Tyumen State Oil and Gas University

38 Volodarskogo str., Tyumen, 625000, Russia

E-mail: sr424@mail.ru

Institute of Problems of Development of the North SB RAS

86 Malygina St., Tyumen, 625000, Russia

E-mail: sever626@mail.ru

The article offers new approaches to the problem of the formation of the Andronovo cultural and historical community in the context of migration processes. Archaeological materials obtained over vast expanses of the Ural-Yenisei steppes allow us to consider migration as one of the tools of population formation. In the Middle Bronze Age, two migration waves can be traced from the territory of Kazakhstan's Irtysh region. The former resulted in the convergence of different ethnic groups and the formation of the Andronovo community; the latter not only contributed to the expansion of the territory occupied by the carriers of the Andronovo traditions, but also served as the basis for the development of Late Bronze Age roller complexes and Andronoid cultures.

Introduction

Migration as a universal form of existence of human communities is a multidimensional socio-historical phenomenon. It performs the functions of population redistribution between regions, translation of cultures, which determines the formation of new cultural formations, which, in turn, contribute to the rapprochement of different ethnic groups and the formation of new peoples. In addition, migration is an important factor in the transformation of socio - economic processes; they had a significant impact on demographic indicators: birth rate, mortality, marriage and gender-age structure of the population.

The formation of new cultural stereotypes in the developed territories is closely related to the cultural and economic activities of migrants. Since this activity is implemented in a culture that reflects the population's adaptation to the environment, traces of it are preserved in the form of archeologized material remains. The emerging traditions are most fully manifested in ceramics, which makes it possible to reconstruct migration processes.

Archaeological materials obtained in recent decades allow us to study the role of migrations in the formation and development of the Andronovo cultural and historical community, which occupied vast territories of steppe and forest-steppe zones from the Urals to the Yenisei.

The issues of migration of the ancient population do not lose their relevance. The more significant the body of archaeological sources, the more noticeable the influence of migration theory in explaining the transformation of the cultural development of ancient collectives and social forms of life. The study of migration processes in ancient societies is usually conducted in two directions: on the one hand, an attempt is made to identify the causes of migration of a particular population group, and on the other, its consequences for migrants and inhabitants of the territory where these groups interacted are determined [Chernosvitov, 1999, p.5].

Experts do not have a single view on the causes of migration, but two main explanations predominate: the pressure of an excess population at a certain level of development of productive forces and the influence of natural processes, primarily climate, in which the population is growing.

page 88
conditions of a specific natural and climatic zone. It is difficult to reconstruct the natural environment in the Eurasian steppes during the Bronze Age, since there are no palynological data for most of the territories. As a rule, archaeologists consider paleogeographic materials of their region based on general climatic epochal trends, extrapolating them to local changes in the landscape and climate in a particular zone (see, for example, [Kosarev, 1974]).

Migration processes in some periods of the Bronze Age may have been influenced by both excess population pressure and climate change. Migrations are traced in both the meridional and latitudinal directions by counter-flows and intersecting flows. The settlement of migrants in the same areas, in a different cultural environment, created a certain cultural diversity. Contacts of different cultural groups led to the emergence of symbiotic formations, which contributed to the progress of the population living in the Eurasian steppes.

Climate impact on migration processes

To reconstruct the climate of the central part of Eurasia, the study of data reflecting the peculiarities of fluctuations in the level of the Aral Sea is of particular importance. Being an internal body of water, the Aral Sea was sensitive to changes in the overall humidity and drying up of the region's climate. There is no single point of view on the causes of fluctuations in the level of the Aral Sea in the past. A.V. Shnitnikov believed that the level depended on the degree of general humidity of the climate, which, in turn, is subject to 1850-year cycles of changes in solar activity. He determined the time frame of the last three cycles on the basis of historical data and materials from archaeological sites studied in the territory of the Aral Sea region [Shnitnikov, 1969, p. 116, 136, 157, Table 15]. I. G. Weinbergs and V. Ya.Stelle reconstruct a different picture based on the results of palynological studies. In their opinion, in the late Pleistocene - early Holocene, the Aral Sea experienced a regressive stage of its development. At this time, the surrounding area was characterized by a tundra landscape, dry and cold climate. Then the Aral Sea entered a transgressive stage of development, coinciding with the climatic optimum. The next regressive stage, which dates back to the Bronze Age, is associated with a certain increase in climate aridity (Weinbergs and Stelle, 1980, pp. 177-180). Despite the difference in concepts, the constructions of A. V. Shnitnikov, I. G. Weinbergs, and V. Ya. Stelle are based on the recognition of climate humidity variability, which caused fluctuations in the level of the Aral Sea.

Another point of view about the causes of this phenomenon was expressed by the staff of the Khorezm archaeological and ethnographic expedition. In their opinion, transgressions of the Aral Sea occurred when the Amu Darya discharged its waters into it; when the river changed its course, a regression occurred. Until the second millennium BC, the Aral Sea was in a regressive state, since the Amu Darya gave all its waters to the Sarykamysh Lake, and only at the end of the third and beginning of the second millennium BC did its first breakthrough through the Akchadarya to the Aral Sea occur. The time of this event was determined by the presence of late Kelteminar and Kamyshli sites in the northern Akchadarya delta. During the II thous. The pre-Aral delta of the Amu Darya was formed, and since the beginning of the first millennium BC, the river gave its waters to the Aral Sea, as a result of which its last transgression occurred [Lower reaches of the Amu Darya..., 1960, p. 14, 23, 80 - 81, 83 - 89; Kes, Andrianov, and Itina, 1980, p. 188 - 189].

A study of the flora and fauna of Ustyurt, the interfluve of the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers showed the similarity of climatic conditions in the period from 10 to 4 thousand years AGO with modern ones in the steppe zone. At that time, the northern part of Central Asia and Ustyurt had rich herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, which made these territories favorable for human life [Vinogradov A.V., 1981, p. 19-46; Mamedov, 1980, p.98, 170-171]. Later, due to climate desiccation, desertification began [Markov et al., 1982, pp. 235-240].

The reconstructed climate situation on the territory of Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the Holocene has a certain similarity with the scheme of climate fluctuations proposed by N. A. Khotinsky during this period in Western Siberia [1977, p. 163-165, 180; Khotinsky, Nemkova, and Surova, 1982, p. 150-151]. The climate optimum, according to the researchers, began in Boreal and ended at the turn of the Atlantic and subboreal. The subboreal and subatlantic phases of the Holocene are considered as a relatively unified stage in the development of nature in the northern part of the Eurasian continent. At this time, the territory of Western Siberia experienced some cooling compared to the Atlantic period, spruce and broad-leaved forests degraded, and waterlogging of the subtaiga and taiga zones intensified. These processes were not accompanied by a significant fluctuation in climate humidity and a shift in the boundary between forest and steppe, which was established in the Atlantic period.

The topography of archaeological sites in different regions of Western Siberia and Kazakhstan indicates a significant climate variability in the Subboreal. Climate humidification resulted in a shift of landscape and vegetation zones to the north. The borders have changed not only between steppe and forest-steppe, but also between forest-steppe and forest [Kosarev, 1974, pp. 24-27; 1979; Molodin and Zakh, 1979, p. 52; Potemkina, 1979, p. 59; Khabdulina and Zdanovich, 1984, p. 150]. Middle and Late Bronze Age (II-early I millennium BC),

page 89
according to most experts, it falls on the subboreal. It is characterized by a xerothermal and more continental climate with temperatures 2-4 °C higher than today, in contrast to the moderately humid and moderately warm climate of the previous time and moderately arid and moderately warm in the first centuries of the Early Iron Age [Evdokimov, 2000, p. 58; Potemkina, 1985, p. 28].

A comparison of the climatic processes that took place on the territory of Northern Kazakhstan and Western Siberia, on the one hand, and on the expanses of Central Asia, on the other, suggests that the climate development in the intermediate steppe zones was largely similar. This is confirmed by observations at archaeological sites: settlements of all periods of the Bronze Age are confined to river terraces that are not flooded in high water; pits-wells are deepened below the current water table; cultural layers of monuments in low areas are covered with alluvial deposits.

The factors discussed above suggest that, against the general background of a certain decrease in climate humidity in the Bronze Age, the conditions for the development of vegetation and, accordingly, animal life in the subboreal period were close to modern ones. The air temperature was slightly higher than today, and the duration of the growing season was longer. The areas between the Urals and Altai were a mixed-grass steppe with well-developed woody vegetation in the river valleys, turning into a forest-steppe with separate island forests in the north. Thus, favorable living conditions contributed to the formation of distinctive cultural formations within the Trans-Ural steppe in the Bronze Age on the basis of integrated farming, including due to the successful adaptation of migrants to the local environment.

Addition of Andronovo cultures in the light of migration interaction

The history of studying the Bronze Age of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes is primarily related to the problems of Andronovo cultural unity. By the middle of the 20th century, the main points of view on the genesis, chronology and fate of the Andronovo culture were formulated, and the idea of a long-term evolution of Andronovo antiquities in the Trans-Ural steppes was expressed. The result of studying these complexes in different territories was the identification of peculiar regional cultural formations united in the "Andronovo community" (Formozov, 1951, p. 18). In the subsequent period, dozens of Andronovo monuments were studied in vast areas from the Volga region to the Yenisei and from the edge of the southern taiga to Central Asia, which raised the problem of a conceptual approach to determining the place, time of functioning and chronological attribution of artifacts within a single Andronovo cultural and historical community [Fedorova-Davydova, 1973, p. 152]. Further accumulation of materials throughout the area of monuments of this community has led to the emergence of various concepts about the origin and interaction of its constituent cultures [Matyushchenko, 1973; Kosarev, 1981;Kiryushin, 1985; Potemkina, 1985; Zdanovich, 1988; Avanesova, 1991; Varfolomeev, 1991; Kuzmina, 1994; Tkachev A. A., 2002].

A special role in the development of views on the sequence and genetic succession of Andronovo antiquities is played by the concept of S. S. Chernikov, developed on the basis of materials from the Kazakhstan Irtysh region [1960]. The researcher's position is based on the fact that the Andronovo cultural traditions are based on a wide range of material and cultural manifestations in the steppe zone of Kazakhstan, from where the influence of the bearers of these traditions spread to the Trans-Urals, Upper Ob, Yenisei and Central Asia. Cultural unity is determined by the common origin and similarity of economic and cultural activities. The ethnic differences of individual Andronovo groups reflect diverse cultural contacts in the process of their settlement. According to S. S. Chernikov, the development of the Andronovo culture shows the commonality of individual cultural or ethnic groups, which was especially pronounced at the final stage of their existence. The researcher's concept explains not only the cultural and chronological originality of the Andronovo tribes that inhabited Eastern Kazakhstan, but also the sequence of historical processes in the Andronovo environment over a vast territory.

Modern andrology includes two main directions in solving basic problems: migration and evolution. According to most researchers, the origin of the Alakul culture is associated with the Trans-Ural Eneolithic (Matyushin, 1982, p. 297-300; Stogolos, 1983, p. 257; Logvin, 1991, p. 52-53; 2002, p. 35-37). Steppes in the Tobol and Intima basins are considered to be the initial territory [Potemkina, 1983, p. 13, fig. 1; 1985, p. 273], and with the discovery of Sintashta complexes and the allocation of Early Alakul (Petrovsky) monuments - the Southern Trans-Urals and adjacent steppe regions of Kazakhstan [Tkachev V. V., 1998, p. 46; Vinogradov N. B., 2007, p. 35-36]. Representatives of the migration direction differ in their views on the place of formation of the Andronovo (Fedorovskaya) culture. Three mutually exclusive versions should be noted: the Trans-Ural version [Potemkina, 1985, pp. 272-273; Kosarev, 1991, p. 81]; East Kazakhstan [Stokolos, 1972, p. 115; Maksimenkov, 1978, p. 87; Tkacheva, 1997; Tkachev A. A., 2002, p. 190]; Central Kazakhstan [Kuzmina,

page 90
1994, pp. 114-122; Stefanov and Korochkova, 2006, p. 135] territories. Representatives of the evolutionary trend consider Andronovo antiquities as the result of a consistent, genetically consistent development of the cultures of the Andronovo community (Salnikov, 1967; Zdanovich, 1984; Avanesova, 1991; Matveev, 1998).

The stratigraphic situation traced on multilayered monuments of the Bronze Age in the Pritobol region, Northern and Central Kazakhstan shows that the Alakul-Atasu and Fedorov-Nurin ware are found in approximately equal amounts in the same cultural horizons (Zdanovich, 1974, p. 65, Fig. 4; Potemkina, 1976, pp. 101-105; 1985, pp. 47, 83; Kadyrbaev, 1983, pp. 134-139; Tkachev A. A., 2002, Tables 22, 31]. Above them, in most cases, there are deposits with roller Alekseevsko-Sargarinsky complexes. On multi-layered West Siberian sites (Omsk site, Irmen I, Krasny Yar, and Kudelka-2), the Andronovo horizon, which is located at the base of cultural strata, is overlain by the Irmen Late Bronze Age (Gryaznov, 1956, pp. 30-36; Chlenova, 1955, pp. 38-47; Zakh, 1997, p.66). Thus, stratigraphic data on the ratio of the Alakul-Atasu and Fedorovo-Nurinsky cultural deposits have not been revealed.

Stratigraphy and planigraphy of monuments, statistical calculations on the ratio of different types of ceramics in settlement complexes indicate, on the one hand, the independent existence of the Andronovo (Kanai) culture in the interfluve from the Irtysh to the Yenisei, on the other hand, the coexistence of the Alakul-Atasu and Andronovo-Kanai populations during the Middle Bronze Age in the Tobol-Irtysh interfluve. Data on the genetic succession of carriers of Fedorov and Alakul traditions (according to K. V. Salnikov) or Alakul and Fedorov traditions (according to G. B. Zdanovich, N. A. Avanesova, A.V. Matveev) have not yet been revealed. Ceramic complexes of single-layer monuments of the Andronovo circle record a related sub-base of Early Alakul (Sintashta, Petrovsky, Nurtai) and Early Andronovo (Kanai) antiquities and, at the same time, suggest their formation in adjacent territories that are close in terms of basic natural and geographical indicators. The differences between them reflect the specifics of the development of specific cultural entities.

In the composition of the Andronovo complexes of the Upper Irtysh region, the basic element is the pre-Andronovo Ust-Bukon antiquities, identified in a special stage of development in the Bronze Age in this territory (Chernikov, 1960; Tkacheva, 1997). According to M. F. Kosareva, Ust-Bukon ceramics have a number of original features that bring them closer to the Samus of Western Siberia [1981, p. 105].Yu. F. Kiryushin suggested that the Preandronov complexes of Eastern Kazakhstan, the foothills of the Altai and Upper Ob are single-cultured [2002, p. 84]. One can hardly agree with this hypothesis, since there are more differences than similarities between East Kazakhstan and Altai monuments. The certain closeness of ceramic complexes of different territories noted by the researcher is "an epochal phenomenon" [Ibid., p. 86] rather than a cultural one.

Ceramics close to the Ust-Bukon type were found at the Eneolithic sites of Chemar I, Nurbai II, and III on the border of the Upper and Pavlodar Irtysh regions (Merts, 2004, Fig. 2). In our opinion, the traditions reflected in the materials of Chemar I-type monuments underlie the formation of Early Bronze age complexes of the Ust-Bukon type. These monuments define the northern boundary of the area of pre-Andronov antiquities of Eastern Kazakhstan, which coincides with that of the Kazakh melkosopochnik and the southwestern foothills of the Altai. To the north, in the steppe zone of the Pavlodar Irtysh region, there are complexes, some of which have a certain similarity with the Elunin-Krotov complexes (Merts, 2003, p. 133, Fig. 1, 1, 18 - 20]. The groups that left them were displaced or, most likely, assimilated by the Upper Irtysh Early Canai population at the initial stage of migration to the north along the Irtysh Valley.

Ceramics of the Ust-Bukon type are comparable to dishes of the cultures of the south of Western Siberia: Odinovskaya, Krokhalevskaya, Eluninskaya, Vishnevskaya, but the greatest similarity is found with vessels of the Vipshevsky type in Northern Kazakhstan, on which oblique impressions, rounded and triangular indentations are widely distributed, combined with wavy and horizontal lines [Tatarintseva, 1984, pp. 104-110, rice. 2, 2, 5, 4 - 15]. Most researchers date Early Bronze Age cultural formations to the last quarter of the third and first third of the second millennium BC (Krizhevskaya, 1977, p. 96; Kosarev, 1981, p. 62; Tatarintseva, 1984, p.112; Molodin, 1985, p. 34; Kiryushin, 2002, p. 82).

The fate of the Ust-Bukon complexes, which are the basis of the Andronovo cultural tradition, is related to the Kanai culture, which was formed on the territory of Eastern Kazakhstan and passed through three genetically related stages in its development (Tkacheva, 1997). At the early Kanai stage (XVIII-XVII centuries BC), it developed within the mountain steppe region of the Upper Irtysh region. The pottery of this period still bears a resemblance to the antiquities of the Okunev culture in the Minusinsk basin and the Krotovo-Eluninsky complexes in the West Siberian forest-steppe. At the next stage, the Marininsky stage (XVII-XVI centuries BC), the expansion of the Kanai population began in the steppe regions of the Pavlodar Irtysh region and in the adjacent territories of Altai. Marininsky ceramics are represented by jar and pot-jar vessels, ornamented with the use of carved technique and combed stamp. In Orna-

page 91
geometricism gradually began to prevail in the Arctic, and weakly expressed "oblique" triangles appeared.

A special place among the diverse inventory of the Marininsky period is occupied by "paw" pendants with "warty" bulges. They not only mark the Marininsky antiquities of the Kanai culture, but also allow us to outline the territory of settlement of its carriers at the end of the second quarter of the II millennium BC - this is the Kazakhstan Irtysh region and the adjacent steppe regions of Altai. Similar pendants were found in the burial grounds of Michurino I, Kenzhekol I, Novo-Aleksandrovka. Firsovo XIV, Kytmanovo, Rublevo VIII. A similar product was found in the Barabinsk forest-steppe in the Krotovo burial ground of the Sopka II burial ground [Molodin, 1985, fig. 34, 21]. Outside the Ob-Irtysh region, the only find of this type comes from the Murzashoku burial ground in Central Kazakhstan (Margulan, 1979, p. 311, figs. 226, 58).

The similarity of the ceramic complexes of the above-mentioned archaeological sites, located compactly in the same natural and climatic zone, determines the territory of formation of common Andronovo standards, from where the Andronovo-Kanai cultural traditions spread across the steppe zone of Eurasia during the migration of the population. At the Marininsky stage, under conditions of progressive xerotherms, some groups of migrants moved east along the steppe corridor to the Yenisei (Elkin, 1967; Maksimenkov, 1978), and along the Irtysh Valley to the forest - steppe and subtaiga zone, where they interacted with the Krotov population, which adopted some elements of pattern and types of jewelry (Molodin, 1985, p. 37, 115, fig. 34, 1, 16, 21]. Other Kanai collectives migrated to the steppes of Central Kazakhstan, and settlements with a specific cattle-breeding and metallurgical economy emerged there (Atasu, Ust-Kenetai, Ikpen I, Ikpen III). On this territory, as a result of the interaction of local and foreign populations, the Atasu and Nuri cultures were formed [Margulan et al., 1966; Kadyrbaev, 1983, pp. 139-142, Fig. 2; Tkachev A. A., 2002, p. 18 - 29, 95 - 113, 191]. In the Ishim region, as a result of migration processes and intertribal confrontation, the Petrovsky population developed fortified settlements (concentrated on the left bank of the Ishim River) [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 133]. The situation was probably more stable in the forest-steppe Pritobol region. One fortified settlement is still known here - Kamyshnoye II [Potemkina, 1985, p. 99]. On the territory of the Kustanai Tributary, they are absent, which suggests a rather late penetration of the already established Fedorov groups from the forest-steppe Trans-Urals, where the Trans-Ural Fedorov culture was formed on the basis of the cultural traditions of Kanai migrants. In the Tobol-Ishim interfluve, the interaction of the alien and local populations is reflected in numerous syncretic Alakul-Fedorov monuments (Evdokimov and Varfolomeev, 2002, Fig. 8, 1, 3, 17 - 19; 10, 1 - 21; Stefanov and Korochkova 2006; Usmanova, 2005].

The insignificance in the number and area of the Petrovka hillforts, on the one hand, and the presence of graves with Kanai dishes on the Petrovka eponymous burial ground, on the other, indicate the chronological compatibility of the Irtysh migrants and the indigenous Petrovka population. The question of Sintashta ancient settlements remains open: for what purpose were these fortified settlements built? According to researchers of the Trans-Ural "proto-cities", their creators had a higher socio-cultural level than the surrounding tribes, and dominated the steppe spaces from the Volga to the Ishim. Then the appearance of fortified settlements like Arkaim and Sintashta in the steppes of the Southern Urals is all the more incomprehensible. There are two possible hypotheses: 1) the population that left these monuments was alien in the cultural space of the Trans-Urals, came here from rather remote territories [Grigoriev, 1999]; 2) the ancient settlements were built by the local population, who were forced to defend themselves against the Abashev traditions that penetrated the Trans-Urals from the west [Potemkina, 1984], and from the Andronovo-Ural settlements.Kanai migrants from the east (Tkacheva, 1997). The first hypothesis cannot be accepted because in the Trans-Urals and more remote regions (Kazakhstan, the Northern Black Sea Coast, Central Asia, the Near and Middle East, and the Balkans), there are no complexes that could at least to some extent claim to be the basis of Sintashta antiquities. The second hypothesis is more acceptable: in the materials of all the Sintashta settlements and burial grounds studied, the admixture of Abashev ware is quite significant and the admixture of Andronovo-Kanai ceramics is somewhat less [Gening V. F., Zdanovich, Gening V. V., 1992]. This indicates, on the one hand, the complex process of cultural genesis of the Sintashta formation, which is based on local and foreign cultural traditions, on the other hand, the complex military-political situation in the Trans-Urals, which led to the appearance of defensive structures, the development of which is associated with the formation of a militarized society. At the same time, mapping of the Sintashta fortified centers shows that they occupied a narrow strip along the eastern slopes of the Urals. It is possible that the ancient settlements protected from Western (Abashev) migrants the deep steppe regions of the Trans-Urals and Kazakhstan (Pritobolye, Turgai steppes), which were the original habitat of the carriers of the Sintashta-Petrovsky traditions. The study of antiquities of this type in this area is just beginning, but large original burial complexes of the Sintashta-Petrovsky appearance have already been discovered.

Kanai migrants who broke away from their ancestral homeland, in the forest-steppe Trans-Urals region, found themselves in

page 92
in a foreign cultural environment and were influenced by local (Sintashta-Petrovsky) cultural traditions. In the process of mutual contacts, the Alakul and Fedorov antiquities began to form. The pottery found in the burial grounds of the Fedorovsky circle in the Trans-Urals (Fedorovo, Urefty I, Smolino) differs from the ceramics from the Eastern Andronovo monuments: while preserving the shape and placement principles of the ornament, Alakul features can be traced. This is expressed in the impoverishment of the ornament and the spread of the characteristic Alakul sign - an unornamented band between the neck and trunk. It is also present on dishes from classical Feodorov monuments (Feodorovo [Salnikov, 1940, Table I, 1, 2, 5, 6,11], Smolino [Salnikov, 1967, fig. 48, 10], Sineglazoyu [Andronovskaya culture..., 1966, Table VI, 8, 9]), and in mixed Alakul-Fedorov complexes (Chernyaki II [Stokolos, 1968, fig. 2, 1, 3 - 5], Subbotino [Potemkina, 1973, figs. 3, 6, 7], Urefts I [Stefanov and Korochkova, 2006, Fig. 59, 8, 10; 60, 4], Brood Log I [Malyutina, 1984, figs. 5, 4]). The presence of an unornamented strip and less elegant decor distinguish the antiquities of the Fedorovsky burial ground type from the Eastern Andronovsky burial ground type, which developed in different territories and in different cultural environments.

The first migration of the Kanai population occurred before the appearance of bell-shaped earrings in its culture, which are not found on the monuments of the Fedorovsky circle in the Trans-Urals. At the same time, in the process of self-development, four-cornered dishes appeared here, which are considered a characteristic feature of the Fedorov culture of the Trans-Urals. Kanai groups, having found themselves in a foreign cultural environment, sought to preserve themselves as an ethnic group: the newly formed Fedorovsky population changed its funeral rite. If cremation in the Irtysh basin can be considered as an exception for carriers of the Kanai culture, then with the advance to the west it begins to predominate, and in the Trans-Urals it dominates. All this allows us to speak about the emergence of a special population group characterized by specific features. It seems to us that only Trans-Ural monuments should be called Fedorov monuments, as K. V. Salnikov suggested in his time [1951, p. 109; 1967, p. 288], and this term should not be extended to the entire area of the Andronovo cultural and historical community.

The Fedorov ceramics of the Trans-Urals and the Kyzylta-type ware of the final stage of the Kanai culture of the Upper Irtysh region, formed on the basis of the Marininsky complex, have significant differences. Kyzylta ceramics are a natural extension of Marininskaya ceramics; Fedorovskaya ceramics were formed under the strong influence of the Petrovsko-Alakul traditions.

Small groups of the Kanai population that penetrated the forest zone of Western Siberia retained the features of continuous ornamentation of dishes characteristic of monuments of the Kazakhstan Irtysh region (Duvanskoye settlement of the 17th century [Korochkova and Stefanov, 1983, pp. 147-148, fig. 1, 1, 2, 4, 7], Cheremukhovy Bush [Zakh, 1995, fig. 8, 4; 17, 10; 20, 1, 5], Chernoozerye [Viktorov and Borzunov, 1974, pp. 20-23 2, 6, 7]). In Chernoozerye, the Kanai collective, having fallen into a hostile environment, was forced to strengthen the settlement with a moat and a rampart with a wooden palisade. This is the only case of the presence of external protection of the village, where dishes of the Andronovo-Kanai type are found.

The contact zone between the steppe regions of Kazakhstan and Altai is poorly studied, but it seems that one of the main routes to the east began on the Ube River (a right tributary of the Irtysh), the source of which is close to the source of the Aley River (a left tributary of the Ob). In the upper reaches of the Alei, the Karbolikha I burial ground was studied, the burial structures, rite and inventory of which are similar to those of the Irtysh region (Mogilnikov, 1980, p. 155). There is a significant similarity between the burial grounds of the Kanai culture of the Kazakhstan Irtysh region and the Andronovsky ones of the steppe Altai: weakly expressed tombstone structures, the presence of separate cemeteries for children and adults, common features of the funeral rite and equipment. While moving westward, the Andronovo-Kanai tribes were strongly influenced by the Alakul people, who were on the same level of social and cultural development as them, in the forest-steppe Irtysh region and the Upper Ob region, the newcomers came into contact with the Elunino-Krotovo population, which was at the level of early metal societies. The advance from the Ob region to the east, to the Yenisei steppes, was quite rapid. In the steppe corridor between the Ob and Yenisei, in the Kuznetsk and Minusinsk basins, Andronovo monuments are much smaller than in the Irtysh region or steppe Altai. The Andronovo population of Altai and Kazakhstan's Irtysh region maintained constant contacts; this territory was the geopolitical basis for the development of Andronovo cultural traditions. From here, the Andronovites settled in neighboring regions, where they co-existed for quite a long time with the Eluninsky and Krotovsky collectives, occupying different ecological niches with them.

At the final, Kyzylta, stage of the Kanai culture within the steppe zone of Kazakhstan and Altai, the development of ceramic complexes shows a tendency to impoverish the ornament, increase the proportion of jar forms, reduce the number of elegantly decorated pots, enlarge the comb stamp, spread patterns in the form of a horizontal "Christmas tree" in combination with various indentations. A specific feature of the most recent K'gzylta complexes are vessels with a high cylindrical neck. The most common items in your inventory are:-

page 93
A notable Late Canaanite feature is the bell-shaped earrings. This type of jewelry is considered characteristic of the Eastern Andronovo tribes and is not found outside the area of the Andronovo cultural community (Avanesova, 1991, pp. 50-53).

The second migration wave of Late Kanai tribes occurs at the final stage of the Kyzylta stage (XIV-turn of the XIV-XIII centuries BC), when dry and semi-desert steppes spread in Kazakhstan under the conditions of the extreme xerothermic, and in Western Siberia steppe and forest-steppe landscapes shifted to the north (Kosarev, 1974, p. 152). Monuments of this migration wave are marked with complexes that contain bell-shaped earrings that appeared in the early second half of the second millennium BC. They are found in the burial grounds of Maly Koytas, Kyzyltas, Berezovsky, Barashki, Zevakino, Menovnoye IX (Upper Irtysh region), Rublevo VIII (Ob-Irtysh interfluve) [Kiryushin et al., 2006, Figures 1,2-4], Kytmanovo (Prichumysh region) [Umansky, Kiryushin, Grushin, 2007, p. 27, 30, fig. 63, 17 - 19; 64, 18, 19]. Outside the steppe zone of Kazakhstan's Irtysh and Altai regions, bell-shaped earrings were found in small numbers in burial grounds on the Yenisei (Pristan I, Sukhoe Ozero I [Maksimenkov, 1978, Tables 52, 2, 4]), in the Northern (Sokolovka [Zdanovich, 1988, Tables 10b, 20, 21], Borovoe [Orazbaev, 1958, Tables IV, 1, 7; V, 14, 20]) and Central (Sanguyr II [Kadyrbaev, 1961, Table II, 2, 5]) Kazakhstan, Ob region (Yelovka II [Matyushchenko, 2004, fig. 45, 6, 7; 235, 3, 4]). The most recent, in our opinion, are cast earrings with a spherical thickening at the base of the bell and forged from nail-shaped plates. The appearance of the latter dates back to the XIV-beginning of the XIII century BC. In the ceramic complexes of this time, vessels are poorly ornamented with a monotonous "herringbone", pinches, nail-shaped depressions (Zevakino, Berezovsky, Lambs). In the transition period from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age, all types of earrings coexisted, and individual specimens continued to exist in the Late Bronze Age (Ermolaeva, 1987, p. 69, Fig. 31, 2).

During the transition period from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age, small groups of the Late Kanai (Kyzylta) population again penetrated the Minusinsk Basin and the steppes of Northern and Central Kazakhstan, but the main migration flow was directed to Central Asia, Semirechye and southern regions of Kazakhstan. Numerous Andronovo monuments are known here, where bell-shaped earrings were found [Avanesova, 1991, figs. 44, 29-31; Gorbunova, 1995, figs. 3, 9; Maryashev and Goryachev, 1999, figs. 5, 1-3; Potemkina, 2001, Figs. 3, 11]. It was at this time that short-term Andronovo-type settlements appeared in the southern taiga zone of the Ob region, marking the northern boundary of the settlement of the Kanai tribes of the second migration wave.

Conclusion

The settlement and economic development of the vast, sparsely populated expanses of steppe Eurasia was influenced by a large number of various factors: landscape-climatic, geographical, socio-economic. Having considered migration as one of the tools of population formation, we come to the following conclusions:

- Proto-Alakul and Proto-Kanai groups developed in adjacent territories;

- carriers of different cultural traditions belonged to the same northern Indo-Iranian branch and had a common sub-base [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 221-222], although there are also significant differences in their anthropological appearance [Dremov, 1997, p. 81; Bagashev, 2000, p. 9-10], as well as in the peculiarities of the development of pottery [Loman, 1993, p. 29; 1995, p. 97] , elements of costume and jewelry [Evdokimov and Usmanova, 1990, p. 66-71; Khabarova, 1997, p. 93-94];

- the result of the first migration wave of the East Kazakhstan population (late XVII-early XVI centuries BC) was the convergence of multicultural ethnic groups and the formation of the Andronovo cultural and historical community;

- the second migration from the steppes of the Kazakhstan Irtysh region and Altai (XIV-early XIII centuries BC) not only expanded the area of this community, but also served as the basis for the formation of late bronze roller complexes in the steppes of Kazakhstan and Central Asia, and in the forest-steppe and southern taiga zones of Western Siberia - andronoid cultures.

List of literature

N. A. Avanesova Culture of pastoral tribes of the Bronze Age of the Asian part of the USSR. Tashkent: Fan Publ., 1991, 200 p.

Andronovo culture: (Monuments of the western districts). - M.; L.: Nauka, 1966. - Issue 1. - 104 p. - (SAN; issue B3-2).

Bagashev A. N. Formirovanie drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya Zapadnoy Sibiri po dannym kraniologii [Formation of the ancient and modern population of Western Siberia according to craniology data].

Varfolomeev V. V. Sary-Ark at the end of the Bronze Age: Author's abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences. Alma-Ata, 1991, 21 p. (in Russian)

Weinbergs, I. G. and Stelle, V. Ya., Late Quaternary stages of the development of the Aral Sea and their connection with changes in the climatic conditions of this time, in Kolebaniya humidnennosti Aralo-Kaspiyskogo regiona v holocene, Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 175-181.

Viktorov V. P., Borzunov V. A. The ancient settlement of the Bronze Age near the village of Chernoozerye on the Irtysh River. Tomsk, 1974, issue 15, pp. 19-23.

Vinogradov A.V. Ancient hunters and fishermen of the Central Asian Interfluve, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, 174 p. (Proc. Khorezm. archaeological and ethnographic expeditions; issue 13).

Vinogradov N. B. Cultural and historical processes in the steppes of the Southern Urals and Kazakhstan at the beginning of the second millennium BC.:

page 94
(Monuments of the Sintashta and Petrovsky types): Author's abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences, Moscow, 2007, 46 p.

Gening V. F., Zdanovich G. B., Gening V. V. Sintashta: Archaeological monuments of Aryan tribes of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes. Chelyabinsk: South-Ural Publishing House, 1992, part 1, 408 p.

Gorbunova N. G. O kul'tury stepnoy bronzy Fergany [On the culture of the steppe Bronze of Ferghana]. ASGE, 1995, issue 32, pp. 13-30.

Grigoriev S. A. Ancient Indo-Europeans: Experience of historical reconstruction. Chelyabinsk: UrORAN Publ., 1999, 443 p. (in Russian)

Gryaznov M. P. K voprosu o kul'turakh epokhi pozdnoi bronzy v Sibiri [On the question of Late Bronze Age cultures in Siberia]. 1956, Issue 64, pp. 27-42.

Dremov V. A. Population of the Upper Ob region in the Bronze Age (anthropological essay). - Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1997. - 264 p.

Evdokimov V. V. Historical environment of the Bronze Age of the steppes of Central and Northern Kazakhstan. Almaty: Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2000, 140 p.

Evdokimov V. V., Varfolomeev V. V. The Bronze Age of Central and Northern Kazakhstan. - Karaganda: Karaganda State University, 2002. - 138 p.

Evdokimov V. V., Usmanova E. R. Sign status of ornaments in the funeral rite (based on the materials of burial grounds of the Andronovo cultural and historical community from Central Kazakhstan) / / Archeology of the Volga-Ural Steppes. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State University, 1990, pp. 66-80.

Elkin M. H. Monuments of the Andronovo culture in the South of the Kuznetsk basin, Izv. Laboratory of archaeological research. Kemerovo, 1967, issue 1, pp. 89-95.

Ermolaeva A. S. Pamyatniki perekhodnogo perioda ot epokhi bronzy k rannem zhelezu [Monuments of the Transition Period from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age]. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1987, pp. 64-94.

Zakh V. A. Settlement of ancient cattle breeders on the Tobol River. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1995, 96 p. (in Russian)

Zakh V. A. The Bronze Age of the Himalayan region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1997, 132 p. (in Russian)

Zdanovich G. B. Settlement of the Bronze Age Novonikolskoe I (based on excavations in 1970) / / Iz istorii Sibiri. Tomsk, 1974, issue 15, pp. 61-68.

Zdanovich G. B. K voprosu ob andronovskom kul'turno-istoricheskom edinstvo [On the question of Andronovo cultural and historical unity]. KSIA, 1984, issue 177, pp. 29-37.

Zdanovich G. B. The Bronze Age of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University, 1988, 184 p.

Kadyrbaev M. K. Mogilnik Sanguyr II / / Tr. IIAE AN KazSSR. - 1961. - Vol. 12. - pp. 48-60.

Kadyrbaev M. K. Shestekletnye raboty na Atasu [Six-year works on Atasu]. Bronzovyi vek stepnoy poloski Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya [Bronze Age of the steppe zone of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve]. - Chelyabinsk: Bask. State University, 1983, pp. 134-142.

Kes A. S., Andrianov V. V., Itina M. A. Dinamika gidrograficheskoi seti i izmeneniya urovnya Aralskogo morya [Dynamics of the hydrographic network and changes in the level of the Aral Sea].

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic, early and developed bronze of the Upper and Middle Ob region: Abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences. Novosibirsk, 1985, 35 p. (in Russian)

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

Kiryushin Yu. F., Pozdnyakova O. A., Papin D. V., Shamshin A. B. Collection of metal ornaments from the burials of the Andronovo complex of the Rublevo VIII burial ground / / Altai in the system of metallurgical provinces of the Bronze Age. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2006, pp. 33-44.

Korochkova O. P., Stefanov V. P. Poselenie fyodorovskaya kul'tury [Settlement of the Fedorov culture]. Chelyabinsk: Bashkir State University, 1983, pp. 143-151.

Kosarev M. F. Ancient cultures of the Tomsk-Narym Ob region. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974, 220 p. (in Russian)

Kosarev M. F. K probleme paleoklimatologii i paleogeografii yuga Zapadno-Sibirskoy plaininy v bronzovom i zheleznom vekakh [On the problem of paleoclimatology and paleogeography of the South of the West Siberian Plain in the Bronze and Iron Ages]. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1979, pp. 37-42.

Kosarev M. F. Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoy Sibiri [The Bronze Age of Western Siberia]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, 280 p.

Kosarev M. F. Drevnyaya istoriya Zapadnoy Sibiri: chelovek i prirodnaya srede [The ancient history of Western Siberia: man and Natural Environment]. Moscow: Nauka, 1991, 302 p.

Krizhevskaya L. Ya. Early Bronze age in the Southern Trans-Urals. - L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1977. - 128 p.

Kuzmina E. E. Where did the Indo-Aryans come from?: Material culture of the tribes of the Andronovo community and the origin of Indo-Iranians. Moscow, Russian Institute of Cultural Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Federation, 1994, 464 p.

Logvin A. N. Stone Age of Kazakhstan's Upper Volga region (Mesolithic-Eneolithic). Alma-Ata: Kaz State Pedagogical University. un-t Publ., 1991, 63 p. (in Russian)

Logvin A. N. Turgai trough in the Mesolithic - Eneolithic epoch: Author's abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences. Novosibirsk, 2002, 40 p. (in Russian)

Loman VG Pottery technology of the population of Central Kazakhstan in the second half of the II Millennium BC: author. dis. kand. ist. Sciences. - M., 1993. - 31 p.

Loman V. G. Andronovo pottery: general methods of manufacturing vessels / / Russia and the East: problems of interaction. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State University, 1995, Part 5, Book 1, pp. 96-100.

Maksimenkov G. A. Andronovskaya culture on the Yenisei. - L: Science, 1978. - 190 p.

Malyutina T. S. Mogilnik Priplodny Log I / / Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya [Bronze Age of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve]. Chelyabinsk: Bashkir State University, 1984, pp. 58-79.

Mamedov, E. D., Climate change in Central Asian deserts in the Holocene, in Kolebaniya humidnennosti Aralo-Kaspiyskogo regiona v holocene, Moscow: Nauka, 1980, pp. 170-175.

Margulan A. H. Begazy-Dandybay culture. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1979, 360 p. (in Russian)

Margulan A. Kh., Akishev K. A., Kadyrbaev M. K., Orazbaev A.M. Ancient culture of Central Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1966, 453 p. (in Russian)

Markov K. K., Burashnikova T. A., Muratova M. V., Suetova P. A. Klimaticheskaya modeli i geograficheskie zony vremeni holotsenovogo optima na territorii SSSR [Climate model and geographical zones of Holocene Optimum time in the USSR]. Antropogenovye faktory v istorii razvitiya sovremennykh ekosistemov [Anthropogenic factors in the history of modern ecosystems development], Moscow: Nauka, 1982, pp. 230-240.

Maryashev A. N., Goryachev A. A. Monuments of the Kulsai type of the late and final Bronze Age of Semirechye // History and archeology of Semirechye. Almaty, 1999, issue 1, pp. 44-56.

Matveev A.V. The first Andronovtsy in the forests of the Trans-Urals. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1998, 417 p. (in Russian)

page 95
Matyushin G. And Eneolite of The Southern Urals, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1982, 328 p.

Matyushchenko V. I. Ancient history of the population of the forest and forest-steppe Ob region (Neolithic and Bronze Age). - Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. state University, 1973. - Part 3: Andronovo culture on the upper Ob River. - 118 p.

Matyushchenko V. I. Elovsky archaeological complex. Yelovsky II burial ground. Pre-firm complexes. - Omsk: Omsk State University, 2004. - Part 2. - 468 p.

Merts V. K. On new monuments of the early Bronze Age of Kazakhstan // Historical experience of economic and cultural development of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2003, Book 1, pp. 132-141.

Merts V. K. Novye materialy po eneolitu i ranney bronzeu Severo-Vostochnogo Kazakhstana [New materials on the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age of North-Eastern Kazakhstan]. Almaty: Institute of Archeology of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2004, pp. 165-169.

Mogilnikov V. A. Pamyatniki andronovskoy kul'tury na Verkhnego Alei [Monuments of the Andronovo culture on the Upper Alei]. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 1980, pp. 155-159.

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

Molodin V. I., Zakh V. A. Geomorphological location of monuments of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in the basin of the Ob, Ili, Omi rivers and their tributaries / / Features of the natural geographical environment and historical processes in Western Siberia. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1979, pp. 51-53.

Lower reaches of the Amu Darya, Sarykamysh, Uzboy: History of formation and settlement // Materials of the Khorezm expedition. - 1960. - Issue 3. - 348 p.

Orazbayev A.M. Northern Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age // Tr. IIAE OF THE Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, 1958, vol. 5, pp. 216-294.

Potemkina T. M. K voprosu o otnoshenii fedorovskikh i alakulskikh kompleksov [On the correlation between the Fedorov and Alakul complexes]. Tomsk, 1973, Issue 7, pp. 53-64.

Potemkina T. M. Kamyshnoye II-a multi-layered Bronze Age settlement on the Tobol River//KSIA, 1976, issue 147, pp. 97-106.

Potemkina T. M. Topograficheskaya i gidrograficheskaya priurochennost ' poseletov epokhi bronzy v Srednego Pritobol'e [Topographical and hydrographic timing of Bronze Age settlements in the Middle Part of the Volga Basin]. Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk State University, 1979, pp. 58-60.

Potemkina T. M. Alakul culture / / SA. - 1983. - N2. - P. 13-33.

Potemkina T. M. Rol ' abashevtsev v protsesse razvitiya alakulskoy kul'tury [The role of Abashevites in the development of the Alakul culture]. Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 1984, pp. 77-108.

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)

Potemkina T. M. Decorations from the Bronze Age burial ground of Dashti-Kozy // Vestn. archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography. Tyumen, 2001, issue 3, pp. 62-72.

Salnikov K. V. Andronovsky kurgan burial ground near the village of Fedorovka, Chelyabinsk region / / MIA. - 1940. - N1. - pp. 58-68.

Salnikov K. V. Bronzovyi vek Yuzhnogo Zaural'ya [The Bronze Age of the Southern Trans-Urals].

Salnikov K. V. Essays on the ancient history of the Southern Urals. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1967, 408 p. (in Russian)

Stefanov V. I., Korochkova O. I. Urefts I: Trans-Ural monument in the Andronovo context. Yekaterinburg: Ural State University, 2006, 160 p. (in Russian)

Stokolos V. S. Monument of the Bronze Age-Chernyaki II burial ground. Perm State University. 1968, Issue 191, pp. 210-223.

Stokolos V. S. Culture of the Bronze Age population of the Southern Trans-Urals (chronology and periodization). Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1972, 168 p. (in Russian)

Stokolos, V. S., Whether the Novokumak horizon existed, SA. - 1983. - N 2. - pp. 257-274.

Tatarintseva N. S. Keramika poseleniya Vishnevka I v lesostepnom Priishimye [Ceramics of the Vishnevka I settlement in the forest-steppe Priishimye region]. Chelyabinsk: Bashkir State University, 1984, pp. 104-113.

Tkachev A. A. Central Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age. Tyumen: Tyumen State Oil and Gas Company. un-t Publ., 2002, 532 p. (in Russian)

Tkachev V. V. K probleme proiskhozhdeniya petrovskoy kul'tury [On the problem of the origin of the Petrovsky culture]. - Orenburg, 1998. - Vol. 2. - p. 38-56.

Tkacheva N. A. Monuments of the Bronze Age of the Upper Irtysh region: Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences. - Barnaul, 1997. - 19 p.

Umansky A. P., Kiryushin Yu. F., Grushin S. P. Funeral rite of the population of the Andronovo culture of the Prichumysh region (based on the materials of the Kytmanovo burial ground). Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2007, 132 p. (in Russian)

Usmanova E. R. The Lisakovsky I burial ground: facts and parallels. - Karaganda: Karaganda State University; Lisakovsk: Lisakov. Museum of History and Culture of the Upper Part of the Volga region, 2005. - 232 p.

Fedorova-Davydova E. A. K probleme andronovskaya kul'tury [On the problem of the Andronovo culture]. Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri [Problems of Archeology of the Urals and Siberia], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1973, pp. 133-152.

Formozov A. A. On the question of the origin of the Andronovo culture//KSIIMK. - 1951. - Issue 39. - p. 3-18.

Khabarova S. V. Kul'turno-khronologicheskoe otnoshenie alakulskogo i fedorovskogo zapadnogo kompleksov [Cultural and chronological correlation of the Alakul and Fedorovsky Western complexes]. - Tobolsk: Tobol State Pedagogical Institute, 1997. - Issue 2, part 1. - pp. 92-102.

Khabdulina M. K., Zdanovich G. B. Landscape-climatic fluctuations of the Holocene and issues of cultural and historical situation in Northern Kazakhstan / / Bronze Age of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve. Chelyabinsk: Bashkir State University, 1984, pp. 136-158.

Khotinsky N. A. Holocene of Northern Eurasia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1977, 200 p.

Khotinsky N. A., Nemkova V. K., Surova T. E. Osnovnye etapy razvitiya rastitel'nosti i klimata Urala v holocene [Main stages of development of vegetation and climate of the Urals in the Holocene]. - Sverdlovsk: Ural. State University, 1982, pp. 145-153.

Chernikov S. S. Vostochny Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy [Eastern Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age]. - 1960. - N 88. - 272 p.

Chernosvitov P. Yu. Development of the Far North: The experience of imitative modeling based on the materials of archeology: Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences, Moscow: Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999, 19 p.

Chlenova N. L. O kul'turakh bronzovoy epokhi lesostepnoy zony Zapadnoy Sibiri [On the cultures of the Bronze Age of the forest-steppe zone of Western Siberia].

Shnitnikov A.V. Intravectoral variability of components of total humidity. - L.: Nauka, 1969. - 244 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 10.04.08.

page 96

Permanent link to this publication: