacomb cemeteries under consideration, 90 are classified as un-derground without mounds (976 catacombs have been excavated in them); and 23 as under-kurgan (524 catacombs). On the whole, they are evenly distributed in the area from the middle reaches of the Kuban in the west to Primorskii Dagestan in the east of the North Caucasus. However, if we try to trace the extent of the catacomb burial rite within the framework of the four chronological periods that have been distinguished, the picture becomes fairly complex.

Eleven under-kurgan and ten underground cemeteries date back to the first pe-

summer 2011 55

riod (second half of the second–end of the fourth century c.e.) (Figure 1). One is struck by the fairly clear pattern of extent of underground catacombs in the western part of the region and under-kurgan ones in the east. For instance, just sixty-two underground catacombs can be reliably dated to this period, mostly located in the eastern part of Krasnodar krai (Mostovoi), in Karachaevo-Cherkessia (Khumarinskii and Baital-Chapkan), in the Kislovodsk region (Podkumskii, Zamkovyi, Mokraia Balka 1, Klin-Iar 3, and Vysokogornyi 1), and also in the piedmont of North Os-setia (Khaznidon) and in the western part of Chechnya (Chernorechenskii 1). We should mention that conclusions based on this material are preliminary, since a series of under-kurgan burials from the second half of the second–end of the fourth century located west of the main group has been revealed in recent years, in the steppe zone of the middle reaches of the Kuma River (the Pegushin cemetery and others—recent excavations by T.A. Gabuev). That material is not yet in scientific circulation. There is information about the Volch’i Vorota under-kurgan cemetery, in the Kislovodsk Basin. Apparently it too dates back to the first chronological period (Afanas’ev et al. 2004, p. 127). Evidently, the pattern may change as information is accumulated on catacomb burials from the second–fourth century.

Figure 1. Catacomb Cemeteries of the North Caucasus from the Second Half of the Second–End of the Fourth Century c.e. 3—Mostovoi; 4—Baital-Chapkan; 5—Khumarinskii; 8—Zamkovyi; 10—Mokraia Balka 1; 11—Klin-Iar 3; 30—Vysokogornyi 1; 35—Khaznidon; 44—Vinogradnoe:47—Beslan; 52—Oktiabr’skii; 57—Bratskoe; 67—Alkhan-Kala; 68—Vozdvizhenskaia; 69—Chernorechenskii 1; 73—Aldynskaia; 85—Andrei-Aul; 102—Ekazhevo; 108—Zmeiskii; 111—Nasyr-Kort.

underground under-kurgan


The main group of 350 burials is classified as under-kurgan and comes from the steppe zone of North Ossetia (Vinogradnoe, Oktiabr’skii, Bratskoe, Zmeiskii), the piedmont zone at the border of the contemporary republics of North Ossetia and Ingushetia (Beslan, Nasyr-Kort, Ekazhevo), and in the western part of Chechnya (Alkhan-kala, Vozdvizhenskii, Aldynskii), as well as the steppe part of Dagestan (Andrei-Aul 2). In most cases, we are talking about several burials in one cemetery. F.S. Dzutsev has excavated more than 300 burials in the Beslan under-kurgan cem-etery in Ossetia (according to oral information from V.Iu. Malashev,3 out of more than 500 of them). However, they are not fully in scientific circulation.

Not many catacomb burials date from the end of the fourth–first half of the fifth century c.e. (Figure 2), and they are mostly found in Primorskii Dagestan. In Central Ciscaucasia, only eight individual complexes can be dated to this time, at Mokraia Balka 1, Lermontovskaia Skala 1 and 2, Klin-Iar 3 (Kislovodsk Basin), and also Khaznidon (western piedmont of North Ossetia). To the east of the latter, in the steppe part, is the famous Brut cemetery, which dates to the same period. It is actually three cemeteries containing under-kurgan and underground burials from the period of the Great Migration of Peoples (first half of the fifth century c.e.)

Figure 2. Catacomb Cemeteries of the North Caucasus from the End of the Fourth–First Half of the Fifth Century c.e. 10—Mokraia Balka 1; 11—Klin-Iar 3; 27—Lermontovskaia Skala 1; 28—Lermontovskaia Skala 2; 35—Khaznidon; 42—Brut podkurgannyi; 43—Brut gruntovyi; 90—Manasskii; 92—Utamyshkii; 93—Mamai-Kutan; 94—Torpakh-Kala; 95—Dzhemikentskii 1; 96—Dzhemikentskii 3; 97—Dagogninskii 3; 98—Dagogninskii 4; 99—Palasa-Syrt; 100—Kukhmazkuntskii.


summer 2011 57

(Gabuev 2007, pp. 474, 475). Part of this is dated to a broader time range: from the second half of the second to the turn of the sixth–seventh century (Gabuev and Malashev 2007, pp. 460, 461).

The main group of catacombs of this time period comes from Primorskii Dag-estan, where out of ninety-four burials approximately half can be reliably dated to the fourth–fifth century c.e. The majority of the sepulchers have been studied at the Palasa-syrt cemetery (seventy-six catacombs), and there are isolated complexes in the Manassk (1), Utamyshsk (1), Mamai-Kutan (1), Dzhemikentsk 1 (2) and 3 (3), Dagogninsk 3 (3) and 4 (3), and Kukhmazkuntsk (3) cemeteries. We should mention that some scholars link catacomb burials in Primorskii Dagestan with Iranian-speaking tribes of Masguts, who were closely related to Alans (Kotovich 1959, p. 156; Afanas’ev 1992, pp. 92–95; Kovalevskaia 2005, p. 152); and others, with Turkic-speaking Huns (Gmyria 1993, pp. 225–28). Therefore these materials are used comparatively.

The majority of catacomb burials excavated in the North Caucasus can be broadly dated to the second half of the fifth–first half of the eighth century c.e. (Figure 3). Of the 611 catacomb burials that can be dated to this time, most of them (547 sepulchers) are underground, and only 64 are under-kurgan. The latter are found in eastern Chechnya (the Alleroevsk cemetery—4 catacombs) and in the northern, steppe part of Dagestan. Three cemeteries have been studied there, near Verkhnii Chir-Iurt, one of which is under-kurgan (the Verkhnii Chir-Iurt kurgan cemetery), 1 underground (Verkhnii Chir-Iurt 1), and in the other (Verkhnii Chir-Iurt 2) there are 2 under-kurgan and 36 underground burials.

Underground catacombs from this period have been found practically throughout the piedmont of Central Ciscaucasia. In the upper reaches of the Kuban, about 40 catacombs that can be dated to the fifth–eighth century have been excavated at the Prochnookopsk, Baital-Chapkan, and Khumarinsk cemeteries. Most of the burials from this time have been found in the Kislovodsk Basin (345 catacombs). To the east, in the territory of contemporary Kabardino-Balkaria, where the piedmont meets the mountain zone at least 1,000 catacomb burials have been studied in re-cent years, the majority also dating to the third period (Atabiev 1998, pp. 13–16). However, there is no information about them yet, in the form of either publications or excavation reports. Farther east, we have information on catacomb burials in eastern Balkaria, and also in western and central Ossetia (about 80 burials found in the piedmont, in the Bylym and Nizhnii Dzhulat cemeteries), as well as in the piedmont and mountains of Digor (Khaznidon, Galiat, Kamunta), Alagir (Dagom, Khod, Arkhon, Sadon), and Kurtata (Gusara) Gorges. To the east are cemeteries where about 20 catacombs from the period in question have been studied. These are in Dar’ial Gorge (Chmi 1 and Chmi-Suargom) and in the mountain zone not far away from it (Dargavs). Some of these sites have been known for a long time, while information about others has not yet come into scientific circulation and awaits full publication (Dzattiaty 2005, pp. 284, 285; Kadzaeva 2005, pp. 296, 297; 2007, p. 265; Shestopalova 2007, pp. 348–50).


To the east, catacomb burials have been found in the Ali-Iurt cemetery in Ingush-etia; Samashkinskii 1, Ulus-Martan 2, Martan-Chu 2, and Shalazhinskii 1 and 2 cemeteries in western Chechnya; and also in Goust, Berduty, and Isti-Su cemeteries in the eastern part of Chechnya. A single catacomb in the Andrei-Aul underground cemetery can also be dated to the third period, as can eight out of twelve underground catacombs in the Verkhnii Chir-Iurt 1 cemetery and 36 underground sepulchers in Verkhnii Chir-Iurt 2. Both are in the steppe part of Dagestan. Finally, in Primorskii Dagestan a single underground catacomb cemetery from this period (Targu) has been found so far, where eight burials have been excavated.

Figure 3. Catacomb Cemeteries of the North Caucasus from the Second Half of the Fifth–First Half of the Eighth Century c.e. 4—Baital-Chapkan; 5—Kislovodskoe Ozero 1; 7—Mokraia Balka 2; 8—Zamkovyi; 9—Berezovskii; 10—Mokraia Balka 1; 11—Klin-Iar 3; 12—Klin-Iar 4; 13—Mirnyi; 14—Gornoe Ekho; 15—Machty; 16—Sovkhoz Zelenogorskii; 17—Sovkhoz im. Lunacharskogo; 18—Direktorskaia Gorka; 19—Alikonovskii2; 20—Alanskaia Krepost’; 22—Kugul’skii 1; 23—Kugul’skii 2; 24—Bermamytskii; 25—Ostryi Mys 1; 26—Ostryi Mys 2; 27—Lermontovskaia Skala 1; 28—Lermontovskaia Skala 2; 29—Markinkosh; 34—Galiat; 35—Khaznidon; 36—Kamunta; 37—Bylym; 38—Sadon; 39—Nizhnii Dzhulat; 40—Arkhon; 41—Dargavs; 45—Chmi-Suargom; 48—Chmi 1; 58—Ali-Iurt; 61—Samashkinskii 1; 62—Shalazhinskii 1; 63—Shalazhinskii 2; 66—Martan-Chu 2; 70—Urus-Martan 2; 76—Goust; 81—Berdutinskii; 82—Alleroevskii; 83—Isti-Su; 84– Andrei-Aul 1; 87—Verkhnii Chir-Iurt 1; 88—Verkhnii Chir-Iurt 2; 89—Verkhnii Chir-Iurt kurgan; 91—Targunskii; 103—Prochnookopskii; 104—Khod; 105—Gusara; 106—Dagom; 110—Konkhutorskii 2.


summer 2011 59

Figure 4. Catacomb Cemeteries of the North Caucasus from the Second Half of the Eighth–End of the Ninth Century c.e. 1—MTF No. 3 kolkhoza im. Lenina; 2—Starokorsunskii 5; 17—sovkhoz im. Lunacharskogo; 31—Khulam; 32—Rakhty; 33—Peschanka; 35—Khaznidon; 40—Arkhon; 41—Dargavs; 43—Verkhniaia Koban’ 2; 45—Chmi-Suargom; 46—Beini; 48—Chmi 1; 49—Chmi 5; 50—Kharkh; 51—Balta; 53—Furtoug; 54—Kirpichnyi Zavod (brick plant); 55—Tarskoe; 56—Tarskii; 60—Varkhnii Alkun; 61—Samashkinskii 1; 64—Martan-Chu 1; 65—Martan-Chu 3; 71—Duba-Iurt 1; 72—Duba-Iurt 2; 75—Komsomol’skoe 1; 76—Goust; 78—Akhkinchu-Barzoi 1; 80—Mairtup-A; 86—Bavtugai; 101—Alagir; 104—Khod; 107—Dagom; 109—Kich-Malka 1; 112—Kari-Tsagat.

In the next period (eighth–ninth century), evidence shows considerable move-ment of bearers of the catacomb burial rite in the North Caucasus and beyond. First of all, under-kurgan catacomb burials disappear, and underground cemeter-ies have a somewhat different extent in comparison with the preceding period (Figure 4). Catacomb burials disappear in the upper reaches of the Kuban, and there are practically none of them in the Kislovodsk Basin. But then burials in catacombs appear in the territory of extensive underground cemeteries with burials in pits near contemporary Krasnodar (Dairy Farm (MTF) No. 3 of the Lenin Collective Farm and Starokorsunskii), as well as burials in catacombs in the piedmont (Peschanka) and mountain (Kharkh, Khulam, Rakhty) zones of Kabardino-Balkaria.

In North Ossetia, as before, a number of cemeteries originated in the preced-ing period (Khaznidon, Arkhon, Dagom, Dargavs, Chmi-Suargom, and Chmi 1), and new sites appear in the piedmont zone (Alagir, a catacomb at the brick plant



in Vladikavkaz, Tarskii and Tarskoe cemeteries), as well as in the mountain zone (Kari-Tsagat, Khod, Verkhniaia Koban’ 2, Chmi 5, Balta). The catacomb burial rite continues to exist in the piedmont zone of Ingushetia (Verkhnii Alkun) and also penetrates into the mountain zone of Ingushetia (Furtoug, Beini).

In Chechnya, as before, such sites are localized exclusively in plains areas in the west (Samashkinsk 1), center (Martan-Chu 1 and 3, Komsomol’sk 1, Duba-Iurt 1 and 2), and in the eastern part of the republic (Goust, Mairtup-A, Akhkinchu-Barzoi 1 and 2). And finally, in the steppe part of Dagestan there is information about a single catacomb burial from the eighth–ninth century, in the Bavtugai cemetery near Verkhnii Chir-Iurt.

We have examined characteristic features of the geographic extent of the cata-comb burial rite over the course of the first millennium c.e. and identified several local ranges that existed simultaneously in different areas. This already indicates that the Alanic population that left behind catacomb cemeteries was not unified. Within it have been individual tribal groups that occupied various areas but, at the same time, were joined together by a common burial rite. Returning to Zuckerman’s interpretation of the Armenian Geography, we will try to combine the pattern that he created of settlement of several Alanic tribal groupings in the Caucasus with a map of the extent of occurrence of catacomb cemeteries.

As noted above, the time described in Armenian Geography can be correlated with catacomb burials of the third period, broadly dated to the second half of the fifth–first half of the eighth century c.e. To get the clearest picture, a buffer zone was constructed around the cemeteries, with a radius of 30 km, as the average distance of a day’s travel on horseback (Figure 5). If we assume that a day’s travel separates the territory of one society from another, then this procedure enables us to outline hypothetical boundaries between the areas inhabited by different Alanic communities. Of course, the objectivity of reconstructing such boundaries directly depends on how well the regions have been studied. In particular, this is demonstrated especially clearly by the absence of cemeteries in the area between the Kislovodsk Basin and Kabardino-Balkaria, where no intensive field studies have been done for a long time. On the other hand, construction of a thirty-kilometer buffer zone makes it possible to incontrovertibly outline the boundaries between groupings of Alans in the upper reaches of the Kuban and in the Kislovodsk Ba-sin, and to demonstrate the vagueness of such boundaries in the eastern areas of Ossetia, Ingushetia, and Chechnya. At the same time, buffer zones close to thirty kilometers are outlined separating cemeteries of Karbardino-Balkaria and Ossetia from Ingushetia and central Chechnya, and also from eastern Chechnya and northern Dagestan. Individual small groups of Alans existed during the period in question on the periphery of their main habitat, separated from it by a considerable distance. This was the population that left behind the Prochnookopsk cemetery in the upper reaches of the Kuban and Targunskii cemetery in Primorskii Dagestan.

If we compare the results of mapping fifth–eighth-century cemeteries with Zuckerman’s data on settlement of Alanic tribes in various places, we get a clear

summer 2011 61

picture of their spatial correlation. The territory of “Alans” correlates with the group of catacomb cemeteries in the upper reaches of the Kuban (Baital-Chapkan and Khumarinsk); of “Aš-Tigor,” with the compact group of cemeteries in the Kislovodsk Basin; and “Digor,” with the cemeteries of Kabardino-Balkaria and the piedmont and mountain zones of North Ossetia. It is harder to localize the “Awsurk” ethnonym, behind which may lie bearers of the catacomb burial rite who left behind the cemeteries in the upper and middle reaches of the Sunzha River in the territory of contemporary Ingushetia and the central part of Chechnya (Tsuker-man 2005, pp. 76, 77. Fig. 1). The catacomb cemeteries of eastern Chechnya and northern Dagestan, which have some distinctive features, are not yet correlated with the tribal names of Alans distinguished by Zuckerman in his analysis of the Armenian Geography. Moreover, it is doubtful that some of these cemeteries were Alanic (for example, the Verkhnii Chir-Iurt kurgan cemetery or the underground Verkhnii Chir-Iurt 2 cemetery).

Are there grounds for saying that the catacomb burial rite of the second half of the fifth–first half of the eighth century has local peculiarities in various regions of the North Caucasus, indicating tribal groups that had specific characteristics? To answer this question, we will try to analyze certain features of the burial rite

Figure 5. Comparison of Extent of Occurrence of Catacomb Cemeteries from the Second Half of the Fifth–First Half of the Eighth Century c.e. with the Settlement of Alanic Tribes in Various Areas According to Constantin Zuckerman (2005, fig. 1).

catacomb cemeteries

AŠ-TIGORALANS

DIGORAWSURK


considered above by methods of multivariate statistical analysis, which enables us to check the conformity of a grouping that is distinguished with respect to a large number of characteristics. Of the whole diversity of elements and details of the burial rite, we focus on the main characteristics of the burial structure (type of catacomb, number of chambers, shape of a chamber, presence of niches and recesses in the floor of a chamber), and also on the number of people buried and the position of the body in the chamber (with the head to the left or right of the entrance, with the body outstretched on its back or curled on its left or right side, positioning of curled-up bodies with their face or back to the entrance). We took as the material to be analyzed 611 catacombs from 55 under-kurgan and underground cemeteries of the third chronological period, Information about details of the burial rite used in the analysis has been compiled in Table 1. These characteristics were analyzed by the method of discriminant analysis. This multivariate statistical analysis pro-cedure makes it possible to objectively estimate the reliability of classifications that were made theoretically.

The essence of the procedure consists in the following. All the sites to be analyzed were combined into several territorial groups, distinguished by cluster analysis ac-cording to the sites’ spatial proximity (Korobov 2003, pp. 35–37). These are groups 2 (upper reaches of the Kuban), 3 (Kislovodsk Basin), 6 (eastern Kabardino-Balkaria and western Ossetia), 7 (eastern Ossetia and Ingushetia), 8 (central Chechnya), 9 (eastern Chechnya), and 10 (northern Dagestan). The Targunsk cemetery, the only site in Primorsk Dagestan (group 11) from the period in question, was excluded from the processing according to the analysis conditions.

The cemeteries’ membership in a territorial group was used as a classifying variable. In the course of analysis we used a canonical discriminant function, a linear combination of discriminant variables (for more details, see Korobov 2003, pp. 12, 13). These variables are selected so that the mean values of the discriminant functions for different clusters (the groups that are used) differ from each other as much as possible. This gives an estimate of erroneous classification, that is, the number of sites from the original groups that fall into other groups in the course of discriminant analysis is determined. Thus, the analysis checks how much the groups that were distinguished actually differ with respect to the characteristics used.

The discriminant analysis that was done enabled us to confirm that there is a high degree of differences between the catacomb cemeteries of different territorial groups (Figure 6). From Table 2, which gives the results of erroneous classification, we can see that the majority of the sites are classified in their own group, that is, they have characteristics distinguishing them from other cemeteries. If we introduce a specific index of their identity (number of sites that the analysis classified in their own group), more than 83 percent of the catacomb cemeteries have a fairly weighty set of characteristics distinguishing them from other sites within the framework of the territorial groups used. It is noteworthy that these indices are comparable with indices of the similarity of archeological material suggested at one time by G.A. Fedorov-Davydov, following D[avid] Clark.b He believed that the degree of

summer 2011 63

(con

tinue

d)

Tabl

e 1

Fre

qu

ency

Ch

arac

teri

stic

s o

f D

etai

ls o

f th

e B

uri

al R

ite

of

Cat

aco

mb

Cem

eter

ies

fro

m t

he

Sec

on

d H

alf

of

the

Fif

th–

Fir

st H

alf

of

the

Eig

hth

Cen

tury

c.e

.

No.

Nam

e of

ce

met

ery

No.

of

buria

lsG

roup

Sha

pe o

f cha

mbe

r

Nic

heR

eces

s

Rel

atio

nshi

p of

axe

s

squa

rere

ctan

gle

circ

leov

alirr

egul

arpe

rpen

dicu

lar

para

llel

In a

st

raig

ht

line

4B

.-C

hapk

an24

20.

042

0.50

00.

042

0.45

8—

0.70

80.

458

0.50

0—

—

5K

hum

arin

skii

72

—0.

143

—0.

857

——

–1.

000

——

6K

is. O

zero

17

3—

——

0.71

4—

—–

0.28

6—

—

7M

. Bal

ka 2

23

——

—0.

500

0.50

0—

–1.

000

——

8Z

amko

vyi

63

—0.

167

—0.

833

——

0.33

31.

000

——

9B

erez

ov. 2

33

——

—0.

667

——

–—

——

10M

. Bal

ka 1

145

30.

014

0.04

80.

028

0.93

80.

021

0.09

70.

055

0.86

2—

—

11K

lin-I

ar 3

523

—0.

058

0.03

80.

865

0.03

80.

115

0.23

10.

981

——

12K

lin-I

ar 4

103

——

—1.

000

—0.

200

0.20

00.

900

——

13M

irny

i 22

3—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

—

14G

orno

e E

kho

53

——

—0.

800

0.20

00.

200

—0.

600

——

15M

acht

y8

3—

0.12

5—

0.75

0—

—0.

125

0.87

50.

125

—

16S

. Zel

enog

.2

3—

——

1.00

0—

——

—0.

500

—

17S

. Lun

ach.

163

—0.

063

0.63

0.06

3—

——

——

—

18D

ir. G

orka

53

0.20

00.

600

——

0.20

0—

—1.

000

——

19A

likon

21

3—

——

1.00

0—

—1.

000

1.00

0—

—


20A

lan.

Kre

p.3

3—

——

1.00

0—

——

0.66

7—

—22

Kug

ul’ 1

103

—0.

200

—0.

800

——

—0.

700

——

23K

ugul

’ 234

3—

0.02

9—

0.97

1—

0.02

9—

0.58

8—

—24

Ber

mam

yt3

3—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

—25

Ost

r. M

ys 1

53

——

0.20

00.

800

——

—0.

800

0.20

0—

26O

str.

Mys

21

3—

1.00

0—

——

——

1.00

0—

—27

Lerm

ont.

16

3—

—0.

167

0.83

3—

0.33

30.

167

1.00

0—

—28

Lerm

ont 2

143

——

—1.

143

—0.

071

0.07

10.

643

——

29M

arki

nkos

h3

3—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

—34

Gal

iat

16

——

—1.

000

——

——

——

34K

hazn

idon

26

—0.

500

—0.

500

——

—1.

000

——

36K

amun

ta2

6—

——

0.50

0—

——

0.50

0—

—37

Byl

ym1

6—

1.00

0—

——

——

1.00

0—

—38

Sad

on44

6—

0.09

10.

068

0.79

50.

023

0.02

3—

0.97

70.

023

—39

N. D

zhul

at19

6—

0.52

60.

053

0.42

10.

105

0.05

3—

0.68

4—

—40

Ark

hon

86

——

0.25

00.

875

0.25

00.

125

0.12

50.

750

——

41D

arga

vs4

7—

0.25

00.

250

—0.

500

0.50

0—

1.00

0—

—45

Chm

i-Sua

r.11

7—

——

——

0.54

50.

091

0.81

8—

—48

Chm

i 11

7—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

—58

Ali-

Iurt

28

—0.

500

—0.

500

——

—1.

000

——

Tabl

e 1

(con

tinue

d)

No.

Nam

e of

ce

met

ery

No.

of

buria

lsG

roup

Sha

pe o

f cha

mbe

r

Nic

heR

eces

s

Rel

atio

nshi

p of

axe

s

squa

rere

ctan

gle

circ

leov

alirr

egul

arpe

rpen

dicu

lar

para

llel

In a

st

raig

ht

line

summer 2011 6561

Sam

ashk

i 11

81.

000

——

——

——

1.00

0—

—62

Sha

lazh

in. 1

18

——

——

——

——

——

63S

hala

zhin

. 21

8—

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

066

Mar

t-C

hu 2

58

—0.

400

—0.

600

—0.

200

—1.

000

——

70U

rus-

Mar

. 21

8—

——

——

——

——

—76

Gou

st2

9—

0.50

0—

——

——

——

—81

Ber

dutin

29

——

—1.

000

——

—1.

000

——

82A

llerr

oi4

9—

——

1.00

0—

0.25

0—

1.00

0—

—83

Isti-

Su

19

——

—1.

000

——

—1.

000

——

84A

ndr.-

Aul

110

—1.

000

——

——

—1.

000

——

87V.

Chi

r-Iu

. 18

10—

—0.

250

0.62

50.

500

——

0.62

5—

—88

V. C

hir-

Iu. 2

3810

—0.

289

—0.

684

——

—0.

395

0.60

5—

89V.

Chi

r-Iu

. K58

10—

0.10

3—

0.27

60.

621

0.03

4—

1.00

0—

—91

Targ

u5

11—

——

0.80

0—

——

0.60

00.

400

—10

3P

roch

nook

.7

2—

——

0.85

70.

143

——

1.00

0—

—10

4K

hod

16

—1.

000

——

1.00

0—

—1.

000

——

105

Gus

ara

36

0.33

3—

—0.

333

——

—1.

000

——

106

Dag

om1

6—

—1.

000

——

—1.

000

——

110

Koh

khut

or. 2

23

——

1.00

0—

0.50

0—

1.00

0—

—1.

000

—0.

958

0.04

2—

—0.

417

——

—0.

625

0.08

3—

—1.

000

—0.

143

0.42

90.

143

0.14

31.

143

0.57

1—

—0.

857

0.57

10.

429

—1.

000

—0.

429

0.14

3—

0.14

30.

429

0.42

9—

—1.

000

0.28

6—

—1.

000

——

0.50

0—

0.50

02.

500

——

—2.

000

0.50

00.

500

—1.

000

—0.

833

0.16

7—

—1.

000

——

—0.

500

0.33

30.

167

0.16

70.

667

—0.

333

0.33

3—

——

——

—1.

000

——

—0.

972

—0.

386

0.37

20.

083

0.03

41.

110

0.02

1—

—0.

841

0.28

30.

255

0.01

4

(con

tinue

d)

66 ANThrOpOlOGy & ArCheOlOGy OF eurAsIATa

ble

1 (c

ontn

ued)

No.

of

cham

bers

No.

of b

uria

lsP

lace

men

t of b

odie

sP

ostu

reP

ositi

on

12

12

3>

3to

le

ftto

rig

htaw

ay fr

om

entr

ance

tow

ard

entr

ance

stre

tche

d ou

t c

urle

d up

face

to

war

d en

tran

ce

back

to

war

d en

tran

ce

1.00

0—

0.44

20.

308

0.11

50.

019

1.09

60.

038

0.01

90.

019

0.71

20.

365

0.32

70.

038

1.00

0—

0.30

00.

400

0.30

0—

1.50

0—

——

0.90

00.

600

0.50

0—

1.00

0—

0.50

00.

500

——

1.50

0—

——

1.50

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

0.20

0—

—0.

400

0.60

0—

—1.

200

0.40

0—

1.00

0—

0.50

00.

125

0.12

5—

0.37

5—

0.25

0—

0.37

50.

250

0.12

5—

1.00

0—

0.50

0—

——

——

——

0.50

0—

——

——

0.12

50.

063

——

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

—0.

200

0.40

0—

0.40

0—

——

0.40

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

0.33

30.

333

——

0.33

3—

——

0.66

70.

333

0.33

3—

0.90

0—

0.10

00.

500

——

1.00

0—

——

0.60

00.

300

0.10

00.

100

1.00

0—

0.11

80.

029

——

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

0.33

30.

667

——

1.66

7—

——

1.00

00.

667

0.66

7—

1.00

0—

—0.

200

—0.

200

0.80

00.

600

——

1.40

00.

200

——

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

—0.

500

0.50

0—

0.83

3—

0.16

7—

0.33

30.

667

0.16

70.

500

0.64

3—

0.21

40.

357

0.35

7—

0.92

9—

——

0.64

30.

500

—0.

214

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

0.66

7—

——

0.66

7—

——

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

——

summer 2011 67

(con

tinue

d)

1.00

0—

0.50

00.

500

——

1.00

0—

——

0.50

00.

500

0.50

0—

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

0.50

0—

——

0.50

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

0.35

10.

341

0.06

80.

068

1.11

4—

——

0.54

50.

386

0.31

80.

068

1.00

0—

0.52

60.

263

0.05

3—

0.26

3—

——

0.15

80.

053

0.05

3—

1.00

0—

0.37

50.

375

0.12

50.

125

0.12

51.

750

0.12

5—

1.12

50.

500

0.25

00.

125

1.00

0—

0.50

0—

0.50

0—

1.25

00.

250

——

1.50

0—

——

0.90

90.

091

0.63

60.

091

0.27

3—

0.54

50.

455

0.09

10.

091

0.45

50.

091

0.09

1—

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

0.50

00.

500

——

0.50

0—

——

——

——

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

—1.

000

——

——

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

0.20

00.

400

0.20

00.

200

1.40

0—

0.60

0—

2.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

—1.

000

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

0.50

0—

0.50

0—

2.00

0—

——

2.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

0.25

00.

250

0.50

0—

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

——

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

——

1.00

0—

0.12

50.

500

0.25

00.

125

2.00

0—

——

1.25

00.

125

—0.

125

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

0.81

60.

132

—0.

026

0.92

10.

053

—0.

105

68 ANThrOpOlOGy & ArCheOlOGy OF eurAsIATa

ble

1 (c

ontin

ued)

No.

of

cham

bers

No.

of b

uria

lsP

lace

men

t of b

odie

sP

ostu

reP

ositi

on

12

12

3>

3to

le

ftto

rig

htaw

ay fr

om

entr

ance

tow

ard

entr

ance

stre

tche

d ou

t c

urle

d up

face

to

war

d en

tran

ce

back

to

war

d en

tran

ce

1.00

0—

0.39

7—

——

0.05

2—

——

0.05

2—

——

1.00

0—

0.40

00.

600

——

0.40

00.

200

——

1.20

0—

——

1.00

0—

0.57

1—

——

0.28

6—

——

——

——

1.00

0—

—1.

000

—2.

000

——

—1.

000

1.00

01.

000

—1.

000

——

0.33

3—

—0.

667

——

—0.

333

0.33

30.

333

—1.

000

——

1.00

0—

—2.

000

——

—1.

000

1.00

0—

1.00

0

1.00

0—

1.00

0—

——

——

——

——

——

summer 2011 69

objects’ similarity calculated on the basis of comparative analysis should be at least 65 percent within local versions of an archeological culture, 30–65 percent within an archeological culture, and 5–30 percent within a historical cultural community (Fedorov-Davydov 1987, p. 167; Gening et al. 1990, p. 132).

We examine here the results of the analysis in greater detail. The least distinc-tive are the cemeteries in the upper reaches of the Kuban, which are correlated with the ethnonym “Alans” according to Zuckerman’s scheme. For instance, of the three sites, just one (the Baital-Chapkan cemetery) belongs to its own group; the other two (Khumarinsk and Prochnookopsk) are more similar to the catacomb cemeteries of the Kislovodsk Basin. The distinctive feature of the burials at Baital-Chapkan is the predominance of a rectangular chamber, with niches and recesses in the floor, in which single burials are found, laid outstretched with the head to the left of the entrance.

The cemeteries of the Kislovodsk Basin (where the Aš-Tigor lived) are highly homogeneous. The burials were predominantly done in oval chambers, in which niches and recesses in the floor are found. There are approximately equal numbers of single and pair burials with the body outstretched or curled on its side. Mostly, they are laid out with the head to the left of the entrance (facing the entrance if the body is curled on its side). The results of the analysis show that, in addition to cemeteries in the vicinity of Kislovodsk, this rite is also “canonical” for some cemeteries from western (group 2—Khumarinsk, Prochnookopsk) and eastern areas (group 6—Kamunta, Sadon, Gusara; group 7—Chmi 1; group 9—Isti-Su).

Figure 6. Results of Discriminant Analysis of the Burial Rite of Catacomb Cemeteries from the Second Half of the Fifth–First Half of the Eighth Century c.e.

Group 2

Group 3

Group 6

Group 7

Group 8

Group 9

Group 10


We should point out that, in some cases, this result is likely due to the relatively small number of observations at numerous cemeteries, although there are examples of well-substantiated similarity (for example, Sadon—44 catacombs).

About 70 percent of the catacombs from eastern Kabardino-Balkaria and western Ossetia—the habitat of “Digor” tribes according to Zuckerman—also have specific features that enable us to set them apart in a separate group 6. Although on the whole not many burials are known here, the following distinctive characteristics of the rite are noted: a significant number of rectangular chambers, though oval ones are predominant, perpendicular to the dromos, in which niches and recesses are seldom found. There are single, pair, and collective burials in the chambers, with the bodies mostly positioned with the head to the left of the entrance, outstretched or curled up. In the latter case, the bodies are turned with either their face or back toward the entrance. Among the cemeteries of this group (Galiat, Khaznidon, Bylym, Nizhnii Dzhulat, Khod, Dagom), the burials in the Arkhon cemetery differ: most of the bodies here are laid out with their head to the right of the chamber entrance.

A small number of cemeteries of group 7 (eastern Ossetia and Ingushetia) have some distinctive characteristics that allow us to distinguish half the sites here as a separate group. These are burials from the Dargavs and Chmi-Suargom cemeter-ies, where several catacombs have been found from the third period (most of the burials that have been excavated here date to the second half of the eighth–end of the ninth century). They were done in chambers of various shapes (rectangular, circular, or irregular, but not oval), in which niches and recesses are found. In ad-dition to single and pair burials, there is a high percentage of collective burials in these cemeteries, with the bodies mostly outstretched. As a result of the analysis, two other cemeteries from this region were classified in group 3 (Chmi 1) and group 6 (Ali-Iurt).

To the east, the cemeteries of central Chechnya, is hypothetically the territory where “Awsurk” tribes lived (group 8), are also highly homogeneous. Five cemeter-ies have been found here with burials from the period in question that were done in chambers of various shapes, in which niches are seldom found. Single, pair, and collective burials are known, laid out with the head toward the left, right, or the back wall of the chamber, always with the body outstretched. On the whole, there is not much data from this region.

In eastern regions of Chechnya, four cemeteries date from the period in ques-tion, three of which are combined in group 9. They are characterized by burials in rectangular and oval chambers, sometimes with niches, in which from one to three people were buried, outstretched with their head to the left of the entrance. One other cemetery, Isti-Su, is more similar in its characteristics (oval chamber with a single burial, outstretched with the head to the left of the entrance) to those of the Kislovodsk Basin.

The cemeteries of steppe Dagestan (group 10) have always been considered exceptional, confirmed by discriminant analysis. Of the five cemeteries, one (Andrei-Aul 1) is classified in group 6 because of a single burial done in a rectan-

summer 2011 71

Tabl

e 2

Res

ult

s o

f E

rro

neo

us

Cla

ssifi

cati

on

of

Cat

aco

mb

Cem

eter

ies

fro

m t

he

Sec

on

d H

alf

of

the

Fif

th–F

irst

Hal

f o

f th

e S

even

th

Cen

tury

by

the

Dis

crim

inan

t An

alys

is M

eth

od

Gro

upId

entit

y in

dex

(%)

Gro

up 2

Gro

up 3

Gro

up 6

Gro

up 7

Gro

up 8

Gro

up 9

Gro

up 1

0

233

.33

12

——

——

—

310

0—

24—

——

——

670

—3

7—

——

—

750

—1

12

——

—

810

0—

——

—5

——

975

—1

——

—3

—

1080

——

1—

——

4

Tota

l83

.64

131

92

53

4


gular chamber. The rest make up a specific group of diverse sites in the vicinity of Verkhnii Chir-Iurt. Researchers raise doubts that the latter belong to the Alanic ethnos (Afanas’ev 1992, p. 95).

On the whole, discriminant analysis enabled us to confirm the existence of several areas with different features of one catacomb burial rite. Of course, this picture could be adjusted if new sites appear on the map of the North Caucasus. However, it is obvious that during the period from the second half of the fifth through the first half of the eighth century c.e. burials in catacomb cemeteries were not all done the same way, and that this common rite had specific features in various regions. Thus, analysis of the extent of the catacomb burial rite in the Early Medieval period in comparison with data from written sources makes it possible hypothetically to outline the boundaries of territories belonging to several tribal groups of Alans. Of course, in this stage of our knowledge we can hardly precisely correlate local versions of Alanic culture with the names of tribes mentioned in written sources. However, the existence of local peculiarities among Alans of the North Caucasus is beyond doubt. Thus there is the potential that future comprehensive studies of various elements of material culture (burial rite, settlements, types of dwellings, earthenware, clothing, etc.) will make it possible to more objectively correlate the pattern of settlement of Alans in the Early Medieval period with the written tradi-tion that has left us the names of Alanic tribal groups.

Notes

1. These concepts were covered in detail in A. Alemany’s and I.A. Arzhantseva’s report to the International Conference Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans—Iranian-Speaking Nomads of the Eurasian Steppe, held in Barcelona 7–10 May 2007. Discussion at this conference of possibilities of identifying local versions of Alanic culture in the North Caucasus during the Early Medieval period served as the motivation for writing this article, an expanded version of which is being published in English in a collection of reports on the results of the conference.

2. I take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to G.E. Afanas’ev for a number of valuable comments that were taken into account in working on this article.

3. I am deeply grateful to V.Iu. Malashev for the valuable comments that he made while I was writing this article and for the opportunity to use his unpublished studies.

Editor’s notes

a. See also www.archeology.ru/ONLINE/Korobov/korobov.html.b. See, for example, David L. Clarke, Analytical Archaeologist: Collected papers of

David l. Clarke (Boston: Academic Press, 1979).

References

Abramova, M.P. rannie alany severnogo Kavkaza III–V vv. n.e. Moscow, 1997.Afanas’ev, G.E. “Etnicheskie aspekty genezisa katakombnogo obriada pogrebenii v

saltovo-maiatskoi kul’ture.” In Alany i Kavkaz. Alanica II. Vladikavkaz–Tskhinval, 1992.

summer 2011 73

Afanas’ev, G.E.; Savenko, S.N.; and Korobov, D.S. Drevnosti Kislovodskoi kotloviny. Moscow, 2004.

Albegova, Z.Kh. “Rasselenie alan na territorii Severnogo Kavkaza v I–XII vv. po materi-alam kartografirovaniia arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov.” Arkheologiia i geoinforma-tika, 2007, no. 4 (CD-ROM).

Aleman’ (Alemany), A. Alany v drevnikh i srednevekovykh pismennykh istochnikakh. Moscow, 2003.

Atabiev, B.Kh. “Zaraginskii i Kashkhatauskii katakombnye mogil’niki. Nekotorye itogi issledovanii.” In XX Iubileinye “Krupnovskie chteniia” po arkheologii severnogo Kavkaza. Stavropol, 1998.

Dzattiaty, R.G. “Raboty Dargavskoi ekspeditsii.” Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia-2000, 2001.Dzattiaty, R.G. “Raskopki Dargavskogo katakombnogo mogil’nika.” Arkheologicheskie

otkrytiia-2004, 2005.Fedorov-Davydov, G.A. statisticheskie metody v arkheologii. Moscow, 1987.Gabuev, T.A. “Komu prinadlezhali kurgany u sela Brut?” In Tri chetverti veka.

D.V. Deopiku—druz’ia i ucheniki. Moscow, 2007.Gabuev, T.A. and Malashev, V.Iu. “Elementy pogrebal’nogo obriada mogil’nikov

Brutskogo gorodishcha.” In severnyi Kavkaz i mir kochevnikov v rannem zheleznom veke. Moscow, 2007.

Gagloiti, Iu.S. “Alanofobiia—mify i real’nost’.” Iuzhnaia Osetiia, 25 July 2006, no. 64.Gening, V.F.; Bunatian, E.P.; Pustovalov, S.Zh.; and Rychkov, N.A. Formalizovano-statis-

ticheskie metody v arkheologii (na primere pogrebal’nykh pamiatnikov). Kiev, 1990.Gmyria, L.B. prikaspiiskii Dagestan v epokhu Velikogo pereseleniia narodov.

Makhachkala, 1993.Gutnov, F.Kh. srednevekovaia Osetiia. Vladikavkaz, 1993.Kadzaeva, Z.P. “Issledovanie alanskogo rannesrednevekovogo katakombnogo mogil’nika

VI–VII vekov Gusara I v Severnoi Osetii.” Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia-2005, 2007.Kadzaeva, Z.P. “Mogil’nik Khod v Severnoi Osetii.” Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia-2004,

2005.Kadzaeva, Z.P. “Rannesrednevekovyi katakombnyi mogil’nik bliz sela Verkhnii Sadon

(RSO-Alania.” In Drevnii Kavkaz: retrospektsiia kul’tur. mezhdunarodnaia nauchnaia konferentsiia posviashchennaia 100-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia e.I. Krupnova. Moscow, 2004.

Kotovich, V.G. “Novye arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Iuzhnogo Dagestana.” In materialy po arkheologii Dagestana, vol. 1. Makhachkala, 1959.

Kovalevskaia, V.B. “Severnokavkazskie drevnosti.” In stepi evrazii v epokhu srednevekov’ia. seriia Arkheologii sssr. Moscow, 1981.

Kovalevskaia, V.B. Kavkaz—skify, sarmaty, alany. I tysiacheletie do n.e.—I tysiacheletie n.e. (Moscow, 2005).

Kuznetsov, V.A. “Alanskaia kul’tura Tsentral’nogo Kavkaza i ee lokal’nye varianty v V–XIII vekakh.” sovetskaia arkheologiia, 1973, no. 2.

Kuznetsov, V.A. “Alanskie plemena Severnogo Kavkaza.” materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii, 1962, no. 106.

Kuznetsov, V.A. Ocherki istorii alan. Vladikavkaz, 1992.Magamedov, M.G. Obrazovanie Khazarskogo kaganata. Moscow, 1983.Malashev, V.Iu. “Kul’turnaia situatsiia v tsentral’nykh raionakh Severnogo Kavkaza vo

II–IV vv. n.e.” In Tri chetverti veka. D.V. Deopiku—druz’ia i ucheniki. Moscow, 2007.Shestopalova, E.Iu. “Dagomskii katakombnyi mogil’nik VI–VII vekov v Severnoi Osetii.”

Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia-2005, 2007.Tsukerman, K. [Zuckerman, C.] “Alany i asy v rannem Srednevekov’e.” Kratkie soob-

shcheniia Instituta arkheologii, 2005, no. 218.Zuckerman, C. “À propos du Livre des cérémonies, II, 48.” Travaux et mémoires, 2000,

no. 13.

Documents

(Al) Settlement of Alanic TribesSettlement of Alanic Tribes