The article seeks to refute the opinion that has recently developed in the Russian scientific literature that information from Russian written sources of the XVII century is based on the following principles: the idea of the existence of" stone towns " of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, which could serve as shelters in times of military danger, is erroneous. From the point of view of the exponents of such an assessment, for the stone town of nar. Vertically installed slabs on the mounds of the Tagar culture were adopted as White Jus, the fortification at the mouth of the Syda River was not a fortress, but the simplest "defenses and loopholes" on the mountain top, the stone wall on the "Tagyr Island" on the Yenisei was not a man-made structure, but a natural formation. Based on the data of field studies conducted by us in these areas, it was established that the stone town on the White Yuse in the sources of the XVII century could be considered the First Chest Mountain, access to the elevated and steep part of which is protected by long stone walls. On Mount Unyukuustya Sydyrealno there is a large structure with moats and powerful stone-earth ramparts. On the "Tagyr Island" (now Kamenny Island) on the Yenisei, the remains of a wall with a length of more than 1 km from the fragments of Devonian sandstone slabs, which protected a large area on a flattened mountain top, can be confidently traced. Thus, the Russian pioneers were well aware of the territory being developed and adequately reflected its main features and characteristics in their reports.

Keywords: Yenisei Kyrgyz, fortifications, Russian pioneers, communications, archeology, "stone town", mountain First Chest, fortress, mountain Unyuk, stone wall, "Tagyr island".

Introduction

Some questions of the history of the southern part of Central Siberia in the late Middle Ages and early Modern times, despite the abundance of written sources of Russian and foreign origin, are not yet fully solved in the historical literature. For example, the assumptions about the existence of a "stone town" on the Bely Ius River, as well as fortifications at the mouth of the Syda River and on the "Tagyr Island" on the Yenisei above the mouth of the Abakan River are questioned.

Some researchers, relying on the results of their own historical and geographical analysis of well-known Russian documents, try to prove that the opinion about the existence of "stone towns" and their use by Kyrgyz as shelters during periods of military danger in the XVII century is based on misunderstandings caused by a superficial knowledge of historical documents and an uncritical attitude towards them (Dobzhansky, 2007). One of the sources 'reports is even described as" fantastic statements " (Rezun, 1982, p. 16). However, these critics do not take into account very important data related to the toponymy, topography and archeology of the region. Therefore, the task of clarifying and complementing the above assumptions is very urgent.-

The work was carried out within the framework of the RGNF project No. 10 - 01 - 00258a.

page 92
There is no specific information about such reports from Russian written sources of the 17th century, which we collected in the course of our own field research. It is hoped that they will help to speak more clearly about the possibility of the existence of an object called the "stone town", a fortification at the mouth of the Syda and the presence of a fortification with a stone wall on the"Tagyr island".

Did there exist a "stone town" on the White Yuse and a fortification at the mouth of the Syda?

The "stone town" of the Kyrgyz on the White Yuse is repeatedly mentioned in various Russian documents, including the map of S. U. Remezov [Butanaev and Abdykalykov, 1995, N 16, p. 72; N 20, p. 90; N 24, p. 102; Russian-Mongolian relations..., 1974, p. 134; 1996, p. 56]. However, V. N. Dobzhansky, in an article published in this journal, expressed doubts that the "town" even existed. In his opinion, the Russian pioneers took for a" stone town " large stone slabs installed vertically on the mounds of the Tagar culture [2007, p. 84]. At the same time, V. N. Dobzhansky, relying on the data of written sources, notes that, most likely, this "stone town" in the form of fences of mounds was located on the White Pole in the area of the modern Chest Mountain. When analyzing this assumption, first of all, we exclude the judgment about the error of the pioneers in interpreting the purpose of stone slabs on the mounds of the Tagar culture. There are no reports of "stone towns" in other territories in the region, where the same Tatar mounds have been preserved, in Russian sources. In historical documents, "kamenny gorodok" is most often located near the Sunduki mountain range. In this area, in addition to the mounds of the Tagar culture, by the way, not the largest on the Yenisei, there is a unique natural formation, the First Chest Mountain, on which a stone wall is located (Fig. 1). This mountain with steep edges of Devonian sandstone outcrops, rising from three sides over a vast plain in the valley Bely Iyus (maximum height 491 m), is an almost finished fortress. It was enough to block the gentle ascent to it from the western side (it is here that the remains of walls built from fragments of stone slabs are marked) in order to have a powerful and very large fortress. Currently, the remains of the walls are ramparts of heavily blackened fragments of Devonian sandstone slabs, mostly of medium size, once laid flat on top of each other (Figure 2). The current height of the remains of the walls is on average 0.5-0.6 m. The wall is oriented along the north-north-west - south-south-west line.to the east, it crosses the gentle ascent of the mountain between its steep northern and southern edges and separates the rocky peak with almost no vegetation from two vast dens on the western slope with steppe vegetation (Fig. 3), where several thousand cattle could temporarily fit. In some parts of the mountain, large remnants of Devonian sandstone have been preserved, with sub-rectangular outlines resembling walls or towers.

It can be assumed that it was the First Chest Mountain with a stone wall built in the western part, and not the mounds of the Tagar culture, that the Russian pioneers called the "stone town". Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to determine the time of construction of the wall, so there is no reason to attribute its creation to the Kyrgyz. However, it is possible that the latter, for example, used a ready-made structure for defensive purposes. To give a more precise answer to this question, it is necessary to conduct an excavation study of the remains of the wall.

V. N. Dobzhansky is also critical of the information about the" stone town below the Syda River " contained in the 1652 reply of the Krasnoyarsk voivode M. F. Scriabin. The author of the document described the siege by the North Mongolian Altyn Khan of the town in which his nephew Mergen-taisha settled. According to V. N. Dobzhansky, the named structure is not a town, but only something similar to "defenses and loopholes", i.e. hastily folded small structures [2007, p. 86]. However, this assumption needs to be clarified. In 1735, G. F. Miller noted that on the rock " Unnjuk-stone - on the eastern side of the Yenisei, slightly below the mouth of the Sida River... the remains of the former city are seen" [Siberia of the XVIII century..., 1996, pp. 57-58]. In 1739, after visiting this place, he made a description of the monument: "Ancient fortification... it consists of double ditches and ramparts. ...The inner shaft is half the height of a man, the outer shaft is lower. Ditches are located next to the ramparts, on their outer, or mainland, side, and the earth from them is thrown on the ramparts. In addition, there is a vast beautiful steppe on the mountain, so it seems likely that the creators of this fortification took refuge here with their cattle during the war " [Ibid., p. 164 - 165]. The presence of a large structure on Mount Unyuk with two lines of stone-earth walls-ramparts was also noticed by the most competent modern researcher of the "sve" Khakass-Minusinsk basin A. I. Gottlieb [1999, p. 9].

Thus, the object in question does not look like a hastily built "defenses and loopholes"; it was a very powerful structure, the creation of which required-

page 93

Fig. 1. Mounds of the Tagar culture in the vicinity of the First Chest mountain (in the background in the middle; view from the north-northeast).

2. Section of the wall that blocks the northern lair of the First Chest Mountain (view from the north).

3. Basins of the northern (a) and southern (b) lairs of the First Chest Mountain (arrows indicate the remains of the wall; view from the east).

in case of high labor costs. The object was clearly built as a long-term and defensive one (not necessarily by Mergen-Taishi or Kyrgyz people) and could be used by Kyrgyz as such. Therefore, it is impossible to agree with V. N. Dobzhansky, who rejects the possibility of the existence of a real fortress here.

Was there a fortification on the "Tagyr Island" on the Yenisei?

Most researchers identify "Tagyr Island" with the modern Tatarsky Island, formed by the Minusinsk Channel of the Yenisei. According to V. N. Dobzhansky ,the "Kirghiz fortress" on Tagarsky Island on the Yenisei above the Abakan estuary is not listed in any documents. According to him, the fortress " appeared first under the pen of S. V. Bakhrushin, and then A. Abdykalykov. The first one called it a prison ... and the second one called it a town" [2007, p. 89]. The researcher is skeptical about the information about the fortress on the" Tagyr Island", given in well-known written documents-the response of the Kuznetsk voivode 1680/81, reports of service people about routes to the "Kyrgyz land" indicating a convenient place for building the prison, information from the Krasnoyarsk son of the boyar G. Ermolaev in 1684. According to the first of these documents, up to the Enisei above the mouth of Abakan is " Tagyr-an island 5 versts long, on one side of the island lies a stone similar to-

page 94
on the city wall" [Ibid., p. 84]. The second document, which V. N. Dobzhansky quotes from the work of S. V. Bakhrushin, states that the length of that island is approx. 5 versts, the island itself is located in the middle of the Yenisei, on one side of that island lies a stone similar to a city wall; this place itself is convenient for creating a prison [Ibid., p. 89]. The third document is the text of the interrogation by voivode K. O. Shcherbatov of the Krasnoyarsk son of the boyar G. Ermolaev. It says that this island on the Yenisei from the mouth of the Abakan is reached by horse for about half a day or less; the island is located in the middle of the Yenisei, on the lower side (from Abakan) across the island lies a "stone" about a verst long or less, high, like a city wall, forming a large fortress [Tam same]. It is on the basis of the last two documentary reports that S. V. Bakhrushin and A. Abdykalykov drew conclusions, the correctness of which V. N. Dobzhansky questions: "The quote from the document stored in the Siberian Order Fund (stb. 715) cited by both authors completely contradicts their statements about the presence of a prison or town of Kirghiz people on the Tatar Island" [Tam the same page. 89]. In his opinion, the researchers misinterpreted the data of voivode K. O. Shcherbatov, compiled from the words of service people, that the "stone" located on the island is actually a natural fortress [Ibid., p. 89].

Indeed, on the modern Tatarsky Island on the Yenisei, located opposite the Abakan estuary, where the modern city of Minusinsk is located (Fig. 4), there are no traces of a "great fortress" created by people - a "stone" similar to the "city wall", "a stone a mile or less high, similar to the city business", not detected. Researchers who deny the existence of a fortress on Tatarsky Island, which could have been used by the Kyrgyz, are formally right, but only if we keep in mind the modern Tatarsky Island. Unfortunately, they do not specify which island on the Yenisei is in question, but, judging by the logic of reasoning, it is the latter. In the" History of Khakassia", "Tagyr Island" and the modern Tatarsky Island are quite definitely identified [1993, p. 156].

It should be emphasized that there are two islands above the modern mouth of Abakan, which currently have virtually the same name: Tatar proper (from "tag" or " tah " - stone) and Kamenny - modern Russian-language tracing of the word "Tagyr "(also from "tag" or "tah"); it is no accident that the salt lake on the right bank of the Yenisei, northeast of Kamenny Island, is still called Tatar G. F. Miller in 1735 confidently noted that " Umai-taiga is the last rock of the Sayan Mountains in the northern direction, on the eastern bank of the Yenisei River. Tagir-tag or-kamen is a high rock on an island formed by two branches of the Yenisei River, approximately halfway between the previous rock Umai-taiga and the mouth of the Abakan River "[Siberia of the XVIII century..., 1996, p. 57]. It is absolutely clear that this report refers specifically to the present-day Kamenny Island, and not to the present-day Tatarsky Island, which is located not between the Umai Rock and the Abakan estuary, but almost opposite the Abakan estuary (Fig. 4).

The fact that G. F. Miller meant Kamenny-Tagir - tag Island is also confirmed by his report on the location of Tatarsky Island proper: "Tagar-kamen-on the eastern side of the Yenisei River, opposite the mouth of the Abakan River" [Ibid.]. In addition, there are no salt lakes near Tatarsky Island. Speaking about Kamenny Island, G. F. Miller noted: "On the eastern side of the Yenisei, opposite the above-mentioned Tagir-kamen rock, approximately 3 versts from the shore, there is the Tagir salt Lake (highlighted by us - S. S.)... "[Ibid.]. It should not be assumed that G. F. Miller mixed up the name. According to sources from the 17th century, geographical features of the Yenisei region were not the only ones with a similar toponym. Thus, the name Tagyr indicates a locality at the mouth of the Upsa River (now Tuba) [Bakhrushin, 1955,

4. Modern map of the area between Mount Umai and the Abakan estuary.

page 95
p. 208], here the right bank of the river is a high stone mountain with a steep cliff wall.

The island, now known as "Kamenny", is located 25 km from the modern Abakan estuary and 15 km (in a straight line) above the modern Tatarsky Island, between the villages of Lugavskoye and Krivinskoye in the Minusinsky district of Krasnoyarsk Krai, opposite the mouth of the Nitschka River , a small right tributary of the Yenisei (Fig. This island is one of the largest in the middle reaches of the Yenisei. Unlike most of the islands on the Yenisei, which are usually low-lying and low-relief in this area, resulting from the movement of pebbly and sandy material by the river, this natural formation is an outlier of the red Devonian sandstone mountain and is characterized by a high altitude (385.6 m, the maximum height above the level of the Yenisei is 150-160 m). On the southern, eastern, and also part of the western sides, the outlier is bounded by an almost vertical stone cliff. Kamenny Island is considered one of the most prominent relief features in the Middle Yenisei basin, although the upper part of the river (most of its area) is low-lying and poorly relief; it is named after the remnant, which is called Mount Kamennaya. The island is clearly visible from long distances from both banks of the Yenisei.

The location and topographical characteristics of Kamenny Island fully correspond to the above descriptions of the "Tagir-islands" (Tagir-tag according to G. F. Miller). Indeed, Kamenny Island is located above the Abakan estuary, and not almost directly opposite it, like the modern Tatarsky Island: the distance from the Abakan estuary, if you cross it on horseback, is about half a day or less, which corresponds to 25-27 km, and not 5-7 km, as from the modern mouth From Abakan to Tatarsky Island. In addition, the steppe from the mouth of Abakan can be passed along the left bank of the Yenisei only to Kamenny Island, on the right bank the path to Tatarsky Island lies along mountainous and heavily crossed, and then wooded (as of now, but the presence of water here could have previously provided the growth of woody vegetation) on the low banks of the Minusinskaya channel of the Yenisei River. However, even when driving to Kamenny Island along the right bank of the Yenisei, the terrain is also mountainous and heavily wooded.

Currently, Abakan flows into the Yenisei entirely below Mount Samokhval. However, we know the ancient channel of one of the branches of the Abakan estuary, which flowed into the Yenisei above Samokhvala (near the northern edge of the modern village). Podsinee, where the area is still swampy). Consequently, the modern Tatarsky Island could not be located above the mouth of Abakan, it is actually located opposite, which means that the distance from Abakan to Kamenny Island is several kilometers less than it is implied in the source - the road to the island went only along the steppe, because in this case it was not necessary to overcome on its way mount Samokhval, i.e. "ride the mountain".

The phrase "island in the middle of the Yenisei" corresponds to Kamenny Island to a much greater extent; its shores are washed approximately equally in the north by the waters of the main channel of the Yenisei, in the south by channels. The modern Tatarsky Island is washed in the east by the long loop-shaped Minusinskaya Channel, which is much longer than the main channel (Fig. 4). The length of the modern Tatarsky Island (along the south-west - north-east line) is about 12 km, while the sources indicate: "in the length of versts from 5". The modern Kamenny Island is 4 km long. Thus, both islands do not correspond to the descriptions of the springs, although Kamenny Island is closer to them.

The documents say that "at one end of that island there is a stone like a city wall" (cit. according to: [Ibid., pp. 219-220]), "from the lower end of the Abakan River on both sides of that island... a stone, a verst or less, "like a city business and a great fortress" (cit. by: [Abdykalykov, 1968, p. 9-10]).

In the lower part of Kamenny Island, which has the appearance of a semicircle, there is indeed the above-mentioned stone cliff of the mountain-outlier, washed for a long time on both sides by the waters of the Yenisei, very high and almost vertical, similar to a wall (semicircular in plan). It is impossible to climb it from the upper part of the island, which is flat and low-lying, covered with meadow and woody vegetation, without special equipment. In addition, there is a narrow channel under the cliff, which partially dries up at low water, and at high water completely separates the remaining part of the island, turning it into a separate rounded island. But in the lowest part of the island (at the northwestern foot of the mountain-outlier), the terrain is also flat and low-lying, covered with meadow and woody vegetation. At this point, the transition from the elevated part of the island to the low-lying part (i.e., the mountain slope) is long and gentle, allowing you to freely and easily reach the flattened mountain top. The most important thing is that it is here that there is a stone wall a little more than 1 km long ("stone, a mile or less, high like a city case"), built without binding material from fragments of Devonian sandstone slabs. This rather large artificial structure is visible not only from a close distance (Fig. 5), but also from space.

The wall from northeast to southwest (with slight deviations) crosses the lower part of the island across, from one edge of the cliff to the other in the narrowest part of the outlier, where it was possible to create a reliable fortification with minimal labor costs.

page 96

5. Remains of a wall on Kamenny Island (shown by arrows; view from the north).

protection from the low-lying part. Although the surface is noticeably blackened, the wall is partially destroyed (the stones have shifted and settled, apparently under the influence of natural factors) confidently traced throughout. Currently, it is on average more than 1.5 m high (from the outside) and about 1.5 m wide. It is likely that the original height of the wall from the outside was at least 2 m.

This fortification was studied by I. A. Grachev; he has the most complete description of the object. The structure is a combination of fortress walls, moats and esplanades. In a continuous line of defensive fortifications connecting the steep slopes of the mountain, there are four openings-gates. From openings I and III, two ramp roads descend to the foot of the mountain. The width of roads created by selecting the mountain body is 4 m. In the area between openings I and II, the wall, arching to the floor side, forms a bastion. In addition to the main wall, there are separate isolated structures in the form of walls that cover the log and cut into the steep south-western slope of the mountain. Traces of large-scale excavation are clearly visible in the mountain slope adjacent to the wall (Fig. 5). This structure, according to I. A. Grachev, appeared in the Late Bronze Age [2006].

The wall encloses and protects a very large section of the most elevated part of the island ("fortress... great"). It could accommodate a large number of people and livestock, which could be grazed on the flattened top and slopes of the mountain, covered with ordinary steppe vegetation. On the other sides, a sheer drop provided protection. On a number of its sections (in the north-eastern and south-western zones, where the height is much lower than in the highest southern zone, and directly below them are the main channel and the Yenisei channel), water can rise up from the fortification area, for example, in leather buckets on ropes. Thus, in contrast to most of the usual small structures in the south of Central Siberia "sve", which did not have access to water and did not have sufficient areas to accommodate a significant number of people so that they could be considered fortresses intended for long-term shelter of people and livestock, this object most closely corresponds to the definition of "fortress".".

Our assumption is also supported by the report of G. F. Miller, dated 1739. In his notes made during a trip along the Yenisei, he called Kamenny Island almost its modern name-"Kamennaya"; at the same time, he indicated the exact location of the object - opposite the mouth of the Nitschka River, and the dimensions - "2 versts long and almost the same width", and the presence on its territory of a large river. an elevated part of the pure steppe. Most importantly, G. F. Miller reported: "It is said that in the old days the Kyrgyz also lived on this island and once, when the Kalmyks fought against them, they found shelter here with all their cattle, since the island is fortified by nature and only on the western side there is not a very wide rise, but on the eastern side "it consists of sheer cliffs" [Siberia of the XVIII century..., 1996, p. 157].

Comparison of written sources with archaeological data makes it possible to draw the following conclusions:

in the "Tagyr Island" mentioned in Russian documents of the 17th century, the area under consideration should be considered as a modern Kamenny Island, and not Tatar, whose topographical characteristics do not correspond to the descriptions in the sources.;

reports about the presence of a stone wall on the "Tagyr Island", i.e. a fortification that may have been used by the Yenisei Kyrgyz, correspond to reality;

page 97
the wall mentioned in written sources is an artificial, not a natural object, as some experts suggest.

The considered materials allow us to recognize the correctness of researchers who admit the possibility of the existence of a fortification on Tagyr Island. It is difficult to say whether S. V. Bakhrushin and A. Abdykalykov had any additional information about the presence of fortifications on the island near the mouth of the Abakan, where during the time of military danger "Kyrgyz people and other different families sent their wives and children, horses, cattle and all sorts of bellies" (Bakhrushin, 1955, p. 183], or these specialists were based only on the analysis of data from written sources. But even if they did not have additional information, the credibility shown by these authors in the reports of Russian sources is fully justified.

Conclusion

Historical and geographical analysis of documents, drawing on modern topographical materials, as well as the results of archaeological research allow us to draw the following conclusions::

not all conclusions about the "Kyrgyz towns" are based on a "misunderstanding" or due to the uncritical attitude of modern researchers to historical documents;

The "stone town" on Bely Yuse, noted in Russian sources of the 17th century, is probably a kind of natural formation - Mount Pervy Sunduk-supplemented by an artificial structure in the form of a stone wall; this complex could have been used by the Kyrgyz for defense purposes;

on Mount Unyuk at the mouth of the Syda River, there are remnants of a very powerful fortification with a double line of stone and earth walls-ramparts, which in 1652, according to reliable data, was used for defense by the Mergen-Taishi army and could have been used for the same purposes by the Kyrgyz;

the established opinion in the literature about the existence of a fortification on the "Tagyr Island", which really should be understood not as the modern Tatar Island, but as Kamenny Island on the Yenisei, is confirmed by documentary evidence, as well as by the presence on the latter of the remains of a long and high stone wall separating a large section of elevated terrain; this fortification served as a shelter for the Kyrgyz during the period of military danger.

Thus, the Russian pioneers of the 17th century were well aware of the territory being developed, noticed its main features and characteristics, and adequately reflected them in their reports, in some cases even more reliably and in detail than the scientists-travelers of the 18th century.

The above considerations and factual data should be taken into account when planning future archaeological research aimed at studying large and interesting historical monuments of the region, which, according to written sources, were used for defensive purposes in the late Middle Ages and early Modern times.

List of literature

A. Abdykalykov Yenisei Kyrgyz in the XVIII century: (Historical sketch). Frunze: Ylym Publ., 1968, 138 p. (in Russian)

Bahrushin S. V. Yenisei Kirghizs in the XVII century / / Nauchnye trudy. - Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1955. - Vol. III: Izbrannye raboty po istorii Sibiri XVI-XVII vv.; ch. 2: Istoriya narodov Sibiri v XVI - XVII vv. - pp. 176-224.

Butanaev V. Ya., Abdykalykov A. Materialy po istorii Khakasii XVII - nachala XVIII V. [Materials on the history of Khakassia in the 17th-early 18th centuries].

Gotlib A. I. Gornye sooruzheniya-sve Khakassko-Minusinskaya kotloviny: avtoref. dis. ... kand. ist. nauk [Mountain structures-sve of the Khakass-Minusinsk basin]. - Novosibirsk, 1999. - 18 p.

Grachev I. A. Fortification features of fortress structures of the Late Bronze Age of the Khakass-Minusinsk region / / Radlovskie chteniya 2006: tez. dokl. - SPb., 2006. - pp. 253-256.

Dobzhansky V. N." Towns " of the Yenisei Kirghiz People in the 17th century: historiographical Myth or Historical reality? // Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2007. - N 4. - p. 81-90.

Istoriya Khakasii s drevneyshikh vremeni do 1917 goda [History of Khakassia from ancient Times to 1917].

Ocherki istorii izucheniya sibirskogo goroda kontsa XVI - pervoi poloviny XVIII veka [Essays on the history of studying a Siberian city in the late 16th-first half of the 18th century]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1982, 220 p. (in Russian)

Russko-mongol'skie otnosheniya [Russian-Mongolian relations], 1636-1654: collected papers / comp. by M. I. Golman, G. I. Slesarchuk; ed. by I. Ya. Zlatkin, N. V. Ustyugov, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974, 469 p.

Russian-Mongolian relations. 1654-1685: collected papers / comp. by G. I. Slesarchuk; ed. by N. F. Demidov. - Moscow: Izdat. firm "Vostoch. lit." RA N, 1996. - 560 p.

Siberia of the XVIII century in travel descriptions by G. F. Miller. Novosibirsk: Siberian Chronograph Publ., 1996, 310 p. (Ser. " History of Siberia. Primary sources"; issue 6).

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 26.09.08.

page 98

Permanent link to this publication: