标题：Review of the Monograph: Zykov A.P., Kosintsev P.A., Trepavlov V.V. Gorod Sibir – gorodische Isker (istoriko-arheologicheskoe issledovanie) [The Town of Sibir – The Ancient Settlement of Isker (Historical-Archaeological Research)]
其他标题：Рецензия на монографию: Зыков А.П., Косинцев П.А., Трепавлов В.В. Город Сибир – городище Искер (историко-археологическое исследование)
出版社：State Institution «Sh.Marjani Institute of History of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences»
摘要：The publication of the results of the archaeological research of the Isker ancient settlement in 1988 and 1993 undoubtedly represents one of the most anticipated events for all specialists in the history and archaeology of the Siberian Tatars of the late Middle Ages. This monument represents the archaeological remains of the capital’s center of the Siberian Khanate – the town of Isker – also known as Sibir and Kashlyk. It has been studied for more than a hundred years and the publication of the results is scattered across numerous papers in dozens of collections of articles, while archaeological materials are kept in several museums, including some outside the Russian Federation. All this significantly complicates the real study of this archaeological site and its role in the history of the Siberian Turkic-Tatar statehood. The book under review is divided into three conditional and very uneven parts. The first part, analyzing written sources, was written by V.V. Trepavlov, who managed to both inscribe this town in the context of Siberian history of the 13th–16th centuries and demonstrate its continuity with the previous political center – Chimgi-Tura. The second part, based on archaeological materials, was written by A.P. Zykov, who correlated archaeological research materials of 1988 and 1993 with the results of previous works. In the opinion of reviewers, the main weakness of authors’ concepts lies precisely in this part, since it does not fit with the first part of the book. Finally, the third part of the book, written by P.A. Kosintsev, examines the controversial issues of the economic reconstruction of the Siberian Tatars of the late Middle Ages. The reviewers recognize the relevance of this publication, but they believe that some of the shortcomings of the archaeological methodology will complicate its actual use and many of the conclusions drawn will be further contested.
