The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Formation of ranneeneolitichesky cultures Tyumen Pritobolya (to statement of a problem)



FORMIROVANIYE of RANNEENEOLITICHESKY CULTURES TYUMEN PRITOBOLYA (to statement of a problem)

E.N. Volkov

Article is devoted to a problem of formation of ranneeneolitichesky cultures Tyumen Pritobo-lya, presented by lybayevsky and shapkulsky antiquities. Follows from the analysis of the ornamental standard of these cultures that their formation is probably connected with development of the neolytic decorative traditions based on the equipment of a short edge stamp. For the solution of the matter the author considers the situation which developed in the region in the Neolithic era. Especially in detail the "sosnovoostrovsky" perspective therefore it is possible to divide the massif of edge monuments of the Average of the Trans-Ural region into two independent cultural groups which are conditionally called "sosnovoostrovsky" and "duvansky" understands. Wide use in the ornamental standard of "duvansky" series of the equipment of a short edge stamp and also specifics of other cultural characteristics allowed to offer a hypothesis of formation of shapkulsky and rannely-bayevsky antiquities on the basis of the considered monuments.

The era of the eneolit is one of the most interesting and at the same time least studied periods of the ancient history Pritobolya and all Big Trans-Ural region. Despite undoubted progress in studying eneolitichesky antiquities (see, for example: [Sho-rin, 1999; Chairkina, 2005; Zaha, 2006; etc.]), the considerable number of the problems which did not find an acceptable solution is connected with the considered period. One of nodal questions — formation of ranneeneolitichesky cultural formations.

Among the main cultures characterizing era of a mednokamenny century Tyumen Pritobolya, researchers allocated until recently shapkulsky [Starkov, 1980], lipchinsky and andreevsky antiquities (see, for example: [Kovalyova, 1995]). The latest archaeological researches allow to reconstruct much more difficult and mosaic picture illustrating heterogeneity of the historical and cultural processes happening in various landscape zones Pritobolya. Studying South forest eneolitichesky complexes allowed to come V.A. Zaha to a conclusion about functioning of the monuments left carriers shapkulsky andreevsky and bayrykskoy1 the cultures of [2006] here. There were also not numerous settlements lipchinsky kultury2: Velizhany 1 [Astashkin, etc., 1995], My-sovsky complex [Volkov, 2006], etc. In the territory of the northern forest-steppe, monuments of lybayevsky and andreevsky cultures developed [Volkov, 2005, 2006].

Within a general characteristic of the eneolit it should be noted an originality of certain provinces of the Big Uralo-Zauralsky region where, besides the marked-out cultures, lipchinsky, shuvakishsky and ayatsky antiquities (Central Ural Mountains and the mountain and forest Trans-Ural region) (see functioned, for example: [Shorin, 1999; Chairkina, 1997]), monuments of surtandinsky culture (South Ural and Southern Trans-Ural region) [Matyushin, 1982] and terseksky complexes (Kazakhstan Pritobolye) [Kaliyeva, Logvin, 1997]. The considered formations, in a complex with monuments Tyumen Pritobolya, excepting the andreevsky line of development, find undoubted cultures -

1

The term "bayryksky culture" is introduced by M.F. Kosarev [1981] on materials of monuments of Nizhnetavdinsky District of the Tyumen region for the first time. In their ceramic complex the ware decorated in the edge and patching equipment prevailed. Judging by not numerous illustrations, the short edge stamp acted as a main type of an ornamentir. V.A. Zaha, having borrowed the term "bayryksky culture", significantly expanded its contents and considers monuments to the last as the multicomponent education including the ceramic complexes decorated in style of a short and long edge stamp and also in the otstupayushche-nakolchaty equipment. As indispensable attribute of the bayryksky decorative standard, however, the patching technology of drawing an ornament falling by a trunk of pottery acts [Zaha, 2006].

The repeated appeal to archaeological collections of the 1960-1980th often forces to refuse their lipchinsky cultural attribution as actually lipchinsky ceramics makes in them very insignificant percent. It is much more logical to compare the main complex of otstupayushche-nakolchaty ware on the technical and decorative characteristics with lybayevsky or bayryksky (on V.A. Zaha) the ornamental standard. A bright illustration of the stated thesis are materials of new excavation of the settlement of Ipkul 1 [Volkov, Belosludtsev, 2005].

ny proximity that allowed to put forward a thesis about existence of special historical and cultural area (community) of eneolitichesky cultures [Chairkina, 1997; Kaliyeva, 2001; Shorin, 1993, 1999]3. The undoubted proximity of the decorative standard of the eneolitichesky cultures existing in various territorial and landscape zones of the Trans-Ural region probably demonstrates considerable similarity of the historical and cultural processes which brought at a turn of the late Neolithic — the early eneolit to formation of a series of related cultures. We plan to consider separate features of process of formation of ranneeneolitichesky cultures in the Tyumen Pritobolye especially as the available materials allow to assume striking, distinctive features in formation of the last in borders of certain landscape provinces of the region.

Follows from materials of the last years that during an era of the early eneolit in various landscape zones Tyumen Pritobolya the historical and cultural situation did not differ in uniformity. In the northern forest-steppe, monuments of an early (buzansky) stage of ly-bayevsky culture to which materials of the soil burial ground Buzan 3 [Matveev, etc., are carried 1997 functioned; Matveev, Volkov, 1999], settlements of Lipikhinskoye 5 [Volkov, Chikunova, 2006], Sazyk 9 [Usacheva, 2002], etc. Let's emphasize that lybayevsky culture is slozhnosostavny education in which ornamental complex three main techniques of drawing ornamental compositions coexisted: "korotkogrebenchaty", "dlinnogrebenchaty" and "otstupayushche-nakolchaty" [Volkov, 2005, 2006]. Addressing materials of a buzansky stage of development of lybayevsky antiquities, we will remind that the leading equipment of figuration of ceramics is the short edge stamp by means of which about 75% of vessels were decorated [In the same place]. The ware decorated in relictions style — no more than 20% and a long narrow edge stamp — up to 19% [Volkov, is much less representative 2005, 2006; Volkov, Chikunova, 2006]. The Ranneeneolitichesky age of monuments of a buzansky stage is diagnosed on the basis of radio carbon datings, features of the stone industry and its source of raw materials, specifics of the life support system and also elements house-building traditsii4.

A bit different situation developed in South forest areas Tyumen Pritobolya. As show materials, the earliest stage on a hronostratigrafichesky scale of the region is shapkulsky kultura5. In the whole shapkulski of antiquity it is possible to characterize as homogeneous cultural education in the ornamental relation. The leading role in the decorative standard was assigned to the equipment of a short edge stamp, including the compositions executed in style of reliction by a short edge stamp [Starkov, 1980]. However it is worth to remember that a small series of ceramics of the settlements of Shapkul 1 and the Small Lamb 1 was ornamented in the otstupayushche-nakolchaty equipment. Addressing this group of ware, V.F. Starkov stipulates that it is not lipchinsky [In the same place]. Data of radio-carbon dating [Zaha, 2002], specifics of the stone industry and house-building traditsiya7 do not contradict a thesis about ranneeneolitichesky age of shapkulsky antiquities.

Thus, the available materials allow to say that to the last quarter of the IV millennium BC in the territory of Tyumen Pritobolya there were two related archaeological cultures — lybayevsky in North forest-steppe areas and shapkulsky on spaces of a subtaiga and southern taiga [Matveeva, etc., 2005; Wolves, 2006]. The main indicator of likeness of these formations should be considered prevalence same, sometimes the identical compositions on ceramics executed in style short edge shtampa8. We believe that iskho-

3

In this context the point of view of A.F. Shorin who allocated the area of forest edge eneolitichesky cultures including monuments of Predu-besides the Ural and trans-Ural materials looks a little excellent

ralsky region and Volga region of [1993, 1999].

4

For more details see [Volkov, 2005, 2006; Volkov, Chikunova, 2006].

5

In this case we do not speak about monuments of andreevsky culture which accurate chronological situation in the system of eneolitichesky antiquities of the region remains not up to the end reasonable. A number of researchers allow a possibility of ranneeneolitichesky provision of separate monuments of andreevsky culture (see, for example: [Zaha, Fomin, 1999]), however, in our opinion, it is not given evidences in favor of it yet.

Prevalence of products from qualitative breeds of a jasper, flint and siliceous slates, considerable percent of products on plates, existence of tips of arrows of kelteminarsky type, etc. means (see, for example: [Starkov, 1980]).

Fixing considerable on the area, well profound dwellings (Shapkul 1, the Small Lamb 1) [Starkov, 1980] that brings together house-building tradition of the shapkulsky population with stereotypes of carriers of cultures of the Neolithic era, etc. For more details see [Volkov, 2006].

In more detail about similarity and distinctions of lybayevsky and shapkulsky ornamental standards see [Volkov, 2002, 2005, 2006].

dya from the last fact it is also necessary to look for genetic predecessors of these lines of cultural development.

Addressing materials of the neolytic period on average the Trans-Ural region, we will note that in this chronological piece the carriers of several archaeological cultures using various decorative techniques of figuration of pottery lived here. So, "procherchenno-otstupayushche-nakolchataya" the manner of figuration is generally characteristic of decorative traditions of kozlovsky, boborykinsky and koshkinsky cultures (see, for example: [Kovalyova, 1989]). Proceeding from the last circumstance, it is hardly logical to look for genetic sources of a "korotkogrebenchaty" manner of drawing a decor of lybayevsky and shapkul-sky antiquities in materials of the considered monuments.

The elements of an ornament and complete compositions executed in an edge manner are characteristic of the so-called rannepoludensky tradition which is marked out to I.V. Usacheva on materials of monuments of the Andreevsky lake [2001]. At the same time the specifics of the standard of the considered series cannot be a little convincingly compared with a "korotkogrebenchaty" stereotype of an era of the early eneolit. Being guided by I.V. Usacheva's data, it is possible to come to a conclusion that the main motives of a "rannepoludensky" series are horizontal ranks of "the walking comb" over which the zigzag was usually put, or wavy fading, the procherchivaniya executed in the equipment [In the same place. Page 121, 122]. Working by process of elimination, it is possible to refuse one possible genetic predecessor of lybayevsky and shapkulsky antiquities.

Substantially edge technology of drawing a decor is characteristic also of poludensky culture (see, for example: [Kovalyova, 1989]). However some of the most widespread techniques fixed on poludensky ceramics are: a procherchivaniye an edge stamp and "the walking comb", equally flabby for the "korotkogrebenchaty" eneolitichesky standard. Therefore, logical it is represented to exclude also the considered decorative tradition from possible predecessors of lybayevsky and shapkulsky cultures.

Thus, among the neolytic cultures of the Average of the Trans-Ural region known so far there are unconsidered only so-called sosnovoostrovsky antiquities. Among scientific community there is no settled point of view on the considered phenomenon. Characterizing a situation in general, we will notice that a part of researchers in general deny existence of sosnovoostrovsky culture, at least throughout the Neolithic era. So, V.T. Kovalyova sosnovoostrovsky antiquities were included poludensky culture and were considered as its late stage [1989]. At the same time a number of researchers allows a possibility of an udrevneniye of sosnovoostrovsky materials up to early neolytic time. In particular, V.A. Zaha, operating with the facts of numerous joint bedding of boborykinsky and edge ceramics, comes to a conclusion about rather early age of the considered ornamental tradition [Zaha, 1995; Zaha, Matveev, 1997].

The available materials, in our opinion, do not allow to doubt neolytic age of monuments of type Pine Ostrov, Duvanskoye 5, Gilevo 8, etc. Their neolytic attribution is unambiguously confirmed by data of the radio-carbon analysis not numerous so far [Stefanov, 1991], features of the stone industry of the settlement of Gilevo 8 [Dryabina, Parkhimovich, 1991], specifics of the house-building tradition other than eneolitichesky stereotypes, given to relative chronology, marking joint finding of edge ceramics with materials of koshkinsky and boborykinsky cultures, etc. At the same time, operating with the available data, researchers have the right to allow very wide period of existing of sosnovoostrovsky antiquities within the neolytic period, with At!! - At! until the end of the IV millennium BC

The facts to which still it was not drawn of due consideration can clear up development of a problem. Despite obvious insufficiency of the published materials united by researchers in "a sosnovoostrovsky problem", the known monuments can be divided into two independent groups. It is logical to carry materials of settlements to the first of them the Pine Island, Gilevo 8 and some other objektov9. Standard assessment of these ceramic complexes traditionally is considered on the basis of not numerous vessels published in widely known works [Viktorova, 1968; Kovalyova, Zyryanova, 2001. Page 52, fig. 5; Dryabina, Parkhimovich, 1991. Page 104, fig. 3, 1-6]. Features of a series oprede-

9
Unfortunately, in one of works devoted to the publication of materials of "sosnovoostrovsky" monuments statistics reflecting ornamental features of the considered series is not attracted by

>. Nevertheless portrayals of the published vessels illustrate uniformity of ceramic series within the studied complexes.

lyatsya by high percent of the compositions executed in style of the "walking comb" fixed on the majority of the known vessels. The second ornamental dominant of the considered objects is defined by wide use of the elements and compositions executed in style of a long, narrow edge stamp. As a rule, decorative canons do not differ in complexity and are generally presented by direct and inclined lines. More difficult elements are zigzags, rhombuses, etc. are fixed not so often. Prints of a short edge stamp, including "zhuchkovy", as a rule, are presented only in a nimbus zone (see, for example: [Kovalyova, Zyryanova, 2001. Page 52, fig. 5; Dryabina, Parkhimovich, 1991. Page 106, fig. 4]). So, from 160 vessels of a ceramic complex of the settlement of Gilevo 8 are only two decorated in style of a short ("zhuchkovy") edge stamp [Dryabina, Parkhimovich, 1991. Page 104-105]. Let's note that, unlike a parking collection the Pine Island which is known to the archaeological public generally from rather old publication [Viktorova 1968], the author had an opportunity in detail to get acquainted with materials of the settlement of Gilevo 8. Viewing this series allows to confirm a thesis about full prevalence on vessels of the settlement of the compositions executed in style of a long edge stamp. Most likely, it is necessary to carry to number of "long and edge" sosnovoostrovsky complexes also materials of a number of the settlement monuments studied by investigations. In particular, at inspection of antiquities of the Ingalsky valley on the settlement the Slob and in early cultural deposits of Starolybayevsky 4 burial grounds [Volkov, Matveeva, 2001] were received series of the neolytic ware decorated in style of a long edge stamp. However before carrying out stationary works on the area of these monuments told cannot have affirmative character.

As the ornamental originality of rannelybayevsky and shapkulsky complexes is defined by domination of the "korotkogrebenchaty" technology of drawing a decor, the settlement like Gui-left 8 and possible genetic predecessors of the considered cultures it is also logical to eliminate the Pine Island.

The second group of "sosnovoostrovsky" monuments as it appears from earlier considered material, settlements like Duvansky 5 [Stefanov, 1991] make, SAD 18 (the VIII point) [Zaha, Matveev, 1997], etc. It is how possible to judge by the published illustrative material, the ornamental originality of these complexes is defined extremely wide, more expressed, than in earlier considered case, by use of "the walking comb" 10. The rest of decorative compositions was put mainly by means of a short edge stamp [Stefanov, 1991. Page 155, fig. 5, 8, 11, 12, fig. 6, 3, fig. 7, 1, 3, 4, 8; Zaha, Matveev, 1997. Page 4, fig. 2, 1, 3, 6-8]. Most likely, it is necessary to carry to similar objects also materials of several monuments investigated by investigations. It is possible to carry a series of ware of the settlements of Svinino to number of the last [Volkov, Vedernikov, 2001. Page 133, fig. 2, 3, 4, 7] and Oskino Boloto [Tkachyov, Volkov, 2002. Page 19, fig. 2, 1, 3]. Let's note that direct comparison of the decorative standard of the considered objects to rannelybayevsky and shapkulsky complexes is not correct. Nevertheless the similarity of separate elements of a decor and number of the finished compositions does not raise doubts. As one more indirect evidence allowing to connect "shagayushche-korotkogrebenchaty" complexes of the Neolithic era with shapkulsky and rannelybayevsky the radio-carbon dating marking chronological position of the settlement of Duvanskoye 5 — 5295±60 l acts. N [Stefanov, 1991]. The given date not bad will be coordinated with rannelybayevsky — Buzan 3 [Matveev, etc., 1997] and Sazyk 9 [Usacheva, 2002] and shapkulsky — Chechkino 2 [Zaha, 2002].

Summing up the short result of the above, it is logical to conclude that the thesis about existence in the Neolithic of the Average of the Trans-Ural region of the uniform, not dismembered sosnovoostrovsky massif looks premature. Even selectively published materials of so-called sosnovoostrovsky monuments give all grounds to doubt this situation. Unfortunately, obvious insufficiency of the published material does not allow to make at the moment correct differentiation of the saved-up material and to make full-scale, obosno-

In this regard the considered group of monuments approaches not only the first group of "sosnovoostrovsky" objects (Gilevo 8, Pine Ostrov), but also materials of poludensky culture. It is how possible to judge by the available materials, "shagayushche-edge" motives are characteristic of all neolytic cultures of the Trans-Ural region using an edge stamp in the ornamental standard. Let's note that imitation of "the walking comb" — "rocking chair" is often fixed also on a surface of vessels of the "otstupayushche-drawn" kozlovsky culture. "The walking comb", out of doubt, is the business card of the trans-Ural Neolithic.

bathing conclusions. Nevertheless differences which are fixed that is called "by sight" allow to raise quite definitely a question of cultural heterogeneity of the massif of edge neolytic monuments of the Average of the Trans-Ural region. Dissimilarity in a decorative originality of Gilevo 8 complexes, on the one hand, and Duvansky 5 — with another, so strikingly, as well as eneolitichesky standards of shapkulsky culture and "an edge lipchinka". Without applying for the final decision of a question, being guided it is exclusive convenience of statement of material and in order to avoid terminological confusion, we will call monuments of the first group "sosnovoostrovskimy" 11, and the second — "duvansky" 2.

Unfortunately, the modern level of study of material does not allow to take out even the reasonable assumptions of a cultural and chronological ratio of the considered complexes. At first sight actually "sosnovoostrovsky" monuments (the Pine Island, Gilevo 8) look earlier in relation to duvansky group. In favor of it as though rather archaic stone industry of the settlement of Gilevo 8 demonstrates [Dryabina, Parkhimovich, 1991]. However it should be noted that we have no ideas of features of a cannon complex of duvansky monuments. In the publication devoted to materials of the settlement of Duvanskoye 5 [Stefanov, 1991], is practically not paid to the description of a cannon complex attention. The settlement of SAD 18 (the VIII point, N.P. Matveeva's excavation) is a multilayered object in which square only in the Neolithic era carriers of "edge" and boborykinsky lines of development lived. Thereof exarticulation from the slozhnosostavny massif of silicon stock of the products executed by carriers of edge ornamental tradition is represented problematic. In other words, the stone industry of duvansky group of monuments can quite be even more archaic, than characterizing sosnovoostrovsky tradition. Thus, we have the right to allow several options of a cultural and chronological ratio of "sosnovoostrovsky" and "duvansky" antiquities. It is possible that these objects mark various chronological stages of development of one archaeological culture. However in this case not absolutely clear is a question of the reasons of so significant change in an ornamental stereotype. Also the assumption of existence of two independent lines of cultural development allowing them synchronous development at certain stages is submitted quite probable. Anyway the final decision of a question is possible only in case of essential fund of the archaeological sources including published.

The author inclines to the assumption that the late period of existing of "duvansky" complexes had to fall also on era of the final Neolithic. To the similar conclusion us several circumstances force to be inclined. First, undoubted proximity of techniques of drawing an ornament with those at ranneeneolitichesky shapkulsky and lybayevsky antiquities. Secondly, essential degree of similarity between the single elements of a decor and compositions fixed on "duvansky" ware and ceramics of the considered eneolitichesky cultures. Thirdly, already mentioned radio carbon dating of the settlement of Duvanskoye 5.

Returning to actually sosnovoostrovsky monuments, it should be noted that to track their potential impact on ranneeneolitichesky antiquities of the region much more difficult. At the time the hypothesis according to which monuments of sosnovoostrovsky type, in time which is not dismembered at that time option, formed a basis for formation of an edge component of lipchinsky culture was offered [Astashkin, etc., 1995]. This hypothesis was rather original and demanded for the time. Nevertheless researches of the next years allowed to come to a conclusion about almost total absence of monuments of lipchinsky type in the Tyumen Pritobolye and later chronological provision of not numerous lipchinsky objects in relation to rannelybayevsky and shapkulsky [Volkov, 2005, 2006]. The absence in shapkulsky complexes of group of the ware decorated in style of a long edge stamp is indirect confirmation of a hypothesis of earlier chronological position of monuments of type Pine Ostrov and Gilevo 8 in relation to "du-vansky" antiquities and the termination of their functioning before era of the final Neolithic. However, addressing materials of rannelybayevsky (buzansky) complexes, it is necessary to face a bit different state of affairs. Slozhnosostavna character rassmat-

11

On an eponimny cultural monument.

On the most fully published settlement with a "shagayushche-korotkogrebenchaty" manner of figuration of ceramics.

rivayemy culture predetermined synchronous coexistence in its framework of three various ornamental standards [Volkov, 2002, 2005, 2006], one of which — "dlinnogrebencha-ty" in a number of significant parameters is comparable to a sosnovoostrovsky manner of drawing a decor. The last circumstance as though does not exclude the probability of "dozhivaniye" of sosnovoost-rovsky objects till late neolytic time. It is necessary to pay, however, once again attention to insignificant presentability of the considered ware in the lybayevsky collections relating both to early and to a late stage of cultural development. Once again we will emphasize that the cumulative share of similar ware does not exceed 19% [Volkov, 2006].

In the course of consideration of this subject it is impossible to bypass also a question of origin of the third ornamental standard of lybayevsky antiquities — "otstupayushche-nakolchaty". Addressing materials of the previous, neolytic time, we will note that similar technique was one of the koshkinsky, boborykin-sky and kozlovsky cultures defining for carriers (see, for example: [Kovalyova, 1989]). The otstupayushche-nakolchaty manner of figuration received considerable distribution also in poludensky ornamental tradition [In the same place]. Nevertheless even fluent comparison of an otstupayushche-nakolchaty complex of lybayevsky culture to materials of the considered traditions forces to give up a thought of direct evolution of one of them in the lybayevsky decorative standard. The assumption of migration of new groups of the population, in our opinion, is also unproductive as the considered ware in adjacent territories does not manage to track considerable analogies. The assumption that the otstupayushche-nakolchaty component of lybayevsky culture is formed as a result of direct interaction of carriers of two or more cultures which lived up to a turn of eras of the Neolithic — the eneolit looks more objective. Considering "tangled" chronology of neolytic time, as possible genetic sources "from - stupayushche-nakolchatogo" a component of lybayevsky antiquities at the moment it is possible to consider any of the listed above ornamental traditions.

Thus, the assumption of formation of shapkulsky culture and a "korotkogrebenchaty" component of rannelybayevsky (buzansky) antiquities on the basis of monuments like Duvanskoye 5, SAD 18 is logical (the VIII point). However in the considered complexes it is not necessary to speak about direct evolution of late neolytic "edge" ornamental tradition. So, at an early stage of development of eneolitichesky antiquities Tyumen Pritobolya from an ornamental stereotype the compositions executed in a manner of "the walking comb", which were one of the defining components of the decorative standard of "edge" cultures of the Neolithic era almost completely disappear. By attentive comparison of "duvan-sky" ceramic series to ware of shapkulsky and buzansky types it is possible to reveal some more the discrepancies expressed in distinctions of wall thickness of ware, discrepancy of forming masses, specifics of ornamental compositions, use of original techniques of drawing a decor, etc. Possibly, the considered distinctions are reflection enough difficult kulturogenetichesky and, perhaps, the ethnic processes happening at a turn of the final Neolithic — the eneolit in the Tyumen Pritobolye.

As one of the most probable options it is necessary to consider the possibility of migration from adjacent territories of the population which entered interaction with carriers of local ornamental tradition. South Ural could be one of the similar centers. In favor of told the fact of high representativeness of the stone tools executed from a sealing wax-green jasper on monuments lybayevsky [Volkov, can serve 2006; Volkov, Chikunova, 2006] and shapkulsky [Starkov, 1980] cultures. Taking into account that the southern Ural jasper belt is considered the traditional place of origin of similar raw materials, the last assumption has full authority for existence. However it must be kept in mind that the tools executed from jaspers of various flowers and shades, including sealing wax-green in enough are presented on a number of neolytic monuments of the Average of the Trans-Ural region. As one of examples it is possible to consider materials of the settlement of Gilevo 8 [Dryabina, Parkhimovich, 1991]. More than possibly that the products executed from a sealing wax-green jasper are presented also on monuments "duvansky" gruppy13, however the multilayered nature of most of them does not give the chance of unambiguous interpretation of a silicon complex. The last circumstance indirectly can svi-

13

By way of illustration it is possible to consider materials of the settlement of SAD 18 (the VIII point) [Zaha, Matveev, 1997] where within an era of the eneolit "edge" and boborykinsky complexes are allocated.

to detelstvovat also in favor of the assumption of "direct" transformation of monuments of "duvansky" type in "korotkogrebenchaty" series of the early eneolit or illustrates the stable cultural ties which developed between South and Central Ural Mountains and the Trans-Ural region.

It is impossible to exclude possibilities of migration to the Central Trans-Ural region and Pritobolye of carriers of cultural stereotypes of the western slope of the Urals and the Volga region. N.M. Chairkina [2005] speaks about the probability of the similar phenomenon in relation to formation of shuvakishsky antiquities. Taking into account undoubted cultural proximity of shapkulsky and rannelybayevsky objects with shuva-kishsky the last assumption also has the right for existence. Considerable deformation of a "duvansky" ornamental stereotype can be explained also with interaction of its carriers with the population of the "прочерченно-накольчато-receding" Neolithic era complexes. Especially it is necessary to emphasize that at all problematical character of identification of the component (components) which entered interaction with carriers of "duvansky" decorative tradition it is logical to note that the turn of the final Neolithic — the early eneolit on average the Trans-Ural region and the Tyumen Pritobolye is characterized by the difficult cultural situation which found reflection in direct interaction of carriers of various archaeological cultures. The end result of these contacts, in our opinion, should be considered formation of shapkul-sky culture and a "korotkogrebenchaty" component of lybayevsky antiquities.

By consideration of a problem it is necessary to address also an explanation of specifics of the cultural situation which developed in various landscape zones Tyumen Pritobolya. Let's remind that in South forest areas of the region in ranneeneolitichesky time the shap-kulsky antiquities uniform in the ornamental plan functioned. Along with them on spaces of the northern forest-steppe the lybayevsky culture including three main ornamental standards developed [Volkov, 2006]. Even the "fluent" view of a lybayevsky ceramic complex does not leave doubts that within culture at least two groups various by origin naseleniya14 initially were integrated. The answer to the question posed, in our opinion, is in the plane of a paleoekonomichesky and ecological situation in the region. The author already had to address this subject, considering features of natural capacity of a South forest and North forest-steppe strip Pritobolya [2003]. Landscape features of the northern forest-steppe are defined by rather limited area of growth of the dense mixed woods which were the main place of concentration of stocks of trade fauna. Researches in the Ingalsky valley which is the most studied in the archaeological relation of a part of the northern forest-steppe show that the absolute majority of lybayevsky settlements is dated for the territory of the dense mixed woods which are "islands" of a taiga on open ostepnenny spaces [Volkov, 2005]. The specifics of the life support system of lybayevsky populations visually illustrate that, living on forest-steppe spaces, they realized the "taiga" way of operation of controlled territories based on a hunting dominant of economy [Volkov, 2003, 2004]. Limited natural capacity of this landscape zone predetermined as the population capable to live here, and the balance defining extreme amount of the archaeological cultures capable of rather peaceful co-existence [In the same place]. Materials of the Ingalsky valley show that throughout an eneolit era carriers only of two cultural formations lived here. And during the ranneeneolitichesky period lybayevsky culture had no competitors. At the subsequent stage of a mednokamenny century there are monuments left andreevsky groups of the population here. According to our data, frictionless coexistence two various in cultural and probably the ethnic relation of populations became possible thanks to "cultivation" of economic priorities. Carriers of lybayevsky culture probably focused on maintaining the economy based on hunting at the subordinated fishery role while the population of andreevsky monuments put the main emphasis on fishery development [Volkov 2004, 2005]. Summarizing told, in relation to a situation at a turn of the final Neolithic — the eneolit we will note that limited natural capacity of the northern forest-steppe had to become the main reason for integration of carriers of several independent ornamental traditions into uniform archaeological culture — lybayevsky.

14

Considering an opportunity that the "dlinnogrebenchaty" component of the ornamental standard arose as imitation the motives executed in "procherchenno-otstupayushche-nakolchatom" style.

Other situation developed in subtaiga and South taiga areas Tyumen Pritobolya. The richness of the considered territories forest landscapes and, as a result, stocks of wild fauna predetermined their prospects for development of various forms of the appropriating economy. Similar natural and geographical conditions, according to the author, had to promote a possibility of frictionless coexistence of carriers of several cultural traditions [Volkov, 2003]. Probably is explained by the last circumstance both ornamental uniformity of shapkulsky antiquities, and lack of requirement of integration of carriers of various ornamental stereotypes.

Now we have no data on possible contemporaries of shap-kulsky culture. At the same time fixing in a cultural layer of the settlements of Shapkul 1 and the Small Lamb of 1 otstupayushche-nakolchaty ware, excellent from lipchinsky [Starkov, 1980], allows to assume single existing of similar complexes with shapkulsky. The situation which is fixed in the considered territories at the subsequent stage of an eneolitichesky era can serve as indirect confirmation. So, in the complexes of the developed and late eneolit united by V.A. Zakh in bayryksky culture the joint existing of edge and otstupayushche-nakolchaty ornamental traditions is traced [2006]. It is impossible to exclude that emergence here of carriers of andreevsky culture became the reason of integration of carriers of various ornamental traditions. However this hypothesis is still actually not supported.

It is necessary to address also a question of the reasons which predetermined the termination of existence of late neolytic cultures and emergence of new cultural and ornamental traditions of an era of the early eneolit which genetic continuity with the previous chronological period is traced not always distinctly. The facts which are available at our disposal do not allow to speak about large-scale and mass migrations of the foreign culture population which appearance predetermined the beginning of new historical and cultural and cult-rogenetichesky processes in the region.

In conclusion we will note that the version offered by the author on objective the reason

Kenneth Shelton
Other scientific works: