Historian of science in the historiographic space of Caucasian studies

The article explores the intricate workings of the development of Caucasian studies, the conver-sion of historical records into historiography, and the broadening of the historian's range of re-search methods. Interest in the internal problems of historiographic research is not accidental, since “the historian cannot but think about the intellectual prerequisites of his own research,” em-phasizes A.Ya. Gurevich, “which voluntarily or involuntarily determine both the methods he uses and the forms and structures of his constructions”. Recently, a broad comprehension of historio-graphic fact, as any fact that provides scientific data on the history of science, has been highlight-ed. The focus of historiographic research is mainly on the concept and paradigm, which reflects the researcher's stance on the issue being studied. In the history of science, a scheme for the sys-tematization of historiographic facts has been formed - firstly, the main facts that make it possible to reconstruct the concept (these are, first of all, the works of professional historians) are distin-guished, and, secondly, auxiliary facts that help to recreate the historian’s laboratory, the context of the creation of labor, the values of the era, etc. One of the most difficult problems of modern Caucasian studies is the analysis of the process of the metamorphosis of historical fact into histo-riographic. How is historical fact included in the system of historiographic relations? Are there any features in the development of this process in Caucasian studies, or do they correspond to all-Russian patterns? These responses assist us in recognizing certain trends in the evolution of his-torical science and Caucasian studies specifically.