Suchergebnisse

International audience ; In the mid-19th century, Emperor Alexander II was carrying out large scale liberal reforms in Russia. In the course of these reforms, a problem was put forward about public preservation of historical monuments and archaeological sites as national cultural heritage. A step to this direction was undertaken in 1859 when the Imperial Archaeological Commission (IAC) was organized in Saint-Petersburg. Over the second half of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the Commission remained the single State body concerned with archaeology and protection of sites and monuments on the territory of Russian Empire. In its activities, this Institution combined scientific research, organizational, monitoring and controlling functions. In the present monograph mainly created by the collective of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, the history of the first archaeological institution in Russia is systematically presented and analysis of its activities proposed for the first time. The organization of IAC was preceded by a long process of formation of the interest of the Russian society to the archaeology. The immediate precursor of IAC was the "Office of Archaeological Researches" founded in 1841 by the Minister for Home Affairs Lev Perovsky (1796–1856). The activities of the Office were concerned with investigations of archaeological sites of Kerch and Bosporos, Chersonesos, kurgans in the surroundings of Vladimir and Suzdal and settlements of the Golden Horde on the Volga River. During this period, the main principles which afterwards lay in the foundation of IAC were established. After the death of Lev Perovsky, the investigations were entrusted to Count Sergey Stroganov (1794–1882). The result of this appointment was that the assistant of Lev Perovsky and his nephew Count Alexey Uvarov (1824–1884), who planned to stand himself at the head of Russian archaeology, left Saint-Petersburg and moved to Moscow where in 1864 he founded the Moscow Archaeological Society in opposition to the Imperial Archaeological Commission. The confrontation between two Institutions however became actually a stimulus for the progressive advancement of the science and protection of monuments of antiquity. In 1857, Sergey Stroganov proposed to organize the "Main Archaeological Commission". That project became the basis of IAC, the statute of which was approved on February 2, 1859, by Emperor Alexander II. That statute secured for the Commission the right to conduct "earthen excavations", monitoring of the discoveries of hoards and archaeological objects in Russia and supervision over building activity at archaeological sites. The principles underlying the foundation of IAC were partly oriented to France and its "Commission des Monuments Historiques" (1837). The experience of the activities of IAC was used in organizing archaeological institutions in some European countries (Austria, Italy). The activity of IAC may be subdivided through three periods connected with its chairmen: 1859–1882 when Sergey Stroganov was the chairmen of IAC, 1882–1886 when it was headed by the Director of the Imperial Hermitage Museum Alexander Vasil'chikov (1832–1890), and 1886–1918 when the Commission was directed by Count Alexey Bobrinskoy (1852–1927). Originally, the staff of the Commission consisted of eight persons. In the activity of the Commission, such famous historians and archaeologists took part as Ivan Zabelin (1859–1876), Vladimir Tiesenhausen (1825–1902) and Nikodim Kondakov (1876–1891). Initially, the Commission was housed in the palace of Stroganov in Nevsky Prospect in Saint-Petersburg. The activities of the Commission have established the system of regulation of archaeological researches in Russia, which with several alterations existed until the beginning of the 21st century. This system was based on the "Otkryty list" (laissez-passer) as individual authorizations for researchers to conduct excavations with the indispensable submission of a report to the archives of the Commission. This practice has initiated the creation of the unique corpus of sources for the archaeology, architectural monuments and sites of different nations and modern states of East-Central Europe and Asia. The main activity of the Commission in 1859–1886 included excavations of sites of the Scythian culture and Classical Greek antiquities on the Taman Peninsula, in the Crimea (Kerch, Bosporos) and on some other territories, now in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the widespread opinion that the Commission studied exclusively the Classical and Scythian antiquities is incorrect: already then the first investigations in Siberia, Central Asia were conducted as well as studies of sites of the Bronze and Stone ages in Northern Russia. The finds came predominantly to the collections of the Imperial Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg and Historical Museum in Moscow. Another important responsibility of the Commission was the acquisition of monetary hoards and treasures of historical objects found on the territory of Russian Empire. The first investigator of hoards was a curator of the Hermitage collections Julian Iversen (1859–1900). Simultaneously, the Commission consulted the restoration and conservation activities of the Ministry of Home Affairs, primarily for the monuments of the defensive architecture and church buildings. For that purpose, the staff of the Commission included a representative of the Academy of Arts Feodor Solntsev (1859–1892). Protection of the monuments of archaeology also was an important task of the Commission. In 1866, Sergey Stroganov achieved the prohibition of treasure-hunting in Russia. The Commission, as the central state institution, actively collaborated with provincial Statistic Committees and Archive Commissions in the field of studies and protection of local monuments and sites. During the chairmanship of Alexander Vasil'chikov, the reforms of the Commission's activities were prepared. These reforms took place already under Count Alexey Bobrinskoy. In 1886–1887, an interdisciplinary program for studies of Slavic-Russian archaeology, the eastern Black-Sea region, Siberia etc. was developed. During that period, the Commission was moved to an office in the Winter Palace in Saint-Petersburg. On March 11, 1889, Emperor Alexander III approved by his decree the exclusive right of the Commission to conduct archaeological excavations and to license their execution on state and public lands. Simultaneously, the Commission, together with the Academy of Arts, was charged with supervision over restoration and protection of objects of art and architectural monuments. In 1890, the "Regulations for the Archaeological Commission and Academy of Arts on the order of consideration of petitions about restoration of historical monuments" were approved. Beginning with 1894, special sessions of IAC began to consider projects of restorations an conservations. The main specialists of IAC in the branch of restoration were Petr Pokryshkin (1870–1922), Konstantin Romanov (1882–1942) and Dmitry Mileev (1878–1914). The Commission got also Vladimir Suslov (1857–1921), Nikolay Sultanov (1850–1908), Ieronim Kitner (1839–1929) and Georgy Kotov (1859–1942) to take part in the architectural restorations. These activities resulted in establishment of standards of modern scientific restoration, using primarily the archaeological approach, which are efficacious even in the 21st century. Among the most successful restoration projects of IAC, noteworthy are the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Nereditsa hill near Novgorod, Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour at Berestovo in Kyiv, the Saint Boris and Gleb church at Kolozha in Grodno, the Saint George church in Yuryev-Polskoy, Cathedral of the Dormition of Mother of God in the Moscow Kremlin, Ipatyevsky Monastery in Kostroma, Ferapontov Monastery in Vologda region, Bakhchisarai Palace in Crimea, Smolensk and Pskov city walls etc. Among the most important problems of IAC in the restoration issues were its relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. As early as 1893, the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827–1907) confirmed that restoration of churches must be conducted with permission of the Commission, however in practice many churches were disfigured by illiterately made repairs. Part of the difficulties proceeded from contradictions in Russian law. Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had succeeded in developing an algorithm of its relations with the clergy, during the World War I, under the conditions of the general crisis of the Russian State and society, the Synod attempted to withdraw religious monuments from the public control.The new objectives and expansion of the geography of researches of IAC demanded a new staff of the Commission. That approval was received in 1888 and 1902. The membership of the Commission included Alexander Spitsyn (1858–1931), Nikolay Veselovsky (1848–1918), Vasily Latyshev (1855–1921), Boris Farmakovsky (1870–1928) and others. Alexey Bobrinskoy actively used his right of appointment of corresponding members and honorary members of the Commission. Among the corresponding members appointed in 1886–1917 were Vladimir Stasov (1824–1906), Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Samokvasov (1843–1911), Innokenty Lopatin (1839–1909), Alexander Bertier-Delagard (1842–1920), Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky (1863–1919), Yulian Kulakovsky (1855–1919), Nikolay Pantusov (1849–1909), Valentin Zhukovsky (1858–1919), Vladimir Malmberg (1860–1921), Sergey Zhebelev (1867–1941), Emil Roesler (?–?), Alexey Markov (1858–1920), Nikolay Marr (1864–1934), Mstislav Farmakovsky (1873–1946), Alexander Malein (1869–1938) and others. There was yet another category of assistants of the Commission — supernumerary members. They included Nikolay Pokrovsky (1848–1917) — an expert on Christian archaeology and Orthodox art, Vladimir Antonovich (1834–1908), Bohdan Khanenko (1849–1917), Ernst von Stern (1859–1924), Mikhail Rostovtsev (1870–1952), Alexey Shirinsky-Shikhmatov (1862–1930), Feodor Braun (1862–1942), Nikolay Bulychev (1852–1919) et al.In 1909, the 50th anniversary of the Commission and 25th anniversary of the activities of its chairman Alexey Bobrinskoy became something like summing up of the results of the works of IAC. The special role of the Commission is noteworthy regarding the studies of Scythian and Greek and Roman antiquities. The commission excavated about fifty 'Royal' kurgans containing rich Scythian burials from which the artistic gold objects are housed now in the Special Treasury of the State Hermitage Museum in Saint-Petersburg. Studies of Bosporan sites were continued: the Commission was in charge of the Kerch Museum of Antiquities which directed the archaeological excavations in this region. The museum was headed by Alexander Lyutsenko (1807–1884), Stepan Verebryusov (1819–1884), Fedor Gross (1822–1897), Karl Dumberg (1862–1931) and Vladislav Shkorpil (1853–1918). Funerary catacombs, important Classical, Jewish and Christian antiquities were here discovered. Since 1888, according to an order of Emperor Alexander III, IAC was entrusted with the direction of researches in the area of the Tauric Chersonesos and its surroundings. Karol Kościuszko-Waluszyński (1847–1907) was appointed the head of the excavations in Chersonesos. During the later years, the excavations were directed by Robert Loeper (1865–1918) and Leonid Moiseev (1882–1946). Under the direction of the Archaeological Commission, living blocks, buildings and necropolis dated to the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods had been discovered and investigated, as well as several dozens of Christian churches and basilicas. In 1902, the systematic excavations of Olbia began under the direction of Boris Farmakovsky, and in 1904 – the archaeological researches of Berezan Island began under the direction of Ernst von Stern. An expansive project came to be that of excavations in 1908–1914 of one of the first medieval stone church of Eastern Europe — the Church of the Tithe in Kyiv conducted under the direction of Dmitry Mileev. During the period of 1890–1914, the Commission was financing altogether up to twenty expeditions annually throughout more than fifteen provinces and regions of Russian Empire. It must be noted however that the level of understanding of archaeological evidence gained remained behind its accumulation. In the field of the archaeology of the Stone Age, the studies of the Commission revealed several important Neolithic sites of Eastern Europe. In 1905, Alexander Spitsyn discovered a Paleolithic site at Borshevo, Voronezh region. The same researcher also wrote in 1915 a synthetic and generalizing work on the Russian Paleolithic where he had summarized the results of archaeology of the Early Stone Age in Eastern Europe and comprehensively characterized the sites of Caucasus and Siberia. Nevertheless, it must be noted here that the major researches on the Stone Age were carried out the sphere of activities of the Commission.During investigations of archaeological sites of Siberia separated by thousands kilometers from the scientific centers of European Russia, the Commission maintained close relations with local archaeologists and ethnologists directing their efforts and licensing their excavations. At the funds and on the instructions of the Commission, the archaeological sites of Siberia were studied since the 1860s by Vasily Radlov (1837–1918), Dmitry Klements (1848–1914), Alexander Adrianov (1854–1920) and other scholars.Members of the Commission participated personally in investigations of antiquities of the Caucasus and Ciscaucasia. In 1887, Dmitriy Bakradze (1826–1890) proposed a program of archaeological exploration of the area of Sukhumi, and in 1889 IAC carried out description and photographing of objects of Georgian Christian art from sacristies of churches and monasteries in Georgia. Since 1892, Nikolay Marr conducted longstanding investigations of the ancient Armenian capital Ani, medieval towns, fortresses and churches (Dvin, Akhtamar). Simultaneously, the explorations of sites of the Bronze and Middle Ages (dolmens, the Maikop kurgan and the Koban culture) were carried out through the efforts of Nikolay Veselovsky and Emil Roesler.The initiative of studies of architectural and archaeological monuments in Central Asia also mainly belongs to IAC. In 1900s–1915, IAC just kept under control the works in this region, gathered and distributed local collections and stray finds through museums. Photographing of architectural, ethnographic and historical monuments was conducted. The first archaeological excavations are connected with the names of Nikolay Pantusov who investigated in 1860s–1890s Christian Nestorian cemeteries near the Syr-Darya River, and Nikolay Veselovsky who continued archaeological and architectural researches since 1884 until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1890 and 1896, Valentin Zhukovsky observed several archaeological sites. In the 1880s, Alexey Bobrinskoy and Vladimir Antonovich developed a program of interdisciplinary research in the field Slavic and medieval archaeology on the territory of Ukraine. Excavations of kurgans were started in the Dnieper River region, Bielorus' and Novgorod region. At Gnezdovo near Smolensk, the Commission organized in 1890s-1900s excavations of kurgans and the settlement which initiated researches in the Viking Age in Eastern Europe. The systematization of mediaeval Slavic archaeology was proposed by Alexander Spitsyn. Of note is the IAC's contribution to studies of mediaeval archaeological sites of Eastern Europe. These included the Malaya Pereshchepina hoard found in 1912 — the supposed funerary complex of Khan Kubrat, excavations of the settlement of Mayatskoe conducted by Nikolay Makarenko (1877–1938) in 1908–1909, sites of Ugro-Finnish and Baltic tribes — Lyadinsky and Lyutsinsky necropolis investigated in 1889–1891 by Evdokim Romanov (1855–1922), Vladimir Sizov (1840–1904), Vladimir Yastrebov (1855–1899) et al. The archaeology of the region of Perm of the 8th-9th centuries and sites of the Vyatka region also were included in the sphere of interests of IAC, inter alia due to the fact that a very rich collection of local archaeological materials belonged to Sergey Stroganov. Alexander Spitsyn proposed the first archaeological periodization of the Perm and Kama regions local history and distinguished a number of local archaeological cultures. By 1917, the Commission was a serious academic institution both in the branch of architectural and archaeological researches. It became the organizing centre of Russian archaeology actively collaborating with public structures and planning new directions of researches. It is exactly inside the academic community rather than at the communistic authority after the October 1917 that the idea sprang up to transform the Commission into the "Academy of Archaeological Sciences" in order to focus efforts of its members exclusively onto the scientific sphere. In October of 1918, Anatoly Lunacharsky (1875–1933) approves the new regulations of the Russian State Archaeological Commission. Nikolay Marr became its chairman whereas Alexey Bobrinskoy had to emigrate. On April 19, 1919, the decree on the foundation of the Russian Academy for the History of Material Culture was signed by the chairman of the Bolsheviks government Vladimir Ulyanov. In the early August, elections to the new Academy took place. The Academy was housed in the Marble Palace in Petrograd. We should regard August 7, 1919, as the first day of the Academy for the History of Material Culture and the last day of the history of the Archaeological Commission.On the basis of the Imperial Archaeological Commission and Academy for the History of Material Culture the modern archaeological institutions of Russia have emerged. The practices established by the Commission were put into the foundation of the present-day regulation of archaeological researches and the system of protection of archaeological sites. The experience of the Commission undoubtedly indicates that the protection of the cultural heritage may be effective only in the case where it is carried out within an academic system. The protection and restoration of historical monuments must be subdued to scientific goals and architectural researches. The role of IAC manifested in the establishing national archaeological and site protection systems of the European and Asiatic countries which once constituted the Russian Empire. The editorial activities of IAC have been reflected in 65 titles of periodicals and nonperiodicals: Reports of IAC, Proceedings of IAC, and Materials on the Archaeology of Russia etc. Nikodim Kondakov's publication "Russian Hoards" (1896) and Yakov Smirnov's "Oriental Silver" (1909) are special contributions to the Art history. The materials of IAC kept in the Manuscript and Photographic departments of Scientific archives of the Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg (9,030 files and over 100,000 photographic imprints and negatives) conceal unique possibilities for future scientific discoveries and constitute an invaluable contribution of the Commission to studies and preservation of archaeological and cultural heritage of the World.

The article deals with the theoretical and source-related block of issues related to the Ottoman archaeology of the Crimea, as a special scientifi c discipline that studies the material antiquities of the Ottoman period in its history (about 1475–1783). The subject of research and the content of the term "Ottoman archaeology" and its relationship with other similar, but not identical, concepts in archaeological science are analyzed. The main stages of archaeological research of monuments of the late XV-XVIII centuries in the region are reconstructed. The paper presents an overview of the main directions of modern ottoman archaeology of the Crimea, starting from the 90s of the XX century. It is concluded that in recent decades, the greatest progress has been made in the study of the archaeology of Ottoman fortresses in the Crimea and the capital of the Crimean Khanate – the city of Bakhchisaray, as well as in the fi eld of archaeological material science, especially in relation to the structure of the ceramic complex of this time. ; В статье рассматривается теоритический и источниковедческих блок вопросов, связанный с османской археологией Крыма, как особой научной дисциплины, изучающей материальные древности османского периода в его истории (около 1475-1783 гг.). Анализируется предмет исследований и содержание термина «османская археология», его соотношение с другими близкими, но не идентичными, понятиями в археологической науке. Реконструируются основные этапы археологических исследований памятников конца XV-XVIII вв. в регионе. В работе представлен обзор основных направлений современной «османской археологии» Крыма, начиная с 90-х гг. ХХ в. Делается вывод о том, что за последние десятилетия наибольший прогресс достигнут при изучении археологии османских крепостей на территории Крыма и столицы Крымского ханства – города Бахчисарая, а также в области археологического вещеведения, особенно применительно к структуре керамического комплекса этого времени. Библиографические ссылки Адаксина С.Б., Мыц В.Л., Ушаков С.В. Некоторые итоги архитектурно−археологических исследований крепости Чембало в 2002−2011 гг. // Адаксина С.Б., Мыц В.Л., Ушаков С.В. Отчет об археологических исследованиях средневековой крепости Чембало (г. Балаклава) в 2011 г. СПб.; Симферополь: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2012. С. 58−98. Адаксина С.Б., Мыц В.Л. Отчет об археологических исследованиях средневековой крепости Чембало (г. Балаклава) в 2015 г. СПб.; Симферополь: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2016. 166 с. Адаксина С.Б., Мыц В.Л. Генуэзская крепость Чембало: этапы формирования оборонительной системы и инфраструктуры города в XIV−XV вв. // Труды Государственного Эрмитажа. Т. LXXXIX. Византия в контексте мировой культуры: материалы конференции, посвященной памяти А.В. Банк. СПб.: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2017. С. 103−139. Адаксина С.Б., Алексеенко Н.А., Гинькут Н.В., Мыц В.Л. Отчет об археологических исследованиях средневековой крепости Чембало (г. Балаклава) в 2017 г. СПб.; Симферополь: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 2018. 217 с. Айбабина Е.А., Бочаров С.Г. Керамические подсвечники и светильники XV−XVIII вв. из Каффы // Херсонесский сборник. 1998. Вып. IX. С. 195−208. Акчокраклы О.Н. Новое из истории Чуфут−Кале // Известия Таврического общества истории, археологии и этнографии. 1928. Т. 2 (59). С. 158−172. Акчокраклы О.Н. Эпиграфические находки // Известия Таврического общества истории, археологии и этнографии. 1929. Т. 3 (60). С. 183−187. Алексеенко Н.А., Дьячков С.В., Неделькин Е.В., Ступко М.В. Османский гарнизон Балыклагу в начале XVI в. (по письменным источникам и археологическим данным) // Сборник материалов ХVII Международной научной конференции «Лазаревские чтения». Причерноморье: история, политика, география, культура / Под ред. О.А. Шпырко, В.В. Хапаева, А.В. Мартынкина, С.В. Ушакова, С.И. Рубцовой. Севастополь: Филиал МГУ в г. Севастополе, 2019. С. 38−40. Алядинова Д.Ю. Неглазурованная керамика позднесредневекового Судака: по материалам раскопок 2008−2010 гг. // Археологический альманах, №28. Древняя и средневековая Таврика: сборник статей, посвященный 1800−летию города Судака / отв. ред. В.В. Майко. Донецк: Донбасс, 2012. С. 247−257. Алядинова Д.Ю. Керамика османского времени из раскопок Партенита // Археологический альманах, №33. Древняя и средневековая Таврика. Сборник статей, посвященный юбилею Е.А. Паршиной / ред.−сост. И.Б. Тесленко. Киев: Видавець Олег Фiлюк, 2015. С. 451−481. Алядинова Д.Ю., Тесленко И.Б. Некоторые древности османского периода из селения Алушта // Terra Alustiana MMXI: сборник научных трудов / ред.−сост. В.Г. Рудницкая, И.Б. Тесленко. Симферополь: Антиква, 2015. С. 157−199. Алядинова Д.Ю., Тесленко И.Б., Майко В.В. Керамика из раскопок зольника османского периода в портовой части Сугдеи (по материалам исследований 2010 г.) // Археологический альманах, №33. Древняя и средневековая Таврика. Сборник статей, посвященный юбилею Е.А. Паршиной / ред.−сост. И.Б. Тесленко. Киев: Видавець Олег Фiлюк, 2015. С. 482−511. Баранов И.А. Главные ворота средневековой Солдайи // Архитектурно−археологические исследования в Крыму. Киев: Наукова думка, 1988. С. 81−97. Баранов В.И., Карлов С.В. Археологическое изучения поселения Мариамполис (предварительные итоги) // II Бахчисарайские научные чтения памяти Е.В. Веймарна: тезисы докладов и сообщений Международной научной конференции. Симферополь: Антиква, 2013. С. 8. Белик Ю.Л. Османские оборонительные сооружения на Керченском полуострове (XVII−XVIII вв.). Казань: ZurKazan, 2016. 236 с. Белый А.В., Белый О.Б., Лобода И.И. Позднесредневековые плитовые могильники Юго−Западного Крыма // История и археология Юго−Западного Крыма: сборник научных трудов Бахчисарайского государственного историко−культурного заповедника / сост. Ю.М. Могаричев. Симферополь: Таврия, 1993. С. 160−174. Бобровский Т.А., Чуева Е.Е. Спелео−археологические исследования 2006 года на территории Бахчисарайского Свято−Успенского монастыря // Сугдейский сборник. Киев; Судак: Академпериодика, 2008. Вып. III. С. 281−295. Боданинский У.А. Бахчисарайские памятники // Записки Крымского общества естествоиспытателей и любителей природы. 1917. Т. 6. С. 125−129. Боданинский У.А. Татарские «дурбе»−мавзолеи в Крыму. Из истории искусства крымских татар // Известия Таврического общества истории, археологии и этнографии. 1927. Т. 1 (58). С. 195−201. Боданинский У.А., Засыпкин Б.Н. Чуфут−Кале (по материалам раскопок 1928−1929 гг.) // Известия Таврического общества истории, археологии и этнографии. 1929. Т. 3 (60). С. 170−183. Боданинский У.А. Археологическое и этнографическое изучение татар в Крыму. Симферополь: 1−я Гостиполитография «Крымполиграфтреста», 1930. 31 с. Бочаров С.Г. Историческая топография Каффы (конец XIII в. – 1774 г.). Фортификация, культовые памятники, система водоснабжения. Автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени кандидата исторических наук. М., 2000. 21 с. Бочаров С.Г. Топография города Керчи XVI−XVIII вв. // Археологические записки / ред. В.Я. Кияшко. Ростов−на−Дону: ДАО, 2005. Вып. 4. С. 145−150. Бочаров С.Г. Картографические источники по топографии турецкого города Мангуп // Бахчисарайский историко−археологический сборник / ред. – сост. Ю.М. Могаричев. Симферополь: АнтиквА, 2008. Вып. 3. С. 191−211. Бочаров С.Г. Ак−Мечеть: историческая топография города Крымского ханства // Средневековые тюрко−татарские государства. 2015. №7. С. 5−10. Бочаров С.Г. Мечети города Каффа (Кефе) в 1340−1779 годах // Поволжская археология. 2016а. №2 (16). С. 120−137. Бочаров С.Г. Позднесредневековый могильник у античного городища «Чайка» в Северо−Западном Крыму // Очерки археологии Северо−Западного Крыма (по материалам городища «Чайка» и некрополя у поселка Заозерное): сборник научных статей. М., 2016б. С. 42−121. Бочаров С.Г. Балаклава: введение в историческую топографию османского города 1475−1774 годов на Крымском полуострове // Stratum plus. 2019. №6. С. 321−328. Бочаров С.Г., Кирилко В.П. Исторические и архитектурные метаморфозы Шейх−Коя // Stratum plus. 2016. №6. С. 371−392. Бочаров С.Г., Сейтумеров Ш.С. Бахчисарай – введение в историческую топографию столицы Крымского ханства // Средневековые тюрко−татарские государства. 2017. №9. С. 21−30. Бочаров С.Г., Ситдиков А.Г., Бездудный В.Г. Поиски загороднего дворца крымских ханов Ашлама−Сарай. Археологические и геофизические исследования // Междисциплинарные исследования в археологии, этнографии и истории Сибири: материалы Международной научной конференции, посвященной 125−летию ученого и общественного деятеля Н.К. Ауэрбаха / отв. ред. А.С. Вдовин, Н.П. Макаров. Красноярск: Издательство СФУ, 2017. С. 127−134. Веймарн Е.В. Середньовiчний комплекс фортецi Каламiта // Археологiчнi пам'ятки УРСР. Киïв: видавництво АН УРСР, 1963. Т. XIII: Стародавнi пам'ятки Iнкерманськоï долини. С. 74−89. Волков И.В. Керамика Азова XIV−XVIII вв. (классификация и датировка). Автореф. Дисс. канд. истор. наук. М., 1992. 24 с. Гаврилюк Н.А., Ибрагимова А.М. Тюрбе хана Хаджи Герая (по материалам археологических исследований 2003−2008 гг.). Киев; Запорожье: Дикое Поле, 2010. 176 с. Галенко О.I. Нiкiта/Сiкiта османського часу // Историческое наследие Крыма. 2004. №8. С. 79−91. Галенко А.И. Гончарное производство и торговля в османской провинции Кефе // Поливная керамика Средиземноморья и Причерноморья X−XVIII вв.: Сборник научных трудов. Том I / ред. С.Г. Бочаров, В.Л. Мыц. Киев: Стилос, 2005. С. 493−504. Герасимов В.Е., Ткаченко В.В. Разведки в районе поля Шумского сражения 1774 года на территории Изобильненского сельсовета Алуштинского горсовета // Terra Alustiana MMXI: сборник научных трудов / ред.−сост. В.Г. Рудницкая, И.Б. Тесленко. Симферополь: Антиква, 2015. С. 200−233. Герцен А.Г. Крепостной ансамбль Мангупа // Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии. 1990. Вып. I. С. 87−166. Герцен А.Г. По поводу новой публикации турецкого источника о завоевании Крыма // Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии. 2001. Вып. VIII. С. 366−387. Герцен А.Г. У истоков иудейской общины Мангупа // IV Боспорские чтения «Боспор Киммерийский и варварский мир в период античности и средневековья»: материалы Международной научной конференции. Керчь, 2003. С. 69−79. Герцен А.Г., Землякова А.Ю., Науменко В.Е., Смокотина А.В. Стратиграфические исследования на юго−восточном склоне мыса Тешкли−бурун (Мангуп) // Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии. 2006. Вып. XII. С. 371−494. Герцен А.Г., Иванова О.С., Науменко В.Е., Смокотина А.В. Археологические исследования в районе церкви св. Константина (Мангуп): I горизонт застройки (XVI−XVIII вв.) // Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии. 2007. Вып. XIII. С. 233−298. Герцен А.Г., Колтухов С.Г. Археологические работы в Арабатской крепости // Северное и Западное Причерноморье в античную эпоху и средневековье / под ред. С.Г. Бочарова, В. Кожокару. Симферополь: Таврия, 2009. С. 144−172. Герцен А.Г., Могаричев Ю.М. Крепость драгоценностей. Кырк−Ор. Чуфут−Кале. Симферополь: Таврия, 1993. 128 с. Герцен А.Г., Могаричев Ю.М. Восточная оборонительная стена Чуфут−Кале // Бахчисарайский историко−археологический сборник / ред. – сост. Ю.М. Могаричев, И.Н. Храпунов. Симферополь: Таврия−Плюс, 2001. Вып. 2. С. 279−319. Герцен А.Г., Могаричев Ю.М. Кырк−Ер – Чуфут−Кале. Крепость на краю седьмого климата: исследование, путеводитель, альбом. Симферополь: Антиква, 2016. 312 с. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е. Поливная керамика из раскопок цитадели Мангупа // Поливная керамика Средиземноморья и Причерноморья X−XVIII вв.: сборник научных трудов. Т. I / под ред. С.Г. Бочарова, В.Л. Мыца. Киев: Стилос, 2005. С. 257−287. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е. Октагональная церковь цитадели Мангупа (Крым): вопросы хронологии // Труды Государственного Эрмитажа. Т. LIII. Архитектура Византии и Древней Руси IX−XIII вв.: материалы международного семинара. СПб., 2010. С. 227−253. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е. Стратиграфия Мангупского городища: антропогенный и природно−географический контекст // XVI Боспорские чтения «Боспор Киммерийский и варварский мир в период античности и средневековья. Географическая среда и социум»: материалы Международной научной конференции. Керчь, 2015а. С. 88−100. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е. К изучению исторической топографии Мангупа: церковь Святого Константина // II Свято-Владимирские чтения: тезисы докладов и сообщений научной конференции, посвященной 1000−летию Святого равноапостольного князя Владимира. Севастополь: НЗ «Херсонес Таврический», 2015б. С. 16−18. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е. К дискуссии о ранней этнической истории крымских караимов: археологический аспект // Этнография Крыма XIX−XXI вв. и современные этнокультурные процессы: тезисы IV Международной научно−практической конференции / отв. ред. Ю.Н. Лаптев, Л.А. Науменко. Симферополь: Антиква, 2017б. С. 21−23. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е. Церковь Святого Георгия Мангупского городища. Общие итоги археологических исследований 2015−2016 гг. // Археология античного и средневекового города: сборник статей в честь С.Г. Рыжова / отв. ред. В.В. Майко. Севастополь; Калининград: РОСТ−ДОАФК, 2018. С. 12−44. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е. Сакральная топография Мангупа: история изучения, каталог и периодизация культовых памятников городища // ΧΕΡΣΩΝΟΣ ΘΕΜΑΤΑ. Вып. 2. Миры Византии. Сборник научных трудов / отв. ред. Н.А. Алексеенко. Симферополь: ООО «Колорит», 2019. С. 115−176. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е., Душенко А.А. Княжеский дворец Мангупского городища. Стратиграфия участка исследований 2006−2017 гг. (предварительное сообщение) // Х Международный Византийский семинар «ΧΕΡΣΩΝΟΣ ΘΕΜΑΤΑ: империя и полис: материалы научной конференции / отв. ред. Н.А. Алексеенко. Севастополь; Симферополь: ООО «Колорит», 2018. С. 53−58. Герцен А.Г., Науменко В.Е., Шведчикова Т.Ю. Население Дороса−Феодоро по результатам комплексного археолого−антропологического анализа некрополей Мангупского городища (IV−XVII вв.). М.; СПб.: Нестор−История, 2017а. 272 с. Герцен А.Г., Руев В.Л. Свинцовые пули из раскопок Мангупа // Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии. 2008. Вып. XIV. С. 385−416. Гусач И.Р., Моисеев Д.А. Типология производства крымской черепицы – «татарки» в позднесредневековое и Новое время: предварительные выводы // V Бахчисарайские научные чтения памяти Е.В. Веймарна: тезисы докладов и сообщений / ред.−сост. О.М. Стойкова. Бахчисарай: ГБУ РК БИКАМЗ, 2017. С. 16−18. Джанов А.В. «Храм с аркадой» в Судаке // Сугдейский сборник. Киев; Судак: Академпериодика, 2005. Вып. II. С. 654−669. Душенко А.А. Нумизматический комплекс Мангупского княжеского дворца (раскопки 2006−2018 гг.): статистический обзор // ХII Международный Византийский семинар «ΧΕΡΣΩΝΟΣ ΘΕΜΑΤΑ: империя и полис: материалы научной конференции / отв. ред. Н.А. Алексеенко. Симферополь: Колорит, 2020. С. 91−98. Дьячков С.В. Консульский замок генуэзской крепости Чембало XIV−XV вв. (по материалам археологических раскопок 1999−2008 гг.) // Генуэзская Газария и Золотая Орда / ред. С.Г. Бочаров, А.Г. Ситдиков. Казань; Кишинев: Институт археологии АН РТ, 2019. Т. 2. С. 771−789. Засыпкин Б.Н. Памятники архитектуры крымских татар // Крым. Журнал общественно−научный и экскурсионный. 1927. №2 (4). С. 113−168. Зиливинская Э.Д. Архитектура Золотой Орды. Часть I. Культовое зодчество. Казань: Отечество, 2014. 228 с. Зиливинская Э.Д. Мечети Крымского ханства: опыт первичной классификации // Актуальные вопросы охраны и использования культурного наследия Крыма: материалы VII Всероссийской научно−практической конференции / ред.−сост. В. Е. Науменко, Т. А. Гогунская, Н. В. Кармазина. Симферополь: Ариал, 2020. С. 66−71. Ибрагимова А.М. Бахчисарайский Ханский дворец XVI−XVIII вв. Киев: Видавець Олег Фiлюк, 2015. 360 с. Исторический атлас Республики Крым. «Крепость драгоценностей. Кырк-Ор. Чуфут-Кале» / авт.−сост. А.А. Волошинов, Ш.А. Эмруллаев, А.Ю. Полканова, И.Р. Каримов, научн. ред. С.Г. Бочаров. Казань: Фолиант, 2015. 276 с. Кашовская Н.В. К итогам изучения караимского некрополя в ущелье Табана−дере (Мангуп): проблемы хронологии и периодизации // Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврии. 2017. Вып. XXII. С. 239–277. Кирилко В.П. Археологическое исследование мусульманских мавзолеев-дюрбе Бахчисарая // Stratum plus. 2009. №6. С. 439−466. Кирилко В.П. Мечеть в Эски-Сарае (Пионерское) // Stratum plus. 2012. №6. С. 261−297. Кирилко В.П. Михраб мечети в Шейх-Кой // Поволжская археология. 2016. №2 (16). С. 138−150. Коваль В.Ю., Волошинов А.А. Псевдо-селадон из Бахчисарая // Поливная керамика Средиземноморья и Причерноморья X−XVIII вв.: сборник научных трудов. Т. I / под ред. С.Г. Бочарова, В.Л. Мыца. Киев: Стилос, 2005. С. 457−461. Кондаков В.П. О Бахчисарайском дворце и его «реставрации» // Искусство и художественная промышленность. СПб, 1899. № 6. С. 435−452. Кутайсов В.А., Кутайсова М.В. Евпатория: Древний мир. Средние века. Новое время. Киев: Стилос, 2007. 284 с. Лавров В.В. Разведки мечети Шейх−Кой в 2018 г. // История и археология Крыма. 2019. Вып. XI. С. 161−174. Майко В.В. Кырк-Ерский клад городища Чуфут−Кале в Юго−Западном Крыму. Киев: Академпериодика, 2007. 190 с. Майко В.В., Джанов А.В. Археологические памятники Судакского региона Республики Крым. Симферополь: Ариал, 2015. 448 с. Майко В.В., Джанов А.В. Судак в период османского господства и некоторые вопросы исторической топографии (мечеть (?) Хаджи−бея) // Сугдейский сборник. Киев: вид. Филюк, 2016. Вып. VI. С. 14−43. Мастыкова А.В., Решетова И.К., Чаукин С.Н, Ганичев К.А. Исследования средневекового поселения и могильника Су−Баш 1 в Юго−Восточном Крыму // Крым – Таврида. Археологические исследования в Крыму в 2017−2018 гг. М.: Институт археологии РАН, 2019. Т. II. С. 96−115. МИРАС−НАСЛЕДИЕ. Татарстан – Крым. Город Болгар и изучение татарской культуры в Татарстане и в Крыму в 1923−1929 годах: в 3−х томах / сост. и отв. ред. С.Г. Бочаров, А.Г. Ситдиков. Казань: ООО «Астер Плюс», 2016. Мыц В.Л. Каффа и Феодоро в XV в. Контакты и конфликты. Симферополь: Универсум, 2009. 528 с. Мыц В.Л. Сарымамбаш−Кермен – укрепленная резиденция XIV−XVIII вв. беков Яшлавских – Сулешевых // Поволжская археология. 2018. №2 (24). С. 190−203. Науменко В.Е., Сейдалиев Э.И., Сейдалиева Д.Э. Новые материалы к изучению исторической топографии средневекового Бахчисарая: по результатам археологических исследований 2012−2013 гг. // Материалы Конгресса исламской археологии России и стран СНГ / отв. ред. Х.М. Абдуллин, А.Г. Ситдиков. Казань: Институт археологии АН РТ, 2016. С. 228−239. Науменко В.Е., Пономарев Л.Ю. Историческая топография Керчи конца XV−XVIII вв.: состояние источниковой базы и перспективы исследований // XIX Боспорские чтения «Боспор Киммерийский и варварский мир в период античности и средневековья. Традиции и инновации»: материалы Международной научной конференции. Симферополь; Керчь, 2018. С. 348−358. Науменко В.Е., Герцен А.Г., Ганцев В.К. Бахчисарайский Ханский дворе как объект культурного (археологического) наследия (по материалам раскопок 2018−2019 гг.) // Актуальные вопросы охраны и использования культурного наследия Крыма: материалы VII Всероссийской научно−практической конференции / ред.−сост. В. Е. Науменко, Т. А. Гогунская, Н. В. Кармазина. Симферополь: Ариал, 2020. С. 104−117 Руев В.Л. Турецкое вторжение в Крым в 1475 г. Симферополь: Антиква, 2014. 308 с. Ситдиков А.Г., Измайлов И.Л. Мусульманская археология: объем и содержание понятия // Поволжская археология. 2016. №2 (16). С. 8−17. Теплякова А.Н. Фрагменты бархата из мавзолея в Ханлы−дере (Бахчисарай) // Восток (Oriens). 2016. №5. С. 137−152. Тесленко И.Б. Турецкая керамика с росписью кобальтом в Крыму // Поливная керамика Средиземноморья и Причерноморья X−XVIII вв.: Сборник научных трудов. Том I / ред. С.Г. Бочаров, В.Л. Мыц. Киев: Стилос, 2005. С. 385−410. Тесленко И.Б. Керамика из раскопок христианского храма с некрополем в с. Малый Маяк (бывш. Биюк−Ламбат, Южный берег Крыма) // Археологический альманах, №28. Древняя и средневековая Таврика: сборник статей, посвященный 1800−летию города Судака / отв. ред. В.В. Майко. Донецк: Донбасс, 2012. С. 225−246. Тесленко И.Б. Одна из групп неполивной керамики Крыма XV в.: хронология и эволюция // История и археология Крыма. 2015. Вып. II. С. 428−436. Тесленко И.Б., Алядинова Д.Ю. Влияние османского завоевания 1475 г. на культуру жителей Южного Крыма (по материалам керамических комплексов конца XV−XVI в.) // Stratum plus. 2019. №6. С. 295−320. Тесленко И.Б., Лысенко А.В. Средневековый христианский храм на южной окраине с. Малый Маяк и его археологическое окружение // «О древностях Южного берега и гор Таврических»: сборник научных трудов по материалам конференции в честь 210−летия со дня рождения П.И. Кеппена / гл. ред. В.Л. Мыц. Киев: Стилос, 2004. С. 260−296. Тесленко И.Б., Майко В.В. Керамический комплекс позднесредневековых усадеб в портовой части Судака (по материалам раскопа VI, 2006−2010 гг.) // История и археология Крыма. 2020. Вып. XII. С. 291−332. Тур В.Г. Археологические исследования центрального квартала в Судакской крепости // Херсонесский колокол: сборник научных статей, посвященный 70−летию со дня рождения и 50−летию научной деятельности В.Н. Даниленко / под ред. Э.Б. Петровой. Симферополь: СОНАТ, 2008. С. 352−361. Филиппенко В.Ф. Новое в истории и археологии крепости Каламиты−Инкермана // Херсонесский сборник. 1996. Вып. VII. С. 143−152. Якобсон А.Л. Средневековый Крым. Очерки истории и истории материальной культуры. М.; Л.: Наука, 1964. 232 с. Baram U., Carroll L. The Future of the Ottoman Past // A Historical Archaeology of the Ottoman Empire. Breaking New Ground / eds. U. Baram, L. Carroll. New York; Boston; Dordrecht; London; Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. P. 3−32. Bintliff J. Medieval and Post−Medieval // Encyclopedia of Archaeology / editor− in−chief D.M. Pearsall. Amsterdam: Elsevier; Oxford: Academic Press, 2008. P. 1280−1298. Çağlar F.T. The Historiography of Ottoman Archaeology: A Terra Incognita for Turkish Archaeologists // Cihannüma: Tarih ve Coğrafya Araştirmalari Dergisi. 2017. Sayi III/1. S. 109−122. Hayes J.W. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul. Vol. 2. The Pottery. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1992. 445 p. Homann A. Battlefi eld Archaeology of Central Europe – With a Focus on Early Moderm Battlefi elds // Historical Archaeology in Central Europe / ed. N. Mehler. Rockville, 2013. P. 203−230. Insoll T. The Archaeology of Islam. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. 274 p. Laszlovszky J., Rasson J. Post−Medieval or Historical Archaeology: Terminology and Discourses in the Archaeology of the Ottoman Period // Archaeology of the Ottoman Period in Hungary / eds. I. Gerelyes, G. Kovács. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2003. P. 377−382. Lees W.B., Burke H., Orser Ch.E. Historical Archaeology // Encyclopedia of Archaeology / ed. D.M. Pearsall. Amsterdam: Elsevier; Oxford: Academic Press, 2008. P. 1438−1447. Northedge A. Archaeology and Islam // Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology / ed. G. Barker. London; New York: Routledge, 1999. Vol. 2. P. 1077−1106. Papanikola−Bakirtzi D. Byzantine Glazed Ceramics. The Art of Sgraffi to. Athens: The Archaeological Receipts Fund, 1999. 270 p. Teslenko I. Turkish Ceramics in the Crimea on the Eve of the Porta Invasion (Problems of Chronology of a Certain Group of Vessels) // Archaeometric and Archaeological Approaches to Ceramics: Papers presented at EMAC'05, 8th European Meeting on Ancient Ceramics, Lyon 2005 / ed. by S.Y. Waksman. Oxford, 2007. P. 187−193 (BAR International Series 1691). Teslenko I. The Italian Majolica in the Crimea of the Turkish Supremacy Period (1475 – the Last Quarter of the 18th Century) // Atti del IX Congresso Internazionale sulla Ceramica Medievale nel Mediterraneo / a cura di S. Gelichi. Venezia, 2012. P. 212−214. Vroom J. Byzantine to Moderm Pottery in the Aegean. An Introduction and Field Guide. Utrecht: Parnassus Press, 2005. 223 p.

The paper features the fi rst general description in the Russian language of two necropolises located in Campochiaro (Campobasso, Italy) – Vicenne and Morrione, dating back to the period from the last third of the 7th – the beginning of the 8th century AD. The cultural content of the necropolises refl ects their strong ties with the population of Central Asian origin. The most important feature of the necropolises are burials with a horse, corresponding to the Eurasian nomadic burial rite. The author supported the conclusions of European researchers according to which it is highly probable that the necropolises were left by the Bolgars of the duke–gashtald Alzeko, originally recorded by Paul the Deacon in the 8th century in the territories of Bojano, Sepino and Isernia. The similarities of the Campochiaro necropolises with the burials of the Avar Khaganate imply the presence of the Bolgars in the Avar society with a similar burial ritual. Out of the thousands of horse burials left by the Avar population, a large portion could have been left by the Bolgars. The Avars and Bolgars constituted the basis and ruling elite of the Khaganate. The Alzeko people were the part of the Bolgars who in 631 AD fought for the Khagan throne, which indicates the high position of the Bolgars and their large number. After the defeat, this group of the Bolgars migrated to Bavaria, Carantania and Italy. Several decades of living in the Venedian, and later in the Lombard and Roman environment resulted in the heterogeneity of the funerary inventory, but did not change the rite itself. The Bolgars of the Lombard kingdom formed a new military layer - professional cavalry, which received land plots. This equestrian squad is an early example of the European feudal military and social class which was later referred to as chivalry. ; Настоящая работа является первым общим описанием на русском языке двух некрополей Кампокиаро (Кампобассо, Италия) – Виченне и Морионе, датируемых последней третью VII в. – началом VIII в. Культурное содержание некрополей показывает прочные связи с населением центральноазиатского происхождения. Важнейшим признаком некрополей являются захоронения с конем, соответствующие евразийскому кочевому погребальному обряду. Автор поддержал выводы европейских исследователей о том, что с большой долей вероятности некрополи оставлены булгарами дукса–гаштальда Алзеко, зафиксированными Павлом Диаконом в VIII в. на территориях Бояно, Сепино и Изернии. Аналогии некрополей Кампокиаро с погребениями Аварского каганата показывают присутствие в аварском обществе булгар со схожим погребальным обрядом. Из тысяч погребений с конем, оставленных аварским населением, булгарам могла принадлежать большая часть. Авары и булгары составляли основу и правящую верхушку каганата. Народ Алзеко являлся той частью булгар, которая в 631 г. боролась за каганский престол, что указывает на высокое положение булгар и их большое количество. После поражения эта группа булгар мигрировала последовательно в Баварию, Карантанию и Италию. Несколько десятков лет проживания в венедской, а затем в лангобардской и романской среде привели к гетерогенности погребального инвентаря, но не изменили сам обряд. Булгары лангобардского королевства составляли новый военный слой, который представлял из себя профессиональную кавалерию, получивший землю. Эта конная дружина является ранним примером европейского феодального воинского и социального сословия, которое станет называться рыцарством. Библиографические ссылки Акимова М.С. Материалы к антропологии ранних болгар // Генинг В.Ф., Халиков А.Х. Ранние болгары на Волге (Больше–Тарханский могильник). М.: Наука, 1964. С. 177–191. Амброз А.К. Кинжалы VI – VIII вв, с двумя выступами на ножнах // СА. 1986. № 4. С. 53–73. Безуглов С.И., Ильюков Л.С. Памятник позднегуннской эпохи в устье Дона // Средневековые древности Дона / Ред. Ю.К. Гугуев. М.–Иерусалим: Мосты и культуры, 2007. C. 25–48. Бешевлиев В. Пръвобългарите. История, бит и култура. Пловдив: Фондация «Българско историческо наследство», 2008. 505 с. Гавритухин И.О., Иванов А.Г. Погребение 552 Варнинского могильника и некоторые вопросы изучения раннесредневековых культур Поволжья // Пермский мир в раннем средневековье / Отв. ред. А.Г. Иванов. Ижевск: УИИЯЛ УрО РАН, 1999. С. 99–159. Добиаш–Рождественская О.А. Ранний фриульский минускул и одна из проблем жизни и творчества лангобардского историка VIII в. // Вспомогательные исторические дисциплины / Под ред. А. С. Орлова. М.; Л.: Изд–во АН СССР, 1937. С. 109–140. Засецкая И.П. Культура кочевников южнорусских степей в гуннскую эпоху (конец IV–V вв.). СПб.: АО "Эллипс", 1994. 221 с. Казанский М.М. Оногуры в постгуннское время на Дону // Дивногорский сборник / Труды музея-заповедника «Дивногорье». Вып. 6. / под ред. А. З. Винникова. Воронеж: Изд.– полигр. центр «Научная книга», 2016. С. 96–111. Казанский М.М. Хронологические индикаторы степных древностей постгуннского времени в Восточной Европе // НАВ. 2019. Т. 18 (2). С. 109–124. Кардини Ф. Истоки средневекового рыцарства // Пер. с ит. В.П. Гайдук / Общ. ред. В.И. Уколова, Л.А. Котельникова. М.: Прогресс, 1987. 384 с. Комар А.В., Кубышев А.И., Орлов Р.С. Погребения кочевников VI–VII вв. из Северо–Западного Приазовья // Степи Европы в эпоху средневековья. Т. 5. Хазарское время / Гл.ред. А.В.Евглевский Донецк: ДонНУ, 2006. С. 245–376. Кондукторова Т.С. Антропологическая характеристика черепов из Верхнего Чир–Юртовского могильника в Дагестане // ВА. 1967. Вып. 25. С. 117–129. Красильников К.И. Могильник древних болгар у с. Желтое на Северском Донце // Проблеми на прабългарската история и култура. София: БАН, Нац. Археол. институт с музей филиал Шумен, Аргес, 1991. Т. 2. С. 62–81. Красильников К.И., Красильникова Л.И. Могильник у с. Лысогоровка – новый источник по этноистории степей Подонцовья раннего средневековья // Степи Европы в эпоху средневековья. Т 4. Хазарское время / Гл.ред. А.В. Евглевский. Донецк: ДонНУ, 2005. С. 187–244. Красильников К.И., Руженко А.А. Погребение хирурга на древнеболгарском могильнике у с. Желтое // СА. 1981. № 2. С. 282–289. Кузнецова Т.И. Павел Диакон. Из «Истории лангобардов» // Памятники средневековой латинской литературы IV–IX веков / Отв. ред. М. Е. Грабарь-Пассек и М. Л. Гаспаров. М.: Наука, 1970. С. 243–257. Медникова М.Б. Трепанации у древних народов Евразии. М.: Научный мир, 2001. 304 с. Мингазов Ш.Р. Болгары Алзеко в Баварии, Карантании и Италии как пример автономной части этнокультурной общности // Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. Античные и средневековые общности: XXIX Чтения памяти члена-корреспондента АН СССР В.Т. Пашуто. Москва, 19–21 апреля 2017 / Отв. Ред. Е. А. Мельникова. М: Институт всеобщей истории РАН, 2017. С. 160–164. Мингазов Ш.Р. Следы взаимовлияния европейской и азиатской социокультурных моделей: булгары в Италии (VI–VIII вв.) // Восточная Европа в древности и средневековье. Сравнительные исследования социокультурных практик: XXXII Чтения памяти члена корреспондента АН СССР В.Т. Пашуто. Москва, 15–17 апреля 2020 / Отв. Ред. Е. А. Мельникова. М.: Институт всеобщей истории РАН, 2020. С. 162–166. Нестеров С.П. Конь в культах тюркоязычных племен Центральной Азии в эпоху средневековья. Новосибирск: Наука. Сиб. отд–ие АН СССР, 1990. 143 с. Павел Диакон. История лангобардов / Пер. с лат., ст. Ю.Б. Циркина. СПб.: Азбука–классика, 2008. 318 с. Решетова И.К. Население донецко–донского междуречья в раннем средневековье: Палеоантропологическое исследование. СПб.: Нестор–История, 2015. 132 с. Решетова И.К. Описание индивидов с трепанированными черепами среди носителей Салтово–маяцкой культуры: медицинская практика или культ? // Этнографическое обозрение. 2012. № 5. С. 151–157. Ронин В.К. «История лангобардов» Павла Диакона // Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах / Отв. ред. Л. А. Гиндин, Г. Г. Литаврин. М.: Издательская фирма «Восточная литература» РАН, 1995. Т. II. С. 480–501. Ронин В.К. Так называемая Хроника Фредегара // Свод древнейших письменных известий о славянах / Отв. ред. Л. А. Гиндин, Г. Г. Литаврин. М.: Издательская фирма «Восточная литература» РАН, 1995. Т. II. С. 364–397. Трифонов Ю.И. Об этнической принадлежности погребений с конем древнетюркского времени (в связи с вопросом о структуре погребального обряда тюрков–тугю // Тюркологический сборник 1972. / Отв. ред. А.Н. Кононов. М.: Наука, 1973. С. 351–374. Храпунов И.Н., Казанский М.М. Погребение № 114 на могильнике Нейзац (предгорный Крым) и древности кочевников Северного Причерноморья второй половины V — первой половины VI в. // КСИА. Вып. 238. М.: ИА РАН, 2015. С. 170–194. Шишманов И. Българите в "Orlando furioso" и въ по–старата френска драма // Български преглед. VI. Кн. 8. София: Придворна печатница, 1900. Година С. 67–84. Ceglia V. Campochiaro. La necropoli di Vicenne // L'oro degli Avari: popolo delle steppe in Europa. Milano: Inform, 2000. P. 212–221. Ceglia V. Campochiaro: la necropoli altomedievale di Vicenne (CB) // V Settimana beni culturali. Tutela. Catalogo della mostra. Matrice: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1989. P. 63–67. Ceglia V. Interventi di recupero dei siti sparsi e necropolis // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1994. Vol. 7. P. 17–20. Ceglia V. La Necropoli altomedioevale di Vicenne nel Comune di Campochiaro // Almanacco del Molise. Campobasso: Habacus Edithore,1989. Ed. 21, vol. II. P. 153–158. Ceglia V. La necropoli di Campochiaro (Italia) // Roma e i Barbari. La nascita di un nuovo mondo. Catalogo della Mostra (Venezia, 26 gennaio –20 luglio 2008) / A cura di J.J. Aillagon. Milano: Skira, 2008. P. 469–475. Ceglia V. Lo scavo della necropoli di Vicenne // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1988. Vol. 4. P. 31–48. Ceglia V. Necropoli di Vicenne // Studi sull'Italia dei Sanniti. Milano: Electa, 2000. P. 298–302. Ceglia V. Presenze funerarie di eta altomedievale in Molise. Le necropoli di Campochiaro e la tomba del cavaliere // I Longobardi del Sud. Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, 2010. P. 241–255. Ceglia V. Tomba bisoma 88 della necropoli di Campochiaro, localita Morrione // Il futuro dei longobardi. L 'Italia e la costruzione dell' Europa di Carlo Magno / A cura di С. Bertelli, G.P. Brogiolo. Milano: Skira, 2000. P. 80–81. Ceglia V. Varietа di infl ussi culturali nelle necropoli di Campochiaro. Considerazioni preliminari / I beni culturali nel Molise. Il Medioevo / A cura di De Benedittis G. Campobasso: Istituto regionale per gli studi storici del Molise "V. Cuoco", 2004. P. 79–86. Ceglia V., Genito B. La necropoli altomedievale di Vicenne a Campochiaro // Samnium: Archeologia del Molisе. Roma: Quasar, 1991. P. 329–334. Ceglia V., Marchetta I. Nuovi dati dalla necropoli di Vicenne a Campochiaro // La trasformazione del mondo romano e le grandi migrazioni. Nuovi popoli dall'Europa settentrionale e centro–orientale alle coste del Mediterraneo / A cura di C. Ebanista, M. Rotili. Napoli: Tavolario Edizioni, 2012. P. 217–238. Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii Scholastici libri IV // MGH, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum / Ed. B. Krusch. Hannoverae: Impensis bibliopolii hahniani, 1888. T. 2. P. 1-193. Constitutiones et Acta Publica Imperatorum et Regum // MGH, Rerum Germanicarum Medii Aevi / Ed. L. Weiland. Hannoverae, Impensis bibliopolii hahniani, 1893. T. I, №. 333. P. 472–477. Curta F. Ethnicity in the Steppe Lands of the Northern Black Sea Region During The Early Byzantine Times // Archaeologia Bulgarica. 2019. T. ХХIII. P. 33–70. De Benedittis G. Di alcuni materiali altomedievali provenienti dal Molise centrale ed il problema topografi co della necropoli di Vicenne // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1988. Vol. 4. P. 103–108. De Benedittis G. Introduzione // Samnium: Archeologia del Molisе. Roma: Quasar, 1991. P. 325–328. De Marchi P.M. Modelli insediativi "militarizzati" d'eta longobarda in Lombardia // Citta, castelli, campagne nel territori di frontiera (secoli 6–7). Mantova: SAP Societa Archeologica S.r.l., 1995. P. 33–85. De Vingo P. Avari e slavi nel Friuli altomedievale secondo l'Historia Langobardorum di Paolo Diacono // Paolo Diacono e il Friuli alto medievale (secc. VI– X). Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 2001. P. 807–815. Ditten H. Protobulgaren und Germanen im 5.–7. Jahrhundert (vor der Grundung des ersten bulgarischen Reiches) // Bulgarian Historical Review. София: Институт за исторически изследвания, 1980. Vol. VIII, 3. P. 51–77. Donceva–Petkova L. Zur ethnischen Zugehörigkeit einiger Nekropolen des 11. Jahrhunderts in Bulgarien // Post–Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium / Ed. J. Henning. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Vol. 2. S. 643–660. Ebanista C. Gli usi funerari nel ducato di Benevento: alcune considerazioni sulle necropoli campane e molisane di VI–VIII secolo // Archeologia e storia delle migrazioni: Europa, Italia, Mediterraneo fra tarda eta romana e alto medioevo (Giornate sulla tarda antichita e il medioevo, 3). Cimitile: Tavolario Edizioni, 2011. P. 337–364. Ebanista С. Tradizioni funerarie nel ducato di Benevento: l'apporto delle popolazioni alloctone // Nekropoli Longobarde in Italia. Atti del Convegno Internazionale 26–28.09.2011. Trento: Castello del Buonconsiglio, monumenti e collezioni provinciali, 2014. P. 445–471. Fedele A. La deposizione del cavallo nei cimiteri longobardi: dati e prime osservazioni // Archeologia dei Longobardi: dati e metodi per nuovi percorsi di analisi (Archeologia Barbarica, 1). Mantova: SAP Societa Archeologica s.r.l., 2017. P. 59–82. Fedele A., Marchetta I., Colombo D. Ritualita e rappresentazione funeraria nelle tombe di Vicenne (Campochiaro, CB). Una sintesi // Prima e dopo Alboino sulle trace dei Longobardi. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Cimitile–Nola–Santa Maria Capua Vetere. Cimitile: Guida, 2019. P. 295–314. Genito B. Archaeology of the Early medieval nomads in Italy: the horse–burials in Molise (7th century) south–central Italy // Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe in 6.–7. Jh. / Hrsg. C. Balint (Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, IX). Budapest: Archaologisches Institut der UAW, 2000. P. 229–247. Genito B. Il Molise nell'altomedioevo: tra Mediterraneo ed Eurasia. Un'occasione perduta? // Miti e popoli del Mediterraneo antico. Scritti in onore di Gabriella d'Henry. Salerno: Tipografi a Fusco, 2014. P. 279–292. Genito B. Materiali e problemi // Conoscenze. Campobasso: Soprintendenza archeologica e per i beni ambientali, architettonici, artistici e storici del Molise, 1988. Vol. 4. P. 49–67. Genito B. Sepolture con cavallo da Vicenne (CB): un rituale nomadico di origine centroasiatica // I Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Medievale (Pisa 29–31 maggio 1997) / A cura di S. Gelichi. Firenze: All'Insegna del Giglio, 1997. P. 286–289. Genito B. Tombe con cavallo a Vicenne // Samnium: Archeologia del Molisе. Roma: Quasar, 1991. P. 335–338. Giostra C. Il ducato longobardo di Ivrea: la grande necropoli di Borgomasino // Per il Museo di Ivrea. Lasezione archeologica del Museo Civico P.A. Garda / A cura di A. Gabucci, L. Pejrani Baricco, S. Ratto. Firenze: All'Insegna Giglio, 2014. P. 155–176. Hersak E. Vulgarum dux Alzeco // Casopis za zgodovino in narodopisje. Maribor: Izdajata univerza v Mariboru in Zgodovinsko drustvo v Mariboru, 2001. Let. 72 (37), 1–2. S. 269–278. Hodgkin T. Italy and her Invaders. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895. Vol. VI. 636 p. Jozsa L., Fothi E. Trepanalt koponyak a Karpat–medenceben (a leletek szambavetele, megoszlasa es lelohelyei) // Folia Anthropologica. Szombathely: Balogh es Tarsa Kft, 2007. T. 6. O. 5–18. Koch A. Uberlegungen zum Transfer von Schwerttrag– und –kampfesweise im fruhen Mittelalter am Beispiel chinesischer Schwerter mit p–förmigen Tragriemenhaltern aus dem 6.–8. Jahrhundert n. Chr. // Jahrbucher des Romisch–Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Mainz: RGZM, 1998. Bd. 45. S. 571–598. Kruger K.–H. Zur «beneventanischen» Konzeption der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diakonus // Fruhmittelalterliche studien. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1981. Bd. 15. P. 18–35. La Rocca C. Tombe con corredi, etnicita e prestigio sociale: l'Italia longobarda del VII secolo attraverso l'interpretazione archeologica // Archeologia e storia dei Longobardi in Trentino. Mezzolombardo: Comune di Mezzolombardo, 2009. P. 55–76. La Salvia V. La diffusione della staffa nell'area merovingia orientale alla luce delle fonti archeologiche // Temporis Signa. Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di studi sull'alto Medioevo, 2007. Vol. 2. P. 155–171. Laszlo O. Detailed Analysis of a Trepanation from the Late Avar Period (Turn of the 7th–8th Centuries—811) and Its Signifi cance in the Anthropological Material of the Carpathian Basin // International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. Published online in Wiley Online Library, 2016. Vol. 26–2. P. 359–365. Marchetta I. Ceramica ed Ethnos nelle tombe di Vicenne (Campochiaro, CB): il ritual funerario attraverso l'analisi del corredo vascolare // Le forme della crisi. Produzioni ceramiche e commerce nell'Italia centrale tra Romani e Longobardi (III–VIII sec. d.C.) / A cura di E. Cirelli, F. Diosono, H. Patterson. Bologna: Ante Quem, 2015. P. 663–671. Marchetta I. Il carattere composito del regno: le necropoli di Campochiaro (Campobasso) (cat. II.36–40) // Longobardi. Un popolo che cambia la storia. Schede mostra / A cura di G.P. Brogiolo, F. Marazzi, C. Giostra. Milano, Skira, 2017. P. 54–58. Mednikova M.B. Prehistoric Trepanations in Russia: Ritual or Surgical? // Trepanation: History, Discovery, Theory / Eds. R. Arnott, S. Finger, S. Smith C. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 2003. P. 163–174. Muratori L.A. Antiquitates Italicae medii Aevi, sive Dissertationes. Mediolani: Ex Typographia societatis Palatinae, 1740. T. III. 1242 coll.Pasqui U. Documenti per la storia della citta di Arezzo nel medio evo. Arezzo: G.P. Vieusseux, 1899. Vol. I. 576 p. Pauli historia Langohardorum // MGH. Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX / Ed. G. Waitz. Hannoverae: Impensis bibliopolii hahniani, 1878. Bd. I. P. 12–187. Pieri S. Toponomastica della Toscana meridionale (valli della Fiora, dell 'Ombrone, della Cecina e fi umi minori) e dell'Arcipelago Toscano. Siena: Accademia senese degli intronati, 1969. 472 p. Pohl W. Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk im Mittelalter. 567–822. Munchen: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1988. 529 p. Polverari A. Una Bulgaria nella Pentapoli. Longobardi, Bulgari e Sclavini a Senigallia. Senigallia: Pierfederici, 1969. 41 p. Premuzic Z., Rajic Sikanjic P., Rapan Papesa A. A case of Avar period trepanation from Croatia // Anthropological Review. Published online by De Gruyter, 2016. Vol. 79 (4). P. 471–482. Provesi C. Cavalli e cavalieri in Italia nell'Alto Medioevo (secc. V–X): studio della simbologia equestre attraverso fonti narrative, documentarie e archeologiche. Tesi di Dottorato. Venezia, 2013. Provesi C. I cavalieri e le loro donne, uno studio dei corredi funerari di VI–VII secolo // Univ. Degli studi di Verona. Verona, 2013. Доступно по URL: https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/16247410/chiara–provesi–scuola–superiore–di–studi–storici–geografi ci–(Дата обращения 04.12.2020) Provesi C. Uomini e cavalli in Italia meridionale da Cassiodoro ad Alzecone // Ipsam Nolam barbari vastaverunt: l'Italia e il Mediterraneo occidentale tra il V secolo e la metа del VI. Cimitile: Tavolario Edizioni, 2010. P. 97–111. Repetti E. Dizionario geografi co fi sico storico della Toscana. Firenze: Presso L'autore e editore, 1833. Vol. 1. 846 p. Rotili M. I Longobardi migrazioni, etnogenesi, insediamento // I Longobardi del Sud. Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore, 2010. P. 1–77. Rubini M, Zaio P. Warriors from the East. Skeletal evidence of warfare from a Lombard–Avar cemetery in Central Italy (Campochiaro, Molise, 6th–8th Century AD) // Journal of Archaeological Science. Published online by Elsevier, 2011. Vol. 38. Issue 7. P. 1551–1559. Rubini M. Gli Avari in Molise. La necropoli di Campochiaro Morrione // ArcheoMolise. Associazione culturale ArcheoIdea. Isernia: Associazione culturale ArcheoIdea, 2009. T. II (apr.–giu. 2009). Р. 17–25. Rubini M. Il popolamento del Molise durante l'alto medioevo // I beni culturali nel Molise. Il Medioevo / A cura di De Benedittis G. Campobasso: Istituto regionale per gli studi storici del Molise "V. Cuoco", 2004. P. 151–162. Sabatini F. Rifl essi linguistici della dominazione longobarda nell'Italia mediana e meridionale // Aristocrazie e societa fra transizione romano–germanica e alto medioevo. San Vitaliano: Tavolario Edizioni, 2015. P. 353–441. Sarno E. Campobasso da castrum a citta murattiana. Roma: Aracne, 2012. 324 p. Schneider F. Regestum Volaterranum. Regesten der Urkunden von Volterra (778–1303). Roma: Ermanno Loescher, 1907. 448 p. Staffa A.R. Una terra di frontiera: Abruzzo e Molise fra VI e VII Secolo // Citta, castelli, campagne nei territori di frontiera (secoli VI–VII) / A cura di G.P. Brogiolo. Мantova: Padus, 1995. P. 187–238. Staffa A.R. Bizantini e Longobardi fra Abruzzo e Molise (secc. VI–VII) / I beni culturali nel Molise. Il Medioevo / A cura di De Benedittis G. Campobasso: Istituto regionale per gli studi storici del Molise "V. Cuoco", 2004. P. 215–248. Tomka P. Die Bestattungsformen der Awaren // Hunnen und Awaren. Reitervolker aus dem Osten. Burgenlandische Landesausstellung 1996 Schloss Halbturn vom 26. April bis 31. Oktober 1996. Begleitbuch und Katalog / Ed. F. Daim. Eisenstadt: Burgenland, Landesregierung, 1996. S. 384–387. Tornesi M. Presenze alloctone nell'Italia centrale: tempi, modalita e forme dell'organizzazione territorial nell'Abruzzo altomediale. Tesi di Dottorato. Roma: Sapienza universita' di Roma, 2012. 275 p. Valenti M. Villaggi nell'eta delle migrazioni // I Longobardi. Dalla caduta dell'Impero all'alba dell'Italia / A cura di G.P. Brogiolo, A. Chavarria Arnau. Catalogo della mostra (Torino 28 settembre 2007–6 gennaio 2008). Milano: Silvana Editoriale, 2007. P. 151–158. Villa L. Il Friuli longobardo е gli Avari // L'oro degli Avari. Popolo delle steppe in Europa. Milano: Inform, 2000. P. 187–189. Wattenbach W. Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Berlin: Verlag von Wilhelm Hertz, 1858. Vol. I. 478 p. Wattenbach W., Levison W., Lowe H. Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter. Vorzeit und Karolinger. Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus nachfolger, 1953, Heft II. P. 157–290.

International audience ; The collective work presents the study and publicationof excavated materials of an archaeologically known twoapsechurch from the first half of the 9th to the first half ofthe 10th century at the top of the Tuzluk Hill in the Yedi Evlerarea, Crimean Peninsula, near the village of Semidvorie(Alushta, Crimea, Ukraine). This sanctuary was linked tothe large agricultural and pottery producing settlement thatexisted in this economically developed and populous regionin the second half of the 8th/9th - first half of the 10th century.The settlement was situated 150-250 meters to the east andsoutheast from the church. Just 350 meters southeast fromthe church was a medieval cemetery of the "Suuksu" typeof the 7th – 8th / 9th (?) centuries existed which was left by thepopulation usually identified as Crimean Goths tribes.In 2007, an area of around 96 m2 was investigated andchurch ruins and surrounding cultural layer were studied.The stratigraphical analysis managed to identify here 44archaeological layers or contexts, one medieval grave withdouble burials, and a Bronze Age cultual place. The studyof ruins shows that the sanctuary was rebuilt multiple times.The church consisted of two communicating compartmentsof different sizes. As for characteristic features, the southernmain apse is bigger in size than the northern one, andthere was an entrance in the main part of the church throughthe northern compartment as well as two other doorwaysfrom the west and from the south. The western portal of thenorthern compartment was completely open and no traces ofwall masonry here were attested. In contrast to the southerncompartment, the foundation of the northern part was cutin natural. The three-layer masonry wall was made of localpoor faceted rectangular stones of various sizes. For buildingmortar, mud solutions with clay loam as a binder elementwere mostly used. The inside of the southern churchwalls was plastered with lime mortar, which in some placesis preserved in situ, and painted with red linear and geometricpatterns including letters or even inscriptions that aretoday illegible. The roof likely had two slopes covered bylocally made tiles of different types.The overall dimensions of the church were: width – 5.60-5.70 m, length - 8.50 m. The thickness of the wall was about0.7 m. Structure remains are preserved to a height of 0.80 m.Both apses have shoulders connecting apsidal semicirclesand walls. The external diameter of the southern apse is 2.13m. The internal dimension of the southern main compartmentis 2.34×4.15 м. The external diameter of the northernapse is 1.20 m, while the internal is 0.63 m. The width in thewestern part of the northern compartment is 1.34 m, and inthe eastern part it is reduced to 1.26 m. The church was orientedto the northeast. The azimuth of its central axis is 47°,which roughly corresponds to the azimuth point of sunriseduring the summer solstice for Crimean latitude.SUMMARYIn the first chapter, written by V. Kirilko, the buildinghistory of the church and its architectural peculiarities arepresented. The double apse sanctuary belongs to the relativelyrare type of churches of the Middle Byzantine periodthat could be described as a two-apse church with unequalapses of different sizes. G. Dimitrokallis (1976), the authorof the most representative corpus of double apse byzantinesanctuaries, classified them as "pseudobiconques." Thereare some examples of double apse churches in the Crimea(Sotera near Alushta, Sudak, Funa near Luchistoe settlement,Chembalo fortress in Balaklava). Yet, these sanctuariesmainly date back to the 14th century, with the one exceptionbeing the Sotera church that belonged to the periodof the 8th-10th century, and none of them provides an exactparallel to the church of Yedi Evler.During the short period of its history, the church wascompletely rebuilt at least once. The first building periodinvolved the creation of the main southern church with theapse and the three entrances from the west, south and north.It is highly likely that the church was intentionally conceivedby priests, ktitores or the Christian community as a doubleapse and two-part building. Immediately after the perfectionof the southern church, the additional northern compartmentwith open western portal and separate apse was added. Thispart of the church was connected to the main church via aspecial doorway in the wall dividing the compartment thatpreviously served as the northern entrance to the southernchurch. In fact, the second building period is distinguishedonly theoretically as a final step in the construction of thechurch. The chronology of the first two periods of the building'shistory, based mainly on the study of pottery and ceramicmaterials from the complex, dates back to the firsthalf of the 9th century, or more precisely the second-third tothe middle of the century.After a short period the church was completely destroyed,most likely due to inadequate construction worksor an earthquake. The third building period is determined as860-880s, when the sanctuary was rebuilt and reconstructed.After reconstruction, the northern compartment was buriedby earth and ruined stones and preserved according tocanon law practices for unused sacral Christian objects. Inthe third building period, the northern part was not active asa liturgical zone. The sanctuary became an ordinary ruralByzantine one-apse, one-nave church. A narthex was constructedin the eastern part of the sanctuary. The doorwaybetween the southern and northern parts was closed off bywall masonry. During the third building period, only twoentrances — the southern and western — were still active.The main entrance was the southern one, which was addedby a wooden apprentice. After the second deterioration ofthe church in the first half of the 10th century, no more renovations were carried out. The ruins were reused by the localpopulation for ordinary purposes no earlier than in the secondhalf of the 14th -15th century, as pottery fragments fromthe ruins show. Most probably, the narthex and apse wereused at this time as a temporary living structure in what isregarded in the chapter as the fourth building period. Theauthor proposes graphical reconstruction of the sanctuaryaccording to fourth building periods and shows architecturalparallels to this building among contemporary churches ofthe Northern Caucasus and Minor Asia.Chapter two, author I. Teslenko, deals with the stratigraphyof the site and description of archaeological layers.The analysis of excavated materials provided in the chapterallowed for the presentation of all steps of anthropogenicactivity on the Tuzluk Hill from the Bronze Age to moderntimes. The description of materials is organized by archaeologicallayers, with general characteristics of different findsincluded. Every layer inside and outside the church is attributedto a corresponding building period. A hypothesison the formation of each layer and its causes are also given.The most important layers are linked to two dilapidationsof the church, and some of them are attributed to regular liturgicallife and different rituals practiced in and around thesanctuary. Several layers may be left from construction andreconstruction works. A detailed description of the archaeologicalfinds and a cultural and liturgical interpretation ofstructures, layers and bones are given in the next chapters.In the third chapter, I. Teslenko provides an analysis ofceramic and pottery materials from the church. During theexcavation, 2,589 fragments of roof tiles and kalypters (55%of all ceramic materials), 637 fragments of kitchen and tablewares (13.5%) and 1,485 pieces of pithoi and amphora (31.5%) were recorded. Among them 9 intact rectangular rooftiles that were still preserved and 5 kalypters can be fragmentarilyreconstructed. Several tiles have a constructionsign or craftsmen marks as tridents and Greek letters «λ»,«ρ», «π» «В», «V». A theoretical estimation on the numberof tiles, including kalypters for covering the roof, has beendone. The amount is between 374 tiles / 376 kalypters and396 tiles / 397 kalypters in the second and third buildingperiod respectively. Accordingly, in the second period theweight of the roof was about 3893-3897 kg, for the thirdperiod – 4118-4122 kg.Nearly all excavated ceramic materials came from localproduction. The author lists the characteristics and providesa description of clay pottery and ceramic items, which showtwo craftsmen traditions. The first one emerged locally andis characteristic of primitive treatments, the use of a handpottery wheel and unsatisfactory baking. The second craftsmentradition reflects well-organized, high-technology commodityproduction oriented on the external wine trade. It ispresented specially by amphora. Today, there are more than40 known pottery workshops with high-technology kilns inthe southern part of the Crimean peninsula. Such a potterytradition was most likely brought here in the 8th-9th centuryfrom Minor Asia. The author discusses chronologies ofvarious types of local pottery, particularly amphora, and hemakes comparisons to groups of amphora known from differentregions of the Byzantine World. Local amphoras arepresented by so-called "Black Sea type" (second variant),which was produced until the mid-10th century, according tothe author. At the archaeological site, only two fragments ofimported pottery have been recorded: the bottom of a highneck brown clay jug with wide flat handles, no earlier thanthe mid-9th century, and a fragment of Glazed White Ware II,according to J.W. Hayes, from 10th century Constantinople.The kitchen pottery which were in use in Khazar kaganateis also absent. Ceramic finds in the church date back mainlyto the end of 8th-10th century; only several fragments of twored glazed sgraffito bowls and one fragment of a brown unglazedpot come from the 14th-15th century.The fourth chapter presented by I. Teslenko and A.Musin describes and studies the collection of glass lampfragments (342 items) that are partially not indentified.The bulk (91%) of the lamps comes from the third buildingperiod and is concentrated near the southern entrance tothe church, where the liturgy should start. Precisely withinthe same zone, micropieces of flint made by strike-a-lightfor making "liturgical fire" were recorded, and kitchen andbone remains from community meals were also attested.Glass lamps are presented by two main groups: polycandelonor beaker-shaped lamps with hollow stems, and singlelamps with handles on the rim. All lamps have close parallelsamong glass finds from other Middle Byzantine sanctuaries,for instance, Myra-Demre in Turkey, Thessaloniki inGreece, Chersoneses in Crimea, etc. The glass is mainly coloredlight green and blue. A slowly increased percentage ofpotassium oxide recorded by optical emission spectroscopymay point to glass production centers in the southeasternpart of Asia Minor or Levant.Chapter five, written by A. Musin, analyzes and classifiesmetal crosses found in the church. The excavation recordedat least 30 crosses and their fragments. Crosses wereused throughout the entire period of the church's existence.Crosses are regarded as an ex-voto offering. Most of themwere concentrated in the altar zone of the sanctuary andnear the southern entrance to the church. Two crosses wereput in wall masonry that closed the doorway between thenorthern compartment and the main church during the thirdbuilding period, evidently with apotropaic magic purposes.Presumably, crosses were suspended on the church wall oron elements of the church's interior, or inserted in them. Thecorpus of crosses is divided into five typological groups.The main group consists of iron crosses with an extendedlower branch made of two plates connected with a rivet thatderived from individual processional crosses and turned inex-voto. Some crosses with splayed arms were cut from thinsheet-metal, including copper alloy and probably silver,and decorated with punch ornamentation. Two crosses weremade of silver coins: Umayyad dirham (661 – 750 AD) andimitation of Arab-Sassanian half-drachma of the Sassanidking Kosrou II (590-629 AD).The two last groups of crosses can be compared to thecrosses of the type 1.2.2 according to J. Staecker found inEarly Rus' and Scandinavia in the 10th – 11th century, especiallyknown to be in graves in Birka (Sweden), Gnezdovonear Smolensk, Timerevo near Yaroslavl (Russia), Kiev,Iskorosten (Ukraine) and other political and economic centersof the formation of early medieval states in Russia andSweden. Several scholars have insisted that the crosses havean Anglo-Saxon origin and appeared in Sweden around930-940s AD with the mission of bishop Uni from BritishIslands. However, after the Yedi Evler excavation, the Byzantineorigin of these crosses is quite clear. Crosses fromEastern and Northern Europe may have been created usinga Byzantine example or brought directly from this regionin several cases. During the cultural transformation of theChristianization period, crosses that initially belonged to liturgicalpublic culture were turned in barbarian society intoprivate devotion objects and used as an element in burialcustoms.Nearly all crosses found in the Yedi Evler church haveparallels in other regions of the Byzantine Empire and theneighboring region in the Black Sea coastland, Mediterranean,Asia Minor, Northern Caucasus and Balkans. Suchex-voto crosses illustrate a special feature of post iconoclasticculture in the beginning of the Middle Byzantine period,as well as large distribution of personal reliquary-crossesof the end of the 9th – 11th century. However, prior to becomingan ex-voto offering in church interior, both types ofcrosses were generally used in private Christian devotion.It is largely accepted that the 9th -11th century was a periodof increasing individualism, social atomism and growingemphasis on personal piety. With that in mind, individualcrosses were evidence of the new post-iconoclasm Orthodoxyas a manifestation of personal activity in church lifeand a sign of the victory of polis community tradition overimperial tyranny.The process of donating personal crosses to churchesshould be regarded as a special way of reconciling personaldevotion with the liturgical needs of the local communityencouraged by Church hierarchy. The present hypothesisis confirmed by information in the Byzantine MonasticTypikons, especially that of Empress Irene Doukaina Komnenefor the Convent of the Mother of God Kecharitomenein Constantinople founded between 1100 and 1118, whichprescribed that each Saturday laymen would offer crosses-stauria in the sanctuary for the commemoration of thedeceased, and that other crosses must be brought similarlyeach Sunday on behalf of the living who are recorded on thediptychs. Crosses from the Yedi Evler church and in othercases should be regarded as an archaeological illustration ofsuch a ritual.Other small finds from the church like nails, chain linksfor the suspension of lamps, fragment of bronze wire, leadplates from a wick holder, buttons of bronze, small greenglass beads, and an iron arrow-head characteristic of EasternEurope military culture in the 10th/11th - 13th century aredescribed and analyzed in chapter six by I. Teslenko. Twoamulet-pendants found in the church that are made of clamshell of Cerithium vulgatum and tooth of deer of Cervuselaphus, which could also be offered in the sanctuary asex-voto, are presented in chapter seven by G. Gavris and I.Teslenko.Chapters eight to twelve compiled by G. Gavris, V.Logvinenko, and S. Leonov deal with bones and faunisticremains including birds, mammals, fishes, marine mollusks,and land snails recorded during the excavations. As a result,information is exhausted on the repertoire of animal sacrifices,a normal practice in rural parish Byzantine churches,and the composition of church festive meals has been determined.Among 139 identified bones of mammals, 64% belongto Ovis aries and Capra aegagrus hircus, 16% to Sus scrofadomesticus, 6% to Lepus europaeus and 2 % to Bos Taurus.Birds are presented with 148 individuals of 19 species,including 78% of Gallus domesticus and Gallus domesticussm. and an insignificant quantity of bones of Otis tarda,Cygnus olor, Perdix perdix etc.It is quite interesting to note that fishes are nearly absentfrom the collection, and consequently, on the table of parishmen who lived along the sea coast, only 13 bones ofAcipenser gueldenstaedtii and Perciformes were recorded.Evidently, bones from the excavation present the remainsof a festive meal and not an everyday diet. However, shellfishesare recorded here in 1900 fragments of Mytilus galloprovincialis(95% of mollusk) and a small number ofPatella ulyssiponensis and Ostrea lamellose. Eriphia spinifronspresented in 4-5 individuals should also be noted. Terrestrialgastropods mollusks are mainly presented by Helixalbescens (72.4%), Monacha fruticola (24.2%) Chondrulatridens (3.2%), and only one shell of Brephulopsis cylindrical.Some remarks on the distribution of animal bonesin the excavated complex will be provided in the followingchapters.In chapter thirteen, I. Teslenko proposed and arguedthe chronology of the site based mainly on pottery analysis.Coins from the 7th – mid-8th century that were used forthe manufacturing of crosses give only large terminus postquem for the church building. Amphora with small horizontalmultiple grooves on the surface well-known in Crimeanot later than the beginning - first half of the 9th century arenot recorded among the excavation materials; so the beginningof the church complex must date back to the secondthird-middle of the 9th century. The find of the fragment of ahigh neck jug with wide flat handles in layers of the secondbuilding period, and their absence later on, puts the date ofthe rebuilding of the church at 860-880 AD. The presence oflocal "Black Sea type" amphora of the second variant andthe absence of forms similar to amphora of types I and IIbaccording to N. Günsenin allow to propose the first half –mid of the 10th century as the final stage of the church's existenceand that of surrounding settlements. Another find isthe fragment of Glazed White Ware II, dated no earlier thanthe beginning of the 10th century. The history of the churchactually spans about 100 (± 20-25) years.Chapter fourteen by A. Musin discusses liturgical ritualspracticed in the sanctuary against the large background ofByzantine church culture and shows parallels from relatedterritories. To explain the meaning and origin of the two unequalapse church building in the Yedi Evler area, the authorprovides a thorough account of the phenomenon of doubleapse churches with unequal apses from Transcaucasia andthe Northern Caucasus through Asia Minor and the GreekIslands up until biapsidal churches were recorded in medievalItaly in the 9th-13th century. As a result, a conclusionhas been made that the Mediterranean World did not havea unique genesis of double apse churches. Late Antiquitychurches with two symmetrical naves and apses cannot beregarded as a direct prototype for the Yedi Evler church andrelated building. The architecture of Transcaucasia and theNorthern Caucasus sometimes gives similar features, forexample Mgvimevi, Georgia, the end of the 13th century,but all of them were built later than the monument underconsideration.The "pseudobiconques" churches with a reducednorthern apse are also known in medieval Italy and Corsicaof the 10th-12th century (see for example: San Venerio,La Spezia-Migliarina, Liguria; San Tommaso al Poggio,Rapallo, Liguria; Santa Maria della Chiappella, Rogliano,Haute-Corse; Santa Maria di Sibiola, Serdiana, Sardegna).However, they hardly could be a source of inspirationfor builders of the Yedi Evler church for cultural andchronological reasons. The Italian architecture of the "chiesebiabsidate" did, however, deeply influence the appearanceof two apse churches in Crimea and Muscovite Russia inthe end of the 14th-15th century. Nevertheless, early Italiantwo apse sanctuaries, especially with different apses and anadditional northern entrance, could initially reflect the sameprocess of the change of liturgical planning as in the YediEvler church.It should be acknowledged that "pseudobiconques"churches are not very characteristic for the Greek Island.Some indirect parallels can bee seen in the planning ofthe church of St Spyridon – Panagia Protothroni Halkia,Halki, Naxos Island; church of St Pantaleon, Kotraphi,Peloponnesus; church of St Athanasius, Phaturu, PatmosIsland; church of St Athanasius, Phaturu, Patmos Island. Inall cases, it is difficult to say whether the additional reducedcompartment was initially intended for this or that particularliturgical ritual. It is quite possible that both naves wereused for the Eucharist. However, in the Middle Byzantineperiod, the appearance of double churches of Sts John andGeorge, Sarakini, Samos, and the Monastery of St JohnChrysostomos at Koutsovendis, Cyprus can be attested.The double apse church was renewed in the 10th century inÜçayak, near Kirşehir, Central Anatolia, Turkey. The mostnotable fact is that the high density of two apse middlebyzantine churches, including the "pseudobiconques"sanctuary, is known to have existed in the ancient Pontprovince and near Trabzon, Turkey, for example in Koralla,Görele Burunu fortress or Gantopedin fortress (Matzouka,Zana Kale), Labra, Maçka Dere, near Köpruna Köy. Thisregion always had direct ties with the northern Black Seacoast and Crimea during Antiquity and Middle Ages.At the same time, the closest parallel to the Yedi Evlerchurch can be seen in the 10th-11th century double apsechurch in the Upper City of Middle Byzantine settlementin Boğazköy (Hattusa, Asia Minor), Turkey, excavated by P.Neve in the early 1980s. At the small northern compartmentthat served as the principle entrance in the southern mainchurch, obviously meant for the Eucharist, a considerablenumber of metal ex-voto crosses was recovered. Thecombination of such features attested both in Yedi Evlerand Boğazköy and the chronological coincidence cannot beaccidental.The author argued that different liturgical functions of twochurch compartments and the subsidiary role of the northernpart may be stressed by their sizes and architectural volumesand expressed in the exterior of churches in an architectonicway and by means of architecture. An additional means ofspecial organization of two parts of liturgical space involvedthe arrangement of a separate doorway to the main churchvia the northern compartment as a supposable place of initialworship rituals.Such a change in liturgical planning finds its possibleexplanation in the reform of Prothesis/Proskomedia,which took place in Middle Byzantium during and rightafter the iconoclasm period. The Euchologion Barberinigr. 336, the oldest Orthodox liturgical book of the end ofthe 8th century, reported the appearance of the first priest'sprayer for the preparation of bread and wine as gifts for theEucharist. There was a time when the clergy and monksestablished control over the expression of community andindividual piety within the bringing of liturgical gifts. Thechapter argues in support of a hypothesis on the Prothesisfunction established in the northern compartment in MiddleByzantine churches with two unequal apses such as YediEvler, Sotera, Boğazköy, several sanctuaries of Pont andTrabzon, etc. as a materialization of church reforms at thattime. It is quite possible that contemporary Italian churcheswith two unequal apses were also influenced by the samearchitectural and liturgical innovation in the beginning of theMiddle Byzantine period, especially since the EuchologionBarberini is a manuscript of southern Italian provenance,which reflects, however, practices of Constantinople.Architectural studies let us assume that initially, for anewly performed ritual, the northern annexes or nave ofchurch could be reserved, but later such liturgical planninginnovation did not catch on in church practice. Both preanaphoraand anaphoric rituals were concentrated in thealtar zone.The architectural implementation of the Prothesisreform could be reflected in another way, for example, in theconstruction of rectangular annexes to Middle Byzantinechurch as monastery Kisleçukuru, Antalia, and in İnişdibifortified settlement, Istlada, near Kekova – Myra/Demre,both in Turkey provide examples. In fact, the MiddleByzantine period is generally characterized by the risingof additional architectural volumes and a compartmentaround the main church building within the multiplicationof liturgical rituals and "Privatisation" of Liturgy.As proof for the given hypothesis, a find of liturgicalequipment in the church can be added. At the central partof the northern compartment just opposite the doorway tothe main church, an almost rhomboidal flat stone with dimensionsof 0.5 х 0.7 m (weight 75 kg) was attested. Itshorizontal position in situ was fixed by two roof tiles andfragments of amphora. A considerable number of potteryand glass fragments was concentrated around the stone, aswell as some animal bones. At the east end of the northernapse, the bottom of pithos and fragmentary sheep skullwere also recovered, which indicate some unknown ritual.It is quite possible that such flat stones laying directly on thechurch floor and serving as the Prtothesis table for offeringliturgical bread and wine were typical for rural Byzantinechurches, as the information of Pratum spirituale by JohnMoschus suggests.No remains of the altar table or distinct elements of thealtar screen were recorded during the excavations. This impliesthat the Holy table in the church could be made ofwood and the altar screen existed as a cloth curtain or katapetasma.However, the altar zone was separated from thenaos by a terrace cut in natural as a kind of bema. Near thebema, there was a pit, most likely for a water reservoir usedfor church needs and ritual purification purposes. Beside thispit within the altar zone, several roof tiles were stocked as aspecial construction associated with finds of metal crossesand glass lamp fragments that may be regarded as an elementof an unpreserved altar barrier.Such liturgical elements as the offering of ex-voto crossesand new arrangement of the Prothesis ritual may suggesta monastic influence in the area. Additionally, this possibilityis confirmed by some features of burial custom of thegrave excavated near the church to the southeast from themain apse, i.e. the fixation of the head of one buried senilisman with the help of small stones or a special head-supportknown in the practice of Mont Athos monasteries and in theTypikon of Studios monastery in Constantinople. This observationallows for a revision of the role of Byzantine monasticismin the development of Crimean Christian cultureof the iconoclasm and posticonoclasm period, especiallysince an erroneous hypothesis on the "mass migration" ofByzantine monks-iconodoules to the Crimean peninsulabased on an uncritical review of the information of the Lifeof Saint Stephen the Younger has been abandoned after newresearch.However, rituals practiced in the Yedi Evler church werelinked not only to monastic practices but also to popularChristianized rituals, as finds of animal bones in and aroundthe church suggest. Without a doubt, these kitchen remainstestify to animal sacrifice and parish community or familyfestive meals organized in the church. The finds of oxremains, an animal usually offered as a sacrifice in ruralGreek communities during sanctuary consecration, nearthe western and southern entrances to the church may referto rituals of dedication of the church after its constructionand reconstruction in the second and third building periods.Other bones and faunal remains are relatively proportionallyspread out in the church complex. It is difficult todeterminate where exactly the common meals took place.Most likely, during the first period of church life it was thenorthern part of the church; the joint offering of gifts forthe Eucharist and ordinary meal in the same place near theflat stone in the northern part of the church shows a kindof syncretism of liturgical and popular rituals. During thelast period, when the northern compartment was buried accordingto canon law postulates the main part of the kitchenremains was concentrated near the southern entrance to thesanctuary.The practice of animal sacrifices and parish meals waslargely in use in Byzantine popular religion, or so-called"parish Orthodoxy." In spite of prescriptions against suchpractices, which can be found in canon law, it was regardedas a norm in society, and even hagiographical texts, for example,the Life of Saint Nicolas of Sion in Asia Minor, tellabout such rituals without any fulmination. Rituals of animalsacrifices are also known in the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia,and the Balkans and are still preserved in ethnographicpractice until the beginning of the 20th century andon several territories up until the present age. For example,in the Farassa area, Cappadocia, modern Feke, Adana Province,Turkey, in the Greek parish the ritual of animal sacrificeswas recorded in the church opposite the main altar on abig stone. This parallel may suggest that the flat stone in thenorthern part of the Yedi Evler church, apart from its Prosthesisfunction, could have also served as archaic sacrifice.The remains of rituals of church consecration are alsoknown from the excavations. They have been attestedthanks to one-time concentrations of charcoals and fireplacesas well as kitchen remains opposite to the entrances of thesanctuary. For the first church consecration, three fireplaceswere recorded to the north, west and south of the church.The second consecration left one fireplace to the south fromthe church according to the position of the main doorwayduring the third building period.Within the last zone, micropieces of flint made by strikea-light were found. It is obvious that there was a specialplace here for making 'liturgical fire' before the beginningof office of vespers. Evidently, the celebration in the churchwas not conducted every day, but on special days includingFeast and Sunday Liturgies. Today the ritual of makingnew fire before offices is still preserved in Latin andGreek parish life, only on the eve of Easter Day when theliturgical light for the ceremony is normally lit from a bonfireburned outside the church. In Russian and UkrainianOrthodoxy, such practice has been abandoned. A specificderivate of such practices is the ritual of 'Holy Fire' in thechurch of Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem on Great Saturday,the day before Orthodox Easter, presented in mass mentalityand church propaganda as a miracle. However, the practiceof making 'new' or 'holy' fire, especially at the beginningof spring, is well known thanks to ethnological research inWestern and Central Europe, and relations between churchrituals and folklore customs are difficult to establish. Multiplefragments of glass lamps in the same zone hardly referto any rituals, nor do presented remains of lamps accidentallybroken during manipulation. Only one church customthat involves the intentional breaking of wedding glass cupsof wine was first attested in the Euchologion Paris Coislin.213 in 1027 AD. However, until the 12th century, the churchblessing of wedding was practiced in the aristocratic milieuand was not very widespread in rural society.In sum, the local parish community had enough cultivatedlevel of religious life and combined innovations ofliturgical mainstream of Byzantine society issued from culturalcenters and archaic practices belonging to the provincialrural population.The conclusions presented by I. Teslenko and A. Musinsummaries research results and give future perspectives.For the first time in the history of excavations of Crimeanmedieval churches, thanks to careful digging and fieldfixation, architectural archaeology managed to record manyliturgical features and everyday life elements characteristicof Byzantine rural churches. It allowed for determining acharacteristic of the material culture of the local populationduring the "demographic boom" and establishing of themataadministrative division in Byzantine Empire in the 8th-9thcentury. Church planning kept the very important step inthe development of the initial part of East-Christian Liturgyas ritualisation of Prothesis. Archaeological contextspreserved intact bones of animal sacrifices and communitymeals appropriated to Byzantine popular religion, tracesof making of 'holy' or liturgical fire as micropieces of flintmade by a light-a-strike, and ex-voto offering in the formof metal crosses, and amulets pendants that at the sametime could serve as interior church decoration. Such findsallowed us to establish byzantine origin of several typesof Christian devotional crosses pendants from the 10th-11th century originated from the territories of Early Rus'and Scandinavia. The church in Yedi Evler is an examplemonument of the Middle Byzantine period for the study ofliturgical devotion, rural sacral architecture and everydaylife of provincial settlements, which should be useful forthe understanding of both Crimean medieval culture and thehistory of other parts of the Byzantine World.The study of the Yedi Evler church permits us todraw some conclusions about the historical developmentand cultural situation in the southern part of the Crimeanpeninsula at the end of the 8th – mid 10th century. The materialculture of the local population known from the result ofthe church excavation and investigation of surroundingsettlements and pottery workshops suggests importantinnovation, such as stone housebuilding using roof tiles,high-technology pottery production with very effectivekilns, winemaking oriented to local and long distancetrade, and ecclesiastical architecture of basilica-type parishchurches. All these improvements were previously unknownfor the autochthonic people, which may be indentified tothe Crimean Goths. The settlement archaeology in the areashows that the above-mentioned innovations were broughthere with the wave of mass migration, and newly-establishedresidences of the new population existed quietly side by sidewith previous habitations. This situation may demonstratethe process of mutual integration and even acculturation ofautochthonic people in higher organized society. Most likely,the main group of migrants came from Asia Minor andbrought the mentioned traditions of Byzantine-Rhômaioscivilization, including high technology in pottery andliturgical innovations reflected in ecclesiastical architectureand devotional practices.Undoubtedly, the colonization of the southern part of theCrimean peninsula was organized by the administration ofthe Byzantine Empire in the framework of the establishingof the themata system. The theme ta Klimata in this areawas constituted in 841 AD, and later in the 850s it wasreorganized in the theme of Chersoneses. In the same vein,the new church administration was established here. Theregion under question had probably been included in themetropolitan of Ghotia or Doros, whose eastern borderseparating it from another one new diocese of Sougdaia orSourozh, now Sudak, was exactly across from the Yedi Evlervalley. The Goths diocese is referred to as "a certain regionalong the coast there called Dory," mentioned by Procopiusof Caesarea in his panegyric on the building activity of theemperor Justinian De Aedificiis.The chronology of pottery materials suggests that thechurch in Yedi Evler and the local agglomeration, as wellas a considerable part of settlements in Southern and South-Western Crimea, ceased to exist at the same time in the firsthalf of the 10th century. Such a social collapse may be linkedto the politically unstable situation in the area caused by theconflict between the Byzantine Empire and Khazar kaganateand active military raids of the Rus' from the Middle Dnieperarea to the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions, Asia Minorand Constantinople. The local population moved to moresecure regions or fled behind city walls for protection.This publication is supplemented by appendixes withcatalogues of finds of various categories including metals,glass, and faunal artifacts (I. Teslenko, N. Turova), pottery,ceramic and stone materials (O. Ignatenko, I. Teslenko),architectural elements (V. Kirilko), find of Bronze Ageperiod (I. Teslenko), description and results of opticalemission spectroscopy of glass finds (A. Egor'kov) andstudy of flint finds (V. Chabai).