Археологические вести. Спб, 1999. Вып. 6. Аннотации.

ОТ РЕДАКЦИИ

Е. Н. Носов. Институту истории материальной культуры РАН 80 лет

Сто сорок лет назад 9 февраля 1859 г. в Санкт-Петербурге, столице Российской им­перии, указом Александра II Правительст­вующему сенату было основано первое го­сударственное археологическое учреждение России Императорская археологическая ко­миссия, ставшая во главе всех археологиче­ских изысканий в стране. Осенью 1918 г. она была преобразована в Российскую госу­дарственную археологическую комиссию, на базе которой 18 апреля 1919 г. декретом, подписанным Председателем Совета Народ­ных Комиссаров, В. И. Лениным была со­здана Российская Академия истории мате­риальной культуры (РАИМК) — прямой предшественник нынешнего Института исто­рии материальной культуры РАН и Инсти­тута археологии РАН. На заседаниях учре­дительного собрания по случаю образова­ния нового учреждения, состоявшемся 5—7 августа 1919 г. в Зимнем дворце, где тогда размещалась Археологическая комис­сия, приняли участие выдающиеся отечест­венные археологи, востоковеды, историки, этнографы, избравшие состав членов Акаде­мии и ее председателя Н. Я. Марра, воз­главлявшего Академию с 1919 по 1934 год. Сохранился уникальный снимок, сделанный во дворе Зимнего дворца во время этого ис­торического собрания, где запечатлен прак­тически весь «цвет» тогдашней российской гуманитарной науки (рис. 1).

В задачи Академии истории материаль­ной культуры входило исследование памят­ников древности, искусства и старины и разработка основ их охраны; изучение во­просов этнологии, археологии и истории ис­кусства; раскопки и сбор предметов древ­ности; руководство научной стороной всех предпринимаемых археологических раско­пок, работ по реставрации и ремонту древ­них монументальных памятников; развитие и распространение  знаний  о памятниках древности и искусства; публикация ежегод­ных отчетов и научных трудов. В соответ­ствии с поставленными перед ней задачами Академия имела три отделения: этнологи­ческое, археологическое и художественно-ис­торическое. При Академии был создан Ин­ститут археологической технологии, а в ее ведении находились также Общество поощ­рения художеств и Комитет популяризации художественных изданий.

В 1926 г., после образования СССР, РАИМК была переименована в Государст­венную Академию историю материальной культуры (ГАИМК). В 1937 г. она была преобразована в Институт истории матери­альной культуры в составе Академии Наук СССР. Головная часть Института, его архи­вы и библиотека находились в Ленинграде, а в Москве существовало Московское отде­ление. В 1943 г. дирекция ИИМК АН СССР была переведена в Москву и утверж­дено положение о двух отделениях институ­та в Москве и в Ленинграде. В 1959 г. ин­ститут был переименован в Институт архе­ологии АН СССР. В 1991 г. на очередном витке российских реформ и при расширении административной самостоятельности цело­го ряда институтов Санкт-Петербургского научного центра, решением Президиума Академии Наук, Ленинградское отделение Института археологии было преобразовано в самостоятельный Институт с возвращени­ем ему прежнего названия — Институт исто­рии материальной культуры, вошедший в состав Отделения истории Академии наук. Такова самая краткая история нынешнего академического центра Санкт-Петербурга.

Она соответствует истории становления других гуманитарных научных академичес­ких учреждений бывшей столицы, сформи­рованных на базе предшествовавших им центров науки Российской империи и насле­дующих их ценнейшие архивные собрания и библиотеки. ИИМК РАН включает в свой состав два уникальных архива — Рукопис­ный и Фотодокументов.

Рукописный архив является старейшим и единственным в стране хранилищем, со­бранным по одному принципу — археология и охрана древностей во всех их проявлени­ях. Архив стал складываться одновременно с учреждением самой Императорской архе­ологической комиссии в 1859 г. В настоя­щее время он насчитывает 102 фонда и более 70 тысяч единиц хранения (рукопис­ные материалы, картографическая и графи­ческая документация, рисунки). Без преуве­личения можно сказать, что в архиве сосре­доточено не менее 80% информации о всех полевых археологических исследованиях в Российской империи и СССР до 1941 г. включительно.

Фотоархив ИИМК РАН также начал формироваться с момента учреждения Им­ператорской археологической комиссии в 1859 г., сначала при библиотеке, а в 1918 г. было создано специальное архивное подраз­деление. В настоящее время в архиве насчи­тывается более 900 тысяч единиц хранения (негативы и позитивы, 8 кинофильмов). Он является одним из крупнейших хранилищ в Европе, где находятся фотографии 1840— 1998 гг. Это старейший и единственный спе­циализированный фотоархив в России.

Библиотека института — крупнейшая в России и одна из крупнейших в мире спе­циальных археологических библиотек. Она была основана, как библиотека Император­ской археологической комиссии и сейчас насчитывает более 200 тысяч экземпляров монографий, серийных и периодических из­даний, причем более половины фонда со­ставляет зарубежная литература. С 1959 г. Библиотекой ИИМК издается многотомный ретроспективный указатель «Советская ар­хеологическая литература». В 1997 г. был опубликован десятый том этого издания (тома охватывают период с 1918 по 1984 гг. ), а в 1998 г. завершена подготовка одиннадцатого тома.

Структурно, наряду с архивами и библи­отекой, ИИМК РАН состоит из четырех от­делов (Отдел археологии палеолита; Отдел археологии Центральной Азии и Кавказа; Отдел истории античной культуры; Отдел славяно-финской археологии) и двух лабо­раторий (Лаборатория археологической тех­нологии и Эксперементально-трасологичес­кая лаборатория), которые соответствуют основным направлениям научно-исследова­тельской деятельности коллектива, который сейчас насчитывает 107 научных сотрудни­ков, включая 24 докторов и 53 кандидатов наук. Институт сохраняет традиционные связи со многими центрами стран СНГ, ведет совместные исследования с археологи­ческими учреждениями Финляндии, Шве­ции, Норвегии, Польши, Германии, Вели­кобритании, Ирландии и некоторых других стран.

Сотрудники ИИМК РАН проводят ши­рокие полевые археологические исследова­ния на территории России и стран СНГ, принимают участие в раскопках в дальнем зарубежье. В результате раскопок древнос­тей разных эпох и народов археологами Ле­нинграда — Санкт-Петербурга сделан ряд открытий новых археологических памятни­ков и культур, изучение которых существен­но изменили наши представления о про­шлом Евразии и Африки. Широкие исследо­вания проведены по изучению древнейшего заселения человеком Кавказа и территории Русской равнины. Большая работа предпри­нята по археологическому изучению ранне­земледельческих и античных культур Цент­ральной Азии. Постоянно ведутся раскопки античных памятников Крыма и Тамани. Большое научное значение имеет системати­ческое изучение вопросов расселения славян в лесной зоне Восточной Европы, становле­ния древнейших городских центров Киев­ской Руси, взаимоотношений славян с ко­ренным финским и балтским населением и скандинавами. Сотрудники института про­водят комплексные исследования на Русском Севере. Богатейшие материалы разных эпох получены археологами ИИМК РАН во время масштабных экспедиционных исследо­ваний на новостройках Сибири. Коллекции, собранные учеными института, пополнив­шие и пополняющие фонды различных му­зеев, составляют бесценное культурное до­стояние народов России и сопредельных территорий.

Используя в своих исследованиях бога­тейшие материалы архивов и библиотеки, коллекции, полученные во время экспеди­ций, и музейные собрания, ученые институ­та написали многие крупные обобщающие труды, охватывающие огромные территории и различные периоды — от первого появле­ния человека до позднего средневековья. Исследования Лаборатории археологичес­кой технологии открыли новую страницу в изучении функционального и технологичес­кого использования древних орудий, а ре­зультаты сотен дат радиоуглеродного дати­рования создали надежную базу для хроно­логического определения широкого спектра материальных памятников прошлого.

История нынешнего ИИМК РАН в Санкт-Петербурге тесно переплетена с исто­рией Института археологии РАН в Москве и можно сказать, что оба этих академичес­ких центра Европейской России, как сыно­вья одной матери, имеют общие корни, сходные черты и часто одних учителей, но сохраняют свою индивидуальность. Как от­мечал в юбилейной статье, посвященной шестидесятилетию Института археологии АН СССР, его ученый секретарь В. В. Вол­ков «структура Института в ее современном состоянии сложилась в 50-е годы», а в 1958 г. «была проведена реорганизация, имевшая целью ликвидировать параллелизм в работе отделений Москвы и Ленинграда» (Волков 1980: 11), то есть современных ИА РАН И ИИМК РАН. В дальнейшем по мере развития науки структура московского и ленинградского археологических центров естественно несколько изменялась, как ме­нялись названия их подразделений, но в своей основе сохранялась исторически сло­жившаяся в них специфика и направлен­ность работы отделов и лабораторий, во многом взаимно дополняющая друг друга. В этом году наши коллективы отмечают общий юбилей Институтов и важную веху в развитии российской археологической науки.

Традиция вести отсчет истории Институ­та истории материальной культуры — Ин­статута археологии с известного декрета В. И. Ленина 1919 г. сложилась и поддер­живалась в советское время. В тоже время история центрального государственного уч­реждения России началась в 1859 г. с момента учреждения Императорской архео­логической комиссии и не прерывается до наших дней. Институт Востоковедения АН РАН в 1998 г., как свой юбилей, отметил 180-летие Азиатского Музея, на базе кото­рого он возник. Может быть и нам архео­логам, отмечая 80-летний юбилей, стоит за­думаться о реальных 140-летних корнях на­шего учреждения.

E. N. Nosov. The eightieth anniversary of the Institute of History of Material Culture

One hundred forty years ago, on February 9, 1859, a bill issued by Alexander II in Rus­sia's capital, Saint-Petersburg, instructed the Senate to found Russia's first governmental archaeological institution: the Imperial Ar­chaeological Commission, which was to coor­dinate all archaeological research conducted in the country. In autumn 1918, it was trans­formed into the Russian State Archaeological Commission which provided the basis on which the Russian Academy of History of Material Culture (RAIMK) was founded by a decree signed by Lenin on April 18, 1919. RAIMK was the direct predecessor of the pre­sent Institute for the History of Material Cul­ture (IIMK) and the Institute of Archaeology, both affiliated with the Academy of Sciences. The constituent session was held on August 5-7, 1919, in the Winter Palace, the former resi­dence of the Archaeological Commission, and many prominent Russian archaeologists, orien­talists, historians, and ethnographers took part. The Academy members were elected, and its new head was N. Ya. Marr who chaired it from 1919 to 1934. A unique photograph, taken in the courtyard of the Winter Palace during this historical event, depicts most of Russia's scholarly elite (fig. 1).

The Academy of History of Material Cul­ture focused on the preservation of the antiq­uities and old art, as well as on ethnology, archaeology, and history of art. It was also engaged in field studies and the acquisition of antiquities, and it coordinated all the excava­tions, restoration of architectural monuments, and the dissemination of knowledge concerned with archaeology and art. Also, it published annual reports and proceedings. In accordance with these tasks, the Academy had three de­partments: ethnological, archaeological, and one dealing with art history. Its affiliates were the Institute of Archaeological Technology, the Society for the Promotion of Painting, and the Committee for the Propagation of Art.

In 1926, after the creation of the U. S. S. R., RAIMK was renamed (State Academy of the History of Material Culture, GAIMK). In 1937, it was transformed into the Institute for the History of Material Culture affiliated to the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R. Its administration, the archives, and the library, were situated in Leningrad, the Moscow divi­sion being an affiliate. In 1943, the admini­stration was transferred to Moscow, and the Leningrad division became an affiliate. In 1959, the institute was renamed (Institute of Archaeology). In 1991, in the course of re­forms that had affected many spheres of life in Russia, several institutes affiliated with the Saint-Petersburg Scientific Centre were granted more independence, and by a decision of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences the Leningrad division became an independent in­stitute affiliated with the Academy of Sciences and received its former name: Institute for the History of Material Culture (IIMK).

The history of this institute broadly paral­lels that of other scholarly research centres of the former capital that were formed on the basis of pre-Revolutionary centres and had in­herited their valuable archives and libraries. IIMK has two archives: those of manuscripts and photographic documents.

The archives of manuscripts are the oldest and Russia's only collection arranged accord­ing to a single criterion: anything dealing with archaeology and the protection of antiquities in all its aspects. The archives were founded simultaneously with the foundation of the Im­perial Archaeological Commission in 1859. At present they number 102 divisions and over 70 thousand storage units (manuscripts, maps, re­ports, and drawings). It would hardly be an overstatement to say that the archives contain at least 80% of information on all the field studies in Russia and the Soviet Union up to 1941.

The photographic archives, too, were formed together with the Imperial Archae­ological Commission in 1859. Initially, they were affiliated with the library, and in 1918 a special archival department was founded. At present, the archives possess more than 900 thousand storage units (negatives, prints, and films). They are the only specialized photo­graphic archives in Russia, the oldest in this country and among the oldest in Europe, and the photographs span the period from 1840 to 1998.

The library of IIMK is the largest archae­ological library in Russia and one of the lar­gest in the world. It was founded as the li­brary of the Imperial Archaeological Commis­sion, and at present it numbers over 200 thousand monographs and periodicals, more than a half being foreign ones. Since 1959, the library has been publishing a retrospective index «Soviet Archaeological Literature)), whose ten volumes, covering the period of 1918-1984, have already been published (the last one in 1997), and the 11th volume was prepared for publication in 1998.

Apart from the archives and the library, IIMK consists of four departments: those of the Paleolithic, of Central Asia and Caucasus, of the Classical Culture, and of Slavono-Fen­nic Archaeology, as well as two laboratories: those of Archaeological Technology and Ex­perimental Use-Wear Analysis. This structure corresponds to the principal directions of research at the institute, who has a staff of 107, including 23 Doctors of Sciences and 53 Can­didates of Sciences (the latter degree, roughly corresponding to Ph. D., is the first one to be awarded, and the doctoral degree usually being received many years later). The institute maintains traditional bonds with many centres in the CIS and is carrying out several joint projects with archaeological institutions of Fin­land, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Germany, Britain, Ireland, and several other countries.

Archaeologists associated with IIMK are engaged in a large-scale field research in Rus­sia and the CIS as well as in foreign countries. In the course of excavations, a number of im­portant discoveries have been made, resulting in a significant increase of knowledge regard­ing the prehistoric past of Eurasia and Africa. These findings are relevant for several issues, the principal ones being the earliest population history of Caucasus and the Russian Plain, early agricultural and classical civilizations of Central Asia, Greek colonization of Crimea and northwestern Caucasus, Slavonic migra­tions into the forest zone of Eastern Europe, the emergence of urban centres in Old Russia, relationships between the Slavs and the abo­riginal Finnish and Baltic tribes, and the Norsemen. Comprehensive studies are being conducted in the Russian North and in Sibe­ria, the latter ones focusing on various periods represented by extremely rich materials. Ar­chaeological collections resulting from these excavations are part of cultural legacy, both Russia's and that of adjacent nations.

Based on these collections, and using ex­tremely rich materials housed in the archives and in the library, specialists associated with IIMK have authored major comprehensive studies, their topics ranging from man's early history to late Middle Ages. Studies carried out at the Laboratory of Archaeological Tech­nology have revealed many important func­tional and technological aspects in the use of ancient tools, and hundreds of radiometric dates have provided a solid framework for re­constructing the past.

The present history of IIMK is tightly intertwined with that of the Moscow Insti­tute of Archaeology. The two fraternal cen­tres share a common ancestry, an ideological legacy inherited from the same personalities. This accounts for the fact that they have much in common. Despite that, they have preserved their individuality. As V. V. Volkov, the Research Secretary of the Insti­tute of Archaeology, has noted in a memo­rial article on the occasion of the 60^th anni­versary of this centre, «the re-organization was aimed at putting an end to a parallel­ism in the activities of both divisions, those of Moscow and Leningrad)) (Волков 1980: 11), that is, the Moscow Institute of Archae­ology and IIMK. Over the following years, both centres were renamed and their struc­ture was modified, but their specific charac­teristics have largely remained the same. Most importantly, both centres are mutually complementary. In 1999, they celebrate their common anniversary, which is an important event in the history of Russia's archaeology.

During the Soviet period, it was tradi­tionally believed that the history of both in­stitutes started with Lenin's bill of 1919. Its actual beginning, however, was the founda­tion of the Imperial Archaeological Commis­sion in 1859. Indeed, the Institute of Orien­tal Studies celebrated its anniversary in 1998, the 180^th anniversary of the Asiatic Museum. Possibly our 80^th anniversary, too, must not make us forget that our actual history is 140 years long.

НОВЫЕ ОТКРЫТИЯ И ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

Любин В. П., Геде Ф. Й. Исследования палеолита в Западной Африке (Республика Кот д’Ивуар)

Республика Кот д’Ивуар располагается в Западной Африке, в районе, где проходят важные природный и «культурно-исторический» рубежи. Страна лежит на стыке зоны влажных тропических лесов и зоны саванн, которая граничит с Сахарой (рис. 1). Здесь же находится северный предел гигантской области, выделяемой в науке под названием «Африки к югу от Сахары». Южнее этого предела распространены палеолитические индустрии типа «Санго» и «MSA» (средний каменный век), севернее (в Сахаре) – типа ашеля и атера.

К 1980 г. в Кот д’Ивуаре были известны лишь единичные находки орудий, относимые к санго (Маипу 1972: 11; Davies 1959: 108; 1964: 84–92). В 1980 г. французский геолог Г. Паради открыл в песчано-глинистых толщах, вскрытых карьерами Аттение и Аньяма близ Абиджана, палеолитические стоянки in situ (Paradis 1980: 1393-1395; Chenorkian, Paradis 1981). Это был второй (после стоянки Асокрошона в Гане) случай открытия в Западной Африке стоянок с культурными слоями санго и MSA. Основным объектом раскопок стала стоянка Бете I в карьере Аньямье. В 80-е годы ее раскапывала ивуарийская экспедиция во главе с Й. Геде (Guedй, Tastet 1986: 1–15), в 1993 г. – российско-ивуарийская экспедиция во главе с В. П. Любиным. Двумя годами раньше эта же экспедиция открыла в глубине страны еще одну сангоанскую стоянку (Гуабуо I) и более десяти местонахождений MSA (Саблиер, Ньяпуйо, и др.), санго (Горе, Гуессесо) и ашеля (Кантара) (Любин и др. 1994: 9–11; 1995: 41–53; Геде 1997).

Геологическое обследование стоянки Бете I производили геологи Г. Паради (1980), Ж. П. Тасте (1982) и С. Н. Седов (1993) (рис. 3, 4). В разрезе отложений здесь (снизу-вверх) установлены: 1) докембрийский цоколь; 2) девятиметровая толща грубообломочных отложений (так наз. «Continental Terminal»); 3) 17-метровая толща однородных красноцветных песчано-глинистых коллювиальных осадков (так наз. «Terre de Barre»), образовавшихся в результате переотложения материалов предшествующих отложений при аридном климате (рис. 5-6). Верхние 15 м этой толщи содержали каменные орудия: микролиты в слое B, MSA – в слое C, санго – в слое D.

Каменный инвентарь слоя D составляют 17 морфологически плохо выраженных нуклеусов (дисковидных и одноплощадочных), 450 отщепов, чешуек и обломков и 70 орудий. Исходным сырьем для их изготовления являлись плитчатые куски местного жильного кварца. Изучение индустрии слоя D потребовало выработки новых методических подходов, поскольку широко распространенная в Африке классификационная система Д. Кларка и М. Клейндинст (Clark and Kleindienst 1974: 71–106) оказалась здесь продуктивной лишь отчасти. Она представляется нам весьма обобщенной, лишенной единых разделительных критериев, строгих типологических правил. Наибольшие нарекания вызывает класс «core-axes», объединяющий орудия явно разнородные в технологическом, типологическом и функциональном отношениях (рис. 7А: 1–12). Классификационная единица core-axe настолько расплывчата и неопределенна, что она не нашла себе места ни в одном преисторическом словаре и учебнике (Brézillon 1971; Bordes 1979; Leroi-Gourhan 1988, 1997). Многие орудия, включенные в «безразмерный» класс core-axe, другие исследователи чаще всего относят к пикам. Мы поступаем таким же образом.

Пики на стоянке Бете I составляют более 43% всех орудий (19 экз. + 10 заготовок). Едиными критериями выделения пиков, на наш взгляд, являются массивность и тяжеловесность их мощных в поперечном сечении корпусов, отсутствие на них продольных лезвий и резкое сужение этих корпусов к дистальным концам, где расположены специально оформленные рабочие элементы. В ивуарийском санго имеется две основные разновидности пиков (pic percutant и pic rostroide), которые различаются по форме корпусов и поперечных сечений, позиции и характеру оформления дистальных рабочих элементов. Первая разновидность представлена короткими, грубо конусовидными (грушевидными, каплевидными: рис. 8), реже овальными (рис. 9) формами с подчетырехугольным или полигональным поперечным сечением (рис. 8, 9), либо близкими к ним двояко-плоскими формами с подпрямоугольным поперечным сечением (рис. 10, 11). Пики этой разновидности обладают хорошо центрированными (расположенными в геометрических центрах этих сечений) дистальными рабочими элементами. Пики второй разновидности характеризуются плоско-выпуклым, подтреугольным или куполообразным (рис. 12) поперечным сечением и расположением дистальных рабочих элементов в плоскости их наиболее широкой вентральной стороны.

Оббивка корпусов пиков обеих разновидностей носила сугубо формообразующий, аккомодационный характер. Дистальные же концы пиков первой разновидности были оформлены в виде мощных центрированных трех- четырехгранных острий-бойков, напоминающих заостренные молотки (рис. 8–11) и лишь изредка имели завершение в виде узких поперечных лезвий (рис. 13). У пиков второй, плоско-выпуклой разновидности, напротив, преобладали дистальные концы узколезвийного или скребковидного характера (рис. 14) и только у образцов с субтреугольным сечением корпуса завершались трехгранными остриями (рис. 12).

Единичными экземплярами представлены еще два своеобразные варианта пиков, условно названные нами квадриэдр-триэдр (рис. 15) и pic limacoide (рис. 16). Первый по существу, является гибридом основных разновидностей: базальная половина его имеет подквадратное поперечное сечение, дистальная – субтреугольное, с трехгранным (хорошо центрированным здесь) бойковым завершением. В отступление от пиков «классических» форм, на дистальной половине этого орудия, помимо бойкового завершения, имеется второй рабочий элемент: бифасиально оббитые продольные лезвия. Второй своеобразный вариант напоминает крупный высокий лимас, один конец которого оформлен в виде кареноидного скребка. Изготовление большинства ивуарийских пиков следовало, на наш взгляд, определенной мысленной модели, целенаправленной технологической схеме, призванной создать крупное орудие с тяжелой пяткой и мощным дистальным концом.

Остальные ивуарийские макро-орудия представлены грубыми ручными рубилами (2 экз.) (рис. 17), backed bifaces (4 экз.), double backed bifaces (3 экз.) (рис. 18), бифасом-триэдром (рис. 19: 1), cleaver-like biface (рис. 19: 2), бифасиальными долотовидными орудиями (gouge) – двуконечным (рис. 20:1) и одноконечным (рис. 20: 2), фрагментами листовидных орудий типа lupemban (2 экз.), чопперами (5 экз.) и core scraper типа «push-plane» и cir(c)ular (рис. 21). Все орудия, за исключением 10 атипичных скребел, изготовлены не из отщепов, что можно объяснить низким качеством сырья или функциональным аспектом памятника (мастерская по изготовлению макро-орудий?). Верхи слоя D, судя по находкам в них фрагментов лупембанских наконечников могут быть отнесены к позднему санго. Для самых же низов имеется RTL-дата 254 ± 51 м.л.н.

Индустрия слоя D стоянки Бете I, по всей видимости, представляет собой местную ивуарийскую фацию санго. Ее, прежде всего, характеризуют короткие массивные одноконечные пики нескольких разновидностей, атипичные одно- и двуобушковые бифасы и чопперы-дискоиды. Подобные же формы, как писал О. Дэвис (Davies, 1976), свойственны санго Западной Африки в целом, отличая его от санго Центральной Африки. Ивуарийское санго в то же время, как кажется, не следует обособлять от санго других регионов Африки, так как многие встреченные в нем орудия отмечены и в других областях распространения сангоанско-лупембанского индустриального комплекса. Таковы, к примеру, грубые бифасы, core scrapers разных вариантов (в том числе типа «tea-cosy» scraper – см. рис. 21: 1, 3), долотовидные орудия (gouges), лимасоподобные пики (pic limaçoïd), лупембанские наконечники, подобные найденному на ивуарийском местонахождении Гуабуо II (рис. 21: 2). (Clark 1959: 150–151, fig. 24: 5, 1970: 113, fig. 23: 4, 1982, fig. 4.8, № 12; Mason 1969: 187, fig. 101, 109; Cahen 1975: 96, pl. 48).

До недавнего времени санго рассматривалось как переходная индустрия от ашеля к мустье. В последние годы, однако, появилось сомнение относительно самостоятельности статуса санго. Сомнения исходили из неопределенности такой его руководящей формы, как core-axe и близости возрастных рамок санго и MSA (Cornelissen 1995: 55, 66, 67). В трактовке, предложенной Д. Кларком, санго рассматривалось лишь как фация деятельности в пределах других (ашель и MSA) индустриальных комплексов (Clark 1982: 283-286; McBrearty 1987: 501–502). Ряд обстоятельств, тем не менее, на наш взгляд, говорит о валидности понятия санго и о его переходном характере. Об этом говорит стратиграфическое положение санго между ашелем и MSA на одних стоянках (Асокрошона, Бомбата), подстилание его ашелем – на других (Каламбо-Фолз, Исимила), перекрывание слоями MSA – на третьих (Бете I–IV). В санго сохранялась еще ашельская модель обработки камня, хотя на смену стандартизованным ашельским ручным рубилам и кливерам пришло производство менее четких форм подобных крупных орудий, вместе с которыми появились весьма характерные для санго пиковидные формы, нуклевидные скребки, долотовидные изделия и др.

Сангоанские и среднепалеолитические ансамбли, встреченные в Кот д’Ивуаре, разделяются также и стратиграфически и типологически и не могут рассматриваться как слагаемые одного «единства» («entity»). Здесь прослеживается определенная устойчивость набора характерных орудий, подтверждающих самобытность и «суверенный» статус сангоанских индустрий. В то же время наличие некоторых специфических форм предполагает существование особой ивуарийской фации санго.

Lyubin V. P., Guedé F. Yiode. Palaeolithic Researches in the West Africa (Republic Côte d’Ivoir)

The Republic Côte d'Ivoire is situated in the West Africa – in the region where important natural and “cultural and historical” border-lines are passing. The country lies at the joint of the moist tropical forest zone and the zone of savannas bordering the Sahara (fig. 1). This is also the place where the north limit of an enormous area distinguished in science under the name of “the Africa to the south of Sahara” is situated. To the south of this limit the palaeolithic industries of types “Sango” and MSA (the Middle Stone Age) are widespread; to the north (in the Sahara) those of Acheulian and Aterian types are found.

Up to the 1980 only rare finds of tools assigned to Sango had been registered in Côte d'Ivoire (Mauny 1972:11; Davies 1959: 108; 1964: 84–92). In 1980, French geologist G. Paradis discovered in situ palaeolithic sites in the sandy loam deposits exposed in the quarries of Attengie and Anyama near Abidjan (Paradis 1980: 1393–1395; Chenorkian, Paradis 1981). That was the second in the West Africa (after the site of Asokrochona in Ghana) occasion of discovering sites with Sango and MSA cultural layers. The site of Bété I in the quarry of Anyama became the major objective of excavations. In the 80-s an Ivoirian expedition headed by Y. Guedé worked at the site (Guedé, Tastet 1986: 1–15); in 1993 the excavation was carried out by a Russian-Ivoirian expedition (Director V. P. Lyubin). Two years earlier, the same expedition discovered in the inland another Sangoan site (Guabuo I) and over ten occurences of MSA (Sablier, Nyapouyo, etc.), Sango (Goré, Guesseso) and Acheulian (Cantara) (Lyubin et al. 1994: 9–11; 1995: 41–53; Guedé 1997).

A geological examination of the Bété I site was carried out by geologists G. Paradis (1980), J.-P. Tastet (1982) and S. N. Sedov (1993) (figs. 3, 4). In the sediment section there were found (upwards): 1) Precambrian basement; 2) 9-metre bed of coarse-debris deposits (so called ‘Continental Terminal’; 3) 17-metre bed of homogeneous red sandy loam colluvial deposits (the so-called ‘Terre de Barre’) formed as the result of re-deposition of materials of the previous deposits in the arid climate (figs. 5–6). The upper 15 m of the latter bed contained stone tools: microliths in layer B; MSA in layer C; Sango in layer D.

Stone inventory of layer D was composed of 17 cores (discoid and uni-directional) poorly pronounced morphologically, 450 flakes, chips and debris, and 70 tools. As the raw material for their production, slab-like pieces of the local vein quartz had been used. The studies of the layer D industry required new methodical approaches because the classification system developed by D. Clark and M. Kleindienst (Clark and Kleindienst 1974: 71–106), and widely used in Africa, turned out to be only partly effective in our case. This system seems to be extremely generalised and lacking in common dividing criteria and strict typological rules. The most arguable is the class of ‘core-axes’ uniting tools manifestly heterogeneous in terms of technology, typology and function (fig. 7A: 1–12). ‘Core-axe’ as a classification unit is so vague and indistinct that it has found no place in any prehistory dictionary or textbook (Brézillon 1971; Bordes 1979; Leroi-Gourhan 1988, 1997). Many of the tools included into the ‘dimensionless’ class of core-axes are assigned by other scholars to picks. The authors are treating such tools in the same way.

The amount of picks at the site of Bété I is more than 43 percent of the entire tool collection (19 tools + 10 blanks). The common criteria for distinguishing picks, to the authors’ opinion, are the massiveness and heaviness of their mighty in cross-section bodies, the absence of longitudinal cutting edges on the latter, and the sharp narrowing of the bodies toward the distal ends where specially formed working elements are found. In the Ivoirian Sango there are two major varieties of picks (pic percutant and pic rostroide) differing in shapes of their body and cross-section profiles as well as in the position and fashioning of the distal effective elements. The first type is represented by short roughly cone-shaped (pear-shaped and drop-shaped: fig. 8), and more rare oval (fig. 9) shapes with sub-quadrangular or polygonal cross-section (figs. 8, 9), or by the close to the latter double-flat shapes with sub-rectangular cross-section (figs. 10, 11). The picks of this type have neatly centred (placed in the geometrical centres of the cross-sections) distal working elements. To picks of the second variety, plano-convex, sub-triangular or dome-shaped cross-sections (fig. 12) and the position of the distal working elements in the plane of their widest ventral side are characteristic. The flaking of the bodies of both type picks was of an exclusively shape-forming accommodative character. But the distal ends of the first type picks were shaped as strong centred tri- or tetrahedral strikers resembling pointed hammer heads (fig. 8–11), and only sometimes had an end shaped as narrow transversal cutting edges (fig. 13). The majority of picks of the second plano-convex type, on the contrary, had distal ends of a chisel-like or scraper-like character (fig. 14), and only the samples with the sub-triangular body cross-section ended with trihedral points (fig. 12).

Yet two more peculiar pick varieties, that we provisionally called ‘quadrihedron-trihedron’ and (fig. 15) ‘pic limaçoïd’ (fig. 16), are represented by single examples. The first essentially is a hybrid of the two main types: its basal half has sub-quadrangular cross-section, the distal one being sub-triangular with a trihedral (neatly centred in that part) striking tip. Contrary to the ‘classical’ shapes of picks, the distal half of this tool, in addition to the striking tip, has a second working element: bifacially flaked longitudinal edges. The second peculiar variant resembles a large high limace which has one of the ends shaped as a carinate end scraper. Manufacturing of the majority of the Ivoirian picks, to the authors’ opinion, followed a certain mental template and technological pattern intended for production of a large tool with heavy butt and mighty distal end.

The rest of the Ivoirian macro-tools is represented by rough handaxes (2 items) (fig. 17), backed bifaces (4 items), double backed bifaces (3 items) (fig. 18), a biface-trihedron (fig. 19: 1), a cleaver-like biface (fig. 19: 2), bifacial gouges – a two-ended (fig. 20: 1) and one-ended (fig. 20:2), fragments of foliate tools of the lupemban type (2 items), choppers (5 items) and core scrapers – those of the ‘push-plane’ type and circular (fig. 21). All tools, except for ten atypical scrapers, have not been made of flakes that is possibly explained either by the poor quality of the raw material or by the site’s functional aspects (a macro-tool workshop?). The uppermost levels of layer D, judging by the found fragments of the lupemban points, may be assigned to the late Sango, the lowest levels being RTL-dated to 254 ± 51 millions years b.p.

The layer D industry at the site of Bété I is in all likelihood a local facia of Sango. It is characterised first and foremost by short massive one-ended picks of several types, atypical backed or double backed bifaces and choppers-discoids. The similar forms according to O. Davies (1976) are peculiar to the West African Sango in general distinguishing the latter from the Sango of the Central Africa. However, the Ivoirian Sango, as it seems, should not be considered isolated from Sango of the other regions of Africa because many of its tools are met also in the other areas where the sangoan-lupemban industry complex is widespread. The parallels may be found e.g. in the coarse bifaces, core scrapers of various types (including those of the ‘tea-cosy scraper’ type – see fig. 21:1, 3), chisel-like (gouges), limace-like picks (pic limaçoïd), lupemban points resembling those found at the Ivoirian site of Guabuo II (fig. 21:2). (Clark 1959: 150–151, fig. 24:5, 1970: 113, fig. 23:4, 1982, fig. 4.8, no. 12; Mason 1969: 187, fig. 101, 109; Cahen 1975: 96, pl. 48).

Until recent times Sango was considered as an industry intermediate between the Acheulian and Mousterian ones. However, recently the independent status of Sango aroused doubts. These doubts originated of the uncertainty of such leading shape of Sango as the core-axe and the closeness of the chronological ranges of Sango and MSA (Cornelissen 1995: 55, 66, 67). According to the proposed by D. Clark interpretation Sango was treated as an activity facia placed within the frames of other (Acheulian and MSA) industry complexes (Clark 1982: 283–286; McBrearty 1987: 501–502). Nevertheless, there is a number of facts that, to the authors’ opinion, speak in favour of the validity of the conception of Sango and of intermediate character of the latter. This supposition is suggested by the stratigraphical position of Sango between Acheulian and MSA at some sites (Asokrochona and Bombata), its being underlain by the Acheulian at others (Kalambo-Falls and Isimila), and the MSA layers covering it at the third ones (Bété I-IV). In Sango the Acheulian pattern of flaking technique was still retained though the standardized Acheulian bifaces and cleavers were replaced by the production of similar large tools of not so distinct shape; simultaneously very typical of Sango pick-like shapes, core scrapers, gouges etc. appeared.

The Sangoan and MSA ensemblages found in Côte d'Ivoire are differentiated one from another as regards both stratigraphy and typology, and they can not be considered as components of a single ‘entity’. One can trace in these ensemblages a certain stability of the set of characteristic tools that prove the originality and ‘sovereign’ status of the Sangoan industries. At the same time, the presence also of some specific forms suggests the existence of a special Ivoirian facia of Sango.

Клотт Жан. Последние данные о гроте Шове

Jean Clones. Recent Evidence on Chauvet Cave

The discovery in December 1994 of the Chauvet cave in Ardeche, eastern France, was an event of world importance. Since that time, Ardeche has been viewed as a centre of the classical Paleolithic cave art, along with other ancient sanctuaries such as Perigord-Quercy, the Pyrenees, and the Cantabrian coast. Be­cause the geographic location, the nature of representations, and the technique were un­usual, it was first and foremost necessary to ascertain their authenticity. Almost immedi­ately after the discovery, Chauvet was visited by several leading specialists none of which expressed any doubts regarding the paleolithic age of the paintings, evidenced by their tech­nique, by the fact that they are covered with deposits of calcite, and by the nature of ani­mal representations. Most notably, the cave is unaffected by late human activities. Imprints of bear footprints are seen on the floor, claw marks are present on the walls, and bones of bears are scattered around. Thanks to the pre­cautions taken by the discoverers, nothing was moved. The  floor  has  not  been damaged.

After the paintings had been made, the cave was never visited by humans until the moment of discovery. It thus offers excellent possibili­ties for studying the activities of paleolithic people. The deep galleries were uninhabited and there is very little evidence attesting to the presence of prehistoric artists. There is a row of small pits (up to 50 cm in diameter) on the floor, and they contain some charcoal. The pits themselves, however, bear no traces of fire, suggesting that fire was used for lighting rather than for cooking. Neither are there any cracked bones around, but a dozen of flint ar­tifacts (blades and flakes) were found on the floor. The charcoal (as the results of analysis suggest, the wood was that of Pinus sylvestri) concentrates in one of the passages. It appears more likely that it was thrown out of the hearths rather than it fell down from the torches. The latter were evidently used since groups of dark spots are present on the walls. It has yet to be determined whether they are contemporaneous with the painting, but in at least one instance a sooty spot covers a repre­sentation of a horse. Numerous bones of cave bears, including dozens of skulls, were found. One skull was intentionally placed on an iso­lated block which had fallen down from the ceiling. Two other skulls lay near the bottom of the block, and at least twenty lay on the floor of the same hall. Absence of other bones of cave bears implies that skulls were collected by humans for some unknown purpose. The bears, then, had inhabited the cave before the humans appeared, but it is impossible to assess the interval between these events. There are in­dications that bears could have returned to the cave after the people had arrived. This is all the more likely since no human footprints were found.

As in most other caves, representation are either geometric or zoomorphous. Although symbols are less numerous than in classical centres, they are more frequent in Chauvet than in any other of the Ardeche caves. They are mostly dots of various size, sometimes ar­ranged in groups, as well as stripes or lines. A peculiarity of the Ardeche group is that signs are never superimposed on animal fig­ures. The total number of the latter is 263, but this is not the final figure since some re­mote places of the cave have not yet been ex­amined. The most frequently represented ani­mal is the rhinoceros (53, or 20%), black rep­resentations being much more numerous than red or engraved ones. The second and third most frequent animals are the mammoth (37, or 14%), and the lion (36, or 13, 7%). Mam­moth figures were mostly engraved, and those of lions painted black. Horses are about as numerous (35, or 13, 3%). They are mostly painted black, but there are also two small yellow heads, the only ones of that colour in the cave. Bisons are represented by 20 figures (7, 6%), all of them black except one which is engraved. There are 15 bears (5, 7%), most of them red, in contrast to other animals, and only one is engraved. Reindeer figures (12, or 4, 5%) are mostly black. Other animals include bulls, ibexes, and megaceros deer. Stag, pan­ther, and possibly hyena are represented by one figure each, all of them red. About 15 fig­ures have not been attributed. Among the most numerous animals represented, those which  are rare elsewhere (rhinoceros, lion, mammoth, and bear) are found throughout the cave. Large walls are covered with composi­tions. Some animals are shown in motion. As in other caves, anthropomorphous repre­sentations are quite rare. They include several bodily segments (mostly imprints of hands made in paint), and a composite being.

Concerning the techniques, there is some regularity in the distribution of black, red, and engraved figures. All the observers have noted the naturalistic manner in which the postures of animals are rendered. The artists evidently had some notion of perspective. Certain walls had been polished before the representations were applied. A technique which has not yet been noted elsewhere is the print.

Once the authenticity has been established, the next question is that of dating. Doubtless, the representations were made neither by a single person nor at a single time. While some figures are rigid and display utter lack of skill, others are quite masterly. At first sight, red paintings appear to be different from black ones and might be considered more ancient; however, a closer look reveals striking simi­larities. There are other reasons why colour should not be used as a chronological indica­tor. Similar stylistic conventionalities and manners reveal basically similar artistic no­tions. Although cultural and chronological at­tribution is usually based on a comparative method, this approach would be apparently misleading in the analysis of a site which is unique in so many respects. Apriori, the Chauvet painting may be regarded as an im­mediate precursor of Lascaux art. However, analyses of paint taken from two figures of rhinos and that of a bison painted in charcoal, yielded much earlier dates than expected: 30 340 and 32 410 BP. This finding shattered previous views regarding the origins and evo­lution of the paleolithic cave art. A new prob­lem has emerged: that of linking Ardeche painting with the Aurignacean figurines of the Swabian Jura. Representations described and their early dates refute Leroi-Gourhan's schemes which were quite influential in the study of cave art. His style I, corresponding to the Aurignacean, may now only apply to archaic sites situated mostly in Dordogne.

Лисицын Н.Ф. К вопросу о технике первичного расщепления в верхнем палеолите Среднего Енисея

N. F. Lisitsyn. On Stone Knapping Techniques in the Upper Paleolithic of the Middle Yenisey

The principal features of the Upper Paleo­lithic sites in the Middle Yenisey area situated between the Western Sayan and Kuznetsk Alatau mountain ranges are an unusual abun­dance and diversity of raw materials and the use of pebble cores. Due to the former factor, the working surface of the cores was mostly being left unused.

Nearly all sites have yielded pebble tools with sub-parallel, opposite, or longitudinal-transverse flake-scars on one or two surfaces. Because cores of other types are few, the re­searchers mostly focus on tools. The debris are generally neglected although numerically they predominate.

When studying assemblages in which tools and cores are few, one should pay attention to the numerical proportion of blades and unretouched flakes since this may be the most important criterion of cultural attribution (table 1).

Flaking technique is highly typical for Kurtak 4 and Afontova Culture sites. The proportion of blade preforms is 1, 3—3, 2% here. Notably, in the lower level of Afontova Gora 2, more than 20 000 flakes and other debris were found as against 250 blades (98, 8% and 1, 2%, respectively). Assuming that the flakes make up only one half of the total mass of debris, the share of blades in the as­semblage would be just 2, 4%, no higher than in other Afontova Culture sites.

The proportion of blades and flakes in Kokorevo 1, the key site of Kokorevo Culture is more than twice higher than in Afontova sites: 7, 4%. In Novoselovo sites, which are younger, this proportion is even higher (9, 1-14, 4%).

Blades are frequent in assemblages from Malta-Buret culture sites and Sabanikha (19, 4—36, 2%). Their share is the largest at Golubaya 1 (over 44%).

Among the tools, blade preforms are 2—7 times more frequent than debris. In Malta-Buret  Culture  assemblages, the blade/flake ratio is 72, 3—87, 3, in those representing Kok­orevo Culture, 51, 4—74, 6, at Sabanikha, 86, 8%, and at Golubaya 1, 40%, as against 7, 6—10, 2% in Afontova Culture assemblages (table 2).

The blade/flake ratio among the unre­touched pieces, then, is tightly correlated with that among the retouched pieces. Using this correlation, one can separate assemblages (es­pecially from destroyed sites) representing two different traditions of stone knapping in the Middle Yenisei Basin.

The appearance of wedge-shaped cores at­tests to the emergence of a new knapping technique characterized by detaching regular prismatic bladelets from the core. Small cores appeared in the Yenisei Basin ca. 17—15 000 years ago. Like the bladelets detached from them, they may be suggestive of the final Pa­leolithic (fig. 3). Based on the predominance of blades or flakes, the assemblage can be at­tributed either to Kokorevo culture or to Afontova Culture.

In Malta-Buret assemblages, typical small wedge-shaped cores do not occur. Knapping technique was aimed at obtaining irregular bladelets detached from small or microlithic cores. The size of preforms is a feature sepa­rating this group from other assemblages with blades. Based on the presence of such bladelets and small cores, the assemblages can be dated to 20-18 000 years BP.

We conclude that as early as 24—23 000 years BP two stone knapping traditions can be traced in the Paleolithic of the Yenisey area: one based mostly on flakes, another on blades. These traditions co-existed up to the Holo­cene. In the final Late Paleolithic, the tech­nique of detaching bladelets from wedge-shaped cores emerged. The numerical propor­tion of flakes, blades, and bladelets, then, along with the presence or absence of certain types of cores, is a highly diagnostic criterion which is especially useful when retouched tools are rare.

Григорьева Г.В. Исследования на верхнепалеолитическом поселении Юдиново в 1995—1997 гг.

G. V. Grigoryeva. Excavations at the Upper Paleolithic site of Yudinovo (1995—1997 field seasons)

Yudinovo, Pogar District, Bryansk Prov­ince, Russia, is one of the most important Late Pleistocene mammoth-hunters' sites in the Russian Plain. It contains remains of four dwellings made of mammoth bones as well as pits and hearths attesting to longterm domes­tic activities. A large collection of stone and bone tools has been obtained.

The site is located on the lower terrace of the right bank of the Sudost', a right tributary of the Desna. It was discovered by K. M. Polikarpovich in 1934 and studied by V. D. Bud'ko and, from 1980 on, by Z. A. Abramova. Excavations have continued up to the present. In 1984, a pavilion was constructed above the remains of two dwell­ings situated nearby.

The objectives of the excavations, which were sponsored by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities, were to examine the structure of the site, find new constructive elements, preserve remains of dwellings, analyse domes­tic activities, and collect artifacts. Works were conducted both inside and outside the pavil­ion. The inside part was being cleared (150 sq m per year on average) from algae and micro­organisms. Bones were treated with antiseptic and conservant substances.

Outside, a surface area of 77 sq m was been cleared in 1995—97 (fig. 1). Cultural deposits lie in loessy loam at the depth of 2—2, 5 m.

Over the three-year period, part of a large semicircular accumulation of bones was uncov­ered which represents either remains of some structure or stocks of bones unused in con­struction (fig. 2). It is impossible to clean out the entire accumulation since it is overlaid by a wall situated near the pavilion. Apart from this feature, four groups of bones were discov­ered (fig. 3) around which there were many pieces of processed flint and bone along with flint and ivory tools. In two groups, hammers made of reindeer antler were found. Possibly these and other similar groups are places where flint and bone were being processed.

In 1997, the 1988 excavation was con­nected with that launched by Polikarpovich in 1947 (fig. 4). In the earlier excavation, the ground containing the bones was intermixed. In 1947, Polikarpovich discovered remains of a dwelling which he left untouched, apart from having cleaned it out.

The distribution of flint artifacts over the area studied is uneven. Most were found in ashes and near the accumulations of bones mentioned above. The 1995—96 excavation seasons have yielded 1500—5000 pieces per square (due to flotation), but in 1997 the number dropped to 140—200.

The inventory of stone artifacts includes over 31 000 items. Tools comprise less than 2% of the total number. The most frequent ones are burins, mostly of the side type (fig. 5: 21—30). End-scrapers are 3, 5 times less numer­ous than burins (fig. 5: 12—16). Among tools of other types, there are retouched blades and bladelets (fig. 5: 1—11). Combined tools (fig. 5: 17—20) and scaled pieces (fig. 5: 33) are unique.

Bone implements are diverse and numerous (over 5 000 specimens). Some are ivory cores from which blades and flakes had been de­tached. There are many flakes, separate epiphyses and fragmented shafts of long bones, and fragments of ribs with flake-scars. Several groups of bone artifacts can be distin­guished: hunting tools, domestic ones, orna­ments, and decorated artifacts. Hunting tools include fragments of projectile points and shafts. Domestic tools are awls, needles, bur­nishers, a hoe, digging tools, hammers, knives, etc. (fig. 6—9). Ornaments include beads (fig. 10: 1—17), pendants (fig. 10: 19—21), fibulae (fig. 10: 18), fragments of bracelets and diadems, and other pieces (fig. 10: 22, 23), as well as pierced shells. Finally, there are ornamented pieces of flat and long bones, and ivory blades. The design consists of lines, loz­enges, or hatching. A piece of scapula bears three designs (fig. 11).

The surface of ivory pieces, too, is covered with geometric designs (fig. 12—14). On a piece of pelvic bone, apart from hatching, there are some poorly preserved repre­sentations (fig. 15). The distinctive feature of Yudinovo is that the design is mostly lozenge-shaped.

The overall level of material culture was rather high, judging by complex structures made of mammoth bones. Bone tools with geometric designs have parallels among the finds from the Middle Dniepr area. While peo­ple who lived at Yudinovo 15—14 000 years ago were mammoth-hunters, those who lived in Central and Western Europe hunted horses and reindeer. The culture of Yudinovo is broadly similar to the European Magdalenian.

Карих А.В., Лисицын С.Н., Праслов Н.Д., Синицын А.А. Открытие новой верхнепалеолитической стоянки в Костенковско-Борщевском районе на Дону

A. V. Karikh, S. N. Lisitsyn, N. D. Praslov, A. A. Sinitsyn. The discovery of a new Upper Paleolithic site in the Kostenki-Borshevo region, the Don

It was one of the authors, A. V. Karikh, who, working in his gardenplot in Borshevo village (Voronezh region, the Upper Don basin), first paid attention to knapped flint items and collected a considerable number of finds in recent years. In summer 1998 this place was inspected by the Kostenki Paleolithic expedition researches and the new Upper Pa­leolithic site discovery was proved. The site named Borshevo 5 is located on the high slope on the right side of the large Borshevo dean 500 m far from the river and from the well­known site Borshevo 2. During brief field works a tentative area of flint distribution was established. In a small exposure pit excavated in the abrupt eastern roadside cutting the slope inside loam deposits was found a horizon of cultural remains. Finds comprise flint artifacts and faunal remains of mammoth.

It is difficult to define geomorphologic disposition of this locality now but according to longstanding field investigations in the Kostenki-Borshevo paleolithic region this spot can be considered apparently entering into the third terrace of the river Don bot­tomland.

At present the collection of flint artifacts collected in Borshevo 5 area numbers more than 350 specimens. All of them are repre­sented by high quality cretaceous flint of sev­eral colors. No cores were found while by the guise of knapping products the blade technique domination could be considered prevailing as well as the number of tools made on blades. The tools assemblage consists of 65 items in­cluding: backed microblades of several types (fig. 1: 1—6), specific micropoints (fig. 1: 7-8), fragments of large points (fig. 1: 9—11), trun­cation burins (fig. 1: 13, 16), dihedral burins (fig. 1: 12, 15), break burins (fig. 1: 14), pieces esquillees (fig. 1: 17—18) and end-scrapers of various types (fig. 1: 19—22). These tool types are typical for the middle stage of the Upper Paleolithic and have analogies in such com­plexes as the third cultural layer of Kostenki 21, the second cultural layer of Kostenki 4 and the second cultural layer of Kostenki 11. Nevertheless without complex field investiga­tions all the cultural attribution conclusions are preliminary.

Кирчо Л.Б.,  Ковнурко Г.М. Минералого-петрографическая характеристика находок из погребений Алтын-депе и вопросы хронологии

L. B. Kircho, G. M. Kovnurko. A mineralogical and petrographic characteristics of finds from Altyn-Depe burials (with reference to chronology)

The article contains a mineralogical de­scription of typologically and functionally di­verse stone artifacts excavated from the burials of Altyn-Depe, one of the largest and most thoroughly studied Chalcolithic and Bronze Age sites in Central Asia. The site is situated in southern Turkmenia, 5—6 km east of the first line of the piedmont elevations of Kopet-Dag, in the ancient valley of the Pra-Tedzhen. The collection of stone artifacts, dating from late 4^th—early 2^nd millennium BC, comprises several hundreds of items.

Initially, objects made of natural stone were subdivided into homogeneous groups using standard methods of mineral identification. After the macroscopic study of these groups, several artifacts were sectioned for microscopic examination and x-ray phase analysis.

The Altyn-Depe collection includes numer­ous and diverse artifacts made of marbly rock with seams of dolomite. They are toilet ves­sels, lamps, spindle-whorl-beads, mace heads, and anthropomorphous figurines. Carbonate seams in these artifacts differ by colour. The stratified texture of the rock is revealed micro­scopically both in the mineral composition and in the granulometry of recrystallized carbon­ates. The colour of seams is due to the admix­ture of tiny grains of semi-translucent and opaque minerals, such as argillaceous rock, and ferrous hydro-oxides.

Nearly a half of toilet vessels found at Altyn-Depe (12 specimens) are made of ala­baster. A homogenous dense fine-grained ag­gregate of alabaster crystals is light-pink or yellowish. Some alabaster artifacts are slightly deformed possibly due to mechanical tensions in the cultural deposits. Several preforms made of rounded alabaster pebbles were found at the site, suggesting that raw material was provided by loose quaternary deposits, alluvial or proluvial.

Flint was used for making points. It is a fine-grained rock in which crystalls of chalcedony are only visible under the microscope. The most common shades of flint are gray, ranging from dark to almost colourless. Yellowish flint with red or purple shades is very common as well.

Luster, opacity, and colour frequently vary within a section 2-3 cm in size. Classification is often done using a detailed description of spots. Some artifacts, such as one represented by a section from burial 765, № 6, are made of homogeneous opaque rock.

Steatite artifacts can be either small (less than 5—6 cm long) or large and heavy («staff» from burial 362, 1, 2 m long). Steatite is a dense fine-grained greenish-black mass.

The surface of certain artifacts, such as vessel 4, room 371, excavation 9, or a lamp with lid from burial 626—627, is covered with irregular reddish spots, likely due to the pres­ence of ferrous hydro-oxides. The softness of steatite accounts for large coarse traces of processing seen on these artifacts, thin flaking scars being absent. Steatite can be easily cut and polished but does not crack.

A distinct group is represented by beads made of cornelian, agate, turquoise, and lapis lazuli. Cornelian beads are homogeneous with respect to colour. Some bear traces of etching (burial 403-409, № 1). Agate beads are stripy. Three groups are distinguished with regard to colour: colourless with pale-blue or grayish stripes; red-and-white, and yellowish with brown or dark-brown stripes. Turquoise and lapis lazuli are primarily diagnozed by colour.

Beads with latent crystallic fine-grained structure were studied using x-ray phase analy­sis. The difractograms showed that along with plaster and calcite artifacts, those made of rock that had been subjected to high-tem­perature firing were used. One of these artifi­cial minerals is a mixture of quartz and high-temperature crystobalite. Beads made of it are balls 5-6 mm in diameter. They are opaque yellowish-green, and their hardness can reach 7 units on the Mohs scale. The fine-grained structure is seen under the magnifying glass, the grains being below 0, 2 mm in size. As evi­denced by the difractogram, this compound contains ca. 40% of quartz and ca. 60% of beta-crystobalite. It does not occur under natural conditions. It is impossible to prepare a paste consisting of pure silica. The tempera­ture of a phase shift of quartz into crysto­balite is above 1400 C. It can be suggested that the initial material for making these beads was siliceous porous rock such as diato­mite or trepel, which is easily processed. After the beads had been made, they were subjected to high-temperature firing, resulting in re-crys­talization of silica with a sharp increase in me­chanical strength.

Thin-walled cylindrical beads, 2, 5 mm in outer diameter and 6 mm long (9—2—11—22) are also made of an difractometrically detected artificial material. They are opaque white and shiny, their surface is easily scratched, but it is quite difficult to pulverize the substance. Possibly the surface was subjected to partial leaching. As revealed by difractometry, more than two thirds of the mass of these beads consists of enstatite, or magnesium silicate — Mg₂ [Si₂0₆]. The proportion of quartz is 10— 15%, and a high-temperature crystobalite has also been detected. This compound is not characteristic of natural samples. The tempera­ture at which enstatite crystallizes under natu­ral conditions in olivine basalts is above 1200 C. Its content in basalts is normally low. Even higher temperatures are needed to obtain it in large quantities such as those found in beads. The beads were apparently first made of talc (Mg₃ [Si₄O₁₁] [OH]₂, a very soft magnesial min­eral. In the process of firing a dehydratation of talc occurred resulting in a fayence-like ma­terial mostly composed of enstatite.

Some beads are made of agate, cornelian, lapis lazuli, turquoise, etc. The sources of these decorative minerals are different. Agates occur among the basalts in the region of Bad­hyz and Kushka in the utmost southeast of Turkmenia, and near Bolshoy Balkhan. Out­crops of agate at Gerkhez are situated 13 km northwest of Oglandy near the mountain of Gerkhez, northwestern Turkmenia. Local con­glomerates contain redeposited pebbles and boulders of agate 2-25 cm in diameter, mostly grayish-lilac, pale yellow, or pinkish-lilac in colour. The best-known outcrops of lapis laz­uli are those in Afghanistan. Information about the sources of turquoise is more scanty, but they were doubtless situated in Central Asia.

The mineralogical and petrographic charac­teristics of finds from Altyn-Depe and the re­sults of typological and technological analyses enable us to draw several conclusions which are relevant for chronology. Four features of beads can apparently be used as dating crite­ria: (1) technology, (2) material, (3) certain rare types, and (4) common types.

(1) By the middle or end of Early Bronze Age, the method of obtaining artificial mate­rials by prolonged high-temperature firing had been mastered. The fact that the temperature of firing must have been ca. 1000-1400 C at­tests to a high level of technology hitherto un­documented by any Bronze Age finds from southern Central Asia. Making artifacts, such as white cylindrical and ring-shaped beads, of steatite with subsequent firing was a charac­teristic feature of the Harappa civilization, India, in the 3^rd millennium BC (Kenoyer 1997: 267). Recently, this method was also re­vealed by finds from the neolithic and chal­colithic layers of Mergarh (Vidale 1990).

A technological innovation of the Namazga V period was etching, which was used to decorate cornelian beads (burials №№ 105, 196, 252, 403—409, and «sanctuary»).

Lapis lazuli and possibly turquoise and rock crystal were imported to Altyn-Depe. However, beads of simple (geometric) forms made of these materials occur in southern Turkmenian burials from the Middle Chal­colithic onward (Masson 1962: Tab. X: 1—3; Sarianidi 1965: fig. 11, 6—16; Tab. I; XXVII).

Those most important for locating the source of import are two unique types of lapis lazuli beads: flat trapezoid ones (burial 818, Early Namazga IV), a bar-shaped bead with a golden setting (burial 60, Namazga V), and turquoise round beads, biconvex in section, with notched rims (type IVB'2 from burial 60, Namazga V; fig. 1). Trapezoid beads (subtri­angular, according to Masson), possibly made of alabaster (?), were found in burial 31 of Kara 2 (Masson 1962: 9).

Common types of beads relevant for revealing export and import routes and, ac­cordingly, chronology, are those made of natu­ral materials: round ones (type IVB1; fig. 1) and rectangular biconvex ones with notched rims (type IA'2; fig. 1). Both types are com­mon in Shahdad burials (Hakemi 1997: 657).

Toilet vessels made of stone (fig. 2) are the most common in late chalcolithic and early Bronze Age burials. They were found in nearly all collective burials and also in rich single and double ones dating from the early Bronze Age. Also, they were among the in­ventory of two late Bronze Age burial cham­bers (room 13, level 1, excavation 5, and room 321, level 2, excavation 9), and three single burials (№ 310, excavation 8, №№ 252 and 813, room 322, level 2, excavation 9).

With respect to shape, surface finish, and material, stone vessels can be subdivided into 8 groups (fig. 2). The earliest ones are toilet vessels. №. № 7 and 8 (flasks), found in late chalcolithic and early Bronze Age burials. They are the most archaic in terms of material (alabaster), technology (hand-made), and deco­ration (vertical or horizontal cannelures). Dur­ing the Early Bronze Age, vessels made of hard marbly limestone appear. This material can only be processed on a lathe. Type 5 ves­sels appear, which are similar to those of types 7 and 8 in having cone-shaped bodies widening toward the bottom, and simple flat subtriangular rims. The sophistication of tech­nique by the end of Early Bronze Age resulted in the appearance of type 6 vessels, which are small and have a flat rim, like the earlier ones, but their bodies are convex in the middle or biconical. Finally, at the beginning of Middle Bronze Age, apparently due to further techno­logical progress, type 6A' and 6b' vessels ap­pear, their distinct feature being that the rim is slanted toward the outer side. However the period when toilet vessels were the most popu­lar was Early Bronze Age. At Namazga V stage they are less common and were found mostly in burials of levels 3 and 2 at Altyn-Depe. They are virtually absent from burials of the final stage of Altyn-Depe, the archaic alabaster double vessel from burial 252 being the only exception.

The inventory of Altyn-Depe burials in­cludes ten stone lamps. Their upper parts have special depressions destined for fuel. In some specimens it is covered with a lid having an opening for the wick. Most lamps were evi­dently hand-made of marbly limestone (one is made from steatite, another one from a red­dish-brown rock) and are represented by four types. All of them were found in Early Bronze Age burials and are a distinctive feature of Namazga IV assemblage.

Steatite, too, appears to be important for assessing the chronology of Altyn-Depe. Ob­jects of unknown destination, found in the «sanctuary» (room 7, level 3, excavation 7) and referred to as «column», «weight», and «staff», are made of steatite, and this also ap­plies to a seal-stamp and a lamp-cup from burials 626—627, and a small biconical toilet vessel from room 371, level 4, excavation 9. All these were found in burials dating from the final stage of Early Bronze Age or the be­ginning of Middle Bronze Age. A similar dis­tribution of steatite artifacts (vessels, beads, seals, etc. ) is characteristic of cultural deposits of Altyn-Depe (no earlier than levels 4—5). As revealed by x-ray analysis, white beads of vari­ous types, a seal (burial 413), and a figurine (burials 634—638) were evidently made of steatite and subjected to high-temperature fir­ing. The earliest beads and an anthropomor­phous figurine made of the same material were found in a burial chamber (room 1) of level 6 in excavation 5; all the remaining steatite objects were found in burials of the Namazga V period, mostly in levels 2, 1, and 0 of Altyn-Depe. The presence of steatite artifacts, then, is suggestive of a date no earlier the final Early Bronze Age.

It should be concluded that the mineralogi­cal and petrographic analysis of artifacts from Altyn-Depe has yielded nontrivial results, some of which (related to high-temperature firing) were unexpected.

Каминская И.В., Шарафутдинова Э.С. Жилой комплекс Гамовская балка — новый памятник эпохи средней бронзы на Северо-Западном Кавказе

В предгорной зоне Северо-Западного Кавказа, на левом берегу р. Кувы в 1988 г. был открыт жилой комплекс эпохи средней бронзы (Каминская, Шарафутдинова 1993: 45–47; Шарафутдинова 1996: 94–95). Комплекс обнаружен в навесе 1 грота Гамовская Балка (рис. 1: 1). В западной части грота находились ограбленные аланские погребения. На дне, близ входа находился очаг, к югу и к северу от которого стояли две массивные каменные плиты (рис. 1: 2), возможно, остатки ограды очага. Более древний культурный слой эпохи бронзы залегал по всей площади грота. В этом слое был обнаружен керамический материал, состоявший из 9 700 обломков сосудов, в числе которых 12 целых форм, 280 обломков венчиков и крупных фрагментов.

Значение данного памятника состоит не только в том, что это первый поселенческий однослойный памятник конца эпохи средней бронзы в данном регионе, но и в том, что гамовская керамика обнаруживает явную связь с сосудами Ливенцовской крепости в дельте Дона, исследовавшейся С.Л. Братченко в 60-х годах. Им свыше 20 лет назад было высказано предположение о близости керамики Ливенцовской крепости с керамикой из погребений Закубанья, известной по раскопкам Н.И. Веселовского (Братченко 1976: 127), подтвердившееся материалами поселения Гамовская Балка (Шарафутдинова 1996: 94–96). Разнообразие форм гамовской керамики позволило ее классифицировать и выделить несколько типов или групп. Самая характерная и наиболее распространенная керамика представлена двумя численно равными и близкими по форме группами.

1. Большие сосуды с венчиком-раструбом, резко переходящим в крутые плечики. Верхняя часть сосуда обычно богато украшена рельефным и углубленным орнаментами, которые в трети случаев встречаются вместе. Рельефный орнамент опоясывает основание шейки сосуда и нередко сочетается: 1) с расчлененным валиком – зигзагообразным или вертикальным в виде нескольких отрезков, расположенных на шейке; 2) либо иногда – с валиком-“змейкой” на плечиках (рис. 2: 3; 3: 1, 2, 6; 4: 3–5; 6: 6). Зафиксирован один случай, когда валик опоясывает верхнюю часть сосуда в два ряда: по основанию шейки и под краем венчика (рис. 6: 8). Валик покрыт различными узорами: сетка, косые насечки, уголки, стоящие заштрихованные треугольники. На фрагментах стенок крупных сосудов встречен рельефный орнамент других типов: дуговидный выступ, расчлененный косыми насечками и представляющий собой, очевидно, декоративные ручки-выступы; длинный гладкий горизонтальный выступ, круглый в сечении; круглые парные налепы-шишечки (рис. 7: 1–2, 4, 6–8). Углубленный орнамент, нанесенный по основанию шейки и плечикам чаще всего – врезной, несколько реже – зубчатый. Это – многорядные опоясывающие линии, многорядный горизонтальный зигзаг, нередко сочетающийся с указанными линиями; штрихи в различных направлениях, горизонтальная и вертикальная “елочка”; реже встречаются стоящие заштрихованные треугольники (рис. 2: 3; 3: 6; 4: 2–6; 6: 6–8). В некоторых случаях наблюдается асимметричность в нанесении мотивов углубленного орнамента, нарушая его ритмичность, что подчеркивает нарядность узора в целом.

2. Большие сосуды с венчиком-раструбом, резко или плавно переходящим в крутые, либо плавные плечики. Они украшены только валиком, расчлененным подквадратными или круглыми вмятинами (рис. 2: 1; 5: 1–3, 5–7; 6: 2), реже косыми насечками сеткой (рис. 2: 2; 6: 1); изредка валик гладкий (рис. 5: 4). Он тоже опоясывает основание шейки, но встречается и под краем венчика в один-два ряда (рис. 5: 1–2; 6: 9). Валик, опоясывающий основание шейки, иногда тоже дополняется зигзагообразным горизонтальным, гладким либо расчлененным валиком (рис. 2: 1–2), а также рельефной фигуркой неясной формы (рис. 5: 7). Видимо, к этой же группе керамики относятся фрагменты стенок сравнительно крупных сосудов, опоясанных по плавно округлому перегибу от плечиков к бокам расчлененным валиком в один, реже в два ряда (рис. 3: 3–5).

3. Небольшие обычно плавно профилированные сосуды, орнаментированные, как и первая группа керамики, врезным узором, который нанесен иногда на валик (рис. 4: 1; 6: 3–5).

4. Две стенки корчаг грубо обмазаны глиной в виде беспорядочных сосцевидных налепов (рис. 7: 3, 5).

5. Небольшие горшочки резко или плавно профилированы и опоясаны по основанию шейки врезными или веревочными линиями (рис. 8: 2, 4).

6. Горшочки без орнамента, иногда встречаются тонкостенные. Отогнутый венчик в ряде случаев имеет вид оттянутого налепного “воротничка” (рис. 9: 1, 2, 4, 5).

7. Боченковидные банки – со стянутым устьем, под которым нанесен врезной или зубчатый узор из горизонтальных линий и зигзага под ними (рис. 8: 1, 3, 6).

8. Стаканообразные баночки, на которых может быть нанесен узор из узких косых вдавлений в один ряд (рис. 8: 7, 8).

Керамика Гамовской Балки сопоставима в Закубанье с орнаментацией на сосудах из катакомбных погребений с вытянутыми костяками в Успенском могильнике (Каминский 1986). В западной части Закубанья, на черноморском побережье под Геленджиком среди материала из разрушенного поселения есть параллели некоторым типам гамовской орнаментации. Среди ливенцовской посуды С.Н. Братченко выделил две основные группы сосудов, аналогичные гамовским формам. Первая группа (Братченко 1976: 124, рис. 66: 3, 4, 6, 11, 13–15) – крупные горшки с венчиком-раструбом и широкими биконическими или округлыми боками. Большинство их орнаментировано расчлененным валиком, опоясывающим сосуд в один-три ряда: по основанию шейки, плечикам и тулову в месте перегиба. Близкий узор – валик, опоясывающий тулово по перегибу, известен и на гамовских сосудах (рис. 3: 3–5). Указанный ливенцовский орнамент дополняется вертикальными отрезками валиков или горизонтальным зигзагообразным валиком. Встречается также врезной и зубчатый орнамент, сочетающийся на сосудах в виде мотивов из многорядных горизонтальных линий, косых овальных вдавлений и косых крестиков. Вторая группа ливенцовской керамики представлена сосудами с прямой или слабо отогнутой шейкой. Форма тулова у них такая же, что и у сосудов первой группы (Братченко 1976: 124, рис. 66: 1–2). Сосуды второй группы орнаментированы скромнее: основание шейки опоясано расчлененным валиком либо вертикальными вмятинами; иногда этот валик дополняется такими же вмятинами по краю венчика. Красновато-коричневый цвет части ливенцовской керамики (Братченко 1976: 122, 124) тоже близок красновато-оранжевой поверхности на гамовских сосудах.

Две основные группы ливенцовской керамики по форме и типам орнамента соответствуют гамовским сосудам первой и второй групп. Сходство гамовской и ливенцовской керамики указывает на культурно-генетическое родство обоих памятников. Очевидно, часть населения культуры типа Гамовской Балки переселилась из предгорий на север, в степь, на правый берег донской дельты, что справедливо предполагал и С.Л. Братченко (Братченко 1976: 127–128). Отсюда понятна необходимость сооружения крепостей пришлым населением и высказывание о некоторых чертах близости посуды крепости и культуры многоваликовой керамики, выраженное лишь в применении на ливенцовской посуде валикового орнамента, характерного для ряда культур эпохи средней бронзы на юге Восточной Европы (Братченко 1976: 127–128). Существенно здесь то, что в ливенцовской орнаментации отсутствует многоваликовый узор из вертикальных “елок”, треугольников и паркета, типичный для посуды культуры многоваликовой керамики (Братченко 1976: 124; 1985: 461). Следует отметить определенные отличия между гамовской и ливенцовской керамикой, что объясняется миграцией части населения. Ливенцовские сосуды чаще украшаются веревочным орнаментом, не свойственным посуде культуры многоваликовой керамики, а среди врезного орнамента содержатся мотивы, не встреченные на гамовских сосудах. Выплески населения из Северо-Западного Кавказа на север в эпоху бронзы известны и ранее (майкопская культура), и позднее (кобяковская культура).

Время обживания грота Гамовская Балка определяется хронологической позицией Ливенцовской крепости. Крепостъ синхронна культуре многоваликовой керамики (Братченко 1976: 133, схемы на рис. 69; 72), то есть бабинской культуре. Эта культура предшествует памятникам покровского культурного типа, с которого и начинается эпоха поздней бронзы на юге Восточной Европы (Бочкарев 1991: 24–25; 1995: 25–27; Шарафутдинова 1993: 87-89). Примечательно, что Ливенцовская крепость погибла при штурме ее покровскими племенами, кремневые стрелы которых усеяли руины крепости. Исходя из хронологии памятников покровского типа (Бочкарев 1991: 24–25, 1993: 42–43; Шарафутдинова 1995: 107), бабинскую культуру можно датировать первой четвертью II тыс. до н.э. К этому же времени относится и Ливенцовская крепость. Можно полагать, что жилой комплекс навеса 1 Гамовской Балки существовал в указанный для культуры многоваликовой керамики и Ливенцовской крепости период.

Kaminskaya I.V., Sharafutdinova A. S. Dwelling complex of Gamovskaya Balka  – a new Middle Bronze Age site in the North-Western Caucasus

In 1988, in the foothills of the North-Western Caucasus, on the Kuva River left bank, there was discovered a dwelling complex dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Каминская, Шарафутдинова 1993: 45–47; Шарафутдинова 1996: 94–95). The complex was found in canopy 1 of the Gamovskaya Balka grotto (fig. 1: 1). In the western part of the grotto there were Alan burials damaged by robbers. On the bottom close to the entrance there was a fireplace, to the south and to the north of which two massive stone slabs – possibly remains of its enclosing wall – were standing (fig. 1: 2). An earlier Bronze Age cultural layer lay buried throughout the whole area of the grotto. In this layer, ceramic material composed of 9,700 vessel fragments including 12 complete shapes and 280 rim fragments and other large sherds was discovered.

The significance of the site lies not merely in the fact that it is the first single-period settlement of the late Middle Bronze Age in the region. The site is of great importance also because the Gamovskaya pottery shows a distinct connection to the vessels of the Liventsovskaya fortress in the Don delta. The latter site was investigated in the 60-s by S. L. Bratchenko who as far back as 20 years ago proposed a hypothesis of the closeness of the Liventsovskaya fortress pottery to that from the Trans-Kuban burials known from excavations of N. I. Veselovskiy (Братченко 1976: 127). The material from the Gamovskaya Balka settlement confirmed this hypothesis (Шарафутдинова 1996: 94–96). The diversity of shapes of the Gamovskaya pottery enabled us to distinguish several types or groups in it. The most characteristic and widespread pots are represented by two groups equal in quantity and close in their shapes.

1. Large vessels with a funnel-shaped rim making a sharp transition into a steep shoulder. The upper parts of the vessels usually are richly decorated with relief and impressed ornaments; in a third of the pieces decorations of both types were met together. The relief decorations are encircling the vessel neck bases and often match with: 1) a clay cylinder split into several parts – a zigzag or a vertical one in the shape of several segments placed on the neck; or in some cases 2) a cylinder-“snake” on the shoulder (figs. 2: 3; 3: 1, 2, 6; 4: 3–5; 6: 6). On one occasion the cylinder encircled the upper part of the vessel in two rows: along the neck base and below the rim edge (fig. 6: 8). This cylinder was covered with different types of decoration: net, slant incisions, small angles, hatched triangles. On the wall fragments of large vessels relief decorations of other types were found: arch-like ledge split with slant incisions and possibly representing decorative handles-ledges; a long smooth horizontal ledge circular in section; round paired knobs of applied clay (figs. 7: 1–2, 4, 6–8). Impressed decorations drawn on the neck bases and shoulders are mostly incised, less often notched. It is several rows of encircling lines; rows of horizontal zigzags often combined with the above mentioned lines; traits drawn in various directions – the horizontal and vertical ‘herring-bones’; less often, standing hatched triangles are met (figs. 2: 3; 3: 6; 4: 2–6; 6: 6–8). In some cases one may observe asymmetry in drawing motifs of the impressed decoration that disturbs the rhythm of the latter emphasising the smartness of the pattern in general.

2. Large vessels with funnel-shaped rims that make a sharp or soft transition into steeply or softly curved shoulders, the latter are decorated only with a clay cylinder split by sub-square or round depressions (figs. 2: 1; 5: 1–3, 5–7; 6: 2), less often with slant incisions forming a net (figs. 2: 2; 6: 1); in rare cases the cylinder is smooth (fig. 5: 4). The cylinder is also encircling the neck base, but occasionally forms one or two rows beneath the rim (figs. 5: 1–2; 6: 9). The cylinder encircling the base of the neck sometimes also is complemented with either a zigzag horizontal, or a smooth or split cylinder (fig. 2: 1–2), as well as with a relief figurine of an indeterminate shape (fig. 5: 7). Possibly, to the same group of pottery one may also assign the wall fragments of relatively large vessels encircled with a split cylinder in one or, less often, two rows along the softly rounded articulation between the shoulder and sides (fig. 3: 3–5).

3. Rather small vessels usually having a softly pronounced profile and similarly to the first group decorated with incised pattern that occasionally is drawn on the cylinder (figs. 4: 1; 6: 3–5).

4. Two wall fragments of large pots coarsely plastered with clay in shape of irregular applied nipples (fig. 7: 3, 5).

5. Small pots with sharply or softly pronounced profiles and encircled with incised or cord-imprinted lines along the neck bases (fig. 8: 2, 4).

6. Undecorated small pots, occasionally thin-walled. The outturned rim in a number of pieces is shaped as a welded pulled aside “collar” (fig. 9: 1, 2, 4, 5).

7. Barrel-shaped jars with a narrowing mouth; beneath the latter an incised or notched pattern of horizontal lines and a zigzag below them are drawn (fig. 8: 1, 3, 6).

8. Beaker-shaped small jars that occasionally have a pattern of a row of narrow slant indentations drawn upon them (fig. 8: 7, 8);

In the Trans-Kuban region the Gamovskaya Balka pottery finds parallels in decorations of vessels from catacomb graves with stretched skeletons at the Uspenskoe burial ground (Каминский 1986). There are some parallels to certain types of Gamovskaya decorations in the western part of the Trans-Kuban region, on the Black Sea coast near Gelendjik, among the material from a ruined settlement. Among the Liventsovskaya ware S. N. Bratchenko singled out two major groups of vessels close to the Gamovskaya shapes. The first group (Братченко 1976: 124, fig. 66: 3, 4, 6, 11, 13–15) includes large pots with funnel-shaped rims and wide biconical or rounded sides. The majority of these pots are decorated each with a split clay cylinder encircling the vessel in one, two or three rows: along the neck base, shoulder and the body in the bending place. A similar pattern – the cylinder encircling the body on the bend – has been registered also on the Gamovskaya vessels (fig. 3: 3–5). The mentioned Liventsovskaya ornament is complimented either with vertical cylinder segments or with a horizontal zigzag cylinder. Also one meets incised and notched decorations combined on the vessels as motifs composed of several rows of horizontal lines, slant oval indentations and slant small crosses. The second group of the Liventsovskaya pottery is represented by vessels with a straight or slightly turned out neck. The body shape of these vessels is the same as by the first group (Братченко 1976: 124, fig. 66: 1-2). The vessels of the second group are not decorated so richly: the base neck is encircled with a split cylinder or with vertical indentations the former being occasionally complimented with similar indentations along the rim edge. The reddish-brown colour of a part of the Liventsovskaya pottery (Братченко 1976: 122, 124) also is close to the reddish-orange surface of the Gamovskaya vessels.

The two main groups of the Liventsovskaya pots in terms of their shape and decoration types correspond to the Gamovskaya vessels of the first and second groups. The closeness of the Liventsovskaya and Gamovskaya pottery suggests a cultural-genetic relationship of both sites. Possibly, a part of population of the Gamovskaya Balka Culture had migrated from the foothills to the North – into the steppes on the right bank of the Don delta – as was quite correctly supposed by S. L. Bratchenko (Братченко 1976: 127–128). From this the necessity for the arrived population to build fortresses becomes clear. And so does the statement on certain features of closeness between the fortress earthenware and the culture of multi-cylinder pottery. This statement was expressed only relative to the Liventsovskaya ware with the cylinder-decorations characteristic of a number of cultures of the Middle Bronze Age in the south of the Eastern Europe (Братченко 1976: 127–128). It is essential that in the Liventsovskaya ornamentation there is no multi-cylinder pattern of vertical “herring-bones”, triangles and “parquetry” typical to the ware belonging to the culture of multi-cylinder pottery (Братченко 1976: 124; 1985: 461). One should note certain differences between the Gamovskaya pottery and that of Liventsovskaya which may be accounted for by migration of a part of the population. The Liventsovskaya vessels more frequently are decorated with a cord ornament not peculiar to the multi-cylinder pottery culture; also, among the incised decorations there are motifs not encountered on the Gamovskaya vessels. Splashings of population out of the North-Western Caucasus to the north have been registered also for earlier periods (the Maikop Culture) and for the later ones (Kobyakovskaya Culture).

The time of rendering the grotto of Gamovskaya Balka habitable is defined by the chronological position of the Liventsovskaya fortress. The fortress is synchronous to the culture of multi-cylinder pottery (Братченко 1976: 133; charts in figs. 69; 72), i.e. to the Babinskaya Culture. This culture preceded the sites of the Pokrovsk cultural type with which the period of Late Bronze in the south of the Eastern Europe actually begins (Бочкарев 1991: 24–25; 1995: 25–27; Шарафутдинова 1993: 87-89). It is noteworthy that the Liventsovskaya fortress perished during its assault by Pokrovsk tribes whose flint arrows strewed the fortress ruins. Basing on the chronology of Pokrovsk type sites (Бочкарев 1991: 24–25; 1993: 42–43; Шарафутдинова 1995: 107) the Babinskaya Culture may be dated to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium B.C. To the same time also the Liventsovskaya fortress belongs. We suppose that the dwelling complex of canopy 1 of the Gamovskaya Balka existed during the period indicated for the culture of multi-cylinder pottery and the Liventsovskaya fortress.

Стеганцева В.Я. Относительная хронология погребений катакомбной культуры в междуречье Маныча и Сала

V. Ya. Stegantseva. Relative chronology of Catacomb Culture burials, Middle Bronze Age, in the Manych — Sal interfluve

The relative chronology of burials is espe­cially important for cultures such as Catacomb Culture that are mainly represented by burials.

Apart from direct stratigraphic observations (one burial cutting through another), signifi­cant clues can be provided by vertical stratigraphy, that is, instances where a burial is linked (by means of sections) with buried soil, burial mound or its later extensions, and hori­zontal stratigraphy, or instances where a burial made in the peripheral part of the mound is considered to be later than the central one. Having performed such an analysis, Bratchenko was able to establish a chronologi­cal sequence for Lysy burial mound excavated in I960. His scheme was used by all specialists in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age of the Lower Don and adjacent areas. Fifteen years later, archaeologists associated with the Don Expedition provided stratigraphic schemes for each mound in their reports to the Field Com­mittee (Kamenetsky 1986).

Published studies into the chronology of the Middle Bronze Age in the Lower Don re­gion encompass a large territory on which sites representing various cultures are situated. At present, these studies focus on the periodi­zation and cultural evolution of local groups (see Smirnov's studies into the Donets Cata­comb Culture and Arapov's works addressing the same culture in the Eastern Manych area).

One of the important issues in the Middle Bronze Age archaeology of the Lower Don is the relative chronology of the Manych Cata­comb Culture since its sites are often regarded as standard when Catacomb Culture sites in other areas are being studied.

In the 1970^s and 80^s, numerous mounds were excavated in the Sal — Manych steppes. Because of prolonged plowing, the mounds had been largely destroyed, but it was possible to construct stratigraphic sequences for many of them. In the present study, over 400 burials and 89 stratified mounds were registered. Buri­als were subdivided into groups according to the typology of graves. Bratchenko's classifi­cation, based on the shape of the shaft and its combination with the chamber, was used. Catacombs were subdivided into two groups. The first one includes graves in which the long axis of the chamber is larger than the width of the shaft parallel to it. In graves of the sec­ond group, these dimensions are equal or the long axis of the chamber is somewhat smaller (fig. 1; Bratchenko 1976: 20, fig. 6).

To assess the chronological relationships between these groups, we used a comparative stratigraphic method widely employed in ar­chaeology (Bochkarev 1977; Trifonov 1989, 1991; Kiyashko 1990). Data on 89 strati­graphic sequences, consisting of 2-5 stages each, were used to construct a comparative stratigraphic scheme (fig. 2) in which the tran­secting burials are arranged in the vertical fashion, and the transected ones in the hori­zontal fashion. Special attention was paid to main burials and instances of direct stratigra­phy. The analysis of this scheme makes it pos­sible to draw certain conclusions:

Type I-1 is the earliest and is preceded only by burials in pits. It is followed by all types except II-5.

Type I-2 follows I-1 and is preceded by burials in pits and those of types I-1, I-2, or, in two instances, I-3 and II-3. It is followed by nearly all types except II-5. Chronologi­cally, it follows type I-1 burials and is partly synchronous to types I-3 and II-3.

Type I-3 is preceded by burials in pits and those of types I-1, I-2, I-3, II-2, II-3, and II-5. It precedes burials of the types I-2, I-3, I-4, II-2, and II-3. Chronologically, it follows types I-1, II-5 and is synchronous only to types II-2 and II-3.

Type I-4 is the latest and is preceded by virtually all others. Only in one instance does it precede another type (II-3). This is a small group, possibly because the burial construction could not be traced in the mounds.

Types I-5 and II-6 are late and rare, each one being represented by few cases only. They are preceded only by burials in pits and those of the types I-1, I-2, and I-3.

Type II-1, too, is rare. It is preceded by pit burials and those of type II-5, and pre­cedes those of type II-3. This type is very similar to type II-2, and has been included in it.

Type II-4 is very rare (represented by 1% of the total number of burials). It is preceded by burials of types I-1, I-2, I-3, II-3, and II-4, and precedes those of types I-2, I-3, II-2, II-3, II-4, and I-4, implying that burials of this type are contemporaneous with those of types I-2, I-3, and II-3.

Type II-5 is represented by 8% of burials. It is preceded only by burials in pits or is rep­resented by the main burial. It precedes buri­als of types I-3, II-2, II-3, I-4, II-1. It may be suggested that burials of type II-5 postdate those of type I-1.

To specify the resulting sequence, a corre­lation table was constructed with types of burials, arranged as above, making up the lines, and types of burial goods making up the columns (fig. 3).

The resulting arrangement of data is step­wise, suggesting that the sequence of burials is chronological. Early types of goods, such as the Pit Grave Culture round-based ceramics, bone hammer-shaped pins, beads made of fish teeth (Sparus spondilus), do not occur in late types of catacombs. Late types of goods, such as turnip-shaped vessels, knives with notched blades, tool kits, arrow straighteners, «warty» beads, and ring-shaped pendants with discon­nected ends, are found in late types of cata­combs. However, certain goods, such as bron­ze awls (possibly because they are so stand­ard), small bronze leaf-shaped knives (because they are heavily worn), round bronze and paste beads, both simple and composite, exist over a long time. In nearly all types of cata­comb burials, braziers made of fragments of vessels are present, and censers occur in all types except the earliest ( I-1). In late types of catacombs, long-necked and turnip-shaped ves­sels typical of the Manych area co-occur with short-necked ones decorated with imprints of cord and braid.

Based on the tabulated data, coefficients of pairwise similarity between types of burials were calculated, and a graph showing the ties between them was constructed (fig. 4). The strongest ties exist between types I-3, II-2, II-3, and I-4. Ties between types II-2, II-3, and I-4 are weaker than are those between each of them and type I-3. Possibly the former three types form a homogeneous group that had originated from type I-3.

Type I-1 has a weak connection with type I-2 only. Perhaps it represents a separate group isolated from other types.

Type II-6 is connected only with type I-4, suggesting that it is the latest of all.

Type II-4 is connected with type I-4 and, in a much lesser degree, with type I-3. It must be very late.

Based on tabulated data, six chronological groups may be established (fig. 3). Group I, that of early catacomb burials common for the entire area northeast of the Black Sea, is followed by horizons with completely formed Manych-type burials and isolated finds of short-necked vessels with cord and braid im­prints (groups II, III, and IV). Burials of «ar-tisans» appear (groups III and IV). At later stages, long-necked vessels with cord and braid imprints appear (group V and VI). The amount of metal artifacts in burials decreases (group VI). In burial 12 of mound 17 at Sagvansky I, made in a small pit with a skele­ton lying in a very flexed position, a beaker ornamented with multiple braid imprints was found, which is typical of the late stage of the Donets Catacomb Culture.

On the Seversky Donets, the horizon of early catacomb burials, which Smirnov de­noted as early Catacomb pre-Donets, is fol­lowed by a horizon of the early Donets Cul­ture with completely formed assemblages with characteristically Donets beakers. At the next, late Catacomb stage, burials of so-called Manych type appear, with long-necked unor-namented and turnip-shaped vessels.

Given all the above, it may be concluded that Donets catacomb burials may be contem­poraneous with Manych catacombs. The same evolution (the early Catacomb horizon fol­lowed by the Catacomb Culture assemblages which were described as variants in the 1960^s and 70^s, viz. Donets, Manych, Bakhmut, and Azov) may also be characteristic of other ter­ritories.

Щетенко А.Я., Кутимов Ю.Г. Керамика степного облика эпохи поздней бронзы Теккем-депе (Южный Туркменистан)

Результаты многолетних работ на Теккем-депе (Щетенко 1971, 1972, 1973а, 1973б, 1983, 1984, 1985) и новый материал, полученный при изучении степных культур эпохи поздней бронзы пояса Евразийских степей, дают возможность по-новому подойти к проблеме культурной атрибуции керамики степного облика, публикуемой впервые.

Теккем-депе находится в 120 км к востоку от Ашхабада, в 4 км к юго-западу от станции Каахка Среднеазиатской железной дороги и в 1,5 км к югу от Намазга-депе (рис. 1). Овальной формы холм площадью около 2 га вытянут в меридиональном направлении (рис. 2). Его южная вершина, возвышающаяся на 5,5–6 м над окружающей равниной, соединяется с северной частью хорошо выраженной седловиной, в 40 м к северу от которой находится раскоп А.Ф. Ганялина (Ганялин 1956: 68).

Среди трех основных типов керамики Теккем-депе (столовая, хозяйственная и кухонная), изготовленной на гончарном круге, выделялась лепная посуда, в том числе и керамика степного облика, украшенная резным и штампованным орнаментом. В 1972 и 1974 гг. было учтено 2073 фрагмента и три целых формы. Столовая посуда составила 1164 экземпляров (56,1%), хозяйственная посуда и кольцевые подставки – 466 (22,5%), кухонная – 443 (21,4%). Среди лепной керамики были отобраны для сравнительного анализа 215 фрагментов и один целый горшок из помещения 53, что составляет 10% от числа всей керамики двух полевых сезонов, или 49% посуды, изготовленной способом ручной лепки.

Весь материал происходит из верхнего слоя холма мощностью 1,5–2 м, представленного остатками построек, имевщих несколько уровней обживания. На стратиграфическом раскопе 1 керамика найдена в перемешанных слоях, что связано с существованием здесь средневековых (?) могил. В южной части раскопа 2, во дворе № 4, окруженном хозяйственными постройками, в заполнении которых (№№ 31, 32, 34, 35, 41–44, 49, 51, 53, 54) найден 51 фрагмент степной керамики. В северной части раскопа 2 (рис. 5) на территории двора № 1 и среди стен построек №№ 1–9 найдено всего 9 фрагментов. В центре холма, в седловине, в заполнении помещений (№№ 10-17, 19, 20), и на полах помещений (№№ 10/11,14, 15), найдено 74 фрагмента. Треть исследуемой керамики (77 фрагментов) найдена вне помещений, в кроющем слое.

При анализе керамической посуды степного облика учитывались ее основные характеристики: способ формовки, состав теста, обработка поверхности, цвет, обжиг, форма, орнамент и размеры. Вся керамика – лепная, изготовлена методом ленточного налепа. Ширина лент – 7 см, количество оборотов – 4–5. Отпечатки материи на двух фрагментах свидетельствуют о редком применении техники матерчатого шаблона. В качестве отощителей при изготовлении глины применялись дресва (толченый мергель), кварциты (песок), шамот и органические примеси. Часто в тесте одного сосуда присутствует сочетание нескольких компонентов. В цветовой гамме поверхности сосудов преобладают темные до черноты тона, вследствие сильной закопченности. Доминируют светло-коричневый и кремовые цвета, иногда присутствуют светло-оранжевые и желтые оттенки. Обжиг – неравномерный, в изломе черепок трехслойный, с чернотой посередине. Иногда внутренняя поверхность черепка имеет более светлую окраску, нежели внешняя. Обработка наружной и внутренней поверхностей сосудов производилась заглаживанием влажной основы пальцами рук. Попадаются фрагменты без следов обработки. Лощение отсутствует.

Основной формой посуды являлись горшки вытянутых пропорций со слабо выраженным профилем и плоским дном (рис. 7 Б). Шейка у большинства экземпляров – небольшая, маловыраженная. Венчик – либо прямой, либо отогнутый наружу и имеет округлый, плоский или приостренный край. Выделяются 3 венчика особенной формы – в виде отогнутого “воротничка” (рис. 11: 6). По диаметрам венчиков намечается 4 группы сосудов: 1) горшочки –  диаметр 8-16 см ; 2) малые горшки – 18–22 см ; 3) средние горшки – 24–28 см; 4) крупные горшки или котлы – 30–36 см.

Орнамент присутствует на 82 фрагментах из 215. Выявлено 7 элементов декора. 1. Насечки – нанесены гладким заостренным или мелкозубчатым (рис. 11: 2) штампом.  В 67 случаях они украшают верхний край венчика и 7 раз – валики (рис. 10: 7,8). 2. Елочки, встреченные на шести фрагментах, представляют собой те же насечки, но расположенные под прямым углом друг к другу и образующие своего рода горизонтальную стрелку (рис. 10: 1-3). Они украшают край венчика, в одном случае елочка присутствует на шейке под валиком с насечками. 3. Жемчужины, зафиксированные на 8 фрагментах,  – небольшие круглые или овальные вмятины на венчиках и шейках сосудов (рис. 10: 4,5). 4. Прочерченные линии нанесены на 6 сосудах заостренным предметом на их шейках и плечиках, образуя подобие узора (рис. 11, 3–6). 5. Крестики из пересекающихся овальных насечек, чередующиеся с группами из трех таких же насечек, встречены однажды на верхнем крае венчика. 6. Налепные валики проходят по верхней границе плечиков 7 сосудов и украшены косым рядом резных насечек (рис. 10: 7, 8). 7. Ряд заштрихованных треугольников вершинами вниз с “бахромой” вдоль внешних  сторон (рис. 7 Б).

Керамика степного облика Теккем-депе по формам (горшки вытянутых пропорций с венчиками-"воротничками") и технологическим параметрам (способ ленточного ручного налепа, техника украшения поверхности сосудов) находит ближайшие аналогии  в керамических традициях саргаринско-алексеевской культуры (Зданович С. 1984: 81-94), датируемой серединой XII–XI вв. до н.э. (Зданович Г. 1988: 148; Аванесова 1991: 92, 94). Этим же временем, вероятно, можно датировать и основную часть керамики степного облика Теккем-депе.

От всей коллекции отличается фрагмент сосуда с треугольным орнаментом (рис. 7 Б), найденный на раскопе I на глубине 80 см от поверхности холма (Щетенко 1972: 530). Его тесто – грубой структуры с большой примесью крупных зерен дробленного камня. Обжиг – равномерный. В изломе цвет черепка – темно-оранжевый. Внутреннюю и внешнюю поверхности фрагмента покрывает дважды наносившийся ангоб. Изначально сосуд имел темно-оранжевый цвет, а затем его внешняя поверхность еще раз была покрыта ангобом светло-оранжевого оттенка, после нанесения которого поверхность загладили пальцами рук. Орнамент, украшающий верхнюю часть плечика горшка, состоит из ряда треугольников, опущенных вершинами вниз и заполненных прочерченными линиями. Вдоль их внешних сторон маленькие каплевидные углубления образуют “бахрому”. Венчик под углом 45 градусов скошен наружу и покрыт наклонными насечками. Похожий орнамент встречен на черепке, найденном у поселения Овадана (Кузьмина 1964: 145, рис. 3,1), на посуде саргаринской культуры Северного Казахстана (Зданович Г. 1988: рис. 10: 5, 20: 6). В Восточном Казахстане такая же орнаментация представлена на поселениях Канай и Усть-Нарым (Черников 1960: табл. XVII–XIX, XXVIII–XXXI).  Следовательно, фрагмент венчика с треугольным орнаментом демонстрирует сочетание в нем двух технологических традиций изготовления керамики. Форма, способ изготовления и орнаментация характерны для посуды степного населения, а покрытие сосуда ангобом и качественный обжиг в гончарной печи отражает приемы гончаров-земледельцев. Это предполагает наличие культурных контактов степного и земледельческого населения.

О времени начала этого процесса свидетельствуют два черепка (рис. 12), найденные на раскопе 1, в помещении 43 на 2 уровне пола, который стратиграфически предшествует верхнему слою Теккем-депе. Первый экземпляр представляет собой фрагмент верхней части лепного темно-серого (внутри – светло-коричневого)  горшка средней степени обжига, о чем свидетельствует темный цвет излома черепка. В тесте присутствует примесь дресвы. Внешняя поверхность черепка залощена, внутренняя содержит следы заглаживания. Реконструируемая форма – горшок с невыделенным венчиком и прямой шейкой, в нижней части которой четко выражен уступчик. Орнамент располагается под верхним краем венчика: линия неглубоких овальных вдавлений, ниже которых идут ряды косых треугольников, заполненных внутри прочерченными линиями. На уступчике, между двумя прочерченными горизонтальными линиями, нанесены ряды полукруглых вдавлений. Треугольники и линии выполнены в технике нарезки, вдавления – плоским штампом. Второй черепок аналогичен первому, но сохранился хуже. Технология изготовления, форма и орнамент этих черепков характерны для сосудов алакульского этапа андроновской культуры.

Таким образом, керамика степного облика Теккем-депе отражает несколько этапов культурных взаимоотношений земледельцев Южного Туркменистана с племенами скотоводов: ранний – алакульское время, поздний – саргарино-алексеевское.

Shchetenko A. Ya., Kutimov Yu. G. Late Bronze Age Pottery of the Steppe Type Appearance from Tekkem‑depe (South Turkmenistan)

Results of many seasons of excavation at Tekkem-depe (Щетенко 1972, 1973) and the new material obtained during study of the late Bronze Age steppe cultures in the zone of Eurasian steppes enable us to find new approach to the problem of identification of some steppe-type pottery published here for the first time.

Tekkem-depe is situated 120 km to the east of Ashkhabad and 4 km to the south-west of the Central-Asian Railroad station of Kaakhka. The site is also 1.5 km to the south of Namazga-depe (fig. 1). It is an oval hill (with an area of 2 hectares) elongated in the meridional direction (fig. 2). Its southern summit raised 5.5–6 m above the surrounding plain joins the northern part through a marked saddle; 40 km to the north of the latter the area excavated by A. F. Ganyalin (Ганялин 1956: 68) is situated.

The cultural layers of Tekkem-depe are 11 m deep. The lower 8 m contain the remains of many-room houses made of mud-bricks and dated to the early stage of Namazga VI; synchronous to the latter is the peculiar feature on the northern hill – the summit or so called “tower” of Namazga-depe (periods 5–7). After a period of desolation at Tekkem-depe, registered also on the “tower”, there existed a settlement of the late stage of Namazga VI contemporary with the settlement of the upper layers of the “tower” (1–4). On the site under discussion complexes of the late Bronze Age interrupted by periods of desolation were identified (fig. 4). These complexes contained pottery of the steppe type that found parallels in the earthenware of the main stages of the Andronovo culturo-historical communities.

Among the three main types of the Tekkem-depe pottery (table-ware, household's and cooking ware) that was mostly wheel-made one may distinguish also hand-made pottery including that of a steppe-type appearance decorated with carved and stamped ornaments. During the seasons of 1972 and 1974 there were registered 2073 fragments (rims, bases, decorated walls) and archaeologically complete shapes. The tableware (including the rare forms) amounts to 1164 items (56.1%); the household's pottery (together with circular trivets) includes 466 items (22.5%); cooking pottery is composed of 443 items (21.4%). Of those examples 215 fragments and one complete pot from room 53 – i.e. 10 percent of the total amount of the two field seasons pottery, or 49% of the hand-made pottery – have been selected for a comparative analysis.

The upper layer of the hill (it is 1.5–2 m deep) is represented by remains of constructions dated to different times and having several levels of occupation that is demonstrated in the section of the southern part of the hill (fig. 3). The location of ceramic finds of the steppe-type appearance also confirms the fact. All the studied material comes from stratigraphic area 1 situated in the southern extremity of the hill and from excavation area 2 located farther to the north and encompassing the major part of the settlement upper layer. In excavation area 1 this pottery was found in the upper mixed layers that had been disturbed by medieval graves. In area 2 pottery of the steppe-type appearance was found in three places (fig. 4). In the southern part, it comes from the fills of courtyard no. 4 and from rooms 31, 32, 34, 35, 41–44, 49, 51, 53, 54. Here 51 fragments were discovered including 20 decorated ones. In the northern part, in the area of courtyard no. 1 and in fills of constructions 1-9, in total 9 fragments were found (one decorated). In the central part of area 2 there were found 74 fragments (30 decorated). The latter fragments were in fill of rooms 10–17, 19, 20, and what is of the greatest importance – on the floors of some of the rooms (10/11, 14, 15). One third of the pottery studied (77 fragments including 31 decorated) was discovered outside the rooms, mainly in the upper layers. In the analysis of the earthenware the shaping technique, paste composition, the surface finish, colour, firing and decorations were taken into consideration. All the pottery is hand-made: produced by the band-applying technique, with the band width up to 7 cm, the number of the latter (4–5) depending on the total vessel height. In two pieces cloth imprints were used. Pounded marl, quartzites (sand), potsherd and organic admixtures were used for tempering. Occasionally combinations of the tempers were used: organics and quartz, rotten stone and quartz, potsherd and organics. In the colour gamut light-brown and cream colours, i.e. light-orange and yellow hues, prevail. The firing is irregular. The inner and outer surfaces show traces of smoothing. Polishing is lacking. The most common shape is a pot of elongated proportions, a slightly outturned profile and flat bottom. The necks are rather small and are not well pronounced; rims are either straight or out-curved and have a rounded, flat or pointed edge. Three rims have the profile of outturned ‘collar’. Four vessel groups are distinguished by their rim diameters (in cm): 1) tiny pots – 8–16; 2) small pots – 18–22; 3) medium-sized pots – 24–28; 4) large pots – 30–36.

Of the total 215 fragments 82 (37.9%) are decorated. The decorations are composed of seven major elements and cover the upper parts of the vessels – rims, shoulders, and very rarely the neck. Prevailing are slant incisions of several types (figs. 5, 6): lens-shaped ovals; ‘herring-bones’ – horizontal arrows, less often small crosses; drawn lines; ‘pearls’ – oval imprints; a row of slanting and hatched inside triangles with their apexes turned down and a ‘fringe’ along the outer sides. The patterns were made in the incising or flat stamping technique that included impressions of a fine-tooth comb. Seven of the pieces were encircled along their shoulder upper boundaries with relief cylinders of applied clay decorated with a sloping row of incisions. This Tekkem pottery in terms of its main technological features is close to the Sargarinsko-Alekseevskaya Culture ware: the prevalence of the pot shapes of elongated proportions with slightly curved body; presence of rims-‘collars’; the similar methods and techniques of making decorations; the scarcity of ornamental elements; appearance of cylinders on the shoulders (Зданович 1984: 81–94). The latter pottery is dated to the middle of the 12^th–11th centuries B.C. (Зданович 1988: 148; Аванесова 1991: 92, 94) while its early stage falls to the 13th century B.C. (Варфоломеев 1991: 18). Probably, the major part of the Tekkem-depe pottery may be also dated to the same range.

Of special interest is the upper part of a large round vessel (rim diameter 26 cm). This vessel differs in its texture and technology from the other hand-made ware (fig. 6: 6): the paste has a coarse texture and is tempered with great amount of quartz grain, mica, and organic material; the clay is regularly fired. The inner and outer surface was slipped twice: originally the vessel (inside and outside) was coloured dark-orange, then its outer surface was coated with light-orange slip. The surface was additionally smoothed with fingers. The decoration in the shoulder upper part is composed of a row of triangles (with their apexes turned down); the inner space of the triangles is filled with 10 slanting drawn lines and along the outer sides of the triangles a “fringe” is drooping – small drop-like depressions. The rim is slanting outwards at an angle of 45 degrees and decorated with slant incisions. A similar decoration was met on a sherd found near the Ovadan site (Кузмина 1964: 145, fig. 3, 1) and on the Sargarinskaya Culture ware in the Northern Kazakhstan (Зданович 1988: figs. 10, 5, 20, 6). In the Southern Kazakhstan similar decorations are represented at the settlements of Kanai and Ust-Narym (Черников 1960: tables XVII–XIX, XXVIII–XXXI). Thus the rim fragment with the triangular decoration demonstrates a combination of two technological traditions in pottery-making. The shape, the manufacturing technique and decoration are typical to the pots used by the steppe population, while slipping and high-quality firing in a pottery kiln represent the pottery technique of agricultural groups. This fact suggests the presence of cultural contacts between the steppe and agricultural populations.

Two sherds (fig. 6: 1, 2) found in room 43 of area 1 on the second floor level preceding stratigraphically the upper layer of Tekkem-depe give evidence of the initial time of the mentioned process. The first item is a fragment of the upper part of a hand-made dark-grey (light-brown inside) pot of a medium extent of firing that is indicated by the dark colour of the sherd in break. The paste includes admixtures of rotten stone. The outer surface is polished; the inner shows traces of smoothing. The reconstructed shape is a pot with a poorly pronounced rim and straight neck; in the lower part of the latter a well marked small ledge is visible. The decoration is located beneath the rim upper edge: a line of rather shallow oval impressions below which there are rows of slanting triangles hatched inside. On the ledge, between two drawn horizontal lines, there are rows of semicircular impressions. The triangles and lines are executed in carving technique; the impressions are made with a flat stamp. The second sherd is similar to the first but has not preserved so well. The manufacturing technology, shapes and decorations of these fragments are typical to the Alakul stage of the Andronovo Culture.

Thus the pottery of the steppe-type appearance from Tekkem-depe reflects several stages of the cultural relations between agricultural groups of the South Turkmenistan and cattle-breeders' tribes: the earlier pots are dated to the Alakul period, and the later – to the Sargarino-Alekseevskaya Culture time.

Паульс Е.Д. Еще раз о назначении так называемых "моделей ярма"

E. D. Pauls. So-called «yoke models» revisired

The present article focuses on the meaning of three groups of bronze artifacts found in China, Mongolia, the Trans-Baikal area, and Southern Siberia. They are known under vari­ous names, one of them being «models of yoke». In his article dealing with «models of yoke» found in China, Varenov (1984: 42—51) summarized all the views and materials rele­vant for the function of these artifacts, which have not been found outside the regions men­tioned above. In China they date to the Yin and Chou periods (1 400—600 BC). In the Minusinsk Basin they appeared ca. 1100—900 BC, at the final stage of Karasuk Culture, and continued to function during the Scythian pe­riod (Tagar Culture) until the 3-d century BC, becoming progressively smaller and eventually acquiring a different shape. While Chinese and Minusinsk specimens (figs. 1: 3) are quite simi­lar both in shape and size (most notably, in both groups the tips of the arches are mod­elled like bells), those represented on the deer stones of Mongolia and Trans-Baikal region bear just a remote resemblance to the former two groups. The date of these stelae is unclear. Most likely, they were made during the Scythian period. Objects resembling those carved on the deer stones were attached to the drums used by the Altai shamans less than a century ago (Членова 1972: Table 58).

At present, there is little doubt that «models of yoke» had the same function in China and Southern Siberia. Of the various interpre­tations concerning their purpose, two are the most oft-cited. The Chinese researchers appar­ently believed that these objects were attached to the bows (Cheng Te-k'-un 1960), an idea which was not supported by the Russian scholars, who tended to associate them with chariots (Варенов 1984; Леонтьев 1980: 82). The «chariot version» is known in two vari­ants. One is that the objects served some sym­bolic purpose, and the other one is that their function was utilitarian. The latter explanation has been lately advocated by Varenov, who believes that the objects in question were buckles which fastened the reins and were at­tached to the belt so the charioteer's hands could be left free.

So far as I know, no comments upon Varenov's idea have been made. Leaving the «symbolic» hypothesis aside (for it can be nei­ther proved nor refuted), I would say that Varenov's attempt at finding a utilitarian ex­planation to the «models» appears to be jus­tified. Indeed, the objects discussed are mas­sive and standard in size, and on some of the Karasuk specimens unmistakable traces of wear are present. All this attests to a utilitar­ian function.

None of the versions suggested, however, may apply to the artifacts carved on the deer stones. Moreover, the bronze specimen found by Sosnovsky east of Baikal, being identical to those on the stelae in terms of shape, is too massive to have functioned in a way sug­gested by Varenov (Гришин 1981: 29—131). Maybe the Mongolian specimens should not be associated with those from China and Southern Siberia? But all of them were at­tached to the front part of the belt, and their shape, too, is similar. What, then, might the explanation be? Could the advocates of the «symbolic hypothesis» be right after all?

Regrettably, most scholars appear to have analyzed the representations of these artifacts rather than looking at the artifacts themselves. One can't avoid the impression that the writ­ers never held the alleged «models of yoke» in their hands. This does not in the least apply to Chinese researchers, who certainly do have this possibility. As to their Russian colleagues, the only one of them to have had a closer look at these objects is Khlobystina, the author of the only Russian article in which they are discussed in detail with regard to the Karasuk group (Хлобыстина 1970: 190). However, Khlobystina's interpretation is inac­curate in one important respect. Having virtu­ally admitted that the «bow version» suggested by Chinese writers is the most plausible one, she makes a step back saying that this idea is contradicted by the fact that the so-called «hooves» on the tips of the branches are not crumpled as they allegedly should be if the ob­jects were parts of the bows. Despite being evi­dently irrelevant (can wood really crumple bronze?), this remark was uncritically accepted by other writers and taken to disprove the «bow hypothesis». Varenov, too, cites Khlobystina's view. However, on those speci­mens which have signs of wear, the tips of the branches are bent, and the areas where they might have touched the wooden part of the bow are polished. In such specimens the degree to which the branches are bent is different. Also, some arches, despite being massive, are broken exactly in the middle, attesting to the stress to which the lateral parts were subjected. The final observation is that in many speci­mens, regardless of presence or absence of traces of wear, the insides of the arches have sharp cutting edges which had not been re­moved after casting. The latter fact contradicts Varenov's interpretation since these edges would have rapidly destroyed the reins.

Concerning the central plank, it is incon­ceivable how the previous scholars could fail to notice a simple fact: in virtually all speci­mens, the width of this plank varies within the breadth of an adult human palm. In some cases, the outer surface of the plank is orna­mented with the same design as that which covers the hilts of some bent knives. On the outer side of the plank there are always either pegs or lugs for attaching. Notably, even if these were cast from the inside rather than from the outside of the plank, the latter is shaped like a trough with lugs embedded in it. Finally, in all cases, the cross-section of the inside of the central plank is arch-shaped.

Given all the above, I would suggest a mental experiment: one must think of attach­ing an object, round in section, to the central plank, then taking the entire construction and applying considerable force to the tips of the branches. Thinking of objects that might sat­isfy these conditions around 1000 BC, one can't avoid the conclusion that the object in question could have been none other than a bow. So the idea that the bronze artifacts dis­cussed here were indeed attached to bows ap­pears plausible. Certain doubts do remain, though. First, how should these metal addi­tions enhance the quality of the bows? Second, such a simple function does not agree with the fact that these objects are very elegant and difficult to cast. Third, it is not clear why they are found near the belt of the deceased since the grave could not accomodate the entire bow in this position. Also, in Karasuk burials, the objects in question never co-occur with ar­rowheads. Finally, the explanation suggested does not account for the Mongolian speci­mens. The «bow version» supported by the Chinese scholars, then, cannot be unreservedly supported.

The hypothesis that I am going to outline is based on the Chinese myth about the archer named Yi (Юань Ке 1987: 139—164; Рифтин 1987: 407). The parallel is all the more war­ranted since the distribution areas of the myth and of the objects in question partly overlap. What specifically concerns us here is the part of the myth where Yi kills the suns by shoot­ing arrows at them. Perhaps the late record of the myth contains the recollection of an an­cient rite performed by certain persons who, judging by the nature of the finds, were en­dowed with both secular and magical power. If so, it may be suggested that the actual rite aimed at combatting draught by shooting ar­rows at the sun eventually evolved into a myth about the heroic archer Yi. This would explain both the elegance of these objects and the fact that they were worn on the belt (being the attributes of priests). It follows that they were attached to the bows only during the rite. The bow mentioned in the myth is red, as is the bronze of which the mysterious artifacts are made. Finally the number of ar­rowheads in some graves of Anyang is ten, the same as the number of white arrows which the Supreme Ruler gives to Yi together with the red bow.

After having been introduced to Minusinsk Basin by some migrants, this rite could have survived there for a long time given the arid climate of the region. The absence of arrow­heads in Karasuk graves may be explained by the assumption that «white arrows» mentioned in the myth were merely withes. Contrary to

China, people who performed this rite in Sibe­ria may not have combined temporal and re­ligious functions, the more so that the inven­tory of Karasuk burials, except the weapons, does not indicate that marked social differen­tiation existed.

As mentioned above, it is unclear when the deer stones first appeared, but in broad terms, they evidently date to the Scythian period. Mongolian and Baikalian specimens must be younger than those from China and Minus­insk. In Mongolia, they were apparently no longer attached to the bows but merely sym­bolized the power over the world of spirits (according to the myth, Yi becomes the ruler of the other world after his death).

Late Tagar specimens (fig. 1: 4) are doubt­less symbolic. Their tips are often shaped like heads of ungulate animals. This agrees with their solar symbolism, and the same applies to representations on the shamanic drums from Altai.

It may be tentatively suggested, then, that the mysterious objects in question were attrib­utes of the «shamans». While in China and Minusinsk (during the Karasuk period) they were actually attached to bows, their function was only symbolic in Mongolia. Because they could hardly been used frequently anyway, the issue of technical efficiency is irrelevant. If our interpretation is correct, the many-pointed star represented on the outside of the specimens from China is also understandable. It is ap­parently not incidental that points of the branches are shaped like bells, but so far I am unable to explain that. The hypothesis sug­gested here provides a single explanation for all the groups of mysterious objects and seems to open up a prospect for future studies.

Килуновская М.Е., Семенов Вл. А. Оленные камни Тувы (часть 2. Сюжеты, стиль, семантика)

Оленные камни входят неотъемлемой частью в изобразительные комплексы, существующие в Центральной Азии на ранних этапах становления и развития скифо-сибирского звериного стиля (Килуновская 1994: 13–16). Эти комплексы характеризуются стилистической традицией, прослеживающейся как в оформлении самих стел, так и воспроизводимых на них сюжетах, особенно образов животных — оленей, кабанов, коней. козлов, баранов, хищников и др. Можно выделить 4 класса изображений животных на оленных камнях (под “классом” мы понимаем совокупность изображений, связанных одной изобразительной традицией; класс объединяет разные типы, характеризующие образы).

Первый класс (рис. 4) составляют изображения животных, выполненные широким контуром и отличающиеся четкостью и изяществом рисунка. У животных плавными линиями передано туловище. Переход живота в бедро показан приостренным контуром, либо плавной линией. В основе моделировки тела животного лежит S-овидная линия. На спине показывается треугольная или приостренная холка. Звери изображены стоящими на прямых ногах с выделенным коленным суставом и приостренными копытами. Такими чертами наделены рисунки оленей 1 типа, козлов 1 типа, кабанов 1 типа, лошади с Самагалтайского камня, то есть фигуры с Чаргинского, Аржанского и Самагалтайского камней. В других регионах подобные изображения на оленных камнях не известны.

Изображения 2 класса (рис. 5) выполнены в силуэтной технике. Для них также характерна плавность и четкость рисунка. По рисунку и в деталях они совпадают с изображениями 1 класса. Для них характерно преобладание S-овидных элементов в моделировке линий, поджарость корпуса, длинные стройные ноги с проработанными копытами, подогнутые под брюхо или вытянутые, свисающие от туловища (“на кончиках копыт”), реалистично переданные морды (для копытных – лосиноподобные), поднятые вверх. К таким изображениям относятся фигуры оленей 2 типа, козлов 2 типа, кабанов 2 типа, лошадей 2 типа. Эти изображения встречаются на камнях: Туранском, Орзак-Аксы, Уюк-Аржан, Втором Чаргинском, валунах из Улуг-Хорума. Аналогии им есть среди рисунков на оленных камнях Монголии (Волков 1981: рис. 31, 34, 69, 70, 92). Однако тувинские изображения отличаются четкостью рисунка, вытянутостью фигур, стройностью ног, плавностью линий, ровностью края выбивки. Они выполнены более тщательно, с большим мастерством.

Третий класс (рис. 6) – это стилизованные изображения, в которых животные утрачивают натуралистические черты – у оленей удлиняется морда и становится похожей на птичий клюв, тело тоже вытягивается, показывается большой треугольный горб (образующийся в месте соединения двух S-овидных линий), рог становится чрезмерно большим и извивается вдоль всей спины (иногда его нет совсем), ноги часто не воспроизводятся. Хищники изображаются свернувшимися в кольцо или скребущими. Туловища у них непропорционально удлинены, как и шеи, для образования круга или полукруга. В этот класс входят изображения оленей с клювовидными мордами 3 типа, кабанов с подогнутыми ногами 3 типа, лошадей 2 типа (это скорей изображения куланов) и хищников. Они характерны для оленных камней 2 типа – Эрзинского, с оз.Белое, Большой Ажик, ур.Чингатаг, Кош-Пейского, Уюк-Тарлак. Аналогий таким изображениям много – они представлены на камнях монголо-забайкальского типа, найденных в Монголии, Забайкалье и на Алтае. Тувинские изображения можно считать вторичными по отношению к монгольским образцам. У них чаще всего нет рогов, морды не столь удлинены и т.п. К третьему классу можно отнести фигуры хищников на Чаргинском камне, выполненные очень схематично. Фигуры оленей с этого камня, несмотря на грубость выбивки принадлежат к 1 классу. Следовательно, камень сочетает в себе черты обоих классов, но в тоже время представляет собой особенный памятник, рисунки на котором выполнены в манере наскальных изображений.

Рисунки четвертого класса характеризуются меньшей стилизацией, чем третьего – они сочетают в себе черты первых двух “реалистичных” классов и третьего (стилизованных изображений) (рис. 7). У оленей – клювовидные морды, но не столь вытянуты, ноги короткие или подогнутые под брюхо, фигура поджарая (3 тип). Такие рисунки представлены на третьем типе оленных камней (Сушинском, с р.Элегест, у пос.Самагалтай). Лошадь подобного типа выбита на Кош-Пейском камне, сочетающем в себе черты стел всех трех типов. Аналогии рисункам четвертого класса представлены на Алтае и в Монголии.

Различия в оформлении фигур животных на оленных камнях обусловлены не только хронологией, но и существованием в предскифское время в Центральной Азии нескольких изобразительных канонов (окуневского, карасукского), на основе которых складывался определенный вариант скифо-сибирского звериного стиля. Однако можно выделить общие стилистические признаки изображений на оленных камнях, находящие соответствия в других категориях изобразительного творчества и составляющие понятие скифо-сибирского звериного стиля. “Скифский” звериный стиль характеризуется замкнутым и очень пластичным построением изображений. Стремление к декоративности приводит к деформации фигур. Изображения обладают внутренней ярко выраженной динамикой, хотя некоторые из них и передаются в статичных позах. Эта экспрессия достигается упругостью линий, очерчивающих внешний контур рисунка. В основе построения раннескифских фигур лежит S-овидная линия, повторяющаяся в изображении несколько раз: линия, моделирующая нижнюю часть туловища, острым углом переходит в бедро и заднюю ногу с выделенным коленным суставом, линия шеи, переходящая в лопатку, линия спины состоит из двух S-овидных линий, в месте соприкосновения которых образуется треугольный выступ (рис. 5). Так создаются изображения и копытных, и хищников. Затем они дополняются различными видовыми признаками, которые передаются орнаментальными элементами: глаз – круг; ухо – листовидное или треугольное; оленьи рога – волнистая линия, образующаяся из соединения полукругов или серповидных фигур; козий рог – полукруг, бараний – спираль и т.д.

Для изображений 3 класса характерна высокая степень стилизации, когда животные практически утрачивают свой реалистический облик. Это обусловлено тем, что животные здесь подчиняются определенной изобразительной конструкции, а часто и изобразительной композиции. Так, изображая оленей, мастер вписывает их друг в друга для создания орнаментального поля оленного камня, а фигуры хищников сворачивает в круг или даже в спираль. Это нарушает естественные пропорции: тела и шеи удлиняются, ноги уменьшаются или отсутствуют и т.д. Такая манера вписывания одной фигуры в другую характерна и для некоторых произведений мелкой пластики: костяных пластин, гребней и др. Здесь также изменяются естественные пропорции тел животных, они передаются в неестественных позах, применяется метод инверсии — поворот частей тела вокруг своей оси, чередование прямых и зеркальнообразных элементов (рис. 6).

Важным признаком скифского стиля является воспроизведение копытных животных в канонизированных позах: с подогнутыми под брюхо ногами и с прямыми, свисающими вниз ногами. На ранних этапах характерно изображение животных в обеих позах с высоко поднятой головой. Они как бы трубят, пасть приоткрыта. У оленей, баранов и козлов морда сильно расширяется на конце и напоминает морду лося. У кабанов голова тоже приподнята и животное смотрит вперед. Такая манера передачи образов характерна для 1 и 2 классов изображений на оленных камнях.

Таким образом, изображения животных на оленных камнях могут быть отнесены к раннескифскому времени по некоторым стилистическим признакам: 1 – замкнутое построение фигуры с помощью S-овидных линий; 2 – использование геометризированных модулей для передачи деталей рисунка — кругов, треугольников, листовидных форм, серповидных линий; 3 – изящество, собранность, лаконичность образов без излишней декорированности, высокая степень стилизации проявляется в основном во внешнем контуре рисунка (одно из проявлений этой стилизации – треугольный выступ на спине); 4 – животные представлены в канонизированных позах (копытные с подогнутыми и прямыми ногами, хищники свернувшиеся в кольцо или скребущие); 5 – определенный набор образов (олени, козлы, бараны, лошади, кабаны, хищники).

Звери воспроизводятся на оленных камнях обычно в средней зоне – над линией пояса и изредка под поясом. Они не являются неотъемлемым атрибутом всех оленных камней (группа камней без изображений даже многочисленнее, чем с таковыми).  В некоторых случаях фигуры зверей дополняют и раскрывают тот семиотический код, воплощением которого является оленный камень.  Они украшают более крупные и выразительные стелы. Животные на камне располагаются в определенной последовательности друг под другом (лишь изредка друг за другом – Чаргинский камень). Здесь применяется прием простейшей аллитерационной композиции – повторения. Очень часто рисунки похожи и совпадают по размерам. Построение одинаковых элементов усиливает их воздействие и смысловую значимость. Иногда фигуры вписываются друг в друга. Камень приобретает пышный декор, подчеркивающий его фантастический “космический” облик.

Образ оленя тесно связан с оленными камнями и с представленной на них картиной Мира. Олень является полисемантическим символом. С одной стороны, он связан со средним миром (как символ умирающей и возрождающейся природы, как жертва), а с другой – с верхним, как солнечное или небесное существо (Килуновская 1987, 1990; Килуновская, Семенов 1993). Разную семантическую нагрузку могут нести рисунки “реалистических” оленей с подогнутыми и вытянутыми ногами и оленей с клювовидными мордами. В первой манере с подогнутыми и прямыми ногами изображаются не только олени, но и лошади, и бараны, и козлы. Здесь, видимо, важен не столько вид животного, сколь его поза. Нужно отметить, что в природе у копытных не бывает такого положения ног, которое мы видим в изображениях. Обе позы могут интерпретироваться как жертвенные (Савинов 1987, 1990). Олень, козел, баран и конь заменяют друг друга и символизируют жертву, являющуюся отправной точкой, необходимой для создания и поддержания мирового порядка. Поскольку скифский пантеон божеств имеет зооморфное воплощение и каждое животное является носителем божественного фарна, то каждый образ зверя несет свою семантическую нагрузку. На оленном камне животные являются координаторами при создании модели мира. Так, в образе оленя, предстающего перед нами в жертвенных позах, могло воплотиться представление о воскресающем и умирающем божестве, главным атрибутом которого являются рога, они же Древо жизни, по которым весной течет кровь, а зимой они отпадают (Килуновская 1990: 12). В завитках рогов на оленных камнях иногда изображают других животных. С представлением о Мировом древе связан и образ коня, так в индийской мифологии мировое древо ашвадха – это лошадиная стоянка.

В фигурах оленя с клювовидной мордой подчеркнуто игнорируется положение ног. Здесь воплощается птицеподобная, крылатая сущность образа. Перед нами фантастическое существо – птица-олень-конь, которую Д.С. Дугаров предлагает соотнести с бурятским “загалмай”, связанным с культом бога творца и громовержца Айы, корни которого очень убедительно прослежены в скифскую эпоху (Дугаров 1991).

Kilunovskaya M.E., Semenov Vl. A. Deer stones in Tuva

The ‘deer stones’ represent an integral part of the art complexes that existed in the Central Asia at the early stages of the formation and development of the Scytho-Siberian animal style (Килуновская 1994: 13–16). These complexes are characterised by a stylistic tradition that may be traced both in the design of the stelae in general and in the subjects represented on the latter – especially in representations of animals – deer, wild boars, he-goats, rams, predators etc. One may single out four classes of animal representations on the deer stones (the authors mean under a ‘class’ the totality of representations united by a single art tradition; a class unites different types of images).

The first class (fig. 4) includes animal representations executed in a wide outline and distinguished by clearness and subtlety of their design. The bodies of animals are rendered in smooth lines. The transition between the belly and hip is shown either with a pointed outline or smooth line. The modelling of the animal's body is based on a S-shaped line. On the back a triangular or pointed withers are shown. The beasts are represented as standing on straight legs with a strongly marked knee-joints and pointed hooves. Such features belong to drawings of type 1 deer, type 1 goats, type 1 wild boars, of the horse on the Samagaltay Stone, i.e. to the figures on the Charginskiy, Arzhan and Samagaltay stones. In other regions similar representations have not been registered.

The representations of the second class (fig. 5) are executed in a silhouette technique. In their design and details these representations are identical to those of the first class. The images are characterised by prevailing S-shaped elements in the line modelling, leanness of the torso, long slender legs with carefully executed hoofs, the legs being either tucked under their bellies or stretched – drooping from the body (“as upon the hoof tips”); their realistically rendered muzzles (the elk-like ones by hooved animals) are raised upwards. Such representations include deer of type 2, type 2 goats, and type 2 horses. Such representations have been found on the stones: of Turan, Orzak-Aksy, Uyuk-Arzhan, the Second Charginskiy Stone, and on the boulders from Ulug-Khorum. One finds parallels among drawings on deer stones of Mongolia (Volkov 1981: figs. 31, 34, 69, 70, 92). However, the representations from Tuva are distinguished by the clearness of their patterns, strongly elongated figures, slenderness of their legs, line smoothness, and by very evenly struck edges. They are executed more carefully and with a great skill.

The third class (fig. 6) includes stylized representations in which the animals loose their naturalistic features – deer have their muzzles more elongated and acquiring likeness to a bird's beak; their bodies also become more elongated, a large triangular hump (formed in the junction of two S-shaped lines) appears; the horns become excessively large and winding along the whole back (however, sometimes the horn is totally absent); the legs often are not represented. The predators are depicted either as coiled up or as clawing. Their bodies are elongated out of proportion, as also are their necks, to form a circle or semicircle. This class includes representations of deer with beak-like muzzles of type 3, type 3 wild boars with tucked in legs, horses of type 2 (that more probably are representations of koulans), and predators. These images are characteristic of deer stones of the second type – the Erzinskiy one, that from Lake Beloe, Bolshoy Azhik, Urochishche-Chingatag, Kosh-Peyskiy, Uyuk-Tarlak. There are numerous parallels to such representations including those on the stones found in Mongolia, Trans-Baikal regions and in Altai. The representations from Tuva may be considered as the secondary ones as related to the examples from Mongolia. The former have no horns, their muzzles are not so elongated, etc. One may assign to the third class the figures of predators on the Charginskiy Stone executed in a very rough manner. The deer on this stone notwithstanding the roughness of their cutting belong to the first class. Thus, the stone combines features of both classes but at the same time it is a peculiar work with drawings executed in the rock art manner.

The drawings of the fourth class are characterised by a lesser degree of stylization than by the third class – they are combining features of the both “realistic” classes and of the third class comprising the stylized images (fig. 7). The deer have the beak-like muzzles but the latter are not so much elongated, their legs are short or tucked under the belly; the figures are lean (type 3). Similar drawings are represented on the third type deer stones (the Sushinskiy Stone, those from the Elegest River and from the village of Samagaltay). A horse of a similar type is struck on the Kosh-Peyskiy Stone that combines features of all three types. Parallels to the drawings of the fourth type are found in Altai and Mongolia.

The differences in the design of animal figures on the deer stones are due not only to the chronological reasons but also to the existence of a number of art canons (the Okunevskiy, the Karasuk) in the Central Asia in the ante-Scythian period. Those canons lay in the base of the formation of a definite variant of the Scytho-Siberian animal style. However, one may identify general stylistic features of the deer-stone representations corresponding to other categories of graphic arts and composing the idea of the Scytho-Siberian animal style. The “Scythian” animal style is characterised by a closed and extremely plastic design of the representations. The tendency to pronouncements for effect resulted in deformation of the figures. The representations possess an inner vivid dynamics although some of them are rendered in static postures. This expression is achieved due to the elasticity of the outlines of the pattern. The base of the drawing in the early Scythian figures is formed by a S-shaped line repeated several times: the line modelling the lower part of the body makes an acute angle transition into hips and a hind leg with a marked knee-joint; the neck-line makes a transition into the shoulder-blade; the line showing the back is composed of two S-shaped lines in the junction of which a triangular bulge is formed (fig. 5). The representations of ungulate animals and predators were originally created in this manner. Then these representations were complimented with various specific features rendered in ornamental elements: eye – a circle; ear – a leaf or triangle; antlers – an undulated line formed by combination of semicircles or crescent-shaped figures; goat-horns – a semicircle; ram-horn – a spiral, etc.

To representations of the third class a high degree of stylization is peculiar the animals losing almost completely their realistic appearance. This is due to the fact that the animals are constrained here to a certain figurative order and often to some graphic composition. Thus when depicting deer the artist inserts them one into another to create the ornamental field of the deer stone and he coils the predators’ figures into a circle or even a spiral. This distorts the natural proportions of the animals: their bodies and necks become elongated their legs being shortened or lacking at all, etc. A similar manner of inserting figures one into another is characteristic also to some objects of small plastic arts: bone plates, combs, etc. Here, the natural body proportions of the animals change too: the latter are rendered in unnatural postures and an inversion technique is used – rotation of body parts around their axis and alternation of straight and mirror-like elements (fig. 6).

An important feature of the Scythian style is the representation of hooved animals in canonised postures: with legs tucked under their bellies and with straight and hanging down legs. At the early stages, depicting animals in both poses with their heads raised high was typical. They look as if they are trumpeting and their muzzles are partly opened. Deer, rams and goats have their muzzles strongly widened at the end and resemble elk's muzzle. Boars also have their heads raised and are facing forwards. Such a manner of rendering images is typical to the 1st and 2nd classes of deer-stone representations.

Thus, according to certain stylistic features, animal representations on the deer stones may be dated to the early Scythian period: 1 – a closed design of a figure using S-shaped lines; 2 – the use of geometrical modules for rendering the pattern details – circles, triangles, leaf-like figures, and crescent-shaped lines; 3 – refinement, compactness and laconicism of the images devoid of superfluously decorative character, the high degree of stylization appearing mainly in the outer contour of the drawing (one of the manifestations of this stylization is the triangular protuberance on the back); 4 – the animals are represented in canonised poses (the hooved animals with their legs tucked in or straight; the predators coiled into a circle or clawing); 5 – a limited set of images (deer, he-goats, rams, horses, boars, and predators).

Animals are represented on the deer stones most commonly in the central zones of the latter – above the belt line and, occasionally, beneath it. It is not an indispensable attribute of all deer stones (the group of stones without such representations is even more numerous than that possessing them). In some cases the animal figures are complimenting and disclosing that semiotic code which is embodied in deer stone. The largest and most expressive stelae are decorated with these figures. Animals on the stones are disposed in a definite sequence one beneath another (and only rarely one after another – the Charginskiy Stone). Here, the technique of the simplest alliteration composition – repetition – is applied. Very commonly the drawings resemble each other and are of equal sizes. Ordering of similar elements emphasises their effect and semantic significance. Occasionally the figures are inserted one into another. The stone acquires a rich decoration that stresses its fantastic “cosmic” appearance.

The image of deer is closely connected to deer stones and to the World picture represented on them. Deer is a polysemantic symbol. On the one hand, it is connected with the Middle World (in the capacity of sacrifice it is a symbol of the dying and resurrecting Nature), on the other hand it is connected with the Upper World as a solar or celestial being (Килуновская 1987, 1990; Килуновская, Семенов 1993). The drawings of the “realistic” deer with tucked in and stretched legs and deer with the beak-like muzzles may bear different semantic contents. In the former manner of the tucked in and straight legs, not only deer but also horses, rams, and he-goats were represented. Here, not so much the animal species as its pose seems to have been of importance. It should be noted that naturally one does not encounter such posture of legs as we can see in the representations. Both poses may be interpreted as sacrificial (Савинов 1987, 1990). The deer, goats, rams or horses substitute each other and symbolise a sacrifice that is the initial point indispensable for the creation and maintenance of the World Order. Since the Scythian Pantheon has a zoomorphic personification and each animal is a bearer of the divine pharn therefore each animal's image is bearing its own semantic content. On the deer stones, the animals are the coordinators in the creation of the World Order. Thus, in the deer images that appear before us in sacrificial poses, a conception of some dying and resurrecting deity may have been embodied. Horns are the main attribute of this deity and simultaneously these horns represent the Tree of Life, blood flowing in them in spring while in winter they fall away (Килуновская 1990: 12). Inside the horn volutes on the deer stones other animals occasionally were represented. The image of a horse also is connected to the World Tree, thus in the Indian mythology the World Tree – ashvadha – is a horse site.

In the figures of deer with beak-like muzzles the position of legs is markedly disregarded. Here, the bird-like winged essence of the image is embodied. We see a fantastic being – a bird-deer-horse that according to D. S. Dugarov's proposal may be related to the Buryatian ‘zagalmay’ connected to the cult of Ayna – God the Creator and Thunderer – whose origin has been convincingly traced back to the Scythian time (Дугаров 1991).

Денисова В.И. Горгонейон-скифос из Ольвии

V. I. Denisova. Gorgoneion skyphos from Olbia

In 1987, during the archaeological excava­tions in the central part of Olbia, fragments of a blade-figured skyphos with a gorgoneion (fig. 1) were found together with fragments of other 6^th—5^th century BC black and plain wares in a pit. Freyer-Schauenburg (1970), who published a group of similar vessels, de­scribed them as gorgoneion skyphoi. Having examined twelve skyphoi, both intact and fragmented, from various museum collections, mostly unpublished, Freyer-Schauenburg con­cluded that ten of them had been decorated by one single painter whose artistic skill was gradually decreasing. Proceeding from this assumption, Freyer-Schauenburg arranged the skyphoi in what she believed to be a chrono­logical sequence. According to her view, seven skyphoi (1970: № 1—6, 8) with a similar type of gorgoneion (fig. 3) were the earliest. The allegedly latest ones were two vessels (1970: № 7, 11). One of them is a specimen from Odessos (Tonceva 1967: 165, fig. 11), with a gorgoneion broadly similar to that painted on the seven specimens mentioned above. A row of tongues in the lower part of the body and a sort of double black-glazed palmette below the handle (decorative elements present on the Odessos skyphos but absent on the remaining seven skyphoi) were mentioned by Freyer-Schauenburg as criteria relevant for distin­guishing late gorgoneion skyphoi from those which were allegedly characteristic of the hey­day of the same painter's artistic career. Its turning point, in her view, was marked by a fragment of a gorgoneion skyphos from the National Museum of Warsaw (1970: № 12) which, in Freyer-Schauenburg's classification, links seven «early» with two «late» gorgoneion skyphoi.

Later, Freyer-Schauenburg supplemented her typochronological series by having pub­lished three more gorgoneion skyphoi (1976). In her opinion, two of these are early, and the third one, from Paestum, is late and contem­poraneous with the Odessos specimen. How­ever, Freyer-Schauenburg has neglected differ­ences in the decoration of the lower part of these two skyphoi. Specifically, one from Odessos has the row tongues which, according to Freyer-Schauenburg, is a late feature. On the Paestum specimen, this part bears black encircling bands which Freyer-Schauenburg previously believed to be early. Apart from this discrepancy, the skyphos from the Na­tional Museum of Warsaw, too, is inconsistent with her classification.

In terms of iconography, the Gorgo masks on these skyphoi are indeed very similar. However, the nature of the differences should have prompted Freyer-Schauenburg to search for an alternative explanation.

Scheffer (1986) was doubtless right that the skyphoi listed by Freyer-Schauenburg was not the work of one single painter, but, rather, two different hands. Having added four more gorgoneion skyphoi to the series, Scheffer at­tributed twelve of them (a group she referred to as Paris-Boston-Copenhagen) to one artist (fig. 3 shows one sample of this group). Four skyphoi were said to have been painted by an­other draftsman and referred to as Kassel group, which consists of a vessel from the Kassel Museum (fig. 4) and similar specimens from Odessos and Paestum. Essentially, Schef­fer subdivided Freyer-Schauenburg' series into two independent parts: while her Paris-Boston-Copenhagen group includes skyphoi which Freyer-Schauenburg believed to be the painter's early works, the Kassel group com­prises allegedly late works of the same master.

Having convincingly demonstrated that the skyphoi were painted by two artists, Scheffer faced some difficulties when trying to attribute the Warsaw skyphos. As noted above, Freyer-Schauenburg regarded it as intermediate be­tween «early» and «late» works of the same painter. Scheffer joined the Warsaw specimen, which, as far as the gorgoneion is concerned, is similar to both groups, to the Paris-Boston-Copenhagen group and suggested that both painters worked in close contact and were able to share their artistic techniques.

This part of Scheffer's reasoning is uncon­vincing and needs to be modified. Indeed, an un­biased examination of the gorgoneion on the skyphos from the National Museum of Warsaw (Freyer-Schauenburg 1970: № 12) demonstrates that it was painted by a third painter.

One more artist, the fourth one, had deco­rated a skyphos from Olbia published in the present article (fig. 1). The peculiarity of his manner is evident when the gorgoneion is compared with those of the Paris-Boston-Co­penhagen group (fig. 3) and the Kassel group (fig- 4).

As more and more vessels of this kind are published, new painters will certainly be iden­tified, as evidenced by two gorgoneion skyphoi published by Freyer-Schauenburg (1970: №№ 9, 10). They have not been included in her typo-chronological sequence because of appar­ent differences in the way in which the gor­goneion is rendered.

Freyer-Schauenburg has dated the earliest Gorgo skyphoi of her series to 530 BC, and the latest ones to early last quarter of the 6^th century BC (1970: 27). Scheffer, who rejected this classification, accepted all the dates sug­gested by Freyer-Schauenburg. This part of Freyer-Schauenburg's work, then, requires spe­cial attention.

Because in terms of shape, the gorgoneion skyphoi belong to «Ure's class of skyphoi A-I», Freyer-Schauenburg used the date sug­gested by A. Ure for similar skyphoi from Ritzona (Ure P. N. /Ed. 1927: 58). It should be noted, however, that the evolution of Attic black-figured skyphoi is far from being com­pletely understood. Specifically, the position of the skyphoi of types A-1 and A-2 of Ure's classification, which differ in the shape of the rim, is not clear. The dates of this group sug­gested by modern authours are largely based on a date which A. Ure and P. Ure proposed for burial 31 of the Ritzona necropolis more than seventy years ago and which appears far too early: 530 BC. This date was used by A. Ure in her classification.

Having accepted 530 BC for burial 31 as a starting point for dating the gorgoneion skyphoi, Freyer-Schauenburg failed to mention that this date had engendered some debate. Haspels, based oh vessels found in this burial, dated it to 500—490 BC (Haspels 1937: 108, 110; Haspels 1938: 237). A. Ure and P. Ure, who initially rejected this date without having provided any alternative evidence, more re­cently based this date themselves (A. Ure 1937: 265; 1963: 18; P. Ure 1950: 500). In the first publication of finds from the necropolis of Ritzona, burial 31 was dated to late 6^th cen­tury BC (Burrows, Ure 1907-1908: 307). Clearly, the date of the burial established on the basis of the latest vessels found in it is a terminus ante quern for other artifacts in the same assemblage.

The date of the skyphos painted by the the Camel Painter (530 BC), to which Freyer-Schauenburg also refers, is somewhat problem­atic since it was established on the basis of stylistic criteria of the painting. In any event, as regards the gorgoneoin skyphoi, this date may only be used as a terminus post quem.

Using chronological indicators such as the date of the skyphos painted by the Camel Painter (530 BC) and that of the burial 31 at Ritzona (500—490 BC), one can define the pe­riod when A-1 type skyphoi were in use. No­tably, there is no reason whatever to suggest that all gorgoneion skyphoi were exactly con­temporaneous, although it is beyond doubt that they were made during that period. Let us try and specify their dates.

Although the painting is not of primary importance in this respect, it does provide some clues. The Olbia skyphos published by us bears an representation of a dolphin below the handle (fig. 1). Other specimens with this emblem include a bowl with the potter's name, Nikosthenes (Beazley 1956: 231, 8), and bowls of the group Vatican G. 66 (Beazley 1956: 206). A dolphin was a common emblem on bowls of the Leafless group, specifically those made by the Caylus Painter (Beazley 1956: 632 ff. ). It is also present on certain skyphoi which, however, differ from the gorgoneion skyphoi in rim shape. They include a skyphos from Castellani which J. Beazley attributed to «Ure's class of skyphoi A2» (Beazley 1971: 91, 11), and two skyphoi, № 172 and 173, from burial 31 of the Ritzona necropolis (Burrows, Ure 1907—08: 276). A. Ure included skyphoi Ms 172 and 173 in class B of her classification and dated them to ca. 530 BC according to the alleged date of burial 31 (Ure P. N. /Ed. 1927: 59). Information concerning the date of burial 31 was presented above. Haspels attrib­uted these skyphoi to the production of the «White Heron» workshop and dated them to ca. 500 BC (Haspels 1937: 108, 110). Much later, A. Ure published an article in which these two skyphoi were included in the Krok­otos group which she again dated on the basis of her much too high date of burial 31. Leav­ing the latter aside, these examples suggest that black-figured vessels (bowls and skyphoi) with the dolphin emblem date from the period spanning two final decades of the 6^th century BC and early 5^th century, most of them tend­ing toward the latter date. Interestingly, the decoration of the interior of the Olbia skyphos (fig. 1) is identical to that of skyphoi. № 172 and 173 from burial 31 (Ure P. N. /Ed. 1927: 59): the entire inner surface is black except for a round medaillon in the middle of the bottom and a narrow strip below the rim, both of which had been left unpainted and preserve the natural colour of the clay. The inner sur­face of the skyphos painted by some draftsman associated with the «White Heron» workshop (Mercklin 1943) and close to the circle of the Theseus Painter (Beazley 1956: 521) is deco­rated in a similar way, and a winged dolphin is represented below each handle of this vessel.

In our opinion, all these parallels suggest that the gorgoneion skyphos from Olbia dates from the last decade of the 6th century. The artistic colourful manner in which the gor­goneion is represented and a careless bold drawing is fully consistent with this date.

We conclude that the dates of gorgoneion skyphoi suggested by Freyer-Schauenburg are too high. The iconographic and stylistic charac­teristics of the Olbia skyphos, of the Paris-Bos­ton-Copenhagen group, and of the specimen from the National Museum of Warsaw are so close that all these vessels may be regarded as the production of a single workshop, that of the Athenean Kerameikos, with which several paint­ers were associated. The origin of skyphoi of the Kassel group is problematic. Possibly they were made outside Athens.

Власова Е.В. Сосуды в форме рога из кургана Куль-Оба

E. V. Vlasova. Horn-shaped vessels from Kul-Oba

Finds from the Kul-Oba mound excavated in 1830 include two silver vessels shaped like horns. According to a report made by Paul Dubrucs, who conducted the excavations, these vessels, together with a round-based ves­sel and a bowl, lay in a silver gilded basin that stood at the western wall of the vault (Древности 1854: XVIII—XIX).

One of the vessels is a small drinking horn with a tip shaped like a protome of a lying ram with bent legs (fig. 1). Its height is 12, 3 cm. The rim of the vessel is slightly everted. Its body, curved at an almost right angle, is decorated with horizontal cannelures. The tip is made of two pieces welded together. Horns and ears (now lost) were made sepa­rately, inserted in holes pierced in the head, and soldered. The wool is denoted by punched circles with dots inside. As the results of an examination carried out at the Hermitage Technological Laboratory indicate, the entire outer surface of the vessel was chemically gilded using mercury amalgam, which has not been preserved.

In all publications, the vessel is errone­ously described as a rhyton. This is possibly due to the fact that holes in the ram's nostril and knee may be taken for spouts. Actually, this is a drinking horn. Its date and origin are a matter of debate, and widely divergent views have been expressed.

Concerning the construction and propor­tions of the horn, its likely prototypes were small silver Achaemenid horn-rhytons with large tips shaped like protomes of lying ani­mals with bent legs, such a rhyton with a tip modelled like a bull's protome from the Cin­cinnati Museum, one with a tip shaped like a goat's protome from Schimmel's collection, and one with a tip shaped like a fallow deer's protome from Louvre. Another parallel to the Kul-Oba specimen is a silver gilded rhyton with a tip modelled like a bull's protome, found at Borovo, Bulgaria (it is believed to be a replica of Achaemenid rhytons and dated to ca. 370 BC).

In contrast to Achaemenid rhytons, the ram's head on the Kul-Oba specimen is real­istic and lacks stylization, attesting to the in­fluence of Greek art. The rams' heads on 5^th century BC Attic red-figured drinking horns are modelled in a similar manner (Hoffmann 1962: pi. II, fig. 1; pi. XIV, fig. 2; pi. XXIV, fig. 4).

Absence of direct parallels precludes the assessment of the exact date or source of the Kul-Oba horn. Apparently, it was made in the 5^th or the 1^st quarter of the 4^th century BC, the latter date being more likely. It could have been manufactured either in Greece or in Asia Minor or in the northern Pontic area.

The second vessel from Kul-Oba (fig. 2-e), too, is a drinking horn rather than a rhyton. Its height is 12, 8 cm, and its length is 29 cm. Its cone-shaped smooth body with a gently everted rim is sharply curved at an almost straight angle. It consists of two parts, their junction being covered with a narrow smooth hoop with a ribbed wire soldered on it. The long and narrow bottom bears a golden tip modelled like a lion's head with bared teeth. The head is made of two halves soldered to­gether. The manner is rather careless and sche­matic and the details are not elaborated. Four hoops made of double plaited wire divide the tip into three parts, two of which are deco­rated with S-shaped spirals soldered onto them.

Silver horns very similar to this one in terms of construction, proportions, size, and style, and bearing tips shaped like animals' heads were found in other late 4^th century BC burials, such as the female burial in Mordvi­nov № 1 (fig. 2-a), Mastyugin № 29/21 (fig. 2-6), a child's burial at Tolstaya Mogila (fig. 2-г), Soboleva Mogila (fig. 2-д), and at Durovka №1 (fig. 2-в). The tips of vessels from Mordvinov and Mastyugin have not been preserved, the vessel from Tolstaya Mogila has a tip shaped like a lion's head, and those from Durovka and Soboleva Mogila have tips modelled like rams' heads.

All these vessels were found in late 4^th cen­tury BC mounds. Tolstaya Mogila dates from 350—320 BC (Мозолевський 1979: 229; Алексеев 1992: 150—151, 156—157), Kul-Oba, Mordvinov, and Mastyugin from 340—320 BC (Алексеев 1992: 156-157; Манцевич 1973: 41). Durovka and Soboleva Mogila are contempo­raneous with Alexandropol, which has been dated to the last quarter of the 4^th century BC (Алексеев 1992: 154, 156—157).

Given these dates, it may be concluded that the vessels were manufactured during a relatively short time span. Those from Soboleva Mogila and Durovka could have been made somewhat later than the other ones. Notably is that these vessels share a common feature which sets them apart from others: the upper parts of their bodies are or­namented.

In our view, all the six vessels were made in the northern Pontic area. Indeed, all of them were found in Scythian mounds, and no parallels are known elsewhere.

Drinking horns are depicted in a half of all the known 5^th—4^th century BC Scythian stone sculptures. Apparently those sculptures on which vessels of this type are represented (fig. 2-ж, з) should also be dated to the second half of the 4^th century BC.

Мордвинцева В.И. Старобельский клад

V. I. Mordvinlseva. The Starobelsk Hoard

The hoard described in the present article was found in 1892 near the town of Starobelsk, Kharkov Region, on the bottom of a gully (Спицын 1909: 27). All its items are elements of a ceremonial harness.

One pair of large hemispherical phalerae (figs. 1—4) was evidently attached to shoulder straps, another to haunch straps, and a large flat plaque (Fig. 5: 1) decorated the breast strap. In the northern Pontic region and in Europe, representations of saddle-horses with such harnesses date to the last centuries BC and 1^st century AD (Сокольский 1976: Fig. 58: 3, 7; Flemming e. a. 1991: Fig. 8; Bishop, Coulston 1993: 27, fig. 4: 1—2). Simi­lar phalerae belong to ceremonial harnesses from the northern and northwestern Pontic territories and the Kuban Basin dating to 200-0 BC (Спицын 1909: 41—42, figs. 51—55, 57; Смирнов 1984: figs. 38, 52; Анфимов 1987: 198—199, 202; Щукин 1994: Fig. 51). Small plaques with iron lugs on the inside (Fig. 5: 3, 4) were apparently used as junctions. Crescent-shaped, round and triangular plaques (fig. 5: 6; 6: 1, 2) were likely appendages connected with a special decorative breast piece. Stamped golden and silver crescents and circles were parts of Scythian harnesses. Numerous round plaques, falling in two types (fig. 5: 2, 5), were probably sewn on, or nailed to, the straps. It is not possible to say, however, if all the items of the hoard belonged to a single harness. While some decorative plaques (fig. 5: 2, 6) re­semble Scythian ones, others, such as the phalerae (figs. 1—4; 5: 1), appear in Eastern Europe in the 2^nd century BC only. I am un­aware of any earlier representations showing both elements. It is possible that Starobelsky hoard includes items belonging to two har­nesses, one being close to the traditional Scythian set (fig. 7: 1), another to that which was popular in the northern Pontic region in 200-0 BC (fig. 7: 2). This distinctive feature (presence of Scythian-type objects) makes it possible to regard Starobelsky as one of the earliest Sarmatian associations with type II harness, as evidenced by two pairs of shoulder phalerae (Мордвинцева 1996: 20).

To determine the centre where these ob­jects were manufactured, style and techniques are crucial. In this regard, three groups of items may be distinguished.

The first group includes stamped plaques (fig. 5: 2, 6) which are crude and lack deco­ration. They are most likely local.

The second group consists of small plaques with a rather crude stamped design (figs. 5: 3, 4; 6: 1—3) which was applied with very few tools: a chisel, punches of various sizes (2 mm and 3, 5 mm in diameter), and stamps with a sharp working edge (0, 5 mm and 2 mm in di­ameter). The design on these plaques is remi­niscent of the Celtic one, especially that on coins (de la Tour 1892: pi. XXX, J*? 7465, Th 2612 in the collections of the National Mu­seum of Denmark). According to Smirnov (1984: 86), they were manufactured north of the Black Sea.

The third group includes large phalerae (figs. 1—4, 5: 1). They are very finished and elements of their design are variable. In terms of style and technique they resemble phalerae from 200-0 BC ceremonial harnesses found in territories north and northwest of the Black Sea (Taganrog, Bulakhovka, Balakleya, Yan­chokrar, Tvarditsa, Galiche) and the Kuban Basin (Novojereliyevskaya, Korenovsk). Their most characteristic features are high-quality bidimensional representations, and a peculiar ornamentation. The designs with which they were decorated include a variety of vegetable and geometrical motifs, the most common one being the rosette. Anthropomorphous and zoo­morphous representations (mainly outlines with hatched and linear designs) are by far less fre­quent. Phalerae of this group are convex, their height mostly ranging from one third to one half of the diameter. The rim is subtriangular in section.

Their origin, unlike that of items of the former two groups, is a matter of debate. Tre­ver (1940: tabs. 7—10) included them in her catalogue of Greco-Bactrian art, along with phalerae from Fedulovka representing a lion, a plaque from Akhtanisovka with Medusa, a phalera from Yanchokrak with a deity, those from Galiche, and other similar plaques (Тревер 1940: 52—57, 60—61). More recent stud­ies demonstrated, however, that most of these objects had been manufactured in northwest­ern Pontic area (Fettich 1953: 177) and in Bosporus (Берхин 1962: 39). Our stylistic analysis of Starobelsk phalerae does not allow us to subscribe to Trever's view since most specimens similar in terms of purpose, shape, and design (Taganrog, Balakleya, Yanchokrak, Bulakhovka, etc. ) were apparently manufac­tured in Greek cities of the northern Pontic region. Most of them date from late 2^nd and 1^st centuries BC. Because phalerae from the Starobelsk hoard differ in design, are very ele­gant, and belong to the same assemblage as the Scythian-type crescent-shaped plaques, they may be somewhat earlier (no later that the first half of the 2^nd century BC). Judging by the stylistic peculiarities of zoomorphous representations and certain details of the de­sign, such as lush leaves of acanthus and water lily resembling those on the relief ceram­ics of Pergamum (Courby 1922: fig. 82: 7), it is also possible that they were manufactured in Asia Minor rather than in Bosporus.

Мордвинцева В.И., Мыськов Е.П. Курганы сарматской знати у поселка Октябрьский

V. I. Mordvinlseva, E. P. Myskov. Burial mounds of the Sarmatian elite near Oktyabrsky

In 1993, during the expedition by Vol­gograd Pedagogical University under the direc­tion of E. P. Myskov, two groups of burial mounds were excavated on a high riverine ter­rase of the Yesaulovskiy Aksay near Oktyabr­sky, Volgograd Region (fig. 1, 3, 6). Ordinary finds from these excavations are typical of the Sarmatian culture of the first centuries AD.

The most remarkable find from mound № 1 of Oktyabrsky I burial ground is a silver buckle representing a saiga's head (fig. 1: 10). It is shaped like the figure of eight and belongs to the type which was popular with the Sarmatians in 300-0 BC (Мошкова 1960: 293; Скрипкин 1990: 97, 164). Such buckles were part of the Sar­matian military costume. The specimen from Oktaybrsky, however, differs from the early Sar­matian buckles in a number of traits and appar­ently results from the evolution of this type.

Another interesting find from this mound is a fragmented glass bowls made in the mille­fiore technique (fig. 2: 2). Bowls similar in terms of glass quality and design date to late 1^st century BC — 1^st century AD, mostly first half of the 1^st century AD (Eggers 1951: tab. 14: 181; Шедевры 1987: Cat. № 238).

A silver openwork plaque (fig. 2: 1) from the same burial had been attached to the han­dle of the vessel. A fragment of a bronze basin from Aalborg with an identical attach­ment is owned by the National Museum of Denmark (№ 9380) and dates to the early Roman period.

Mound Me 1 of Oktyabrsky II (fig. 3) has yielded an especially abundant material. A find rather rare among the Sarmatian antiq­uities of the Volga-Don interfluve is a kan­tharos cast of blue glass (fig. 4: 9). An iden­tical specimen dating from the 1^st century BC or 1^st century AD is known among the early Roman materials from the Kuban Basin (Гущина, Засецкая 1994: cat. № 206).

Also noteworthy is the collection of beads from this mound (fig. 5: 1-9). They are chronologically arranged in such a way that the most likely date is 1^st—early 2^nd century AD (fig. 7).

A brooch or fibula shaped like a soaring pigeon (fig. 2: 3) has no parallels in the Volga—Don area. Identical specimens, how­ever, were found in Panticapaeus and Olbia (Амброз 1966: 35, tab. 15: 23). Fibulae of that type were usually decorated with enamel. Traces of enamel inserts are also visible on the specimen from Oktyabrsky. Many such fibulae were found in the Roman provinces of Pan­nonia and Germania (Patek 1942: 127, 221, 222, tab. XXI: 19, 23).

Other elements of the harness were a small golden phalera representing a rolled-up goat (fig. 5: 18), a bronze bell (fig. 5: 22), and iron and bronze buckles (fig. 5: 13, 14, 17). In terms of form, style, and motif, the phalera from Oktyabrsky is identical to plaques from Zaporozhsky burial mound (Манцевич 1976: fig. 5), Kirsanovsky III mound 2 (Раев 1979: figs. 4, 5), Ust-Labinskaya mound 29, and Ti­flisskaya mound 2 (Гущина, Засецкая 1994: cat. N° 329, 540). The abundance of these par­allels attests to the mass production of such plaques in the first centuries AD. This motif was especially popular in the Sarmatian toreu­tics at that time but is virtually unknown in later assemblages. The motif itself (goat or ram coiled up in a ring-like fashion, legs turned and crossed like a swastika) was evi­dently related to some magical belief. Indeed, the ram and the goat were manifestations of the Iranian deity Farn. The sign of swastika refers to the solar symbolism of this motif. These phalerae were apparently manufactured in Greek colonies of the northern Pontic re­gion, as evidenced by the technique, which was used in the Bosporus already in the Hellenistic period. Other details of the harness, such as buckles (fig. 5: 13-17) and belt tip (fig. 5: 12), too, have numerous parallels among the Sar­matian antiquities.

The most notable find from Oktyabrsky II mound 2 is a golden earring from the female burial near Porogi and Alitub (Симоненко, Лобай 1991: fig. 19: 1, photo 34: 1). Identical earrings were found in mound 5, burial 40, of Chertovitsky I burial ground on the Middle Don (Медведев 1990: fig. 11: 6, 7). Because their similarity extends even to the colour of the inserts, they must have been made in the same workshop.

Assemblages from Oktyabrsky suggest that people buried in these mounds belonged to the Sarmatian elite. According to Raev, the chronological range of the burials is rather narrow: second half of the 1^st century—early 2^nd century AD (Raev 1986: diagramme). Their distribution over vast territories is usually linked with the appearence of the Alans in the Eastern European steppes.

Сергацков И.В. Серебряный кубок из Бердии и некоторые вопросы истории сарматов в I в н. э.

I. V. Sergatskov. A silver bowl from Berdia and certain issues in the history of the Sarmatians in the 1^st century AD

In 1993, during the excavations of a group of mounds near the railway station of Berdia (Ilovlya District, Volgograd Region, left bank

of the Ilovlya, a left tributary of the Don), a silver bowl was found in burial 2 of mound 8 among rich and diverse burial goods (fig. 1).

On its side and bottom, there are carved tamgas belonging to Inismeus's scheme. Simi­lar signs were stamped on Olbian coins minted in AD 70^s and 80^s. They are also known in Central Asia, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia. Tamga-like psalias of this shape were found in Tsarskiy burial ground, the lower Don, and in a mound near Vozdvizhenskaya, the Kuban.

Pompean parallels to the bowl, the tamga of Inismeus's scheme, and some other facts suggest that the burial dates to late 1^st century AD. The Berdia find provides yet another proof that the Vozdvizhenskaya burial, one of the key assemblages in the Zubov-Vozdvizhen­skaya group, is younger than previously be­lieved. Its likely date is mid — 1^st century AD.

Over the recent years, specialists in Sarma­tian history have more and more often used tamgas in their ethnic reconstructions. Nota­bly, signs carved on the rocks of Tsagan-gol (Mongolian Altai), Khoresmia, and Sogdia, bear a striking resemblance to northern Pontic tamgas. According to Weinberg and Novgoro­dova, the chain-like geographical distribution of these signs ranging from Mongolia to the Balcans marks the route of the nomads from the innermost areas of Asia into Eastern Europe. Who, then, were these nomads? Who left the tamgas of Farzoy's and Inismeu's schemes? Shchukin, Simonenko, and Vinogra­dov believe that these people were the Aorses. In Skripkin's view, these signs were left by the Alans. The issue should be considered in the context of the ethno-cultural situation in the Eastern European steppes in the last centuries BC and first centuries AD.

According to Strabo's ethno-geographic terminology, the Aorses were bearers of tradi­tions represented by the Early Sarmatian cul­ture of the Lower Volga and Don regions. However, in none of the sites of these cultures have any tamgas been found. They first ap­pear at the Middle Sarmatian stage and be­long to its distinctive features. Many re­searchers link the emergence of the Middle Sarmatian culture with the migration of Alans from the innermost parts of Asia. According to Dion Cassius and Ammian Marcellin, Alans were former Massagets, who lived in the western part of Central Asia. No one, how­ever, has ever localized the Aorses in those re­gions. The resemblance of Eastern European tamgas including that on the bowl from Ber­dia with those from Central Asia and Mongo­lia is yet another argument in favour of the «Alanian theory» of Middle Sarmatian origins.

Бельский С.В. Юго-Восточное Приладожье в период 860—950-х годов: проблемы формирования и развития основных типов погребального обряда и их взаимодействие

Bel'skiy S. V. The South-East Ladoga Area in 860-950 B.C.: Problems of the Formation and Development of Main Types of Burial Rites and their Interaction

The present paper is dedicated to the problems of the origin, formation and development of burial rites in the South-East Ladoga Area. The most significant opinions on the origin of the kurgan rites and ethnic features of the ancient population of the region are briefly analysed. A special attention is paid to a number of questions that have not been touched upon or considered but summarily in discussions (of description and comparison of various groups of sites, of their types and chronology). It was only in the 70s and early 80s that the typology of the burial rites of South-East Ladoga kurgans was first developed by V. A. Nazarenko who had considered them in their integrity and identified their general features. O. I. Boguslavskiy proposed a chronology of the artifact assemblages in the Ladoga regions. In this paper a method of the rite type identification is proposed for a number of male and female burials dated to a narrow range of 860-950 B.C. (fig. 1).

In the second large part of this article the problems of the origin of the kurgan rites in the South-East Ladoga area and questions of their interaction with other cultural traditions have been considered. At present one should recognize that the Scandinavian-Finnish cultural synthesis was of an extremely complex character. A typological consideration of the burial rites enables us to arrive at a conclusion that the appearance of some Scandinavian traits in the rites at the sites of the Lower and Central regions of rivers Pasha and Oyat was not caused by the direct presence of the foreign population. Such presence has not been identified archaeologically and the Scandinavian features must have resulted of a reaction of the local cultural peculiarities to learning foreign traditions – in particular the Scandinavian ones.

Another cultural impulse is represented by a tradition of burying the dead in high funerary constructions – the so called ‘sopkas’. Similar mounds have been registered in the region of the Sias River. In the same region a kurgan burial ground is known that without doubt has remained of a group of the ‘Ladoga’ population. Its ritual features — placing the burials on top of the mounds, rounded shape of the ritual fire-places, the peculiarities of the mound constructions — suggest very strong influence of the ‘sopkas’. The mentioned peculiarities enable us to single them out into a special type of funerary rites – ‘the kurgans of the Middle-Sias type’. This type comprises a fairly closed group within that of the foreign-culture burial sites and is not connected directly to the central Ladoga regions – rivers Pasha and Oyat (fig. 3: 1 and 2).

Another local site type was formed on the Olonets Isthmus. The kurgans containing graves made according to cremation rites differ considerably here from sites on the territories farther to the south. The outer shape of these barrows suggests a kurgan tradition not wholly developed. Such mounds evidently served for introducing new burials during a certain period. This is a direct evidence of some traits of the ground burial sites. One connects the development of this tradition with the appearance of a kurgan tradition among the population that before had been using ground burials as the main type. These peculiarities enable us to identify a second local type of burial rites – ‘the Olonets Cremations’ (fig. 2, II; fig. 3: 3,4).

However, the major part of the present paper is dedicated to consideration of the burial rites of the South-East Ladoga kurgans as such. The relation of the mound funerary rites to the sites of ante-kurgan periods – i.e. of the sources of borrowing the kurgan burial type – is demonstrated in examples (‘the houses of dead’ – Scandinavian rituals – Ladoga kurgans; ‘sopka’-type mounds – Middle-Sias kurgans). Types and variants of the funerary rites are well defined by means of statistical procedures. As a whole the development of a certain hypothetical tradition that had imbibed the elements of very different cultures and become unstable may be traced. To the main features of this tradition one may assign: the strongly marked symbolism of fire-place (its configuration, dimensions, prevailingly central position in the mound, the presence of fire-place inventory), the system character of the location of burials relative each other and to the fire-place complex, the many-tier burials, and presence of sacrificial burials (separate human heads, burials of horses, cows, and dogs). Similar type of sites has a number of varieties (fig. 2: 1, 2, 3). However, the beginning of the kurgan tradition in the South-East Ladoga regions (860-920 B.C.) is characterised by formation of only the basic norms of the ritual. ‘The kurgans of the South-East Ladoga area’ having appeared in the lower reaches of Pasha and Oyat in the later period occupied a great territory and already in their earliest period defined the stable boundaries of this cultural formation. These boundaries had been existing till the general cessation of building kurgan mounds on this territory (the 60-s of the 13th century) (fig. 3).

The later transformations of the burial rites of this population are connected with the ‘Ancient Rus influence’ expressed in adoption of the inhumation rite. These processes have a peculiar character in the South-Eastern Ladoga area. During this period a situation is very common when the inhumation differs from cremation only in the treatment of the deceased person's body. All other features remain unchanged.

The material of this paper enables us to make some conclusions. The South-East Ladoga area does not present a single phenomenon both in terms of the burial rites in general and of the interaction of different constituents and variants of these rites. Here at least three differing traditions may be stated that originate from various causes, develop in different ways and are located on different particular territories. Within these territories too, differing processes of formation, development and interaction of the variants take place that result in the formation of other regions interacting independently with the centre and periphery. At the same time, the inner unity of the Ladoga area allows us to consider it within the wide cultural context of the vast Finno-Ugric world where the South-East Ladoga occupies its special place. The North-Russian and North-European cultural impulse of the 7th-10th centuries A.D. that determined the appearance and development of the kurgan rites on the territory under discussion later is replaced by the ‘Ancient Russian’ influence. For elucidation of the peculiarities of this phenomenon and of its place among the other ones an investigation of later complexes is necessary.

Егорьков А.Н. Газохроматографическая методика обнаружения органического связующего в древней настенной живописи

A. N. Yegorkov. Gas chromatographic method for revealing organic binder in old wall painting

The revealing and identification of binding medium in old wall painting present a major difficulty, while the methods for examination of easel painting, mainly the methods of in­strumental analysis, are successfully developed. The prolonged contact of organic binder with an immense quantity of plaster and pigments allows to expect that proteins, carbohydrates and fats do not remain unhydrolysed, water soluble products of hydrolysis being capable of distribution all over the plaster with the movement of moisture and the consumption of micro-organisms.

A method proposed for revealing the or­ganic binder deals with the saturated fatty acids of binder, predominantly palmitic and stearic, which are resistant to chemical and microbial degradation. The procedure includes the evaporation of the specimen of paint layer (ca 3 cm², 10—20 mg) or plaster with hydro­chloric acid to obtain free acids from salts, extraction with acetone, esterification with ethereal diazomethane and evaporation to 1—2 for subsequent gas chromatography.

The examination of plaster fragments wit painting of Russian and Georgian churches c the 10^th—13^th centuries containing organic binder in the paints (tempera on the gypsum plaster or evidence of spots of paint on the flan] surface of plaster fragments caused by temper painting on the dried and cracked lime plaster indicates that in many cases (fig. 1) the fatty acids C₁₆ and C₁₈ may be detected. On the other hand, the proposed method is inefficient for binder with low fat content or in the case of advanced degradation of organic matter.

The method also allows to reveal the oxalic acid present as calcium oxalates and the oxalization of paint layer (both on the gypsum and on the lime) may be considerable.

Чукова Т.А. К вопросу о формировании Новгородского и Псковского иконостасов

T. A. Chukova. On the origins of the Novgorodian and Pskovian iconostases

Studies into the Old Russian iconostasis are mostly based on paintings by masters of the Moscow circle. However, processes that occurred in the culture of Pskov and Novgorod in late 13^th—15^th century were no less relevant since at that time both centres developed the traditions of pre-Mongolian art and had not yet experienced the pressure of the Moscovite artistic canon.

It should be noted that the database for these studies is very restricted since we have virtually no information concerning the con­struction of 14^th and 15^th century Novgorodian and Pskovian iconostases, and generally few icons of that period have been preserved. Of all the late 13^th to 15^th century Novgorodian icons, only 80 can be attributed to so-called Deisuses (from Grk. deesis, praying). A Deisus is a set of three icons, that of Christ in the centre, and those of Virgin Mary and John the Baptist, both praying, on the sides. Among the Pskovian icons, only 20 possibly belong to this category. The existing sample, then, only enables one to trace certain tendencies in the development of Novgorodian and Pskovian iconostases.

Of the four 14^th century Novgorodian Dei­suses the icons of which have been preserved, there are three half-length icons and a full-length one. The former ones date from the end of the century, and the latter one is broadly dated to late 14^th or 15^th century. Iconographi­cally, these four icons are rather diverse.

Half-length icons were apparently placed in Pskovian 14^th century iconostases as well, as evidenced by four icons (dating from early 15^th century, though) belonging to a single iconostasis.

The 14^th century iconostases comprised icons of Christ, Virgin Mary, John the Bap­tist, the archangels, St. Peter, and St. Paul.

The 15^th century Novgorodian and Pskovian iconostases comprise full-length Dei­sus icons. Iconographic characteristics of the central icon in the Novgorodian Deisuses dif­fer from those of its Moscovite counterpart, «Our Saviour on the throne», which depict Virgin Mary and John the Baptist standing nearby. New characters appear, such as prel­ates, Russian saints, and martyrs. The pre­served 15^th century Novgorodian icons demon­strate that in contrast to its Byzantine and southern Slavonic counterparts, the Novgoro­dian Deisusic iconostasis was not apostolic. Rather, it encompassed several hierarchical categories and ecclesiastic institutes.

The only known example of an apostolic Deisus is a 17-figure iconostasis from the As­sumption Church in Poromenye, Pskov. This unusual assemblage was possibly created by Byzantine or southern Slavonic masters. From no later than 11th century on, festive icons were being placed on the altar gates. By that time, topics of the festive iconostasis had been formed, the most important ones being An­nunciation, Christmas, Candlemas, Epiphany, Transfiguration, Resurrection of Lazarus, Christ's Entrance to Jerusalem, Crucifixion, Descent to Hell, Ascension, Descent of the Holy Spirit, and Assumption. This sequence was adopted in the earliest preserved festive iconostasis from Novgorod: that from St So­phia Church (first half of the 14^th century), and it apparently did not change until late 15^th century.

Around 1500, the earliest among the pre­served Novgorodian prophetic iconostases was created: that in St Nicholas Church, Gosti­nopolye. It was likely influenced by the pro­phetic iconostasis of the Assumption Cathe­dral in Cyril-Belozerye Monastery, the icons of which appear to have been jointly painted by masters from Novgorod, Moscow, and Rostov. Possibly the participation of Novgorodian masters marked the beginning the period when icons representing prophe were included in the Novgorodian iconostases

The analysis of local iconostases makes possible to reveal some of their formal characteristics: (1) In terms of size, these icons are surpassed only by full-length Deisusic on but the difference is rather small; (2) Novgorodian icons tend to diminish over the relevant period; (3) The cathedral icons, both half-length and full-length ones, follow the traditions of «portrait» composition as well those of the landscape painting, with no space being used as background. (4) Archangels, saints, and hagiographic scenes could depicted on the icons.

The preserved 13^th—15^th century Novgorodian altar gates are rather diverse in term of decoration. They could be: (a) wooden with tempera painting; (b) wooden with carvin and painted inserts; (c) wooden, covered with sheets of brass and «golden painting».

Those with tempera painting were the mo common. They are known both in the second half of the 13^th century and in late 15^th century. Carved ones appear in the 15^th century and those covered with sheets of brass and only known in the 14^th century.

The conclusions of our study are as forlows.

Over the period of 14^th—15^th centuries Novgorodian iconostases, which, in terms of both content and form, were opposed to th Moscow tradition, were represented by three types: (a) local, (b) Deisusic (half-length an) full-length), and (c) festive. Two factors were most important in the development of the Novgorodian festive iconostasis: Sophia festivals of the early 14^th century, and the active advent of the Moscovite tradition around 1500. The appearance of prophetic icons i the Novgorodian iconostases was also due to the influence of Moscow.

The Pskovian iconostasis, in the 15^th century, included both half-length Deisusic icons (which appeared in the first half of this century) and full-length apostolic ones, the latter being unusual for other Old Russian artist centres including Novgorod (from the second quarter to the end of 15^th century). Although too few icons have been preserved, it is evident that significant differences existed between Novgorod and Pskov, possibly due different sources of influences.

Столба В.Ф., Варваровский Ю.Е. Николаевский клад серебряных джучидских монет XIV века

Stolba V. F., Varvarovskiy Yu. Ye. The Nikolaevsk Hoard of 14th Century A.D. Juchid Silver Coins

1. In the present article a hoard of the 14th century Golden Horde silver coins is presented. This hoard was found in 1980 in the town of Nikolaevsk of the Volgograd Oblast. The original receptacle and volume of the hoard are not known. The authors have had a possibility of registering 303 pieces the earliest of which fall to the rule of Khan Tokhta and are dated to the 710 H. The time of the hoard hiding has been identified owing to a coin of Janibeg II struck in Gulistan al-Jedid and a 768 H. dirhem of Bulat-Timur. Similar to the already known hoards of Juchid Dynasty silver of the ‘Great Troubles’ period from the Lower Volga area the majority of the coins published here is represented by pieces of the Sarai (56.11%) and Gulistan (42.57) minting. The coins of other centres including those of Azak (2 items) and Khoresm (1 item) amount in total to less than 1% (table 2). This fact reflects the real composition of the monetary circulation in this region in the period under discussion.

2. As X-ray-fluorescence spectroscopy carried out on the metal of a limited number of coins showed (table 1) two of the pieces were ancient forgeries made in different techniques: 1) using a silver leaf and 2) using a silver amalgam (the so called mercury silvering).

3. According to the chronological classification proposed by G. A. Fedorov-Davydov (Федоров-Давыдов1960) the Nikolaevsk hoard of the Juchid coins belongs to the second stage of the monetary circulation in the Golden Horde (1310–1380 A.D.). It has been noted that among the coin sets registered in the Volga area of this period the finds hidden in the 1360s A.D. are significantly prevailing. As a consideration of the corresponding group of hoards presented in chart 1 shows this group in its turn does not make up a chronological unity.

The distribution of the studied material according to the emission dates of the latest coins enables us to state that the period of the thesauration of the majority of Volga hoards falls to the years 762 (5 hoards), 764 (13 hoards) and 766–768 (8 hoards) of Hegira.

There can be little doubt that the mentioned distribution reflects the periods of the strongest aggravation of political situation within this region. Such events of 762 H. (1360/1361 A.D.) as the bitter struggle for the Sarai throne that resulted in replacement of five supreme rulers during that year (Khizyr, Timur-Khoja, Ordu-Melik, Kildibeg, Murid) and the separation of the ‘Mamai's Horde’ in the western part of the state were really able to cause mass concealing the hoards belonging to the first of the identified groups. The subsequent stirring up of Mamai's politic activities that resulted in an open confrontation with members of the Shybanid clan, who by that time had gained a firm hold of the Sarai throne, was adding to the escalation of the tension. The rise of the Mamai's protégé – Khan Abdullah – in Sarai, as well as the ensuing armed conflict with Murid for control over the Lower Volga centres, were the episodes of that struggle. It is probably by the circumstances of Mamai's raid to the Lower Volga region that the appearance of the most significant group of the coin sets dated to 764 H. (1362/1364 A.D.) should be explained.

Along with the monetary hoards the increased war danger was reflected in building the fortifications of the Tsarev townsite that have been investigated by the Volga Archaeological Expedition (ÏÀÝ). Judging by the latest coin from the layer covered by the earthen wall, 764 H. is not here only the terminus post quem but also the most probable date of the building of the fortifications. A hoard of 12 copper anonymous coins found in area 27 of excavation area IX-1962 is an evidence of the urgent character of those construction works. Although the latest of the coins is dated to 761 H. the stratigrafic observations suggest that the coin came into earth during the later period. According to the published report of ÏÀÝ the hoard was found in the upper layer connected with the earthen wall and the structures contemporary to the latter. This fact is contrary to the supposition of the authors of the report that “the hoard was concealed in the late 1350s and during the later ruination of the town was brought to the surface and has remained on the top of the later breakdowns”. Taking into account the stratigraphic data one should rather think that the absence of later coins in the hoard is accidental.

The confrontation between Mamai and the protégés from the East on the Sarai throne falling to the first half of the 60s was taking place also in the ensuing period as is evidenced by the events of 767-768 H. In this connection the beginning in 768 H. (1365/1366 A.D) of issuance of coins in the name of Mamai's creature – Khan Abdallah – in Majar, and what is especially demonstrative – in Sarai, seems very significant. This fact could take place only if the corresponding regions of the Northern Caucasus and Lower Volga area had been occupied by the Horde's ‘temnik’ (general). The burying of the Gulistan mint the last emissions of which are dated to the mentioned period, as well as suspending of coin issuance in Sarai al-Jedid, were evidently caused by the new Mamai's campaign aimed to subjugation of the Lower Volga centres. Possibly one should assign to the same activities a small hoard of silver Juchid coins found in 1963 in the fire and destruction layer of the Tsarev townsite. This find undoubtedly represents a set accumulated during a short period; of the 34 coins of the hoard 20 examples belong to the Gulistan minting of Aziz-Sheikh of 766-767 H. The mentioned facts suggest that the above described events were really the cause of hiding the majority of the sets of the last group identified by us including the hoard published here. In this connection the statistics of the coin finds, in the first place those of copper, from excavations of a number of Golden Horde townsites seem very instructive. Thus according to G. A. Fedorov-Davydov (Федоров-Давыдов 1963: table 1) 68.8% of copper coins from Tsarev townsite falls to the Khans of 1357-1368 A.D. the coin finds of the ensuing period (1368-1380 A.D.) amounting only to 0.7%. The situation observed at the townsites of Uvek and Narovchatskoe is even more demonstrative. Here the difference between the same periods is 54.1% to 0% and 50.6% to 0% correspondingly. As these observations certainly correlate with the chronology of hoards of Juchid coins of the second half of the 14th century B.C. one should naturally question if those variances were due only to the different intensity of the monetary circulation in different periods. As an analysis of the mass numismatic material from excavations of ancient and early Byzantine centres of the northern Black Sea coast and Danube areas shows the peaks of coin deposition into the cultural layers correspond as a rule to the periods of military and political disturbances and catastrophes (Столба 1990: 6, 16 fig. 1-2; Шувалов 1994: 40). It is likely that cities of the Horde were not an exception to this rule. In this connection, the external and internal political instability in the ‘Great Troubles’ time as well as the devastating raids of Mamai resulting in the destruction of a number of Volga sites, as it has been confirmed by excavations, could not be of no significance.

There is, however, no evidence that Mamai's campaign influenced much the political situation in the Central Volga area and Mordova lands where the appearance of hoards in 766-767 H. was possibly caused by some local events including the raid of the Novgorod ‘ushkuyniks’ (river-pirates) in 1366 A.D and formation here of independent domains of Sekiz-Bei, Tagai and Bulat-Timur.

Курбатов А.В., Овсянников О.В. Кожаная обувь из раскопок Мангазеи – русского города XVII в. в Заполярье Западной Сибири

В статье дается подробный вещеведческий и историко-культурный анализ 64 моделей обуви (289 деталей) 4-х различных видов, а также серии железных обувных подковок. Коллекция в целом датируется периодом 1600–1638 гг. В конструировании изделий, методах пошива и декорировки прослеживаются три, отчетливо выделяющиеся, культурные традиции: общерусская, выраженная в кожевенно-обувном производстве городов Северо-Запада и центральных регионов России XVI–XVII в.; местная, северная, отражающая специфику жизнедеятельности в приполярной зоне, выработанная коренным населением; западноевропейская, элементы которой привносились в русское общество во второй половине – конце XVI – XVII в. Данным традициям соответствуют выделенные виды обуви: для общерусской – сапоги и поршни двух групп, для местной – уледи и поршни третьей группы, для западноевропейской – башмаки (коты). Коллекция обуви подтверждает специфический характер поселения Мангазеи – укрепленной фактории на путях продвижения торговых и промышленных людей на енисейские и ленские промыслы.

Kurbatov A.V., Ovsyannikov O. V. Leathern footwear from excavations of Mangazea – a 17th century Russian town in Arctic  Regions of West Siberia

In this article a detailed analysis of 64 footwear patterns (289 components) of four different types, as well as a series of iron heel taps are presented in terms of artefact and historico-cultural studies. This collection is dated in general to the 1600-1638 AD. It is possible to trace three clearly distinguished cultural traditions in the ware design, shoe-making technology and decoration: a) a general Russian one represented in the leather and foot-wear industries of the towns in the north-western and central regions of Russia of the 16^th–17th centuries; b) a local northern tradition developed by the natives of the regions close to the Arctic Zone and reflecting the specific living conditions in those regions; c) West-European tradition the elements of which were being imported into the Russian society during the second half and the end of the 16^th–17th centuries. To the mentioned traditions certain identified types of footwear correspond: top-boots (sapogs) and porshens of two groups to the general Russian tradition; uled's and porshens of the third group to the local one; and shoes (kots) to the West-European tradition. The presented footwear collection adds evidence to the specific character of the Mangazea settlement as a fortified trading station situated on the routes of the penetration of tradesmen and manufacturers into the Yenisei and Lena hunting and trading areas.

АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ АРХЕОЛОГИИ

Матюхин А.Е. О структуре, типах и принципах изучения палеолитических мастерских

A. E. Matyukhin. On the Structure and Types of Paleolithic Workshops, and the Principles of Their Study

The article addresses the structure and types of paleolithic workshops, the principles of their typology, and related issues, with spe­cial reference to Eastern European workshops. Central European, Near Eastern, and Northern African parallels are discussed. Workshops are associated with two kinds of activities: (a) pri­mary stone knapping, and (b) manufacturing of tools. Sometimes both activities were inter­related. Workshops are separate sites or sepa­rate areas within sites where raw materials were selected (and sometimes extracted), and fully or partially processed with an objective of making specific implements, such as pre­cores, blades, triangular or foliate pieces, bu­rins, side-scrapers, etc. (fig. 3: 1—3, 6, 7, 10— 12), or blanks thereof. Workshops attest to specialized activities.

Apart from workshops, camp-workshops and workshop-camps existed. In the former case, manufacturing activities prevailed over domestic ones. Although the assemblages from camp-workshops include a variety of typical (functionally meaningful) tools, such as side-scrapers, points, end-scrapers, etc. (fig. 1: 3, 6; 2: 2, 3, 8), incomplete tools, preforms and wasters prevail (fig. 1: 5; 2: 3—6, 8). Large tools, some of them used, are also present (fig. 1: 11; 2: 7). In con­trast, assemblages from workshop-camps con­tain mostly typical and variable implements. Manufacturing and domestic activities in such sites were practiced on a roughly equal scale.

With regard to various kinds of manu­facturing activities, three groups of work­shops can be separated: (a) specialized in primary flint knapping; (b) specialized in tool manufacture; and (c) mixed. Assem­blages from workshops of each type are de­scribed (Table 1—4). Workshops of the for­mer two groups are subdivided into those of the initial cycle, and those of the main cycle. Each groups is characterized by a spe­cific assemblage.

Special attention is paid to criteria used for distinguishing workshops from other cate­gories of sites. They include: (1) immediate proximity of sources of raw material; (2) pres­ence of a large quantity of debris and, gener­ally, a small number of high-quality blanks; (3) presence of a small number of finished (typical, functionally meaningful) tools and lack of variety; (4) possible presence of mining tools; and (5) absence of bone, antler, or ivory tools. Common archaeological criteria, too, should be taken into account, such as absence or scarcity of animal bones, lack of domestic or utility structures, certain features of the cul­tural deposits, etc. Given that two categories of workshops show not only similarities but differences as well, separate criteria should be used in each case. Specifically, the charac­teristic features of primary stone-knapping workshops are large number of nodules, cob­bles, unprocessed pieces of rock and those with few flake-scars, atypical large tools that could have been used for mining, debitage flakes, elementary knapping techniques, etc. In contrast, assemblages from tool-producing workshops usually contain a large quantity of debris, unfinished tools and wasters. Overall, speaking of criteria, one should consider not just strictly diagnostic traits but a number of related indicators as well.

Several types of workshops are described. In terms of period of existence, there are short-term, long-term, and medium-term workshops. Camp-workshops usually belong to the long-term category. Under certain conditions, workshops could have turned into camps, and vice versa. Also, various parts of a site could have had different functions de­pending on the season or the specific situ­ation. Specialized manufacturing workshops could change into domestic activity areas, re­sulting in the change of profile of the site. Occasionally certain workshops could have become places of intense activities concerned with supplying food to people who worked at the workshop (hunting, processing car­casses, dressing skins, making fires, etc. ). No wonder assemblages from workshops contain some finished tools, and on some of them animal bones and small lenses of charcoal and ocher are found. These features are in­frequent, though.

The meaningful analysis of stone imple­ments is only possible if the functional type of the site (long-term camp, short-term camp, hunting camp, or workshop) is taken into account. The archaeological study must include three separate but interdependent stages: description, interpretation, and recon­struction. Specific important concepts are being discussed, such as model of tool, fin­ished (typical) tool, unfinished (atypical) tool, waster, blank, etc. Other concepts include re­duction sequence, reduction series, techno­logical process scheme, technological con­texts, etc. Based on the specific techno-mor­phological context of the workshops, it can be assumed that all sorts of crude, atypical tools, such as core-shaped tools, atypical large ones, bifaces, certain types of side-scrapers, thinned flakes, flakes with thinned butts, etc. are not independent functionally meaningful items. Rather, they should be viewed as unfinished tools, specifically points abandoned at various manufacturing stages (figs. 1: 1—2, 5, 7, 9; 2: 1, 3—6, 8, 9; 3: 4, 5, 9). If so, typologically dissimilar tools having similar technological features (that is, related to the same technological process) can be attributed to the same typo-morpho­logical category (fig. 2: 9). In the context of sites, however, many of the crude tools men­tioned above will be not just technologically but also functionally related. As the assem­blages from the workshops demonstrate, there is no one-to-one relationship between the shape and the function of the tools. The use of standard type-lists for the assessment of status and age of workshops may be quite misleading. For example, unfinished axes from neolithic and Bronze Age workshops may be erroneously taken for Acheulean bi­faces, cleavers, choppers, etc.

The evaluation of the cultural status of workshops is hampered by the presence of a few finished (typical) forms. One should pay attention to similar technological features in both finished and unfinished items (fig. 1: 2). It is theoretically possible that a single culture may be represented by workshops differing in technological profile, that is, by typologically different industries.

Workshops, then, are complex in terms of both structure and function. They are no less important than other categories of sites. The study of their assemblages contributes to the sophistication of analytical strategies relevant for all periods from the Paleolithic to the Bronze Age.

Скакун Н.Н. Прогресс техники в эпоху энеолита на Юго-Востоке Европы (по материалам земледельческих культур Болгарии)

N. N. Skakun. Technological progress in the Chalcolithic of Southeastern Europe (Based on early agricultural sites in Bulgaria)

Archaeological findings of the recent dec­ades resulted in a radical revision of tradi­tional views regarding early agricultural South­eastern Europe as an allegedly backward pe­riphery of the ancient Oriental civilizations. Materials from numerous chalcolithic sites in the Balcano-Danubian area, specifically in Bulgaria, attest to an extremely high achieve­ments of the early agriculturalists of southeast­ern Europe in various spheres of material cul­ture and ideology (Тодорова 1979, 1986; Мерперт 1995).

In the Bulgarian Chalcolithic, large stand­ard preform-blades appear, of which most tools were made (fig. 1). They are straight or gently curved in profile, subtriangular or trapezoid in section, have parallel sides with sharp straight edges, their thickness is nearly the same in all parts, and they taper off near the tip. While some unique specimens are ex­tremely large (40 cm), many others are 25— 30 cm long, and those 15—20 cm long and 2—4 cm wide are quite common. The blades were made according to a well standardized technology which included special methods of preparing the striking platform, shaping the core and its ribs, processing the flaking sur­face, and retouching the platforms after several blades had been detached (fig. 2). Blades were used for making several types of tools. End-scrapers were normally made on lower, stronger parts of the blades, 6—9 cm long. Drills, 2, 5—3 cm long, were made of the strongest parts of the blades, closest to the rib. Not only tools of well-defined types, but in­serts of cutting tools, too, were highly stand­ardized.

New tools make their appearance, such as inserts for scrapers, those for complex skin-processing devices, knives for processing skins, and drills for wood. Scrapers were made on middle parts of large blades, 3—4, 5 x 2—3 cm in size, and were not retouched. On some of them, traces of extensive wear are easily discern­ible, suggesting that they were used for process­ing skins. As the nature of the wear (intensity and relief of linear features) indicates, skins were placed on hard supports (fig. 4: A).

Based on these observations, a tentative re­construction of these tools was made. Experi­mental scrapers are tools with curved wooden hilts, the distance between the ends being 35— 40 cm. In the middle of the hilt, a slot was made for the flint insert. This tool was espe­cially efficient if a special device was used: a well-planed log whose upper end was fixed and the lower one was rested on the ground. The experimenter pressed the skin, which was placed on the upper end of the device, to the log and processed it by moving the scraper to and fro with both hands (fig. 4: B). The re­sulting suede is very similar to that made by rural artisans in our days. In some villages of the Odessa Region, this technique of process­ing skins is still being used (fig. 4: B).

One more type of flint inserts was used in leather dressing. They were also made of un-retouched middle parts of blades 3—4, 5 cm by 2, 5—3 cm. The heavy wear suggests that they could not have been used as scrapers. Appar­ently they were parts of devices for the final processing of skins (softening and stretching).

Results of the function-use-wear analysis were supported and supplemented by experi­ments. A small stick, 3—4 cm in diameter, with a slot on the outer side, was placed upright in a fixed wooden frame. Flint tools were inserted in the slot and fixed with fruit glue. Having placed the skin on the device, the experimenter moved it to and fro, sub­jecting various places to processing (fig. 5: B). This device was shown to be highly ef­ficient. Skins that had already been subjected to primary processing, were stretched and softened on it. As a result, a high-quality suede was obtained. In Bulgarian villages, a similar device, called «kositsa», was still used in the mid—20^th century. Its working part was made of metal (Вакарельски 1977).

Skins were processed on the kositsa in same way as described above (fig. 5: B).

The traceological analysis has revealed some new wood-working tools. Some of them were planes and some were scrapers. On both sides of the working edge of the «plane», lin­ear traces of wear were found, which were situated at a right or nearly right angle to the edge (fig. 6: A).

The wear on the inserts of scrapers was different. Linear traces (short dashes situated across the working edge) were preserved only on some unworn parts (fig. 6: B). Apparently, the working edge of the «plane» was placed obliquely, and the tool was pushed forward. In contrast, the working edge of the scraper was placed upright, and the tool was in both directions (fig. 6: B). The processed objects were rested on the ground or fixed in a wooden vice.

The toolkit used by the chalcolithic people of Bulgaria includes rod-shaped flint drills for a mechanical device. They are made of the strongest parts of blades, those adjoining the central rib. Their normal length is 2—2, 5 cm. Also, clay discs, 15—18 cm in diameter and 3, 5 cm thick, were found. Each of them has an opening, ca. 2, 5 cm in diameter, in the centre (Тодорова и др. 1975). Inside these openings, traces of wear and regular lines re­sulting from rotation are seen, suggesting that these disks were fly-wheels from a mechanical drilling device (fig. 7).

Also, various agricultural tools were found. Those made of reindeer antler include seven similar large artifacts made from the longer part of the main shaft with a twig (fig. 8: A). Their microscopic examination showed that traces of wear were concentrated only on the twig, whose entire surface is polished and some of its parts are covered with deep scratches and grooves directed toward the main stem and parallel to the long axis of the twig. These traces are the most expressed on the lower surface of the twig.

As the experimental studies demonstrate, this wear is typical of agricultural tools (Семенов 1974; Коробкова 1975: 37, 38). The twig becomes polished when the antler is rubbed against the ground, and the scratches are produced by stones and other hard parti­cles. The working part of the tool was the twig, especially its tip and lower part (fig. 8: B). The tool was pushed, the twig being di­rected forward, ripping the ground open, as it were. The long part of the antler bears traces of wear near the hewn place, suggesting that some device for attaching the handle was fas­tened to the shaft. The tool, then, must have been very similar to a plough, but was possi­bly hand-driven.

There are many known ethnographic exam­ples of using wooden agricultural tools made of trees, the shaft being used as a working part and the twig as a handle. In Bulgarian villages, wooden ploughs without metal points were still used in the late 19^th century, one tool being owned by several families (fig. 9). According to the Bulgarian ethnographer Ma­rinov, chalcolithic antler tools could well have produced 6—8 cm-deep furrows.

Another type of agricultural tools estab­lished by means of the function-use-wear analysis are inserts from a threshing board. They were normally made of the middle parts of large standard blades (fig. 10: A). The na­ture of polish on both their surfaces resembles that on the sickle inserts. The polish, however, is less sharply delimited, and the macro- and micro-wear, too, is different. The blades of sickles are never heavily worn, and the linear traces on them have a «comet» shape. In con­trast, the threshing board inserts are covered with deep parallel dashes with loosely defined borders, directed slightly obliquely toward the cutting edge. The two tools, then, must have had different functions (fig. 10: B; 14: B).

The threshing board was used until re­cently by many peoples of southern and south­eastern Europe, Anatolia, the Near East, Transcaucasia, and northern Africa (Lucquet, Rivet 1933; fig. 11: A, B). We have found sev­eral well-preserved threshing boards in the vil­lage of Nagornoe, the Lower Danube, Odessa Region, Ukraine, which is inhabited by Bul­garians who had immigrated in the 19^th cen­tury (fig. 12). Because people still remember the way in which the threshing board was op­erated, we were able to reconstruct all stages of the process (fig. 13).

Chalcolithic harvesting tools are similar to neolithic sickles of Karanovo type in terms of construction (fig. 14: A), but their inserts are somewhat different.

In the Chalcolithic, as in the preceding pe­riod, grain was ground on stone querns. Their size, however, increased. Some were used for crushing ore, as evidenced by long longitudi­nal furrows with tiny particles of ore inside.

Contrary to a widespread view, grinding grain on querns is not very difficult or time-consuming. As the experiments showed (fig. 15: A), one glass of grain can be ground in 40 minutes (Коробкова 1974, 1981). Ac­cording to ethnographic data, querns and hand mills were used in some Bulgarian vil­lages until the late 19^th century (fig. 15: B).

Several new types of tools, then, appear in the Chalcolithic of Bulgaria. Traceological analysis helped to identify new, previously un­known tools, such as inserts for the threshing board, those for scrapers, and those for the skin-processing device, and drills for a me­chanical device.

Radical changes in flint working, and skin and wood processing indicate that these were no longer purely domestic crafts and had be­come specialized (Скакун 1982a, 1985, 1987, 1992, 1993; Skakun 1992, 1993a). An impor­tant factor was the rise of agricultural tech­niques, specifically the introduction of the plough. These qualitative changes apparently provided the base for the upsurge of the chal­colithic cultures in the Balcan area.

Марина З. П. О культурных контактах в энеолите – бронзовом веке племен левобережного предстепья и Северного Кавказа

Среди проблем культурогенеза древнего населения Циркумпонтийской зоны и Северного Кавказа особое место занимают формы взаимодействия участвующих в этом процессе племен (Массон 1992: 3–5). Мы попытаемся раскрыть особенности этого процесса на конкретных материалах культур Левобережного Предстепья III–II тыс. до н.э.

Стало уже традицией привлекать металлические изделия из погребений Предкавказья для датирования комплексов ямной и катакомбной культур. По данным А.Л. Нечитайло в памятниках ямной культуры в качестве импортов преобладают орудия труда и значительно реже в этой роли выступают "вилки, предметы украшения и оружие". При этом отмечается, что украшения из металла представлены исключительно пуансонными бляхами и только на стадии катакомбной культуры их ассортимент расширяется (Нечитайло 1991: 29, 40, 83). Имеющиеся в нашем распоряжении материалы позволяют дополнить этот список, а факт обнаружения двух идентичных комплексов ямной культуры из Присамарья исключает элемент случайности их присутствия здесь.

Погребение № 2 кургана 3 у села Новошандровка Павлоградского района впущено в курган ямной культуры (рис. 1: 1–7). Здесь от одежды погребенного сохранился пояс из светлой кожи. В его центральной части были попарно нашиты 22 бронзовые шаровидные подвески с петлей (рис. 1: 7). Второе погребение происходит из кургана 6 у села Хащевое. Погребение № 17 впущено в курган с основным энеолитическим постмариупольским захоронением. На костях ног подростка обнаружены, видимо, нашитые на подол одежды бронзовые шаровидные с петлей (9 экз.), шнуровидные с одним шариком (2 экз.) и каплевидная (1 экз.) подвески (рис. 1: 9). В районе пояса лежали костяные пронизи (12 экз.) и часть клыка, просверленного в корневой части (рис. 1: 10).

Рассматриваемые нами украшения относятся С.Н. Санджаровым к группе "архаичных" и привлекаются в качестве аналогии комплексу из катакомбного погребения № 1 кургана 1 у села Майдан Донецкой области. При их датировке автор основывается на сопоставительном анализе других категорий инвентаря, образующих закрытый комплекс, и относит подвески "архаического типа", исходя из предлагаемых А.Л. Нечитайло датировок, к последним столетиям III тыс. до н.э. (Санжаров 1992: 6, 30–33, рис. 2: 8; 30). На Ставрополье в могильнике Веселая Роща стерженьки-подвески данного типа обнаружены в ямах с вытянутыми костяками (Кореневский, Романовская 1989: 37, рис. 2; 38, рис. 3). Аналогичные подвески из Прикубанья В.И. Марковин считает "прототипом более поздних подвесок, имитирующих обрывок шнура" и также связывает с ранним периодом северокавказской культуры (Марковин 1960: 33). На территории Северного Кавказа стерженьки-подвески происходят из курганных погребений этапа IB–C, характеризующих конец "древнеямной общности" (Сафронов 1974: 23–306). А.Л. Нечитайло, указывая на присутствие данного типа подвесок в ряде погребений северокавказской культуры, отмечает "широкий диапазон" их бытования. Нижняя граница I этапа северокавказский погребений относится к рубежу III–II тыс. до н.э., а при определении верхнего рубежа этого этапа подчеркивается необходимость сопоставления с памятниками Закавказья и Передней Азии, что дает в абсолютных датах 2000-1800/1700 гг. до н.э. (Нечитайло 1978: 36, 65, 103, 104; рис. 13: 6; 48; 20: 6). Привлекаемые исследователем даты по ¹⁴С подтверждают предлагаемую датировку. В.А.Сафронов считает, что "древняя граница для костяных молоточковидных булавок, встречающихся вместе со стерженьками-подвесками в закрытых комплексах, определяется временем не раньше рубежа III–II тыс. до н.э.", а привлечение ближневосточных аналогий позволяет ему установить верхнюю дату бытования некоторых совместно находимых с рассматриваемыми категорий украшений 1900-1700 гг. до н.э. (Сафронов 1974: 166). С.Н. Кореневский, рассматривая металлические украшения Центрального Предкавказья, выделяет две подгруппы, хронологические рамки которых совпадают с ранним этапом северокавказской культуры. В раннюю группу включен и рассматриваемый тип подвесок, появление которых связывается с традициями погребального костюма посткуроаракских курганов Южного и Северного Кавказа, алано-беденской группы, сачхерских курганов и раннетриалетских памятников (Кореневский 1990: 92, 97; Санжаров 1992: 34). Эти сопоставления позволяют отнести погребения ямной культуры Днепровского Левобережного Предстепья со стерженьками-подвесками "архаического типа" к рубежу III–II тыс. до н.э. и считать эту дату началом проникновения в Степь данного типа украшений.

Более сложные по технологии изготовления стерженьки-подвески происходят из катакомбного погребения № 3 кургана 9 у села Вербки в Присамарье. Они – многовитковые шнуровидные с одним и двумя шариками на конце (3 экз.), а также в виде уплощенного стержня, состоящего из двух продольных половинок и утолщения-шарика на конце. В составе инвентаря обнаружены также металлические бочонковидные бусины, кольцевидные медальоны с ушком для подвешивания, литая полусферическая бляха с отверстием в центре, костяная молоточковидная булавка, подвески из зубов псовых. Важным для датировки комплекса является присутствие кольцевидных медальонов со шнуровым орнаментом и костяной молоточковидной булавки. Почти аналогичный набор происходит из катакомбного погребения № 4 кургана 4 у села Голубовское Луганской области, сопоставляемый с украшениями I–II периодов северокавказской культуры (Самойленко 1991: 143, 149, рис. 6: 4). Е.Л. Фещенко, опубликовавший комплекс, подчеркивает широкие хронологические рамки кольцевидных медальонов с ушком, отмечая их концентрацию в "погребениях второго этапа развития северокавказской культурно-исторической области" (Фещенко 1992: 90). Приводимые А.Л. Нечитайло данные свидетельствуют о хронологическом их предшествовании дисковидным и миниатюрным медальонам, характерным "для второго этапа северокавказских культур" (Нечитайло 1991: 85). С.Н. Братченко подвески-медальоны с "концентрическими (часто шнуровыми) кругами" связывает лишь с I этапом северокавказской культуры, отмечая их устойчивое сочетание со шнуровыми подвесками и ссылаясь на комплекс из Соломенки и "Сачхерские курганы, верхний хронологический рубеж которых определяется О.М. Джапаридзе 1900–1800 гг. до н.э." (Братченко 1976: 141).

Дисковидная бляха из погребения у села Вербки представляет собой степное подражание северокавказским образцам с пуансонной орнаментацией, что позволяет проводить сопоставления с комплексами Северного Кавказа. Важным является также присутствие костяной молоточковидной булавки, ибо подобное сочетание характерно и для памятников Северного Кавказа. Бляха с пуансоном происходит из погребения кургана X в Триалети (Куфтин 1941: табл. CXМ) и датируется рубежом III–II тыс. до н.э. (Гогадзе 1970: 239–241). Распространение слабовыпуклых блях с пуансонным орнаментом относится к последней четверти III тыс. до н.э., что не противоречит "выводу С.Н. Кореневского о становлении основных черт среднебронзовой металлообработки в зоне Большого Кавказа и Предгорья в XXII, XXI вв. до н.э." (Санжаров 1992: 37–38). В.А. Сафронов отмечает устойчивое сочетание кольцевидных бляшек-подвесок со шнуровой орнаментацией с усложненными типами стерженьков-подвесок, бляшек с пуансонной орнаментацией и относит их к началу среднебронзового века Северного Кавказа (Сафронов 1974: 87, 143, 278, рис. 55). Исходя из этих сопоставлений, можно отнести катакомбное погребение у села Вербки к первой четверти II тыс. до н.э. и рассматривать верхнюю границу в пределах 1800–1700 гг. до н.э. (Фещенко 1990: 100), что предполагает временное сосуществование ямной и катакомбной культур на рассматриваемой территории, неоднократно отмечавшееся исследователями.

Это сосуществование вытекает из анализа обрядовых признаков, образующих устойчивые группы в стратифицированных курганах региона (Марина 1978: 55–69; 1982: 8–11). Так, погребение № 17 у села Хащевое произведено скорчено на боку и входит в группу позднейших (IV стратиграфический горизонт). Появление этого обряда рассматривалось как "свидетельство реальных контактов с катакомбными племенами и, прежде всего, донецкой культуры, где эта поза является ведущей" (Марина 1990: 45). При анализе катакомбной культуры Орельско-Самарского междуречья отмечается хронологическое сосуществование ямной и катакомбной "равноправных" областей" (Ковалева 1982: 39), что не вызывает возражений в связи с предлагаемыми датировками для раннекатакомбных погребений сопредельных территорий. Катакомбные погребения I группы Северо-Восточного Приазовья, содержащие стерженьки-подвески, относятся к 2100–1900 гг. до н.э. (Посредников, Постников 1990: 89), а ранний этап катакомбной культуры Донеччины датируется 2200/2100–2000 гг. до н.э. (Братченко 1989: 29).

Довольно много данных о взаимосвязях носителей катакомбных культур двух регионов свидетельствует о разнообразии форм последних, включая миграции в Степь и Лесостепь предкавказских племен. Особого внимания заслуживают погребения манычского типа, при характеристике которых в рамках Орельско-Самарского междуречья отмечается отсутствие в катакомбных погребениях Присамарья посуды предкавказского варианта, что объясняется географическим положением района и этноисторической ситуацией сложившейся здесь (Ковалева 1983: 37, 39). Открытие в последние годы в Присамарье группы погребений этого типа и неординарность погребального обряда последних позволяют еще раз проанализировать эти данные.

Курган 7 у села Богдановка Павлоградского района содержал четыре погребения (№ 2, 6, 8, 11), относимых к группе манычских (Марина, Фещенко 1989: 50–61). Они совершены в катакомбных могилах с прямоугольным входным колодцем и овальной камерой. Положение скелетов, скорченное на правом боку, характерно для V группы погребений Калмыкии, связываемой с понятием "манычский вариант" (Сафронов 1974: 100, 110). Исключением является погребение № 2, могила которого не фиксировалась, но, судя по меловой подсыпке дна, имела подквадратную форму. На дне вплотную друг к другу стояли 6 реповидных сосудов (рис. 2: 1–6). Внутри каждого из них находились сильно мацирированные отдельные кости животного (овцы) и частей скелета взрослого, что свидетельствует о ритуальном расчленении. Рядом с одним из сосудов фиксировалось пятно красной охры. Нам неизвестны случаи преднамеренного расчленения погребенного и помещения его останков вместе с тризненной пищей в сосуды, хотя отдельные элементы, в частности, целенаправленное нарушение анатомической целостности скелета встречается и отмечается некоторыми исследователями как отличительная черта катакомбных погребений Восточного Маныча (Эрдниев 1978: 5). По типологии, разработанной С.Н. Братченко, горшки погребения № 2 относятся к реповидным, с короткой шейкой и венчиком, отогнутым наружу в виде ободка (Сафронов 1981: 85). Следует отметить, что их отличает стройность, достигаемая вследствие перемещения линии плеча и уменьшения дна (рис. 2: 1–6). Близкие формы происходят из катакомбных памятников предгорной зоны Северной Осетии (Мошкова, Максименко 1974: рис. 5: 4; 14: 4). Заслуживает внимания тот факт, что использование пуговицевидных налепов, как это сделано на двух горшках рассматриваемого комплекса, также имеет место, по данным В.А.Сафронова, на посуде предгорной зоны Северной Осетии (Мошкова, Максименко 1974: 53). Относительно близкие экземпляры известны в манычских погребениях Нижнего Подонья (Круглов, Подгаецкий 1941: Табл. XXV: 6; Сафронов 1981: 89).

А.Л.Нечитайло, рассматривая предкавказские импорты, отмечает концентрацию реповидной керамики в Поднепровье. Однако все анализируемые ею сосуды из погребений Крыма, Приазовья и Поднепровья интерпретируются "как подражания" (Нечитайло 1991: 76) манычским, что подтверждает их массивность и незначительные размеры. Очевидно здесь можно говорить не о копировании, а о собственно северокавказском импорте, о чем свидетельствует ареал приводимых выше аналогий, а также близкие показатели основных параметров.

Имеющиеся в ряде публикаций неточности о местонахождении и количестве отдельных находок, в том числе "импортов" (Нечитайло 1974: 83), делают необходимым полное описание комплекса с посоховидной булавкой из кургана 7 у села Богдановка в Присамарье (рис. 3). Погребение № 11 произведено в катакомбе, входной колодец которой имел форму квадрата со стороной 1,2 м. Заполнением служил слой суглинка и гранитные камни, размеры самого крупного из которых достигали 1 × 0,5 × 0,4 м. Под южной стенкой устроена ступенька на глубине 1,4 м от верхнего уровня. Проход в камеру, примыкавшую вплотную к колодцу с севера, имел овальную форму и со стороны колодца закрывался поставленными под углом обработанными бревнышками диаметром 6–7 см. Камера – почти круглая, площадь дна – 1,6 × 1,5 м, высота свода в сохранившейся части – 1,25 м. Дно покрывала растительная подстилка, посыпанная мелом. Погребение совершено в деревянном решетчатом гробу, собранном из досок шириной 5–6 см при толщине 1 см. На нем устьем к северу лежал сосуд и череп овцы. Стенка от второго, большего по размерам сосуда, использовавшегося в качестве жаровни, находилась на дне камеры, под западной стенкой, в ногах погребенного. В нем найдены угли и кости животного. Рядом обнаружены фрагменты костяных, орнаментированных черной краской, цилиндрических трубочек. Скелет ребенка лежал скорчено на правом боку, головой на запад. У правой его кисти обнаружено ожерелье из бронзовых и костяных бус бочонковидной и биконической формы, пронизей в виде свитых из бронзовой полоски спиралей, ложковидной подвески с загнутой петелькой и посоховидной булавки с круглой головкой со сквозным отверстием. Изогнутая часть иглы имеет рельефный "гребень" и двойной ряд полусферических выступов. Длина – 10,5 см, диаметр головки – 1,1 см (рис. 3: 7).

Бронзовые украшения данного комплекса выступают в качестве не только культурного, но и хронологического показателя. Аналогии им из погребений Калмыкии и Предкавказья (Сафронов 1974: рис. 18: 5, 146, 155; 1979: 75, табл. 67), датируются XVII в. до н.э. Однако В.А. Сафронов отмечает возможность их сосуществования "с самыми ранними комплексами" (Сафронов 1974: 92) горизонта Д, когда получают распространение памятники "манычского варианта" с сосудами реповидной формы, чем датировка расширяется до XVI – середины XIV в. до н.э. (Эрдниев 1978: 15). Это свидетельствует о сравнительно широком проникновении групп манычского населения в Днепровское Левобережье и длительности его пребывания здесь, на что указывает также серия металлических изделий, обнаруженных в катакомбных погребениях Днепровского Предстепья, рассматриваемых в качестве местных подражаний северокавказским прототипам (Фещенко 1992), подтверждая непосредственные контакты между поставщиками сырья и мастерами-металлургами нижнеднепровского металлургического центра.

Marina Z. P. On cultural contacts of tribes of the Left–Bank Near–Steppe regions and those of the Northern Caucasus in Aeneolith–Bbronze age periods

Forms of interaction of the tribes that took part in the process of cultural evolution of the ancient population in the Circum-Pontic zone and Northern Caucasus are of a special interest (Массон 1992: 3–5). In this paper we are attempting to reveal peculiarities of this process using the material of the 3^rd–2nd millennium B.C. cultures of the Left–Bank Near-Steppe area.

The metal objects from burials found to the north of Caucasus have been traditionally used for dating excavated sets of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) and Catacomb cultures. According to A. L. Nechitaylo, working tools were prevailing among the imports at sites of the Pit-Grave Culture, the “forks, decorative objects and weapons” being imported much more rarely. Moreover, the metal decorations were represented exclusively by punch-plates, and only at the stage of the Catacomb Culture the range of the decorations widened up (Нечитайло 1991: 29, 40, 83). The material obtained in recent years enable us to supplement the list of imports, the discovery of two identical Pit-Grave Culture funeral sets ruling out the possibility of their presence here by mere chance.

Grave no. 2 of kurgan 3 near the village of Novoshandrovka in the Pavlograd Region was introduced into an earlier Pit-Grave Culture barrow (fig. 1: 1–7). Of the deceased person's clothes a belt made of light-coloured leather has preserved. In the central part of the belt there were 22 sewn on in pairs bronze globular pendants with suspension loops (fig. 1: 7). A second burial was discovered in kurgan 6 near the village of Khashchevoe. Grave no. 17 was introduced into a kurgan of original Aeneolithic Post-Mariupol burial. On the leg bones of the buried adolescent there were found several bronze pendants, possibly sewn on the lap: globular with a suspension loop (9 items), cord-like with a single globule each (2 items), and one drop-shaped (fig. 1: 9). In the belt area there were lying bone spacer-beads (12 items) and a fragment of a fang bored through in its base (fig. 1: 10).

These decorations were assigned by S. N. Sanzharov to the group of the ‘archaic’ ones and he considered them as parallels to the set from grave no. 1 of kurgan 1 near the village of Maidan in the Donetsk Oblast. On the basis of the dated by A. L. Nechitaylo other objects from that closed set of inventory the former author assigned the ‘archaic’ pendants to the 3rd millennium B.C. (Санжаров 1992: 6, 30–33, fig. 2: 8; 30). Rod-pendants of this type were found in the burial ground of Veselaya Roshcha in the Stavropol Krai, in pits with extended skeletons (Кореневский, Романовская 1989: 37, fig. 2; 38, fig. 3). V. I. Markovin considers the similar pendants from the Kuban area as “a prototype of later pendants imitating a piece of cord” also connecting them with a later period of the North-Caucasus Culture (Марковин 1960: 33). In the Northern Caucasus, the rod-pendants come from the stage IB-C kurgan burials characteristic of the end of the “Ancient Pit-Grave unity” (Сафронов 1974: 23–306). A. L. Nechitaylo in pointing out the presence of such pendants in a number of burials of the North-Caucasus Culture notes a “wide period” of use of these pendants. The lower boundary of stage I of the North-Caucasus burials is dated to the turn of the 3^rd–2nd millennia B.C. When defining the upper boundary it is necessary to make a comparison with the sites of the Trans-Caucasus and West Asia that gives the absolute dates of 2000–1800/1700 B.C. (Нечитайло 1978: 36, 65, 103, 104; figs. 13: 6; 48; 20: 6). These dates were also confirmed by 14C-method. According to V. A. Safronov “the lower boundary for the bone hammer-shaped pins accompanying the rod-pendants in closed assemblages falls to the period not earlier than the turn of the 3rd-2nd millennia B.C.”; the Middle East parallels allowed this author to state the 1900–1700 B.C. as the upper date of use of some types of decorations found together with the discussed ones (Сафронов 1974: 166). S. N. Korenevskiy singles out two sub-groups among the metal decorations found in the central part of the area to the north of Caucasus; both these groups coincide chronologically with the earlier stage of the North-Caucasus Culture. This author includes the pendants under discussion into the early group and connects their appearance with the funeral costume from post-Kura-Araks kurgans in the Southern and Northern Caucasus, kurgans of the Alan-Beden and Sachkhere groups, and the early Trialeti sites (Кореневский 1990: 92, 97; Санжаров 1992: 34). The mentioned comparisons enable us to date the Pit-Grave Culture burials containing the ‘archaic’ rod-pendants, in the Dnieper Left-Bank Near-Steppe area, to the turn of the 3^rd–2nd millennia B.C. and to accept this date as the beginning of the penetration of such decorations into the Steppe.

Technologically more complicated rod-pendants come from catacomb grave no. 3 of kurgan 9 near the village of Verbki in Samara area. These pendants are either many-coil cord-like ones with one or two globules at the end (3 items) or shaped as a flattened rod consisting of two longitudinal halves and a globular bulge at the end. Among the funerary inventory also barrel-shaped beads, ring-shaped lockets with suspension loops, a cast hemispherical metal plate with a hole in the centre, a bone hammer-shaped pin, and pendants made of canine teeth were found. The presence of the ring-shaped lockets and hammer-shaped pin is of great importance for dating this funerary set. Almost an identical set comes from catacomb grave no. 4 of kurgan 4 near the village of Golubovskoe in the Lugansk Oblast. The latter set has been compared with the decorations of the Ist-IInd stages of the North-Caucasus Culture (Самойленко 1991: 143, 149, fig. 6: 4). E. L. Feshchenko who published this set emphasised the wide chronological range of the ring-shaped lockets with suspension loops and pointed out their high concentration in “the burials of the second stage of the North-Caucasus cultural and historical community development” (Фещенко 1992: 90). According to A. L. Nechitaylo's data these lockets preceded the discoid and miniature ones characteristic “of the second stage of the North-Caucasus cultures” (Нечитайло 1991: 85). S. N. Bratchenko connects the pendant-lockets “with concentric (often cord-like) circles” only with the first stage of the North-Caucasus Culture; he points out their stable combinations with the cord-like pendants and refers to the sets from Solomenki and “the Sachkhere kurgans for which the upper boundary has been defined by O. M. Dzhaparidze as the 1900–1800 B.C.” (Братченко 1976: 141).

The discoid metal plate from the Verbki burial represents a Steppe imitation of the North-Caucasus examples with the punch ornaments. The latter fact allows us to make a comparison with the North-Caucasus sets. Of importance is also the presence of the bone hammer-shaped pin because such a combination is typical to the North-Caucasus sites. Another metal plate with punch decoration comes from a grave of kurgan X in Ttrialeti (Куфтин 1941: table CXÌ) and is dated to the turn of the 3^rd–2nd millennia B.C. (Гогадзе 1970: 239–241). The spreading of the slightly bulging metal plates with the punch decoration is dated to the last quarter of the 3rd millennium B.C. that does not run counter to “S. N. Korenevskiy's supposition on establishing of the main traits of Middle-Bronze metal treatment in the Great Caucasus and Foothill zone in the 22nd and 21st centuries B.C.)” (Санжаров 1992: 37–38). V. A. Safronov points out the stable combination of the ring-shaped plates-pendants having the cord-like decoration with the complicated types of rod-pendants and plates with punch decorations. He assigns the ring-shaped pendants to the early Middle-Bronze Age in the North Caucasus (Сафронов 1974: 87, 143, 278, fig. 55). On the basis of these comparisons one may date the catacomb burial near the village of Verbki to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium B.C. and accept the upper boundary within the 1800–1700 B.C. (Фещенко 1990: 100). Such a dating suggests the often supposed by scholars period of coexistence of the Pit-Grave and Catacomb cultures in the area under discussion.

This coexistence results from an analysis of the burial-rite features forming stable groups in the kurgans with known stratigraphy in this region (Марина 1978: 55–69; 1982: 8–11). Thus burial no. 17 near the village of Khashchevoe contained a flexed on one side skeleton and belonged to the group of the latest graves (stratigraphical level IV). The appearance of such a rite is considered as an “evidence of real contacts with Catacomb tribes and, in the first hand, with those of the Donetsk Culture for which such a pose is the leading one” (Марина 1990: 45). During analysis of the Catacomb Culture of the Orel-Samara region a chronological coexistence of ‘equally justified’ Pit-Grave and Catacomb areas has been noted (Ковалева 1982: 39) that is not at variance with the proposed dating of the Early-Catacomb burials in the adjoining regions. The Catacomb burials of group 1 in the North-Eastern Azov area that included rod-pendants among the inventory are dated to the 2100-1900 B.C. (Посредников, Постников 1990: 89), and the early stage of the Catacomb Culture in the Donetsk area is dated to the 2200/2100–2000 B.C. (Братченко 1989: 29).

Fairly numerous data on interactions of bearers of the Catacomb cultures in both regions suggest a variety of forms of these interactions including migrations of cis-Caucasian tribes to the steppe and forest-steppe regions. The most noteworthy are the burials of the Manych type in the Samara regions that contained no pottery of cis-Caucasian variety in the catacombs; the latter fact is explained by the geographical situation of the region and ethno-historical conditions here formed (Ковалева 1983: 37, 39). The recent discovery of this group burials in the Samara regions and the peculiarity of their funerary rite enable us to consider once more the known data.

Kurgan 7 near the village of Bogdanovka of the Pavlograd Region included four burials (nos. 2, 6, 8, and 11) assigned to the group of the Manych ones (Марина, Фещенко 1989: 50–61). The burials had been made in catacomb-type graves with a rectangular entrance shaft and an oval chamber. The position of the skeletons – flexed on the right side – is typical to the group V burials in Kalmykia that are connected with the concept of the ‘Manych Variety’ (Сафронов 1974: 100, 110). An exception was burial no. 2 the grave of which was not drawn but judging by its bottom chalk make-up had a sub-square shape. Six turnip-shaped vessels stood close to each other on the bottom (fig. 2: 1–6). Each of the vessels contained strongly macerated single bones of sheep and parts of adult's skeletons evidencing of dismembering. Close to one of the vessels a spot of red ochre was registered. Cases of intentional dismembering of the dead and placing the remains into vessels together with the funeral meals are unknown to us, though some particular elements of that — i.e. the purposeful disturbance of the skeleton integrity — have been registered and are considered by some scholars as the distinctive marks of the East Manych Catacomb burials (Эрдниев 1978: 5). In terms of the typology developed by S. N. Bratchenko the burial no. 2 pots belong to the turnip-shaped ones with short necks and rims outturned like a felloe (Сафронов 1981: 85). One should note their slim shape resulted of the shift of the shoulder line and narrowing of the bottom (fig. 2: 1–6). Similar shapes come from Catacomb sites of the Foothill zone of the Northern Ossetia (Мошкова, Максименко 1974: figs. 5: 4; 14: 4). Use of button-shaped pellets of applied clay as it is seen on two pots from the set under discussion, according to V. A. Safronov, also is encountered on the pottery from the Foothill zone of the Northern Ossetia (Мошкова, Максименко 1974: 53). Relatively close examples have been registered in the Manych-type burials in Lower Don area (Круглов, Подгаецкий 1941: table XXV: 6; Сафронов 1981: 89).

A. L. Nechitaylo in considering cis-Caucasian imports pointed out the concentration of the turnip-shaped pottery in the Dnieper area. However, she interpreted all the studied by her vessels from burials in the Crimea, Azov and Dnieper areas “as imitations” to the Manych ones (Нечитайло 1991: 76) that is confirmed by their massiveness and rather small sizes. Possibly, in fact, we are dealing rather with real North-Caucasian imports than with their copies that is evidenced by the area where the mentioned parallels have been found and by closeness of the main parameters of the latter.

Certain mistakes in publications concerning the location and quantity of particular finds including those of “imports” (Нечитайло 1974: 83) necessitate a complete description of the set with the crozier-shaped pin found in kurgan 7 near the village of Bogdanovka in Samara region (fig. 3). Burial no. 11 was located in a catacomb the entrance shaft of which was square in section with the side of 1.2 m. The filling had been made of loam and granite rubble with the largest stones of 1 ´ 0.5 ´ 0.4 m. A step was made beneath the southern wall at the depth of 1.4 m from the upper level. The oval passage into the chamber closely adjoining to the shaft from the north was shut from that side with logs 6–7 cm in diameter. The chamber was almost round with the bottom area of 1.6 ´ 1.5 m and the vault height of 1.25 m in its preserved part. The bottom was covered with plant litter made up with chalk. The dead was buried in a wooden trellis coffin assembled of boards 5–6 cm wide and 1 cm thick. On the coffin there were a vessel lying with its mouth turned to the north and a sheep skull. On the bottom of the chamber, beneath its western wall – in the feet of the deceased – there was a wall of a larger vessel that had been used as a brazier. In this vessel charcoals and animal bones were found. Fragments of bone cylindrical tubes decorated with black-painted ornament were discovered nearby. A child's skeleton was lying flexed on the right side with its head to the west. A necklace of bronze and bone barrel-shaped and biconical beads, spacer-beads shaped as spirals coiled of a bronze band, a spoon-shaped pendant with a bent suspension loop and a crozier-shaped pin having a round head with a through hole were discovered near child's right carpus. The bent part of the pin spike had a relief ‘comb’ and a double row of hemispherical protuberances on it. Its length was 10.5 cm; the head diameter – 1.1 cm (fig. 3: 7).

The bronze decorations from this set are not only a cultural indicator but also a chronological one. Their parallels from burials of Kalmykia and regions to the north of Caucasus (Сафронов 1974: fig. 18:5, 146, 155; 1979: 75, table 67) are dated to the 17th century B.C. However, S. A. Safronov (Сафронов 1974: 92) points out the possibility of their coexistence “with the earliest sets” of level “Ä” to which the sites of the “Manych variety” with the turnip-shaped vessels are related. Due to the latter fact the dating range widens up to the 16th or the middle of 14th century B.C. (Эрдниев 1978: 15). This suggests a relatively wide penetration of the Manych population into the Dnieper Left-Bank area and their long presence there. A series of metal items found in Catacomb burials in the Dnieper Near-Steppe regions also adds evidence in favour of the latter supposition; these items are considered as local imitations to the North-Caucasus prototypes (Фещенко 1992) and confirm direct contacts between the raw material suppliers and the metallurgists of the Lower Dnieper metallurgic centre.

Рыбалова В.Д. Два поселения предскифского времени на левобережье Среднего Днестра и некоторые проблемы белогрудовской культуры (по материалам разведки Юго-Подольской экспедиции в 1953—1954 гг.)

V. D. Rybalova. Two pre-Scythian sites on the left bank of the Middle Dniester: Results of pilot excavations carried out by the South Podolsk Expedition in 1953—54 (with reference to problems in the study of Belogrudovka Culture)

The article was completed and prepared for publication by Dr. G. I. Smirnova, chif scientific worker of the De­partment of Archaeology of Eastern Europe and Siberia (State Hermitage).

Archaeological finds excavated from Late Bronze Age sites at Subbotovka and Yaruga, Mogilev-Podolskij District, Vinnitsa Region, Ukraine, have remained in the background for some 45 years. These are the first, and so far the only, sites representing Belogrudovka Cul­ture east of the Middle Dniester. Their discov­ery has made it possible to extend the distri­bution area of Late Bronze Age Belogrudovka

Culture, which is well known in the forest-steppe region west of the Dnieper (Be­logrudovka, Sobkovka, Andrusovka, lower level of Subbotov, etc. ) and the Bug basin (Pechery and Sandraki) up to the Dniester. Materials from both sites, including both sur­face finds and those from small trenches, are now in the possession of the Hermitage De­partment of Archaeology.

The specialists have no doubts that the collection, mostly consisting of ceramics, rep­resents Belogrudovka Culture. This culture is mostly characterized by roughly worked kitchen ware, table ware being less common.

The kitchen ware includes rather unusual tulip-shaped pots of two types (A and B, ac­cording to Berezanskaya). Type A pots are elongated and have high necks, slightly everted rims, and globular bodies (Березаньска 1964: 51, figs. 1: 2, 4, 5; 2: 1). The bases are nar­row and often flanged (figs. 2: 4, 5; 4: 3, 4, 6, 11; 8: 7, 8). Type B pots have gently curved profiles, their necks are less everted, and the rim is  almost  straight  (Березаньска 1964: 52, figs. 1: 1, 3; 2: 2) (figs. 1: 1, 2, 4, 6; 4: 1, 2, 5, 7; 8: 1—6).

Pots of both types are decorated with rolls, either modelled from the surface or applied, triangular or semioval in section, mostly plain or, much less often, pinched (Yaruga). While on type A pots the rolls were normally placed along the lower part of the neck, on type B pots they are either in the middle part of the neck or closer to the rim (in the latter case, the rolls are sometimes double). Some type A pots bear rows of pierced holes above the rolls.

The table ware from Subbotovka and Yaruga includes all categories that occur at Belogrudovka assemblages from Sobkovka and Andrusovka: bowls, ewers, scoops, and beak­ers (Березаньска 1964: 55, figs. 8—10; Покровська, Петровська 1961: p. 138, figs. 7; 8). The Middle Dnieper table ware assemblage includes a smaller number of types, and some of these are different.

Specifically, there are no helmet-shaped bowls with everted rims or beakers with high necks known from Andrusovka and from the ashpits of the Uman area (Березаньска 1964: figs. 8; 10: 10; Покровська, Петровська 1961: 141, 142, fig. 8: 11—16).

In the Dniester region, the most common forms were conical and hemispherical bowls of four varieties (figs. 3: 14; 6: 1—5, 8; 7: 1), Halstatt-type ewers with gently profiled necks and globular bodies (fig. 2: 1, 2; 5: 1; 8: 9, 10), scoops with handles that are either ribbon-type or oval in section and have no knob on I the top (figs. 3: 6; 5: 8), and low wide-mouthed beakers (figs. 3: 1, 2; 7: 4).

Some categories of vessels were most likely borrowed from Belozerka Culture of the steppe zone, specifically its Balta group (Ванчугов 1990: 73, fig. 25: 20, photo 1: 14; 4: 6). They include small ewers with low necks, globular bodies and narrow bases, certain va­rieties of scoops, and possibly low wide-mouthed beakers (figs. 2: 6, 7; 3: 1, 2; 4: 10; 5: 8). In terms of technology, shape, and deco­ration, an evidently imported group of bur­nished vessels stands out from the rest. It in­cludes hemispherical bowls with horizontal rows of cannelures on the outer side (fig. 6: 1), and ewers with red-orange inside, decorated with horizontal cannelures along the rim (fig. 5: 3, 5, 7). Nearly identical specimens occur among the cannelured Halstatt bowls and ewers of the Kishinev-Corleten type in the Prut-Siret interfluve (Мелюкова 1961: 27, fig. 15: 1, 2; Смирнова 1990a: 23, fig. 2: 7, 9; Leviюki 1994: 84—89, figs. 27: 2; 28: 13, 14, 16, 18; 26: 3; 27: 2, 5).

The ceramic assemblage from Yaruga in­cludes a group of fragments which is unusual for Belogrudovka Culture. They belong to bi­conical vessels with wide mouths and straight rims which were slightly folded inward (fig. 5: 4, 6). In terms of shape and other details they resemble biconical vessels of Vysotskaya Cul­ture, which derive from biconical vessels of Lusatian Culture (Крушельницька 1976, fig. 7: 20, 22).

Other clay artifacts include a rattle (fig. 1: 3) which has close parallels among the Lusa­tian and Vysotskaya assemblages (Dobrowski 1972: 150, fig. XXXII: 1; Sulimirski 1931: 11, 126, 127, tab. XXII: 7, 10, 17). Stone wedge-shaped axes, clay spindle whorls of various shapes, and flint inserts from sickles are typi­cal of Belogrudovka Culture (figs. 1: 5; 3: 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13; 7: 6, 7).

Based mostly on the characteristics of the kitchen ware, we believe Subbotovka to be earlier than Yaruga. Given the table ware with Chernolessky features, Yaruga I may belong to an earlier stage of late Belogrudovka (early Chernolesye) Culture. If so, Yaruga 2 dates to the end of late Belogrudovka, transitional to developed Chernolesye.

The most important issues are the chronol­ogy of Belogrudovka Culture and its place among other Late Bronze Age cultures of the steppe and forest-steppe zones of the Northern Pontic area. Disputing the largely outdated views published in the 50^s and 60^s, we present a detailed analysis of all the scanty data bear­ing on the relative chronology of Be­logrudovka and neighbouring cultures, first and foremost, the steppe Belozerka Culture, and a group of cannelured Halstatt-Kishinev­Corleten in the Eastern Carpathian area.

The cross-comparative analysis of artifacts (bronze pins with ring-shaped heads, bispiral head pendants, shafted daggers with parallel edges, spears of the steppe type identical to those found at Zavadovka and Vyshetara­sovka, bone cheek-pieces with three openings), and some categories of pottery, has enabled us to link Belogrudovka, Belozerka, and Kishinev-Corleten sites.

Given the recently proposed dates of Be­lozerka (12^th or mid-12^th—10^th centuries BC, see Отрощенко 1985: 524; 1986: 149; Ванчугов 1990: 110—122), and Kishinev-Corleten (12^th or late 12^th—10^th centuries, see Smirnova 1985: 45—47), we suggest a conservative esti­mate for Belogrudovka: 11^th—10^th centuries BC, since it would be hasty to assume that the date of Belogrudovka is the same as that of Belozerka.

The materials discussed above enable us to set the lower chronological boundary of Be­logrudovka at 11^th century BC or, at any event, at the period of direct transition from Komarov-Trzciniec Culture to Belogrudovka (no earlier than 1100 BC). Although these data are relevant for dating Subbotovka and Yaruga, these sites themselves have yielded im­portant evidence which may help to evaluate the age of Belogrudovka in the Middle Dni­ester and upper Southern Bug area.

Specifically, fragments of Halstatt-type pottery were found, such as bowls with hori­zontal cannelures on the outer side below the rim (fig. 6: 1) and ewers with cannelures on the necks or bodies. The latter have a black outer surface, which is sometimes burnished, and a red-orange inside (fig. 2: 1; 5: 3, 5, 7).

Because such bowls are a characteristic feature of Kishinev-Corleten assemblage, they must be included in the category of imported ware. The likely source is the Kishinev-Cor­leten of Moldavia rather than another group of cannelured Halstatt, Gava-Goligrady in the Ukrainian part of Eastern Cis-Carpathian. Re­grettably, fragments of ewers from Yaruga and Subbotovka lack characteristic details of shape or decoration. At least, the red-orange inside is a feature not only of Gava-Goligrady ewers (Смирнова 1976: 22), but of Kishinev-Corleten ones as well (Мелюкова 1961: 37).

Having restricted our search to Kishinev-Corleten sites, we can assume that they are contemporaneous with Belogrudovka sites of the Middle Dniester area. According to Smir­nova's chronological estimates, which appear to be the most accurate ones so far, the Kishinev-Corleten sites appeared in Moldavia in late 12^th century BC and disappeared around 900 BC (Смирнова 1985: 45—47, figs. 4, 5; 1990a: 26, 27). Subbotovka and Yaruga, too, must evidently be dated within 1100—900 BC, although more accurate estimates are dif­ficult given the small number of finds (not a single metal artifact was found) and lack of chronological cues in the evolution of Be­logrudovka ceramic assemblage.

These two sites represent a previously un­known southwestern extension of Be­logrudovka Culture. Its principal difference from the southeastern variant, which has been studied in detail, and especially from its Dnieper group (Andrusovka-Subbotov), stems from the fact that that the southwestern vari­ant had not been influenced by the steppe cul­ture, although some connections are possible (as evidenced by low-necked ewers with globu­lar bodies and light-yellow unburnished sur­face, as well as by certain other categories of table ware). Also, this variant differs from oth­ers by exhibiting distinct traces of contact with cultures of the cannelured Halstatt, mostly the Kishinev-Corleten group, apparently thanks to their territorial proximity.

The sources of Belogrudovka Culture in the Southern Bug — Dniester interfluve are not quite clear due to the absence of sites rep­resenting the Komarov-Trzciniec Culture in this area.

However, it may be suggested that this part of the forest-steppe, including the Upper Bug, belonged to the distribution area of this culture. Most likely, it constituted the periph­ery of its Rovno group, the focus of which was in the Styr, Goryn, and Sluch basins, western Volynia.

The Komarov-Trzciniec elements, possibly representing the late stages of this culture, must have been introduced into the Dnies­ter— Southern Bug interfluve via the Goryn basin, where the largest cluster of sites is known, and via the upper Sluch, where the group of mounds near Kolosovka (formerly Voytsekhovka) is the closest to Pechery in terms of both chronology and cultural attribu­tion. The burial rite of both sites has similar features such as small mounds, shallow pits, flexed burials, and western orientation of the deceased (Лагодовська 1948: 63; Рыбалова 1961: 21).

Notably, the tulip-shaped vessel from Pechery (Рыбалова 1961: fig. 10) is very similar to certain pots from Voitsekhovka (Лагодовська 1948: fig. 4). Tulip-shaped vessels were also found at many Trzciniec-Komarov sites in the Goryn basin, such as Koscianec (Swiesznikow 1967: tab. XIII: 12; Крушельницька 1976: fig. 1: II: I, 2), Sviatoe, Slavuta, and Neteshin (Березанская 1972: fig. 3: 8; tab. XXXIX: 5; XLI: 8), etc. Being the likely prototypes of the Pechery specimen, they re­semble it in several features such as elongated body, wide and gently rounded shoulders, somewhat narrowed neck, and relatively nar­row base.

Such vessels are not represented at Be­logrudovka sites of the Middle Dnieper area. However, they were found at Sandraki, the upper Southern Bug region (Лагодовська 1954: tabs. I: 9; II: 10; III: 8).

These vessels must have been common in the Middle Dniester basin as well, although only few of them were found at Subbotovka and Yaruga (figs. 1: 6; 2: 9; 4: 3, 11; 8: 7, 8). The most weighty argument in favour of the prolonged use and evolution of the Rovno-Pechery-type vessels in the Middle Dniester is a specimen from the Chernolesye-type mound № 2 at Mervintsy, the Murafa (Артамонов 1955: 115, fig. 48; Смирнова 1977: 97, fig. 5: 1). It retains the most characteristic features of this type, including the elongated body, dis­tinct neck, protruding shoulders, and relatively narrow bottom.

Elongated tulip-shaped vessels with more open mouths, high necks, and gently everted rims from Yaruga (fig. 4: 1, 2; 8: 1—4), too, have prototypes among the Trzciniec-Komarov ceramics of the Volyn area (Swiesznikow 1967: tab. XII: 1, 4; XIII: 15; Березанская 1972: fig. 36: 4; tab. Ill: 3). Their late variants sur­vive here up to the Mogilyansk, or Cher­nolesye-Zhabotin, stage (Крушельницька 1976: figs. 27: 12; 28: 10).

Finds from the Belogrudovka sites in the Middle Dniester, then, along with assem­blages from previously known sites repre­senting this culture in the Southern Bug area (Pechery and Sandraki) bring us to the con­clusion that the Belogrudovka Culture de­rives from the southwestern branch of Komarov-Trzciniec Culture which was intro­duced here directly from the western Volynia via the tributaries of the Pripyat. Already at its early stage, Belogrudovka Culture in the left bank of the Middle Dniester came into contact with cultures of the cannelured Hal­statt, primarily the Kishmev-Korleten group, as well as with Belozerka Culture, mostly the Balta group.

Гилевич А.М. (†) Хронология и топография кладов и коллективных находок херсонесских монет IV–II вв. до н.э.

Клады монет принято рассматривать прежде всего как источник для изучения монетного дела, денежного обращения и торговли. Однако информация, которая в них содержится, значительно шире. В свое время мною была сделана попытка выделить группы кладов по времени и условиям их сокрытия, а также рассмотреть хронологию и топографию кладов херсонесских монет IV–II вв. до н.э. с точки зрения развития скифо-херсонесских взаимоотношений и таким образом связать этот нумизматический источник с реконструкцией событий внешнеполитической истории Херсонеса (Гилевич 1973: 10-11). Спустя полтора десятилетия эту тему и в том же направлении продолжил В.Ф.Столба (1990: 6). Он внес некоторые хронологические уточнения в соответствии с результатами новых археологических изысканий, которые велись преимущественно на территории Северо-Западного Крыма. Но обе работы малодоступны и опубликованы только в тезисном виде. Кроме того, они в значительной степени устарели. За прошедшее время накопились новые материалы и исследования, как нумизматические, так и археологические, что требует внести необходимые коррективы. Наконец, кратко изложенные соображения и гипотезы не могут быть проверены, поскольку лишь некоторые монетные комплексы были полностью опубликованы.

Задачи настоящей публикации заключаются в следующем: (1) дать сводку кладов и коллективных находок херсонесских монет IV–II вв. до н.э., по возможности, с наиболее точной топографической и стратиграфической привязкой, а также с кратким анализом сопутствующего им археологического материала (если таковой есть); (2) уточнить типологическую и хронологическую классификацию монетных комплексов; (3) попытаться выяснить причины образования кладов и коллективных находок, и как-то объяснить их появление в тот или иной момент или отрезок времени.

Gilevich A.M. (†) Chronology and topography of hoards and collective finds of4^th – 2^nd centuries B.C. Chersonesean coins

The article presents a list of monetary hoards containing coins minted in the Taurian Chersonesos in the 4^th – 2^nd centuries B.C., and provides information concerning the typological and chronological attribution of these assemblages. An attempt is made to link them with certain changes in the political situation.

The following terms are used. (1) hoard: assemblage of coins that had been accumulated and was intentionally hidden; (2) collective find: assemblage of coins that had been accumulated but was not hidden on purpose; (3) unclaimed accumulation: monetary assemblage excavated from a closed archaeological association (collective finds belong to unclaimed accumulations, but they can also be regarded as a variety of hoards); (4) separate, or incidental, finds: finds of isolated coins, made under any circumstances. In the present article, only hoards and collective finds are discussed.

Topographical observations suggest that the Chersonesean coins circulated only within the Chersonesean state. Their topography and chronology, then, must reflect temporal fluctuations of the territory controlled by the polis as well as certain events that caused hoarding and the accumulation of coins in the habitation material.

An accurate topographical evaluation of the monetary finds was made by A.M.Gilevich and A.N.Shcheglov using old and recent maps and aerial photographs. The typology of coins was developed by Zograf (1951; 1957) and modified by Anokhin (1977; 1980). Apart from typological considerations, the archaeological and topographical context was used to assess relative and absolute chronology. Based on all the available characteristics, it was possible to separate four chronological groups (I-IV) and one subgroup (IVA). The system allows for further additions. In the last section of the catalogue, insufficiently documented hoards are listed.

By early 1995, 22 collective finds were registered. All are concentrated in western Crimea (fig. 1). Sixteen of them come from southwestern Crimea (Chersonesos and its chora including the Heraclean and Mayachny Peninsulas), and six from northwestern Crimea. Twelve assemblages were found on the ancient plots of land belonging to the agricultural territory of the Chersonesean polis, eight in Chersonesos itself and in the ancient farm houses, and two had been buried in the necropolis.

Group I. It consists of four hoards containing copper coins similar to those described by Zograf (1951; 1957: XXXV, 10, 16, 18). None had been countermarked (Catalogue I.1-4). Three were found in southwestern Crimea and one in the northwest of the peninsula. It is possible that one more hoard (Catalogue V.1) belongs to the same group. The hoards were likely made in late 4^th or early 3^rd century. The topography of the finds indicate that at that time Chersonesos controlled not only southwestern Crimea but also some territories in the northwest, which agrees with archaeological evidence. The coins could have been hoarded during the acute political crisis that occurred in the Chersonesean polis around 300 B.C. (Vinogradov, Shcheglov 1990), and may have resulted in warfare (Shcheglov 1994a).

Group II. It is represented by five hoards and three collective finds. One hoard was found in Chersonesos, three in the Heraclean Peninsula which belonged to the Chersonesean chora; one hoard and three collective finds come from ancient farm houses and from an ancient plot of land in northwestern Crimea. Hoards consist only of coins such as those described by Zograf (1951; 1957: XXXV, 10, 16, 18, 23-25). Not a single one is countermarked. One more hoard found in northwestern Crimea (Catalogue V.2) and containing a silver coin of the type described by Zograf (1951; 1957: XXXV, 22) may possibly belong to this group; here as well, there are no countermarked coins.

The hoards and the collective finds may be dated to about 280-270 (260?) B.C. The spatial distribution of finds suggests that at that time vast territories in the southwest and in the northwest of Crimea were controlled by Chersonesos. This fully agrees with archaeological evidence. The large-scale hoarding of money can only be explained by the military and political situation in the Northern Pontic. According to a hypothesis put forward by Shcheglov (1985), this was the time when the Sarmatian nomads invaded Scythia and destroyed the settlements in the Chersonesean chora. The analysis of the metal of which the coins were made demonstrates that Chersonesean copper coins struck in the 4^th century B.C. continued to circulate in the northwestern Crimea, which was a remote part of the chora, when they were no longer used either in Chersonesos or in its proximate chora (southwestern Crimea).

Group III. It consists of four large hoards of silver and copper coins with all known stamps (Catalogue III.1-4). All were hidden on ancient plots in a small area in the northwestern (maritime) part of the Heraclean Peninsula, southwestern Crimea. Coins were apparently hoarded in the third quarter of the 3^rd century B.C. (about 250-230/225 B.C.). The analysis of coins suggests that a monetary crisis struck Chersonesos following the destruction of its chora in 280-270 (260?) B.C. The topography of the finds indicates that at that time Chersonesos controlled only its proximate chora in the Heraclean Peninsula. The money was evidently hoarded under unusual circumstances, in view of some danger. Possibly one of the invasions of the “neighbouring barbarians” was imminent, as implied by the inscriptions (IOSPE I², 343, 346). But another possibility should also be considered.

Subgroup IVA. One collective find comes from a demolished house in Chersonesos and consists of copper coins of the type described by Zograf (1951; 1957: XXXVI, 7, 8). Belov (1955: 267; 1962: 179) suggested that the destruction of the residence areas in the northern part of the city was caused either by a natural disaster, possible an earthquake, or by an invasion and occurred in late 2^nd or early 3^rd century B.C. The coins of these series, however, were minted in the 3^rd century B.C. (Anokhin 1977; 1980: 144f), whereas the monetary assemblage of unclaimed accumulations, the archaeological context, and other finds indicate that the likely date is early 2^nd century B.C. In the late 1^st – early 2^nd quarter of the 2^nd century B.C. (no later than 150 B.C.), all the Chersonesean settlements in the northwestern Crimea were destroyed and the Scythians gained ultimate control of the territory (Shcheglov 1978: 131).

Group IV. It is represented by two hoards of silver coins of the type described by Zograf (1951; 1957: XXXVI, 12-14), and one collective find of silver and copper coins (Catalogue I.1-3). All were found in the eastern fringes of the Chersonesan cadaster on the heights dominating the Heraclean Peninsula. The silver coins were minted in 125-115 or 120-110 B.C. and circulated in the city until the moment when the Pontian military corps sent by Mithridates VI Eupator and led by Diophantes arrived at Chersonesos. The archaeological context proves beyond doubt that both the hoards and the collective find were buried either in 115/114 or in 111/110 B.C. during the culmination of the Scytho-Chersonesean war, when Scythian troops had invaded the Chersonesean chora and were about to enter the city. According to the epigraphic evidence (IOSPE, I², 352), the Pontian corps of Diophantes helped the Chersoneseans to defeat both the Scythians and the neighbouring Taurians.

Шувалов П.В. Монеты между археологией и нумизматикой

P. V. Suvalov. Between Archaeology and Numismatics: Coins in the Archaeological and Numismatic

The article deals with issues concerned with a borderline area between archaeology and numismatics. Special attention is paid to the stratigraphic position of the monetary complex and the formation of its structure with reference to various conditions of mone­tary circulation and taphonomy.

A new classification of monetary com­plexes is suggested (sect. II. 2, Table 1). The table shows how the structure of a specific monetary complex is formed under the influ­ence of factors such as monetary circulation, role in the semantics of the living culture, and taphonomic conditions (fig. 1). As seen from the table, three types of monetary complexes can be distinguished:

A single, more or less accurate «cast» of the structure of a certain link in the monetary circulation is a monetary association found in the collapse layer (except for coins collected as scrap) or from the bottom of the make-up layer. Most monetary finds from the settlements be­long to this group. Indeed, these are the mo­ments when the growth rate of the cultural de­posits is maximal, and extreme conditions pro­mote the large-scale loss of coins and other intact artifacts, which are never retrieved.

The nature of the association from a cache (hoard) is less easy to define. Based on archaeological evidence and on the asociation itself, without comparing it with a series of similar hoards, one cannot assess either the time of its formation (maybe it was accumu­lated over a long period) or its purpose (of­fering, scrap, or actual hoard destined for a special occasion). Hoards from caches in the demolition layer on settlements provide an ex­ception since they are essentially similar to monetary complexes from the collapse layer (see par. 1).

(3) An integral reflection of the history of monetary circulation over a certain period in a certain place is the layer of vital activity («liquid layer», cracks, cesspits), postoccupa­tional layer, rubbish layer, construction layer, sacrificial place; in each of these cases, how­ever, the intensity of the taphonomic processes depends on vastly different factors.

If we assume that coins similar in type and value are minted, introduced and cease to cir­culate (due to loss, wear, or immobilization) with a constant rate (sect. II. 3), then, pro­ceeding from the structure of monetary circu­lation (fig. 5: 1—2), it is easy to note the dif­ferences in the temporal structure of various associations of coins, such as hoard of rapid circulation (fig. 5: 3), hoard of prolonged ac­cumulation (fig. 5: 4), the entire assemblage of coins from an abandoned but undestroyed set­tlement (fig. 5: 5), and that from a settlement that had been demolished thrice (fig. 5: 6). Actually, minting and circulation rates are not constant, of course, which affects the circula­tion structure (fig. 6: 2). The same would apply to associations from layers of a strati­fied site (fig. 6: 1).

The difference between coins and ceramics as used for dating purposes is as follows:

The date of the coin is the time at which coins of the respective type were first struck. ! This moment evidently predates the time when i these coins began to accumulate in the cul­tural deposits. If the coins are few, the esti­mated date may be far too early (see sect. III. 2. b).

The date of the ceramics is the time when it was discarded. It is estimated on the basis of co-occurrence of various types of ceramics, potters' stamps, and co-occurrence with coins in closed associations. Now, coins co-occur with ceramics only when the latter has been broken, not when it is still being used. The be­ginning of manufacture of a certain type of ce­ramics is separated from the time of its co-oc­currence with the coins by some interval. Some vessels, however, break too early (before the bulk of the respective pottery begins to break). If the assemblage is dated on the basis of these vessels, the estimated date is younger than the actual one.

Another issue is the behaviour of coins and ceramics in the redeposited layer. Impor­tantly, coins from a layer that has been re­peatedly disturbed (as the result of digging, for example) will be gradually extracted from the ground either as valid coins or as souve­nirs, amulets, toys, pendants, counters, or scrap. In this case, when there is no movement of coins of that type in the opposite direction, from the living culture into the ground, their number in the cultural layer will gradually di­minish, so theoretically they may eventually disappear altogether. The potsherds present in the same layer, however, will behave quite dif­ferently (fig. 6: 3 and sect. III. 1. b).

* * *

In the final part of the article (sect. Ill, tables 2—9, figs. 2; 7—11), a critical analysis of a joint paper by the Italian colleagues is presented, and specific cases are discussed. The critique is basically as follows:

M. C. Molinari erroneously dates the as­sociations on the basis of the upper rather than the lower date of the coins. Also, the structure of the monetary associations is not used for dating (fig. 7 shows how different these structures are). By ignoring the principle according to which terminus ante quem is de­fined by the date of the closest overlying con­text, not by that of the uppermost context, Molinary essentially arrives at an absurd con­clusion that the hypothetical upper date for all (sic!) contexts coincides with the upper date of the uppermost layer. However, if a more reli­able approach is taken, the terminus post quem for the closure of context US-1450 and the beginning of formation of US-1391 is 42 years younger than the date suggested by Molinari (1458 vs. 1416), whereas the terminus post quem for the closure of context US-1391 is only 6 years younger (1464 vs. 1458, see fig. 7)! Because, clearly, the formation of the two contexts is separated by several decades (1416-x vs. 1458-x), the termini ante quos, too, cannot be the same for these contexts.

Articles by L. Sagui, L. Paroli, and A. Rovelli raise several questions:

(1) If coins struck during various periods from the 1^st to the 6^th (or even to the 7^th) cen­tury and found in the medieval layers come from redeposited horizons, then the distribu­tion of coins of various periods is likely to be more or less the same regardless of the date of the layer in which they were secondarily de­posited (because the «original» layer is likely to be the same). What we see, however, is that the proportion of 6^th—7^th century coins gradu­ally decreases from period I to period VI (see Table 2). Also, according to A. Rovelli's cata­logue, 3^d—5^th century coins do not differ from the 6^th—7^th century ones either in weight or in diameter. The extraction of late coins, then, must have been due to other causes. If so, people in the 8^th—10^th centuries (periods I—V) did not view the buried coins as scrap or rari­ties, but collected them using some numismatic criteria. Consequently, it is possible that 6^th— 7^th century coins were extracted not from a layer that was being rediposited but from ac­tual circulation! Could it be that at the same time (8^th—10^th centuries) coins struck in the 3^th and 4^th centuries were not being immobilized with the same intensity, that is, continued to circulate?

(2) The number of Roman coins in a layer that was being constantly rediposited should have gradually decreased (see sect. II. 4). The number of fragments of the Roman ceramics in the same layer should even have somewhat increased due to crushing caused by digging. So the proportion of Roman coins of a spe­cific period relative to the total number of all the Roman coins of all periods should have diminished with time more rapidly than the re­spective index for the Roman ceramics. What the figure in the discussed article shows, how­ever, is the precisely opposite trend (Sagui, Pa­roli 1989: 42, fig. 3). Roman coins, then, were getting into the medieval deposits from some other source as well. The most likely source is actual circulation.

(3) Let us assume that Bognetti and Tabaczicski are right saying that some Roman coins got into the medieval layers from contemporary circulation. This assumption has several corollaries:

(a) These coins must have been deposited with a progressively decreasing rate close to that of the deposition of medieval ceramics in the same layers. Indeed, if the assumption is correct, the number of circulating Roman coins would not increase (rather, it slowly de­creases), and they would deposit with the rate mainly defined by the formation of the respec­tive layer (see table 1 above: construction, pos­toccupational processes, garbage, destruction, etc. ). The same factor also defines the deposi­tion rate of medieval ceramics. If so, the pro­portion of Roman coins of the specific period relative to the entire number of coins of all periods must be roughly the same as the re­spective proportion with regard to medieval ce­ramics (or rather the coin ratio must at first be a little higher and then a little lower than the ceramics ratio). Empirical results (fig. 11, solid line) are close to the predicted pattern.

(b) The rate of change of deposition inten­sity of medieval coins and that of Roman ones still in circulation must have been approxi­mately the same. The deposition of medieval coins was especially intense during periods XII—XVII (Sagui, Paroli 1989: 42, fig. 4; see fig. 10). One may try and assess which of the Roman coins found in the medieval layers had still circulated prior to deposition and which were redeposited from the Late Classical layer together with the Roman pottery. Indeed, the considerably increased proportion of Roman coins relative to the proportion of Roman ce­ramics for certain periods must correspond to the increased proportion of Roman coins which had circulated prior to deposition. In­deed, the coin ratio is larger than 1 for peri­ods XII and XV—XVI, and is also large (0, 9) for period XIV.

It must be concluded, then, that empirical data published by Sagui et al. demonstrate ex­actly the opposite of what the authors claim. Specifically, a large number of Roman coins in 8^th—9^th century layers (which should be ex­pected) and in 10^th—15^th-century layers (which is quite unexpected) is not due to the redepo­sition of a Roman layer; rather, these coins had still circulated immediately before deposi­tion.

The article by A. Martin and S. Silberstein Trevisani who address the comparative analy­sis of dates of the Roman layers obtained on the basis of ceramics and coins, raises several interesting points.

In the first part, dealing with excavations at Terme del Nuotatore, both categories of ce­ramics (amphorae and fine ware) display the same regularity: in the early phase, the inter­val between the date of the phase and the dates obtained for the principal part of the ce­ramic association is minimal (in the table, the modal class of the distribution of finds is shifted to the left in both cases); in the middle phase, the respective interval is maximal (and the mode is shifted to the right); and in the late phase this interval is medium. This appar­ently corresponds to the observation concern­ing the discrepancy between the dates based on coins and ceramics (see above; table 4, last column). Clearly, the interval between the date of the layer and that of the bulk of the ce­ramics depends not only on the type of ceram­ics but on the nature of the layer as well (see table 5).

In the second part, focusing on excavations at a tavern in Regio I, insula X, 3, the differ­ence between the dates based on coins and those based on ceramics is too large to be ac­ceptable. In my view, the contradiction can be easily removed if certain assumptions are made concerning vital activities at that place during the Roman period:

(1) Notably, all the coins minted before 67 BC form a distinct chronological group the composition of which is similar in all layers (the period of minting extends from 4^th cen­tury BC to 89 BC); indeed (table 7—8), while the proportion of coins struck in the 2^nd half of 1^st century BC and in the 1^st century AD gradually decreases from one phase to an­other, this group of coins is present in all the layers of that period (phases 4, 1; 5, 1; 6, 1; 7; 8 and 9). They are found moslty in make-up layers and pits. Apparently, coins of that group come from some redeposited layer pos­sible associated with destructions in Ostia caused by cataclisms of the 80^s—60^s BC, one of these being the well-known assault of Cilician pirates on Ostia shortly before 67 BC).

(2) During phases 6—8, rubbish was evi­dently not being cleared off the earthen floor, and fragments of broken glass ware (one should keep in mind that this was a tavern!) were being gradually trampled into the layer. The youngest fragments, then, mark the end rather than the beginning of the period when the respective floor functioned.

As to the coins, which were being lost in large numbers (because this was a tavern!), they might not have been trampled into the floor as easily, because they were likely to be I found soon after having been dropped. After enough rubbish had accumulated [8], and the floor had become too rough, a make-up layer : was made. At that moment, coins which had been lost but not found got under the make up layer, or rather inside it. If the make-up was thin, potsherds trampled into it during the i subsequent period might co-occur with these i coins. This, indeed, is what excavations reveal. Coins corresponding to phases 6, 1, 6, 2, 7, and 8, then, mark the beginning of the use of the floor overlying them; actually, they were lost in the very end of the preceding phase. So while ceramics marks the end of the period during which the respective surface was used, I coins mark its beginning.

Having made these assumptions, I at­tempted to redate the phases so as to exclude I the discrepancies between dates based on ceramics and those based on coins. The attempt was successful (see table 7) in all cases except three (phases 5 and 6) where it may be sus­pected that «prematurely» broken vessels got into the layer (provided the layers are not in­termixed, of course).

The distribution of coins over the layers in that excavation reveals some interesting regularities (table 7):

While in layers of phases 4 and 5 not a single coin was found in horizons of vital activities (4, 2 and 5, 2), the make-up layer and the pit (4, 1 and 5, 1) contained 15 coins of the early group (see above). Clearly, this does not imply that the tenants of the dwellings that existed here before the end of phase 5 (the

time of August and the Julius Claudius dy­nasty, when the harbour of Ostia was recon­structed and enlarged in 42 BC) used no money. More likely, the taphonomic condi­tions were unfavourable for deposition.

The monetary association from layers rep­resenting the period of the existence of the tavern (phases 6—8) displays a clear-cut trend: if coins from the supposedly redeposited layer of 67 BC, which form an isolated group, are excluded, it becomes evident that older coins gradually disappear (table 8). This demon­strates that before having got into their final context, they did not belong to a redeposited layer. Far more likely, they were still in cir­culation, the structure of which continuosly changed.

A cesspit in layers of the final phase 9 contained three coins spanning the period from the 2^nd half of the 2^nd to the 4^lh century. The youngest specimen, which was found in the layer overlying the floor dating to the same phase, was struck in AD 101. Because the tavern was merely abandoned rather than demolished, coins from fissures and cesspits reflect the period of vital activity. In contrast, coins from the layer are likely to have been redeposited from other layers (possibly 7 and 8).

It is evident, then, that the ceramic mate­rial per se does not provide clear-cut dates. The discrepancy between dates based on ce­ramics and those based on coins is easy to ex­plain given the common knowledge concerning the structure of monetary circulation and dates of the ceramics. To reach a compromise between the two categories of finds and redate the phases, one has to examine the nature of the monetary layer and the structure of the monetary association, and make these assump­tions:

(1) some vessels break «too early» (see sect. II. 4); and

(2) coins of the earlier period may get into the make-up layer of the next period.

Казанский М. М. О балтах в лесной зоне России в эпоху Великого переселения народов

Присутствие балтских элементов в лесной зоне России в эпоху Великого переселения народов неоднократно отмечалось исследователями. Это различные типы прусских и литовских арбалетных фибул, наконечники поясов, наиболее поздние посоховидные булавки, пряжки с широким прямоугольным или трапециевидным основанием язычка и ряд других находок (рис. 1,1–4, 8–11, 13; рис 2, рис. 3.1, 6, 15, 16), некоторые виды оружия (рис. 6). Самая показательная находка балтского оружия происходит из региона Ижорского плато под Петербургом. Я имею в виду курган 45 могильника Доложский погост (рис. 6.1–3). В кургане обнаружены остатки трупосожжения, перекрытые умбоном типа Лебенау с “жемчужным” декором по краю поля. Кроме того в погребении найдены втульчатое копье с ромбическим пером и кольчатые удила с трехчастными грызлами. Балтские вещи появляются и к югу от лесной зоны (рис. 7.). В то же время ряд находок, балтское происхождение которых считается доказанным, таковыми на самом деле не являются (рис. 1.12, рис. 3.2.3, 4, 17, рис. 5).

В эту же эпоху отмечается проникновение в лесную зону и в Прибалтику восточногерманских вещей со среднего Дуная (например рис. 1.5, 7, 14, 15). Вероятно тогда же появляются на лесных памятниках и элементы склавинской культуры пражского типа. Находки дунайско-германских фибул V в. типа Прага в восточно­литовских курганах а также на склавинском поселении Кодын на верхнем Пруте показывают существование каких-то связей между этими тремя этническими группами.

Оружие и предметы воинского снаряжения хорошо представлены в этой серии вещей балтского, германского и склавинского происхождения. Следует также обратить внимание на предметы женского костюма, которые, как известно, в архаических обществах не могут быть предметом экспорта. Иными словами эти вещи связаны с реальным присутствием инородного элемента, балтского и германского, а также возможно и склавинского в лесной зоне России.

Вряд ли эти группы инородного происхождения были многочисленны, они не оставили глубоких следов в материальной культуре местного населения, и вещи с ними связанные, концентрируются на отдельных памятниках: Демидовка, Безводное, Борки и т.д. Видимо проникшие в лесную зону группы были достаточно изолированными и носили смешанный характер (германцы, балты, склавины). Общее осложнение военно-политической ситуации на среднем Дунае в середине и третьей четверти V в., конкретно падение гуннской “империи” и войны между новообразовавшимися германскими королевствами, могло быть причиной оттока части населения Карпатского бассейна в другие регионы Европы, как это произошло, например с герулами, ушедшими около 512 г. в Скандинавию. Интересно, что в своем движении герулы не пошли прямо на север, а прошли, как говорят источники, “через все славянские племена”, видимо в обход Карпат, что в конкретных условиях исхода целого народа было бы возможно лишь в том случае, когда между герулами и склавинами существовали какие-то союзно-договорные отношения. Известный факт посольства балтов-эстиев к Теодориху показывает, что между Прибалтикой и Дунаем существовали налаженные пути сообщения по которым дунайские дружины (видимо восточные германцы и присоединившиеся к ним склавины с восточных отрогов Карпат), могли пройти сначала в Литву, а оттуда, вместе с летто-литовскими балтами, в лесную зону Белоруссии и России.

Появление инородных групп в лесной зоне связано с резким обострением военной ситуации. О характере их деятельности можно судить по двум фактам. Во-первых, территория лесной зоны от Литвы до верхней Волги покрывается сетью укрепленных поселений. Разумеется, городища существовали здесь и ранее, но исследователи отмечают резкое возрастание их количества начиная с V в. На ряде городищ лесной зоны отмечены явные следы разрушений и пожаров, которые иногда можно датировать V в. Далее, на поселениях в слое разрушений, найдены явно чужеродные трехлопастные наконечники стрел “гуннского” типа (рис. 8). Видимо с военной активностью пришельцев связана и гибель мощинской культуры. Верхнюю дату мощинской культуры принято относить к VIII в., но на самом деле самые поздние вещи на мощинских памятниках относятся к первой половине – середине V в. (рис. 4).

Находки трехлопастных стрел принято связывать с какими-то враждебными акциями кочевников из Подунавья или южнорусских степей. Но трехлопастные наконечники стрел и необходимый для их использования лук с костяными накладками, в V в. не являлись более исключительно гуннским оружием. Они известны у западноевропейских народов, вплоть до франков в северной Галлии. Представлено это оружие и у славянского населения позднекиевской-ранне­колочинской и раннепеньковской культур в бассейне верхнего и среднего Днепра.

Вряд ли резкое возрастание военной опасности в лесной зоне в V в. связано только с прорывом сюда дунайских и балтских дружин с Запада. Не исключено и давление со стороны южного населения, например славян раннеколочинской культуры. Ясно однако, что распространение летто-литовских, восточногерманских и возможно склавинских, то есть пражских элементов происходило здесь в специфической обстановке “смутного времени”, когда отдельные военизированные группы западного происхождения могли очень далеко проникать в лесную зону и играть там существенную военную и даже политическую роль. Не исключено, что эта ситуация отражена в этногеографическом описании Восточной Европы у Иордана, который помещает балтов-эстиев по соседству с акацирами азово-кавказских степей. Возможно что какие-то отряды балтов действительно могли проникнуть далеко на восток и войти в контакт с кочевым населением юга современной России. Таким образом локализация эстиев Иорданом от “Океана”, то есть балтийского побережья до акацир соответствует скорее зоне военной активности балтов, чем реальной территории их массового расселения.

Kazanskiy M.M. On the Balts in the Forest Zone of Russia in the Period of the Great Migration of Peoples

The presence of Baltic elements in the forest zone of Russia in the period of the Great Migration of Peoples was on frequent occasions noted by scholars. Among these elements there are various types of Prussian and Lithuanian arbalest-shaped fibulae, belt tips, the latest crozier-shaped pins, the buckles with a wide rectangular or trapeziform spike bases, and a number of other finds (fig. 1,1–4, 8–11, 13; fig. 2, figs. 3.1, 6, 15, 16), as well as certain types of weapon (fig. 6). The most illustrative find of Baltic weapon comes from the region of the Izhora Plateau near St.-Petersburg. The author means here Kurgan 45 of the Dolozhskiy Pogost burial ground (fig. 6.1–3). In this kurgan remains of cremation roofed with an umbo of the Lebenau type having a “pearl” decoration along the field edge were revealed. In addition, in this kurgan a bush-typed spear with a diamond-shaped point and annulated bit with the three-piece curb-bit were found. Baltic objects appear also in the area to the south of the forest zone (fig. 7). However, a number of finds, the Baltic origin of which is considered as having been proved, are not really the Baltic ones (fig. 1.12, fig. 3.2.3, 4, 17, fig. 5).

To the same period one assigns the penetration of East-Germanian artefacts from the central Danube into the forest zone (see e.g. figs. 1.5, 7, 14, 15). The elements of Sclavenian culture of the Prague type possibly appear at the forest sites at the same time. The finds of Prague type Danubian and Germanian fibulae of the 5th century AD in the East-Lithuanian kurgans as well as at the Sclavenian settlement of Kodyn on the upper Prut indicate the existence of some connection between those three ethnic groups.

Weapons and the items of martial equipment are well represented in the mentioned series of objects of the Baltic, Germanian and Sclavenian origin. One should also pay attention to the items of woman’s dress which in the archaic societies, as we know, could not be exported. In other words, these artefacts were connected with the real presence of foreign elements – the Baltic and Germanian ones.

These groups of foreign origin hardly could be numerous as they have not left any considerable traces in the material culture of the local population the artefacts connected with those groups being concentrated only at some separate sites: Demidovka, Bezvodnoe, Borki, etc. It seems that the groups that penetrated into the forest zone were rather isolated ones and had a mixed character (Germani, Balts, Sclaveni). The general aggravation of the military and political situation in the region of the central Danube in the middle and the third quarter of the 5th century – i.e. the fall of the Hun “empire” and wars between the newly formed Germanian kingdoms – possibly was the cause of the withdrawal of some part of the Carpathian basin population into other regions of Europe, as it was the case i.g. with Heruli gone to Scandinavia in about AD 512. Interestingly enough, the Heruli did not pick their way directly to the North but, as the sources state, they went “throughout all the Slavonic tribes” passing, as it seems, around the Carpathian mountains; in the particular case of an entire people’s exodus it was possible only if some treaties of alliance existed between Heruli and Sclaveni. The well known fact of an embassy of Balts-Aesti to Theodorich shows that there were connection routes established between the Baltic Sea regions and those of Danube; it is possibly by these routes that the Danube armed forces (evidently the eastern Germani, and the Sclaveni from the eastern Carpathian spurs having joint to the latter) were able to pass first to Lithuania and thence, together with the Letto-Lithuanian Balts, to the forest zone of Byelorussia and Russia.

The appearance of foreign groups in the forest zone was related to a severe aggravation of the military situation. Two facts enable one to arrive at a judgement concerning the character of activities of these groups. Firstly, the forest zone area from Lithuania and as far as the upper Volga was getting covered with a net of fortified settlements. Of course, there had been settlements in that area earlier too; but one registers a sharp increase in their number beginning from the 5th century AD. At some sites of the forest zone distinct traces of destruction and fires have been noted, some of these traces being dated to the 5th century. Moreover, in the destruction layer of the settlements, undoubtedly foreign three-bladed arrow-heads of the ‘Hun’ type (fig. 8) were found. It was possibly the military activities of the intruders that the death of the Mostchino culture was connected with. The upper dating of the Mostchino culture is assigned to the 7th century, but actually, the latest artefacts from the Mostchino sites belong to the first half or the middle of the 5th century (fig. 4). Finds of the three-bladed arrows are usually assigned to some hostile actions of nomads from the Danube regions or from the South-Russian steppes. However, the three-bladed arrow-heads and the indispensable for their use bows with cover-plates made of bone were not an exclusively Hun’s weapon in the 5th century AD. Similar arrow-heads are known by West-European peoples including the Franks in the northern Gaul. The similar weapon is represented also by the Slavonic population of the late Kiev to early Kolochin and the early Penkovka culture in the basin of the upper and central Dnieper.

The drastic increase of the war peril in the forest zone in the 5th century was related only to a break-through of the Danubian and Baltic armed forces into this area from the West. One can not rule out also a pressure from the side of the southern population, e.g. from that of the Early-Kolochin culture Slavs. However, it is clear that the propagation of the Letto-Lithuanian, East-Germanian and, possibly, Sclavenian, i.e. the Praguean, elements was taking place here in the specific situation of the ‘time of troubles’ when some separate groups of the western origin were able to penetrate very far into the forest zone and play an essential military and even political role there. This situation is possibly reflected in the ethno-geographical description of the Eastern Europe by Jordan, who places the Baltic Aesti in the neighbourhood of the Acatzirs of the Azov-Caucasian steppes. It is possible that some detachments of the Balts really could penetrate thus far to the East and come into the contact with the nomadic population of now the southern Russia. Thus the localisation of the Aesti by Jordan in the area from the ‘Ocean’, i.e. the Baltic Sea, to the Acatzir’s region corresponds rather to the zone of Balts’ war activities than to the actual territory of their mass settling.