The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

To a problem of studying eneolitichesky cultures Tyumen Pritobolya



E.N. Volkov

Article is devoted to problems of studying eneolitichesky cultures Tyumen Pritobolya. The analysis of the saved-up archaeological data allowed to make association within the uniform archaeological culture of the lybayevsky and bayryksky antiquities which were considered earlier as independent cultural formations. For the name of this archaeological culture we offer the term "bayryksko-lybayevsky", and in its structure we consider two local options: northern (bayryk-sky) and southern (lybayevskiya).

Eneolit, lipchinsky culture, Tyumen Pritobolye, bayryksko-lybayevsky culture, otstupayushche-nakolchaty ceramics, a short edge stamp, a long edge stamp, edge and patching ware.

Studying eneolitichesky antiquities Tyumen Pritobolya and adjacent territories has rather long story. P.A. Dmitriyev [1951], V.N. Chernetsov [1953], V.F. Starkov [1980], M.F. Kosarev [1981], V.T. Kovalyova (Yurovskaya) [1973, 1977], N.M. Chairkina [2005], A.F. Shorin [1999] and other researchers addressed the considered problem. As a result to the 80th — the beginning of the 90th of the last century there was a scientific scheme according to which during copper Stone Age era in the territory of the region carriers of shapkulsky, lipchinsky and andreevsky cultures (see lived, e.g.: [Kovalyova, 1995]). M.F. Kosarev except noted formations allocated monuments of bayryksky type [1981].

However studying the specified period within Tyumen Pritobolya had very limited character. In the late eighties — the 90th of the 20th century it is necessary to distinguish the settlement of Velizhany from purposefully studied eneolitichesky monuments 1 [Astashkin, etc., 1995], Velizhana's 2 sanctuary, soil burial grounds Buzan 3 [Matveev, etc., 1997; Matveev, Volkov, 1999] and Chepkul 21 [Zaha, etc., 2005], the settlement of SAD 13a [Zyryanova, Shamanayev, 2001] and also a number of monuments in the territory of Yarkovsky district of the Tyumen Region [Zaha, 2002]. It is remarkable that ornamental features of ceramics of a number of the studied objects did not allow to connect them with "classical schemes" of the trans-Ural eneolit directly. The dogmas created in former years quite often forced to isolate artificially from again received archaeological material habitual cultures and ornamental types. It belongs generally to a lipchinsky perspective and to a lesser extent to monuments of shapkulsky culture.

Excavation of the settlement Two-lake 1 which results allowed to raise a question of existence in forest-steppe Pritobolye of new cultural type — lybayevsky [Volkov, 2002], and subsequently independent lyba-evsky culture [Volkov, 2005-2007] became a turning point in studying a problem. Approximately in the same time of V.A. Zaha Pritobolya refuses lipchinsky cultural attribution of a number of eneolitichesky monuments subtaiga, having offered for them the term "complexes with krupnonakolchaty and edge and patching figuration" [2002]. Further development of scientific knowledge took place on the way of justification and allocation as a part of forest-steppe lybayevsky antiquities of two successive stages of development — buzansky and two-Ozyorsk [Volkov, 2005-2007]. V.A. Zaha, on the contrary, comes to a conclusion about existence in Pritobolye by the person bayryksky kultury1 which monuments are localized both in a subtaiga strip of the region, and on spaces of the northern forest-steppe of [2006].

Addressing an issue of dating of lybayevsky and bayryksky antiquities, it is necessary to designate once again approaches to the solution of this problem. Materials of a North forest-steppe strip At -


For the first time the term "bayryksky type" (stage) was used by M.F. Kosarev according to whose point of view the main originality of the considered ceramics consists in monotonous alternation of ranks of a short edge stamp [1981. Page 54].

tobolya allowed to raise a question of functioning of lybayevsky culture throughout the main part of an era of the eneolit and smooth genesis of ornamental, house-building traditions and the stone industry from early monuments to late [Volkov, 2QQ5, 2QQ7]. The period of existing of lybayevsky antiquities was differentiated on two stages — early (buzanskiya), dated the end of IV — the middle of the III millennium BC, and late (two-Ozyorsk) — the first third — the end of the III millennium BC [Volkov, 2QQ5-2QQ7, 2QQ9]. Monuments of the early eneolit for territories of a subtaiga strip Pritobolya, both according to the author of article, and according to the point of view

V.A. Zaha, are presented by materials of shapkulsky culture which chronological framework in general corresponds to time of existing of rannelybayevsky objects [Volkov, 2QQ5-2QQ7; Zaha, 2QQ6; Matveeva, etc., 2QQ5].

Our point of view concerning specifics of a historical and cultural situation in the region is in many respects comparable to a position V.A. Zaha. However by detailed consideration of positions a number of distinctions which not so much help to resolve a problem how many confuse it is fixed. At allocation of lybayevsky cultural type [Volkov, 2QQ2], and subsequently independent culture [Volkov, 2QQ5, 2QQ6] we limited an area of the specified monuments to the width of a North forest-steppe part Tyumen Pritobolya proceeding only from the archaeological material which was available at our disposal. The published data and also viewing the collections reflecting specifics of a historical and cultural situation in adjacent territories of the big Trans-Ural region at all visible similarity with materials forest-steppe Pritobolya, in formation of the cultural and genetic concept us were only taken into consideration. The forced "ignoring" of these data was defined only by impossibility of their correct attribution at that time of time.

The scientific concept V.A. Zaha, unlike offered by us, is extrapolated to the main part of Nizhny Novgorod Pritobolya. In particular, the area of monuments of shapkulsky culture is not limited to a subtaiga, extending also to the forest-steppe landscape province. Materials of the soil burial ground Buzan 3 are considered by the researcher in terms of their belonging to monuments of shapkulsky culture, as well as sanctuary materials Savin 1 and the settlement of Kochegarovo 1 [Zaha, 2QQ6].

Summarizing the above, we will note that the problem of studying eneolitichesky antiquities of Nizhny Novgorod Pritobolya is not reduced to a "uniform" denominator so far, there are unresolved questions connected with a ratio of lybayevsky and bayryksky complexes and also with shapkulsky territorial and chronological layer. Besides, in connection with emergence of the works devoted to revision of lipchinsky subject [Koksharov, 2QQB], it is impossible to avoid also this component of a problem. We believe that the current state of the istochnikovy base forming views and concepts of researchers does not allow to solve the considered problem finally owing to what not only search of "ready" answers to questions, but also formation of the objective hypotheses which are based on the saved-up material and competently the questions posed is represented logical. We believe that among the main criteria promoting achievement of result there have to be following: a) a critical view of collections of the monuments investigated throughout the previous century; b) objective consideration of an ornamental complex of eneolitichesky cultures of the region and allocation of its decorative and stylistic components.

Within the solution of an objective we will operate with materials of the monuments at different times carried by researchers to shapkulsky, lipchinsky, bayryksky and lybayev-sky antiquities. The Andreevsky perspective, in connection with the criteria of allocation of culture which are not raising doubts, will not be considered.

In this part of work we should address a lipchinsky perspective once again. Historically it developed that approaches to understanding of features of culture are not uniform though they are based on recognition of an ornamental originality of a ceramic complex. One of the points of view assumes consideration as the lipchinsky only ware ornamented in style of "a false cord", as a rule, with prevalence of geometrical patterns and compositions which arrangement could be defined by both horizontal, and vertical partitioning of decorative space (see, e.g.: [Kosarev, 19B1]). The second approach is most capaciously formulated by V.F. Starkov who, in particular, wrote: "As showed researches, the first two groups of ceramics — false shnurovaya and edge — are a part of the same monuments, same complexes of dwellings..." [19BQ. Page 147]. "... Among

the main ornamental drawings geometrical figures prevail: the hollow and shaded triangles alternating, the interpenetrating triangular zones, rhombuses, rectangles and other figures." [In the same place. Page 151]. ". As the second component of lipchinsky complexes serves the ceramics decorated with prints of a long direct edge stamp. For it the same ornamental principles, as are characteristic of lozhnoshnurovy ceramics, the dominating type of patterns is the motive of geometrical figures." [In the same place. Page 154]. From these positions representations of researchers of rather ornamental originality of lipchinsky complexes were traditionally formed. Let's add that at the description of the monuments interpreted in terms of lipchinsky cultural accessory both in Pritobolye, and in the mountain and forest Trans-Ural region, illustrative material of scientific works almost completely corresponded to the schemes described above (see, e.g.: [Starkov, 19BQ. Tab. XXVII-XXX; Chairkina, 2QQ5. Fig. 26-3Q; Kosarev, 19B1; Kosarev, Potemkina, 1975]). Perhaps, the only monuments attributed through lipchinsky "prism" which published material did not fit into classical canons were the settlements of SAD of B and SBAO 6 [Kovalyova, 1973, 1977].

Thus, the lipchinsky ornamental type which characteristics were broadcast on culture, vast majority of researchers is understood as the ceramics decorated in the lozhnoshnurovy or edge equipment with the prevailing use of geometrical patterns and compositions.

In the Tyumen Pritobolye we know only two clean lipchinsky monuments which deposits do not contain foreign eneolitichesky ware. And in both cases the complex is presented exclusively lozhnoshnurovy. The first object — Velizhana 1 (an excavation 2) is the nondurable parking [Astashkin, etc., 1995], the second complex is isolated at analysis of materials of the Mysovsky burial ground (A.V. Matveev's excavation) in which collection the representative lozhnoshnurovy sample is distinguished from artifacts of later time. This fact, in our opinion, testifies to independent, let and nondurable, existing of clean lipchinsky monuments, and in classical understanding of the term.

The researches of the last years directed to clearing of a historical and cultural situation in the Tyumen Pritobolye showed that considerable number of the eneolitichesky monuments which were considered earlier from a position of lipchinsky accessory in practice show full prevalence of other ornamental characteristics. We will give the settlement of Ipkul 1 which is initially attributed from a position of accommodation, possibly consecutive, carriers of lipchinsky and andreevsky cultures as an example [Kosarev, Potemkina, 1975]. New excavation of a monument allowed to establish that on an equal basis with andreevsky ware the ceramics similar to bayryksko-lybayevsky materials dominates here [Volkov, Belosludtsev, 2QQ5]. The classical lipchinsky ceramics is presented by two-three fragments [In the same place]. The close situation is noted by consideration of a number of old collections of monuments of the Andreevsky lake (SAD 13, 1B, etc.). The containing eneolitichesky cultural deposits give a similar picture investigated recently the settlement of Kurya 1 and Plotinnoye, among other. The ceramics decorated in lipchinsky style, occurring from these objects is presented by very insignificant series which are "dissolved" in bayryksko-lybayevsky material.

Told visually illustrates a thesis that considerable number of the eneolitichesky monuments which received at the time lipchinsky cultural attribution in reality show other ornamental specifics which, however, it is probable owing to complexity of interpretation and discrepancy with the developed schemes and dogmas, remained "beyond the scope of" the published material.

The Lipchinsky subject acquired relevance again in connection with an exit of work of S.F. Koksharov [2QQB] to which focal points of a problem are perfectly shown. Recognizing the multicomponent nature of the majority of eneolitichesky monuments Pritobolya who found reflection in the principles of figuration of ware, the researcher, as a matter of fact, urges to expand traditional characteristics of lipchinsky antiquities that would allow to consider the complexes allocated in lybayevsky and bayryksky cultures [In the same place] in their framework. Without insisting on indispensable saving the term, S.F. Koksharov writes: ". In this case absolutely not essentially it is also minor as we will call similar monuments and ceramics — lipchinsky, shapkulsky or lybayevsky — it is important to get used to multicomponent shape of complexes of the Trans-Ural region and Pritobolya which will characterize eneoli-

tichesky antiquities within a certain chronological horizon." [In the same place. Page 150]. Formulating the point of view, S.F. Koksharov constantly addresses materials of the settlement of SAD 8 explored by V.T. Kovalyova [1977] which, according to him, are similar lybayev-sky [Koksharov, 2008]. By consideration of a problem in the general plan, the given point of view is quite logical and proved, considering evolution of eneolitichesky culture from early stages of development to late, at least within Tyumen Pritobolya. It is even possible to call multicomponent eneolitichesky complexes shapkulsky that in general corresponds to our hypothesis of development of forest-steppe lybayevsky antiquities (see, e.g.: [Wolves, 2005, 2006]). Realizing that from change of the name of a complex the specifics of a historical and cultural situation in the region will not change, we, nevertheless, suggest to focus on details which at due approach are capable to lead to formation of objective vision of a problem.

Addressing the settlement of SAD 8, we will note that the only publication of materials of a monument [Kovalyova, 1977], owing to limitation of its volume, does not give clear ideas of rather ornamental specifics of ceramics. The provided statistics and not numerous illustrations allow to agree with S.F. Koksharov's position about presence at an ornamental complex of all groups of the ceramics characterizing lybayevsky antiquities: "korotkogrebenchaty", "dlinnogrebenchaty" and "otstupayushche-nakolchaty". However the analysis of the available illustrative material confirms, in our opinion, chronological heterogeneity of a complex within an eneolit era. On the one hand, the ware which is traditionally carried to shapkulsky with use of a "zhuchkovy" stamp in the absence of belts of patching patterns on a trunk and day of products is allocated [In the same place. Page 97, fig. 4, 6, 9]. On the other hand, the groups of ceramics ornamented in "korotkogrebenchaty" are allocated [In the same place. Page 97, fig. 4, 1, 3, 10] and "otstupayushche-nakolchaty" (or "krupnonakolchaty") [In the same place. Page 98, fig. 5, 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10] styles, with ranks of patching vdavleniye on a bottom and a trunk of vessels. Repeatedly wrote about chronology of the patching decor falling below a nimbus zone also the author of this article [Volkov, 2006, 2007, 2009], and V.A. Zaha [2002, 2006] noting the fact of mass distribution of the last since pozdneeneolitichesky time. Tips of kelteminarsky type and a lamellar complex of the stone tools executed from qualitative breeds of raw materials not bad correspond to "shapkulsky" deposits of a monument. A thesis about impossibility of stratigraphic division of eneolitichesky materials of the settlement [Koksharov, 2008. Page 149] about several reasons are disputable. First, the ceramics [Kovalyova, appears 1977 in illustrative material. Page 97, fig. 4, 2] which is difficult for interpreting differently than from a position of andreevsky cultural accessory. Secondly, it is necessary to consider historical and cultural and geological specifics of a system of Andreevsky lakes. The increased concentration of monuments of eras of stone and copper-stone centuries is well-known here that allowed M.F. Kosarev to call him by ethnocultural "reserve" [1981], and sandy soils promote natural migration of the cultural remains which are especially relating to one chronological era. We believe that for a constructive discussion of rather cultural accessory of the settlement of SAD 8 and its place in an eneolita Pritobolya is obviously not enough data which are available in the publication, and large-scale conclusions on it is not final the worked material are represented disputable.

Finishing consideration of the settlement of SAD 8, it is possible to note that the main value of a monument consists not in archaeological material, and in its display by the author of excavation who showed objective specifics of a ceramic complex that, on an equal basis with the publication of materials of the settlement of SBAO 6 [Yurovskaya, 1973] was nearly the only case of such illumination of a situation in relation to eneolitichesky monuments Tyumen Pritobolya in the 70-80th of the 20th century. V.T. Kovalyova's conclusion concerning specifics of lipchinsky monuments Tyumen Pritobolya, characterized by prevalence of a krupnonakolchaty decor [1977], was progressive for the time and allowed to raise for the first time a question of an originality of a historical and cultural situation in the region. As a matter of fact, in the matter there was a situation frequent at the initial stage of studying new archaeological culture interfaced to search of the next parallels similar, for example, to background of the early bronze tashkovsky antiquities which were originally considered from a position of loginovsky cultural accessory [Yurovskaya, 1973].

The second aspect dictating refusal of use of the term "lipchinsky culture" in relation to the slozhnosostavny ornamental Pritobolya complexes is the abutment -

chivy, dogmatic perception of the concept identified with specific "lozhnoshnurovy" type of ceramics or its edge version. The considered stereotype so strongly entered archaeological use that even the reasonable shift of accents of characteristic of culture is hardly capable to change cardinally the situation connected first of all with subconscious perception of a concept.

And at last, the third — main — moment, in our opinion, is the fact in evidence of independent existence of the classical "lozhnoshnurovy" lipchinsky monuments which are not containing "passing" eneolitichesky impurity, presented in the region by the settlement of Ve-lizhany 1 (an excavation 2) and materials of the Mysovsky complex (fig. 1, 1-4).

Fig. 1. Ceramics of lipchinsky type (eneolitichesky horizon of the Mysovsky burial ground)

In this part of work should turn to a question of a ratio of the lybayevsky and bayryksky antiquities allocated by us [Volkov, 2005, 2006] and V.A. Zakh [2006]. The similarity of the archaeological material occurring from the considered objects was already noted at the beginning of work that finally means search of reasonable criteria for association of the considered formations in one cultural block or their reasonable differentiation. However before it is necessary to address specifics of archaeological material, first of all the ceramics characterizing the considered monuments. At allocation lybayevsky drevno-

sty [2QQ2, 2QQ5, 2QQ6] we proceeded from a postulate on confinedness of cultural monuments to a North forest-steppe strip Pritobolya. The fund of archaeological sources which increased recently allows to concretize this position.

Justification of allocation bayryksky [Zaha, 2QQ6] and lybayevsky [Volkov, 2QQ2, 2QQ5, 2QQ6] antiquities contains, as a matter of fact, the identical aspects differing only in details. The main thing, authors admits multicomponent structure of the ceramic complexes presented by the ware ornamented in otstupayushche-nakolchaty and edge styles [In the same place]. The following is among the main divergences.

First, a thesis about the defining role in characteristic of bayryksky culture of an edge and patching decor. The otstupayushche-nakolchato-patching complex of the considered objects logically fits into a context of this situation also [Zaha, 2QQ6].

Secondly, a problem of chronology within which functioning of lybayevsky antiquities is defined by the extent of all era of the eneolit [Volkov, 2QQ5, 2QQ6] while to the period of existing of bayryksky complexes postshapkulsky time is allowed [Zaha, 2QQ6].

Thirdly, not full coincidence of the main ornamental characteristics of the considered ceramic complexes. So, for definition of a decorative originality of bayryksky ware the provision on two of its main components is standardly used: edge (or edge and patching) and otstupayushche-nakolchaty [Zaha, 2QQ6]. In relation to lybayev-sky antiquities we postulate three main types of ceramics: "korotkogrebenchaty", "dlinnogrebenchaty" and otstupayushche-nakolchaty [Volkov, 2QQ2, 2QQ5, 2QQ6]. We believe that the last situation has big, perhaps, even the defining value owing to what deserves more detailed statement.

Perhaps, in the works of the previous time devoted to characteristic lybayevsko-go an ornamental complex we did not absolutely truly define accents in differentiation of ware with various ornamental components. In particular, the thesis about "korotkogrebenchaty" technology of drawing a decor can be disputable in the methodological relation. So, the short edge stamp most often is understood as the decor presented by the prints consisting of two-three is more rare than four teeth. At the same time on the ware carried to the considered type the prints of an ornamentir consisting of five and even six teeth are quite often presented. Proceeding from told the most logical it is represented to speak not so much about specific technology of drawing an ornament how many about style.

However the gradation meaning division of a lybayevsky ceramic complex into three main groups has to be kept. In the attentive analysis of an edge component of a decorative complex of lybayevsky antiquities the difference between the ware carried to "korotkogrebenchaty" and "dlinnogrebenchaty" groups, and so essential that probably demonstrates independent cultural origin of the last is well noticeable. Applying the term "korotkogrebenchaty style", we first of all mean the ceramics decorated by prints of an edge stamp, each of which, as a matter of fact, represents an independent element of an ornament (fig. 2, 5-9). Most often prints of "comb", straight lines or inclined planes, are grouped in the horizontal lines surrounding a vessel on diameter. The specifics of a so-called "short edge stamp" of lybayevsky antiquities, besides, are defined by the fact that one or both of its terminations have the "semicircular" basis "rounded", more precisely. Similar ornamentir is absolutely uncharacteristic for the ware united by us in "dlinnogrebenchaty" type. The decor elements executed in the considered style are presented by prints, in some cases, perhaps, "rolling", narrower, "gratsilny" stamp which terminations do not differ from the teeth located in the center. All of them have a "subsquare" or "subrectangular" form. This stamp, besides, longer, its total length can reach 1Q-12 of teeth, and sometimes and more. Let's note that in group of "korotkogrebenchaty" ware the products imitating "dlinnogrebenchaty" style are fixed. However they are rather easily isolated from the considered group. In particular, as a part of direct horizontal lines stamp prints in three-five teeth with the rounded terminations are easily read. And lines are not perceived as the continuous, "not broken off" decor elements. The appeal to this moment is not accidental, it is designed to underline once again lack of the seeming unity and uniformity of an edge complex of eneolitichesky cultures of the region.

Fig. 2. Ranneeneolitichesky ceramics of the burial ground Buzan 3

Close examination of eneolitichesky monuments Tyumen Pritobolya, localized in a subtaiga strip which in the light of researches of the last time can be carried to bayryksky antiquities shows that as a part of the ceramics decorated in edge style groups of "dlinnogrebenchaty" and "korotkogrebenchaty" ware are allocated what illustrative material of the settlement complexes investigated in the previous years (fig. 2) testifies to. SBAO 6 [Yurovskaya, can be carried 1973 to their number the settlement of Yurtobor 21 [Zaha, 2002]. Page 5, fig. 1], SAD 8 [Kovalyova, 1977. Page 97, 98, fig. 4, 5], SAD 12 (fig. 3, 3), SAD 13 (fig. 3, 4-7), SAD 18 (fig. 3, 9), SAD 15 (fig. 3, 1, 8, 11, 12) and some other. A similar picture also new excavation of the settlement of Ipkul 1 [Volkov, Belosludtsev, 2005] gave (fig. 3, 4-7, 10) and also the settlements of Plotinnoye and Kurya 1 [Volkov, 2009]. With a big share of confidence it is possible to say that attentive revision of collections of the majority of the eneolitichesky complexes investigated for the 20th century will result in similar result.

Thus, the data which are available at our disposal confirm if not full identity, then essential cultural similarity of the monuments attributed as belonging to pozdnelybayevsky (two-Ozyorsk) and bayryksky antiquities. Nevertheless also differences probably having local geographical and chronological character are fixed. In this part of work it is logical to address geographical differentiation of the considered objects, the natural border between which, from a position of the data which are saved up today, should be considered the bed of the Iset River. So, on ceramics of the monuments localized on a right bank of this river even in pozdneeneolitichesky time the corbels of a patching decor extremely seldom fall by a trunk [Volkov, 2006, 2007]. In otstupayushche-nakolchaty

a complex of the considered objects the ceramics decorated by a bidentate ornamentir (krupnonakolchaty) is presented poorly, its total does not exceed 10%, the main role belongs to the tools leaving "tear-shaped" and "subtriangular" prints [Volkov, 2002, 2007] (fig. 2, 4).

Fig. 3. Eneolitichesky ceramics from monuments Tyumen Pritobolya:

1, 8, 11, 12 — SAD 15; 3 — SAD 12; 4-7, 10 — Ipkul 1; 9 — SAD 18

A little more difficult picture is traced for the objects located north of the bed of the Iset River. Except already noted fact of high representation of a patching decor on a trunk of vessels, it should be noted also a discrepancy, sometimes considerable, quantity characteristics of the ware decorated in krupnonakolchaty style. On the one hand, the group of monuments, the leading role in which otstupayushche-nakolchaty complex is played by the ornamentira leaving "tear-shaped" and "subtriangular" prints, can be allocated. To them

the number should carry settlements Plotinnoye2, SBAO 6 [Yurovskaya, 1973], Ipkul 1 [Volkov, Bie-losludtsev, 2005] and some other objects. Materials of the settlements of Chechkino 1 [Zaha, 2002], SAD 8 [Kovalyova, 1977], Kurya 1 [Volkov, 2009], etc., on the contrary, illustrate prevalence large nakolchatoy ware.

However, we believe, the considered distinctions should not serve as an obstacle for cultural association of the monuments located in the subtaiga landscape province (left bank of the Iset River) and the northern forest-steppe. In favor of it the same set of elements of a decor and complete ornamental compositions on ceramics, similarity of the stone industry and its initial source of raw materials, uniformity of house-building tradition and specifics of the economy founded on the principles of hunting and fishery [Volkov, 2002, 2005-2007, demonstrates 2009; Zaha, 2002, 2006]. Summarizing the above, it is logical to make cultural association of the monuments allocated earlier in independent lybayevsky and bayryksky cultures. Incomplete coincidence of characteristics, mainly ornamental, in our opinion, speaks about existence of two local options as a part of this education. Proceeding from the current state of study of a problem, in relation to the marked-out culture the name "bayryksko-lybayevsky", and in its structure — allocation of two local options is submitted justified: southern — lybayevsky and northern — bayryksky.

At the same time allocation of uniform bayryksko-lybayevsky culture does not resolve all range of issues connected with studying the eneolit Tyumen Pritobolya. By close examination of a problem the paradoxical situation is found: isolation of this tradition is logical only for the era of the late eneolit which is dated, in our opinion, the first third — the end of the III millennium BC [Volkov, 2007]. Ranneeneolitichesky time, according to modern views, remains the "white spot" which is not allowing to draw the unambiguous conclusions supported with real archaeological svidetelstvova. If for the monuments localized on spaces of a North forest-steppe strip, a fact in evidence of evolution early eneoliticheskikh "buzansky" complexes, occurring throughout the end of IV — the beginning of the III millennium BC, in pozdneeneolitichesky — "two-Ozyorsk", the share of "korotkogrebenchaty" ware and increase in "otstupayushche-nakolchaty" ceramics occurring on the way of reduction [Volkov, 2006, 2007, 2009], then the cultural background of bayryksky monuments is not so obvious. It is established only that in a subtaiga strip Pritobolya a historical predecessor of bayryk-sky monuments were shapkulsky antiquities [Zaha, 2002, 2006] which role in addition of the considered tradition is not revealed unambiguously. At the solution of an objective it is necessary to consider that shapkulsky antiquities are studied extremely poorly. Conclusions about specifics and an originality of this education generally are based on materials of three monuments: Shapkul 1, Small Lamb 1 [Starkov, 1980] and Chechkino 1 (dwelling 1) [Zaha, 2002]. Are rather in detail characterized only the settlement of Shapkul 1 [Starkov, 1976, 1980] and Chechkino 1 [Zaha, 2002]. In relation to Chechkino 1 it must be kept in mind the multilayered nature of a monument in which square throughout an eneolit era carriers of shap-kulsky and bayryksky stereotypes consistently lodged [In the same place]. As the shapkulsky complex stratigraphically and planigrafichesk was "beaten off" from eneolitichesky materials of later time, it is impossible to exclude separate, inevitable mistakes in similar cases in characteristic of its features.

Told once again demonstrates that the background of subtaiga bayryksky monuments can be reconstructed only hypothetically, with a large number of assumptions and probabilities now. Within formation of an objective hypothesis the fixing fact in a ceramic complex of the settlements of Shapkul 1 and the Small Lamb of 1 insignificant series of otstupayushche-nakolchaty ceramics, according to V.F. Starkov, excellent from lipchinsky is important for us [1980. Page 162, 165]. For a shapkulsky layer of the settlement of Chechkino of 1 similar facts it is noted, however, considering the multilayered nature of an object, similar probability cannot be excluded. It is quite possible that a part of the ware decorated in otstupayushche-nakolchaty style in reality corresponds not to bayryksky, and to the shapkulsky construction horizon of a monument. The specified fact authentically recorded on the settlements of Shapkul 1


The developed publication of materials of an eneolitichesky complex of a monument is planned to be given in the following issue of "The bulletin of archeology, anthropology and ethnography".


Materials of a monument will be published in the nearest future.

and the Small Lamb 1, considerably brings together ornamental canons of shapkulsky and rannelyba-evsky (buzansky) monuments. Otstupayushche-nakolchaty series of the last are not numerous — 12-20% of the total number of vessels, and this indicator can be compared with data on the settlement of Shapkul 1 (4.7%) and the Small Lamb 14. About possible presence at structure of shap-kulsky complexes of "dlinnogrebenchaty" ceramics the available publications do not supply with the information. The absence or presence of the considered group of ware on the settlements of Shapkul 1 and the Small Lamb 1 can be established only during the direct work with their collections. Considering that on settlements of an early stage of lybayevsky culture the share of similar ware is not numerous and varies within 11-24% of the total number of vessels [Volkov, 2007.

S. 42, tab. 42], the theoretical possibility of existing of "dlinnogrebenchaty" ceramics cannot exclude within shapkulsky antiquities, however with a little smaller quantitative index. It is necessary to emphasize that the main — the "korotkogrebenchaty" complex of shapkul-sky monuments both on technology of drawing, and on a set of elements of an ornament is in many respects identical to rannelybayevsky complexes what we repeatedly had to write about [Volkov, 2006, 2007, 2009]. One more circumstance which is bringing together rannelybayevsky and shapkulsky objects are the specifics of the stone industry which is based on use of qualitative breeds of raw materials with prevalence in complexes of plates and lamellar otshchep, presence of tips of arrows of kelteminarsky type [Volkov, 2006, 2007, 2009; Starkov, 1980].

Told does not exclude that in subtaiga areas Tyumen Pritobolya orientation of historical and cultural processes in general coincided with a vector of development of "forest-steppe" rannelybayevsky monuments. If the offered hypothesis is confirmed with the subsequent researches and archaeological material, in existence of bayryksko-lybayevsky archaeological culture the early period (the end of IV — the first third of the III millennium BC) presented shapkulsky and buzansky by stages and also pozd-neeneoliticheskiya (the first third — the end of the III millennium BC), including bayryksky and two-Ozyorsk stages will quite logically and reasonably be allocated.

In studying monuments of bayryksky local option of bayryksko-lybayevsky antiquities remains many unresolved problems caused both by stereotypes of the previous time, and insufficiency of archaeological material. So, the question of quantity and percentage of ware with various ornamental characteristics is still open. The analysis of materials of the settlements of Ipkul 1 (excavation of 2003) and Plotinnoye shows the picture close to that which is noted for synchronous monuments to the northern forest-steppe. The collection of the settlement of Kurya 1 does not allow to draw unambiguous conclusions in view of the multilayered nature of an object within an eneolit era. Preliminary statistical processing of materials of a monument shows that initial development of its territory coincided with ranneeneolitichesky time to which the ware ornamented in shapkulsky style, a complex of the stone products made of quality raw materials including a tip of kelteminarsky type corresponds. By later time, however within an eneolit era, the representative sample of the ceramics ornamented in grebenchatoyamochny, including "korotkogrebenchaty" and "dlinnogrebenchaty" series, and otstupayushche-nakol-chatoy to a manner belongs. Owing to proximity of early and pozdneeneolitichesky ornamental canons the chronological breakdown of a ceramic complex was made typologically, taking into account archaic lines to which number were carried: use of "zhuchkovy" and "ramchaty" stamps, lack of corbels of a patching decor on a ware belt, etc. At the same time similar approach does not exclude the inevitable mistakes peculiar to a typological method.

The statistical data illustrating an originality of an ornamental complex of the late construction horizon of the settlement of Chechkino 1 show extremely high percent of "dlinnogrebenchaty" sample [Zaha, 2002. The tab.] that is absolutely uncharacteristic for monuments to the northern forest-steppe and a number of the objects localized in a subtaiga strip Pritobolya. Let's note that correct consideration of materials of the majority of the eneolitichesky monuments investigated in the 70-80th of the 20th century is impossible due to the lack of statistical data or use of specific approaches to statistics and definition of typology of ornamental types.


V.F. Starkov reporting

Other scientific works: