Historiographical facts and historiographical sources in the study of the Paleolithic Era of the Crimean region

Cherkasov Aleksey Vladimirovich ORCID: 0000-0002-0331-7674 PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor of the Department of Social and Humanitarian Disciplines, Branch of the Admiral F. F. Ushakov State Maritime University in Sevastopol 298609, Russia, Respublika Krym oblast', g. Yalta, ul. Timiryazeva, 27 cherkasov.alexei1976@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Kozlov Mikhail Nikolaevich Doctor of History Professor, Department of History, Sevastopol State University 299053, Russia, g. Sevastopol', ul. Universitetskaya, 33 cherkasov.alexei1976@gmail.com Other publications by this author

In the system of methodological issues of the history and historiography of the Paleolithic studies of the Crimea, an important role is played by the characteristic of conceptual and categorical tools designed to accurately reflect the ontological side of scientific knowledge in the field of the problem under consideration. Its development is carried out in accordance with the principles of completeness, consistency and integrity, and the content should be consistent with the main components and specifics of the object under study. At the same time, the tasks facing the historian of science actualize the question of the sources with which the process of accumulation and development of historical knowledge is studied. The nature and specificity of historiographical works are largely determined by the features of the source base, that is, the corpus of historiographical and historical sources, as well as historiographical facts ^[11].

Due to the relative youth of historiography as a scientific knowledge and the discreteness of its genesis, methodological issues of analyzing its source base have not yet been sufficiently developed and are being concretized from discussion to discussion. At the same time, the interest in the "internal" problems of historical research is not accidental at all, because modern history is written on the basis of variable views, judgments, assessments. In this regard, the Russian medievalist A.Ya. Gurevich emphasized that "a historian cannot help but think about the intellectual prerequisites of his own research, which voluntarily or involuntarily determine both the methods used by him and the forms and structures of his constructions" ^[4].

The authors point to the close connection of historiographical and historical facts. According to the figurative expression of M.V. Nechkina, a historical fact "is a living space for a historiographical fact" ^[13]. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that the historical fact itself is a multi–valued concept. For example, M.A. Barg substantiated the idea of three levels of historical fact: an event-fact, a fact reflected in a historical source (a source's message), and a fact comprehended by a historian (a conceptualized fact), which is a historiographical fact ^[2].

In recent decades, there has been a broad interpretation of a historiographical fact in the historical literature as any fact that carries information on the history of science. Modern researcher P.A. Kuzminov writes that in historiographical practice, where the emphasis is on the analysis of the concept, a model of authentic classification of historiographical facts has developed. It highlights the main facts that allow reconstructing the concept (primarily the works of historians), and the facts that contribute to the reconstruction of the researcher's image, the context of the creation of the work, the axiology of the epoch, etc. ^[12].

Thus, the specification and theoretical analysis of the content of the concepts of "historiographical fact" and "historiographical source" in relation to the study of the Paleolithic era of the Crimean region are the subject of this publication ^[14].

A historiographical fact is the source material for historiographical research. As a rule, it means a fact of historical science that carries information about historical knowledge used to identify patterns of development of the history of historical science ^[7]. In our opinion, such a definition quite fully reflects the content of the subject of historiography.

The historiographical fact is, of course, based on historical fact. At the same time, historical fact is a broader concept, which forms the foundation of the building of historical science ^[6]. In other words, a historiographical fact is only a part of a historical fact. A historical fact exists objectively, regardless of whether it is known, understood or not. In turn, the historiographical fact is characterized by a certain subjectivity, since it is a derivative of the work of the historian-researcher. The essence of a historiographical fact is in its interpretation, interpretation of the information it contains. Thus, the process of selecting facts and phenomena, determining the depth and volume of scientific information, its truth, theoretical and applied significance becomes extremely important. It is also necessary to take into account the chronological period of the formation of a historiographical fact. It means whether he was created by a contemporary of the events in question, or the author describes them remotely, in a retrospective disposition.

At the same time, according to G.M. Ippolitov's reasoned remark, in functional terms, the historiographical fact is broader than the historiographical source ^[8]. After all, not every historiographical fact is transformed into a source available for wide study. For example, manuscripts of books and dissertations, unpublished transcripts of meetings and forums, discussions and scientific conferences, field diaries and records of archaeological exploration and excavations, memoirs and epistolary literature, etc.).

A classical historical source involved in the process of historiographical analysis acquires the status of a historiographical source. Let us clarify that by a classical historical source we mean written documents and tangible objects that directly reflect the historical process and make it possible to study the past of human society ^[10].

Key historical sources on the Stone Age of Crimea are traditionally divided into several groups.

These are, first of all, material (archaeological science data) – remnants of material culture created by primitive society. Their collection, systematization and comprehensive study allows us to trace the dynamics of the forms of culture, separating the early forms from the later ones, to establish the chronological sequence of their changes.

Further, sources of a natural-historical nature (paleoanthropological, paleogeological, paleoclimatic, data from archaeozoology and archaeobotany, and others). Paleoanthropological material is found in the process of archaeological excavations of ancient burials. At the same time, the preservation of the bones of the skeleton may be poor, but modern restoration methods make it possible to obtain the whole shape of bones and skulls from their fragments. For the reconstruction of the Paleolithic societies of the Crimea, in this regard, the finds of paleoanthropic remains at the sites of Kiik-Koba (G.A. Bonch-Osmolovsky), Staroselye (Salachik) (A.A. Formozov), Zaskalnaya VI (Yu.G. Kolosov) and others are of lasting importance. Geological observations of stratigraphic strata, stratigraphic columns in caves and grottoes, the sequence of horizons of occurrence in open sites are important for establishing the periodization of the history of primitive society and especially the dynamics of technological processes in primeval times, as they allow differentiating and systematizing archaeological inventory, obtaining a fairly complete picture of the sequence of technology development throughout the early history of society, as well as in clarifying migrations of the most ancient people. For Crimea, as an example, such sources are important when considering the presence of Sviderian culture carriers of the final Paleolithic of Central and Eastern Europe at the sites of Suren II, Shan-Koba (IV layer) and others. Archaeozoological sources are necessary to reconstruct the nature of hunting, fishing and gathering. As for domestic forms of animals and birds, their bone remains are a direct source for the development of the problem of animal domestication and ancient animal husbandry (in particular, the provisions of D.A. Krainov on the origin of animal husbandry in the Crimea in the post-Paleolithic period on the materials of the sites of Tash-Air I and Zamil-Koba II). The archaeobotanical material, which is naturally close to the archeozoological one, provides the Stone Age researcher with an important means of absolute dating. For example, until now only the palynological scale of the Paleolithic site of Zaskalaya V is not characterized by internal contradictions and correlates with the dynamics and parameters of climatic changes traced in the sediments of other similar monuments of the Crimea (Kabazi II, Buran Kai III, etc.) ^[15].

In addition, it is necessary to point out innovative sources that are becoming widespread and popular in modern paleolithic studies. These are the data of paleogenetics, DNA and lipid analyses, etc. For example, a genome-wide analysis of the Eastern European sapiens, who lived at the Burankai III site in the Crimea 36 thousand years AGO, showed that this paleoanthrope was genetically close to both the inhabitants of the Russian Plain of the same time, and to representatives of the classical gravett of Central Europe, who lived 6 thousand years later (research by A.A. Yanevich). Further identification and comparative analysis of mitochondrial haplogroups N1 and Y-chromosomal haplogroups BT, CT, C of the "Burankai" man with samples from Europe (Romania), the Middle East and Africa, allowed us to formulate the assumption that there is no fact of late local mixing of Neanderthals in the Crimea with anatomically modern humans ^[16].

With the development of historiographical knowledge, the corpus of historical sources integrated into the system of scientific analysis and interpretation is expanding. The collection of historiographical sources, differing in the level of informativeness, is gradually increasing, and they require a special approach, taking into account the purpose and orientation of the historiographical research conducted. It is advisable to divide such sources into conditional groups.

These are, firstly, historiographical sources as a wide body of general and special research, scientific reference publications that characterize the problem of a specific historiographical study. These include fundamental works on history, archeology, the history of primitive society, systematized works on their individual aspects; comprehensive essays on the history of historical science, source studies; monographs; dissertations; scientific articles; abstracts and materials of conferences, symposiums, forums; reports of archaeological exploration and expeditions; bibliographic reviews and reviews ^[20]. The researcher-historiographer will be interested in the authorship, the history of writing the work, the issues raised, the structure and source base, methods and techniques of processing and interpretation of the identified material, as well as the place of this work in the historiographic stream, the degree of its influence on the development of historical knowledge, and so on.

Secondly, historical sources as a system of documents and materials that reflect the period of history chosen for historiographical research. At the same time, the appeal to archival documents and materials is conditioned by the need to determine the source base of the problem, further prospects in the development of its individual points. At the same time, in our opinion, S.P. Isachkin's opinion is problematic that documentary sources play an auxiliary role in historiographical research ^[9]. Published documents and archival materials, on the contrary, contribute to the formation of an adequate understanding of the subject of the studied problem. According to P.A. Kuzminov, which we share, such units allow us to avoid inaccuracies and even falsifications in unfairly presented historical research, distortions of factual material. Therefore, the task of the historian of science is not only the analysis of historiographical sources, but also the identification of inadequately developed plots of the problem, the orientation of other researchers to those sources and methods of cognition with which the identified gaps can be eliminated ^[11]. At the same time, in the process of working with archival funds, it is important not to allow the substitution of research analysis by formal citation of the document.

Thirdly, additional sources of non-historical and non-historiographical nature, attracted as auxiliary data (periodical press, journalism, sources of personal origin, etc.). Such sources have their own specifics. For example, the periodical press is characterized by: informativeness, factography, telegraphic method of submission and relevance of data at the time of publication of the publication, responsiveness to modern issues, carried out in a ascertaining form; belonging to a specific sociopolitical force or to official state bodies ^[17]. In some samples of popular scientific journalistic literature, data are given that have not received adequate coverage in other sources. ^[5]. Memoir literature, due to its own subjectivism and retrospection, generally performs an auxiliary function, confirming or refuting data from other sources. The memoirs of archaeologists and historians allow us to restore the flavor of the era, to reveal the feelings and thoughts of the participants in the events (vivid genre memoirs of G.A. Bonch-Osmolovsky, D.A., Krainov, S.N. Bibikov, Yu.G. Kolosov and other researchers of the Paleolithic of the Crimea). As A.A. Kurnosova notes, in such literature, self-consciousness of the individual is realized with a certain consistent completeness and clarity ^[13]. In diaries and records as auxiliary sources when writing historiographical works, events and facts essential to the author are recorded, representing a direct form of personal self-expression and self-affirmation. However, here, as in memoirs, due to their subjectivity, it is necessary to take into account a number of difficulties. Firstly, the importance of finding out the motivations for their writing; secondly, the problem of authorship; thirdly, the ratio of objectivity, reliability and subjectivism ^[19]. G.M. Ippolitov also focuses on such a property of such sources as are able to acquire the qualities of historiographical sources in the process of their research from the standpoint of displaying the relationship of individual and social ^[8].

Thus, historical and historiographical sources as scientific categories differ in complexity and serious specificity, and the concepts of "historiographical source" and "historiographical fact" are not identical, but are in dialectical unity. Here, both the singular and the general and the special, characteristic of any scientific category, are holistically traced. The mechanical extrapolation of universal source-study postulates to the analysis of the corpus of sources involved in the analysis of the historiography of the study of the Stone Age of Crimea, in this regard, is not appropriate, but assumes a systematic approach taking into account the cognitive capabilities of historiography itself, the history of science and science studies in general.