Problems of modern archeology. Ikiinvo - news of the local lore institute for the study of the lower Volga region

CULTUROLOGY

A. I. Martynov

ARCHEOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORY (some questions of the methodology of archeology)

The article is devoted to the methodological problems of modern archeology. Based on specific examples from the archeology of Eurasia, the following are considered: archaeological facts and their connection with the historical process, the influence of the geoenvironment on history, the possibilities of rock art in the reconstruction of history and the role of leading peoples in the history of mankind are explored.

Key words: Artifact, geo-environment and historical process, leading peoples in history, rock art and reconstruction of history.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORY (some methodological issues of Archaeology)

The article is dedicated to the methodological problems of modern archeology. Specific examples from archeology of Eurasia display the archaeological facts and their relationship to the historical process, the impact of geoenvironment on history, research the possibilities of rock art in the reconstruction of the history and the role of the leading nations in the history of mankind.

Keywords: Artifact, geoenvironment and historical process, leading nations in the history, rock art and reconstruction of the history.

It is known that the XX century. in the Soviet Union was marked by two main trends in archaeological science: the accumulation of material archaeological sources and the substantiation of archaeological cultures. Archeology turned into a science of facts and examples, and the historical process in archeology was perceived mainly as a system of changing epochs and archaeological cultures.

Archaeological fact and historical process. In the XX century. a large number of archaeo-

logical materials on the Neolithic, the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age, which allow moving from archaeological facts, their statement, to the reconstruction of historical processes, to historical conclusions, which in turn requires new methodological and methodological approaches and an understanding of the new role of archeology as a historical science in the 21st century

In connection with the problem of the relationship between fact and historical process in archeology, I would like to dwell on two

Ma indicative, in my opinion, examples. There are known facts of a very early use of bows and arrows in the Paleolithic. It is a fact. However, should it be used as a conclusion about the widespread use of bows and arrows in the pre-solithic era. I think that there are no grounds for this, since the hunting conditions of the late Pleistocene hardly contributed to the widespread use of this innovation. Most likely, the application was limited to the ritual practice of applying this innovation, but not the economic one. The situation changed only in the Holocene, which led to a rather rapid spread of bows and arrows in the Mesolithic.

Probably, one should not exaggerate the fact of the early date of the appearance of ceramic vessels in Japan. It does not mean at all that ceramic utensils spread in this connection much earlier than the Neolithic. It is quite possible that the properties of the ceramic mass, its plasticity, the ability to be molded, hardened and fired, were known earlier, even in the Paleolithic. However, ceramics as a material and ceramic vessels were widespread only in the Neolithic as an important process in history.

Geoenvironment and historical process. In recent years, archeology, cultural studies, geography and other sciences have accumulated a large amount of material on the role of the geoenvironment in historical and cultural processes in archaeological periods. As a result, several important general conclusions can be drawn. First, it must be taken into account that the entire archaeological period of human history is a system of relationships between human populations and the natural environment in its macrosystems (steppe, mountain and forest (taiga) massifs) and microsystems (concrete landscape systems). We have come to the understanding that nature, its features are a culture-forming factor in the history of archaeological periods. This is superbly visible on the territory.

Kazakhstan and Western Siberia in the Mesolithic-Neolithic. Secondly, in archeology, especially when characterizing economic activity, it is necessary to take into account the effect of the law of rational use of the natural environment. He acted objectively in the Paleometal Age and in the formation of such global historical systems as the Saka or Scytho-Siberian world as a historical phenomenon, as well as in considering smaller historical and cultural formations marked by individual archaeological cultures of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. Here, the role of several natural factors is noted: the role of the Ural-Kazakhstan and Sayano-Altai mining and metallurgical centers in the Paleometallic era; the role of the Eurasian steppe corridor in the spread of innovations, cattle breeding, wheeled transport, the movement of population groups, which is well traced in archaeological sites, the spread of images of carts in rock art, burial mounds of the Paleometallic era in the steppe Eurasia. Important is the fact that mounds appeared in the steppes and mountain valleys as architectural structures, their connection with landscapes and, at the same time, with the new worldview of the population of the Paleometallic era.

A qualitatively new development of the steppe and mountain valleys of Eurasia began with the most important event in the history of mankind - with the spread of producing forms of economy in this vast territory as the basis for the civilizational development of mankind. It should be regarded as the greatest event in the history of Eurasia, which influenced the entire further course of historical development up to the present. For most of the Eurasian territories, the development of agriculture and cattle breeding falls on the Paleometallic era (Eneolithic - Bronze Age). It must be admitted that in the history of Eurasia, the paleometallic era was a time of

The rapid spread of different types of productive economy, the historically important division of the productive economy into two main areas: sedentary agriculture, associated with water resources and for this reason more limited territorially, and mobile cattle breeding, the development of vast expanses of Eurasia began with it. It was a time of active influence of the geo-environment factor on economic specifics, the formation of large cultural and historical macrozones with features of material and spiritual culture. There were four of them in Eurasia: the territory of settled irrigated agriculture (from Tripoli to Yangshao); pastoral and agricultural (andronovo, catacomb communities); the zone of mobile cattle breeding (steppe and mountain) and the forest territory of the appropriating-producing economy. Each of the cultural-historical macrozones was characterized by the features of the producing or appropriating economy dictated by the geo-environment, a cult-worldview complex of ideas, and spiritual values ​​expressed in burial complexes and art. The worldview is reflected in the complex ornamental art of the first two zones: the painted ceramics of Trypillia, Cukuteni, Anau, Yangshao, female sculptures of fertility, wall decorations of adobe dwellings, and complex stamped ornament of the Andronovo and Catacomb circle cultures. In the zone of mobile cattle breeding and the appropriating-producing economy, rock art developed at that time. It has become a significant component of these two cultural and historical macrozones of Eurasia.

Rock art and reconstruction of history. At present, as is known, a colossal material has been accumulated on rock carvings, which allows us to draw historical conclusions. In connection with the materials on rock carvings, it seems that no

it is necessary to pay attention to some facts. Monuments of rock art with images of deer in the style of "deer stones" are located in the Sayan-Altai space: on the petroglyphs of Tuva in Mongolia and the Altai Mountains. The fact is not isolated and requires historical conclusions. It is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that images and plots characteristic of the Scythian era appear on rock art monuments where there were already images of the previous time. This indicates that the sacred places were perceived in the new era as their own, understandable to the people of the new, Saka era. They were not destroyed. Apparently, the myth-making basis, including the idea of ​​the structure of the universe, the idea of ​​reincarnation, the idea of ​​divine symbols (golden deer-sun and ram-farne) were not new. New was their symbolism, symbolism. The Scythian era gave birth to "readable" symbols in art: the pose of an animal, the symbolic interpretation of horns and other accessories, for example, solar signs, wings on some images of deer, altars for sacred fire, and much more.

Archeology and social processes. Probably in the 21st century. archaeologists will pay more attention to the study of the problem of social structure, statehood and civilizational processes in the Saka and post-Saka eras, the processes of the spread of innovation, and cultural genesis in archeology. A lot of new materials and facts have been accumulated in recent years. However, new methodological approaches to these materials are lacking. Let us turn to examples from history, when archaeological material becomes the basis for the reconstruction of historical processes.

This approach justified itself in the slave-owning societies of the Ancient East. In fact, the entire Ancient East, including most of the cuneiform texts, was discovered thanks to the work of archaeologists: excavations

Sumer, Akada, Babylon, excavations of archaeological sites in Egypt, the Hittite civilization in Turkey, Urartu, research in Susa, Persepolis, finally, the discovery by archaeologists of the monuments of the Shang-Yin era in China and the Dravidian civilization in India. All this is archeology. If there were no archaeological materials, we would know practically nothing about the Ancient East. Approximately along the same path, accumulating archaeological facts, it is necessary to reconstruct the Eurasian pastoral steppe civilization: Besshatyr, Shilikta, Issyk and Berel in Kazakhstan, Filippovka among the Savromats, new materials on the Scythians, Arzhan 1 - 2, the grandiose Salbyk and a host of other recorded archaeological facts. Data on the designs of burial structures should be used not only as material for stating facts, but also as a source (and there are no others) for studying the societies of the Scythian-Siberian world. Significant materials have been accumulated on economic activity: a highly developed construction business, various types of productive cattle breeding that have developed, and much more testify to the Eurasian steppe civilization, represented by the early state formations of the Scythians, Savromats, Saks and other societies of South Siberia and Central Asia. To understand the full significance of new archaeological materials and data on the territory of the Scythian-Saka world, I think, is hindered only by some methodological limitations and one-linear views on the processes of historical development. We continue to consider archaeological materials mainly taking into account the formational development of history, according to which, as is known, socio-economic formations consistently developed, and civilizational development was considered exclusively through the development of a settled agricultural economy and the values ​​developed by this direction of cultural genesis. At the same time, the main

something else - what lies at the basis of the civilizational process of the development of history? The basis, as you know, is the producing economy and only it. And in the Eurasian space, starting from the Paleometallic era, it was represented by two main areas - sedentary agriculture with domestic cattle breeding and mobile cattle breeding of the steppe and mountain-valley belt of Eurasia with the auxiliary role of agriculture. Moreover, each of these two directions of historical development occupied its own macro-territory in Eurasia, developing its own characteristics of the economy, dictated by the law of rational use of the natural environment, developing its own spiritual values, reflected in burial complexes and art. It must be recognized and understood that these were two parallel developing civilizations with a different set of civilizational values.

These civilizational differences look especially bright in the contact areas between the two main civilizational macrozones in the Black Sea region, in the south of Kazakhstan and in the foothills of Central Asia.

New discoveries of early Iron Age sites in Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Western China and the Altai-Sayan region allow solving other issues of the history of steppe Eurasia in the 1st millennium BC. e. Materials of early burial mounds (Arzhan and others), deer stones of the K-UP centuries. and rock carvings with images of flying stylized deer with elongated (duck) muzzles, complexes of "Early Scythian" weapons, horse harness, jewelry confirm the conclusion that the earliest centers of formation of the culture of the Saka world were formed in the east of the steppe and mountain-valley Eurasia, in Altai- Sayan region and on the territory of Kazakhstan. The new materials obtained on the territory of Kazakhstan make it possible to note the leading role of the Saks in this process. Scythia and Scythians

were probably the western outskirts of this world, which also experienced a significant influence of ancient Greek, Thracian and other cultures.

About the people-leaders in history. When considering the processes of adding unity in the VI-III centuries. BC e. and the spread of innovations at the turn of the Bronze and Iron Ages, one can note the addition of several basic forms of cattle breeding, closely related to the specific natural features of the steppe and mountain-valley landscapes, the development of transport: wheels with spokes, a bushing and a rim, the development of horseback riding, the construction of socially significant grandiose according to the labor costs of mounds, the emergence of informative sign art of images, the role of natural sanctuaries with images of art, and much more. In studying the transition from the Bronze Age to the early Iron Age, it is important to understand the historical role of leadership in history and to explain the changes in material and spiritual culture. In the USh-UP centuries. BC e., obviously, everywhere in the steppe Eurasia there was a change of leadership. The Scythians in the west, the Sakas and other groups of Indo-Iranians in the east create ethno-political formations in which the leadership was theirs. Most likely, they were at the same time the bearers of more progressive technologies in material culture, new ideas in the worldview, social relations and extended their leadership to other ethnic groups of the population. They form new power structures, a system of domination-subordination, new ethno-social structures, new symbols of leadership and power, new funerary rites and ceremonies, grandiose funerary structures and funerary mythology, which is reflected in the art of funerary crypts (funeral art): images on sarcophagi, felt carpets, headdresses, horse decorations

harnesses in the Pazyryk mounds, burial complexes of Berel, Arzhan, Issyk and others.

Understanding the leadership system of ethnic groups as a tool for explaining global historical changes is very important when studying historical processes in archaeological periods in the Eurasian steppes.

We encounter this phenomenon later. Changes in the cultures of the Scythian-Saka world in the 2nd century BC are traced archaeologically. BC e .: violation of economic, social stability, balance, which was characteristic of the Saka world, an increase in the mobility of the population was noted in archaeological cultures. Wars, seizures of territories, livestock are becoming a characteristic phenomenon of the new era. At the same time, it was also a change in the leadership of the Indo-Iranians by the Huns, who created the first empire of nomads in Central Asia.

In the new era, new, more advanced offensive and defensive weapons are being created and distributed: a long sword, three-bladed iron arrowheads, and an improved bow. In everyday life and military practice, riding, the role of a horse, becomes paramount. There is a hard saddle, iron stirrups and much more, characterizing a new historical era. The historical fact itself and its global consequences are important, expressed in a number of archaeological facts of the Tesin, Tashtyk cultures and in the changes that are taking place at that time in Tuva, the Altai Mountains, in the territories of modern Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

The new era led to a change in everyday culture, the spread of yurts and polygonal pillar dwellings, the ability to place everything necessary for life in lockers and leather bags. As you know, the belt acquires a special role in clothing and equipment. Gradually changing outlook

calic and epic representations associated with a warrior-hero, a heroic horse. All this is reflected in the archaeological materials of the turn and the first half of

I millennium AD e. However, it must be borne in mind that with the change of the people-leader, there has never been a complete replacement of peoples. This was not the case in the era of Saka domination, obviously, it was not in the era of the Hunnic great power. With good reason, the Hun era can be called the era of syncretism, the combination of everything positive that was achieved in the previous time and new beginnings. This is evidenced by different types of burial structures and burial rites, objects of the Scythian era that continued to exist, traditions in rock art are preserved. In the Eurasian steppes, changes are also taking place in social structures. There was a change in ideas about cultural values. In this process, a significant role in the new era was played by material

and spiritual achievements of the previous Scythian-Saka era. This is due to the fact that a significant part of the population of the Saka era remained in their habitats, it was the keeper of the genotype of the Scythian-Saka era and had a significant impact on the formation of ethnic groups of the population of the new Hun-Sarmatian era.

The next period of change of leadership in the steppes occurred in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e. In the bowels of the Hunnic state, according to the latest data, the ancient Turks were formed, which in the 1st millennium AD. e. powerfully declared themselves in the process of the so-called Turkification of the vast territories of Southern Siberia, Kazakhstan, north along the Lena, further west and the Middle Yenisei, in forest-walled and forest territories along the Tom, Irtysh, in the Volga and Ural regions. Here one can clearly see another powerful change of the leader people, who in Southern Siberia and in the south of Eastern Europe

py in the I millennium AD e. become Turks. Literature Alternative ways of civilization. - M., 2000.

Questions of archeology of Kazakhstan: Sat. scientific Art. in honor of the 75th anniversary of Bekmukhanbet Nurmukhanbetov. -Almaty, 2011.

Kazakhstan and Eurasia through the centuries. History, archeology, cultural heritage: Sat. scientific tr., dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the birth of Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan Karl Maldakhmetovich Baipakov. - Almaty, 2010.

Horses, chariots and charioteers of steppe Eurasia. - Yekaterinburg; Samara; Donetsk, 2010.

Kradin N. N. The Empire of the Xiongnu. - M., 2001.

Martynov A. I. The archaeological resource of Kazakhstan and its implementation during the years of independence // Witnesses of the millennia: the archaeological science of Kazakhstan for 20 years (1991-2011). - Almaty, 2011. - S. 415-422.

Martynov A.I., Elin V.N. The Scytho-Siberian world of Eurasia. - M., 2009.

Martynov A.I. Rock Art and Historical Processes // Rock Art in Modern Society: Materials of the Intern. scientific conf. August 22-26, 2011 - Kemerovo, 2011. -T. 1. - S. 26-31.

The role of steppe cities in the civilization of nomads: materials of the International. scientific Conf. dedicated to the 10th anniversary of Astana, July 2, 2008 - Astana, 2008.

10. The role of nomads in the formation of the cultural heritage of Kazakhstan // Scientific readings in memory of N. E. Magapov. - Almaty, 2010.

11. Samashev Z., Zhang So Ho, Bokovenko N., Murgabaev S. Rock Art of Kazakhstan / Astana branch of the Institute of Archeology named after A.I. A. Kh. Murgulan, 2011.

12. Scythian-Siberian cultural and historical unity: Sat. tr. conf. - Kemerovo, 1980.

No. 10. M .: "Taus". 2008. 348 p.

Preface. - 5

List of scientific works of the leading researcher of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences Bashilov Vladimir Aleksandrovich. - 7

P.M. Munchaev. In the interfluve of the Tigris and Euphrates: memories of the work of V.A. Bashilov in Mesopotamia. - 12

O.G. Bolshakov. Abu Zena Voloja (Yarym memories). - 24

AND ABOUT. Bader, M. Le Mier. From the Pre-Pottery to the Ceramic Neolithic in Sinjar: the beginning of the Proto-Khassuna. - 28

Yu.E. Beryozkin. Myths and pyramids: about the Asian heritage in the cultures of America. - 49

IN AND. Kozenkov. On the processes of spatial mobility of the boundaries of the area of ​​the Koban culture. - 69

M.A. Devlet. Shields and their images on deer stones. - 96

S.B. Walchak. Classification and composition of pre-Scythian complexes with draft harness sets. - 125

I WOULD. Berezin, V.E. Maslov, Yu.V. Khlopov. Ceramics of the early Scythian time from the Central Ciscaucasia. - 140

IN AND. Gulyaev. "Prestigious things" from the Middle Don mounds of the Scythian time and the problem of a unified Scythia. - 155

T.M. Kuznetsova. Social indicators in the funeral rite of the Scythians (bronze cauldrons). - 173

I.V. Rukavishnikova, L.T. Yablonsky. Bone products in the animal style from the burial ground Filippovka I. - 199

V.V. Dvornichenko, S.V. Demidenko, Yu.V. Demidenko. A set of buckles from the burial of a noble Sarmatian warrior in the Krivaya Luka VIII burial ground. - 239 (See academia.edu)

M.G. Moshkov. Late Sarmatian burials of the Three Brothers burial ground. - 243

V.Yu. Malashev. Chronology of the burial complexes of the burial ground Klin-Yar III of the Sarmatian time. - 265

S.I. Bezuglov. Kurgan catacomb burials of the late Roman era in the Lower Don steppes. - 284

L.T. Yablonsky. New about the well-forgotten old: some theoretical approaches in modern Scythian-Sarmatian archeology. - 302

A.A. Bobrinsky. Establishment of the sex of individuals by nail prints on ceramics. - 316

List of abbreviations. - 346

AB - Archaeological news. SPb.

АЖ - anthropological journal. M.

AO - Archaeological discoveries. M.

ASGE - Archaeological collection of the State Hermitage. L. St. Petersburg.

NPP - Archaeological and ethnographic collection

VGMG - Bulletin of the State Museum of Georgia. Tbilisi.

VDI - Bulletin of ancient history. M.

GIM - State Historical Museum. M.

ZOAO - Notes of the Odessa Archaeological Society. Odessa.

IAK - Proceedings of the archaeological commission. St. Petersburg; Pg.

IA RAS - Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M.

IKIINVO - Proceedings of the Local Lore Institute for the Study of the Lower Volga Region. Saratov.

INVIK - Proceedings of the Nizhne-Volzhsky Institute of Local Lore. Saratov.

IRGO - Proceedings of the Russian Geographical Society. SPb.

IROMK - Proceedings of the Rostov Regional Museum of Local Lore. Rostov-on-Don.

IYUONII - Proceedings of the South Ossetian Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR. Tbilisi.

KKM - Kislovodsk Museum of Local Lore.

KSIA - Brief Communications of the Institute of Archeology. M.

KSIIMK - Brief reports of the Institute of the History of Material Culture. M.; L.

MAD - Materials on the archeology of Dagestan. Makhachkala.

MADISO - Materials on archeology and ancient history of North Ossetia. Ordzhonikidze.

MAIET - Materials on archeology, history and ethnography of Tavria. Simferopol.

MAK - Materials on the history of the Caucasus. M.

MAP - Materials on the archeology of Russia. St. Petersburg; Pg.

MIA - Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR. M.

MIAR - Materials and research on the archeology of Russia. M.

MISCM - Materials and research of the Stavropol Regional Museum. Stavropol.

ICA - Material culture of Azerbaijan. Baku.

MNM - Myths of the peoples of the world. Encyclopedia. M.

MON HAH PK - Materials of the department of new buildings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata.

(346/347)

KLA - Report of the archaeological commission. SPb.

Surfactant - Petersburg Archaeological Bulletin. SPb.

PAE IA RAS - Potudan archaeological expedition of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

SAI - Code of archaeological sources. M.

SAIPI - Siberian Association of Researchers of Primitive Art. Novosibirsk [ Kemerovo].

SGE - Communications of the State Hermitage. L.; SPb.

SMAE - Collection of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography.

SB RAS - Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

TSOMK - Proceedings of the Saratov Museum of Local Lore. Saratov.

UZKBNII - Scientific notes of the Kabardino-Balkarian Research Institute. Nalchik.

UZSGU - Scientific Notes of the Saratov State University. Saratov.

Archeology is engaged in the search for archaeological sites, their excavations and the extraction of information from them. The end result of research in archeology is the reconstruction of historical processes, facts.

Archeology as a science, its goals and objectives, problems of interpretation in archeology.

Archeology is understood as a branch of historical science that studies the past of mankind on the basis of material sources obtained through archaeological excavations. Excavations for scientific purposes in compliance with a certain methodology are an integral part of archaeological research.

In Russia, the main goal of archeology is the reconstruction of the ancient past of the human community. In Western Europe and the United States over the past two decades, it has been said that the main goal of archeology should be the preservation for future generations of archaeological sites as part of the global cultural heritage. The appearance of such an interpretation leads to the abandonment of excavations.

Archeology as a type of scientific activity includes: field research; laboratory work on the description and study of material sources; their analysis using various methods; reconstruction of historical events, phenomena

An archaeologist studies archaeological monuments, objects, collects facts, but not in its original form. Therefore, while conducting excavations or studying things, the archaeologist fixes his primary observations and looks for connections between them, i.e. deals with interpretation. The problem of interpretation lies in the difference between the levels of interpretation, i.e. in terms of professionalism.

Modern archeology is largely associated with research conducted in the 18th and 19th centuries, while the word archeology itself comes from ancient Greek, which translates as a story about history. In Tue. floor. 18th century the meaning of the term has changed. This was due to the excavations of the two ancient cities of Pompeii and Herculane. As a result of the excavations of Pompeii, a huge number of artifacts were obtained. Researchers and art historians have suggested that archeology is the description of the monuments of ancient art. Archeology received its modern significance in Tues. floor. 19th century, due to the increase in the number of artifacts extracted from the earth and the realization of the possibility of using them in the reconstruction of the past. There was a chain of events that led to a change in the concept of archeology. This is the discovery by Darwin of the theory of evolution, the discovery in geology in the formation of rocks, the discovery of Troy by Schliemann. As a result, archeology allowed to change the knowledge about history.

Archeology occupies a significant place in the knowledge of the historical process. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that the knowledge of history occurs through the study of archaeological sites, with the help of excavations and other special methods used by this science.

Archaeological monuments are the only sources of knowledge in archeology and at the same time part of modern reality. They are everywhere, are present in our lives and constitute a significant part of the historical and cultural heritage of mankind. Therefore, it is necessary to understand what is the attitude of society towards archaeological sites, what is the role of archaeologists in modern society, and finally, what place does archaeological knowledge occupy in modern mass historical education, and how modern society uses the archaeological heritage of its country.

The current attitude of society, the state and archaeologists to the archaeological historical and cultural heritage of Russia, unfortunately, can hardly be called satisfactory. And this despite the fact that no other country in the world has such a huge number of archaeological sites as Russia. Most of them represent not only national, but also world value. The question of the use of this heritage by society in the USSR was not raised at all, the emphasis was placed, mostly formally, on their preservation.

Archaeological sites have traditionally been considered and are still considered only objects of scientific study and thus, as it were, stand out from the sphere of broad public interest. There are many reasons for such an attitude: it is the indifference and even hostility brought up in the past towards immovable monuments and symbols of the past; priority solution of economic problems; The fact that mass historical education in Russia is built exclusively on the study of socio-political history also played a role. Therefore, a large part of society does not represent the value of the country's archaeological heritage. According to UNESCO, Russia, having a colossal archaeological heritage, today occupies one of the last places in the world in the use of this heritage by modern society.

During the years of perestroika, much has been done to restore and museify historical and architectural monuments of Christianity, park and civil architecture, architecture, memorial sites, but almost nothing has been done to museify archaeological heritage sites, despite the fact that archeological monuments of Eurasian and national value , on the territory of our country many times more than other monuments of historical and cultural heritage.

Archaeological monuments have not become close, retrograde to modern man.

One more feature cannot be ignored. During the Soviet era, the archaeological heritage was ravaged by industrial determinism. There has never been any alternative, any public discussion of the situation in the construction of industrial facilities. As a result, thousands of archaeological sites were hastily excavated during the construction of power plants on the Volga, Ob, Yenisei, Angara, etc., disappeared forever from the arsenal of historical and cultural values ​​of mankind, many historical and archaeological landscapes in Transbaikalia, Ciscaucasia, the Volga region, in Gorny Altai, Khakassia, Tuva and in the Southern Urals were destroyed or subjected to significant destruction as a result of plowing fields with heavy equipment.

It is necessary to emphasize the complete insecurity of open petroglyphic objects in comparison with other archeological monuments covered by earth. Situations often arise when neither the law, nor the government, nor society is able to protect these monuments. Especially the ego concerns those of them that are located near roads and settlements.

Thus, a number of monuments in the Altai Mountains, for example, the unique medieval complex of rock paintings Bichiktu-Bom, experienced a destructive anthropogenic influence.

In the 1950s-1960s. part of the Tomsk petroglyphic monument was damaged by inscriptions and engravings, colossal damage was inflicted in Siberia on petroglyphic monuments during the construction of the Bratsk, Krasnoyarsk and Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power stations. Most of these monuments were flooded by the waters of man-made seas.

The fate of archaeological settlements from different eras, as well as archaeological sites and cultural layers in ancient cities, is alarming.

The state of our modern public, state and scientific attitude to the Russian archaeological heritage is such that we cannot do without studying and using world experience in this area. Over the past decades, we have lagged far behind the world experience in the protection and use of archeological monuments, integration into the world system of protection and use of the archaeological heritage. It should be noted that the preservation of monuments in domestic practice has always been divorced from the tasks of their modern use for educational purposes and the development of tourism. In Soviet times, no attention was paid to this, as a result, even today, the archaeological heritage is used one-sidedly, mainly as an object of scientific study. Unfortunately, there is no single scientifically substantiated, understood and accepted by society, civilized concept of attitude to the country's archaeological heritage in our state.

Much here depends on the attitude of the archaeologists themselves to archaeological sites. We believe that today we should focus less on the discovery of new monuments and pay more attention to the study of already accumulated materials and the museumification of monuments in their environment. When excavating a monument, it is necessary to evaluate it from the point of view of possible museumification and inclusion of the most valuable objects in the system of modern educational tourism. Only such an approach will preserve archaeological sites and introduce them into the system of values ​​of modern society.

The world scientific community has long come to the conclusion that the protection of archaeological sites is facilitated by a well-thought-out system of their modern use. Moreover, without the creation of such a system, the preservation of archaeological sites is impossible. Documents of the International Council on Monuments and Prehistoric Sites (ICOMOS), the United Nations Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972, documents of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), including ICOMOS Charter on the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage of 1990. These international acts reflect the fact that the problem of preserving the archaeological heritage is inseparable from their current use by society as a kind of resource. The concept of modern attitude to the objects of archaeological heritage is as follows:

• 1. The archaeological heritage belongs to all mankind. The countries in whose territory heritage sites are located are responsible for their conservation and use.
• 2. The archaeological heritage is an irreplaceable source of culture, it is irreplaceable.
• 3. The protection and use of this heritage cannot be based on the use of archaeological excavation methods alone.
• 4. The active participation of the general public should be part of the policy for the conservation of the archaeological heritage.

These provisions are set out in the Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage and are in fact the basis of the modern system of its use in the civilized world.

The world experience in the field of using the archaeological heritage, accumulated at the end of the 20th century, is enormous. We can note the main directions in this area of ​​archeology, aimed at society, at the person.

One of the directions is the museumification of archaeological complexes, where long-term stationary archaeological research is carried out, and their display. In Russia, this is done in Novgorod, Kostenki, Tanais, Arkaim, in the Denisova cave in the Altai Mountains. In these cases, as a rule, the territory of the monument should be marked, its excavated part should be museumified to varying degrees, a system of informative demonstration of archaeological objects should be drawn up, excursion and service services (sale of postcards, booklets, literature, badges, souvenirs) should be provided. This form of introducing society to archeology is perhaps the simplest, focused on the simultaneous implementation of two interrelated tasks: scientific field studies of the monument and their display, public demonstration of the results of the work of archaeologists.

Great world experience has been accumulated in the creation of archaeological museums and archaeological parks in nature, in the place of accumulation of archaeological monuments or already carried out archaeological excavations and in the complex of rock carvings. The diversity of such museums is dictated by the peculiarities of the location of immovable archaeological sites, their features.

More complex tasks are facing museum and archaeological complexes, the so-called archeodromes. As a rule, they are museum complexes of a multifunctional orientation, combining various forms of activity, including the "revitalization" of archaeological sites, the obligatory active participation in the museum action of a person or a whole team, immersion in the historical, archaeological environment, reconstruction of industrial, social, ideological processes with human participation. This principle of work can be called "living archeology". Such museums, as a rule, combine excavations, museumified archaeological objects, processes of experimental archeology, etc. The experience of their work is very interesting.

The activities of the archeodromes are not hindered by the harsh climate. Thus, the museum of living archeology and ethnography functions, for example, on the site of an ancient Eskimo settlement in northern Sweden; The archaeological and ethnographic village of Litra is located in northern Norway. On the territory of the museum there is a zone of excavations of an ancient settlement, an information center with exhibitions, a library, a tourist complex, a traditional industrial seafaring, buildings of different eras.

Sweden also has a simple system of museumification of burial mounds and petroglyphs: the monuments are fenced, a footpath is paved along the fence, viewing platforms and bollards with explanatory texts are provided. Nearby are parking lots.

In the countries of Europe, some countries of Asia and Africa, an effectively operating unified business system has been created, including monuments of archeology and culture, museums. Educational tourism, museum and tourism business is developed. In our country, this system works only in the Golden Ring region and the vicinity of St. Petersburg, Moscow, in a number of regions of the country its creation is only planned.

A big problem for the country is the archaeological illiteracy of modern Russian society.

In the development of archeology, each new century was marked by some peculiarities. The 18th century, in our opinion, can be characterized as the time of the emergence of interest in archaeological antiquities within the framework of encyclopedism; 19th century became the time of the emergence of archeology as a science; 20th century we can rightfully call it a century of excavations and accumulation of artifacts, when archeology reached the level of scientific reconstruction of historical processes, strengthened its indispensable role in historical reconstructions, and expanded its personnel potential.

In the XX century. and Russian archeology reached the level of development of systematic historical knowledge.

Having accumulated colossal material on historical and archaeological epochs, modern archeology pays negligible attention to their transmission to society.

Obviously, archaeologists need to understand that archeology, as a humanitarian and historical science, has a dual task: to explore the archaeological heritage, to reconstruct the historical past, and to make the results of their discoveries available to society.

It should be noted that modern historical education is built on the study of socio-political history, according to which the main thing in the historical process is the emergence of classes and class struggle, wars, revolutions fill our history and are the main content of historical knowledge. In addition, priority will be given to historical knowledge on modern and contemporary history that has a political connotation. But in this history there is practically no place for archeology, its modern achievements, knowledge and ideas about the historical value of the archaeological monuments of our fatherland. Therefore, in the minds of people, archeology is perceived as some kind of exotic science that is not connected with our history. At best, it is perceived as an object of local lore. At worst, it is like studying something far away or not needed at all.

The accumulated fundamental archaeological knowledge on anthropogenesis, cultural genesis, the history of civilizational development is not used by the modern education system to the proper extent.

Modern society needs a reform of the content of general historical education, in which genuine scientific knowledge about the country's archaeological heritage should take its rightful place. Archeology of the 21st century cannot remain a closed, highly specialized science, aimed only at excavations and the study of archaeological heritage sites.

We need professional archaeologists who feel the needs of modern society and the scope of their knowledge in the 21st century. obvious. The history of the country and the world cannot be only socio-political, it is much wider and richer. Archaeologists are needed in the educational, scientific, museum fields, in the field of tourism, supervisory authorities for compliance with legislation in the field of cultural heritage, land registry, editorial offices and publishing houses, etc.

A significant event that meets the modern challenges of preserving and using the country's historical and cultural heritage, including archaeological sites, was the adoption of the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-Φ3 "On Cultural Heritage Objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation "and the creation in 2008 of the Federal Service for Supervision of Compliance with Legislation in the Field of Cultural Heritage Protection (Rosokhrankultura), which has relevant services in the regions.

Modern problems of Russian archeology: Sat. scientific tr. - Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006. - T. I. - 492 p. ISBN 5-7803-0149-2

The materials of the All-Russian Archaeological Congress reflect a wide range of research on topical issues of modern archeology. The topics of the reports cover the development of cultural traditions from the Paleolithic to the Middle Ages, the relationship between ancient cultures and the natural environment, the ethnogenesis of the peoples of Eurasia, the study of primitive art, theory, methodology, the historiography of archeology, and the preservation of the archaeological heritage of Russia. For archaeologists and specialists in related scientific disciplines.

PLENARY REPORTS

— 3
— 13
Gulyaev V.I. ETHNO-CULTURAL PROCESSES IN THE FOREST-STEPPE DONATION DURING THE SCYTHIAN AGE (V-IV CENTURIES BC) — 16
— 25
— 34
Kuznetsov V.D. RESEARCH IN FANAGORIA – 40
Makarov N.A. MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE STUDY AND PRESERVATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN MODERN RUSSIA — 43
Molodin V.I., Parzinger G. STUDY OF THE CHICHA MONUMENT IN THE BARABA FOREST-STEPPE (RESULTS, PROSPECTS, PROBLEMS) — 49
Pryakhin A.D. HISTORIOGRAPHICAL STUDIES IN RUSSIAN ARCHEOLOGY (RUSSIAN, SOVIET, RUSSIAN). PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT OF ARCHEOLOGY IN THE COUNTRY - 56
Savinov D.G. DYNAMICS OF ANCIENT TURKIC CULTURAL SPACE – 64
Sher Ya.A. FINE MONUMENTS AND PROBLEMS OF THEIR STUDY – 68
Epov M.I., Molodin V.I., Chemyakina M.A. RESULTS AND PROSPECTS OF GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OF ALTAI AND WESTERN SIBERIA 76
Yanin V.L., Nosov E.N. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE CITIES OF NORTHERN RUSSIA (RESULTS AND PROSPECTS) - 91

FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL TRADITIONS IN THE PALEOLITH OF EURASIA

Akimova E.V. "MIDDLE STAGE" OF THE LATE PALEOLITH IN YENISEI SIBERIA - 94
Anikovich M.V. NEW DATA ON THE FORMATION OF THE UPPER PALEOLITH ON THE TERRITORY OF EASTERN EUROPE — 97
Anoikin A.A., Zenin V.N. COMPLEX OF PALEOLITHIC LOCATIONS IN THE MIDDLE STRETCH OF THE RUBAS RIVER (SOUTHERN DAGESTAN) — 100
Astakhov S.N. THE PALEOLITHIC OF TUVA: RESULTS AND PROSPECTS OF RESEARCH — 104
Belyaeva V.I., Moiseev V.G. TIPS OF THE KOSTENKOV TYPE. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS EXPERIENCE - 107
Derevianko A.P., Shunkov M.V. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC COMPLEXES OF ALTAI - 110
Derevyanko A.P., Dergacheva M.I., Fedeneva I.N., Nokhrina T.I. ECOLOGY OF ANCIENT HUMANS AND PALEOPEDOGENESIS IN THE LATE PLEISTOCENE ON THE TERRITORY OF THE GOBI ALTAI (BY THE MATERIALS OF STUDIES OF THE DEPOSITS OF THE CHIKHEN MONUMENT) — 114
— 117
Kolobova K.A.

DYNAMICS OF TRANSFORMATION OF RETOUCHING TECHNIQUES IN THE PALEOLITHIC INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA

Larichev V.E. RECORDING THE SYNODIC TURN OF THE MOON ON A BONE PLATE FROM STEIN RIN (SIGNS IN THE LOWER PALEOLITHIC CULTURE AND THEIR SEMANTICS) — 124
Lbova L.V. RECONSTRUCTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR STRATEGIES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE UPPER PALEOLITH (WESTERN TRANSBAIKALIA) — 128
Markin S.V. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHWESTERN ALTAI IN THE PERIOD OF THE FINAL STAGE OF THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC — 131
Pitulko V.V. PALEOLITHIC YANA SITE - 134
Postnov A.V. TO THE PROBLEM OF TECHNOLOGICAL "HOMOGENEITY" OF DIFFERENT-AGE PALEOLITHIC COMPLEXES OF THE Ust-KAN CAVE — 137
Rybin E.P. TO THE QUESTION OF THE SELECTION OF LOCAL OPTIONS OF INDUSTRIES
EARLY PORES OF THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC OF SIBERIA - 140
Serikov Yu.B. GARINSKY PALEOLITHIC SITE ON SOSVA (MIDDLE TRANS-Urals) – SOME RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH – 143
Slavinsky B.C., Tsybankov A.A. PRIMARY DIVISION TECHNOLOGY
OF THE EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC INDUSTRY OF ORKHON 7 (BY THE MATERIALS OF EXCEPTION 1) — 146
Slobodin S.B. PROBLEMS OF SOLIDATION, CHRONOLOGY AND PERIODIZATION OF CULTURAL TRADITIONS IN THE NORTH OF THE FAR EAST IN THE PALEOLITHIC — 149
Tashak V.I. TECHNOLOGICAL VARIABILITY OF THE PRIMARY DIVISION IN THE UPPER PALEOLITH OF THE TRANSBAIKALIA — 152
Chubur A.A. PALEOLITHIC ART OF THE BYKI MICROREGION: A COMPARISON OF THE CONTEXT OF THE FINDS – 155

INTERACTION OF PRIMARY CULTURE AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Anikovich M.V., Anisyutkin N.K., Levkovskaya G.M., Popov V.V. CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC BONES IN THE LIGHT OF NEW DATA – 158
Bashtannik S.V. PLANTS IN THE CULTURE OF THE PEOPLES OF SIBERIA - 161
Berdnikova N.E., Vorobieva G.A. THE ROLE OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TERRITORIES BY ANCIENT MAN (ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE VALLEY OF THE BELAIA R., BAIKALIE) — 164
— 167
— 170
Vetrov V.M. PROBLEMS OF SIMILARITY IN THE TECHNIQUE OF MANUFACTURING AND ORNAMENTATION OF VESSELS OF EARLY CERAMIC COMPLEXES OF NORTHERN EURASIA — 173
Vinogradova E.A. MICROSTRATIGRAPHY OF OBJECTS OF THE CULTURAL LAYER
UPPER PALEOLITHIC SITE STONE BALKA II - 177
Vostretsov Yu.E. IMPACT OF NATURAL CHANGES ON CULTURAL PROCESSES IN PRIMORYE IN THE MIDDLE AND LATE HOLOCENE — 182
Volokitin A.V., Zaretskaya N.E. RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF THE POPULATION OF THE EUROPEAN NORTH-EAST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HOLOCENE - 185
Vorobieva G.A., Goryunova O.I., Novikov A.G. CULTURAL-CHRONOLOGICAL PERIODIZATION AND PALEOECOLOGICAL SITUATION
EARLY HOLOCENE OF THE OLKHONIE - 189
Dergacheva M.I., Fedeneva I.N. PEDOGENESIS AND CHANGES IN THE HUMAN NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN THE LATE PLEISTOCENE ON THE TERRITORY OF CONTINENTAL EURASIA — 192
— 195
Dirksen V.G., Kulkova M.A., V. van Geel, Bokovenko N.A., Chugunov K.V., Sementsov A.A., Zaitseva G.I., G. Cook, J.van der Plicht , M. Scott, Lebedeva L.M., Burova N.D. CLIMATE AND VEGETATION CHANGE IN SOUTHERN SIBERIA IN THE HOLOCENE AND THE DYNAMICS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES — 198
Zhitenev B.C. SKULL OF A CAVE BEAR (URSUS SPELAEUS) WITH SLICES AND TRACES OF OCHER FROM SIKIYAZ-TAMAK I CAVE (SOUTHERN URAL) — 201
Kuzmin Ya.V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND ANCIENT MAN IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST: MAIN STAGES OF INTERACTION — 204
Klementiev A.M. PRELIMINARY DATA ON THE HOLOCENE FAUNA IN SOUTHERN BAIKAL - 207
Leshchinsky S.V. PECULIARITIES OF THE ECOLOGY OF THE MEGAFAUNA AND PALEOLITHIC POPULATION OF NORTHERN EURASIA AT THE END OF THE PLEISTOCENE - 211
Martynovich N.V., Ovodov N.D. LATE QUARTERANT BIRDS FROM CAVE LOCATIONS OF SOUTHERN SIBERIA. FIRST RESULTS OF THE STUDY - 215
— 218
Orlova L.A., Dementiev V.N., Kuzmin Ya.V.
MEGAFAUNA AND HUMANS IN THE PALEOLITHIC OF SIBERIA - 221
Popov V.V. IMPACT OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ON THE STRUCTURE OF Dwellings IN THE MIDDLE PORE OF THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC — 225
Razgildeeva I.I., Reshetova S.A. ISSUES OF RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PALEOGEOGRAPHIC ENVIRONMENT AND ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES ON THE MATERIALS OF STUDIONOY-2 — 228
Rakov V.A., Gorbunov S.V. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE COASTAL ZONE OF SAKHALIN IN THE PERIOD OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE AIN AND NIVKH CULTURES XIII-XIX CENTURIES — 231
Chairkina N.M. PEAT BORN MONUMENTS OF THE TRANS-Urals: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF RESEARCH — 234
CULTURAL PROCESSES IN THE NEOLITHIC EURASIA
Aseev I.V. CULT OBJECTS AND A NEOLITHIC SITE IN THE ELGEN BAY IN BAIKAL AND THEIR INTERRELATION – 237
Brodyansky D.L. TWO ECONOMIC STRATEGIES IN THE NEOLITHIC FAR EAST - 240
Vasilyeva I.N. ON THE ORIGIN OF POTTERY - 243
Vasilevsky A.A. TO THE CONCEPT OF "OKHOTSK CULTURE" - 246
Volkov P.V. PLANIGRAPHIC RECONSTRUCTION "FROM THE FURNACE"
OSINOOZERSKOY HOUSING - 249
Volkov P.V., Kiryushin Yu.F., Kiryushin K.Yu., Semibratov V.P.
TRACELOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF MOTHER OF PEARL "BEADS" FROM THE MATERIALS OF THE TAVDINSKY GROTTO — 253
Efremov S.A. LOCAL AND INTRODUCED COMPONENTS IN THE EARLY NEOLITHIC ALTAI (ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE KAMINA CAVE) — 256
Zhambaltarova E.D. COSMOLOGIZATION OF SPACE (DUPLICATION OF THE CENTER IN THE FUNERAL RITES OF THE POPULATION OF TRANSBAIKAL AND MONGOLIA IN THE NEOLITHIC — EARLY BRONZE AGE) — 258
Zakh V.A. COMPLEXES WITH RETRACTED DRAWED POCKET ORNAMENT IN THE NEOLITHIC WESTERN SIBERIA — 261
Zubkov B.C. ABOUT THE PRE-CERAMIC AND CERAMIC NEOLITH OF THE KHAKASS-MINUSINSK TERRITORY - 265
Zyryanova S.Yu. NEOLITHIC IN THE MIDDLE TRANS-Urals: BOBORYKINSK CULTURE - 268
Komissarov S.A. MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE ARCHEOLOGY OF TIBET (stone-paleometal epoch) — 271
Larichev V.E., Efremov S.A. TIME NUMBER SYSTEMS IN THE ALTAI NEOLITH CULTURE (Based on Kaminnaya Cave) — 274
Lychagina E.L. NEOLITHIC IN THE PERM TERRITORY (RESULTS AND PROSPECTS OF RESEARCH) — 278
Makarov N.P. NEOLITH YENISEY - 281
Marchenko Zh.V. THE OLDEST COMB-PIT CERAMICS OF THE BARAB - 284
Medvedev V.E.
ON CULTUROGENESIS DURING THE NEOLITHIC AGE IN THE LOWER AMUR REGION — 288
Melnikov I.V. ABOUT A NEW GROUP OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN SOUTHERN ZONEZHIE (KARELIA) (TO THE STUDY OF CULTURAL PROCESSES IN THE LATE MESOLITHIC — NEOLITHIC BASIN OF LAKE ONEGA) — 292
Nesterov S.P. STRATIGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEOLITHIC CULTURES OF THE WESTERN AMUR REGION — 295
Ryzhkova O.V. GORBUNOVSKY PEAT BORN: SOME RESULTS AND PROSPECTS OF RESEARCH - 299
Popov A.N. MIDDLE NELITE IN PRIMORYE - 302
Rakov V.A., Brodyansky D.L. SHELL PILES OF NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENTS AND REMAINS OF ANCIENT OYSTER PLANTATIONS IN EAST EURASIA – 305
Sobolnikova T.N. PROBLEMS OF STUDYING THE EARLY STAGES OF THE COMB-PIT ORNAMENTAL TRADITION OF WESTERN SIBERIA — 308
Solovieva E.A. SOME ASPECTS OF RITUAL PRACTICE OF USING DOGU – 311
Tabarev A.V. PLATE TRADITIONS IN THE NEOLITHIC PRIMORYE — 314
Usacheva I.V. "IRONS" AS MARKERS OF CULTURAL INTERACTION IN EURASIA IN THE 7th-2nd THOUSAND B.C. BC - 317
Tsydenova N.V. KRASNAYA GORKA: SITE OF THE EARLY NEOLITHIC – BRONZE AGE (NORTH-EAST OF BURYATIA) – 320
Shevkomud I.Ya. ANCIENT NEOLITHIC HOKKAIDO (BY THE MATERIALS OF THE TAISO-3 MONUMENT) — 324
Schmidt A.V. NEOLITHIC OF THE OB PLATEAU - 328
Shorin A.F. ABOUT THE FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE OF THE "SACRIFICE HILLS" IN THE MIDDLE TRANS-URALS (BY THE MATERIALS OF KOKSHAROVSKY KHOLMA) — 331
Yudin A.I. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL PROCESSES IN THE LOWER VOLGA REGION AT THE LINE OF THE NEOLITH-ENEOLITH - 334
Yangshina O.V. CERAMICS FROM YANKITO-1 SITE (O. ITURUP) — 337
PROBLEMS OF ARCHEOLOGY OF THE BRONZE AGE OF EURASIA
— 340
Baranov M.Yu. THE COMPLEX OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONUMENTS OF THE BRONZE AGE ON THE BALINSKAYA RIVER IN THE MIDDLE OB RIVER AND ITS CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION (BY THE MATERIALS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES OF THE SETTLEMENTS BALINSKOE 1, 3, 8, 10) — 343
— 347
Bogdanov S.V. THE GENESIS OF THE LATER PIT SITES OF THE STEPPE URAL REGION – 350
Borodovsky A.P., Solovyov A.I. "BONE" ARMORED PLATES OF THE BRONZE AGE IN SIBERIA - 353
Varenov A.V. KARASUKI KNIVES AND DAGGERS IN SHAN CHINA – 356
Grigoriev S.A. THE LATE BRONZE AGE OF THE SOUTHERN TRANS-Urals AND THE PROBLEM OF THE ANDRONOVSKAYA HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL COMMONITY — 359
Grushin S.P. METAL KNIVES OF ELUNINA CULTURE – 362
Emelyanova Yu.A. CERAMICS OF THE NORTH BAIKAL TYPE AND ITS PLACE IN THE CERAMIC COMPLEXES OF THE BRONZE AGE OF THE BAIKALIA — 365
— 369
Zakh V.A., Zimina O.Yu. ON THE QUESTION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM BRONZE TO IRON IN THE LOWER TOBOL — 372
— 375
Ilyukov L.S. STONE FUNERAL STRUCTURES OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE AND THE PROBLEM OF THE POST-SRUMB LEVEL ON THE LOWER DON — 378
Kalieva S.S., Logvin V.N. CULTUROGENETIC PROCESSES III MILLION BC BC. IN THE STEPPES OF THE TRANS-URAL AND NORTHERN KAZAKHSTAN - 380
Karnyshev I.S. CERAMIC COMPLEXES OF THE BOGUCHANSKAYA BAY - 383
— 386
— 389
Kovaleva V.L. EARLY BRONZE AGE OF THE LOWER TOBOL: TASHKOV CULTURE – 393
Kolbina A.V., Logvin A.V., Shevnina I.V., Kalieva S.S. DOANDRONOVSKIE BURIALS OF THE BURIAL GROUND NEAR THE BESTAMAK SETTLEMENT - 396
Korobkova G.F. INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE STANDARD SETTLEMENT OF THE ANCIENT PIT CULTURE MIKHAILOVSKOE (FUNCTIONAL AND PLANIGRAPHIC APPROACH) — 399
Koronkova O.N. ON SOME ASPECTS OF “ANDRONOVSKAYA” HISTORIOGRAPHY — 402
— 405
— 408
Lopatin V.A. PESKOVATSKAYA SETTLEMENT AND BURIAL GROUND OF SRUNKKA CULTURE
(ON THE QUESTION ABOUT "SETS OF MONUMENTS") - 411
Mandryka P.V. CERAMIC COMPLEXES OF THE BRONZE AGE OF THE YENISEI ANGARA REGION – 414
Masson V.M. FORMATION, FLOWERING AND DECLINE OF THE BLOCK OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE STEPPE ZONE OF EURASIA (IV MILLION BC - FIRST HALF OF II MILLION AD) - 418
Matveev A.V., Volkov E.N., Ryzhkova Yu.V. RESULTS OF THE RECENT YEARS OF EXcavATIONS OF THE KHripunovsky Burial Ground - 421
Morgunova N.L. NEW DATA ON THE PIT CULTURE FROM THE RESULTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF MOUNDS NECROPOLIS IN THE URALS — 424
Mosin B.C., Botalov S.G. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES OF THE URAL-SIBERIAN REGION AND MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORICAL PROCESSES
(AGE OF STONE AND BRONZE) - 427
Botalov S.G., Mosin B.C. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES OF THE URAL-SIBERIAN REGION AND MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORICAL PROCESSES
(EARLY IRON AGE) - 430
Novikov A.G. HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE PRESENT STATUS OF STUDYING THE BRONZE AGE OF THE BAIKALIE — 433
Novikov A.G., Goryunova O.I., Weber A.V., Livere A.R. FEATURES OF THE FUNERAL RITE AND DEMOGRAPHY OF THE BRONZE AGE BURIAL GROUND KHUZHIR-NUGE XIV (Lake BAIKAL) — 436
Obydennova G.T., Shuteleva I.A., Shcherbakov N.B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MICRODISTRICT OF THE MURADYMOVSKAYA SETTLEMENT: BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT AND FUNERAL COMPLEX OF THE BASHKIR CIRALIA — 439
Papin D.V. THE STEPPE STRIP OF THE SOUTH OF WESTERN SIBERIA IN THE LATE BRONZE EPOCH — 442
Petrova L.Yu. SETTLEMENTS AND Dwellings of the Srubno-Alakul community
STEPPE ZONE OF THE SOUTHERN TRANS-URAL 445
— 447
— 449
Semenov V.A. MULTILAYER STONE AND BRONZE SITES – 452
Sidorenko E.V. INTERACTION OF PALEOMETAL CULTURES IN THE NORTH-EASTERN PRIMORYE — 455
Sitnikov S.M. ON THE QUESTION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTACTS
IN THE ERA OF THE FINAL BRONZE ON THE TERRITORY OF THE OB-IRTYSH INTERDURIVE -458
Skakov A.Yu. PROBLEMS OF IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CULTURES OF THE LATE BRONZE — EARLY IRON AGE IN THE WESTERN CAUCASUS — 461
Sokolova L.A. MULTIPLE COMPONENTS IN THE OKUNEV CULTURAL TRADITION - 464
Stavitsky V.V. DYNAMICS OF INTERACTION OF CULTURES OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH
IN THE LATE ENEOLITH IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE ON THE TERRITORY OF THE FOREST-STEPPE ZONE — 468
Stepanova N.F. TO THE QUESTION OF THE DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION OF THE POPULATION OF THE AFANASIEVSKAYA CULTURE OF GORNY ALTAI - 471
Turkish M.A. BURNING OF THE PIT CULTURE WITH A “MASK” IN THE SAMARA ZAVOLZHIE — 475
— 478
Chikisheva T.A. ANTHROPOLOGICAL COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF THE ENEOLITH-EARLY BRONZE EPOCH OF THE BARABA FOREST-STEPPE ACCORDING TO CRANIOLOGY DATA – 481