Доакъашхо:WikiEditor1234567123/Черновик/Тест3

The right bank part of the Egichozh settlement is represented by three castle-type complexes (all of them have battle towers and defensive walls) and one guard complex. The path to the castles lies through a guard complex consisting of a stone barrier wall (height - 4.5 m, thickness - 0.7 m), arched gates (2.0x1.6 m) and a powerful tower rising above them (base dimensions - 11 ,0x6.0 m), (Fig. 2). The covering of the gate was made using the false vault technique (Fig. 3, 4), the tower is now dilapidated, the height of the surviving part is about 12 m). The path from the gate of the guard complex descends to the spring, leaving all the other buildings of the settlement much higher up the slope. It is curious that it was not possible to find a single path connecting the castle complexes. Castle complex No. 1 consists of a battle tower, four dilapidated residential towers and a stone barrier wall with an arched entrance (Fig. 5). The battle tower (Fig. 5.5), oriented with angles to the cardinal points, had a height of about 20 m. In plan it is almost square - 4.90X4.65 m, the arched entrance opening (0.65x1.25 m) was located in the western wall-tower at a height of 4.5 m from its base. The thickness of the tower walls at the entrance level is 0.75 m. The interior of the tower is filled with stone up to the level of the entrance opening. Apparently, the ceiling of the second floor was made of stone, and the base of the tower was filled with rubble. The stone vaulted ceiling of the third floor with a quadrangular opening in the eastern side has been preserved. The room located above it (fourth floor) had rectangular machicolations on four sides on two consoles with beveled corners. The machicolations are almost completely destroyed. The roof of the tower has not survived. On the northern side, a small stone wall 1.2 m long adjoined the battle tower (wall thickness 0.7 m), reaching a height of more than 4 m, i.e. level of the tower entrance opening. The residential towers of this complex are located at a small distance from each other (no more than 2 m). Building No. 1 (residential tower) is located closest to the entrance (castle) gate. This structure is of quite significant size (16.90x4.95 m), without any visible internal divisions, preserved at a height of 2 m. In the remains of the southern wall, 2 entrance openings can be traced. The thickness of the walls: northern - 0.55 m, southern - 0.65 m (Fig. 5.1). Residential towers No. 2 and 3 are adjacent to the rock with their eastern walls and have the shape of irregular rectangles (Fig. 5,3,2).

The dimensions of the base of tower No. 2 are 6.20x6.50 m, the thickness of the northern wall is 0.75 m. The tower has 2 entrance openings in the northern and southern walls (Fig. 6.7). The northern entrance is located 3.20 m higher than the southern one. The length of the walls of tower No. 3: northern - 4.90 m, western - 6.50 m, southern - 8.75 m. Thickness of the walls: northern - 0.60 m, western and southern - 0.85 m. Entrance to tower No. 3 from the north side. Residential tower No. 4 has been partially preserved (Fig. 5.4). The length of the northern wall is 6.3 m, the western one is 2.0 m. The northern wall has 2 entrance openings at different levels. All residential towers, having narrow passages between them, are located radially in relation to the combat one. In the eastern part of the complex, remains of masonry from some structures were recorded. Monoliths (foundation?) of considerable size (0.65X0.90X0.80 m) are noted here (Fig. 8).

The approaches to castle complex No. 1 from the northern and northeastern sides are covered by a stone barrier wall running in a broken line for 17.45 m. The height of the wall is about 4 m. The gate located in the middle of the wall has the shape of an arch (Fig. 9). 30 m north of the entrance to castle complex No. 1, on a steep rocky slope, there stands a house-like structure, externally reminiscent of the so-called crypts with a funeral chamber, widely known in Checheno-Ingushetia (Fig. 10). The structure, quadrangular in plan (3.15x6.05 m) 6, is oriented along line 3-B (with a slight deviation), the front (western) side is open to the entire internal width (2.15 m) of the chamber (Fig. 10c, 11). The gable stepped roof (Fig. 12) has been preserved for a length of 2 m. The preserved part of it and the walls of the structure tapering at the top suggest the presence of a vaulted ceiling and an arched entrance (Fig. 10). The building has a fairly high basement (1.0 m) and foundation (0.60 m). The walls of the chamber are made of carefully hewn large stone blocks using a binding solution (clay mixed with lime). The height of the walls of the structure from the outside: front (western) - 3.4 m, rear (eastern) wall adjacent to the rock - 0.7 m, the entire structure including the roof (along the long axis) - 4.55 m. Wall thickness - 0.50 m. In the northern wall on the outer side of the building there was a rectangular hole (0.60x0.70 m), leading to a deep (up to 2.5 m) niche (Fig. 10, 1a).

The niche runs along the entire eastern wall (Fig. 10, 1c). In the ceiling of the niche, at a distance of 0.60 m from the hole, a recess was made upward by 0.25 m. It seems that this was done to make it comfortable to sit there. The rest of the space above the niche is filled with solid stone masonry, so the thickness of this (eastern) wall reaches 1.25 m. Clearing the niche did not yield any finds. A thorough examination of the ceiling and walls of the niche also did not bring any results. The collapsed roof filled the interior space of the chamber to a height of 1.25 m. A selection of stone blocks and shale fragments made it possible to discover benches 0.30–0.50 m wide and 0.45 m high, made of stone, along all four walls (Fig. 13) . The seat running along the front wall is also a threshold. On one of the stone slabs laid flat on the threshold, a round (cup-shaped) depression with a diameter of 10 cm was noted. Clearing the chamber made it possible to determine the internal dimensions of the building: four sides of the chamber at the level of the benches - 4.65; 2.0; 4.9; 2.15 m; the same sides along the floor (excluding the width of the benches) 3.8; 1.4; 4.0; 1.3; the height to the roof is 3.1 m. Since structures of this type quite often have underground chambers, the floor was examined. Under the top layer of massive slate slabs there was a continuous backfill of soil, pebbles, and slate. The backfill thickness varies along the entire length of the chamber. If at the front (western) wall it reached a thickness of 35 cm, then at the opposite (eastern) wall it was a layer of 8-10 cm (Fig. 14; 15). Apparently, this was done in order to level the floor of the chamber, since the building was erected on a very steep rocky slope (Fig. 1; 2). The absence of burials and the recorded dimensions of the chamber allow us to make an assumption about the public (with some cultic load) nature of the investigated building. 50 m southeast of castle complex No. ] is located castle complex No. 2. The complex includes one combat and five residential towers, as well as stone defensive walls, which together make up a compact building subordinated to a single defense plan (Fig. 16, B).

The battle tower, oriented with its angles to the cardinal points, is located in the eastern part of the complex. The entrance to the tower is at a height of 3 m (Fig. 18). There are narrow loopholes and viewing slots in the walls on all sides at different levels. At the top of the tower, on its north-eastern and south-eastern walls, consoles of machicolations are visible. The roof of the tower and interfloor ceilings have not been preserved. The northwestern side of the tower is connected by a stone wall to residential tower No. 1. This tower is the largest among the residential towers of complex No. 2. It has a large entrance arched opening (1.75x1.35 m) in the northeastern wall, which was subsequently laid with dry stone masonry (Fig. 17). It led to the second floor. The entrance to the first floor was located on the inside of the complex, in the southwestern wall of the tower. The combat and 2 residential (No. 1, 2) towers make up the northeastern line of defense of the complex. The western defensive system includes residential tower No. 3 and protective stone walls connecting towers No. 3 and 2 and covering the space between them (Fig. 16 B-2, B-3), as well as a wall reaching the cliff. The south-eastern part of the complex is protected by combat and residential (No. 5) towers,1 connected to each other by a convex stone wall with two loopholes (Fig. 18). Particularly noteworthy is residential tower No. 3 with a rounded southeast corner (Fig. 19). It, like tower No. 5, had entrance openings leading to each floor.

Castle complex No. 3 is significantly smaller in size than the complexes described above and is less well preserved (Fig. 16A). It is located 60 m southeast of complex No. 2. Its basis is a combat tower, adjacent to which are two heavily destroyed buildings (residential towers?). One of the buildings is connected to the battle tower by a rounded wall (Fig. 16A). The entrance to the battle tower, square in plan, was at a height of about 3 m. One of the residential towers had a two-chamber plan with separate entrances. From complex No. 3, an inconspicuous path led up the ridge, leading to a small, almost completely destroyed building (Fig. 1.6). Its only surviving corner has a height of 2.70 m. The masonry of the structure consists of large stone blocks. The binding solution is not fixed.

Considering the location of the building, its small size and significant distance from residential complexes, one can assume the cult nature of the structure. The left bank part of the Egichozh tower settlement In contrast to the right bank part of the Egichozh settlement, its left bank part is of a single character. It basically consists of many residential towers and outbuildings (Fig. 1). The path to the village is blocked by a high (about 20 m) battle tower with an entrance at a height of about 2 m (Fig. 20). In the upper part of the tower, consoles of machicolations have been preserved on all four sides. The tower is oriented with its corners to the cardinal points. The ceiling has not survived.

Around the tower there are dilapidated buildings (2 residential towers and several utility buildings). Adjacent to one of the residential towers was a stone wall with a niche in which bones of small animals were found (Fig. 21). Somewhat away from the described buildings there was a separate residential tower. The entrance to it was located on the side of the cliff and was decorated with three stone monoliths. It could only be accessed from the outside using a special wooden flooring running along one of the walls, as evidenced by the “sockets” for the beams. The same flooring, apparently, ran at the level of the third floor (like galleries or balconies along the entire wall). The main core of the left bank part of the settlement was located slightly above the path. What stands out here is one of the residential towers with an entrance at a height of about 4 m and an upper floor open on both sides (loggia?). Also of interest is the large residential tower with a stone staircase leading from the outside to the 1st and 2nd floors (Fig. 22). The lower room of the tower is half the size of the upper one, since its main part is occupied by rock outcrops. The unevenness of the rock foundation of the second floor is leveled with stone masonry (Fig. 23). It is interesting to note that some residential towers have two support pillars inside. Some of the towers are located so close to each other that their corners extend into the interior of adjacent rooms. The entrance openings of most buildings are decorated with an arch. On the outside of one of the towers there are two stone blocks protruding from the wall.

These are the results of a preliminary study of the tower complexes of the Egi-Chozh tract. The originality of their architectural and planning features is obvious (abundance of walls, attempts at a circular plan solution, etc.) and requires special in-depth research. Preliminarily, we can also note a clear separation of the complexes with military towers from the main part of the village, the reason for which could be socio-economic phenomena. As for the chronology of the objects surveyed, due to the lack of clearly dating facts (the reliability of dating the towers based on architectural features is now a subject of controversy), it can be tentatively determined within the framework of the 15th-18th centuries. In any case, the presence of narrow loopholes in the battle towers and protective walls of the right-bank complexes of the tract indicates a fairly wide distribution of firearms among their inhabitants, which does not allow us to determine the date of construction of these structures with special loopholes earlier than the 16th century. In this regard, it should be noted that written sources from the late 16th - early 17th centuries. clearly indicate the fairly widespread use of firearms during this period even by the mountain Vainakhs. And the flat Vainakhs, in particular the inhabitants of South-Eastern Chechnya, it can be assumed, had the opportunity to become acquainted with firearms through the inhabitants of Russian settlements on the Terek and Sunzha already in the last third of the 16th century. In this sense, the thesis of some researchers about the rather late spread of such weapons in Checheno-Ingushetia needs certain adjustments. This is an important issue, since it involves problems of dating defensive structures, and it requires special consideration. Both territorial-chronological (this phenomenon has its own dynamics) and socio-economic (at the first stage these weapons were more accessible to the top) aspects should take their place in its solution. An indirect argument for the above dating can also be the late types of above-ground crypt tombs identified here, among which the so-called. tower-pyramidal (Fig. 24). Only excavations both on the territory of the settlement itself and on the crypt burial ground will make it possible to clarify the time of existence of the Egichozh tower settlement. However, today tower buildings along the river. Fortange can be confidently compared with those Karabulak villages that L. Steder saw in 1781.