The article is devoted to the problem of typological and cultural-chronological attribution of Seimin-Turbine bronzes found on the territory of the Kuznetsk basin and Achinsk-Mariinsky forest-steppe. A general overview of the false-text ceramics that spread from the Tom River to the Tobol River in the early 2nd millennium BC is given, and a connection between this cultural complex of the Kuznetsk Basin and the Seimian-Turbian antiquities is suggested. The dating of the Krokhaly false-text ceramic materials from the end of the third millennium BC to the first quarter of the second millennium BC is argued. The article substantiates the opinion that the definition of "Samus-Seimin era" is incorrect, as it does not meet modern scientific concepts.

Key words: Seimin-Turbin epoch, Celt, Archekas, Krokhalev culture, false-textile ceramics, Kuznetsk basin, Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe.

Introduction

The reason for this article is the celt, published in 1970 by I. I. Baukhnik as part of archaeological materials from Mount Archekas in the vicinity of Mariinsk, Kemerovo region. Unfortunately, the drawing does not convey all the details of the product's ornamentation and has unreliable differences from the original [Baukhnik, 1970, p. 53, Fig.1, 1]. This made it necessary to re-study and publish this find. The celt is now on display at the Mariinsky Museum of Local Lore*. There is no documentation indicating the exact location and circumstances of its location. The first publication does not clarify the situation either. The author gives a map with three settlements he discovered (?), but the Celt is not associated with any of them. All information about the circumstances and location of the product is reduced to the phrase: "In addition, a bronze celt and a knife were found on Archkas" [Ibid., p. 50, Fig. 1; p. 53]. Our search for a reliable location of the Archekassk Celt continues. But so far, the survey of the supposed localization areas of monuments discovered by I. I. Baukhnik has not been crowned with success.

Celt from Mount Arcecas and its parallels

The Archekass celt belongs to the category of Seimin-Turbin Celtic axes (Figs. 1, 2, 6). In the classification scheme of E. N. Chernykh and S. V. Kuzmin, it is included in the final typological category K-18 [1989, p. 281], and according to an alternative opinion, it is included in the number of Karasuk Celts [Martynov, 1979, p.72]. The length of the product along the longitudinal axis reaches

The authors are grateful to the Director of the Mariinsky Museum of Local Lore, E. N. Polivanova, and the chief curator, N. E. Turkina, for the opportunity to get acquainted with the exhibit.

page 69

Figure 1. Celt from Mount Arcecas. 1 - "front" side; 2 - "back" side; 3, 4-side faces.

2. Ornamental parallels to the Archekassk Celt. 1-Sokolovka; 2-Ust-Sobakino; 3 - pos. Mundybash-1 (Kondoma River); 4-Nikolaevka (Altai); 5-Shaitan Lake II; 6-Mount Archekas; 7-Sopka II; 8-mouth of the Tarsma River. 1, 2, 7-according to [Chernykh and Kuzminykh, 1989]; 3, 8-according to [Bobrov, 2000]; 4 - according to [Umansky, 1992]; 5-according to [Serikov et al., 2008].

page 70

3. Blade part of the Celt from Mount Archekas.

9.5 cm, maximum blade width 6.0 cm. The dimensions of the sleeve opening are 4.2×2.4 cm, the wall thickness is 0.4 cm. The height of the blade part does not exceed 1.5 cm. Product safety is satisfactory. At the same time, the weariness of the ornament is obvious due to the intensive use of tools. There is a small crack on the sleeve wall on one side. Almost the entire surface of the celt is covered with numerous vertical stripes and grooves, which are traces from the contact of the tool with the processed material, soil, etc. On the blade part on both sides there are horizontal chamfers indicating the sharpening of the tool (Fig. 3). On the side faces there are pronounced casting seams (see Fig. 1, 3, 4).

The differences between the Archekass Celtic ornament and the copy of I. I. Baukhnik are established. In addition to the "reverse" side and side faces of the gun that are not represented in his work, but are ornamented (see Figures 1, 2-4), inconsistencies in the image of the "front" part of the Celt are revealed. The principal difference between the first copy [Baukhnik, 1970, p. 53, Fig. 1, 1] and the original is the incorrect transmission of the last element of the garland of rhombuses, ending not in a rhombus, but in a triangle (see Fig. 1, 1).

The ornamental composition of the Archekass celt is formed by a combination of three motifs. The first is a" belt "made of a "grid" covering the base of the bushing. The second is a border made of triangular elements that frame the "belt", including on the side faces of the gun. The third one is a garland of rhombic shapes, starting and ending with triangular elements with mutually directed vertices (see Figure 1). The ornamental scheme of the Archekass product reveals a series of parallels among the typologically similar Seimian-Turbian Celts. They are found in Sokolovka (Tatarstan), Ust-Sobakino settlement (Krasnoyarsk), Nikolaevka village (Altai Krai), Sopka II (Baraba), Shaitanskoe Ozero II site (north of Yekaterinburg), and Mundybash-1 settlement near the Kondoma River in the southern mountain-taiga part of the Kuznetsk Basin (2). In addition, a product with a fundamentally similar ornamental scheme was found at the mouth of the Tarsma River, a tributary of the Pni River, in the northwestern sector of the Kuznetsk Basin (Kemerovo Region). The only difference is the decor of the "belt", which consists not of a "grid", but of zigzag-triangular elements (see Figs. 2, 8).

The comparability of the ornamentation of a number of Celts was previously noted by researchers. V. V. Bobrov points out the similarity of the Mundybash tool with the Ust-Sobakinsky and with the Celt from the village of Nikolaevka (Umansky, 1992, p. 169, Fig. 4; Bobrov, 2000, p. 76). However, it is more symptomatic that the ornamental patterns of Celts from the Kuznetsk Basin and the Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe coincide (Mundybash-1, the mouth of the Tarsma River and Mount Archekas; see Fig. 2, 3, 6, 8). It is also significant that of the eight items with typologically similar ornamentation, seven were found east of the Urals (see Fig. 2, 2-8), and six - in the south of Western Siberia (see Fig. 2, 2 - 4, 6 - 8). Consequently, this territory is the main area of the considered ornamental type of the Seimian-Turbian Celts. It is interesting that the ornamental scheme itself has a relatively wide chronological range of existence. One of the two non-West Siberian Celts with such ornamentation from the site of Shaitanskoe Ozero II is distinguished by a "false" ear (see Figs. 2, 5), which is characteristic of Kizhi-type Celts belonging to the Samus-Kizhi tradition of metalworking (Serikov et al., 2008, p. 340).

In addition to the listed Celts, ud. In Drachenino, on the left bank of the Pni River (Kuznetsk Basin), a bronze spearhead of the Seimin-Turbinsky design was also accidentally found (Bobrov, 2000, pp. 76-77, Fig. 1). Thus, four bronze objects of the Seimin-Turbinsky type found in the Kuznetsk basin and Achinsk-Mariinsky forest-steppe need cultural and historical interpretation. Which of the known cultural and chronological horizons of the turn of the III-II millennium BC - the first half of the II millennium BC should these objects be correlated with? What cultures of the Kuznetsk basin and Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe are associated with their production and use? Finally, were these products cast in the specified territories, or were they imported from other (what?)countries? regions?

Krokhalev complexes and the Seimin-Turbine epoch of the Kuznetsk Basin

To establish the chronological boundaries of the desired cultural horizon, we will refer to the results of radiocarbon dating of the Seimin-Turbin monuments. One of the calibrated dates

page 71
It is obtained for Satyga XVI-2140-1940 BC (95 % probability) [Epimakhov et al., 2005, pp. 94-97, tab. 3]. Materials from the Yurinsky burial ground are dated 1950-1860 (40.6 %) and 1850 - 1770 (27.6 %) BC (Jungner and Karpelan, 2005). It is also advisable to take into account the calibrated dates of synstadial to the Seimin-Turbin antiquities of the Elunino I burial ground: 1960-1870 (67.5 %) and 1840 - 1830 (0.7 %) BC [Ibid.]. According to radiocarbon dating data, the Seimin-Turba antiquities have a small priority over the Sintashta antiquities. But in general, the first ones are synchronized with the materials of the Abashev-Sintashta circle, dating this phase of the Ural Bronze Age to the XX-XVIII centuries BC (Epimakhov et al., 2005, pp. 97-100). The above data indicate that the chronological framework of the horizon with which the Kuznetsk and Archekassk Celts should be correlated is XX (late XXI) - XIX (XVIII?) centuries. BCE

What cultural communities were there in the Kuznetsk Basin and Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe during this period? The first and so far only characteristic of the Seimin-Turbin era in these regions belongs to V. V. Bobrov. The author calls this period the Samus-Seimin time and refers to it four main complexes: comb-pit, Samus, Okunevsky and Tretyakov. The mentioned Celts of the Seimin-Turbinsky type from the Tarsma River (Kuznetsk basin) and from Mount Archekas (Achinsk-Mariinskaya forest-steppe) were first considered in the context of the Samus culture (Bobrov, 1992, pp. 10-11). However, later it was suggested that the Celt was associated with the Mundybash-1 settlement (which is typologically identical to Archekassky in its ornamentation; see Figs. 2, 3) with one of the ceramic groups of the Krokhalev culture (Bobrov, 2000, p. 78]. In the complexes of the Kuznetsk Basin, the researcher identified two such groups (Bobrov, 1992, pp. 9-10). The first group consists of vessels with flat and round bottoms, solid false-text prints, and ornaments in the corolla area made of rare pits or "pearls". This particular group, with some differences, is similar to the Krokhalev type of ceramics originally identified by N. V. Polosmak, the diagnostic feature of which is the imprints of rope or plant fiber from a beater for knocking out the vessel walls. Since such an "ornament" imitated a textile pattern, it was called "false textiles" (Polos'mak, 1978, p. 38). At the same time, for the Bronze Age in Western Siberia, other methods of imitating textile prints are also known: stamping with a special ornamental tool, rolling tools grooved "for textiles", etc. [Glushkov, 1996, pp. 68-70]. The second group is represented by jar and pot-shaped vessels with zonal ornaments made with nail indentations, notches, dotted combs and carved techniques. V. V. Bobrov correlated the Mundybash celt of the Seimin-Turbinsky type with this group [2000, p. 78]. The chronological framework of the culture was determined by the preservation in the ornamentation of the first group of Krokhalev ceramics of the signs of the Irba tradition; by the stadium similarity with Odin type monuments of the first third or first half of the second millennium BC; by parallels with the ceramic complexes of Transbaikalia of the beginning of the second millennium BC. B.C. [Bobrov, 1992, p. 27]. In addition, single specimens of Samus ceramics in the Krokhalev complexes suggested connections and synchronicity of these cultures (Bobrov, 1988, p. 70).

The first half of the second millennium BC is dated by N. V. Polosmak, who shares M. F. Kosarev's opinion about their upper chronological boundary no later than the XVII-XVI centuries BC. Chronologically significant observations indicate a partial co-existence of the population that left the Krokhalevsky type of ceramics and the carriers of the Krotovo culture [Polosmak, 1978, p. 45 - 46]. A similar idea was expressed by V. I. Molodin [1985, p. 34]. The authors of the monograph on the archaeological sites of the Toguchinsky district of the Novosibirsk region also refer the materials of the Krokhalev culture to the first half of the second millennium BC (Bobrov et al., 2000, p. 79). In the Barnaul-Biysk Ob region, false-text ceramics were found in two settlements: Komarovo and Kostenkova Izbushka. Yu. F. Kiryushin notes its stratigraphic combination with Elunin and comb-pit ceramics, and the appearance of false-text ceramics refers to the period "when there is a transition in ornamentation to a receding comb in various combinations characteristic of the Elunin culture" [2002, p. 33]. Probably, the co-existence of the population that made dishes with false-textile ornaments and the Elunin people, but already in adjacent territories, is evidenced by the observations of S. P. Grushin: "In most cases, Krokhalev materials are accompanied by Elunin ceramics. Such monuments "border" the main territory of distribution of Elunin complexes, delineating the boundary of distribution of this culture " [2003, p. 54]. The time of existence of false-textile ceramics is defined by Yu. F. Kiryushin as the end of the third millennium BC or the boundary of the third-second millennium BC - the first half of the second millennium BC [2002, p. 34]. When describing the Vasyugan complexes, this dating has received epochal definitions: "Tableware with textile ornaments in the Ob region appears in the late Eneolithic and exists in the period of early and possibly developed Bronze Age" [Kiryushin, 2004, p. 49]. F. I. Metz and Ya. A. Yakovlev, based on the conclusions of I. G. Glushkov and

page 72
According to T. N. Glushkova, the false-textile ceramics of the Narym Ob region are dated to the second third of the II millennium BC [1995, p. 29]. V. A. Zakh believes that the upper date of the Krokhalev culture in the Ob region and the Near-Alai region coincides with the beginning of the Andronovo expansion [1997, p.26].

The eastern boundary of the area of false-text ceramics is bounded by the Middle Tributary (Bobrov, 1988, p. 70) and the right bank of the lower Tom River (Dolgaya-1). To the west of the river. Ob ceramics are known from the Irtysh and Ishim rivers (Gening et al., 1970, pp. 19-20; Panfilov, 1989, pp. 150-156). A. N. Panfilov attributes the time of its appearance on the Irtysh River to the beginning of the second millennium BC (1989, p. 156). Even further west, a false-text pottery similar to the Krokhalevskaya pottery was found in the forest-steppe part of the Upper Alabuga river basin, in the Upper Alabuga settlement complex (Potemkina, 1985, p. 160), which probably makes it possible to "push the western border of "textile" ceramics to Tobol" (Ibid., p. 276). T. M. Potemkina refers the false-text ceramic complex to the Upper Alabuga River Basin (Potemkina, 1985, p. 160). the first half of the second millennium BC. But in relation to the Upper Alabuga, we are talking about the turn of the III-II millennium BC. The author gives the stratigraphy of dwelling 4, at the bottom of which there was a collapse of the Boborykin vessel, and clusters of false - text ceramics were recorded in the upper filling [Ibid., pp. 277-278]. T. M. Potemkina calls this ceramic complex Odinovo-Krokhalevsky [Ibid., pp. 277-278]. the same page. 161], but this stratigraphic situation does not allow us to draw a final conclusion about its character and time of existence.

I. G. Glushkov distinguished two different typological and chronological groups of "textile" ceramics of the Ob-Irtysh region. The first type is characterized by surface treatment by rolling a rod wrapped with a cord, pseudo-ribbed impressions, etc., It dates from the end of the III-beginning of the II millennium BC. e. It includes, for example, one of the groups of ceramics of the Botai settlement. The second type is characterized by processing with hard stamps and knocking out "under textiles" from the inner and outer sides of the vessel, is called pseudo-textile by the researcher and dates back to the second third of the II millennium BC [Glushkov, 2005, p. 275]. It is the second type that is the subject of this paper. However, since I. G. Glushkov dated the materials within the traditional chronology, which does not take into account the calibrated dates obtained for 14 C, a corresponding adjustment is necessary.

V. I. Molodin does not exclude the co-existence of the Krokhalevs with the carriers of the Krotovo culture, and the latter with the Odin population in Central Baraba [1985, p. 34]. At the same time, ceramics similar to false textiles are known precisely from the Odin materials of the Baraba forest-steppe [Ibid., p. 29, figs. 10, 5, 6, 11; p. 30], which divides the area of "false textiles" into its western, Tobolsk-Irtysh, and eastern, Priobsko-Tomsk regions. Probably, this fact confirms the thesis about the coexistence of the creators of such ceramics with the carriers of the Krotovo culture, including those who occupied the adjacent territory of Baraba, as well as with the Odin population of the region. The connection of the Odinovsky complex with the Seimino-Turbino antiquities is probably confirmed by the materials of Preobrazhenka-6 (Molodin et al., 2007, pp. 340-344). In a recent study, V. I. Molodin and A.V. Neskorov actually established chronological synchronicity with the Seimin-Turbin bronzes not only of the Krotovo, but also of the Odinovo population: "the carriers of the Odin and Krotovo cultures, who lived in the early-developed Bronze Age in the Ob-Irtysh forest-steppe, had a powerful industry and the most modern weapons for their era" [2010, p.70].

Taking into account the tendency to aging of Bronze Age monuments, the co-existence of the creators of false-textile ceramics with pre-Iron Odin and Krotov (early?) For example, the stratigraphic combination of this ceramic with the Elunin one, the calibrated absolute dates of the Seimin-Turbinsky and Eluninsky complexes, and the fact of the pre-Samus existence of false-textile Krokhalev ceramics (more details below), it can be dated within the late III-first quarter of the II millennium BC.

V. V. Bobrov, describing the prevalence of the two groups of Krokhalev ceramics identified by him in the Kuznetsk basin, notes: "In the foothills of the Kuznetsk Alatau, both groups do not occur in a mixed form (Kuznetsk-1/1-textiles (probably meant Kuznetsk-1/2. - I. K., A.M.); Mundybash, Pechergol-2-notches)" [1992, p. 9]. Yu. V. Shirin suggests a chronological sequence of these two groups, This seems to be confirmed by the stratigraphy of the multi-layered settlement Pashkino-1 on the Uskat River, a left tributary of the Tom River, in the forest-steppe zone of the Kuznetsk Basin. Here, the false-text ceramics lay higher than those with a dotted comb and notches (Shirin, 2008, p. 10). However, Yu. V. Shirin does not exclude "the possibility of co-existence of a population with two cultural traditions based on different types of economy, with different shares of producing and appropriating complexes" [Ibid.].

In the north-west of the Kuznetsk Basin, in the Lower Pritomye directly near the Novoromanovskaya Pisanitsa I, we study the multilayered monument Dolgaya-1. Here we obtain reliable data on the relative chronology of Bronze Age ceramic complexes. The parking lot contains a representative collection of false-textile ceramics, which lay immediately under Samuska and comb-pit. In previously made lifting fees

page 73
vessels with false-textile ornaments and "Krokhalevskaya" (?) dishes with notches and nail indentations are equally represented [Marochkin, 2009, p. 90-91].

The assumption about the conjugation of the "Krokhalevskaya" ceramics of the second group and the celt of the Seimin-Turbinsky appearance at the settlement of Mundybash-1 (Bobrov, 2000, p. 78) is hypothetical. According to the researcher of the monument, the circumstances of the discovery of the tool do not give indisputable grounds for its correlation with any cultural complex of the settlement (consultation of Yu.V. Shirin). Therefore, there are no reliable facts of finding bronze products together with the actual Krokhalevskaya false-textile ceramics yet. However, the presence of bronze foundry production among the Krokhalevites is confirmed by such finds as fragments of foundry molds, crucibles (Bobrov, 1992, p.9), lint boxes, and other items related to the metallurgy of bronze. A clay cone for casting spears and a fragment of an unidentified mold were found in Krokhalevka-4 (Molodin, 1977, p. 72). The Krokhalevsky complex of the Inya-2 settlement contains shale ice (Zakh, 1997, p. 25). In the south of the Kuznetsk basin, Yu. V. Shirin investigated the settlement of Kuznetsk-1/2, which produced mainly Krokhalev ceramics with false-textile ornaments. Together with it, a bronze splash, fragments of a crucible and casting molds, fragments of a conical clay cone for forming the sleeve of a bronze product were found in the layer. The design of the resulting sleeve (a wide smooth rim and several massive rollers), in the author's opinion, is similar to that of the spearheads of copies of the Seimin-Turbinsky period [Shirin, 2008, pp. 10-11, Fig. 6, 2]. In 2010, at the Dolgaya-1 parking lot in the Lower Pritomye, on a planigraphically isolated site In the northern part of the monument, three fragments of the Celtic foundry mold sash (?) were found to be located mainly in false-textile ceramics.

The stratigraphic position of the actual Krokhalevskaya false-textile ceramics in the Kuznetsk basin indicates that it precedes the Samuska and comb-pit ceramics and follows the ceramics ornamented with dotted combs and notches, probably co-existing with it for some time. Consequently, the time of existence of the Krokhaly false-textile ceramics corresponds to the transition period from early to advanced bronze. The Seimin-Turbine epoch, which dates from the XX (late XXI) - XIX (XVIII?) centuries BC, also fits into the same chronological segment. Thus, the direct conjugation or parallel existence of false-text ceramics and Seimin-Turbine antiquities in the Kuznetsk Basin is quite acceptable.

Cultural and historical content of the epoch: "Seiminsko-Turbinskaya" or "Samussko-Seiminskaya"?

The cultural attribution of the Archekass Celt is also problematic. The periodization of early and pre-Iron Bronze cultures in the Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe is also represented by V. V. Bobrov (Bobrov, 1992, pp. 9-12). The beginning of the paleometal epoch is associated with Karasev-type ceramics, which are synchronous with the Irba and Bolshemyss complexes of the Upper Ob region and the Bairyk ceramics of the forest-steppe Baraba. The Karasevskys are followed by monuments with Smirnov-type tinware. It is decorated with a continuous receding-knurled ornament that forms horizontal rows on the body and concentric circles on the bottom of the vessels [Ibid., pp. 9-12, 27-28]. As the author admits ," the definition of the Smirnov type chronology is hypothetical. However, some similarity of ornamental elements with those of Krokhalev, a more developed decorative scheme relative to the previous complexes in Prichulymye - allow us to synchronize the Krokhalev culture and the Smirnov type" [Ibid., p. 28]. Monuments with comb-pit ceramics, Samus and Okunevskaya cultures, as well as Tretyakov-type complexes are attributed to the "Samus - Seimin time" [Ibid., pp. 10-12].

Later, V. V. Bobrov and P. V. German clarified the supposed dynamics of regional cultural interactions at the specified time: "Probably, on the territory of the Achinsk-Mariinsky forest-steppe in the Seimino-Turbino era, there was a local version of the Samus culture, with the population of which Okunevs were in contact..." [2007, p.182]. In other words, researchers refer to the Samus antiquities of the Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe, represented by burial on the lake. Utinka, to the Seiminsko-Turbinsky chronological horizon. The origins of this approach are connected with the interpretation of the cultural and historical content and chronology of the period covering the existence of the Seimin-Turba and Samus antiquities. The perception of the materials of the Samus IV monument that developed in the 70s - 80s of the XX century as an organic part of the Seimin-Turbinsky complex, and most importantly, simultaneous or chronologically close to it [Chernykh and Kuzminykh, 1989, p. 144], was expressed by the phrase "Samus-Seimin era". The author of the definition, M. F. Kosarev, understood it as a high level of metalworking and peculiar types of bronze products that gave "a special flavor to this historical period" [1981, p. 77]. V. I. Molodin and D. G. Savinov describe the Karakol culture of Gorny Altai, "synchronous in time to the Samus-Seimin cultural and chronological layer" [1992, p. 34]. Concepts of "Samus-Seimin time"

page 74
and "retinue of Samus-Seiminsky type cultures" are used by V. V. Bobrov [1992, p. 10, 28]. This period is associated with the existence in the Kuznetsk-Salair mountain region of ceramics of the comb-pit, Samus, Okunevsky and Tretyakov types [Ibid., pp. 10-12]. The origin of the Samus, Okunevskaya, Krotovskaya, Karakol and Chaakhol cultures is explained by the migration of "the Caucasian population from the regions of Western Asia to the territory of Southern Siberia, which resulted in the formation of the Samus-Seiminsky culture circle" (Bobrov, 1994, p. 54, 56). This term reflects the conceptual paradigm that developed in the 70s-80s of the XX century. Paying tribute to the outstanding contribution of the galaxy of researchers listed above, and above all to our teacher V. V. Bobrov, we are forced to state not the synchronicity, but the previously established chronological sequence of the Seimin-Turbin and Samus antiquities. Typological and morphological differences revealed in the Seimin-Turbin and Samus-Kizhirov bronzes (Kuzminykh and Chernykh, 1988; Chernykh and Kuzminykh, 1989, p. 4). 144-146], the results of a detailed analysis of the ceramic complex of the Samus period (Glushkov, 1987, 1990; Molodin and Glushkov, 1989, pp. 98-113) allowed us to substantiate the derived post-Seimin-Turbin nature of Samus metallurgy. Therefore, the definition of the "Samus-Seimin era" has ceased to correspond to modern ideas about the cultural and historical content of the period under consideration, covering the first half of the second millennium BC. The key difference between our understanding of this period is the existence of not one "Samus-Seimin", but two independent and different cultural and chronological stages in the kulyurogeny of the Bronze Age in the territory of Western Siberia: seiminsko-Turbinsky and samussky proper.

Thus, we have no grounds to synchronize the Archekass celt of the Seimin-Turbin type with the Samus antiquities of the Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe. According to the data of radiocarbon dating of the Seimin-Turbine materials, the Samus complex, including the Utinkinsky ground burial ground, belongs to the time not earlier, but probably even later than the XVIII century BC.

Conclusion

The study of Bronze Age monuments in the Achinsk-Mariinsky forest-steppe and the adjacent north-eastern spurs of the Kuznetsk Alatau is the most important task of the Archeology Laboratory of the Institute of Human Ecology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Archaeological research in this extremely interesting area was discontinued in 1985 and resumed in 2007. The result of this break was the uneven study of a number of ancient historical periods in the territory of the Kemerovo region. The existence of archaeological " white spots "and historical" dark ages " is also due to the existence of scientific ideas that have survived their time. Reinterpretation of existing materials and research of new monuments is designed to recreate the ancient history of the area, which is the historical and geographical threshold - the eastern "gate" of the Kuznetsk Basin.

List of literature

Baukhnik I. I. Arkheologicheskie nakhodki s gory Archekas [Archaeological finds from Mount Archekas]. Izv.laboratorii arkheologicheskikh issledovaniy. Kemerovo, 1970, issue 2, pp. 49-53.

Bobrov V. V. Kul'turnaya otlichnost ' i khronologiya pamyatnikov predandronovskogo vremeni i pozdnoi bronzy Ob-Chulymskogo mezhdurechya [Cultural belonging and chronology of monuments of the Pre-Iron Age and late Bronze Age of the Ob-Chulym interfluve]. Barnaul: IIFiF SB OF the USSR Academy of Sciences; Alt. State University, 1988, pp. 68-71.

Bobrov V. V. Kuznetsk-Salair mountain region in the Bronze Age: abstract of the dissertation of Doctor of Historical Sciences. Novosibirsk, 1992, 41 p. (in Russian).

Bobrov V. V. K probleme migratsii evropeoidnogo naseleniya na territorii Yuzhnoi Sibiri v seiminskuyu epokhu [On the problem of migration of the Caucasian population to the territory of Southern Siberia in the Seimin era]. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 1994, pp. 53-56.

Bobrov V. V. Bronzovye izdeliya samussko-sejminskoy epokhi iz Kuznetskoy kotloviny [Bronze products of the Samus-Sejmin era from the Kuznetsk Basin]. - 2000. - N 1. - p. 76-79.

Bobrov V. V., Herman P. V. Pogrebenie seiminsko-turbinskogo vremeni v Achinsk-Mariinskaya lesostepi [The burial of the Seiminsko-Turbinsky time in the Achinsk-Mariinskaya forest-steppe]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: mat-ly Godovoi sessii Instituta arkheologii i etnografii SB RAS 2007 g. - Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SB RAS, 2007. - Vol. 13. P. 178-183.

Bobrov V. V., Molodin V. I., Zhurba T. A., Kolontsov S. V., Kravtsov V. M., Kravtsov Yu. V., Sobolev V. I. Archaeological sites of the Toguchinsky district of the Novosibirsk region. Novosibirsk: Nauchno-proizvodstv. center for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage, 2000. - 101 p.

Gening, V. F., Gusentsova, T. M., Kondratiev, O. M., Stefanov, V. I., and Trofimenko, V. S., Periodization of Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements in the Middle Irtysh region, Problemy khronologii i kul'turnoi otnoshchnosti arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov Zapadnoy Sibiri. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1970, pp. 12-51.

Glushkov I. G. Iconographic features of some Samus images of a person // Anthropomorphic images. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 89-95 (Primeval Art).

Glushkov I. G. Technological pottery tradition as an indicator of ethno-cultural processes (on the example of ceramic complexes of pre-Iron bronze).-

page 75
Siberian grammar: typology, technology, and semantics. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1990, pp. 63-76.

Glushkov I. G. Keramika kak arkheologicheskiy istochnik [Ceramics as an archaeological source]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1996, 328 p. (in Russian)

Glushkov I. G. Problema tekstilno-decorativnoy keramiki Ob-Irtyshya [The problem of textile and decorative ceramics of the Ob-Irtyshya] / / Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: mat-ly Godovoi sessii IAET SB RAS 2005-Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SB RAS, 2005. - Vol. 11, ch. 1. - pp. 275-279.

Grushin S. P. Etnokul'turnaya situatsiya v Verkhne Priobye v epokhu ranney bronzy (po materialam keramicheskikh kompleksov) [Ethno-cultural situation in the Upper Ob region in the Early Bronze Age (based on materials of ceramic complexes)]. Barnaul: Alt State University Publ., 2003, Book 1, pp. 49-56.

Epimakhov A.V., Henke B., Renfrew K. Radiocarbon chronology of monuments of the Bronze Age of the Trans-Urals / / RA. - 2005. - N 4. - pp. 92-102.

Zakh V. A. The Bronze Age of the Prisalairya region (based on the materials of the Izylinsky archaeological microdistrict). Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1997, 132 p. (in Russian)

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age in the south of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2002, 294 p. (in Russian)

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Southern Taiga zone of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2004, 295 p. (in Russian)

Kosarev M. F. Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoy Sibiri [The Bronze Age of Western Siberia], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, 278 p.

Kuzminykh S. V., Chernykh E. N. Kaminsko-turbinsky and samussky metallobrabotka: the problem of the relation // the Chronology and cultural affiliation of the monuments of the stone and bronze ages in South Siberia. Barnaul: IIFiF SB OF the USSR Academy of Sciences; Alt. State University, 1988, pp. 71-74.

Marochkin A. G. O svyazi petroglyphicheskikh kompleksov Nizhni Pritom'ya s neigrashchimi arkheologicheskimi pamyatnikami [On the connection of petroglyphic complexes of the Lower Tom region with nearby archaeological sites]. Omsk: Apelsin Publ., 2009, pp. 86-91.

Martynov A. I. Lesostepnaya tatarskaya kul'tura [Forest-steppe Tatar culture]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1979, 208 p. (in Russian)

Metz F. I., Yakovlev Ya. A. Pekol-do-ty - a new Eneolithic and Bronze Age monument of the Narym Ob region // Tr. Tom. gos. obed. east-architect. the museum. Tomsk, 1995, vol. 8, pp. 8-40.

Molodin V. I. Neolithic and Bronze Age of the forest-steppe Ob-Irtysh region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1977, 173 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I. Baraba in the Bronze Age. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1985, 200 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I., Glushkov I. G. Samus culture in the Upper Ob region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1989, 168 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I., Neskorov A.V. Kollektsiya seiminsko-turbinskikh bronz iz Priirtyshya (tragediya uniquenogo pamyatnika - posledstviya bugrovshchichestva XXI veka) [Collection of Seimin-Turbine Bronzes from the Irtysh region (the tragedy of a unique monument-the consequences of Bugrovschism of the XXI century)]. - 2010. - N3. - p. 58-71.

Molodin V. I., Savinov D. G. Study of ancient cultures of the Bronze and iron age of Gorny Altai: Itogi i perspektivy [Results and prospects] / / Problems of preservation, use and study of archaeological monuments. Gorno-Altaisk: OOP of the Statistics Department of the Gorny Altai Republic, 1992, pp. 34-36.

Molodin V. I., Chemyakina M. A., Pozdnyakova O. A. Arkheologo-geofizicheskie issledovaniya pamyatnika Preobrazhenka-6 v Barabinskaya lesostepi [Archaeological and geophysical studies of the Preobrazhenka-6 monument in the Barabinsk forest-steppe]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: mat-ly Godovoi sessii IAET SB RAS 2007-Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SB RAS, 2007. Vol. 13, pp. 339-344.

Panfilov A. N. Novyi tip pamyatnikov rannego bronzovogo veka v yuzhnotaezhnom Tobolo-Irtysh'e [A new type of monuments of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern taiga Tobol-Irtysh region]. Tyumen: Tyum State University, 1989, pp. 150-157.

Polos'mak N. V. Ceramic complex of the settlement of Krokhalevka-4 // Ancient cultures of Altai and Western Siberia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1978, pp. 36-46.

Potemkina T. M. Bronzovyi vek lesostepnogo Pritobol'ya [The Bronze Age of the forest-steppe region of the Volga region]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985, 376 p. (in Russian)

Serikov Yu. B., Korochkova O. N., Kuzminykh S. V., Stefanov V. I Bronzovyi vek Urala: novye perspektivy [The Bronze Age of the Urals: new perspectives] // Tr. II (XVIII) Vseros. archeol. Congress in Suzdal, Moscow: IA RAS, 2008, vol. 1, pp. 341-346.

Umanskii A. P. Nakhodki epokhi bronzy iz Verkhnego Ob'ya [Finds of the Bronze Age from the Upper Ob Region]. Barnaul: Barnaul State Pedagogical Institute, 1992, pp. 18-27.

Shirin Yu. V. Drevniye pamyatniki na mesto Kuznetsk [Ancient monuments on the site of Kuznetsk]. 2008, Issue 10, pp. 6-20.

Chernykh E. N., Kuzminykh S. V. Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoi Evrazii (seiminsko-turbinsky fenomen) [Ancient metallurgy of Northern Eurasia (Seiminsko-Turbinsky phenomenon)]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1989, 320 p.

Jungner H., Karpelan K. On radiocarbon dates of the Ust-Vetluzhsky burial ground: adj. to the article by B. S. Solovyov "Yurinsky (Ust-Vetluzhsky) burial ground (results of excavations in 2001-2004)" / / RA. - 2005. - N4. - p. 112.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 22.06.10.

page 76

Permanent link to this publication: