CC BY
0
АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК РЕСПУБЛИКИ ТАТАРСТАН МАРИЙСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ
10 V*
№ 1 (47) 2024
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ
e-ISSN 2500-2856 № 1 (47) 2024
Главный редактор
академик АН РТ, доктор исторических наук А.Г. Ситдиков
Заместители главного редактора:
член-корреспондент АН РТ, доктор исторических наук Ф.Ш. Хузин доктор исторических наук Ю.А. Зеленеев Ответственный секретарь - кандидат ветеринарных наук Г.Ш. Асылгараева
Б.А. Байтанаев - академик НАН РК, доктор исторических наук (Алматы, Казахстан) (председатель), Х.А. Амирханов - академик РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Москва, Россия), С.Г. Бочаров - кандидат исторических наук (Севастополь, Россия), П. Георгиев - доктор наук, доцент (Шумен, Болгария), Е.П. Казаков - доктор исторических наук (Казань, Россия), Н.Н. Крадин - член-корреспондент РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Владивосток, Россия), А. Тюрк - Ph.D. (Будапешт, Венгрия), А.А. Тишкин - доктор исторических наук профессор (Барнаул, Россия), В.С. Синика -кандидат исторических наук (Тирасполь, Молдова), Б.В. Базаров - академик РАН, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Улан-Удэ, Россия), Д.С. Коробов - доктор исторических наук, профессор РАН (Москва, Россия), О.В. Кузьмина - кандидат исторических наук (Самара, Россия), П. Дегри - профессор (Лёвен, Бельгия), Вэй Джан - Ph.D, профессор (Пекин, Китай), А.С. Сагдуллаев - академик АН РУз, доктор исторических наук, профессор (Ташкент, Узбекистан), Р.Х. Сулейманов - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Ташкент, Узбекистан), М.М. Саидов - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Самарканд, Узбекистан), Ш.Б. Шайдуллаев - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Термез, Узбекистан)
А.А. Выборном - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Самара, Россия) М.Ш. Галимова - кандидат исторических наук (Казань, Россия) Р.Д. Голдина - доктор исторических наук, профессор (Ижевск, Россия) С.В. Кузьминых - кандидат исторических наук (Москва, Россия) А.Е. Леонтьев - доктор исторических наук (Москва, Россия) Т.Б. Никитина - доктор исторических наук (Йошкар-Ола, Россия) А.А. Чижевский - кандидат исторических наук (Казань, Россия)
Ответственный за выпуск: А.А. Чижевский - кандидат исторических наук
Адрес редакции: 420012 г. Казань, ул. Бутлерова, 30 Телефон: (843) 236-55-42 ' E-mail: arch.pov@mail.ru http://archaeologie.pro
Индекс ПП753, электронный Каталог печатных изданий "ПОЧТА РОССИИ" Выходит 4 раза в год
Редакционный совет:
Редакционная коллегия:
© Академия наук Республики Татарстан, 2024 © ФГБОУ ВО «Марийский государственный университет», 2024 © Журнал «Поволжская археология», 2024
Казань, Татарстан
POVOLZHSKAYA ARKHEOLOGIYA THE VOLGA RIVER REGION ARCHAEOLOGY
e-ISSN 2500-2856 № 1 (47) 2024
Editor-in-Chief:
Academician of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences A. G. Sitdikov
Deputy Chief Editors:
Corresponding Member of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences F. Sh. Khuzin Doctor of Historical Sciences Yu. A. Zeleneev Executive Secretary - Candidate of Veterinary Sciences G. Sh. Asylgaraeva
B. A. Baitanayev - of the Nacional Academy of the RK, Doctor of Historical Sciences (Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan) (chairman), Kh. A. Amirkhanov - Academician of RAS, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Moscow, Russian Federation), S. G. Bocharov - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Sevastopol, Russian Federation), P. Georgiev - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Shumen, Bulgaria), E. P. Kazakov - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Kazan, Russian Federation), N. N. Kradin - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Vladivostok, Russian Federation), Ä. Türk - Ph.D. (Budapest, Hungary), A.A. Tishkin - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Barnaul, Russian Federation), V. S. Sinika - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Tiraspol, Moldova), B. V. Bazarov - Academician of RAS, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Ulan-Ude, Russian Federation), D. S. Korobov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Moscow, Russian Federation), O. V. Kuzmina - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Samara, Russian Federation), P. De-gryse - Professor (Leuven, Belgium), Wei Jian - Ph.D, Professor (Beijing, China), A. S. Sagdullaev - Academician of the National Academy of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan), R. Kh. Suleymanov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan).
A.A. Vybornov - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Samara State Academy of Social Sciences and Humanities, Samara, Russian Federation)
M. Sh. Galimova - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology named after A. Kh. Khalikov, Kazan, Russian Federation)
R. D. Goldina - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor (Udmurt State University, Izhevsk, Russian Federation) S. V. Kuzminykh - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation)
A. E. Leont'ev - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation)
T. B. Nikitina - Doctor of Historical Sciences (Mari Research Institute of Language, Literature and History named after V. M. Vasilyev, Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation)
A.A. Chizhevsky - Candidate of Historical Sciences (Institute of Archaeology named after A. Kh. Khalikov, Kazan, Russian Federation)
Executive Editors:
Editorial Board:
Responsible for Issue A.A. Chizhevsky - Candidate of Historical Sciences
Editorial Office Address:
Butlerov St., 30, Kazan, 420012, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation
Telephone: (843) 236-55-42 E-mail: arch.pov@mail.ru http://archaeologie.pro
© Tatarstan Academy of Sciences (TAS), 2024 © Mari State University, 2024 © "Povolzhskaya Arkheologiya" Journal, 2024
ПОВОЛЖСКАЯ АРХЕОЛОГИЯ № 1 (47) 2024
Содержание
Кудашов А. С., Андреев К.М., Выборнов А.А. (Самара, Россия), Алешинская А.С. (Москва, Россия), ВасильеваИ.Н., Сомов А.В., Пантелеева Т.Ю. (Самара, Россия)
Исследования нового памятника раннего неолита лесного
Среднего Поволжья Сокольный XVII..............................................................8
Жульников А.М. (Петрозаводск, Россия), Аськеев И.В., Шаймуратова Д.Н., Монахов С.П. (Казань, Россия) Изображения рыб в наскальном творчестве древнего населения
Северной Европы..............................................................................................27
Скакун Н.Н., Терехина В.В. (Санкт-Петербург, Россия), Эредиа X. (Гранада, Испания), Агаханова В.А. (Москва, Россия) Реконструкция технологии изготовления сланцевых ножей по результатам изучения материалов памятников
древних и исторических эскимосов ..............................................................47
Моргунова Н.Л., Файзуллин А.А. (Оренбург, Россия) Хронология элитного кургана ямной культуры могильника
Болдырево IV в Оренбургской области по данным стратиграфии, погребального обряда и радиоуглеродного датирования.............................69
Бруяко И.В. (Одесса, Украина)
Две киммерийские стелы из Северо-Западного Причерноморья......................86
Селин Д.В., Федорова З.А. (Новосибирск, Россия), Чемякин Ю.П., Борзунов В.А. (Екатеринбург, Россия) Особенности обжига сосудов белоярской и калинкинской культур на Барсовой Горе в Сургутском Приобье
(по данным термического анализа) ...............................................................96
Новиков А. В. (Кострома, Россия) Керамические комплексы поселения Водоба II
в контексте представлений о раннем железном веке Белозерья................110
Добровольский Л.С., Умиткалиев У.У. (Астана, Республика Казахстан) Z-символика в трактовке семантики формы s-видных
и г-образных скифских псалиев восточноевропейской зоны.....................125
Разуваев Ю.Д. (Воронеж, Россия)
Керамическая посуда донских поселений городецкой культуры ..................139
Саттаров Р.Р. (Казань, Россия), Красноперов А.А. (Ижевск, Россия), Камалеев Э.В. (Уфа, Россия)
Знаки на наконечниках стрел из памятников пьяноборской культуры..........155
Gursoy M. (Turkestan, Republic of Kazakhstan), Baitanayev B.A. (Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan), Acar E. (Chorum, Republic of Turkey), Sizdikov B.S., Sundetova A.N. (Turkestan, Republic of Kazakhstan) Paleoanthropological Analysis of Osteological Material
from the Myntobe Burial Ground ....................................................................173
Серегин Н.Н., Тишкин А.А., Матренин С. С.,
Паршикова Т. С. (Барнаул, Россия)
Клинковое оружие населения Алтая жужанского времени
(по материалам комплекса Чобурак-I)..........................................................191
Колонских А.Г. (Уфа, Россия),
Саттаров Р.Р., Ситдиков А.Г. (Казань, Россия)
Бустанаевский курганный могильник - новый памятник
Эпохи великого переселения на северо-западе Башкортостана................203
Овсянников В.В., Русланов Е.В., Хурмаев А.А. (Уфа, Россия)
Актуальные проблемы и перспективы изучения городищ
караякуповской культуры..............................................................................219
Turk A. (Budapest, Hungary)
New Results and Ideas of the Archaeological Research
on Early Hungarian History in the Eurasian Context ......................................234
Список сокращений.............................................................................................248
Правила для авторов............................................................................................250
nOBOA^CKAfl APXEOAOrafl № 1 (47) 2024
CONTENT
Kudashov A.S., Andreev K.M., Vybornov A.A. (Samara, Russian Federation), Aleshinskaya A.S. (Moscow, Russian Federation), VasilievaI.N., SomovA.V.,
Panteleeva T.Yu. (Samara, Russian Federation)
Sokolny VII - a New Site of the Early Neolite of the Republic of Mari El..............8
Zhul'nikovA.M. (Petrozavodsk, Russian Federation), AskeyevI.V., Shaymuratova D.N., Monakhov S.P. (Kazan, Russian Federation) Images of Fish in the Rock Art of the Ancient Population
of Northern Europe.............................................................................................27
Skakun N.N., Terekhina V.V. (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation), Heredia J.
(Granada, Spain), Agakhanova V.A. (Moscow, Russian Federation) Reconstruction of the Technology for Manufacturing
Slate Knives Based on the Results of Studying Materials
from Sites of Ancient and Historical Eskimos....................................................47
Morgunova N.L., Faizullin A.A. (Orenburg, Russian Federation) Chronology of an Elite Mound of the Yamnaya Culture Boldyrevo IV Burial Ground in the Orenburg Region
According to Stratigraphy, Burial Rite and Radiocarbon Dating.......................69
Bruyako I.V. (Odessa, Ukraine)
Two Cimmerian Steles from the North-West Black Sea Region.............................86
Selin D.V., Fedorova Z.A. (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation), Chemyakin Yu.P., Borzunov V.A. (Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation) Peculiarities of Firing Vessels of the Beloyar and Kalinkina Cultures on the Barsova Gora in the Surgut Ob River Region
(according to termal analysis).............................................................................96
NovikovA.V. (Kostroma, Russian Federation)
Pottery Assemblages from Vodoba II Settlement in the Light of Ideas
about the Early Iron Age in Lake Beloye Region.............................................110
Dobrovolskyi L.S., Umitkaliev U.U. (Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan) Z-Symbols in the Interpretation of the Semantics of the Configuration
of S- and r-Shaped Scythian Cheek-Pieces of the Eastern European Zone.....125
Razuvaev Yu.D. (Voronezh, Russian Federation)
Ceramic Dishes Were from the Don Settlements of Gorodets Culture..................139
Sattarov R.R. (Kazan, Russian Federation), Krasnopeorov A.A. (Izhevsk, Russian Federation), Kamaleyev E.V. (Ufa, Russian Federation)
Marks on Arrowheads from Sites of the Piany Bor Culture..................................155
Gursoy M. (Turkestan, Republic of Kazakhstan), Baitanayev B.A. (Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan), Acar E. (Chorum, Republic of Turkey), Sizdikov B.S., Sundetova A.N. (Turkestan, Republic of Kazakhstan) Paleoanthropological Analysis of Osteological Material
from the Myntobe Burial Ground ....................................................................173
Seregin N.N., Tishkin A.A., Matrenin S.S.,
Parshikova T.S. (Barnaul, Russian Federation)
Blade Weapons of Altai Population in Rouran Period
(by the materials of the Choburak-I complex)..................................................191
Kolonskikh A.G. (Ufa, Russian Federation), Sattarov R.R.,
Sitdikov A.G. (Kazan, Russian Federation)
Bustanaevo Burial Mound - a New Great Migration Era Monument
in the North-West of Bashkortostan..................................................................203
Ovsyannikov V.V., Ruslanov E.V., Khurmaev A.A. (Ufa, Russian Federation)
Current Issues and Prospects of Study
the Karayakupovo Culture Hillforts.................................................................219
Türk A. (Budapest, Hungary)
New Results and Ideas of the Archaeological Research
on Early Hungarian History in the Eurasian Context.......................................234
List of Abbreviations.............................................................................................248
Submissions..........................................................................................................250
УДК 902/904 https://doi.org/10.24852/pa2024.L47.234.247
NEW RESULTS AND IDEAS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON EARLY HUNGARIAN HISTORY IN THE EURASIAN CONTEXT1 © 2024 A. Türk
In memory of Adrei Mikhalovich Belavin (1958-2024)
As Early Hungarian history is a resource-poor research area, archaeology, a field of science with rapidly increasing resource material, is of paramount importance. It is important to emphasize that in the case of archaeology, there is also a significant expansion in research methods, mainly thanks to the bioarchaeological studies that have started with great momentum. In recent years, the most significant archaeological results of Early Hungarian history were the explosive increase in the number of Subbotsi-type sites associated with Etelköz accommodations in the region of the Dniester River. There are now 10-12 sites along the central flow of the Dnieper River. The relations with the neighbouring areas, mainly with the northern, Slavic regions, and with the Byzantine culture in Crimea are well reflected here. In addition to the chronology of the material, its nature is also explicitly consistent with the image drawn by Muslim sources of the 9th-century ancestors of the Hungarians. Further to the east, the Volga elbow in Samara and the wider area of the Southern Urals remain the ones that show the most connections regarding Hungarian ethnic genesis. As a working hypothesis, we can say that the earliest archaeological traces of the ancestors of the Hungarians can be assumed east of the Ural Mountains, in the eastern neighbourhood of the Ural region of Chelyabinsk. A group of people here presumably set off westwards in the early 9th century. In a short time, this community appeared on the left bank of the Volga, and its accommodation area extended to the border of Volga Bulgaria. After that, part of it remained along the Kama River. The other group migrated westwards before the 830s, and settled in the northern foreland of the Black Sea.
Keywords: archaeology, Early Hungarian history, Subbotsi-type archaeological sites, Volga-South Ural region, Western Siberia, Hungarian Conquest period, old Turkic loanwords
Preface. Early Hungarian history, more commonly known as 'Hungarian prehistory', is a resource-poor field of research in terms of written remains. Thus, archaeology, as a discipline with continuously and even rapidly growing source material, is of paramount importance in its research. This is a fact even if, from a methodological point of view, the direct historical and ethnic source value of archaeological finds is now judged much more harshly in Hungary than before (Комар, 2018). However, a thorough knowledge of the grassy and forest steppes and forest regions of Eastern Europe, as well as the marked archaeological differences in their micro-regions, at the level of working hypotheses, now provides an opportunity to examine the background of certain movements of the
people known from historical sources. And more recently, our research has been supplemented by scientific studies to extract much more information from the material legacy than before.
The most accepted archaeological model of Early Hungarian history today was based on the excavation results of the 1960s and 1970s in the Soviet Union (Fodor, 1975). For archaeology, the fundamental question of early Hungarian history has not changed much to this day. Namely, that from the archaeological heritage of the area west of the Western Siberian homeland identified by linguistic methods (Klima, 2020), i.e. from the Urals to the Carpathian Basin, what can be linked to the early medieval ancestors of the Hungarians (Balint, 1994). Can the location of certain accommoda-
1 The research and article were implemented within the project framework ELKH [20212023] - SA-30/2021 and the Arpad dynasty Program, project IV.2.
Fig. 1. Similar type of the archaeological finds in the heritage of the Hungarian Conquest period (10th century AD) in the Carpathian Basin (left 1-23) and in the material of Uyelgi cemetery (right 24-46) (Sergei G. Botalov's and Attila Turk's photos and conception).
Рис. 1. Аналогичный тип археологических находок в наследии периода венгерского завоевания (X в. н.э.) в Карпатском бассейне (слева 1-23) и в материалах могильника Уелги (справа 24-46) (фото и концепция С. Г. Боталова и А. Тюрка).
tion areas assumed on the basis of written sources be also proved in the light of the recent material findings? The latest, actual archaeological results (Fig. 1) and new issues can be summarized as below.
Eastern connections of the Conquest period (10th AD) material
It is well known that the archaeological sites of early Hungarian history are to be found in Eastern Europe, and that the homeland and the supposed former Hungarian accommodation areas were located in Levedia and Etelköz or Magna Hungaria (present-day Russia, Ukraine and Moldova) (Türk-Lango, 2020) (Fig. 2). The archaeological research of early Hungarian history (Fodor, 1975; 2015; Иванов, 1999; Erdelyi, 2008; Комар, 2018; Türk, 2021) has been closely intertwined with the archaeology of the Carpathian Basin from the beginning (Fodor, 2015). This is no wonder, since the Hungarian Conquest period material provides an essential point of reference in the case of both basic research methods applied for the archaeological identification of the ancestors of the Hungarians: the so-called linear approach (from the Urals to the Carpathians), and the retrospective approach (based on the 10th-century legacy of the Carpathian Basin, looking for its eastern antecedents) (Fodor, 1975; Revesz, 1998; 2020; Lango, 2007; Türk, 2010; Комар, 2018).
On the basis of the archaeological data available to us today, we can conclude that the 10th-century archaeological heritage of the Carpathian Basin undoubtedly has a 9th-century Eastern European history (Erdelyi, 2008; Türk, 2021). The number of object types with eastern links has increased considerably in the archaeological research of the Conquest period, thanks mainly to a better Hungarian knowledge of the early medieval archaeological heritage of Eastern Europe. Newer types of artefacts include: grip slats for conquest bows, axes and degrees, armrests, pouches with bronze and iron tubes, the tinder holder,
rosette traps, and the conical farmatring ornament of the Karos cemetery, twisted-mouthed bits and loop-eared stirrups, wire-reinforced riding whips and wooden vessels, four-ring hair braids, straight-bladed sabres, the Geszteréd and the Vereb/Tiszaszederkény-type belt mounts, and the strap end from Vereb. In addition to the specific parallels, most of the motifs of 10th-century decorative art and their technical implementation are of Oriental origin and have a network of contacts. In terms of burial practices, partial equestrian or cattle burials, burials under kurgans or into earlier tombs can be mentioned along with the many new specimens of the long-known analogies of eye-covering.
The reciprocity of relations with former neighbours can already be demonstrated in the territory of Etelköz, and the imprint of the material culture of the conquerors can be detected by almost all of their former neighbors (Комар, 2018, p. 238-239; Türk, 2021).
The commercial relations reaching the Middle East and Central Asia of the time were confirmed by the appearance of the taqueté façonné silk type in Eastern. The eastern parallels of the taqueté silks observed in only two burials in the Carpathian Basin are mainly known from the territory of present-day Iran and Israel. This object type has the same distribution as dirhemlelets in Eastern Hungary, i.e. this region had significant international connections even in the middle of the 10th century (Türk, 2021).
Research of the Conquest era legacy using scientific methods (e.g. more precise chronological order, genetic connections) resulted in a qualitative leap and an increase in information. Radiocarbon dating has so far isolated nearly a half a dozen Conquest period graves where the buried were probably born in the former accommodation area before the well-known date of the conquest, but died in the Carpathian Basin (Türk, 2021). From these burials i.e. the examination of the
Fig. 2. 1 - Early medieval archaeological cultures (4th-8th centuries) of east and west side of the Ural Mountains (based on the concept by A. S. Zelenkov); 2 - Theoretical archaeological model of early Hungarian history by N. P. Matveeva et al., 2021. (1 - Karayakupovo culture; 2 - Bakalskoe culture; 3 - Potchevash culture; 4 - Karim-type
sites) (Matveeva et al., 2021, рис. 1.) Рис. 2. 1 - раннесредневековые археологические культуры (IV-VIII вв.) восточного и западного склонов Урала (по концепции А.С. Зеленкова); 2 - теоретическая археологическая-историческая модель ранней истории венгров по Н.П. Матвеевой и др. 2021 (1 - караякуповская культура; 2 - бакальская культура; 3 - потчевашская культура; 4 - местонахождения каримского типа) (Матвеева и др., 2021, рис. 1).
bone material of the actual homers, we can hope for a number of new results regarding the Eurasian background of the 10th-century Carpathian Basin population (Csaky et al., 2020; Szeifert et al., 2022). An archaeological database of the full, well collected, local findings of the Eastern European region(s) is needed, as well as a sure chronological basis moreover, we must constantly reevaluate the Conquest period legacy of the Carpathian Basin in the light of the increasing eastern finds.
Before the Carpathians: Etelkoz and the Subbotsi-type archaeological heritage
While formerly, we have complained to the lack of eastern archaeological parallels as a major obstacle, today we see that groups of sites outline in the legacy of the Ural and the Carpathian region, which are connected both to the 10th-century legacy of the Carpathian Basin and the early medieval finds of the Volga-Ural regwn (Лифанов, 2005; Сташен-ков, 2020; Комар, 2008). Such group of sites include Slobodzeya, Glinoye, Plavni and Frumusica in the territory of Moldova and the Transnistrian region of the Republic Moldova, that is, in the region of the Dniester (Щербакова и др., 2008); as well as the the sites along the middle flow of the Dnieper (e.g. Sub-botsi, Katerinovka, and Korobchino) in Ukraine (Bokij, Pletnyova, 1989). In the research, these eponymous sites are called Subbotsi-type sites and chronological horizons in the chronological sense (Komar, 2018).
After the „Hungarian-type" new finds mainly discovered in Ukraine between 2007-2011, the number of similar grave asseblages has tenfold increased in Moldova in recent years. Although there are differences in degrees by sites, partially placed horses at the feet of the deceased, burial masks and funerary eye pieces, gold-plated silver (belt) mounts with floral ornaments and often with lined bordering are characteristic of all the
burials listed here. Further features include palmette-decorated sabre mounts, knife sheaths with metal mounts, as well as silver cups and bowls of Khazar origin, the gilded background of which is mostly decorated by punching. The small proportion of the analogous finds of the neighbouring Saltovo sites (Khazar Khaganate) is surprising, while finds reflecting connections with the Volga-South Ural region dominate farther in space and further in time (Türk, 2010; Комар, 2018). The cultural impact of the Subbotsi-type finds and the Saltovo region on the legacy of the conquerors can be mainly - and almost exclusively - observed on prestige goods and weapons. At the same time, even if only on a small scale, the culture of the Hungarians in Etelköz had an impact on the population of the neighbouring Khazar Khaganate (e.g. the use of silver, or the appearance of the ornament elements of "oriental silver") (Комар, 2018, p. 252). The relations of the Khazar Khaganate and its 9th-century western neighbours, thus the predecessors of the Hungarians can be explained from an archaeological perspective without the hypothesis of Levedia within the Saltovo culture, and a Hungarian motherland in the Caucasus.
Regarding the chronological order of the Subbotsi-type material, the radiocarbon analyses that have been implemented so far confirmed the results of conventional archaeological chronology, meaning that it can be dated to the second half of the 9th century with great certainty (Türk, 2010, 5. kep; Комар, 2018, p. 239-248). The find material (mostly the imported pottery finds) reflects the connections maintained with neighbouring, primarily northern, Slavic, and southern, Crimean-Byzantine areas, which are also mentioned by written sources (Toth, 1998; Zimonyi, 1996; Polgär, 2019). Based on the above features, the Subbot-si archaeological horizon most probably outlines the area known from written sources as Etelköz.
Today, Moldavian specialists consider Hungarians as a significant component in the 9th-10th-century history of this region (Квитницкий и др., 2020). An interesting historical/archaeological concept has been published in relation to the Dniester region, according to which this area was a Hungarian sphere of interest and remained under Hungarian cultural influence until the 940s (Рябце-ва, Рабинович, 2007).
The question of Levedia, the Khaz-ars, and the Saltovo cultural-historical complex
Moving forward in space and time towards the East, we are facing the question of the localization of the accommodation area named Levedia. In the region of the Don-Seversky-Donets rivers -where Levedia was usually localized by domestic research - there are no archaeological traces referring to a population moving there from the Ural region anytime during the 6th-8th centuries AD, and migrated westwards in the middle of the 9th century. We can also conclude that neither the Subbotsi-horizon nor the Conquest period remains reflect much connection with the Saltovo archaeological culture typical of the Don-Seversky-Donets region in the 8th-10th centuries (Revesz, 1998; Türk, 2010; 2021). The latter was previously evaluated as the legacy of the whole onetime Khazar Khaganate, and thus earlier research interpreted it as the archaeological imprint of the Hungarian accomodation area of Levedia maintaining connections with the Khazars (Türk, 2010).
We shall remember that Hungarian researchers had already debated on the definition of the Saltiv-Mayaki culture and the evaluation of its influence on the predecessors of the Hungarians (Fettich, 1933; Bälint, 1989; Fodor, 1975; 1994; Revesz, 1998; Türk, 2010; Комар, 2018). Today we cannot view this archaeological phenomenon - which has been long divided into so-called geographical variants due to its significant internal differ-
ences (Плетнева, 1999) - as a uniform archaeological culture. Based on the distribution of the archaeological material observed on its two eponymous sites, only the so-called Alan or forest steppe variant can be described by the terminology formerly applied to this archaeological culture (Saltiv-Mayaki culture) (Афанасьев, 1987; 2001). In fact, we may rather define its geographical variants as contemporary but independent archaeological cultures that have a few similar features. It is due to the above considerations that such terminology as "Saltovo period', "Saltovo culture", or "Saltovo historical-archaeological complex" (Комар, 1999).
The latest analyses of the archaeological material do not support that the Hungarian tribes stayed in the area of the Khazar Empire for hundreds of years. The parallels earlier considered to be originating from Saltovo either clearly originate from somewhere else (e.g. the wheel-turned biconical clay cauldrons) (Türk, 2010), or also occur in neighbouring regions of the Saltovo culture as import goods or local copies (e.g. belt and horse harness mounts). Consequently, early Hungarians could get acquainted with Saltovo-type artefact types while settled in the neighbourhood of the Khazar Khaganate.
The above conclusions are especially important in light of knowing that the framework of Eastern Europe's early medieval archaeology has completely took shape by today. These set archaeological frameworks should be considered when forming linguistic-historical concepts, as well as they should be taken into account by other scientific fields related to the subject.
However, it needs to be emphasized that the above data do not deny the fact of the Khazar-Hungarian connections clearly preserved in written sources, only point out the dead-end of localizing Levedia in Saltovo/the Don region (^мар, 2018, p. 84-88). Several East-
ern European archaeologists pointed this already to Hungarian researchers. Thus, the presented connections could just as well form in each-other's neighbourhood. It is probable that even the crossing of the Volga could not be possible without the alliance/permission of the Khazars, which may be a further point of reference towards the theory supposing that the initial scene of the Khazar-Hungarian relations (and other ancient Turkish-Hungarian linguistic connections) could be localized to the left bank of the Volga region.
Today, all archaeological arguments support that Levédia can be localized east of the Volga River, and this theory can also be confirmed by the data of the DAI (Keszi, 2017; Комар, 2018). The concept of Levédia having been located by the Don does not seem to be valid from a linguistic aspect either. The inhabitants of this area were mostly not Turkish speaking but Alanian people who had been populated north in a great number from the northern foreland of the Caucasus in the middle of the 8th century for border protection, speaking an Iranian-type language. A language shift of the Alanian population, and their exchange to Turkish language only occurred in Hungarian literature, without linguistic evidences. Archaeology has reliably revealed the connections of this population with the Hungarians of Etelköz, their direct western neighbours in the 9th century (Аксёнов, 2001; Комар, 2018).
Summarizing the analysis of the historical background of ancient Turkish loanwords, we can conclude that the traditional concept should be carefully re-evaluated in light of the modern Eastern European historical-archaeological results and chronological data. In case of supposing a slow early Hungarian migration in several stages (which completely misses archaeological and historical proofs), new sociolinguistic studies should be also considered besides eti-
mological analyses (cf. Sándor, 2014). These actually point out that the bilin-gualism behind these loanwords is much shorter, and it can even develop during one or two generations in case of sufficiently intense connections.
The region of the Volga-Southern Urals
In the central Volga region - especially near today's city of Samara - we know of some promising sites on the left bank of the Volga. Besides the charach-eristic metal artefacts revealed in burials, we have to emphasize the frequent occurrence of the settlement pottery typical of the eastern foreland of the Southern Urals, which, in addition appears in several waves, recurringly (Сташенков, 2020). Furthermore, the microregion of Samara also bears importance in respect of identifying the place of the Volga crossing. The most recent finds indicate that the valley of the Samara River east of Samara, towards Orenburg would be worth of further research (Similarly see Botalov, 2013) (Fig. 2).
As we have seen above, the direct neighbourhood of the Novinki-type archaeological legacy with the Hungarian-type finds reasonably raises the possibility of the ancient Turkish-Hungarian linguistic connections in the Volga -Southern Ural region from the 8th-9th century. If we accept Levédia as a historical reality, its localization east of the Volga seems supportable from an archaeological perspective. Tamás Keszi has recently arrived to the same conclusion after analyzing the chapters on the Pe-chenegs in the Byzantine source known as De administrando imperio (DAI) (Keszi, 2017). The etymological identification of the mysterious Hidmas River with the Kama also seems to strengthen the concept of Levédia having been located east of the Volga (Комар, 2018, p. 20-21). Today, we know a great number of Byzantine and Khazarian import artefacts in the Kama Valley, and even their local copies (Белавин, Крыласова,
2022), which are most probably the results of (fur) trade.
The "Hungarian-type" find material (Fig. 1) of the Volga-Kama region, and the association of the sudden disappearance of the Nevolino culture in the beginning of the 9th century with the Hungarians (Белавин, Иванов, Крыласова, 2009) needs to be the subject of further studies. In the past decades, the Kushnarenkovo and Karayakupovo find material has not expanded on the area of the Tatarstan (Halikova, 1976), while a number of new finds that can be linked here has become known in Bashkiria, in the forest steppe region of the Kama River under Perm. Recently, a sabretache-plate has come to light from the latter region as a scattered find, which had eastern characteristics but was a local product, see (Белавин, Крыласова, 2011). However, recently, the most prominent Hungarian-related assemblages have come to light in the eastern area of the so-called great Ural passage, in the trans-Ural microregion (Sineglazovo, Uyelgi) (Fig. 1) (Боталов и др., 2011). At the same time, it has to be mentioned that the theory stating the early medieval settling of the Hungarians or other Ugric-speaking people west of the Ural in Bashkiria (Мажитов, 2013) or in the Kama Valley (Белавин, Крыласова, 2011) received some serious criticism.
The revision of the Eastern European Pecheneg and so called late nomadic find material - often also called in summary as "late nomadic" find material - from a Hungarian perspective can also be considered a new research direction. Archaeologists from Volgograd have brought the first examples from the South Ural region, while Moldavian archaeologists have also emphasized the importance of this in respect of Etelköz (Квитницкий, 2020).
Today, we do not know the exact reason and time of the migration starting from the Volga-Ural region yet. The so-far published theories on the 5th-8th-century appearance of the pre-
decessors of the Hungairans west of the Volga were mere "visions" completely ignoring Eastern European archaeological results. Oleksiy V. Komar pointed out that although some funeral practices (NW-SE orientation, burials with horse-skin at the feet) had already appeared in the region at the end of the 5th century, they had never occurred together but separately in context of a particular grave (Комар, 2018, p. 78-83).
The so-called first Pecheneg war already supposed by historians earlier might even be a logical idea. The analysis of the archaeological legacy shows that the finds of the Srostki culture of eastern origin, appearing in the eastern foreland of the Urals during the 9th century, can be identified as far as the area of the Kama-Belaya Rivers. Also referring to data of written sources, Olekszij V. Komar has most recently associated the appearance of the Srostki-type finds of the Southern Ural region with the Bashkirs who settled in (Комар, 2018, p. 254). It is common in both theories that the movement took place as a result of some kind of a political-military conflict. We may summarize that the Volga passing did not take place earlier than the beginning of the 9th century (in league with the Khazars), as it had been earlier supposed by Soviet-Russian, and Ukranian researchers. We cannot trace any archaeological material of Ural origin in Eastern or Southeastern Europe in the period ranging from the 6th century to the end of the 8th century. The passing of the Volga that shall be dated later than suggested by earlier theories may be the most reasonable explanation why there are no written sources on the predecessors of the Hungarians in Eastern Europe, which could be dated earlier than 836.
The most significant prehistorical result of the Volga-Kama region has been undoubtedly provided by archaeogenet-ics, which has enabled the identification of Hungarians remaining in the East in
the burials of the 10th-14th-century Chiyalek archaeological culture (Magna Hungaria) (Гарустович, 1988; Казаков, 2013).
On the northern part of the grassy steppe region through the Ural, the sites of Sineglazovo and Ujelgi are the most well-known and significant from the Hungarians' perspective. In the cemetery of Uyelgi, the biological, and even the kinship connections can be proved with the Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin (Szeifert et al., 2022). According to the traditional concept, the Hungarians moved from the eastern side of the mountains to the west in the middle of the 6th century, perhaps as an eastern impact of the Avar migration. Originally, the Trans-Uralic origin Kushnarenkovo (6th-8th century) and the Karayakupovo (8th-10th century) archaeological cultures were linked with the predecessors of the Hungarians in the western foreland of the Ural, to which the southern variant of the late Lomovatovka culture (8th-10th century) was also added. It was also the migration of the Hungarians to the west that was appointed as the reason for the sudden disappearance of the Nevolino culture in the 9th century (Иванов, 1999; Белавин, Иванов, Кры-ласова, 2009).
Recently, several researchers have argued for a migration that bypassed the Ural from the south and took place along the valley of the Ural River, the endpoint of which could be the middle Volga region directly. A new chronological concept has also formed for the date of the crossing: the beginning of the 9th century instead of the middle of the 6th century (Комар, 2018; Матвеева, 2019). In this question, serious progress can only be expected from a new, more precise chronological synchronization of the medieval archaeological cultures known from the eastern and western foreland of the Ural (Матвеева, 2019).
In the case of the Southwestern Siberian Hungarian homeland supposed to
be in the region of the Tobol-Irtis-Ishim-Ob rivers, and also localized here in the light of the most recent archaeological results (Матвеева, 2019; Зеленков, 2019), a few linguistic aspects are also worth considering regarding the ancient (before 895 AD) Turkish loanwords in the Hungarian language. Archaeologists reckon with the moving in of old Turkic-speaking nomadic peoples to the southern (forest) steppean region of Siberia already from the Late Hun Age. It is important to emphasize that it is not only about the appearance of Altai-region import wares, but the entire spectrum of the archaeological legacy of the Pre-Turkic and Turkic period from the Minusinsk-Altai region can be detected, even in the burial practices. The few genetic traces of Inner Asian origin detected in the archaeological legacy of the conquerors (cf. the influence of the Srostki culture), as well as in the bone material (Szeifert et al., 2022) understandably raise the possibility that the receiving of ancient Turkish loanwords into the Hungarian language began already in the area of the Western Siberian motherland. East of the South Urals, the historical/archaeological context is evidently given for that, Russian researchers already pointed out the beginning of the ancient Turkish-Hungarian language relations earlier (Боталов, 2013). Regarding the chronological frameworks, we may consider a Western Siberian beginning of the Old Turkish-Early Hungarian connections as a real possibility, in case of the earlier chronology placing the moving out of the Hungarians from their homeland in the second half of the 6th century, as well as the more recent one dating it to the beginning of the 9th century.
With archaeological analysis based on the legacy of the Conquest period, we can reach back in early Hungarian history to the 4th-6th century, as far as the early Middle Ages of the Trans-Ural and South-Western Siberian region. We can-
not date the end of the Sargatka culture (4th century BC - 4th century AD) later than the second half of the 4th century, therefore the chronological gap appearing due to the 6th century beginning of the Kusnarenkovo culture traditionally associated with Hungarians can only be filled with the Bakalskoye culture with pottery tradition typical of the late Sargatka period (Боталов, 2013). Lately, Siberian archaeologists have raised the possibility to link the legacy of the Potchevas and Molchanovo cultures with the ancestors of the Hungarians instead of the Bakalskoye culture (Зе-ленков, 2019). The exact localization of the Western Siberian Hungarian motherland at the Tobol-Irtis-Isim-Ob region is presently the greatest challenge of early Hungarian archaeological research (Матвеева и др., 2021) (Fig. 2).
Summary
Based on the improvements of the last one and a half decade, we may conclude that the archaeological research of early Hungarian history has brought significant results both in a qualitative and quantitative sense. The complex (natural) scientific analysis of the archaeological material revealed possibilities that we had not even dared to hope before. The number of the archaeological finds and sites from the Etelköz increased tenfold in the last one and a half decade.
Exceeding even this, the number of Conquest and early Arpadian period, as well as Eastern European archaic bone samples analysed by the three Hungarian archaeogenetic laboratories and research groups increased in a great number. The number of published or close to be published samples analysed on the level of complete mitochondrial genome (maternal lineage) is around 450, among which, in the case of around 60 men, the paternal lineage was also identified (Csaky et al., 2020; Szeifert et al., 2022).
In summary, we can state about the latest prehistorical results that they can be synchronized in case of most of the scientific areas. Perhaps no similar harmony could be seen before among the data of the various groups of sources: as a result, we can find the eastern connections of the Conquest period legacy where linguists and historians also assume them on the basis of other data. The results of natural scientific analyses particularly remind us, researchers of this period that during our research we shall only raise questions that are formulated correctly and can be answered clearly. Today, besides the constant interpretation of resources, this is the key to move forward in the modern archaeological research of the early Hungarian history.
REFERENCES
1. Afanasyev, G. E. 1987. Naselenie lesostepnoi zony basseina Srednego Dona v VIII-X vv. (alanskii variant saltovo-maiatskoi kul tury) (Population of the Forest-Steppe Area of the Middle Don Basin in 8th - 10th Centuries (the Alan Variant of the Saltovo-Mayaki Culture)). Series: Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia na novostroikakh (Rescue Archaeological Investigations) 2. Moscow: "Nauka" Publ. (in Russian).
2. Afanasyev, G. E. 2001. In Rossiyskaya arkheologiya (Russian Archaeology) 2, 43-45 (in Russian).
3. Aksenov, V. S. 2001. In Severnyy Kavkaz i kochevoy mir stepey Evrazii: V. Minaevskie chteniya po arkheologii, etnografii i kraevedeniyu Severnogo Kavkaza (The North Caucasus and the nomadic world of the Steppes of Eurasia: V. Minaev readings on archaeology, ethnography and local history of the North Caucasus). Stavropol: Stavropol State University Publ., 212-214 (in Russian).
4. Balint, Cs. 1989. Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Volga und Donau vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Wien-Köln.
5. Belavin, A. M., Ivanov, V. A., Krylasova, N. B. 2009. Ugry Predural'ia v drevnosti i srednie veka (The Cis-Urals Ugric Peoples in the Antiquity and Middle Ages). Ufa: "Vagant" Publ. (in Russian).
6. Belavin, A. M., Krilaszova, N. B. 2011. Tarsolylemez Perm környekeröl (A pouch plate from the Perm area). In Folia Archaeologica 54, 243-256.
7. Belavin, A. M., Krylasova, N. B. 2022. In Türk A. (Ed.). Hadak utjan. 29th Conference of young scholars on the Migration Period. November 15-16, 2019, Budapest). Studia ad Ar-chaeologiam Pazmaniensia 21. Magyar Östörteneti Temacsoport Kiadvanyok 10. Budapest, 73-84 (in Russian).
8. Bokij, N. M., Pletnyova, Sz. A. 1989. Nomad harcos csalad 10. szazadi sirjai az Ingul folyo völgyeben (Gräber einer nomadischen Kriegerfamilie aus dem 10. Jh. im Ingul-Flußtal). In Archaeologiai Ertesitö 116, 86-98.
9. Botalov, S. G. 2013. In Botalov, S. G., Ivanova, N. O. (eds.). II Mezhdunarodniy mad'yarskiy simpozium (II International Magyar Symposium). Chelyabinsk: "Rifey" Publ., 139-167 (in Russian).
10. Botalov, S. G., Lukinykh, A. A., Tideman, E. V. 2011. In Chelyabinskiy Gumanitariy (Chelyabinskij Gumanitarij) 2 (15), 104-114 (in Russian)
11. Csaky, V., Gerber, D., Szeifert, B., Egyed, B., Stegmar, B., Botalov, S. G., Grudoch-ko, I. V, Matveeva, N. P., Zelenkov, A. S., Sleptsova, A. V., Goldina, R. D., Danich, A. V., Mende, B. G., Türk, A., Szecsenyi-Nagy, A. 2020. In Scientific Reports, 10, 19137. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75910-z
12. Erdelyi, I. 2008. Scythia Hungarica. A honfoglaläs elötti magyarsäg regeszeti em-lekei. Budapest (in Hungarian).
13. Fettich, N. 1933. In Szäzadok 67, 250-276, 369-399 (in Hungarian).
14. Fodor I. 1975. Verecke hires ütjän... A magyar nep östörtenete es a honfoglaläs. Budapest (in Hungarian).
15. Fodor, I. 1994. In Kovacs L. (szerk.) Honfoglaläs es regeszet. Budapest, 47-65 (in Hungarian).
16. Fodor, I. 2015. Vengry: drevnyaya istoriya i obretenie Rodiny (Hungarians: ancient history and the finding of a Homeland). Perm: "ZEBRA" Publ. (in Russian)
17. Garustovich, G. N. 1988. In Pshenichiuk, A. Kh. (ed.). Problemy drevnikh ugrov na Iuzhnom Urale (Issues of the Ancient Ugric Peoples in the Southern Urals). Ufa: Bashkir Scientific Center, Ural Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 130-139 (in Russian).
18. Halikova, J. A. 1976. In Archaeologiai Ertesitö 103, 53-78 (in Hungarian).
19. Ivanov, V A. 1999. Drevnie ugry-mad'iary v Vostochnoi Evrope (Ancient Ugric Magyars in Eastern Europe). Ufa: "Gilem" Publ. (in Russian).
20. Kazakov, E. P. 2013. 2013. In Botalov, S. G., Ivanova, N. O. (eds.). II Mezhdunarodniy mad'yarskiy simpozium (II International Magyar Symposium). Chelyabinsk: "Rifey" Publ., 173-181 (in Russian).
21. Keszi, T. 2017. In Az Intercisa Muzeum Evkönyve 2, 29-55.
22. Klima, L. 2020. Välogatott renhireim. Tudäsmorzsäk afinnugor kultura es törtenelem vilägäbol. Budapest.
23. Komar, A. V. 1999. In Vita Antiqua 2, 111-136. (in Russian)
24. Komar, A. V. 2018. Istoriya i arkheologiya drevnikh mad'yar v epokhu migratsii (History and archaeology of the Ancient Hungarians in the era of migration). Budapest (in Russian).
25. Kvitnitskiy, M. V, Tyurk, A., Telnov, N. P., Lisenko, S. D., Sinika, V. S. 2020. In Stratum plus. Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology (5), 329-340 (in Russian)
26. Lango, P. 2007. Amit elrejt a föld... A 10. szäzadi magyarsäg anyagi kulturäjänak regeszeti kutatäsa a Kärpät-medenceben. Budapest (in Hungarian).
27. Lifanov, N. A. 2005. In Evglevskii, A. V. (ed.-in-chief). Stepi Evropy v epokhu srednevekov'ia (Steppes of Europe in the Middle Ages). Donetsk: Donetsk National University, 25-40 (in Russian).
28. Matveeva, N. P. 2019. In Matveeva, N. P. (ed). Ab origene: arkheologo-etnogra-ficheskii sbornik (Ab origene: Archaeological and Ethnographic Collection) 11. Tyumen: Tyumen State University, 44-60 (in Russian).
29. Matveeva, N. P., Gyoni, G., Zelenkov, A. S. 2021. In Rossiyskaya arkheologiya (Russian Archaeology) 2, 147-166 (in Russian).
30. Mazhitov, N. A. 2013. In Botalov, S. G., Ivanova, N. O. (eds.). II Mezhdunarodniy mad'yarskiy simpozium (II International Magyar Symposium). Chelyabinsk: "Rifey" Publ., 84-88 (in Russian).
31. Pletneva, S. A. 1999. Ocherki khazarskoi arkheologii (Essays on Khazar Archaeology). Moskva; Jerusalem: "Gesharim"; "Mosty kul'tury" Publ. (in Russian).
32. Polgär, Sz. 2019. Kelet-Euröpa kereskedelmi kapcsolatai az irott forräsok alapjän (kb. 750-1000). Budapest (in Hungarian).
33. Revesz, L. 1998. In Möra FerencMuzeum Evkönyve - Studia Archaeologica 4, 523532.
34. Ryabtseva, S., Rabinovich, R. 2007. In Revista Arheologica. serie nouä vol III. nr.
I-2. Chi§inäu, 195-230. (in Russian)
35. Sändor, K. 2014. In Iskolakultura 2, 76-86 (in Hungarian).
36. Shcherbakova, T. A., Tashchi, E. F., Telnov, N. P. 2008. Kochevnicheskie drevnosti Nizhnego Podnestrovya (Po materialam raskopok kurgana u g. Slobodzeya)) (The nomadic antiquities of the Lower Transnistria (Based on the materials of the excavations of the mound near the town of Slobodzeya)). Chisinau: "Elan Poligraf SRL" Publ. (in Russian)
37. Stashenkov, D. A. 2020. (Drevnie vengry i ikh okruzhenie v Samarskom Povolzhye. Katalog arkheologicheskikh kollektsiy) (Ancient Hungarians and their surroundings in the Samara Volga region. Catalog of archaeological collections). Samara: Regional Museum of Local Lore Publ. (in Russian).
38. Szeifert, B., Gerber, D., Csäky, V, Lango, P., Stashenkov, D. A., Khokhlov, A. A., Sitdikov, A. G., Gazimzyanov, I. R., Volkova, E. V., P. Matveeva, N. P., Zelenkov, A. S., Poshekhonova, O. E., Sleptsova, A. V., Karacharov, K. G., Ilyushina, V V., Konikov, B. A., Sungatov, F. A., Kolonskikh, A. G., Botalov, S. G., Grudochko, I. V, Komar, O. V., Egyed, B., Mende, B. G., Türk, A., Szecsenyi-Nagy, A. 2022. In Human Molecular Genetics, Vol. 31, Issue 19, 3266-3280. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddac106.
39. Toth, S. L. 1998. Levediätöl a Kärpät-medenceig. Szeged (in Hungarian).
40. Türk, A. 2010. In G. Toth P., Szabo P. (szerk.) Közepkortörteneti tanulmänyok 6. A VI. Medievisztikai PhD-konferencia (Szeged, 2009. junius 4—5). Szeged, 261-306.
41. Türk, A. 2021. In Klima, L., Türk, A. (eds.). Parallel stories. Interdisciplinary Conference on Hungarian Prehistory, organized by the Institute for Archaeology, PPCU, Budapest,
II-13 November 2020. Studia ad Archaeologiam Pazmaniensiae 23. - Magyar Ostörteneti Kutatocsoport Kiadvänyok 2. Budapest 2021, 163-204 (in Hungarian).
42. Zelenkov, A. S. 2019. In Matveeva, N. P. (ed). Ab origene: arkheologo-etnogra-ficheskii sbornik (Ab origene: Archaeological and Ethnographic Collection) 11. Tyumen: Tyumen State University, 24-43 (in Russian).
43. Zimonyi, I. 1996. In Koväcs, L., Veszpremy, L. (szerk.) A honfoglaläskor irott forrä-sai. Budapest, 49-59 (in Hungarian).
About the Author:
Türk Attila, PhD, habil. Research Centre for the Humanities. Toth Kälmän St. 4, Budapest, 1097, Hungary; turk.attila@abtk.hu
НОВЫЕ РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ И ИДЕИ АРХЕОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ РАННЕЙ ИСТОРИИ МАДЬЯРОВ В ЕВРАЗИЙСКОМ КОНТЕКСТЕ
А. Тюрк
Ранняя венгерская история является областью исследований с весьма ограниченной источниковой базой. Таким образом археология, как наука с быстро увеличивающимися базами данных, имеет здесь первостепенное значение. Важно подчеркнуть, что для археологии также характерно использование всё большего числа естественнонаучных методов, которые придают импульс новым биоархеологическим исследованиям. Наиболее значительным археологическим достижением для венгерской предыстории в последние годы стало взрывное увеличение числа памятников типа Субботцев, оставленных венгерским населением в бассейне Среднего и Нижнего Днестра. В настоящее время на Среднем и Нижнем Днепре известно 10-12 памятников, которые можно связывать с областью Этелькёз. В находках из них хорошо отражены отношения с соседними, главным образом с северными славянскими районами, а также с византийской культурной средой Крыма. Помимо хронологии археологического материала, его характеристика также явно согласуется с картиной, нарисованной мусульманскими ис-
Исследование и статья выполнено в рамках проекта по приоритетной научной теме ELKH [2021-2023] - SA-30/2021, а также в рамках Программы династии Арпадов, проект 1У2.
точниками о предках венгров IX в. Далее на восток наибольшую связь с венгерским этногенезом демонстрируют памятники Самарской Луки и Южного Урала. В качестве рабочей гипотезы можно утверждать, что самые ранние археологические следы предков венгров известны восточнее Уральских гор, на восток от челябинского Зауралья. Некая группа местного населения, по-видимому, мигрировала на запад. Это объединение появилось вскоре на левом берегу Волги, а его территория простиралась до границы Волжской Булгарии. Позднее часть этого населения осталась в Прикамье. Другая группа мигрировала на запад до 30-х гг. IX в., а затем поселилась на территории Северного Причерноморья.
Ключевые слова: археология, ранняя история венгров, археология, археологические памятники типа Субботцев, Волго-Эпоха обретения родины на Дунае (венг. Honfoglaläs - «обретение родины»), древнетюркские заимствования.
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
1. Афанасьев Г.Е. Население лесостепной зоны бассейна Среднего Дона в VIII-X вв. // Археологические открытия на новостройках. Вып. 2 / Отв. ред. В.В. Седов. М.: Наука, 1987. 198 с.
2. Афанасьев Г.Е. Где же археологические свидетельства существования Хазарского государства? // РА. 2001. № 2. С. 43-55.
3. Аксенов В.С. Контакты венгров с аланами в IX веке — взаимопроникновение культур // Северный Кавказ и кочевой мир степей Евразии: V Минаевские чтения по археологии, этнографии и краеведению Северного Кавказа. Ставрополь: СГУ 2001. С. 212-214.
4. Bälint, Cs. Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker zwischen Volga und Donau vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert. Wien-Köln, 1989.
5. Белавин А.М., Иванов В.А., Крыласова Н.Б. Угры Предуралья в древности и средние века. Уфа: ИПК БГПУ «Вагант», 2009. 285 с.
6. Belavin, A. M., Krilaszova, N. B. Tarsolylemez Perm környekeröl (A pouch plate from the Perm area) // Folia Archaeologica. 2011. № 54. 243-256.
7. Белавин А.М., Крыласова Н.Б. Взаимодействие населения Предуралья и носителей сал-тово-маяцкой археологической культуры // Hadak ütjän. 29th Conference of young scholars on the Migration Period. November 15-16, 2019, Budapest). Studia ad Archaeologiam Pazmaniensia. In Türk A. (Ed.). Budapest, 2022. Р. 73-84. DOI 10.55722/Arpad.Kiad.2021.4.1_06
8. Bokij, N.M., Pletnyova, Sz.A. 1989. Nomäd harcos csaläd 10. szäzadi sirjai az Ingul folyo völgyeben (Gräber einer nomadischen Kriegerfamilie aus dem 10. Jh. im Ingul-Flußtal) // Archaeolo-giai Ertesitö. 1989. № 116. Р. 86-98.
9. Боталов С.Г. Некоторые аспекты уральской мадьярской проблемы // II Международный Мадьярский симпозиум / Отв. ред. С.Г. Боталов, Н.О. Иванова. Челябинск: Рифей, 2013. С. 139167.
10. Боталов С.Г., Лукиных А.А., Тидеман Е.В. Погребальный комплекс могильника Уелги -новый средневековый памятник в Южном Зауралье // Челябинский Гуманитарий. 2011. № 2 (15). С. 104-114.
11. Csäky, V., Gerber, D., Szeifert, B., Egyed, B., Stegmär, B., Botalov, S. G., Grudochko, I. V., Matveeva, N. P., Zelenkov, A. S., Sleptsova, A. V., Goldina, R. D., Danich, A. V., Mende, B. G., Türk, A., Szecsenyi-Nagy, A. Early Medieval Genetic Data from Ural Region Evaluated in the Light of Archaeological Evidence of Ancient Hungarians. In Scientific Reports, 2020. 10, 19137. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-020-75910-z
12. Erdelyi I. Scythia Hungarica. A honfoglaläs elötti magyarsäg regeszeti emlekei. Budapest. 2008.
13. Fettich N. A levediai magyarsäg a regeszet megvilägitäsäban // Szäzadok 67, 1933. 250-276. 369-399.
14. Fodor I. Verecke hires ütjän... A magyar nep östörtenete es a honfoglaläs. Budapest, 1975.
15. Fodor I. Leletek Magna Hungäriätol Etelközig. In Koväcs L. (szerk.) Honfoglaläs es regeszet. Budapest, 1994. Р. 47-65.
16. ФодорИ. Венгры: древняя история и обретение Родины. Пермь: ЗЁБРА, 2015. 132 с.
17. Гарустович Г.Н. Об этнической принадлежности раннемусульманских памятников Западной и Центральной Башкирии // Проблемы древних угров на Южном Урале / Ред. Пшенич-нюк А.Х. Уфа: БНЦ УрО АН СССР, 1988. С. 130-139.
18. Halikova J.A. 1976. Osmagyar temetö a Käma menten. Magna Hungaria kerdesehez // Archaeologiai Ertesitö 103, 1976. Р. 53-78.
19. ИвановВ.А. Древние угры-мадьяры в Восточной Европе. Уфа: Гилем, 1999. 123 с.
20. Казаков Е.П. Мадьяры и волжские болгары: этапы взаимодействия // II Международный Мадьярский симпозиум / Отв. ред. С.Г. Боталов, Н.О. Иванова. Челябинск: Рифей, 2013. С. 173-181.
21. Keszi T. Levedia, the egg of Columbus and what follows // Az Intercisa Müzeum Evkönyve. 2017. no. 2. P. 29-55.
22. Klima L. Välogatott renhireim. Tudäsmorzsäk a finnugor kultura es törtenelem vilägäböl. Budapest. 2020.
23. Комар А.В. Предсалтовские и раннесалтовский горизонты Восточной Европы // Vita Antiqua. 1999. № 2. С. 111-136.
24. Комар А. История и археология древних мадьяр в эпоху миграции. Будапешт, 2018. 426 с.
25. Квитницкий М.В., Тюрк А., Тельнов Н.П., Лысенко С.Д., Синика В.С. Два венгерских погребения IX века в Дунай-Днестровских степях // Stratum plus. 2020. № 5. С. 329-340.
26. LangöP. Amit elrejt a föld... A 10. szäzadi magyarsäg anyagi kulturäjänak regeszeti kutatäsa a Kärpät-medenceben. Budapest, 2007.
27. Лифанов Н.А. К вопросам периодизации и хронологии памятников новинковского типа // Степи Европы в эпоху средневековья. Т. 4 / Отв. ред. А.В. Евглевский. Донецк: Изд-во ДонНУ 2005. С. 25-40.
28. Матвеева Н.П. Некоторые проблемы изучения средневековой археологии лесостепной зоны Приуралья и Зауралья в свете формирования мадьяр // Ab Origine. Археолого-этнографиче-ский сборник. Вып. 11 / Отв. ред. Н.П. Матвеева. Тюмень: ТюмГУ, 2019. С. 24-43.
29. Матвеева Н.П., Дьёни Г., Зеленков А.С. Проблемы изучения происхождения мадьяр (по урало-сибирским материалам раннего средневековья) // РА. 2021. № 2. С. 147-166.
30. Мажитов Н.А. Еще раз о мадьярской проблеме в средневековой истории Южного Урала // II Международный Мадьярский симпозиум / Отв. ред. С.Г. Боталов, Н.О. Иванова. Челябинск: Рифей, 2013. С. 84-88.
31. Плетнева С.А. Очерки хазарской археологии. Москва; Иерусалим: Гешарим / Мосты культуры, 1999. 280 с.
32. Polgär, Sz. Kelet-Europa kereskedelmi kapcsolatai az irott forräsok alapjän (kb. 750-1000). Budapest, 2019.
33. Revesz, L. Szempontok a honfoglaläs kori leletanyag idörendjenek meghatärozäsähoz a keleti pärhuzamok alapjän (Geschitspunkte zur Bestimmung der Chronologie der landnahmezeitlichen Funde Aufgrund der östlichen Analogien). In Mora Ferenc Muzeum Evkönyve - Studia Archaeologica. 1998. № 4. Р. 523-532.
34. Рябцева С., Рабинович Р. К вопросу о роли венгерского фактора в Карпато-Днестровских землях в IX-X. вв. // Revista Arheologica, seria noua. 2007. Vol. 3. Nr. 1-2. C. 195-230.
35. Sändor, K. Vämbery Armin es a török-magyar nyelvcsere // Iskolakultura. 2014. № 2. Р. 76-86.
36. Щербакова Т. А., Тащи Е.Ф., Тельнов Н.П. Кочевнические древности Нижнего Поднестро-вья (по материалам раскопок кургана у г. Слободзея). Кишинев: Elan Poligraf SRL, 2008. 139 c.
37. СташенковД.А. Древние венгры и их окружение в Самарском Поволжье. Каталог археологических коллекций. Самара: СОИКМ им. Алабина, 2020. 122 с.
38. Szeifert, B., Gerber, D., Csäky, V., Langö, P., Stashenkov, D. A., Khokhlov, A. A., Sitdikov, A. G., Gazimzyanov, I. R., Volkova, E. V., P. Matveeva, N. P., Zelenkov, A. S., Poshekhonova, O. E., Sleptsova, A. V., Karacharov, K. G., Ilyushina, V. V., Konikov, B. A., Sungatov, F. A., Kolonskikh, A. G., Botalov, S. G., Grudochko, I. V., Komar, O. V., Egyed, B., Mende, B. G., Türk, A., Szecsenyi-Nagy, A. Tracing genetic connections of ancient Hungarians to the 6th-14th century populations of the Volga-Ural region // Human Molecular Genetics. 2022. Vol. 31. Issue 19. Р. . 3266-3280. https://doi. org/10.1093/hmg/ddac106.
39. Töth S.L. Levediätol a Kärpät-medenceig. Szeged, 1998.
40. Türk A. A szaltovoi kulturkör es a magyar östörtenet regeszeti kutatäsa // In G. Toth P., Szabo P. (szerk.) Közepkortörteneti tanulmänyok 6. A VI. MedievisztikaiPhD-konferencia (Szeged, 2009. junius 4—5). Szeged, 2010. Р. 261-306.
41. Türk A. A korai magyar törtenelem regeszeti kutatäsainak aktuälis eredmenyei es azok le-hetseges nyelveszeti vonatkozäsai (Recent advances in archaeological research on early Hungarian history and their potential linguistic relevance) // Parallel stories. Interdisciplinary Conference on Hungarian Prehistory, organized by the Institute for Archaeology, PPCU, Budapest, 11-13 November 2020. Eds.: Klima, L. - Türk, A. Studia ad Archaeologiam Pazmaniensia 23. - Magyar Ostörteneti Kutatoc-soport Kiadvänyok 2. Budapest, 2021. Р. 163-204.
42. Зеленков А.С. О статусе псевдокушнаренковской керамики в археологическом контексте Западной Сибирии в раннего средневековья // Ab Origine. Археолого-этнографический сборник Вып. 11 / Отв. ред. Н.П. Матвеева. Тюмень: ТюмГУ, 2019. С. 24-43.
43. Zimonyi I. A 9. szäzadi magyarokra vonatkozo arab forräsok. A Dzsajhäni-hagyomäny. In Koväcs, L., Veszpremy, L. (szerk.)A honfoglaläskor irott forräsai. Budapest, 1996. Р. 49-59.
Информация об авторe:
Тюрк Аттила А., PhD, старший научный сотрудник. Центр гуманитарных наук (г. Будапешт, Венгрия); turk.attila@abtk.hu ORCID: 0000-0001-9199-0019
Статья принята в номер 01.03.2024 г
