Projection of regional culture in the ethno-cultural landscape of the Russian-Chinese borderland. Formation of the ethnocultural landscape of Karachai Scientific novelty of the work

Regional culture as a special philosophical category is inextricably linked with the ethno-cultural landscape of each particular region. These categories deserve special attention in the context of their location in the socio-cultural space of the border area. The article deals with the essence and specificity of the processes of interaction between landscape and culture in the process of socio-cultural interaction of border regions. The ethnocultural landscape is assessed as a regional cultural space. An attempt is made to assess the level of translation of regional cultural resources and the degree of their consolidation in the ethno-cultural landscape of the border area. Comparison of the concepts of "regional culture" and "ethno-cultural landscape" in their philosophical understanding made it possible to determine their inseparable connection. The landscape is the carrier of all the properties of the regional culture, mediated by the border position. Both categories are in constant active interaction. Representing their properties in the socio-cultural space of cross-border interaction, they mediate those cultural elements that are inconceivable without their unity.

intercultural interaction

ethnocultural landscape

regional culture

socio-cultural space of the border

1．Vardomsky L.V. Border belt of Russia: problems and development trends // Russia and the modern world. - 2000. - No. 2. - C. 139.

2．Dirin D.A., Krasnoyarova B.A. Cultural and geographical features of the formation and functioning of the new frontier // World of science, culture, education. - 2010. - No. 6 (25). - S. 270.

3．History and culture of the peoples of Transbaikalia in the XVII-XIX centuries. Meeting of peoples and civilizations [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.museums75.ru/zaletnology.htm

4．Cultural landscape as an object of heritage / ed. Yu.A. Vedenina, M.E. Kuleshova. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2004. - S. 620.

5．Li Ping. Cultural regionalization in the context of intercultural interaction (on the example of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China). - Chita: Search, 2008. - S. 17.

6．Lyapkina T.F. Architectonics of the cultural space of Eastern Siberia (late 17th - early 20th centuries): dis. ... Dr. culturologist. - St. Petersburg, 2007. - C. 3.

7．Morozova V.S. The phenomenon of regional culture in the socio-cultural space of cross-border interaction between the Russian Federation and China. - M.: Publishing house "Forum", 2011. - S. 7.

8．Smirnyagin L.V. Districts of the USA: a portrait of modern America. - M. : Thought, 1989. - S. 384.

9．Shishkina A.A. Cultural space and cultural landscape as forms of reflection of culture // Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice. - 2011. - No. 7 (13). - S. 219.

ten. Shishkina A.A. Values of the cultural landscape: history and modernity // Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice. - 2011. - No. 6 (12). - S. 200.

The ethnocultural landscape as a space representing the historical and cultural habitat of specific peoples is the most important unit of the study of modern culture. However, this concept is often interdisciplinary, becoming the subject of research in such sciences as geography, history, sociology, etc. The problem of the ethnocultural landscape is rarely touched upon in philosophical studies. Today, the relevance of the proposed study is determined by a number of factors that determined the uniqueness of the regional cultural space of the border areas. The spiritual and historical-cultural loci of the region, which carry the "inviolable reserve" of the values of the culture of the past, in modern cultural and philosophical thought can be considered through the concept of the ethno-cultural landscape as a space of concentration and expression of regional culture.

The formation of the ethno-cultural landscape of the border region has its own nuances, modern function borders. The spiritual culture of ethnic communities within the regional culture at the junction of two civilizations (East and West) is capable of transmitting elements of their culture not only within the ethnocultural landscape of their country, but also to adjacent border areas. At present, the phenomenon of regional culture of the border areas and its expression in the ethno-cultural landscape is of particular importance. Regional cultures contact across state borders, transferring and consolidating their elements abroad. In this case, the border plays only a formal meaning, which inevitably entails the transformation of not only the landscape itself, but also the entire value system of the contacting territories, which in turn determines the degree of their translation and perception in the regional culture of the recipient.

The old, familiar border with China remained in the Far East and Transbaikalia (with a small but significant exception - the transfer of small areas of territory during demarcation). However, here too its role is radically changing. There has been (or is) a rapid transition from the border as a wall, a barrier, at one time - almost a front line, to a place of intense junction, contact, interaction. The relationship between the fundamental properties of the boundary of barrierness and contact has changed radically.

This circumstance is also determined by the philosophical understanding of the term "border", which is not only a division, but also a connection of each individual culture.

In the implementation of cultural and landscape zoning of border areas, one of the main problems is to determine the boundaries of regional ethno-cultural landscapes. This situation is complicated by the cultural-philosophical component of these territories, expressed by the system of regional cultural values, as well as the problem of determining the very socio-cultural space of the border area, which does not have a clear outline. In addition, at present, political boundaries do not always correspond to cultural boundaries. Solving this problem is a difficult task, which is also associated with the specifics of the very concept of "ethno-cultural landscape", as well as the fact that today there is no unambiguous universal methodology for cultural and landscape zoning.

The interdisciplinary direction allows us to interpret the landscape as a space of culture, which plays a more important role than the "developed" territory itself. We can talk about the reading of natural landscapes by a specific ethnic community - the bearer of their own culture. Accordingly, the ethnic factor, which forms and mediates the geocultural space, gives grounds to define the landscape not so much as a cultural, but to a greater extent as an ethno-cultural formation. In accordance with the classification proposed by A.A. Andreev, and drawing attention to the importance of including an ethno-cultural component in the description of a taxonomic unit, the border ethno-cultural landscapes of the Russian Federation-PRC can be attributed to the type of "cultural landscapes", which are a system of interrelated cultural and landscape units united by common cultural ties. Within these units, a commonality of cultural, historical, social, ethnic, and other characteristics is preserved. An important fact is that we are not talking about the form of a transboundary landscape, but at least two units representing their regional cultures. The status of "border" is determined only by adjacency to the border.

The ethno-cultural landscapes of the Russian-Chinese border, compared in this study, cover the territories along the Russian-Chinese border, but do not form a single whole, because structured by regional cultures on different sides of the border. Their phenomenon lies in the fact that individual cultural patterns are broadcast and fixed "materially" over these boundaries. And the degree of their translation depends only on the desire to accept or not to accept them by the landscape of the recipient culture. In this context, we consider the idea of L.V. Smirnyagin that "... the more complex the object of research, the more" flexible "and" soft "the methodology of this research should be" .

Here are a number of features of the formation of ethnocultural landscapes of the Russian-Chinese borderlands:

Natural landscape (dependence of socio-economic and socio-demographic institutions on the natural resource potential, the support of the national economic complex on the local raw material and fuel base);

Historical and cultural (orientation of the activities of cultural and leisure institutions to a combination of various types of recreational activities, including educational, event, sports, health, sightseeing, hiking, skiing, mountain, water, cycling and other types of tourism);

Ethnographic and ethnolinguistic (the cultural potential of the multi-ethnicity of the population of the border regions is expressed not only in the preservation of traditional culture through its regional version, but also reflects the diversity of cultural patterns on the other side of the border).

The practice of forming ethno-cultural landscapes of the border territories of the Russian Federation - China is somewhat contradictory. The development of intercultural relations between the Russian Federation and the PRC is taking place, but the pace of such development is extremely slow. In many respects, this is hindered by such an objective reason as poor infrastructure in the Russian border areas. Therefore, today in the socio-cultural space of Russian-Chinese border cooperation there is no possibility of qualitative use of geographical advantages. Hence, such an uneven development of ethnocultural landscapes, mediated by the high rates of economic development of the PRC.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the border ethno-cultural landscape is characterized by the following set of special features of its functioning:

Activity and saturation of interregional contacts;

Simultaneous influence of cultural centers and regional component;

Ethnocultural tolerance;

Mixture of architectural styles;

The dependence of the inhabitants of the frontier on the policies of the governments of both sides;

The dynamism of the ethnocultural landscape itself.

The ethnocultural landscape as an intercultural space (regardless of its origin and distribution) seems to be extremely heterogeneous within the framework of philosophical research. Thus, the ethnocultural landscape of the Trans-Baikal Territory is extremely difficult to delimit into the habitat of specific ethnic groups, since their representatives have lived in this space for many centuries and may well consider themselves to be indigenous people. An important cultural resource of Transbaikalia is the multinational ethnic composition with a fairly constant percentage of the predominant population: Russians, Buryats, Ukrainians, Tatars, Armenians, Belarusians. This fact also characterizes the ethnocultural landscape of the Northeast of China as a multicultural region of the country, which is formed by peoples belonging to the Tungus-Manchurian, Mongolian and Altai groups of peoples. Thus, in the context of broadcasting in these border areas the cultural traditions of a large variety of ethnic groups, it is quite reasonable to use the concept of "ethno-cultural landscape" as a concentration of regional practices of socio-cultural interaction of the above groups of peoples.

The reason for the heterogeneity of the ethno-cultural landscape is, as mentioned above, the heterogeneity of the cultures of the ethnic groups inhabiting it, which is also manifested in the functioning of the landscape itself under the influence of the embodied cultural values of the regions. As a result, it is extremely difficult to attribute a certain landscape to the property of a particular ethnic group. most distinctly given property manifests itself in the ethno-cultural landscape of the border area, when, for example, the material and spiritual culture of the border North-East of China is determined by the large borrowing of elements of the regional culture of the Russian ethnos.

The heterogeneity of the ethno-cultural landscape of the borderlands is also manifested in the fact that it has its own concentration. Thus, the construction of the CER and the formation of the city of Harbin as a place of concentration of cultural values, innovations and traditions of Russian emigration in China became the center and vector of the formation of the ethnocultural landscape of the North-Eastern region of the PRC.

The concept of "ethno-cultural landscape" is directly related to the concept of "regional culture". Representing the ethnocultural landscape as a regional cultural space, it is worth recalling A. Mol's statement that "culture is equal to its space." That is why the ethno-cultural landscape is presented as a space constructed by regional culture, one of the main characteristics of which is the level of embodiment of the totality of cultural features (both material and spiritual) that are perceived by the landscape of each border area. An important property of culture is its regionality associated with the spatial and temporal localization of sociocultural processes. The close ties of ethnic groups with natural landscapes were pointed out by L.N. Gumilyov, who defined ethnos as "... a geographical phenomenon, always associated with the enclosing landscape that feeds the adapted ethnos." In this context, it should be noted that the ethno-cultural landscape is also a physical and mental expression of the regional cultures of interacting ethnic groups. Therefore, it becomes quite fair to consider the ethnocultural landscape not only as a material form of the regional cultural heritage, but also to a greater extent as a translator of regional cultural traditions.

The first is determined by the inclusion and representation of a diverse number of ethnic groups that form one landscape. The second is connected with the border position of the landscape itself, which in a certain way levels the cultural patterns of the national culture through its regional version and forces in its system to obey the cultural rules of the neighboring border territory. The third defines the ethno-cultural landscape of the border region as a "border landscape".

One more important feature of the ethno-cultural landscape of the borderlands can be identified. It lies in the fact that the landscape exists not only because certain groups of people consider themselves part of it, but also because the regional cultures of the border areas, as a factor in the formation of the type of landscape under consideration, are vulnerable precisely because of their interdependence from each other and are forced to adapt to each other.

When analyzing the ethnocultural landscape of the border area, not only the priorities of the population of a particular territory become obvious, but also the dynamics of the hierarchy of values in the context of intercultural interaction between two border cultures. Relaying the region's value system, the border ethno-cultural landscape also reflects the value orientations of its creators, determining the degree of their significance at each historical stage of development. Regional culture in this case acts as a system of values and value orientations, and the processes of cultural diffusion as a means of their dissemination.

Based on the classification of general cultural values proposed by the domestic culturologist B.S. Erasov (who singles out vital, social, political, moral, religious, aesthetic values), one should also agree with the opinion of A.A. Shishkina that "the landscape, its formation and attitude towards it, undoubtedly, are a marker of the moral, cognitive, educational and even political values of society, since a person who creates a cultural landscape inevitably includes it in his being" . The ethno-cultural landscape of the border territories of the Russian Federation and the PRC, formed by values universal for each nation (i.e., norms that contribute to the formation of a tolerant attitude towards “alien”), is also mediated by the corresponding national traditions and values of a regional nature associated with culture, religion , historical traditions of interacting ethnic groups.

The ethnocultural landscape of the border region as a sociocultural phenomenon can be classified precisely through the value orientations of its population. The functioning of the ethno-cultural landscape in the border socio-cultural space is determined not only by the peculiarities of the life of the local population, but also by those forms of intercultural interaction when there is an interchange of values and their consolidation in the physical space. Let's single out those values that are basic in the effective functioning of the border ethno-cultural landscape: the desire to achieve harmony with nature; traditionalism; high level of self-organization; tolerance.

In particular, the formation of the ethno-cultural landscape of Transbaikalia has a long history, in which the Buryats, Evenks and Semey people, who were the first to inhabit this territory, left a noticeable trace. The totality of the cultural values of the peoples, shown below, reflected in material forms, gives the ethnocultural landscape of Transbaikalia a certain originality.

Thus, datsans, which are original monastic settlements, have long been considered the spiritual centers of Buryat Buddhism. Ethnic symbols of Buddhists, reflecting their mentality, are: Buddhist datsans (Ivolginsky, Aginsky, etc.); Mount Alkhanai is one of the world shrines of Buddhism. The traditional type of house, the yurt, is becoming quite rare, but respect for it as a traditional type of dwelling remains. The Buryats also have sacred places where prayers are held, which can often be found in prominent places, along the road. They can be immediately distinguished by the pillars - serge or baris, tied with multi-colored scarves and ribbons.

Evenks, adapting to the natural and ecological conditions, tried to develop the most effective model of life support, which subsequently took the following forms, imprinted in the ethno-cultural landscape of the region: hunting, fishing and pasture lands; change of nomadic and settled period of life activity as a way of seasonal-shift development of land, during which the dominant of the extractive industries of the economy changed to one or another source of natural products; fixing in religious and ethical practice the withdrawal from natural reserves of exactly such an amount of resources that would not undermine the reproducing foundations of nature.

Semey Transbaikalia strictly observe traditional mores and customs, conduct subsistence farming, preserve the usual rituals and clothes. Until recently, many elements of culture typical of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries have been preserved. This is manifested in the "family" technique of building houses and architecture, carving and painting on wood, etc. The vitality of the cultural tradition of the family is largely determined by its deeply popular character, coming from its peasant labor, which absorbed the concerns of the farmer and artisan, worker and artist. The four-walled family hut had a traditional Russian layout of the dwelling. Houses were placed on the street with the end or long side, sometimes the windows looked out onto the street, sometimes the house looked like a blank wall. As a rule, they acted on the street and were located in one line. The traditional Russian building of a peasant estate was also preserved.

As for the regional culture of the Northeast region of the PRC, it absorbed the cultural diversity of the Han, Tibetan, Manchu and other cultures of national minorities. It is noted that the regional culture of the border areas of the PRC has the so-called visible characteristics: a section of the Great Wall of China (located on the territory of Inner Mongolia), which ranks first in China in length and width; monuments and excavations of ancient primitive culture as material forms of national cultural heritage. Part of the cultural resources of the region is associated with the name of Genghis Khan: the mausoleum of Genghis Khan; the only temple of Genghis Khan in the world. Another attraction of the regional ethno-cultural landscape is one of the largest lamaist temples - Dazhao Monastery.

On the basis of the identified characteristics of the ethno-cultural landscape of the borderlands, it is also necessary to say about the purposeful activities of ethnic groups to include it in the culture of the region and, as a result, the impossibility of perceiving the landscape without relating it to it. That is why the ethno-cultural landscape of the borderlands, despite all its contradictory characteristics, must be considered in conjunction with the regional culture that forms it.

In the sociocultural space of cross-border interaction between the Russian Federation and the PRC, the study of ethnocultural landscapes will help bring closer to the answer to the question: what is the role of the cultural uniqueness of Russian border regions in the formation of cultural practices not only within their own country, but also in the global processes of cultural development. A systematic study of this process can act as a conceptual basis for the implementation of the processes of complex translation of regional cultural elements to the border areas of China in order to prevent the increased influence of the Chinese cultural factor and preserve the cultural identity of the Russian border area.

After comparing the concepts of "regional culture" and "ethno-cultural landscape", we note that their relationship and interdependence are obvious. The landscape is the carrier of all the properties of the regional culture, mediated by the border position. Both categories are in constant active interaction. Representing their properties in the socio-cultural space of cross-border interaction, they mediate those cultural elements (norms, values, rules, traditions and properties expressed both spiritually and materially) that are inconceivable without their unity. One can speak of the ethno-cultural landscape as a direct projection of the regional culture, its reflection. The border ethno-cultural landscape is also mediated by the "living" nature of its space, which performs its functions not only through the connection of the past, present and future, but also through state borders, the question of the functions of which from the point of view of the socio-cultural aspect requires further development.

The article was prepared with the financial support of the state represented by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Reviewers:

Abramova Natalya Andreevna, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Head. Department of Oriental Studies FSBEI HPE "Transbaikal State University", Chita.

Fomina Marina Nikolaevna, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Vice-Rector for Innovative Education, Transbaikal State University, Chita.

Bibliographic link

Morozova V.S. ETHNO-CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE RUSSIAN-CHINESE BORDER AS A SPACE OF CENTER AND EXPRESSION OF REGIONAL CULTURE // Modern Problems of Science and Education. - 2012. - No. 6.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=7960 (date of access: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

WORLD VIEW BASES OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

1.1. Man and nature: philosophical and cultural analysis.

1.2. Cultural landscape and its structural analysis.

1.3. "Man-made landscape" in the historical and ethnic representation.

ADYGE GARDEN-FOREST AS AN IMPLEMENTATION

NATURAL AND ETHNIC.

2.1. Man and nature in the traditional picture of the world of the Circassians.

2.2. "Garden-forest" ("old Circassian garden"): essence and morphology.

2.3. Nature as an aesthetic value in the ethnic culture of the Circassians.

Recommended list of dissertations

Ethno-mental foundations of the literature of the Circassian diaspora 2009, Doctor of Philology Abdokova, Marina Borisovna
Mentality of the Adyghe ethnos: problems of formation and evolution 2003, candidate of philosophical sciences Kostylev, Sergey Vasilyevich
The core and periphery of the Adyghe culture in its transformation 2008, Doctor of Philosophy Razdolsky, Sergey Alexandrovich
Relations of Circassia with the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate: military and socio-cultural aspects: 70s. XV - XVIII centuries 2004, Candidate of Historical Sciences Tseeva, Zarema Arsenovna
The concept of the night in the traditional culture of the Circassians 2012, Doctor of Cultural Studies Siyukhova, Aminet Magametovna

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Cultural landscape: ethnic discourse: on the example of the Adyghe garden-forest"

The urgency of the problem. The anthropocentric paradigm of culturology updated the research devoted to the study of the uniqueness of the national and cultural landscape, turning to the "human factor in nature", to identifying how nature is used by the subject, depending on his cultural potentials and knowledge about the world. This entailed the study of "natural and cultural factors in a person", as well as how the surrounding picture of the world affects him, forming personal and cultural-national self-awareness, worldview and worldview.

The foregoing is especially relevant now, when the usual life guidelines, values, ideals are collapsing, and new ones are born with difficulty. In our century, the value orientations of technological civilization have become widespread, interest in the problem of nature management and its aesthetics has increased, which required significant economic and social efforts, as well as an appeal to the experience of the past.

The study of the cultural landscape has shown that it is the embodiment of all the nuances of the perception of reality by its creators, their ideas and experiences. It can be argued that the cultural landscape is a kind of "mirror", reflecting a certain vision of the world, the unique worldview of the people who created "man-made nature", represented by separate structures and microstructures, the totality of which forms the content structure of the surrounding world, its integral semantic structure.

In its ethnic meaning, the cultural landscape is a means of cognition and representation of the world of objects and the world of ideas, serves to express feelings, social and individual assessments and various intentions, forms the sphere of emotional and mental activity of a person.

Cultural landscape science is a relatively young scientific discipline that emerged in the second half of the 20th century. Its theoretical and methodological basis has not yet been fully formed, many questions of the theory are still debatable, there is no complete clarity of the relationship between this branch of knowledge and cultural studies. It also actualized the study of the "man-made landscape" as a special form of culture, which is formed in a certain historical period, at a certain stage in the development of society, in a certain natural and climatic zone, among a certain ethnic group and represents a unique "text". The peculiarity of this "text" lies in the fact that it concentrates and interprets not only new knowledge, but also the old ideas about nature, society and the ways of their interaction within the life style of the society in which it was created. In addition, this “text” demonstrates representative reference samples of socially acceptable types of behavior, judgments and assessments, and argues for the unacceptability of other positions.

The unique "text" of the "man-made landscape" is the only one of its kind - a garden-forest (mez-khade), created by the Circassians, combining the features of a forest (a natural component of a natural plant space that existed long before man) and a garden (man-made, cultivated in certain pragmatic and aesthetic purposes of the vegetative zone), and different from the known examples in cultural landscape science. This phenomenon of culture has been studied in ethnology, folklore, philology, the history of the spiritual and material culture of the Adygs. However, in cultural studies it has not been studied enough.

The actualization of the problem brought to the fore the study of the essential characteristics of the Adyghe garden-forest as an ethnic model of a man-made landscape, as a peculiar, practically unexplored phenomenon of national culture, reflecting the specifics of the relationship between man and nature in the ethnic picture of the world, as well as ethical, aesthetic, religious, social -legal, mythopoetic views of the Circassians.

In the problematic field of cultural studies, the study of this topic made it possible to identify the paradigmatics of the "man-made landscape", based on the integration of various scientific approaches, the stylistic "look" of the Adyghe cultural landscape as a manifestation of the "spirit", character, internal form of the traditional Adyghe spiritual and practical culture, and also to establish it. stylistic features, which is of great importance for understanding the features of the national culture of the Circassians, its universal and unique features, national mentality.

The degree of knowledge of the problem. Philosophical and culturological understanding of the relationship of the "nature-society-culture" system goes into the distant past of mankind and is reflected in the historical types of worldview. In particular, the studies of A.V. Akhutin, J. Wood, V.V. Evsyukova, F.Kh. Cassidy, J1. Levy-Bruhl, K. Levy-Strauss, A.F. Losev, E. Tylor, J. Fraser and others.

Representatives of German classical philosophy G.W.F. Hegel, I.G. Herder, I. Kant, M. Scheler, L. Feuerbach, I.G. Fichte and others assigned an important place in their works to the problems of the natural and social essence of man.

Anthropogenic factors in the biological balance of society and the environment were considered in the works of V.I. Vernadsky, L.N. Gumilyova, N.Ya. Danilevsky, A.L. Chizhevsky and others. E.V. Girusov, H.H. Moiseev and others.

Various aspects of ecological culture (philosophical, economic, legal, ethical, scientific and technical, cultural and historical, etc.) are reflected in the works of A.M. Galeeva, Yu.Yu. Galkina, JI.H. Kogan, A.O. Lagutina, E.S. Markaryan, Yu.P. Ozhegova and others.

Landscape thinking began to take shape at the end of the 19th century. in the works of A.I. Voikova, V.V. Dokuchaeva, A.A. Izmailsky, which indicated the need to study the impact on the nature of the anthropogenic factor.

In the late 80s - the first half of the 90s of the 20th century, an idea was formed in domestic science related to the understanding of the need to include a layer of non-material (spiritual, ideal) culture in the structure of the cultural landscape. The cultural landscape as an integral and territorially localized set of natural, technical and socio-cultural phenomena was studied by Yu.A. Vedenin. V.N. Kalutskov. Scientists G.I. Iskritsky M.E. Kuleshova, Yu.G. Saushkin and others included in the cultural landscape, along with toponyms, archival and bibliographic sources.

The study of the historical and cultural process from the standpoint of the degree of influence of the natural environment on various spheres of the life of society took shape within the framework of the theory of the environment (J. Bodin, Ch. Montesquieu, and others). In America, this theory was developed by representatives of the anthropogeographic school (K. Wissler), in "cultural ecology" (D. Bennett, R. Netting, J. Stuart). G. Barry, R. Bolton, M. Bacon, X. Witkin, I. Child, R. Edgerton, and others studied the degree of influence of the natural environment on the formation of an individual's personal attitudes.

In England, the study of the theory of the medium was based on the works of G. Buckle and E. Huntington. In France, the tradition of this theory was continued by P. Sentive. In the 20s of the XX century. in German geography, a school of cultural landscape took shape (O. Schlüter).

The theoretical foundations of the "man-made landscape" were studied by I.O. Bogovoy, M.S. Bulatov, A.P. Vergunova, V.A. Gorokhov, A.Yu. Demshin, D.S. Likhachev, L.M. Fursova and others. So, D.S. Likhachev, the author of numerous works devoted to the problem of restoration of gardens and parks in Russia, carried out a comparative analysis of stylistic trends in landscape art and poetry, focusing on the semantic side of this art form. At the same time, each garden is characterized by it in the space of the "aesthetic climate" of the era. Landscape gardening theorist, art historian, J. D. Hunt offered his vision of the meanings of verbal and visual sign systems in the formation of a garden space, focusing on the mytho-religious and aesthetic components of the "third nature" (i.e. gardens) in the chronological range from Ancient Babylon to the present. In this perspective, the "third nature" of J.D. Hunt, in its semantic content, is close to the "man-made landscape".

The object of research is the cultural landscape.

The subject of the study is the Adyghe garden-forest (“the old Circassian garden”), presented in the context of the ethnic discourse of the picture of the world in the traditional culture of the Adyghes.

The purpose of the study is to identify the main features of the “internal form” and “spirit” of the Adyghe forest-garden (“the old Circassian garden”) in its conceptual content in the context of the ethnic representation of the “man-made landscape” as part of a systematic study of its genesis and ontological essence.

Research objectives: to study and systematize research approaches to the problem of interaction between man and nature within the framework of cultural knowledge; determine the content characteristics of the term "cultural landscape" and identify the main features of its systematization in the scientific literature; analyze the features of the "man-made landscape" in its historical and ethnic representation; formulate the principles of the relationship between man and nature in the traditional culture of the Circassians; to give an essential characterization of the traditional Adyghe garden-forest (“the old Circassian garden”) as a “man-made landscape”.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the dissertation research was the works of domestic and foreign scientists devoted to the problems of the relationship between man and nature, the cultural landscape, the ethnic paradigm of cultivated nature (B.V. Andrianov, L.P. Kogan, M.G. Levin, K. Levy- Straus, E. Tylor, and others).

The scientific novelty of the dissertation research is confirmed by new scientific results obtained by the applicant, which are as follows: for the first time in culturological knowledge, the problem of the ethnic discourse of the cultural landscape is analyzed on the example of the Adyghe garden-forest (“the old Circassian garden”); for the first time in the study of the Adyghe forest-garden, a system-structural approach was applied, which made it possible to reveal a deep connection between the natural and cultural heritage of the people, their way of life and their traditional moral values. the obtained results of the study of the ethnocultural phenomenon of the Adyghe forest-garden significantly complement and expand the theoretical base for studying the specific culture of the Adyghes.

The theoretical and practical significance of the dissertation work is due to the fact that the results obtained during the study can be used in the development of individual elements of modern cultural landscape science, the creation of textbooks and teaching aids on the history and culture of the Adyghes, the refinement and expansion of cultural methods for studying the traditional culture of the Adyghes, as well as in practice of university and school education, taking into account the presence of a mandatory regional component in the curricula of universities of the KBR and other autonomous entities. The results obtained in the course of the study can be used in the practice of teaching special courses “Epic text. Problems and prospects of study”, “Adyghe folklore”, “Ethnic aesthetics”, etc.

Approbation of work. The results of the study were discussed at scientific conferences (“Sociocultural problems of the Caucasian region in the context of globalization” Nalchik, 2007; “Culture, art, education at the turn of the century.” Nalchik, 2009; “Epic text: problems and prospects”, Pyatigorsk, 2010) , as well as at postgraduate seminars of the Department of Cultural Studies of the North Caucasus State Institute of Arts. The main results of the study are presented in seven publications, including three journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

The following provisions are put forward for defense:

1. The problem of studying the relationship between society and nature within the framework of cultural studies is very relevant and of particular importance. To form a methodology for studying this problem, cultural studies combines two approaches: rationalistic (ecology and geography) and speculative (philosophy).

2. Nature is an integral part of stories, legends, parables, songs, united in the heroic epic "Narts". These are the most important forms of communication between the Circassians and the world, which determine the laws of its existence. Unity with nature for the Circassians is at the same time the unity of people who have an ethnic name, feel each other and the land, have an inner knowledge of their belonging to a certain landscape. In addition, the ethnopoetics of the Circassians is based on the unity of all natural elements and man, his merging with the cosmos, accompanied by the harmonization of the relationship of the individual, society and the universe to the all-encompassing noosphere. Hence - such a diverse generation of meanings of the natural "text", improved by man in the context of global processes affecting all aspects of national existence.

3. The main quality that characterizes the attitude of man to nature in the traditional culture of the Circassians can be formulated as "preserving consciousness." Thus, nature is a full-fledged participant in the dialogue, its philosophical and ideological basis. The interaction of nature and man is subject to the general task of dynamic development, the stability of eternal relationships, where man, as part of the living world, is included in the content of the integrity of the world. Understanding and feeling this communication, a person in the space of the Adyghe ethnic picture of the world does not allow one to be absorbed by another, does not violate the basic laws of the development of nature, does not seek to take as much from it as possible, realizing that nature does not strive for maximum productivity, and for maximum stability.

4. Spiritual and theoretical understanding of the surrounding world by the Adygs in the space of traditional culture is based on understanding, argumentation, complexity, system optimization. A person in the system of values of the Adyghe traditions is a link between nature and the culture of the ethnos. “Managing” nature, he reconstructs the biosphere or constructs a new one with the obligatory condition of a long-term preliminary calculation based on the accumulated experience of communicating with nature of his ancestors over many centuries and knowledge of the laws of nature. Therefore, having their own specific, tribal knowledge, in traditional culture, the Adygs consciously “manage” nature, which can be observed in the example of a garden-forest (“an old Circassian garden”).

5. The Adyghe garden-forest is a form of cultural "man-made landscape", which, being an ethnic model of human intervention in nature, on the one hand, is an important structural element of the system of images of the identity of the ethnic group in question, on the other hand, corresponds in many respects to the concept of man's relationship to nature . This is a way of transforming the natural environment in accordance with the laws of the general biological coexistence of a given ethnic group, a model of its unity with nature. This form of "man-made landscape" combines the practical and the theoretical, the ethical and the aesthetic, the spiritual and the rational. It combines a kind of reverence as something powerful and majestic, existing according to laws that no one can change, with the practical need to take nature's gifts from nature, rationally using and directing them in the direction you need.

6. Growing fruit trees and shrubs, herbs and vegetables, aestheticizing the environment and getting aesthetic pleasure from it, creating natural masterpieces that testify to the high level of development of society, compensating for the missing types of vegetation, etc., the Circassians, nevertheless, perceive garden-forest as a living organism, endowing it with the functions of spirituality. This is a "man-made landscape" - a product of the history of the peoples inhabiting it, evidence of their material and spiritual culture, the result of reflection, the imprint of the society that transforms it. With its help, the material and spiritual wealth of nations accumulated over the centuries is transferred from epoch to epoch.

7. The global environmental crisis that has engulfed the entire planet poses a problem for society related to the need to develop another way of interacting with the world more adequate to its vital needs, transition to a new paradigm of being in it. The necessity of using the ethnic experience of the relationship of a person with nature, based on his spiritual ideas about living nature, is actualized. The ethnic experience of the Circassians, captured in their traditional culture and embodied in the “garden-forest” model, in which the necessary practicality coexists with the minimum possible interference in the world of wildlife, from our point of view, can to a certain extent help find a way out of this situation.

Scope and structure of work. The text of the dissertation is 145 pages. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references and sources.

Similar theses in the specialty "Theory and History of Culture", 24.00.01 VAK code

Personality in the traditional culture of the Circassians 2004, Doctor of Philosophy Lyausheva, Svetlana Aslanovna
Features of socio-cultural processes in the Adyghe ethno-environment in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries: based on the materials of the journalism of the Adyghe writers-enlighteners 2007, candidate of sociological sciences Chamokova, Emma Turkubievna
Ethnocultural archetypes of the Adyghe people: the experience of philosophical and cultural understanding 2007, Doctor of Philosophy Tleuzh, Asker Dzagashtovich
Circassia in the light of ethno-sociological studies of Sultan Khan Giray 2001, candidate of sociological sciences Brantova, Inna Kaplanovna
Features of the Formation of the Toponymic Picture of the World: Lexical-Pragmatic and Ethno-Cultural Aspects 2009, Doctor of Philology Kovlakas, Elena Fedorovna

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Theory and history of culture", Makhotlova, Madina Aslanbievna

CONCLUSION

Mankind, apparently, historically; it was necessary to get into a situation of an ecological gap between the natural and artificial conditions of his life; "in order to realize the need to build a civilization - intelligently; blocking; the reduction of the artificial to social; and technological processes, as well as to the natural. Modern socio-natural theories; describe not social and natural processes of nature involved in the sphere of human activity, but characterize correlations and dependencies between the natural and artificial environment of the functioning of civilizations. perceived and interpreted by humans.

Scientific definitions c. the process of studying the problems of interaction between man and nature cannot retain their original natural science; status. But not because they are applied to> social phenomena; that is, subject conditions created by man; the existence of society. From this point of view, the natural is replaced, not by the social, but by the artificial. The results of such a substitution affect both nature in general and itself; man. Hence the need to consider the problem of "man - nature" needs to be studied; the experience of past years, the ethnic experience of nature management, the study of experience that we have abandoned, explaining this by the fact that the present time has special natural conditions that are unlike those that were in the past. AT; in fact, it seems obvious that in the broad interpretation of activity, the role of the rational, which has sharply increased under the conditions of the technological revolution, has found an ideological reflection; thinking, technical design; and construction. On the base; its main feature - a pre-calculated, purposeful transformation that turns into an object and material everything that the subject touches, the principle of activity, as it were, philosophically generalizes all these varieties of technological attitude to the world. It generalizes and, when it claims to be universal, it absolutizes. The full practical implementation of the activity paradigm leads to many truly catastrophic consequences, although their deep connection with it is far from always realized. The unprecedented power of the productive forces and technical capabilities, seemingly without any limits, runs into internal limits. Excessive rationalization of life, alienation and dehumanization of interpersonal contacts, reckless exploitation of nature, which gave rise to a global ecological crisis, arise as an expression of the dominance of the activity paradigm in areas where it should occupy a subordinate position, as a result of a monologue that does not take into account the right to independent existence of other things and beings. relationship to the surrounding reality. The exacerbation of these problems puts a person before the need to develop another way of interacting with the world more adequate to his vital needs, transition to a new paradigm of being in it.

Meanwhile, there is a wonderful ethnic experience of the relationship between man and nature, based not on bare rationalism, but on the spiritual, higher ideas of man about living nature. This, of course, seems to us the experience of the Circassians, captured in their traditional culture and embodied in the "garden-forest" model, where the necessary practicality coexists with the minimum possible interference in the world of wildlife. Summarizing the contribution of the Adygs to nature management, which, unfortunately, is now used in few places and by few people, we can draw a number of conclusions:

1. In many folklore stories, legends, parables, songs, which are the most important form of communication between the Adyghe and the world, which determine the laws of its existence, the nature surrounding it is captured. Human life, consciousness, speech are correlated with it; they are derivatives of the living world, mobile and changing; stones, water, plants, trees - the essence of the communicative type of social structure. Unity with nature for the Circassians is at the same time the unity of people who have an ethnic name, feel each other and the earth, have an inner knowledge of their belonging to a certain landscape. The ecological ethnopoetics of the Circassians is based on the certainty of the unity of all natural elements and man, the merging of the cosmos, accompanied by the harmonization of the relationship of the individual, society and the universe to the all-encompassing noosphere. \hence - such a diverse generation of meanings of the natural "text", improved by man in the context of global processes affecting all aspects of national existence.

2. The most important quality that characterizes the attitude of a person to nature in the traditional culture of the Adyghes can be formulated as "preserving consciousness", which is the most important component of a person's attitude to the world. Nature in its context is a full-fledged participant in the dialogue, which we use here not in the meaning of the conversational sphere, not within the framework of the psychological level of interpersonal communication and emotional contact, but in its philosophical and ideological meaning. The main thing in this case is not the level of subject-object, but subject-subject, that is, the level of recognition of the “selfhood” of nature, taking into account its own measure. At the same time, paradigmally understanding and feeling this communication, a person in the system of the Adyghe ethnic picture of the world, proceeding from the optimization of the human-nature system, does not allow one to be absorbed by the other. They are subject to interaction, the general task of dynamic development, the stability of eternal relationships, where a person, as part of the living world, is included in the content of the integrity of the world.

3. A person in the context of the Circassian worldview, thinking about increasing productivity, does not violate the basic laws of the development of nature, does not seek to take as much from it as possible, realizing that nature strives not for maximum productivity, but for maximum sustainability. The traditional ethnic territory of the Adyghe (not only geographical or climatic) is effective, since all social and culturally determined factors necessary for human existence at all times and in all societies are organically inscribed in it. His attachment to the place of residence plays a huge role in shaping his personal character, attitude to the world around him, nature.

4. However, the above does not mean that in the natural ethnosystem the Adygs do not interfere with nature in any way and do not manage it, but this management acts as a reconstruction of the existing biosphere or the construction of a new one with the obligatory condition of a long-term preliminary calculation based on the accumulated experience of communicating with the nature of his ancestors for many centuries and knowledge of the laws of nature. Therefore, having their own specific, generic knowledge, in the traditional culture, the Adygs do not fight with nature, realizing that there can be no winners in this struggle, but regulates it consciously in order to harmonize it, which is clearly seen in the example of a garden-forest ( "Old Circassian Garden"). Adyg is sure: not everything logically and technically possible should be implemented, and knowledge should be refracted through the prism of people's life goals and be correlated with the measure of a person, his values, guided not by personal consumer, but by long-term general ethical interests.

5. The spiritual and theoretical attitude to the world of the Adyghe in the context of traditional culture is based on dialogue, understanding, argumentation, complexity, system optimization - everything that is commonly called, speaking about the humanization of the modern cultural system. A person in the system of values in the Adyghe traditions is a link between nature and culture of an ethnic group, based on this duality of its essence, culture can neither be created nor understood without comparing it with nature. It originates in the bosom of nature, it cannot exist separately from it, and this is perfectly reflected in the historical types of the Adyghe universe, first of all - its mythology, religious beliefs, epic, an example of which is the text of the heroic epic "Narty", a treasury of the Adyghe oral folk art , a kind of encyclopedia of the Adyghe spirit.

6. The Adyghe garden-forest is a type of cultural landscape, which, being by definition an ethnic model of human intervention in nature, is the best suited for the role of an important structural element of the system of images of the identity of the ethnic group, on the one hand, on the other hand, it corresponds in many respects the desired concept of the relationship of man to nature today, being an expression of a combination of utilitarian and symbolic functions of ecological culture. It acts as a way of transforming the natural environment in accordance with the laws of general biological coexistence that meet the social needs of a given ethnic group, a model of its unity with nature, carried out through human activity. It combines the practical and the theoretical, the ethical and the aesthetic, the spiritual and the rational, combining a kind of reverence as something powerful and majestic, existing according to laws that no one can change, with the practical need to take nature's gifts from nature, rationally using and directing it. in the direction you need, both contemplating and changing it. At the same time, abrupt innovations are not welcomed; in relations with nature, what is welcomed is that which reproduces the positive experience of predecessors who had special knowledge, their own secrets that need to be correctly interpreted, penetrating the meaning of the texts embedded in them.

7. Innovations in the relationship between man and nature in the traditional culture of the Circassians are accepted, but as a particular case, on condition that they contribute to the preservation of classical integrity, since tradition, the past is an important judge. No matter what happens in nature - a flood, a thunderstorm, a lightning strike - it cannot position evil, therefore negative towards nature is impossible, violence against it is impossible. However, nature is not idealized, it can be penetrated, a person is able to change it for the better, but the latter cannot in any way be understood as an object of intensive transformational activity, as a pantry from which a person can draw without measure and without counting. Brought up in a certain tradition, the Adyghe believes: in no case should one test nature, try to wrest from it a secret, reduce all its qualitative diversity to a small number of strict quantitative laws. Using the garden-forest in all social functions - utilitarian, recreational, organizational, compensatory, that is, growing fruit trees and shrubs, herbs and vegetables, aestheticizing the environment and getting aesthetic pleasure from it, creating natural masterpieces that testify to the high level of development of society, compensating for the missing types of vegetation, etc., the Adyghe, nevertheless, perceives the garden-forest as a living organism, endowing it with the functions of spirituality.

8. Garden-forest (“old Circassian garden”) proves that the cultural landscape is a product of the history of the peoples inhabiting it, evidence of their material and spiritual culture. He is a reflection, an imprint of the society that transforms him. As a result, we can talk about patterns: what is the society, its culture, mentality and historical destinies, such is the cultural landscape that it created. Therefore, when studying anthropogenic landscapes, not only their natural and production subsystems should be taken into account, but also the sociocultural one, which gives grounds to speak of national landscapes. Despite the geographical proximity and the similarity of natural conditions, they are characterized by a pronounced ethno-cultural specificity.

9. The cultural national landscape is a relay race of generations, with which the material and spiritual wealth of nations accumulated over the centuries is transferred from epoch to epoch. At the same time, the cultural landscape environment grows and shapes its future society. The cultural landscape is a product of human activity, striving for harmony, for kinship with ennobled nature, which develops together with man and under the influence, which affected the development of garden and park culture. It includes practical, artistic and practical, receptive, spiritual and cultural and other types of human activity. People build and protect their native ethnic landscapes, and landscapes spiritually create and educate people. Thus, in the system society - landscape there is a direct and inverse spiritual connection.

Summing up the main result of this study, it is worth saying: the problem of the relationship between society and nature within the framework of cultural studies acquires a special scale. And, unlike ecology and geography, which consider this problem from a rationalistic point of view, and philosophy, which approaches the designated problem purely speculatively, cultural studies, due to the specifics of its content, seem to combine both approaches and make a significant contribution to the establishment of a general scientific humane direction. in the system of interaction between nature - man (society) - culture both on a national and global scale.

List of references for dissertation research candidate of cultural studies Makhotlova, Madina Aslanbievna, 2010

1. Aleksandrov P.S. Introduction to the homological theory. M., 1972

2. Andrianov B.V. Agriculture of our ancestors. M., 1978

3. Anfimov N.V., Kerashev A.T., Meretukov M.A., Dzhimov B.M., Achmiz K.G. Adygs: historical and cultural essay. Part 1. Maikop. 1999.

4. Areopagite D. Magical theology, M., 1999

5. Aristotle. Works in 4 vols. M., 1976-1984

6. Arakelyan G.S. Cherkesogai (historical and ethnographic research) / Caucasus and Byzantium. Issue. 1. Yerevan, 2001.

7. Balandin R.K., Bondarev L.G. Nature and civilization. M., 1988

8. Bgazhnokov B.Kh. Adyghe ethics. Nalchik, 1989

9. Bgazhnokov B.Kh. Logos of the game (to the formulation of the problem) // In the book: World of Culture. Issue. 2. Nalchik, 1996.

10. Bgazhnokov B.Kh. Honoring elders in the social organization of the Adyghe peoples / In the book: Social organization and customary law. Materials of scientific conference. Krasnodar, August 10-11, 2004

11. Bgazhnokov B.Kh. Siyukhov S. On the meeting of Alexander II with the Abadzekhs // In the book: World of Culture. Issue. 2. Nalchik

12. Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of freedom. M., 1979

13. Bogovaya I.O., Fursova L.M. landscape art. M., 1988

14. Boyce M. Zoroastrianism. Beliefs and customs. M., 1987

15. Bondar Yu.N., Kalutskov V.N. Natural and cultural landscapes in the toponymy of the Kenozero National Park // Cultural landscape: theory and practice: Sat. scientific tr. - M., 2003

16. Borzov A.A. Siberia. Critical review. Issue. VII. M., 1908

17. Bulletin: anthropology, minorities, multiculturalism. Events in the Caucasus (April-September 2007) / Comp. and ed. Kuznetsova R. Sh., No. 2, September 2008

18. Weizsacker E., Lovins E., Lovins L. Factor four: doubling wealth, doubling resource savings. M., 1997

19. Vedenin Yu.A. Information bases for the study and formation of a cultural landscape as an object of heritage // Izvestiya RAN. Ser. geogr. -2003.No. 3

20. Vedenin Yu.A. Cultural and landscape zoning of Russia - a landmark of cultural policy // Landmarks of cultural policy. Issue 2. -M., 1997

21. Vedenin Yu.A., Kuleshova M.E. Cultural landscape as an object of cultural and natural heritage. Monograph. - M., 2004

22. Vergunov A.P., Gorokhov V.A. Russian gardens and parks. M., 1988

23. Vergunov A.P., Denisov M.F., Ozhegov S.S. Landscape design. M., 1991

24. Vernadsky V.I. Geochemistry essays. M., 1983

25. Viner N.V. Cybernetics and Society M., 1988

26. Voeikov A.I. Human impact on nature // Geosciences. T. 1. Book. II. M., 1894

27. Wood J. Sun, Moon and ancient stones. M., 1981

28. Gardanov V.K. The social system of the Adyghe peoples (XVIII - first half of the XIX centuries). - M., 1967

29. Gvozdetsky H.A. Anthropogenic landscapes of the subtropics of Transcaucasia and Central Asian deserts / In the book: Questions of Geography. Sat. 106. M., 1977

30. Hegel G.W.F. Aesthetics. In 4 vols. M., 1968

31. Geyduk F. On the importance of the agricultural industry on the northeastern coast of the Black Sea. Cit. according to vol. "Old Circassian gardens". M., 2005

32. Herder I.G. Ideas for the philosophy of the history of mankind. M., 1977

33. Goethe I.V. Selected works in natural science. M., 1997

34. Girusov E.V. etc. Ecology and economics of environmental management. M., textbook (2nd edition), 2002

35. Girusov E.V. The main historical stages of interaction between society and nature. M., 1981

36. Gorbunov A.V., Kuleshova M.E. Spatial structure of the historical and cultural landscape of the Borodino field // Ecological problems of preserving the historical and cultural heritage. M., 2001

37. Gorokhov V.A., Lunts A.B. Peace parks. M., 2006

38. Gubzhokov M.N. Western Circassians in the period of the Caucasian War (Ethno-cultural aspects). Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Ph.D. - Nalchik, 2005

39. Humboldt A. Pictures of nature. M., 1959

40. Humboldt A. Correspondence of A. Humboldt with scientists and statesmen of Russia. M., 1962

41. Gumilyov L.N. Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the earth. M., 2002.

42. Danilevsky N.Ya. Russia and Europe. M., 1991

43. Dmitriev. V.A. The Caucasus as a historical and cultural "phenomenon. The contribution of the highlanders of the North Caucasus to world culture // Russia^and the Caucasus. History. Religion. Culture. St. Petersburg., 2003

44. Dokuchaev V.V. Our steppes before and now. M.-L., 1936

45. Ancient Greek philosophy. M., 2007

46. Drozdov A.B. How to develop tourism in the national parks of Russia. Recommendations for identifying, evaluating and promoting the tourist resources and tourist product of national parks: Monograph. M.,

47. Evsyukov V.V. Myths about the Universe. Novosibirsk, 1988

48. Efremov I.A. Razor blade. M., 1965

49. Zhekulin B.C. Historical geography of landscapes. - Novgorod, 1972

50. Zhukovsky T.M. Cultivated plants and their relatives. M., 1950

51. Zabelin I. M. Theory of physical geography. - M., 1959

52. Izmailsky A.A. How our steppe has dried up. - M.-L., 1937

53. Isachenko A.G. Landscape science on the transition to the second century of its history / In the book: Landscape science: Theory, methods, regional studies, practice. Proceedings of the XI Intern. landscape conf. M., 2006

54. Isachenko G.A. Cultural landscape as an object of discussion // Cultural landscape: theory and practice: Sat. scientific tr. M., 2003

55. Caucasus, Abkhazia, Adzharia, Shavshetia, Poskhovsky area. Travel notes of Count Uvarova. 4.2. M., 1891

56. Caucasus through the eyes of travelers. - M., 2008

57. Kagansky B.JI. Culture in landscape and landscape in culture // Science of Culture: Results and Prospects. Issue. 3. 1995

58. Kagansky V.L. World of cultural landscape // Cultural landscape and Soviet habitable space: Sat. articles. - M. 2001

59. Kalutskov V.N. Problems of studying the cultural landscape // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. geogr. No. 4

60. Kalutskov V.N. Topos and cultural landscape // Geography and natural resources. 2002. - No. 3

61. Kalutskov V.N., Krasovskaya T.M. Representations of the cultural landscape: from professional to ideological // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. Geogr., 2000, No. 4

62. Kant I. Op. in 6 vols. M., 1964

63. Kantaria M. Ecological aspects of the traditional economic culture of the peoples of the North Caucasus. Tbilisi, 1989

64. Klingen I.N. Fundamentals of the economy in the Sochi district. St. Petersburg, 1897

65. Klyuchevsky V.O. Op. in 2 vols. M., 1973

66. Kozmenko G.G. Nemtsev A.S., Trepet A. Organization and functioning of specially protected natural areas. Maikop, 2000

67. Kolbovsky E.Yu. Landscape in the mirror of cultural studies // Cultural landscape: theory and practice: Sat. scientific tr. M., 2003

68. Kolbovsky E.Yu., Morozova V.V. Landscape and Chronotope: History of Territory Development and Formation of Cultural Landscape // Cultural Landscape: Theory and Practice: Sat. scientific tr. - M., 2003

69. Konrad N.I. Elected, works. Literature and theatre. M., 1978

70. Corbusse M. Architecture of the 20th century. M., 1970

71. Korobova N. Adygi-Shapsugs: tender, religion, education. Bulletin: anthropology, minorities, multiculturalism. Under. ed. Kuznetsova I.V. No. 1.2008

72. Krut I.V., Zabelin I.M. Essays on the history of ideas about the relationship between nature and society (general scientific and geographical aspects) M., 1988

73. Kuleshova M.E. Cultural landscapes: general ideas, concepts, approaches to assessment // Ecological problems of preserving the historical and cultural heritage: M., 2000

74. Kuleshova M.E. Cultural landscape is a civilized way of space exploration // Wildlife Conservation. - 2001. - No. 1 (20)

75. Kuhn. Myths and legends Ancient Greece. M., 2004

76. Kurakova L.I. anthropogenic landscapes. M., 1976

77. Kurbatov Yu.I. Architectural forms and natural landscape. L., 2004

78. Kuskov A.S., Arsen'eva E.I. Cultural landscape as a resource for the development of regulated tourism. M., 2005

79. Kuskov A.S., Arsen'eva E.I. Organization and development of ecological tourism in the space of cultural landscapes of Russian national parks // Tourism and sustainable development of regions: Sat. scientific tr. - Tver, 2005

80. Kuskov A.S., Arsen'eva E.I. Development of ecotourism within specially protected natural areas of Russia. L., 1988

81. Kuskov A.S., Arsen'eva E.I., Feoktistova N.V. Basic concepts and directions of modern ecotourism: a comparative analysis // Tourism and cultural heritage: Sat. scientific Art. Issue. 2. Saratov, 2005

82. Lagutin A.O. Ecological culture as a factor of sustainable development of society. Krasnodar, 2001

83. Lazarev V.V. Program without alternatives. Preservation of the quality and diversity of the cultural and natural environment // Humanism and construction. Nature, ethnos and architecture / Alt. State. Those. Univ. I.I. Polzunov. - Barnaul, 2003

84. Levy-Bruhl L. Primitive thinking. M., 1994

85. Levi-Strauss K. Structural Anthropology. M., 1983

86. Likhachev D.S. Garden poetry. On the semantics of landscape gardening styles. - L., 1982

87. Likhachev D.S. Poetics of ancient Russian literature. - M., 1979

88. Likhachev D.S. Ecology of culture // Native land. - M., 1983

89. Losev A.F. History of ancient aesthetics in 6 vols., M., 1963-1980

90. Lotman Yu.M. Culture and Explosion. Tallinn, 1992

91. Lysenkova Z.V. Territory development and landscape change // Regional studies. - Smolensk, 2004. - No. 1 (3)

92. Lyubishchev A.I. On nature and vulgar materialism. M., 1954

93. Lulie L.Ya. Circassia. Historical and ethnographic articles / Materials for the history of the Circassian people, vol. 3, Krasnodar, 1927

94. Maksakovskiy V.P. World cultural heritage. M., 2003

95. Mamai I.I. Problems of landscape methodology / In the book: Landscape science: Theory, methods, regional studies, practice. Proceedings of the XI Intern. landscape conf. - M., 2006

96. Markaryan E.S. The theory of culture and modern science. M., 1983

97. Meadows D. Limits of growth. M., 1972

98. Meretukov M.A. From the social life of the Circassians (XVIII - the first half of the 19th century) / Culture and life of the Circassians (Ethnographic research). Issue. 10.-Maikop, 1997

99. Mesarovich M., Pestel E. Mankind at the turning point. M., 1974

100. Mechnikov L.I. Civilization and great historical rivers (Geographic theory of the development of modern societies). SPB., 1898 (M., 1924)

101. Milkov F.N. Anthropogenic landscape science, the subject of study and state of the art/ In the book: Questions of Geography. Sat. 106. M., 1977

102. Milkov F.N. Man and landscapes. M., 1973

103. Moiseev H.H. modern rationalism. M., 1995

104. Monpere F.D. Journey through the Caucasus // ABKIEA. M., 1957

105. Moraleva N.V., Ledovskikh E.Yu. Ecological tourism in Russia // Wildlife Protection. 2001, No. 3 (22)

106. Naloev Z.I. Organizational structure of the jeguaco. In: Culture and Life of the Circassians (Ethnographic Research). Issue. 2. Maykop, 1989

107. Narts. Kabardian epic. M., 1957

108. Narts. Kabardian epic. Nalchik, 2002

109. Nikolaev V.A. Geoecological foundations of the doctrine of anthropogenic landscapes / In the book: Geography, society, environment. T. II. Functioning and current state of landscapes. M., 2004

110. Nikolaev V.A. Cultural landscape geoecological system // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. geogr. - 2000. - No. 6

111. Paustovsky K. Golden Rose. - M., 1994

112. Preobrazhensky B.C. Acute problems of landscape science at the turn of the century / In the book: Structure, functioning, evolution of natural and anthropogenic landscapes. - St. Petersburg, 1997

113. Preobrazhensky B.C., Aleksandrova T.D. Primary analysis of the terms of landscape dynamics // Izv. VGO. T. 7. Issue. 5th - 1975

114. Prigogine I. Stengers T. Order out of chaos. A new dialogue between man and nature. M., 1086

115. Nature, technology, geotechnical systems. M., 1978

116. Prishvin M.M. Nature has become man. M., 1974

117. Travel notes of Countess Uvarova. 4.2. M., 1891

118. Ramensky L.G. On the fundamental principles, basic concepts and terms of the production typology of lands, geobotany and ecology // Sov. Bot. 1935. -№ 4

119. Reimers N.F. Conceptual ecology, M., 1992

120. Reclus E. Land. M., 1914. T. 1-12

121. Remizov I.N. Ecological sphere of society: current trends and development prospects. Krasnodar, 1998

122. Reteyum A.Yu., Dyakonov K.N., Kunitsyn L.F. Interaction of technology with nature and geotechnical systems / Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. Geogr. -1972. - jvfo 4

123. Rodoman B.B. Polarized Biosphere: Sat. articles. Smolensk, 2002

124. Rozhansky I.D. The concept of nature among the ancient Greeks // Nature, 1974 No. 3

125. Romanova E.P. Modern landscapes of Europe (without countries of Eastern Europe). M., 1997

126. Manuscript heritage of Ancient Russia. - L., 1972

127. Ryabchikov A.M. Structure and dynamics of the geosphere, its natural development and changes by man. M., 1972

128. Ryazanova N.E. Ecological assessment and creation of specially protected natural areas in order to preserve landscapes and create recreational zones // Tourism and regional development: Sat. scientific tr. Issue. 2. - Smolensk, 2008

129. Saushkin Yu.G. Cultural Landscape / In the book: Questions of Geography. Sat. 1.-M.- 1946

130. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky V.P. Region and country. M.; L., 1928

131. Siver A. Shapsugi and the problem of restoration of the Shapsugsky national region / Bulletin: anthropology, minorities, multiculturalism. - No. 3, December 1995

132. Smirnova Ya.S. Artificial kinship among the peoples of the North Caucasus: forms and evolution. Caucasian ethnographic collection, vol. 11. - M. 1996

133. Solovyov B.C. Beauty in nature // Solovyov B.C. Works: In 2 volumes - M., 1990

134. Solovyov B.C. General meaning of art // Solovyov B.C. Cit.: In 2 volumes - M., 1990

135. Spencer Ed. Journey to Circassia. Maikop, 1994

136. Stepun F.A. Thoughts about Russia // New World. - 1991. No. 3

137. Takizaki D. Praise of the Shadow. M., 2002

138. Teilhard de Chardin P. The phenomenon of man. M., 19 8 7

139. Theoretical foundations of recreational geography. - M., 1990

140. Tracho R. Circassians (Circassians of the North Caucasus Munich. 1944). -Nalchik, 1957

141. Tuganov R.U. Muhajirs. (According to the pages of Russian and foreign press). On Sat. World of culture. Issue. 4. - Nalchik, 1995

142. Tkhamokova I.Kh. Military memoirs about the end of the Caucasian War and the deportation of the Western Adyghes to Turkey. On Sat. World of culture. Issue. 1.-Nalchik, 1990

143. the federal law"On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" dated June 25, 2002 No. 73-F3

144. Feuerbach L. Selected philosophical works in 2 vols. M., 1972

145. Fichte I.G. Works. Works 1792-1801. M., 1999

146. Florensky P. Nature // Lithuanian Georgia. - 1985. - No. 10

147. Fontville, A. The last year of the war for independence (1863-1864. From the notes of a foreign participant) / Materials for the history of the Circassian people, vol. 3, Krasnodar, 1927

148. Fraser J. Golden branch M., 1980

149. Khabekirova Kh.A., Musukaev A.I. The world of wood in the culture of the Circassians (ethnoculturological views of the people). About Balkaria and the Balkars. Nalchik, 2001

150. Heidegger M. Turn 33 New technocratic wave in the West. -M., 1986

151. Hotko S. Old Circassian gardens (landscape and agriculture of the North

152. Western Caucasus in the coverage of Russian sources 1864-1914). M., 2005

153. Cicero. Dialogues. M., 1966

154. Tsutsiev A. Atlas of the ethnopolitical history of the Caucasus. Moscow: Europe, 2000.

155. Schweitzer A. Culture and ethics. M., 1989

156. Schelling F.V. Philosophical research on the essence of human freedom and related subjects // Schelling F.V. Compositions: In 2 t.-M. 1989

157. Sheudzhen A.Kh., Kharitonov E.M., Galkin G.A., Tkhakushinov A.K. The origin and development of agriculture in the North Caucasus. - Maykop, 2007

158. Shishin M.Yu. Noosphere, culture, cultural landscape. -Novosibirsk, 2002

159. Hyekun B. Mylkum ef1ek1 huguuefTyggueher. Adygezem ya mekumesh, botanist shenkhabzer. Nalshik, 2002

160. Hunt J.D. Greater Perfections (the practice of garden theory). Ed. by Thames & Hudson Ltd. Lodon, 2000

162. Tom Turner Essays on Cities and Landscapes. Garden and Landscape Books

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through recognition of the original texts of dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

The article was prepared with the financial support of the state represented by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

The ethnocultural landscape as a space representing the historical and cultural habitat of specific peoples is the most important subject of modern culture research. The concept of ethno-cultural landscape is often interdisciplinary, becoming the subject of research in such sciences as geography, history, sociology, etc., but it is rarely touched upon in philosophical studies. The relevance of the proposed study is determined by a number of factors that determined the uniqueness of the regional cultural space of the border areas. The spiritual and historical and cultural loci of the region, which carry the "inviolable reserve" of the values of the culture of the past, can be considered in the modern philosophy of culture through the concept of the ethno-cultural landscape as a space of concentration and expression of regional culture.

The formation of the ethno-cultural landscape of the border area has its own nuances, given by the modern function of the border. The spiritual culture of ethnic communities within the regional culture at the junction of two civilizations (East and West) is capable of transmitting elements of their culture not only within the ethnocultural landscape of their country, but also to adjacent border areas. At present, the phenomenon of regional culture of the border areas and its expression in the ethno-cultural landscape is of particular importance. Regional cultures contact across state borders, transferring and consolidating their elements abroad. In this case, the border plays only a formal meaning, which inevitably entails the transformation of not only the landscape itself, but also the entire value system of the contacting territories, which in turn determines the degree of their translation and perception in the regional culture of the recipient.

The old, familiar border with China remained in the Far East and Transbaikalia (with a small but significant exception - the transfer of small areas of territory during demarcation). However, here too its role is radically changing. There has been (or is) a rapid transition from the border as a wall, a barrier, at one time - almost a front line, to a place of intense junction, contact, interaction. The ratio of the fundamental properties of the boundary - barrier and contact - has changed radically.

This circumstance is also determined by the philosophical understanding of the term "border", which is not only a division, but also a connection of each individual culture.

In the implementation of cultural and landscape zoning of border areas, one of the main problems is to determine the boundaries of regional ethno-cultural landscapes. This situation is complicated by the cultural-philosophical component of these territories, expressed by the system of regional cultural values, as well as the problem of determining the very socio-cultural space of the border area, which does not have a clear outline. In addition, at present, political boundaries do not always correspond to cultural boundaries. Solving this problem is a difficult task, which is connected both with the specifics of the very concept of "ethno-cultural landscape", and with the fact that today there is no unambiguous universal methodology for cultural and landscape zoning.

The interdisciplinary direction allows us to interpret the landscape as a space of culture, which plays a more important role than the "developed" territory itself. We can talk about the reading of natural landscapes by a specific ethnic community - the bearer of culture. Accordingly, the ethnic factor, which forms and mediates the geocultural space, gives grounds to define the landscape not so much as a cultural, but to a greater extent as an ethno-cultural formation. In accordance with the classification proposed by A.A. Andreev, and drawing attention to the importance of including an ethno-cultural component in the description of a taxonomic unit, the border ethno-cultural landscapes of the Russian Federation-PRC can be attributed to the type of "cultural landscapes", which are a system of interrelated cultural and landscape units united by common cultural ties. Within such units, a commonality of cultural, historical, social, ethnic, and other features is preserved. An important fact is that we are not talking about the form of a transboundary landscape, but at least two units representing their regional cultures. The status of "border" is determined only by adjacency to the border.

The ethnocultural landscapes of the Russian-Chinese border, which are compared in this study, cover the territories along the Russian-Chinese border, but do not form a single whole, because structured by regional cultures on different sides of the border. Their phenomenon lies in the fact that individual cultural patterns are broadcast and fixed "materially" over these boundaries. And the degree of their translation depends only on the desire to accept or not to accept them by the landscape of the recipient culture. In this context, we consider the idea of L.V. Smirnyagin that "... the more complex the object of research, the more" flexible "and" soft "the methodology of this research should be" .

The following table shows a number of features of the formation of ethno-cultural landscapes of the Russian-Chinese borderlands:

Table 1. Features of the formation of ethnocultural landscapes of the Russian-Chinese border area

Features of the formation of ethnocultural landscapes	Russian border area	Chinese frontier
Natural landscape	underdevelopment of socio-economic and socio-demographic institutions against the backdrop of rich natural resource potential	a complete national economic complex, based almost entirely on the local raw material and fuel base
Historical and cultural	a significant reduction in the number of travel companies (a consequence of changes in legislation), cultural and leisure institutions	a set of various types of recreational activities (educational, beach, event, sports, health, sightseeing, hiking, skiing, mountain, water, cycling, sailing, etc.)
Ethnographic and ethnolinguistic	cultural heritage of the peoples of Eastern Transbaikalia (regional culture as a fundamental factor of cultural identification)	the cultural potential of the polyethnicity of the population of the region, which is expressed not only in the preservation of traditional culture through its regional version, but also a reflection of a large number of cultural samples of Russian culture

The practice of forming ethno-cultural landscapes of the border territories of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China is somewhat contradictory. The development of intercultural relations between the Russian Federation and the PRC is taking place, but the pace of such development is extremely slow. In many ways, this is hindered by such an objective reason as poor infrastructure in the Russian border areas. Therefore, today in the socio-cultural space of Russian-Chinese border cooperation there is no possibility of qualitative use of geographical advantages. Hence such an uneven development of ethnocultural landscapes, mediated by the high rates of economic development of the PRC.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the border ethno-cultural landscape is characterized by the following set of special features of its functioning:

Activity and saturation of interregional contacts;
- simultaneous influence of cultural centers and the regional component;
- ethno-cultural tolerance;
- mixture of architectural styles;
- the dependence of the inhabitants of the border area on the policies of the governments of both sides;
- the dynamism of the ethno-cultural landscape itself.

The ethnocultural landscape as an intercultural space (regardless of its origin and distribution) seems to be extremely heterogeneous within the framework of philosophical research. Thus, the ethnocultural landscape of the Trans-Baikal Territory is extremely difficult to delimit into the habitat of specific ethnic groups, since their representatives have lived in this space for many centuries and may well consider themselves to be indigenous people. An important cultural resource of Transbaikalia is the multinational ethnic composition with a fairly constant percentage of the predominant population: Russians, Buryats, Ukrainians, Tatars, Armenians, Belarusians. This fact also characterizes the ethnocultural landscape of the Northeast of China as a multicultural region of the country, which is formed by peoples belonging to the Tungus-Manchu, Mongolian and Altai groups of peoples. Thus, in the context of broadcasting the cultural traditions of a large variety of ethnic groups in these border areas, it is quite reasonable to use the concept of "ethno-cultural landscape" as a concentration of regional practices of socio-cultural interaction of the above groups of peoples.

The reason for the heterogeneity of the ethno-cultural landscape is, as mentioned above, the heterogeneity of the cultures of the ethnic groups inhabiting it, which is also manifested in the functioning of the landscape itself under the influence of the embodied cultural values of the regions. As a result, it is extremely difficult to attribute a certain landscape to the property of a particular ethnic group. This property is most clearly manifested in the ethno-cultural landscape of the border region, when, for example, the material and spiritual culture of the border North-East of China is determined by the large borrowing of elements of the regional culture of the Russian ethnic group.

The heterogeneity of the ethno-cultural landscape of the borderlands is also manifested in the fact that it has its own concentration. Thus, the center and vector of the formation of the ethno-cultural landscape of the North-Eastern region of the PRC was the construction of the Chinese Eastern Railway and the formation of Harbin as a place of concentration of cultural values, innovations and traditions of Russian emigration in China.

The concept of "ethno-cultural landscape" is directly related to the concept of "regional culture". Representing the ethnocultural landscape as a regional cultural space, it is worth recalling A. Mol's statement that "culture is equal to its space." That is why the ethno-cultural landscape is presented as a space constructed by regional culture, one of the main characteristics of which is the level of embodiment of the totality of cultural features (both material and spiritual) that are perceived by the landscape of each border area. An important property of culture is its regionality associated with the spatial and temporal localization of sociocultural processes. The close ties of ethnic groups with natural landscapes were pointed out by L.N. Gumilyov, who defined ethnos as "a geographical phenomenon, always associated with the enclosing landscape that feeds the adapted ethnos." In this context, it should be noted that the ethno-cultural landscape is also a physical and mental expression of the regional cultures of interacting ethnic groups. Therefore, it becomes quite fair to consider the ethnocultural landscape not only as a material form of the regional cultural heritage, but also to a greater extent as a translator of regional cultural traditions.

Further, highlighting such an important characteristic of the ethnocultural landscape as the meaningfulness of the space by the ethnic groups inhabiting it, one can also identify its inconsistency in three contexts.

The first defined by the inclusion and representation of a diverse number of ethnic groups that form one landscape. Second is associated with the border position of the landscape itself, which in a certain way levels the cultural patterns of the national culture through its regional version and forces them to partly accept the cultural rules of the neighboring border territory. Third defines the ethnocultural landscape of the border region as a "border landscape".

Based on the classification of general cultural values proposed by the domestic culturologist B.S. Erasov (who singles out vital, social, political, moral, religious and aesthetic values), one should also agree with the opinion of A.A. Shishkina that "the landscape, its formation and attitude towards it, undoubtedly, are a marker of the moral, cognitive, educational and even political values of society, since a person who creates a cultural landscape inevitably includes it in his being" . The ethno-cultural landscape of the border territories of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, formed by values universal for each nation (i.e., norms that contribute to the formation of a tolerant attitude towards "alien"), at the same time, is also mediated by the corresponding national traditions and values of a regional nature associated with culture, religion , historical traditions of interacting ethnic groups.

The ethnocultural landscape of the border region as a sociocultural phenomenon can be classified precisely through the value orientations of its population. The functioning of the ethno-cultural landscape in the border socio-cultural space is determined not only by the peculiarities of the life of the local population, but also by those forms of intercultural interaction when there is an exchange of values. Let's single out those values that are basic in the effective functioning of the border ethno-cultural landscape: the desire to achieve harmony with nature; traditionalism; high level of self-organization; tolerance.

Appeal to the value component of the border ethno-cultural landscape allows us to characterize it as the focus of the totality of cultural images of the peoples historically inhabiting the border territories, playing the role of the regional cultural framework of the territory. In particular, the formation of the ethno-cultural landscape of Transbaikalia has a long history, in which the Buryats, Evenks and Semey people, who were the first to inhabit this territory, left a noticeable trace. The totality of the cultural values of the peoples, shown below, reflected in material forms, gives the ethnocultural landscape of Transbaikalia a certain originality.

Evenks, adapting to natural and ecological conditions, tried to develop the most effective model of life support, which subsequently took the following forms, imprinted in the ethno-cultural landscape of the region: hunting, fishing and pasture lands; change of nomadic and settled period of life activity as a way of seasonal-shift development of land, during which the dominant of the extractive industries of the economy changed to one or another source of natural products; fixing in religious and ethical practice the withdrawal from natural reserves of exactly such an amount of resources that would not undermine the reproducing foundations of nature.

Semey Transbaikalia strictly observe traditional mores and customs, conduct subsistence farming, preserve the usual rituals and clothes. Until recently, many elements of culture typical of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries have been preserved. This is manifested in the "family" technique of building houses and architecture, carving and painting on wood, etc. The vitality of the cultural tradition of the family is largely determined by its deeply popular character, coming from its peasant labor, which absorbed the concerns of the farmer and artisan, worker and artist. The four-walled family hut had a traditional Russian layout of the dwelling. Houses were placed on the street with the end, or long side, sometimes the windows looked out onto the street, sometimes the house went out like a blank wall. As a rule, they acted on the street and were located in one line. The traditional Russian building of a peasant estate was also preserved.

As for the regional culture of the Northeast region of the PRC, it absorbed the cultural diversity of the Han, Tibetan, Manchu and other cultures of national minorities. It is noted that the regional culture of the border areas of the PRC has the so-called "visible" characteristics: a section of the Great Wall of China (located on the territory of Inner Mongolia); monuments and excavations of ancient primitive culture as material forms of national cultural heritage. Part of the cultural resources of the region is associated with the name of Genghis Khan: the mausoleum of Genghis Khan; the only temple of Genghis Khan in the world. Another attraction of the regional ethno-cultural landscape is one of the largest lamaist temples - Dazhao Monastery.

On the basis of the identified characteristics of the ethno-cultural landscape of the borderlands, it is also necessary to say about the purposeful activities of ethnic groups to include it in the culture of the region, and as a result, the impossibility of perceiving the landscape without relating it to it. That is why the ethno-cultural landscape of the borderlands, despite all its contradictory characteristics, must be considered in conjunction with the regional culture that forms it.

In the socio-cultural space of cross-border interaction between the Russian Federation and China, the study of ethno-cultural landscapes will help to answer the question: what is the role of the cultural uniqueness of the Russian border regions in the formation of cultural practices not only within their own country, but also in the global processes of cultural development. A systematic study of this process can become a conceptual basis for the implementation of the processes of complex translation of regional cultural elements to the border areas of China in order to prevent the increased influence of the Chinese cultural factor and preserve the cultural identity of the Russian border area.

After comparing the concepts of "regional culture" and "ethno-cultural landscape", we note that their relationship and interdependence is obvious. The landscape is the carrier of all the properties of the regional culture, mediated by the border position. Both categories are in constant active interaction. Representing their properties in the socio-cultural space of cross-border interaction, they mediate those cultural elements (norms, values, rules, traditions and properties expressed both spiritually and materially) that are inconceivable without their unity. One can speak of the ethno-cultural landscape as a direct projection of the regional culture, its reflection. The border ethno-cultural landscape is also mediated by the "living" nature of its space, which performs its functions not only through the connection of the past, present and future, but also through state borders, the question of the functions of which from the point of view of the socio-cultural aspect requires further development.

Literature
1. Vardomsky L.V. Border belt of Russia: problems and development trends // Russia and the modern world. 2000. No. 2.
2. Dirin D.A., Krasnoyarova B.A. Cultural and geographical features of the formation and functioning of the new frontier // World of science, culture, education. 2010. No. 6 (25).
3. History and culture of the peoples of Transbaikalia in the XVII-XIX centuries. Meeting of Peoples and Civilizations.
4. Cultural landscape as an object of heritage / Ed. Yu.A. Vedenina, M.E. Kuleshova. M., 2004. 620 p.
5. Lee Ping. Cultural regionalization in the context of intercultural interaction (on the example of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China). Chita, 2008. 21 p.
6. Lyapkina T.F. Architectonics of the cultural space of Eastern Siberia (late 17th - early 20th centuries): diss. … Dr. culturologist. St. Petersburg, 2007. 23 p.
7. Morozova V.S. The phenomenon of regional culture in the socio-cultural space of cross-border interaction between the Russian Federation and China. M., 2011. 224 p.
8. Smirnyagin L.V. Districts of the USA: a portrait of modern America. M., 1989. 384 p.
9. Shishkina A.A. Cultural space and cultural landscape as forms of reflection of culture // Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice. 2011. No. 7 (13).
10. Shishkina A.A. Values of the cultural landscape: history and modernity // Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Questions of theory and practice. 2011. No. 6 (12).

Art. publ.: Society and the state in China: T. XLIII, part 2 / Editorial: A.I. Kobzev and others - M .: Federal State Budgetary Institution of Science Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IV RAS), 2013. - 487 pages ( scholarly notes IV RAS. Department of China. Issue. 9 / Editorial: A.I. Kobzev and others). pp. 308-317.

Introduction

CHAPTER I. ETHNOCULTURAL LANDSCAPE: PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION AND STUDY

1.1. Theoretical and methodological foundations for studying the ethnocultural landscape 9

1.2. Structure and factors of formation of the ethno-cultural landscape of mountain territories 155

CHAPTER II. ETHNOGENETIC AND TERRITORIAL FEATURES OF THE FORMATION OF THE KARACHAY COMMUNITY

2.1. The history of the formation of the population of Karachay 20

2.2. Settlement evolution and historical regions of Karachay 277

CHAPTER III. FACTORS OF GEOCULTURAL DIFFERENTIATION OF KARACHAY

3.1. Natural factors 53

3.2. Social factors 72

CHAPTER IV. CULTURAL AND LANDSCAPE ZONING OF KARACHAY

4.1. Ethnocultural landscape area Big Karachay 89

4.2. Teberdinsky ethnocultural landscape area 99

4.3. Zelenchuksky ethnocultural landscape area 105

4.4. Ethnocultural landscape area Small Karachay 111

CONCLUSION 120

LITERATURE 124

APPENDIX 135

Introduction to work

The relevance of research. The Karachay-Cherkess Republic is a unique multicultural region of the North Caucasus, formed as a result of a historically long interaction of traditional ethno-cultural communities with the enclosing natural environment.

Karachays inhabit mainly the southern and eastern parts of the republic. Here, the primary natural environment has been preserved, which served as the basis for the formation of traditional forms of the original Karachai culture. The entry of Karachay into the sphere of influence of Russian and global cultures has led to a modification of traditional culture, its saturation with innovative elements.

The study of the spatial features of the formation and evolution of the traditional Karachai culture is a very relevant, practically unexplored problem. Conducting a cultural and geographical study of Karachay is possible on the basis of a cultural and landscape concept. In accordance with it, the formation of the cultural landscapes of Karachay can be represented as a process of arranging "their" space by the Karachays based on their own traditions and the sociocultural and natural environment surrounding them. Moreover, these landscapes can be classified as ethno-cultural, since the substrate basis for its formation is the rather distinguished Karachai ethnic group, which still reproduces many elements of traditional culture.

The study of the features of the formation of the ethnocultural landscape of Karachay in the 19th century. to the 30s of the XX century. is of particular interest because it allows:

4
* - to reveal the mechanisms of formation of the traditional structure of geo-

the cultural space of Karachay, which took place until the middle of the 19th century;

Determine the spatial characteristics of what happened in
late 19th early 20th centuries sociocultural change, more argumentative
assessed the impact of these changes;

Assess the possibilities of progressive, harmonious development of
e temporary ethnic culture of Karachay and preservation of ethno-cultural

the landscape as a whole.

Such studies make it possible to implement the historical principle in the study of modern geocultural space, contribute to the identification of relic "cultural elements of the region, which are the basis for identifying and preserving areas of cultural and natural heritage, moreover, they can become a scientific basis for the revival of elements of a living traditional culture, which ultimately As a result, it allows to preserve unique ethno-cultural landscapes.

Only in conditions of cultural diversity is it possible to preserve the cultural and natural gene pool of the regions. In the conditions of harmonious coexistence of traditional and innovative spheres of human activity, real prerequisites for the normal functioning of society, rational environmental management, and sustainable development of regions appear.

Objective: revealing the features of the formation of the structure of the ethno-cultural landscape of Karachay from the 19th century to the 30s. XX century.

Research objectives:

Identification of the factors of formation of the ethno-cultural landscape of Karachay at the end XIX- early XX cc;

5
^ - identification of the process of formation of ethno-cultural landscapes, and

as well as the changes that have taken place since the 19th century. to the 30s of the XX century;

Development of cultural and landscape zoning;

Object of study: geocultural space of Karachay.

Subject of study: processes and results of cultural and landscape differentiation of Karachay in the late 19th - early 20th centuries.

The main cognitive means of research is land-
\X^ Shaft modeling, through which landscapes are constructed

shaft images of the retrospective geocultural space of Karachay.

Theoretical and methodological basis and research methodology are: the concept of geospace (B.C. Preobrazhensky, E.B. Alaev, U.I. Mereste, S.Ya. Nymmik); landscape approach (V.S. Preobrazhensky, A.G. Isachenko); cultural and ethnographic concepts (E.S. Markaryan, Yu.V. Bromley), ideas about geocultural space (A.G. Druzhinin); cultural landscape approach and the concept of cultural landscape (Yu.A. Vedenin, R.F. Turovsky,

B.B. Rodoman, V.L. Kagansky), developments in the field of ethnocultural

landscape science (V.N. Kalutskov, A.A. Ivanova, A.V. Lysenko).

The research methodology is based on cultural-landscape, ecological and historical-geographical approaches, on general scientific methods - descriptive, comparative, historical, statistical, multivariate analysis, modeling, as well as on geographical - cartographic and zoning.

The information base consists of: ethnographic studies of the economy and culture of Karachay (A.A. Atamanskikh, E.M. Kulchaev, Kh.O. Laipanov, I.M. Miziev, V.P. Nevskaya, V.M. Sogoev, S.A. Khapaev);

statistical information, stock and archival materials, historical maps, as well as the results of our own research into the traditional culture of Karachay.

Scientific novelty of the work:

Based on the historical-geographical analysis of physical-geographical and ethno-social processes, the reconstruction of the cultural-landscape structure of the 19th - early 20th centuries on the territory of Karachay was carried out;

Evolution and dynamics of ethnocultural landscapes of Karachay are revealed;

The traditional ethnoecological toponymic system is described.
ma cultural landscapes of Karachay;

Thematic maps have been compiled that characterize the socio-cultural and natural processes that took place on the territory of Karachay;

Cultural and landscape zoning has been carried out.
Practical significance: use of research
possible:

To identify and restore heritage sites and territories, elements of the living traditional culture of Karachay;

As an integral part of special courses in cultural geography;

When developing socio-economic and socio-cultural programs for the development of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic;

As a methodological basis for further cultural and landscape research.

The following are defended the main provisions of the dissertation:

1. Features of the formation of geocultural space in the city

7 pax are: the stability of traditional forms of culture, which is associated with the closeness and high degree of isolation of the mountain area; limited and specific nature of the natural resource potential; as well as the predominance of vertical morphological structures.

The natural landscape structure of the region, together with the characteristics of traditional elements of culture, determined the organization of the spatial structure of the mountain ethno-cultural landscape, its centrality.

Historical factors determine the formation of 4 districts on the territory of Karachay, reflecting the dynamics of the cultural and landscape structure of the region in the period under study.

Socio-cultural factors (economic, demographic and political) contributed to the formation of a multi-layered structure of ethno-cultural landscapes with the identification of traditional and innovative layers of culture.

Based on the totality of natural, historical, economic, demographic and political features of spatial differentiation, a system of taxonomic units has been developed and cultural and landscape zoning has been carried out.

Approbation of work and publication. The main provisions of the work were reported at international, all-Russian and regional conferences: "Scientific session of teachers and graduate students" (Karachaevsk, 1998); "Scientific Conference of Young Scientists" (Nalchik, 1999); "All-Russian scientific teleconference "Biogeography at the turn of the XXI century" (Stavropol, 2001); "Sustainable development of mountain territories: problems of regional cooperation and regional policy of mountain regions". Abstracts of the IX International Conference (Vladikavkaz-

8 Kaz, 2001); round table "Russian civilization in the North Caucasus" (Stavropol, 2001); "University science - to the region" (Stavropol, 2000, 2001, 2002); as well as at meetings of scientific and methodological seminars of the Department of Physical Geography of the Karachay-Cherkess State Pedagogical University, Stavropol State University, Karachay-Cherkess Museum of Local Lore.

The materials of the dissertation were used in the preparation of the textbook for the secondary school "Geography of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic" (2000) and in the educational process when reading the course "Systems of Nature Management".

Work structure determined by the research methodology and corresponds to the tasks through which the research goal is realized. The work includes four chapters, a conclusion and an appendix.

It contains 134 pages of text, 9 figures, the list of references includes 120 titles.

9
^ CHAPTER I

ETHNOCULTURAL LANDSCAPE: PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION AND STUDY

1.1. Theoretical and methodological foundations for the study of the ethnocultural landscape

«} In the context of the deepening ecological crisis and exacerbation

socio-economic, political and ethnic problems, there is an increased interest of society in the basic regional culture. There comes an understanding that only in conditions of diversity of cultures, in the unity of traditional and innovative spheres of human activity, there are real prerequisites for the normal functioning of society and the rational use of natural resources. Rethinking the role of culture in the life of society is the core of the sociocultural approach, reflecting the emerging change in the very paradigm of sociocultural development: from technocentrism to culturecentrism. Consideration of the problems existing in modern Russian society through the prism of culturological ideas allows us to identify the roots of destructive social processes, as well as to determine the trends in their development.

10 traditional culture - the most important condition for sustainable, progressive development of society. It is no coincidence that in modern society there has been a significant increase in interest in the basic regional culture, the preservation and revival of which is becoming one of the most important factors in optimizing relationships in all spheres of public life.

An important property of culture is its regionality associated with the spatial and temporal localization of sociocultural processes. Of these, ethnic and sub-ethnic communities are the most interesting for research. The close ties of ethnic groups with natural landscapes were pointed out by L.N. Gumilyov, who defined ethnos as "... a geographical phenomenon, always associated with the enclosing landscape that feeds the adapted ethnos" . At the same time, the diversity of ethnic groups

linked to the diversity of natural landscapes of the Earth.

One of the most productive areas of geographical research of culture is becoming landscape science. Having historically originated as a branch of complex physical geography, the objects of which are complex natural, and then natural-anthropogenic systems - landscapes, landscape science is increasingly turning into a general geographical direction. Half a century ago, L.S. Berg interpreted the concept of "landscape" in a general geographical perspective. "Under the name of the geographical landscape - he wrote - one should understand the area in which the nature of the relief, climate, vegetation, wildlife, population and, finally, human culture merges into a single harmonious whole, typically repeating throughout the known (landscape) zone of the Earth" . Modern theoretical models and concepts aimed at identifying the patterns of formation, structure, functioning structure, dynamics and evolution, territorial differentiation and integration of landscapes should be widely used not only in natural sciences, but also in general geographic regional studies.

The concept of a cultural landscape is based on a humanitarian-ecological orientation and a landscape approach. The first is created taking into account its various connections with the natural and ethnic environment, the second

12 the swarm provides for its description and study of the "selection of spatial coordinates." The author of the concept of "cultural landscape" is the American geographer Karl Sauer.

AT foreign literature his ideas were developed by O. Schluter, K. Salter, T. Jordan, L. Rowntree and others. They understand the cultural landscape as an artificial landscape created by people in the process of settling the territory. In the Soviet and Russian schools, preference was given to the study of natural landscapes, and the cultural landscape was understood as its analogue, modified by man. The most serious works on the cultural landscape were published in the 1990s (Yu.A. Vedenin, V.L. Kagansky, V.N. Kalutskov, R.F. Turovsky, L.A. Ivanova, and others). Yu.A. Vedenin identifies two layers in the cultural landscape - cultural and natural. At the same time, the cultural layer includes layers of material culture, which creates the appearance of the landscape, and spiritual culture. The spiritual component is the invisible content of the cultural landscape. It is not expressed directly on the ground, but is present in the minds of people. "The cultural layer in the period of its accumulation becomes more and more significant in the landscape and over time becomes the dominant factor in its further development" .

Based on cultural methodology, landscape theory acquires a new, wider application within the framework developed by Yu.A. Vedenin of the general concept of the cultural landscape. It accumulates the best traditions of domestic landscape science, acquiring a leading role in the study of the relationship between society and nature. In this concept, the cultural landscape is interpreted as "... an integral and territorially localized set of matter, energy

13
H gee and information formed as a result of spontaneous applications

native processes, transformative and intellectual-creative activity of people" .

The cultural landscape is understood as the culture of the local community, formed as a result of its life activity in certain natural conditions, taken in its entirety.

The heuristic value of the concept of "landscape" is that, from its
.,\ power can describe complex complexes of phenomena that form-

on earth's surface. The cultural landscape has a component and territorial structure. Among the main components of the cultural landscape A.A. Ivanova says:

Natural landscape as its material basis;

economic activity as a factor of its change;

housing as a way of its spatial organization;

a community of people taken in its ethnological, social-family and other aspects;

language system;

spiritual culture (verbal, musical, visual, choreographic and other types of arts).

According to V.N. Kalutskov, the most important properties of the territorial structure of the cultural landscape are: centrality, hierarchy, polyscale, anisotropy.

In this study, the concepts of "geocultural space" and "cultural landscape" are considered as fundamental categories. Geocultural space is understood by us "as a natural combination of cultural objects synthesized from various elements (natural and social, material and ideal) formed as a result of geocultural processes.

14 formed as a result of geocultural processes (spatio-temporal manifestations of cultural genesis) ". The geographical individuals that make up the geocultural space are cultural landscapes. Their mosaic, hierarchy, internal structure reflect the organization of geocultural space.

The substratum basis for the isolation of cultural landscapes can be considered as spatially distinguished population groups with specific cultural characteristics. Spiritually-intellectually and materially-practically mastering the enclosing socio-natural space, these communities form an integral, integral set of natural and socio-cultural elements with a rather heterogeneous and unique structure, as well as with a special organization of space.

Of the diverse range of cultural landscapes that are formed on the basis of regional cultures, ethnocultural landscapes are of the greatest interest, both scientific and practical, since to this day, especially in the North Caucasus region, the geocultural space is largely differentiated on the basis of ethnic specificity. Moreover, in conditions of political and socio-economic instability, the role of the ethnic factor in the organization of the geocultural space increases significantly. As before, ethnic characteristics remain invariant for many modern cultural landscapes of the Caucasus.

Ethnocultural landscape - this is a space mastered by the ethno-cultural community, where pronounced forms of traditional culture have developed, having cultural isolation and slight integration with a foreign cultural environment.

15 1.2. Structure and factors of formation of ethno-cultural landscapes of mountain territories

The process of formation of cultural landscapes in the mountains differs significantly from that in the plains. In the mountains, the development of this process is less dynamic. This is due, firstly, to the closeness and high degree of isolation of the mountain area, which contributes to the formation of sustainable forms of traditional culture. Secondly, with the specificity and limitation of the resource potential of natural landscapes, which form a limited number of options for nature management. And thirdly, it determines the specifics of structuring such a space with a predominance of vertical structures, that is, altitudinal belts.

The processes of ethnogenesis, the formation of material and spiritual culture in the mountains to a greater extent than on the plains depended on natural landscapes. In this situation, as a methodological category, you can use the concept places, which is characterized by indivisibility (integrity), orientation towards uniqueness and historicity. Due to its indivisibility, the place makes it possible to "keep" natural and cultural processes in their totality, which is especially important for ethnogenesis. The place is environmentally friendly, as "it is conceived as a potential home, as something that can accommodate a person, become a home" .

Another basic concept of geocultural space is the local community, which is understood as a socio-cultural or ethno-cultural territorially limited community of people who are aware of themselves as a whole. It is characterized by a "community of people", "place-

territory" within certain boundaries, social interaction and a sense of community.

The emerging ethnic community begins to equip "its own space". The spatial organization of a particular cultural landscape is largely determined by the traditions of the local community, the characteristics of the natural landscape and the local economy..

The territorial structure of the ethnocultural landscape is associated with differences from place to place, features of geospace, and territorial differentiation of cultures. A constructive basis for studying the territorial differences in the cultural landscape can be the idea of ethnocultural landscape area as part of the living space of an ethnic group of the population that has formed in an enclosing differentiated mountainous natural environment and has a certain set of morphological units in an ethnocultural landscape area, two groups are formed territorial complexes, which are superimposed on each other:

Territorial cultural and natural, where the natural factor determines the cultural;

Local natural and cultural, where the cultural component plays a system-forming role (settlements, places of worship and

As cultural and natural morphological units, reflecting the territorial heterogeneity of the region, high-altitude belts, terrains and tracts are distinguished.

cultural and natural altitudinal belts form the basis of the spatial structure of mountain regions. They arise on the basis

17 natural high-altitude belts and form the main types of nature management. Cultural and natural areas are understood as parts of the living space of the altitudinal belt of a separate group of an ethnocultural community, "attached" to a certain place and united by a common destiny and a sense of community.

Cultural and natural tracts - part of the living space of a certain tribal group of the population, which has different functional

other purpose: economic (hayfields, pastures, logging), religious, recreational, etc.

Natural and cultural complexes are the basis of the centralization of space, representing nuclear or nuclear according to A.Yu. Reteyumu system, where an active role is played by the cultural principle. An example of such a complex is the village of Uchkulan, where the process of formation of tribal groups and the traditional culture of the Karachay ethnos was going on.

In the works of A.V. Lysenko distinguishes two groups of factors that play an important role in the formation of ethno-cultural landscapes: natural and socio-cultural (social in the broad sense of the word).

The natural component of the ethno-cultural landscape is most pronounced in the production culture and the culture of direct life support. In the first case, the natural landscape acts as a resource base (natural resource factor) of production activity, in the second - as an environment-forming factor that affects the physiological parameters of the organism.

All factors of cultural genesis associated with the social essence of a person in the broadest sense of the word can be attributed to sociocultural ones. These include various types of social relations, specific ways of their implementation, to one degree or another affecting territorial organization culture. Economic, demographic and political factors can be combined into the group of the most important sociocultural factors.

The formation of ethno-cultural landscapes of Karachay is studied by combining natural, socio-cultural, incl. external and internal factors into two groups:

cultural and landscape integration, which characterizes the saturation of geocultural formations with backbone elements (components of the dominant ethnic culture);

cultural and landscape local differentiation that forms the morphology of the ethnocultural landscape (cultural and natural components).

The formation of ethno-cultural landscapes of the mountainous territories of the North Caucasus is the result of a historically long-term interaction of socio-cultural communities of the traditional type with the enclosing living space.

Obviously, the most important factor in the isolation of the cultural landscapes of the region was the internal socio-cultural factors (traditional ethnic culture) and the factors of the natural environment closely related to them. Natural-ethnic regionalism manifested itself in the formation of separate cultural-specific systems.

The close connection of traditional culture (especially industrial) with the natural environment determined the formation of certain

19 types of adaptive systems of nature management. To an even greater extent, geocultural regionalism was influenced by the stability of traditional sociostructural culture, determined by strong tribal ties and patriarchal-feudal relations. Social isolation, supplemented in mountainous areas by natural barriers, determined the development of original cultural forms clearly expressed in space. Their considerable diversity is the result of the influence of external socio-cultural and partly natural factors.

"*sCHAPTER II

ETHNOGENETIC AND TERRITORIAL FEATURES OF THE FORMATION OF THE KARACHAYEV

GENERALITIES

2.1. The history of the formation of the population of Karachay

> . Karachays - self-name of the people - Karachayly. Origin

The names are explained on behalf of the legendary ancestor of the Karachays - Karchi. Studies of linguists, archaeologists, ethnographers, historians have shown that the process of formation of the Karachay-Balkarian people was difficult due to historical conditions. Not one, but several components took part in it, while maintaining, however, the local ethnic core. The main core is the highlanders of the Caucasus, who have lived here since ancient times. Subsequently, Iranian-speaking and Turkic-speaking tribes were layered on the core.

21 to the XVII early XVIII c., are known on the southern outskirts of the village of Kart-Dzhurt and in other places. In the same graves, their dead and their distant ancestors, who lived in the Koban and late Koban times on the territory of Karachay, were buried.

So, the appearance of the Karachais, their physical type and way of life, ways of housekeeping, housing, clothing, material and spiritual culture - everything speaks of their mountainous, Caucasian origin.

In the Middle Ages, North Caucasian Alania was inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups with in different languages and culture. Medieval authors often called "Alans" not only the Alans themselves,

23 but in general all the inhabitants of Alanya. The Alanian language became the ancestor of the Ossetian language, the Alans were one of the components in the formation of the Ossetian people. But this does not mean that the Alans were the ancestors of only the Ossetians. Research by scientists shows that the Sarmatian-Alans played a certain role in the formation of the Adyghe-Meotian tribes, the Vainakh peoples - Chechens and Ingush, as well as Karachays and Balkars.

Turkic tribes began to live in the upper reaches of the Kuban from the 6th-7th centuries. BC. So, it is known that in 568 the Turks of the Western Turkic Khaganate, sent as ambassadors to Byzantium, to the Black Sea, passed through the possessions of the Alans along the upper reaches of the river. Kofiny (Kuban). Since the 7th century, after the collapse of the Bulgarian state of Kubrat, some part of the Bulgarians settled in the territory of Karachay-Cherkessia, in particular, in the Dzheguta river basin and in the Kislovodsk region, as evidenced by archaeological monuments of the late 7th-12th centuries. - Kyzyl-Kala settlement, ancient settlement on Rim-mountain, etc., on which boilers with internal ears were found, which, according to many, belonged

24 scientists, Bulgarians. The Bulgarians spoke one of the Turkic languages. Samples of Bulgarian writing have been preserved. Turkic inscriptions are also known on the territory of Karachay-Cherkessia. These are the runes of the IX-X centuries. Khumarinsky settlement.

In the Karachay language there are some signs of the language of the Bulgarians, although they are very weak. Judging by the studies of anthropologists, the Karachays and Balkars have some similarities with the type of the ancient Bulgarians, although they belong to a different anthropological type than the Bulgarians.

The Turkic-speaking tribes that settled in the upper reaches of the Kuban and Zelenchuk and in more eastern regions could not live in isolation from the local tribes surrounding them. In particular, they could pass on their language to some part of the local population, including Alanian.

The facts of linguistic Turkization of a certain part of the Iranian-speaking Alans in the 7th-10th centuries. took place. Thus, the Khorezm scholar al Biruki (973-1048) reports that the Alans or Ases previously lived together with the Pechenegs along the lower reaches of the Amu Darya. After this river changed its course, they moved to the shores of the Khazar (Caspian) Sea. The language of these Alans-As, according to Biruka, is mixed, originated from Khorezmian and Pecheneg. The Khorezmian language, as you know, is Iranian, the Pecheneg language is Turkic. Thus, in the X century. some part of the Alans, who lived in the Caspian region, passed from the Iranian language to the Turkic.

Most likely, this is exactly what happened in the mountainous regions of Kara-chay. Turkization of some part of the Alanian and pre-Alanian population, who lived in the mountains of Karachay, began with the arrival of the Bulgarians and other Turks

25
S from the VI-VII centuries. n. e. It becomes especially distinct in the IX-X centuries, which

when the Turkic writing appears in these places.

The penetration of the Kipchaks into these regions (XI-XIII centuries) did not weaken, but consolidated the Turkic-speaking population and contributed to the almost complete displacement of the Iranian and pre-Iranian (Caucasian) languages in these places.

So, the Turks, who penetrated the territory of Karachay-Cherkessia and more eastern regions before the arrival of the Kipchaks, played a certain role in the formation of the Karachay people. In particular, they marked the beginning of the linguistic Turkization of the Alanian and pre-Alanian ancestors of the Karachays.

From the 11th century Kipchaks (Polovtsy, Cumans) entered the foothill regions of Karachay-Cherkessia. This is evidenced by the Kipchak archaeological monuments of the XI-XII centuries. - stone babas and mounds in the area of the village of Ispravnaya, near the villages of Tallyk, Kubina, Ikon-Khalk and in other places. In significant numbers, the Kipchaks settled in the mountains and foothills of Karachay-Cherkessia in the 13th century, after the Mongol invasion. The fact that part of the Kipchaks, fleeing from the Mongols in 1222, penetrated into the mountains, is reported by a contemporary of these events, the Arab author Ibi al Asir. The Kipchaks, who penetrated the mountains of the North-Eastern Caucasus, took part in the ethnogenesis of the Kumyks. The Kipchaks, who settled in the mountains of Karachay and to the east, were one of the components in the formation of the Karachay people.

Archaeological studies show that some types of Karachay burials (with oval mounds of stones) of the Kart-Dzhurt burial ground of the 17th - early 18th centuries. and Ullu-Kama burial mounds of the XIV-XVI centuries. are genetically related to the Kipchak burial mounds.

26 buried burials.

Anthropological studies have shown that with the advent of the Kipchaks, there were no special changes in the anthropological type of the pre-Kipchak population of Karachay.

We find some data on the connection between the material and spiritual culture of the Karachais and the culture of the Kipchaks in ethnographic material. Thus, many motifs of ornaments decorating the Karachai felt-kiiz continue the traditions of the Kipchak ornament. The custom of making patterned felt-kiiz was not typical for the Alans, as well as for the North Caucasian highlanders. Therefore, this custom comes from the Kipchak ancestors of the Karachays.

Thus, the Kipchaks introduced elements of their material and spiritual culture into the culture of the local population. They did not change the anthropological type of the local population (the local Caucasian type turned out to be the most stable and, despite the inclusion of foreign elements, continued to be preserved), the language brought to the mountains by the Kipchak newcomers defeated those languages that could be heard here before the arrival of the Kipchaks.

Therefore, the process of formation of the Karachay people can be represented in a brief scheme as follows:

1. The main core is the local mountain tribes who lived in the mountains
Karachay from ancient times, starting with the Koban tribes, since
they left archaeological remains belonging to
koban culture.

At the end of the IV century. the Alans were layered on this core.

From the VI-VII centuries. Turkic-speaking tribes - Bulgarians, etc. began to penetrate here. The Turkization of some part of the Koban-Alan

27
^ population.

4. C XI in. Kipchaks began to settle here. In greater numbers, they penetrated the mountainous regions in the first quarter XIII in. With the advent of the Kipchaks, the linguistic Turkification of the local Koba-no-Alan population, already to some extent previously Turkicized, was completed.

FROM XIII-XIV centuries Karachays had their own language, which belonged to
i , the languages of the Kipchak group, the commonality of the mental warehouse and culture

ry; there was also a well-known territorial community.

Later, on the basis of the ancient Karachay people, modern Karachays began to form. About the resettlement of Karachays in XVIIIin. we find data from I. Gildenstedt. According to his description, Karachay "lies near the top of the Kuban and is adjacent to the west to the Abaza district of Bashilbay, and to the south - to Svaneti. On the east side, it is separated by the Chalpak mountain range from the Kabardians living on Baksan" (Fig. 1) .

2.2. Settlement evolution and historical regions of Karachay

The territorial structure of the ethno-cultural landscape of Karachay bears the stamp of the historical past. On the territory of Karachay by the end XIX in. the following historical regions are distinguished: a) Big Karachay, b) Teberda Gorge, c) Zelenchuksky d) Small Karachay.

a) Big Karachay with the traditional (basic) culture, where tribal settlement was formed. Uchkulan, located in the Makhar Gorge, in the valley of the Uchkulan River, was the center of the Greater

28 .

Karanaya. Ethnology characterizes this in two ways. The first explanation of the name of the village is connected with its late origin - it arose after Kart-Dzhurt and Khurzuk - the third comrade (uch, yuch - three; ulan - comrade). If we proceed from the geographical location of this village, then another version looks convincing; This village is located at the junction of three gorges of Khurzuk (Khurzuk Ezen), Uchkulansky (Uchkulan Ezen) and Kuban. Uchkulan consisted of thirty-two tiire (quarters).

In Uchkulan lived:

Akbaevs X/ .

Tokmak (1), Mazan (2), Yakup (6); Osman - Khadzhi (7) - also have the surname of the Kyzylalievs or Ezievs; Akhmat (3), Moussa (2), Ishak (4), Jumuk (5), Elmyrza (2), Choppa (2), Hasan (2), Zekerya (2), Ahya (3), Mohammed (1), Jankhot (5), Musost (5), Islam (3), Kudaynat (2), Tokhdar (5), Batyrbiy (1), Solman (5). There are 21 families in total.

Kochkarovs

Smail-efendi (4) - as a former qadi of the people's court, he received a plot of land of 200 acres; Ali-Soltan (6), Crimea (3), Tau-Soltan (2), Temir-Soltan (2), Zabit-Soltan (1), Achau (5), Mahai (5), Teyrikul (5), Soltan ( 1), Batyr (4), Batcha (2), Adik (1), Zekerya (4), Osman (3), Ka-lagery (8), Konali (2), Aryk (1), Sarybiy (1), Shabbat (3), Ishak (5), Kaltur (4), Idris (4), Sadanuk (5), Daulet-Gery (1), Crimea (3), Dagir (2), Husey (4), Ramadan (4 ), Makhmut (3), Karbatyr (4), Tau-Soltan (4). There are 32 families in total.

Geriy (3), Abuchay (5), Chubur (2), Khabcha (2), Myrzakul (3), Moussa (3), Khurtai (4), Kuchuk (3), Myrzakay (2), Moussa (2), Akai (6), Akhmat (6), Chopelleu (4), Kulcha (7), Temir-Aliy (5), Dzhantemir (2), Mamush (4), Mamsur (3), Jambolat (3), Mohammed (3 ), Shogaib (2), Koban (2), Taulu (2), Zeke (1), Tau Myrza (4), Nogay (1), Umar (6), Osman (6), Shontuk (3), Usein ( 3). There are 30 families in total.

Bayramkulovs

Jasharbek (3), Mazan (3), Chubur (3), Girtu (3), Aslan (3), Dagir (3), Katur (2), Soltan (3), Tokhdar (5), Sosurka (2), Biyaslan (1), Daut (1), Aslan (2), Barak (2), Ali (2), Tokhdar (3), Ali (1), Aslan-bek (1), Datta (1), Jarashdy (5 ), Idris (4), Kuzhmakhan (4), Tukum (3), Crimea (3), Astemir (3), Sulemen (1), Nago (1), Hadji Mohammed (4), Alibiy (1), Taulu (1), Tokhdar (1), Bechu (3), Kemal (3). Hadji-Gery (3), Kham-zat (5), Salty (1), Usein (2), Islam (4), Debosh (4), Idris (4), Kulchor (3), Moussa (3). There are 42 families in total.

Myrzaevs

Barak (2), Chotcha (2), Mustafa (3), Gemu (3), Shamakhe (2), Mahai (2), Gery (1), Mohammed (1), Kanshau (1). There are 9 families in total.

Kobaevs

Hadji Magomed (12), Zeke (1), Ismail (1), Ahya (1), Ali-Soltan (7). There are 5 families in total.

^ Number of children in brackets.

Gappoevs

Kudenet (2), Davletuko (2), Umar (2), Tokhchuk (2), Sulemen (2), Soltan (4), Khusin (3), Binoger (1), Moussa (5). There are 9 families in total.

Byttaevs

Mamush (2), Iskhak (2), Smail (3), Tinibek (1), Bayramuk (1), Alisa (2), Aslanmyrza (2), Batyr-Myrza (2), Ozaruk (4), Karakush ( 3), Semyon (1), Kulcha (1), Sokka (1), Binoger (3), Aubekir (3), Hadji-Bekir (2). There are 16 families in total.

Albotovs

Umar (1), Soltan (1), Qazi (1), Ahya (1), Koban (1). There are 5 families in total. Separated from the Bostanovs.

Kipkeevs

Ahya (4), Ishak (5), Daut (1), Tau-Soltan (3), Bayramali (1), Bai-ram (2), Hadji-Mohammed (7), Hadji-Yakub (4), Soltan ( 4), Myrzakul (I), Sulemen (1), Uzeyir (3), Smail (3), Shamail (4), Haji Islam (3), Tauchu (1), Daut (1), Musost (4), Mamsur (4), Aslan (1), Akhmat (4), Kudenet (4), Elmyrza (2), Smail (4), Bida (1), Girgoka (2), Makhmut (3), Daut (1), Hajay (1), Shogayib (1), Sulemen (4), Azhay (4), Idris (3). There are 34 families in total.

Janibekovs

Salim-Gery (7), Smail (2), Salman (3), Ali-Soltan (6), Elmyr-

31
^ for (2), Daulet (3), Islam (2), Dommai (2), Soltan (2), Bagichi (4), Mazan

(9), Kulchora (2), Myrzabek (5), Islam (4), Kulcha (1), Sulemen (4), Kazn (5), Orazai (2), Shogay (2), Smail (2), Akhmat (3), Temir (3), Bek-Soltan (2), Kulchora (1), Jangan (4), Yakub (3), Hadji-Myrza (1), Ali-Soltan (4), Myrtaz (2), Myrza (2), Nauruz (2), Daut (2), Bashchi (1), Tukum (1). There are 34 families in total.

і . Korkmazovs

Idris (6), Ali-Soltan (2), Koichu (1), Iskhak (4), Yakub (1), Asker (1), Kaspot (4), Gilyastan (7), Tau-Soltan (2), Tugan (3), Konali (2), Ismail (3), Debosh (3), Issali (1), Jammolat (3), Ahya (1), Musost (2), Elmyrza (1). Saramyrza (5), Hasan-haji (5), Shabat (1), Taukan (1), Jasharbek (1), Mustafa (4), Mamsur (3), Moussa (2), Imbolat (4), Daulet-Gery (2), Agyrdzhan (4), Aslan (1), Kagshan-Geriy (2), Temirdzhan (2), Alibiy (2), Shogai (1), Mohammed (2), Sulemen (2), Yusuf ( 1), Mohammed (1). There are 38 families in total.

Cantons

^ Bora (9), Ibrahim (12), Yakub (2), Chubur (7), Mustafa (1), Batyr

(one). There are 6 families in total.

The following tribal quarters were located in the central Uchkulan: the Kipkeevs, the Kochkarovs, the Korkmazovs, the Albotovs, the Kaitovs, the Bairamukovs, the Kubanovs, and the Akbaevs.

Upper Uchkulan is located in the floodplain of the Mahar River. The following quarters are mainly located here:

32 Mamchuevs

Orman (3), Batyr-Gery (3), Issa (6), Moussa (3), Mustafa (1), Salad (1), Jammolat (3), Unukh (3). There are 8 families in total.

Bijievs

Jasharbek (5), Inaluk (5), Yakub (4), Issa (2), Hussein (5), Ismu (4), Kara (3), Shogayib (2), Hadji-Zekerya (4), Temir (4) ), Aslan-Myrza (2), Shontuk Shemakho (6), Soltan (I), Mazan (2), Umar (2), Akhya (2), Akhmat (2), Matai (2), Musost (1), Daut (3), Seit (3), Aslan (9), Kude-net (4), Kaplan (4), Shontuk (5), Soltan (2), Tambiy (2), Kekkez (I), Yunus (I ), Osman (2), Basiyat (2), Crimea (1), Kulchor (1), Ahya (3), Batyrsha (3), Kanshau (3), Oraz (3), Ganja (3), Ibak (1), Sandals (1), Mustafa (2), Chotcha (2), Achau (1), Mamsur (1). There are 44 families in total.

Salpagarovs

(part of the surname lived in the village of Kart-Dzhurt on the left bank of the Kuban River)

Lieutenant Kerta (5) - as an officer received a plot of land of 200 acres; Ramadan (4), Ishaq (5), Bagish (7), Idris (4), Ali-Soltan (5), Hadji-Murza Yusup (1), Chukhma (2), Tomai (1), Orma (10), El-Myrza (8), Misir (2), Soltan (1), Biy-Bolat (5), Tokhdar (2), Islam (3), Yunus (3), Jantemir (2), Suleme Janibek (8), Gaima (8), Idris (3), Ishak (2), Kara (2), Eldaur (5), Ahya (2) Tau-Myrza (4), Umar (1), Baira (1), Kanshau (1) , Umar (3), Nauruz (1), Urazai (5), Yakup (3), Mustafa (2), Issa (3), Tau-Soltan (4), Taulu (5). There are 39 families in total.

Kecherukovs

The number of children in the family.

33 Yusup (7), Issa-Khadzhi (I), Kara-Mussa (1), Yunus (1), Jammolat (2), Smail (1), Teke (4), Mazan (2), Akhmat (2), Ahya (I). There are 10 families in total.

Urusovs

Shabat (1), Ahya (2), Khushtai (2), Chubur (2), Koban (5), Ilyas (1), Alibek (2), Usta (3), Makhmut (5), Akhmat (3), Myrzakul (7), Teke (1), Yusuf (I), Jammolat (7), Kara-Hadji (7), Bekmyrza (7), Hadji-Ismail (7), Yakub (1) Aslan (2), Adzhi- Gery (1), Hussein (1), Urazai (1), Soltan (1), Qozu (2), Kalmamet (2), Abdullah (2), Asstakku (1), Abdrakhman (1), Baranuko (5), Kaytuk (5), Semyon (2), Tokhtar (2), Hasan (4), Dahir (I), Kanshauka (3), Mamsur (4), Moussa (5), Teyrikul (4), As-lanbek (5 ), Myrzabek (5), Iskhak (5), Sosran (8). There are 43 families in total.

Bashlaevs

Haji-Osman Dottai ulu (6) and Moussa Dottai ullu (3).

Turklievs

Mohammed (1) and Batal (2).

Bostanov

Ali (12) - as a deputy of the people's court, he received a plot of land of 200 acres; Bostan (6), Issa (4), Khanuko (1), Jarashty (1), Inaluk (5), Konali (1), Issali (5), Kulcha (1), Karabuga (4), Islam (4), Hadji-Idris (6), Kazi (2), Karabiy (4), Salman (2), Ishak (3), Bostan (3), Janukku (2), Hassan (4), Hasan (3), Kambulat (9), Crimea (8), Tokhdar (4). There are 23 families in total.

34 Appachaevs

Janibek (8), Ahya (1), Bekir (1), Tauchu (1), Daut (2), Jamal (2), Akhmat (1), Jarashty (1), Chomay (1), Aydabul (1), Nogay (3), Tugan (1), Jagafar (1). There are 13 families in total.

Aibazovs

Kulcha (9), Yusuf (3), Sulemen (4), Ishak (5), Kudai (3), Bayramali (3), Tenebek (1), Mamsur (3), Barak (5), Tokhdar (5), Nauruz (5), Temir (6), Salim-Geriy (1), Khurtai (4), Semyon (2), Gerii (2); Tau-Soltan (5), Sulemen (3), Kul-chora (3), Ahya (6), Konay (3), Mustafa (1), Bayruk (3), Barak (3), Khamzat (3), Chersakku (3), Ishaq (3), Mazan (3). There are 28 families in total.

Umarovs (Jernesovs)

Iskhak (1), Janmyrza (1), Yakub (4), Mohammed (1), Kalmyrza (1), Jiju (3). Only families.

Katchievs

Akhmat (3), Mahmut (3), Sokka (7), Jarashdy (1), Kamgot (1), Tau-soltan (1), Ali-Soltan (1), Crimea (1). There are 8 families in total.

Tebuevs

Kurmanali (3), Akmyrza (1), Mohammed (2), Ismail (2), Aisa (6), Zekerya (4), Khusin (6), Moussa (2), Alibek (3), Myrzabek (4), Taulu (4), Aslan-Geri (4). There are 12 families in total.

Urtenovs

35 Ahya (2), Osman (2), Moussa (2), Soltan (1), Smail (1), Salman (3), Maza (4), Khamzat (2), Maho (2), Umar (3) , Islam-Haji (2), Aubekir (3), Kudai (3), Chotcha (1), Smail (1), Yunus (4), Tokmak (1). There are 17 families in total.

Suyunbaevs

Akhmat (6), Osman (6), Ishaq (2), Taulu (2), Kazn (2). There are 5 families in total.

Khabichev: Shamai (1).

The most numerous family in the village were the Urusovs, who made up half of the population of Uchkulan. It was in the tiira of the Urusovs that one of educated people pre-revolutionary Karachay Ullu-Hadji (chief Hadji) - Husey Urusov. It was he who led the entire business relationship of Karachay with the outside world.

Kunbet or Kyldy - ten tribal tiire lived here:

Tekeyevs

Nesa (2), Jarashty (2), Batyk (5), Matke (1), Tokmak (2), Khusin (4), Khasan (2), Kasai (1), Khusin (1), Mamsur (4), Mohammed (3), Jashar-bek (3), Kr'lu Gery (1), Urusbiy (2), Barak (1), Issa (1), Jarashty (2), Uzeir (2), Aslambek (1), Maksut ( 1), Semyon (1), Binoger (2), Gemu (2), Ahya (2), Dzhambulat (2), Matai (4), Batyrsha (2), Musost (5), So-shit (6), Kazi (7), Hadji Basiyat (7), Shidak (2), Balta (4), Idris (3), Kaltur (1), Kulcha (1), Moussa (1), Myrtaz (6), Shmau (5 ), Gokhdar (3), Islam (7), Mohammed (3), Kara (4), Mohammed Kazanchi Ulu (2). Total 4

36 families.

Tambievs

Yusuf (3), Umar (3), Shogaib (3), Soltan (2), Batyrsha (1), Idris (1), Barak (2), Osman (3), Attu (4), Hassan (4), Teyrikul (6), Kudenet (2), Shogayib (2), Akhmat (2), Bineger (4), Akbiy (1), Smail (1), Shamail (1), Mohammed (6), Makhmut (5 ), Daut (4), Kaltur (5), Debosh (6), Smail (3), Shamai (1) Issa (1), El-Myrza (1), Chotcha (1). There are 28 families in total.

Kappushevs

Khusin (1), Alkhaz (4), Magafyr (5), Sulemen (3), Myrtaz (9), Kuchuk (9), Elmyrza (9), Sokka (9), Soltan (1), Kulchora (3), Taulu (1), Islam (2), Hadji-Iyrza (3), Tokhdar (1), Shidak (1), Kanshauka (1), Biy-Soltan (4), Mohammed Gerii (1), Urazai (3), Sheriff (3), Mahmut (5), Konali (1), Shogaib (5), Alisa (3), Yunus (4), Mudalif (2), El Myrza (1), Smail (6), Mamsur (1) . There are 29 families in total.

Battievs

Myrtaz (7), Sulemen (1), Shetukh (1), Uzeyir (1), Issa (2), Sajuk (4), Soslan (2), Biy-Myrza (3), Ahya (1), Iragim (1) ), Yakub (3), Otar (2), Nakush (2). There are 13 families in total.

Baichorovs

Junker Ozhay (3) - received a piece of land for merit in 300 acres; Buchai (6), Jamai (5), Esen (5), Semyon (5), Eldar (2), Astakku (1), Kerty (1), Chubur (3), Shontuk (3), Moussa (1), Makhush (2), Tauchu (1), Chakku (2), Chopan (1), Essava (1), Inaluk (3), Karakush (3), Chotcha (3),

37
^ Jarashty (3), Kurmanali (3), Aslanuko (4), Batyrsha (6), Tau-Myrza

(2), Chopelleu (2) Basiyat (4), Matai (1), Saralyp (4), Kaltur (2), As-lan-Myrza (1), Taulu (4), Biymurza (3), Alibek (3 ), Tau-Soltan (3), Jammolat (8), Tatau (1), Ali (3). There are 37 families in total.

Erkenovs

Anna (2), Tapipin (4), Khusin (2), Karali (3), Hadjali (5), Musost
((3), Bagichi (2), Soltan (2), Jasharbek (2), Kushay (2), Tokhdar (2), So-

Ltan (2), Tau-Myrza (2), Benjali (2), Sosurko (3), Daut (4), Issali (3) Temirali (2), Misir (4), Akhmat (1), Barak (3) , Jatta (4), Bakku (3), Hocha (3), Binoger (3), Elmyrza (5), Kaltur (3), Urazai (3), Tab-shin (2), Solman (2), Yakub ( 2), Konai (3), Sharakh-mat (4), Anna (1), Kanshao (3), Maho (3), Kamgut (2), Sandals (4), Bagichi (1), Kudai (2), Hassan (1), Tau-Myrza (1), Alibiy (1), Kaltur (4), Ahya (4), Zekerya (3), Yunus (3), Kaplan-Geriy (3), Nana (2), Jammolat (4), Mohammed (6). There are 51 families in total.

Dolaevs

Juka (8), Demmo (3), Mahmut (2), Jammolat (2) Kulchor (2). There are 5 families in total. Separated from the Erkenovs.

Shidakovs

Osman (3), Hasan (9), Akhmat (3), Baranuk (2), Kanshau (1), Sulemen (2), Mohammed (2), Yunus (8), Chotcha (3), Behtu (1), Tokmak (2), Tengiz-Biy (2), Tu-gan (2), Ozhai (6), Zekerya (4), Alisa (5), Umar (7), Akhmet (2), Ibrai (2), Daut (1), Ahya-Hadji (4). There are 21 families in total.

38 Dotduevs

Jayylgan (3), Sulemen (I), Mazan (2), Tokhdar (3), Shontuk (7), Moussa (2), Balua (2), Ali (2), Konali (2), Myrzakul (2), Barrack (1). There are 11 families in total.

Semenovs

Shontuk (2), Sulemen (4), Ahya (2), Akkyzha (1), Khusin (1), Saralysh (3), Kala-Geriy (1), Akhmat (1), Akbash (1), Yunus (1), Bekmyrza (1), Nauruz (6) Alice (5), Moussa (5), Ibrahim (5), Moussa (5), Osman (2), Hadji-Umar (5), Yakub (8), Zekerya (1), Kudenet (1), Ahya (1), Ma-tai (3), Moussa (3), Tuga (3), Smail (3), Jankir (3), Tatar (2), Amai (2 ), Mohammed (3), Idris (4), Zekerya (3). There are 32 families in total.

Abaevs- no data.

In Kart-Dzhurt and in Khurzuk, the resettlement was the same. The exact settlement scheme was given by Islam Tambiev (Fig. 2).

Geographically, the quarterly village was divided into several parts: Lower Uchkulan (teben Uchkulan), Upper Uchkulan (ogary Uchkulan) and Kyun bet or Kyldy.

Lower Uchkulan (teben Uchkulan) under this common name usually united Lower Uchkulan and Central Uchkulan (Ara Uchkulan). Central Uchkulan is located at the confluence of the Uchkulan and Ullu-Kam rivers. The aul received this name after the abolition of serfdom in Karachai; in the 70s of the XIX century. Uchkulan became the central village of Karachay instead of Kart-Jurt, and administrative institutions moved here, to the new capital of Karachay.

aabout

a oh oh oh

StYu Ya

.1 Ikhoretskaya
oDrkhangeloskaya
Maporossiyskaya \

PedIedovskaya ^^ /ka8azskaya\

>«*«_. * ^ "^ tg/рLadoga & %*/*»..

sC Іrochnookopskaі shd bropoal
YrnaViry?^ --0 e .--^

With ud w at k-cape) 4b

Gelendzhik\?

coastal ^-^ofiuxaunoBckoe

"^ ^C\ ^\-2^NfcT* \ іOborsikobskaya 3

% / v "*1 Jfїї h

-*v\m\ z-A^ / bshmechvtekaya X

Opogimskoye VepyaminoVskoye

/L LI / \ V

(Iazarevskii GopoVinskyi

[some

Kuban >S5 4 -J^~* b Dakho8ur%>

І Vtstarpashinokaya _,. "Sen/5

HELLA RESETTLEMENT

MOUNTAIN NAROLOV IN THE FIRST HALF

A6X43U6/Svans

plХ1Х CENTURY

- borders of Karachay

_. ON NEVSKY V.P. (19

se-mekob

29 TPegSveby

shidatsooy
" would

є would "

zo olasvy zі erteenoby 32 1>аі5 wopoow

І ?

KmpksoAy "LZHONILsgso&y akLgSpy K" or.kmaZoyy TeGa u pґ "-m to y / \ o B (.i

akyslvly

)С00ГжЄбІ kdand TP about g> s n.poo mofiiii

І and 1 її Tootslios

,03 1

from Oubzobi

UIt*.MGKOOhl

П?(?Оі/еКм

SHSLk.L MO&M I

їv Salpayararog>s

19 KeyCPVKOObt

20 vаоїіchpb"

21 LOІЇPGdіSONіN 92 L( g * x "/" Vdfitn

2L YudZapchikoAm

Rice. 2. Scheme of the location of the village of Uchkulan in the Karachaev Autonomous District according to generic characteristics (1862).

RUSSIAN
STATE
41 | LIBRARY

The following main groups of clans were located here: Ak-baevs, Kochkarovs, Adzhievs, Bairamkulovs, Myrzaevs, Kobaevs, Gap-poevs, Byttaevs, Albotovs, Kipkeevs, Dzhanibekovs.

The most densely populated part of Ogara Uchkulan was the quarters of the Aibazovs, Urusovs, Tebuevs, and Shailievs. There was a shortage of hayfields, land for plowing and water for irrigation. Therefore, irrigation canals from the Uchkulan River approached these quarters.

The rapid growth of the population of the quarters dictated the need to separate some large clans, as a result of which new tiires (quarters) were formed. This is especially characteristic of Uchkulan, where there were several such clans. The quarters located in the Kun-Bet area had the advantage that they were warmed up by the sun earlier than the Upper and Central Uchkulan. Here, fruits and berries always ripened earlier than in other villages; microclimatic conditions favored the breeding of bees (bal chibin). Such fragrant honey as here was nowhere else in Karachay, and it was used for medicinal purposes. The quarters of the Bidzhievs and the Bostanovs were located nearby, spaciously in the floodplain of the Uchkulan River.

The peculiarity of the Upper Uchkulan is that there are many springs with beautiful drinking water. An example of such a spring in the quarter (tiira) of the Salpagarovs is Qara Suu, the pride of the quarter, since even in winter, in severe cold, the water in the river did not freeze. This spring still exists today. We meet the first accurate information about the population in the villages of Kara-chay only from the second half of the 19th century, namely in 1865: for Kart-Dzhurt - 4429, Khurzuk - 4816, Uchkulan - 4216. Total - 13461 people.

Uchkulan, as G.R. Chursin, something like a Karachai station

42 faces. Occupying a central place in the Greater Karachay, it was the most convenient place for arranging public meetings to discuss matters relating to the entire Karachay [NO].

Uchkulan also became the business and trade center of Karachay. The bazaar was located here at the confluence of the Uchkulan and Ullu-Kam rivers. Friday was considered the market day, and on this day the inhabitants of all three villages came here.

As a rule, there was trade in the bazaar, as well as gossip over the past week. All national holidays also took place in Uchkulan, not far from the market square. Here, during the national holidays, festivities, dances, various entertainments, as well as sports competitions were organized: tutush, chyngau, tash atyu, equestrian competitions.

The basis of the existence of historical Karachay was cattle breeding. The Karachays paid serious attention to the care of the land, the maintenance of land plots, even more than to breeding and caring for animals.

Hayfields and arable lands on the territory of the Greater Karachay were located around the tiira; there were many cultivated plots at a considerable distance from their tiira. Due to the scarcity of land, terraced irrigation of agricultural plots has been developed here, especially in the village of Uchkulan. The agricultural crops grown here were distinguished by a very high yield, thanks to the abundance of sun and water, as well as a special microclimate.

Every suitable plot of land in Karachai was carefully cleared of stones accumulated during winter landslides. Hedges (huna) were erected from the collected stones.

The only fertilizer was cattle dung. It was enough only for small plots of land, since cattle breeding here was of a special nature, and even in winter, a limited number of livestock were kept in the villages. In winter and summer, only a small number of dairy cows (sauuluk iinek) were kept here. All the rest of the cattle migrated from summer pastures (jailyk) to winter pastures (kyshlyk). This was caused by the lack of hayfields and pastures near villages.

The lands here were depleted not so much by sowing, but by the monotony of the same crops sown for decades. The construction of irrigation canals in the villages of Karachay was a very laborious task. Lacking technical knowledge, relying only on a developed folk tradition, the Karachays built irrigation canals. It was necessary to have a special skill in order to irrigate areas on large steeps, which, moreover, had to be watered much more often than on the plain. Uchkulan was more convenient in terms of location for irrigation, the main water artery passed here, which alternately went around each block (tiire). Every spring, the canals were cleared of winter blockages.

Cleaning and repairing irrigation canals destroyed during the winter was one of the most important moments in the economic and household significance of the Karachays. The whole population took part in the work. Each tiire fielded as much manpower as he had at his disposal. At the end of the purification works, the water was distributed to the quarters.

In connection with the rapid growth of the population of Greater Karachay in the second half of the 19th century, the question of land was raised more and more acutely. In order to increase their arable land and hayfields, the Karachays led

44 stubborn struggle with nature, but with all this, the land was still short, there were no reserves of virgin lands that could be raised and used. In this regard, at the end of the 19th century, additionally purchased land plots in the north and west of New Karachay were added to the territory of Greater Karachay.

Big Karachay in the period under review was in an isolated position, this is evidenced by housing construction. All buildings were mostly wooden, made of pine and fir forests. The main building material was wood (aghach).

The traditional clothes of the Karachays developed in certain geographical conditions and changed with changing socio-economic conditions.

The necessary clothing for the highlanders - cattle breeders, who spent many months on mountain pastures, was a fur coat - a top sewn from sheepskin. Its cut was close to the Circassian. She was put on a beshmet or Cherkessk, and sometimes under it. A fur coat of this cut was replaced at the beginning of the 20th century by a pleated fur coat (jiiryk ton). Covered fur coats (tyshly tone) were smarter and stronger; they were worn by princes, bridles. A cloak, the manufacture of which was a difficult matter, served as a travel clothes for a rider, an obligatory accessory for a herdsman. Burka covered the rider as a whole, and also covered the horse. Shepherds-shepherds, who accompanied the flock on foot, put on special clothes instead of cloaks - gebenek, which was sewn from cloak felt. She had a straight or fitted cut and fastened from the collar to the waist. Sometimes he had a hood, worn over a hat if necessary. Shoes differed in purpose. Shepherds, hunters, mowers and those working in the mountains wore chabyrs made of rawhide. They were worn on a bare foot, under-

45 putting inside for warmth and softness dry grass - salaam. Wealthier men wore ceremonial shoes made of morocco-charyk.

At the beginning of the 20th century, high one-piece boots made of morocco with thin soles appeared, as well as kumuk charyk - men's shoes with solid soles in the form of shoes that were worn on messi. At the same time, Russian boots of handicraft or factory production began to come into use. Men's clothing in all generations up to the 40s retained, in general, the national image. This was felt in the villages in the winter and at all times on the koshes. Burkas, hoods, fur coats of various cuts, papakhas, hats, leggings, chaburs, and partly also Circassian, acquired the character of industrial clothing for shepherds, especially herdsmen, as they were very adapted to working conditions on pastures.

Women's clothing was distinguished by fabrics, some trimmings and decorations. Everyday shirts were sewn from paper fabric of discreet colors, and at the beginning of the 20th century, sometimes from chintz with a small pattern, festive shirts from thin single-color silk. Favorite colors are dark red, yellow, rarely blue and white. Silk with a sheen (such as Saint-Jean) is very loved.

The festive dress of a Karachai girl, especially a rich and noble one, was richly decorated with galloons and gold embroidery. Elegant dresses were sewn most often from velvet - dark red, less often green and blue flowers or from dense silk - smooth or with a jacquard pattern. Young women wore a kaptal, which was most often sewn from thick silk or paper fabric, with a cotton lining. Worn over a dress or instead of a dress. The kaaptal of young married women was of rather bright colors, most often red in different shades.

46 cov. A middle-aged woman wore a black captal with long sleeves, a closed chest, and a neckline. In Karachay, there were also women's fur coats - tone, but only for married women. Festive fur coats of young rich women were sewn from velvet, thick silk, decorated with galups, lined with squirrel skins or lambskin. The majority wore fur coats made of sheepskin or kurney, covered with black paper cloth or naked. On the head of the girl they wore an okya berk (a golden cap), trimmed with a galup and gold embroidery. The cap was considered an accessory of a festive girl's costume and was worn at a wedding, dances, parties. All types of men's shoes (except chabyr) were also worn by women. In addition, they wore a shoe - shoes without backs with heels with leather, and sometimes wooden soles. Aghach-ayak was worn at the wedding - high wooden coasters on two legs, decorated with metal. The women's costume also included a belt. Elderly women wore a belt (belibau), woven or made from a scarf or a piece of fabric, young women wore belts made of galup, fabric or leather with silver decorations or silver. The types of belts changed over time, but the appearance of a new type of belt did not displace the more ancient forms, which usually remained with the older generation, from use. In connection with the strengthening of trade and cultural ties with Russia, the import of fabrics and finished products increased. Of the items of European clothing, a corset entered the life of the wealthy layers, replacing the forelock, tight bodice, boots, shoes, factory-made stockings. Instead of headscarves, young girls wore scarves of silk, gauze or lace made by Vologda, putting them on their heads or throwing them over their shoulders, keeping old hats on their heads. In addition to the usual national shoes, women wore lace-up boots, which were

47 not available to everyone.

b) Teberda Gorge

The first residential buildings along the Teberda river valley appeared in 1883. The settlement initially developed as a base for turpentine and tar plants. And at the same time, the construction of residential dachas begins here. The toponym "Teberda" is translated from Karachay as "God's gift".

In the second half of the XIX and early XX centuries. the territorial boundaries of the administrative arrangement of Karachay begin to change. The lands of Karachay were expanding, new Karachay villages were appearing, but these villages were fundamentally different from the old ones in terms of planning and improvement, provision of land plots, and the creation of a number of cultural and living conditions. The resettlement of Karachays here has developed according to their social status and material security. In the Teberda Gorge, changes in housing spread faster for a number of reasons. These were villages built already in a different historical period. Communication with the Russian population in this area was stronger than in Greater Karachay, which contributed to the formation of the Klukhorsky resort here, now Teberda, at the end of the 19th century. In 1910, at the request of I. Krymshamkhalov, the construction of dachas was allowed on 250 acres of the forest area. The dachas were of the summer type. The popularity of the resort grew rapidly. So, in the season from June to September, up to 500 people with tuberculosis and anemia were treated here. The treatment consisted of a long stay in the air, strict adherence to the regimen, as well as taking ayran - the national drink of the Karachays - 15-20 glasses per day.

In 1923, one of the largest Soviet phthisiatricians, V.L. Einis in

48 report at the first All-Russian congress on the resort business, shed a detailed light on the prospects for treatment in Teberda, pointing out its unique possibilities. On June 12, 1922, the Collegium of the People's Commissariat of Health of the RSFSR decides to designate the villages of Verkhnyaya Teberda and Teberda as a resort area. Since 1923, 10 sanatoriums and two tuberculosis hospitals of all-Russian importance have been operating here. Mineral springs occupy a special place among the resort resources. In 1936, the Teberdinsky State Reserve was opened.

Beginning in 1924, new Karachay settlements appeared: Upper Teberda (Teberdi Ogars), Lower Teberda (Synty), Novaya Teberda. The specific conditions in which the traditional economic life of Karachay proceeded determined the preservation of the old cattle-breeding life in the form of kosh associations (kosh kecherlik), lease and sublease of land, as well as the use of livestock up to collectivization.

in) Zelenchuksky

Russian settlements appeared along the upper reaches of the Kuban from the first decade of the 19th century. At first, these were posts and military fortifications in which the Cossacks of the Khopersky regiment lived, the villages of which were located away from the border. Since 1824, part of the villages was moved closer to the border. In 1804, the village of Batalpashinskaya arose.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the villages of Ispravnaya on the Bolshoy Zelenchuk and Convenient on the Urup, Kardonikskaya on the tributary of the Maly Zelenchuk (Kardonik River), and Zelenchukskaya on the Bolshoi Zelenchuk were founded. At first, the population of the villages were only Cossacks. But gradually, along with the Cossacks, alien peasants, immigrants from the central provinces, settled in the villages. The fertile valleys of Zelenchuk gave good harvests with

49 low-tech tillage. Gentle slopes and wide valleys could provide for the maintenance of a large number of livestock. The Cossacks were engaged in gardening and horticulture. In the gardens, mainly onions, garlic, radishes, carrots, legumes were grown. Potatoes and cabbage were grown everywhere, which the highlanders later borrowed from the Russians. Apples, pears, plums, cherry plums, cherries, and cherries grew in the orchards.

On the basis of the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR of December 5, 1926 and the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of July 25, 1927 "On Conducting Continuous Land Management of the CAR", the People's Commissariat of Agriculture allocated 80 thousand rubles for land management in Karachay. The land management was based on the principle of settlement through the formation of new auls on newly developed plots of land.

In the mountains, land management was carried out simultaneously with the resettlement of the highlanders on the plane. There is a gradual transition to agriculture, settlement on the plains - to the north and west.

The Soviet government allocated 450,000 tens of land for settlers from the mountains to the flat territories, which were leased until October from the treasury and private owners.

As a result of the resettlement flow, in three years (1921-1924), the villages of Arkhyz and Krasny Karachay took shape on the new lands.

The inhabitants of the new villages switched from cattle-breeding to agriculture. In connection with the resettlement of part of the Karachais to the flat territories, land provision has somewhat improved. However, many were forced to continue to engage in pasture cattle breeding.

In 1930-1931. the villages of Ust-Dzhegutinskaya, Krasnogorskaya, Zelenchukskaya and Kardonikskaya common land were included in the region

50 with a shallow area of 98 thousand hectares and Labinskaya Lesnaya Dacha. The change in the territory of Karachay was associated with a planned increase in the land funds of the region and the need to unload mountain villages. In 1932, a resettlement fund of 10,194 hectares of convenient land was created.

1165 households moved here, including 737 from the Uchkulan gorge, 193 from Teberdinsky and other villages. From the Krasnodar Territory, the villages of Akhmatovsky, Manchurovsky, Pse-bay and others were attached. In 1939, 100 Karachay families, who came from mountainous Karachay, joined the village of Pregradnaya. The Cossacks warmly welcomed the highlanders - immigrants, provided all kinds of assistance. The new settlements of the Karachays were fundamentally different from the old ones in the Greater Karachay in terms of planning and landscaping. Significant changes were observed in those villages where a change in the socio-economic structure was accompanied by a change in geographical conditions in connection with resettlement to new places. The resettlement from the mountains was associated with a change not only in the economy and life, but also in the consciousness of people. To a large extent, the old tribal ties, so strong in the tribal quarters of the Greater Karachay, were broken, the way of the family, the relationship between generations was changing.

The flat area allotted for the village, the comparative expanse of land allowed the estates to be located more freely, and the growing role of agriculture required the construction of a number of outbuildings - sheds and sheds for agricultural implements, sapets and barns for grain.

In the new villages of Karachays, the principle of settlement by kindred groups was not observed. Families became much smaller, and small houses of 2-4 rooms prevailed in the villages. The building material was adobe, the roofs were covered with tiles, iron, rarely solo

51 my. In the construction and planning of houses, the experience of neighboring peoples - Russians, Circassians, Abazins - was used. However, the main traditions of the Karachay ethnos have been preserved.

G)Small Karachay

The Karachays called one of the first resettlement villages Teresa a window into a new life. This was the beginning of the formation of the ethno-cultural region of Small Karachay. From the very first days, the inhabitants of the new villages of Karachay switched from cattle breeding to agriculture. As a result, land availability has improved.

In 1928 in the village. Teresa organized the first collective farm in Karachay, which was the initiator of the slogan "All livestock under the roof." Barns for grain, utility yards, silos, residential buildings for collective farmers, cultural kosh, schools, and reading rooms were built. Each shepherd and shepherd was approved by the board of the livestock association. They were provided with collective farm cloaks, hoods and shoes. Much attention was paid to the organization of the supply of essential goods. Cooperative shops were opened on mountain pastures, in places where cats accumulated. Veterinarians were constantly on the summer pastures. In 1934, breeding sheep farms were created in the villages of Teresa and Ki-chi-Balyk. In 1929, shvits were brought from the Smolensk region to the livestock associations of the villages of Tereze, Uchkeken, Khasaut, Kichi-Balyk. Since 1933, on the basis of breeding farms of collective farms with. Teresa and Uchkeken organized a breeding farm of cattle. The local Karachay horse, whose economic importance was highly valued, deserved special care.

In 1922, a meeting of the herd owners of Karachay was held, where a commission was elected for the revival of horse breeding. Not far from the city

52 In Kislovodsk, a stud farm, a breeding state farm was established, and in 1927 a state stable was created in Pervomaisky. In 1937, the State breeding nursery of the Karachay horse was organized. In connection with the resettlement of Karachais to the flat territories of the region, land provision has improved.

Collective farms and state farms in the Small Karachay were mainly engaged in agriculture. The first place in terms of specific gravity and sown area was occupied by cereals, then by fodder crops, then by sunflower, sugar beet and potato crops. Among the grain crops, the leading role belonged to wheat, and the industrial crops - to potato crops. Of the traditional crops, barley and oats have been preserved, grown as fodder and cereal crops. The natural conditions of the Small Karachay contributed to the development of the greenhouse economy. Then, in 1922, the settlements of Uchkeken, Dzhaga, Elkush, Kichibalyk, and Koydan were formed on the new lands. According to the data of a comprehensive agronomic survey of Karachay, conducted in 1928, the number of new settlements in the small Karachay reached 16, and the number of households in them - 2781.

Theoretical and methodological foundations for the study of the ethnocultural landscape

In the context of the deepening ecological crisis and the aggravation of socio-economic, political and ethnic problems, there is an increased public interest in the basic regional culture. There comes an understanding that only in conditions of diversity of cultures, in the unity of traditional and innovative spheres of human activity, there are real prerequisites for the normal functioning of society and the rational use of natural resources. Rethinking the role of culture in the life of society is the core of the sociocultural approach, reflecting the emerging change in the very paradigm of sociocultural development: from technocentrism to culturecentrism. Consideration of the problems existing in modern Russian society through the prism of culturological ideas allows us to identify the roots of destructive social processes, as well as to determine the trends in their development.

Modern culture is historical. The experience of behavior of individuals passed from generation to generation is fixed in traditions. Accounting for this property of culture is extremely important for identifying invariant stable features in the methods of activity of the subjects of modern culture, which ensure the selective implementation and transformation of emerging innovations. That is why the normal reproduction of traditional culture is the most important condition for the sustainable, progressive development of society. It is no coincidence that in modern society there has been a significant increase in interest in the basic regional culture, the preservation and revival of which is becoming one of the most important factors in optimizing relationships in all spheres of public life.

Of particular interest for geographical studies of culture are the developments of ethnographers and culturologists on the problem of local (regional) cultures. The regional approach to the study of culture makes it possible to explain the reasons for its diversity. The interaction of society with local environmental conditions, on the one hand, superimposed on culture, and on the other, mastered by it, leads to the formation of specific historical types of culture, which are also called local types in the literature.

At the same time, special attention is paid to the study of ethnic communities - stable associations of people included in the system of social relations, having specific ways and means of their implementation. Ethnic features are recognized as the most fundamental in terms of culture. The works of Russian ethnographers emphasize the importance of studying an ethnos as a basic socio-cultural system that reflects the cultural characteristics of a society.

Accumulating in itself the listed properties (environmental friendliness, historicity, regionality), local ethnic cultures can be defined as historically stable, spatially distinguished associations of people closely connected with the "feeding" landscape, reproducing in a complex deep local features of culture.

One of the most productive areas of geographical research of culture is landscape science. Having historically originated as a branch of complex physical geography, the objects of which are complex natural, and then natural-anthropogenic systems - landscapes, landscape science is increasingly turning into a general geographical direction. Half a century ago, L.S. Berg interpreted the concept of "landscape" in a general geographical perspective. "Under the name of the geographical landscape - he wrote - one should understand the area in which the nature of the relief, climate, vegetation, wildlife, population and, finally, human culture merges into a single harmonious whole, typically repeating throughout the known (landscape) zone of the Earth" . Modern theoretical models and concepts aimed at identifying the patterns of formation, structure, functioning structure, dynamics and evolution, territorial differentiation and integration of landscapes should be widely used not only in natural sciences, but also in general geographic regional studies.

The history of the formation of the population of Karachay

Karachays - self-name of the people - Karachayly. Origin. the names are explained on behalf of the legendary ancestor of the Karachays - Karchi. Studies of linguists, archaeologists, ethnographers, historians have shown that the process of formation of the Karachay-Balkarian people was difficult due to historical conditions. Not one, but several components took part in it, while maintaining, however, the local ethnic core. The main core is the highlanders of the Caucasus, who have lived here since ancient times. Subsequently, Iranian-speaking and Turkic-speaking tribes were layered on the core.

According to anthropological features, the Karachays belong to the local Caucasian high-mountain type, which has been developing in the Caucasus for a long time. Archaeological monuments of these tribes have come down to us - settlements and burial grounds related to the Koban culture that arose in the North Caucasus at the turn of the 2nd-1st millennium BC. .

In the material and spiritual culture of the Karachais, there are connections with this distant Koban culture of the local population. So, as an example, we can cite the similarity in the forms of burial structures. Until the adoption of Islam (XVIII century), the Karachays made rectangular or oval calculations from large stones over the graves of the dead. Such cemeteries dating back to the 17th and early 18th centuries are known on the southern outskirts of the village of Kart-Dzhurt and in other places. In the same graves, their dead and their distant ancestors, who lived in the Koban and late Koban times on the territory of Karachay, were buried.

Ornamental motifs characteristic of the Koban culture - a running spiral, shaded triangles, images of a stylized ram's head (especially characteristic) are found on Karachay felts, on belts and other things.

In Karachay folklore, epic, mythology, pagan beliefs, there are many elements common to all North Caucasian peoples. The roots of many of these elements go back to ancient times, they should be sought in the Koban culture. So, for all the North Caucasian peoples, the cult of the god of hunting Apsata is characteristic. Images of Ap-sata fighting with seven snakes are found on bronze Koban axes.

The oldest layer can be traced in the Karachai language - the remains of the language spoken by the population in the Koban era. It is the presence of such an ancient linguistic substratum that explains the similarity of many terms in the languages of the North Caucasian peoples, including the Karachais. Similarities are found in the most diverse areas - in the names of natural phenomena, pagan deities, images of oral folk art and, especially, in terms of material culture and in the names of domestic animals.

From all that has been said, it follows that the Karachays are basically the ancient inhabitants of the North Caucasus. Over the centuries, they have gone through common development paths with other highlanders, which led to the well-known closeness of their psychology, way of life and culture. So, the appearance of the Karachais, their physical type and way of life, ways of housekeeping, housing, clothing, material and spiritual culture - everything speaks of their mountainous, Caucasian origin.

But the language of the Karachays does not belong to the family of Caucasian languages. The Karachay language is a Turkic language, although it has an ancient Caucasian layer and later borrowings from Caucasian languages.

Language cannot always serve as a sign indicating the origin of a people. The language can be changed, borrowed. One or another language, due to a number of historical conditions, can be acquired by another people. The process of linguistic Turkization since the invasion of the Seljuk Turks (XI century) has widely covered the multilingual population of Central and Asia Minor and eastern Transcaucasia, as well as the North-Eastern Caucasus. So, part of the local mountain tribes of Dagestan, which were the basis for the formation of the Kumyk people, was Turkized - Turkization began with the penetration of the Huns, Savirs, Khazars into Dagestan and ended with the arrival of the Kipchaks. These facts prove that it is not yet possible to judge the origin of a people by the origin of a language alone.

At the beginning of our era, Alans lived in the foothills of the Northern Caucasus, who spoke one of the languages of the Iranian group, close to the modern Ossetian, Tajik and Iranian languages.

In the Middle Ages, North Caucasian Alania was inhabited by a variety of ethnic groups with different languages and cultures. Medieval authors often called "Alans" not only the Alans themselves, but also all the inhabitants of Alania in general. The Alanian language became the ancestor of the Ossetian language, the Alans were one of the components in the formation of the Ossetian people. But this does not mean that the Alans were the ancestors of only the Ossetians. Research by scientists shows that the Sarmatian-Alans played a certain role in the formation of the Adyghe-Meotian tribes, the Vainakh peoples - Chechens and Ingush, as well as Karachays and Balkars.

The genetic connection of the material and spiritual culture of the Alans and Karachais can be traced in individual details of the funeral rite, in the similarity of some household items and jewelry (vessels, tools, amulets - medallions, jewelry, ornamental details, etc.).

The existence of the Alanian layer in the Karachay language is also recognized by Turkic linguists. Alanya is named Karachay on the map of the Italian author of the 18th century. Lamberti. The name "Alans" remained with the Karachays even longer. So, the authors of the late XVIII century. early 19th century Potocki and Klarot, speaking of Alans, mean Karachays.

Social factors

The Karachay-Cherkess Republic (KChR) is rich in original traditions and customs. There are numerous publications on these issues. However, there is practically no information that sufficiently takes into account the spatial coordinate of regional cultural genesis.

It is the complex of internal social factors that plays the leading role in the formation of traditional ethno-cultural landscapes. These include a complex of economic, demographic and political factors.

The economic component of culture includes structural units built on the basis of industrial and economic relations. They form the economic environment that influences the ethnic culture. The division of labor and the distribution of material goods play an important role here.

The main branch of the economy of the Karachays was sheep and horse breeding, to a lesser extent - breeding of working and beef cattle.

The Karachay sheep belonged to the fat-tailed breed, whose fat tail reached 20-25 pounds. In addition to tasty meat, a long and glossy fleece was obtained. The unpretentiousness and thoroughbredness of the Karachay sheep was noted in the ethnographic description of the Karachays in 1812.

By the end of the 60s of the 19th century, there were up to two hundred thousand sheep in Karachay, and up to ninety thousand sheep in Circassia. Cattle of the local breed were small, dark in color and of low productivity. A new component of the landscape were horses, mostly local breeds. Their number in Karachay and Circassia, respectively, was 13-15 thousand heads in the middle of the 19th century. In off-road conditions, the horse in Karachay was indispensable both under the saddle and as a beast of burden. Since the horse is more enduring than other animals and can forage even from deep snow, raking it with its hooves, horses were kept in winter in areas with unmowed dried grass - kaudan. After the horses broke through the ice and raked the snow, taking out the grass, the rest of the cattle were also allowed into the plots.

Cattle breeding among the Karachays was associated with long-term cattle drives to summer and winter pastures. Cattle driving required close unification of the population. Special kosh associations arose, the members of which jointly looked after the cattle, organized their wintering, and stored food. The most important part of the livestock economy was the harvesting of hay. On their lands, the Karachays collected 3 million poods of hay, and at that time more than 20 million poods were required. In such conditions, the Karachays valued every piece of haymaking area, hayfields near the villages were carefully cared for, watered, and cleared of stones. The yield on irrigated hayfields was several times higher than on natural ones. Up to 200 poods of hay were collected from tithes on irrigated plots, and from 20 to 50 poods on the slopes of the mountains, up to 120 poods from forest glades. Therefore, forest glades were mainly leased lands. Tipchak, fescue and wild clover were considered the best grasses for haymaking, mouse peas - this is in the mountainous part.

Taking care of the preservation of hayfields for the next years, the Karachays made sure that the grass seeds had time to ripen for future shoots, and only after that they mowed.

Agriculture in the territory of Circassia and Karachay continued to play a secondary role in the 19th century. Only 1% of the Karachai lands were suitable for arable land, but these lands were reclaimed from nature at the cost of enormous labor. In order to turn the rocky slopes of the mountains and narrow river valleys into fertile fields, they were cleared of stones, strengthened and fenced with rocky walls, irrigation ditches were made and fertilized. Near small arable lands in the auls of Greater Karachay, pyramids rose from stones collected from the plots. They still stand today as monuments to the industriousness and perseverance of the people. Often landslides and mountain streams-mudflows in a few minutes destroyed the work of many years on the creation of arable and hayfields.

The shortage of arable land was especially acute in Greater Karachay, where on average there was a little more than one hundred square meters per capita: in Uchkulan - 0.12 acres, in Kart-Jutra - 0.11 acres, and in Khurzuk - 0.09 acres.

The most common crop in Karachay was barley. Oats and spring wheat were sown in small quantities. From the middle of the XIX century. crops of corn, winter wheat, buckwheat appeared. Corn and wheat matured at altitudes up to 1000 meters, and frost-resistant varieties were sown higher.

In the mountains of Karachay, the slash-and-fallow system of agriculture has long been used, and the shifting system has occasionally been practiced. At the end of XIX - beginning of XX centuries. the shifting system was preserved in the mountains, and the steam system was used in the plains.

The transition from the shifting to the steam system contributed to an increase in bread production. Green steam was practiced in the mountains, and black steam was practiced in the plains. On the plane, in connection with the transition to a steam system, winter bread was sown in one area, spring bread in another, corn in a third, and the fourth was left fallow.

In the first half of the 19th century, the Karachays began to grow potatoes; it grew at high altitudes up to 1500 meters or more. Potatoes were not afraid of either cold winds or heavy rains, so they became a favorite garden crop in Karachay.

Since the second half of the 19th century, horticulture and horticulture have become widespread in Karachay. In the gardens, mainly onions, garlic, radishes, carrots and legumes were grown. Apples, pears, plums, cherry plums, sweet cherries and cherries grew in the orchards.

Karachays were more engaged in hunting than others. Bears were especially valued, the fat of which was considered healing, and fur coats were sewn from the skins.

Home crafts were a necessary part of subsistence farming. Each mountain family produced not only food, but also clothes, shoes, tools, etc. Professional individual types of crafts stood out as a special profession: blacksmithing, weapons, jewelry. Peasants were engaged in other crafts: woodworking and furrier - men; weaving, felting cloaks and felt, sewing clothes and shoes - women of every family.

Edged weapons, dishes and silver jewelry (breastplates, earrings, bracelets, horse harness accessories) were made by both local jewelers and people from Dagestan. Tools of labor - metal plowshares, hoes, sickles, scythes, knives, etc. - were made by their own blacksmiths, who were in every village.

The most common type of crafts was wool processing: the production of felts, cloaks, cloth weaving. This work was done exclusively by women. The seasons were also taken into account. The best wool, usually from autumn shearing, was used for cloth and cloaks, while spring shearing was used to make felt. Felting a cloak required the work of several people, so relatives and neighbors were invited.

The development of cattle breeding provided raw materials not only for weaving and felting, but also for the development of furriery and saddlery (processing of hides and skins, sewing fur coats, hats, shoes, making wineskins, saddles, bags, horse harness). The inhabitants of the villages located in the wooded foothills were engaged in forestry and woodworking. Plows, pitchforks, shovels, harrows, carts, furniture, household utensils and utensils (tubs, buckets, cups, troughs, etc.) were made from wood. The tree was widely used in the construction of houses. Circassians, Abaza and Nogais, who built turluch houses, made supports, beams, and doors from wood. Karachays erected log houses from large pine logs.

Bibliographic link

Recommended list of dissertations

Ethno-mental foundations of the literature of the Circassian diaspora 2009, Doctor of Philology Abdokova, Marina Borisovna

Mentality of the Adyghe ethnos: problems of formation and evolution 2003, candidate of philosophical sciences Kostylev, Sergey Vasilyevich

The core and periphery of the Adyghe culture in its transformation 2008, Doctor of Philosophy Razdolsky, Sergey Alexandrovich

Relations of Circassia with the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate: military and socio-cultural aspects: 70s. XV - XVIII centuries 2004, Candidate of Historical Sciences Tseeva, Zarema Arsenovna

The concept of the night in the traditional culture of the Circassians 2012, Doctor of Cultural Studies Siyukhova, Aminet Magametovna

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Cultural landscape: ethnic discourse: on the example of the Adyghe garden-forest"

Similar theses in the specialty "Theory and History of Culture", 24.00.01 VAK code

Personality in the traditional culture of the Circassians 2004, Doctor of Philosophy Lyausheva, Svetlana Aslanovna

Features of socio-cultural processes in the Adyghe ethno-environment in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries: based on the materials of the journalism of the Adyghe writers-enlighteners 2007, candidate of sociological sciences Chamokova, Emma Turkubievna

Ethnocultural archetypes of the Adyghe people: the experience of philosophical and cultural understanding 2007, Doctor of Philosophy Tleuzh, Asker Dzagashtovich

Circassia in the light of ethno-sociological studies of Sultan Khan Giray 2001, candidate of sociological sciences Brantova, Inna Kaplanovna

Features of the Formation of the Toponymic Picture of the World: Lexical-Pragmatic and Ethno-Cultural Aspects 2009, Doctor of Philology Kovlakas, Elena Fedorovna

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Theory and history of culture", Makhotlova, Madina Aslanbievna

List of references for dissertation research candidate of cultural studies Makhotlova, Madina Aslanbievna, 2010

Theoretical and methodological foundations for the study of the ethnocultural landscape

The history of the formation of the population of Karachay

Social factors

Read also