This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]

On: 03 March 2015, At: 10:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Anthropology & Archeology of

Eurasia
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/maae20

Study of the Maikop Culture in

the Works of R.M. Munchaev
a
S. N. Korenevskii
a
Institute of Archeology, Russian Federation
Academy of Sciences, Moscow
Published online: 08 Dec 2014.

To cite this article: S. N. Korenevskii (2011) Study of the Maikop Culture in the Works
of R.M. Munchaev, Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, 50:1, 43-50

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/AAE1061-1959500102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
 sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015
 summer 2011  43

Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 50, no. 1 (Summer 2011), pp. 43–50.
© 2011 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1061–1959/2011 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/AAE1061-1959500102

S.N. Korenevskii

Study of the Maikop Culture

Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

in the Works of R.M. Munchaev

This article outlines the long-term and path-breaking work of Dagestani

archeologist Rauf Magomedovich Munchaev, focusing on his research of the
North Caucasian Maikop culture. Sites, including kurgan complexes of the
Copper and Bronze Age, from the third to second millennium b.c.e. in the
region of the eastern North Caucasus, are discussed.
Rauf Magomedovich Munchaev is one of our country’s best-known archeologists, a
long-time specialist in Caucasus prehistory. His works on the archeology of northern
Mesopotamia and Syria are internationally known. Rauf Magomedovich has also
made a major contribution to the organization of Russian science as assistant director
of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Archeology (1991–93) and, from
1993 through 2003, as its director, chair of the scientific council, and chair of the
editorial board of Sovetskaia arkheologiia, now Rossiiskaia arkheologiia.
R.M. Munchaev is a doctor of historical sciences, professor, corresponding
member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, honored scientist of the Russian
Federation, and advisor of Russia’s Academy of Sciences. The author of more than
300 scientific papers, including nine monographs, he is permanent leader of the
Iraq (1969–88) and Syrian archeological expeditions (1988 to the present), one of
the Russian Federation’s most effective and enduring expeditions abroad.
Munchaev’s scientific career is remarkable. It primarily reflects scientific views
of the history of North Caucasus inhabitants in the era of early agriculturists and
pastoralists (the Eneolithic and a phase of the Early Bronze Age) over the past fifty

English translation © 2011 M.E. Sharpe, Inc., from the Russian text © 2008 “Rossiiskaia
arkheologiia.” “Izuchenie maikopskoi kul’tury v trudakh R.M. Munchaeva,” Rossiiskaia
arkheologiia, 2008, no. 3, pp. 93–97.
S.N. Korenevskii is a senior researcher at the Institute of Archeology of the Russian
Federation Academy of Sciences, Moscow.
Translated by James E. Walker.

43
 44 anthropology & archeology of eurasia

years. Without his fundamental works, the development of our knowledge in this
field now would be simply impossible.
The initial period of his scientific activity is inseparably associated with the
Northeast Caucasus (Dagestan, Chechnya, and Ingushetia). After graduating from
Dagestan Pedagogical Institute in Makhachkala in 1949, Munchaev became a
graduate student at the Institute of History of Material Culture, and later at Russia’s
Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Archeology.
For the peoples of the North Caucasus, this [postwar era] was not an easy
period in the development of science. In the late 1940s and the 1950s, B.A. Kuf-
tin, E.I. Krupnov, and A.A. Iessen, the founders of scientific schools in Georgia
and the North Caucasus, stand out among scholars actively studying problems of
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

the formation of a productive economy in the Caucasus. In the archeology of the

Eneolithic and Bronze Ages of the Caucasus, the initial period of accumulating
material was still under way. The interpretation of new data was hampered by the
difficulty of access to foreign literature, so necessary for thorough evaluation of
domestic antiquities.
In the North Caucasus, E.I. Krupnov was conducting active fieldwork. It was he,
the originator of the concept “Maikop culture,” who became Munchaev’s scientific
adviser and pointed him in the direction of studying the dawn of the Copper/Bronze
Age in the North Caucasus. The specific region of Rauf Magomedovich’s study was
his native Dagestan. His candidate dissertation, “The Copper and Bronze Age in the
History of Dagestan (Third–Second Millennium b.c.e.),” was successfully defended
in 1953. He spent two years working at the Dagestan branch of the Academy of
Sciences of the Soviet Union and then returned to the Academy of Sciences’ Institute
of Archeology, an association that lasted throughout his scientific life.
Munchaev’s first monograph, Drevneishaia kul’tura Severo-Vostochnogo
Kavkaza [Earliest Culture of the Northeast Caucasus], was published in 1961.
More than forty years later, it is still timely, although many questions about the
beginning of the paleometal period in the Caucasus are now treated with greater
specificity than in the late 1950s. The book, based on the young scholar’s dissertation
manuscript supplemented with new materials, demonstrated Munchaev’s erudition
and deep understanding. His name soon rose to the level of the older generation
of accepted leaders in archeology of the earliest period of the Caucasus: Kuftin,
Iessen, and Krupnov.
In this work we can fully see the research method that Munchaev followed from
then on. The object of study is strictly specified to a certain area, a historical and
cultural region or site taken separately. Chronologically, it is associated with the
period of initial mastery of the use of copper and bronze. Munchaev uses data from
both settlements and burial sites, if possible, and conducts personal excavations.
New materials come into scientific circulation against the background of a set
of known sources for a particular problem, including wide-ranging excursions into
foreign literature. Evaluation of material with respect to its representativeness in
science is very important. In discussing various hypotheses in the interpretation of
 summer 2011  45

sources, Munchaev frequently asks whether the available materials are sufficient
for the assertions made.
The direct conclusions of Munchaev’s first monograph are very significant for
characterizing the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Caucasus. First, he con-
cludes that sites of the Kuro-Araxes Eneolithic previously distinguished by Kuftin
according to South Caucasus materials constitute a local version in the Northeast
Caucasus (Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia). The population that left these relics
was sedentary, engaged in farming, raising livestock, and metallurgy.
In addition, in the steppe zone of the Terek River basin, in the Sunzha River val-
ley near Grozny, rare kurgan complexes were noted, comparable with the Mariupol
cemetery near the Sea of Azov and older than sites of the Kuro-Araxes culture.
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

The book’s most important conclusion is that, in the studied plains and piedmont
region of Chechnya and Ingushetia, side by side with tribes of the Kuro-Araxes
culture lived tribes of the Maikop culture, which left their own kurgans here. No
one had yet identified Maikop burials so far east in the North Caucasus. The range
of the Maikop culture had previously been associated primarily with the Kuban
region. Finds of Maikop complexes in Central Ciscaucasia were only sporadically
noted in Kabardino-Balkaria and North Ossetia.
Another fundamentally important conclusion was that in the pottery assemblage
of the Lugovoe settlement a symbiosis of features of the Kuro-Araxes and Maikop
cultures can be seen. The former component nevertheless remains dominant. Thus,
a zone was revealed where the two main cultures of the dawn of the Bronze Age
in the Caucasus, Kuro-Araxes and Maikop, met.
Analyzing material from settlements of the Kuro-Araxes “Eneolithic” in the
Northeast Caucasus, Munchaev noted that these tribes had close cultural contacts
with the South Caucasus. The Greater Caucasus Range did not prevent such
exchange. The author’s thesis regarding the deep roots, going back to the local
Eneolithic, of sedentary agricultural and pastoral cultures in the Northeast Caucasus
of the Bronze Age is very important.
After Munchaev’s monograph came out, by the late 1960s–early 1970s ap-
preciable successes had been made in study of the initial stage of development
of sites in the early phase of a productive economy in the Caucasus. Settlements
important for characterizing this period were excavated in Azerbaijan, Geor-
gia, and Armenia. The appearance of mass analyses of metal objects, begun by
I.R. Selimkhanov (1960), convincingly showed that the period of the Kuro-Araxes
and Maikop cultures was associated not with the Eneolithic (Copper Age) but with
the era when copper-arsenic alloys (bronze) were prevalent. Research developing
Kuftin’s ideas came into scientific circulation, which was fundamentally impor-
tant for understanding the earliest history of agriculturalists and pastoralists in the
South Caucasus. These included studies by A.A. Martirosian, E.V. Khandzadian,
I.A. Abibulaev, I.G. Narimanov, G.S. Ismailov, L.D. Nebieridze, T.N. Chubin-
ishvili, K.Kh. Kushnareva, O.M. Dzhaparidze, A.I. Dzhavakhishvili, L.I. Glonti,
G.G. Pkhakadze, Ia.A Kikvidze, Sh.Sh. Dedabrishvili, L.N. Solov’ev, and others.
 46 anthropology & archeology of eurasia

Major articles were published in this field, as well as several monographs. The first
radiocarbon datings for sites of the Kuro-Araxes culture appeared. In uncalibrated
terms, they dated back to the first half of the third millennium b.c.e. (Kushnareva
and Chubinishvili 1970). Sites of the Shulaveri-Shomu-Tepe culture were dated
to the fifth–fourth millennium b.c.e.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, there was also a noticeable expansion in the North
Caucasus of the range of sources on studying sites of the initial stage of ancient agri-
culturalists and pastoralists. The chronology of the Maikop culture became relatively
older. In conference proceedings, Iessen proposed dating it to the second half of the
third millennium b.c.e. This date has long been reinforced in the literature and it
is generally accepted, although the arguments supporting it remain unconvincing.
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

The early Maikop stage distinguished by Iessen is dated to 2,500–2,400 b.c.e.; and
the later, Novosvobodnaia stage, to 2,300–2,000 B.C.E. That same year, Krupnov
published a generalizing, interesting, but controversial study of the Caucasus ethnic
community and sites of the Kuro-Araxes and Maikop cultures as speakers of the
basic language families in the Caucasus (1963, pp. 1–13).
At that same time, successes were achieved in archeology of the Early Bronze
Age in Dagestan. Interesting settlements of early agriculturalists and pastoralists
here were studied by M.G. Gadzhiev, V.G. Kotovich, and D.M. Ataev (Galgalatli,
Chinchi, Ginchi).
A large array of newly discovered sites appeared in the Kuban region (Adygeia).
In 1959–66, in the upper reaches of the Belaia River, on the Fars River, A.D. Stoliar,
A.A. Formozov, and P.A. Ditler studied settlements with stroke-ornamented pearl
pottery: Meshoko, Iaseneva, Poliana, Veselyi khutor. Unfortunately, monographs
have not yet been published on any of these settlements. Only in 1965 did Formo-
zov publish Kamennyi vek i eneolit Prikuban’ia [The Stone Age and Eneolithic of
the Kuban Region]. It differentiates into period settlements along the Belaia River
that are interpreted as sites of the Maikop culture. However, subsequent studies
have shown that none of them are exclusively settlements of the Maikop culture
(Korenevskii 1996b, 1998).
Interesting materials of the Maikop culture were excavated at the Ust’-
Dzhegutinsk cemetery by A.L. Nechitailo, published in her article coauthored with
Munchaev (Munchaev and Nechitailo 1966). Extensive excavations of kurgans
with Maikop burials began in Kabardino-Balkaria, including the discovery of a
remarkable tomb in Nal’chik.
Excavations by Munchaev of kurgans of the Maikop culture at Bamut in Chech-
nya in 1959–61 served to heighten his interest in its enigmatic antiquities. He used
only part of these materials in a 1961 publication. Work on processing the collection
from the Bamut kurgans continued. In 1966, Munchaev published an article with
A.A. Bobrinskii (Bobrinskii and Munchaev 1966) containing interesting information
about how vessels from Maikop burials in the Bamut cemetery were produced. For
the first time, they established that the Maikop masters used mechanical devices
like a potter’s wheel to produce pottery. This was a true discovery that laid the
 summer 2011  47

foundation for a new direction in the field of the Maikop culture: study of its pottery
assemblage under a microscope, using Bobrinskii’s procedure. In a 1973 publication,
Munchaev drew attention to bronze rings with divergent ends that were bent from
a bronze rod (Munchaev 1973). Their interpretation is enigmatic and ambiguous;
there is practically nothing like them outside of the Maikop culture.
Since 1969 Munchaev has been the head of the Iraq expedition that was es-
tablished at the Institute of Archeology. Problems of characterizing cultures from
the initial phases of a productive economy, through to the era of the early Sumer
dynasties in Mesopotamia, became increasingly significant for him. Specialization
on the Kuro-Araxes and Maikop cultures fit well with this interest. He broadly
conceptualized by compiling data on the Neolithic, Eneolithic, and Early Bronze
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

Age in the Caucasus as a whole. Concepts of the Kuro-Araxes Eneolithic or the

Eneolithic Maikop culture changed to the concept of Early Bronze Age cultures.
The latter term became established in the science of the Maikop culture in the North
Caucasus thanks to Munchaev’s work.
In 1971, Munchaev defended his doctoral dissertation on “The Caucasus in the
Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age.” His fundamental monograph Kavkaz na zare
bronzovogo veka [The Caucasus at the Dawn of the Bronze Age], published in 1975,
begins with an extensive historiography of study of the Neolithic, Eneolithic, and
Early Bronze Age in the Caucasus. The first part of the book is devoted to antiqui-
ties of the Neolithic in the Caucasus. The second part examines Eneolithic sites and
the Shulaveri-Shomu-Tepe culture. The third part covers sites of the Kuro-Araxes
culture; and the fourth, sites of the Maikop culture.
Munchaev’s 1975 monograph is a unique work that presents the time of early
agriculturalists and pastoralists in the Caucasus as a whole. There is nothing like
it to this day. The section devoted to the Maikop culture and the chapter on sites of
the Early Bronze Age in Chechnya and Ingushetia are especially noteworthy.
The most important quality of the section on the Maikop culture is that it gives a
complete summary of sites (as we would say now, a “data bank”), so necessary for
any wide-scale study. The work includes new materials accumulated during the So-
viet period up to 1974, as well as other information from the Reports of the Imperial
Archeological Commission. These are very important but hard for many readers to
access. This was practically the first genuine monographic compilation of sources on
the Maikop culture. On its basis subsequent generations of specialists on the Eneolithic
and Early Bronze Age of the North Caucasus were trained (including myself).
The conclusions that Munchaev drew in this book, that there was no Caucasian
ethnic or linguistic unity in the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age of the Cauca-
sus, remain timely up to the present. The problem of identifying ancient cultures
of these periods with specific speakers of modern language groups is complex,
permitting only a few of the most likely hypotheses. Iessen’s thesis that sites of
the Maikop culture are younger than sites such as the Nal’chik cemetery is valid.
In essence, the Maikop culture is of a dual nature, created by newcomers to the
region and local tribes.
 48 anthropology & archeology of eurasia

But it is hardly worth analyzing Munchaev’s 1975 work in detail. It received

high praise in the press long ago. Moreover, a number of its conclusions have
undergone changes as new materials have been accumulated. The chronology has
been refined by proper radiocarbon dates for the Maikop culture. And the problem
of characterizing its settlements and study of its pottery assemblage and economic
and cultural type are seen in a different light.
In 1994, Munchaev published a monographic essay on the Maikop culture in the
Arkheologiia [Archeology] volume Epokha bronzy Kavkaza i srednei Azii. Ranniaia
i Sredniaia bronza Kavkaza [Bronze Age in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Early
and Middle Bronze Age in the Caucasus]. In this article he gives a complete map
of the Maikop culture’s sites at the time of the volume’s publication. The survey
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

of settlements and burials takes into account the latest discoveries of earthenware,
metal items, and handmade stone and bone articles on the Terek and Kuban.
The genre itself demanded of the author a critical survey of various points of
view on many controversial questions in studying the Maikop culture or the Maikop-
Novosvobodnaia community (according to a different terminology). The remarks
made by Munchaev seem as timely now as they did ten years ago.
For instance, he is skeptical about the idea that a number of authors have of
presenting the Maikop culture in the form of two different cultures: Maikop proper
and Novosvobodnaia. Stoliar was the first to attempt this, on the basis of materi-
als from the Meshoko settlement (Stoliar 1964).1 Following Iessen and Krupnov,
Munchaev sees the group of sites of the Maikop kurgan type and the group of
tombs in Novosvobodnaia Stanitsa as two successive stages of one culture (or
community).2
In the 1994 study, Munchaev spoke out against the idea of presenting sites of the
Novosvobodnaia group as relics of tribes of the corded-amphora or funnel-beaker
culture, as other researchers proposed. He considers other attempts to present bear-
ers of the Maikop culture as Semites, Turks, or other speakers of non-Caucasian
modern linguistic groups unsubstantiated. He rightly fails to see any possibility
of distinguishing local versions of the Maikop culture just on the basis of where a
site is located, in the basin of the Terek or Kuban River, or according to data from
burial complexes alone. The latter operation would be justified, in his opinion, only
on the basis of the richest collection of Maikop settlements.
The 1994 work on the Maikop culture was written during the period when
radiocarbon datings of Maikop sites were beginning to come into scientific cir-
culation (Korenevskii 1993, p. 100; 1996a).a Munchaev takes them into account
and dates the Maikop culture to the late fourth–first half of the third millennium
b.c.e., relying on uncalibrated 14C dates and analogies of Maikop sites in northern
Mesopotamia (Tepe-Gawra) and Anatolia (Arslantepe VIA)3 (Munchaev 1994, pp.
169, 170). The new compilation of materials on the Maikop culture accentuated the
most important focal points in study of the Early Bronze Age in the North Caucasus
and stimulated further development of knowledge of it, without minimizing the
difficulties associated with this field.
 summer 2011  49

In 2001, Munchaev published a brief article, “Maikop i Mesopotamiia: itogi

izucheniia i perspektivy” [Maikop and Mesopotamia: Results of Study and Pros-
pects], developing the subject of the Maikop culture]. In it, he proposes the hy-
pothesis that the Middle Eastern component of the Maikop culture is associated
with bearers of the culture of the late Northern Uruk period (pp. 34, 35). This idea
was further developed in his 2007 study (pp. 8, 9) and in a report presented at the
International Conference of Archeologists and Ethnologists in Makhachkala.
Concluding this brief synopsis of Munchaev’s contribution to the science of
the Bronze Age in the North Caucasus, it should be noted that his whole career
has been a demonstration of a genuinely scientific combination of the profound
theory and erudition of an office researcher’s outlook with constant checking in the
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

field. Each major subject that Munchaev tackles—be it the problem of the Maikop
culture or the Eneolithic–Bronze Age of Mesopotamia and Siberia—starts with
outstanding field surveys. We cannot fail to point out that he is also the author of
the “Eneolithic of the Caucasus” section of the Arkheologiia volume Eneolit SSSR
[Eneolithic of the Soviet Union]. In addition, he is coauthor with V.I. Markovin of
a monograph on the archeology of the North Caucasus (Markovin and Munchaev
2003) and one of the authors of an extensive work devoted to studies of Tel Hazna I
in Syria (Munchaev, Merpert, and Amirov 2004).

Notes
1. In this regard, it should be noted that, since Meshoko is simply not a site of the Maikop
culture but belongs to the group of sites with stroke-ornamented pearl pottery of Ciscaucasia,
even raising this question on the basis of data from Meshoko is inappropriate (Munchaev
1975, p. 50; 1994, p. 188).
2. There is no doubt that the group of Novosvobodnaia tombs is distinctive, but for
those who are systematically and deeply engaged in the Maikop culture it is obvious that
these complexes represent a special group, though one that is within the context of the
Maikop culture or community. The question of its composition needs to be specially ex-
amined, and this can hardly be done successfully without data from the Novosvobodnaia
settlements.
3. Taking into account the calibration of radiocarbon datings, the chronology of the
Maikop-Novosvobodnaia culture is associated with the time frame from the beginning of
the fourth through the beginning of the third millennium b.c.e. It corresponds to the end of
the Ubaid period and the Uruk period in Mesopotamia.

Editor’s note
a. See also Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer, ed., “Turmoil in the Northern Caucasus: The
Maikop Archeology Debate,” Anthropology and Archeology of Eurasia, 1991–92, vol. 30,
no. 3; Philip Kohl, The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007).

References
Bobrinskii, A.A., and Munchaev, R.M. “Iz drevneishei istorii goncharnogo kruga na
Severnom Kavkaze.” Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta arkheologii, 1966, no. 108.
 50 anthropology & archeology of eurasia

Formozov, A.A. Kamennyi vek i eneolit Prikuban’ia. Moscow, 1965.

Korenevskii, S.N. Drevneishee osedloe naselenie na Tereke. Moscow, 1993.
———. “Epokha bronzy Kavkaza i Srednei Azii. Ranniaia i sredniaia bronza Kavkaza.
Arkheologiia.” Rossiiskaia arkheologiia, 1996a, no. 2.
———. “Problema stadial’nogo sootnosheniia poselenii s nakol’chatoi zhemchuzh-
noi keramikoi i poselenii maikopskoi kul’tury (v svete tekushchei diskussii).” In
Aktual’nye problemy arkheologii Severnogo Kavkaza. XIX Krupnovskie chteniia.
Moscow, 1996b.
———. “‘Zamok’ u goroda Kislovodska (nizhnii sloi).” In Materialy po izucheniiu
kul’turnogo naseleniia Severnogo Kavkaza. Arkheologiia, no. 1. Stavropol, 1998.
Krupnov, E.I. Drevneishee kul’turnoe edinstvo Kavkaza i kavkazskaia etnicheskaia ob-
shchnost’ (k probleme proiskhozhdeniia korennykh narodov Kavkaza). Moscow, 1963.
Kushnareva, K.Kh., and Chubinishvili, T.N. Drevnie kul’tury Iuzhnogo Kavkaza. Lenin-
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 10:21 03 March 2015

grad, 1970.
Markovin, V.I., and Munchaev, R.M. Severnyi Kavkaz. Ocherki drevnei i srednevekovoi
istorii i kul’tury. Moscow, 2003
Munchaev, R.M. “Drevneishaia kul’tura plemen severno-vostochnogo Kavkaza.” Mate-
rialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii, 1961, no. 100.
———. “Bronzovye psalii maikopskoi kul’tury i problema vozniknoveniia konevodstva
na Severnom Kavkaze.” In Kavkaz i Vostochnaia Evropa v drevnosti. Moscow, 1973.
———. Kavkaz na zare bronzovogo veka. Moscow, 1975.
———. “Eneolit Kavkaza.” In Eneolit SSSR. Arkheologiia SSSR. Moscow, 1982.
———. “Maikopskaia kul’tura.” In Epokha bronzy Kavkaza i Srednei Azii. Raniaia i
Sredniaia bronza Kavkaza. Arkheologiia. Moscow, 1994.
———. “Maikop i Mesopotamiia: itogi izucheniia i perspektivy.” In Severnyi Kavkaz:
istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki i zametki. Moscow, 2001.
———. “Urutskaia kul’tura (Mesopotamiia) i Kavkaz.” In Arkheologiia, etnografiia i
fol’kloristika Kavkaza. Noveishie arkheologicheskie i etnograficheskie issledovaniia
na Kavkaze. Makhachkala, 2007.
Munchaev, R.M.; Merpert, N.Ia.; and Amirov, Sh.A. Tel’-Khazna I. Moscow, 2004.
Munchaev, R.M., and Nechitailo, A.L. “Kompleksy maikopskoi kul’tury v Ust’-
Dzhegutinskom mogil’nike.” Sovetskaia arkheologiia, 1966, no. 3.
Stoliar, A.D. “Poselenie Meshoko i problema dvukh kul’tur kubanskogo eneolita.” In
Tezisy dokladov sessii, posviashchennoi itogam raboty Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha
za 1963 g. Leningrad, 1964.
Selimkhanov, I.R. “Spektral’noe issledovanie metallicheskikh predmetov iz arkheolo-
gicheskikh pamiatnikov Kavkaza i ustanovlenie ikh epokhi (III–II tysiacheletie do
n.e.).” Izvestiia Akademii Nauk Azerbaidzhanskoi SSR. Seriia geologo-mineralo-
gicheskikh nauk, 1960, no. 1, Baku.

To order reprints, call 1-800-352-2210; outside the United States, call 717-632-3535.