Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purpose of the study is to define the chronology of the main events related to the history of the complex. The relevance of the study is determined by the ambiguity of the information from the ;written sources, as well as a wide range of opinions in the scientific tradition on the chronology of the historical events directly related to the complex. The result of the study is a general conclusion that it is impossible to say anything definite about the time of the first construction on the site of the complex without archaeological works. F.Kh. Gutnov’s assumption the first reliable information about the complex, presented in the second part of the chronicle “Monument of the Eristavis,” should be dated back to the middle of the 13th century, is supported. The information from the first part of the chronicle, which tells about the founding of the monastery, is the most debatable, since the author of the chronicle probably arbitrarily compiled the information from other written sources, thus ancientizing the time of the appearance of the Ossetian clan of the Ksan Eristavis (Sidamonovs) on the southern slopes of the Caucasus. At the same time, R.G. Dzattiaty’s correlation the initial history of the complex with the Alanian burial grounds and a settlement of the 6th-7th centuries, located on the territory of the Republic of South Ossetia, is consider as a relevant. The study used such general scientific methods as logical, classification, problematic, inductive and deductive, as well as special methods of historical analysis: historical comparative, historical typological, historical genetic, historical biographical, chronological systemic and retrospective analytical.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eduard V. Kaziev (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: