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

To the QUESTION OF GENESIS of FEDOROVSKY AND CHERKASKULSKY CULTURES (on materials of a funeral ceremony)



k to the QUESTION OF GENESIS of FEDOROVSKOY AND of CHERKASKULSKAYA of CULTURES

(on materials of a funeral ceremony) I.A. Kotelnikova

The author deals with a question of genesis of the Fyodorovo and Cherkaskul cultures basing on burial rite materials. In Southern Trans-Urals, rites of the Fyodorovo monuments demonstrate a considerable similarity to those of the developed and late phases of the Cherkaskul culture. It makes us cautiously treat the ideas on dividing the Koptyakovo stem into the Cherkaskul and Fedorovo stems, or dividing the pre-Koptyakovo stem into the Koptyakovo, Cherkaskul and Fedorovo stems. Availability of the common elements in the burial rites could be explained by the intensive contacts which by the way had never led to assimilation of the Cherkaskul people by the Fyodorovo people.

The question of genesis of fedorovsky and cherka-skulsky cultures is very difficult and debatable. There are several points of view on the matter.

K.V. Salnikov connected emergence of cherkaskulsky culture in the forest Trans-Ural region with development of local neolytic cultures, and explained similarity in ceramics of fedorovets and cherkaskulets with likeness of cultures of the Neolithic era and the eneolit "in the huge territory of the uralo-Kazakhstan cultural and historical community", covering the steppe, the forest-steppe and a forest strip. The author expressed opinion on synchronism of cherkaskulsky ware with a fedorovsky stage of andronovsky culture and dated it according to XVI11 — the 16th centuries BC [Sealing glands, 1967, page 363-364]. V.S. Stokolos considered cherkaskulsky culture, along with alakulsky, local trans-Ural (cherkaskulsky — forest, alakulsky — steppe), and fedorovsky — culture alien in the Trans-Ural region [1972, page 91-96, 132-146]. L.P. Hlobystin assumed that cherkaskul-Skye culture is genetically connected with koptyakov-sky which, in turn, developed "as a result of advance of early alakulets from the territory of Northwest Kazakhstan to the forest and forest-steppe Trans-Ural region and their assimilatory impact on local ayatsky culture" [1976, page 58, 61-62]. The author connected formation of koptyakovsky culture from 16-15th centuries BC, cherkaskulsky — from 14th century BC. The powerful andronovsky impulse, according to L.P. Hlobystin, defined specifics of addition of cherkaskulsky culture in the northwest. M.F. Kosarev expressed opinion which, in general, some more researchers [Potemkina, hold 1985; Obydennov, Shorin, 1995], about a possibility of formation of fedorovsky culture in nepo-

the sredstvenny neighbourhood with rannecherkaskul-sky and pozdnebalanbashsky areas in a border zone of a taiga and the forest-steppe between Ural Ridge and the Tobol River [Kosarev, 1984, page 3-4]. This assumption is based mainly on similarity of cherkaskulsky and fedorovsky ware from koptyakovsky and abashevsky. The Koptyakovsky ceramics is localized on settlements of the Sverdlovsk and Tagil region and, according to M.F. Kosarev, can be dated the 16-14th or 16-13th centuries BC. The researcher treats her twiddle as a new stage in development of the tradition of an edge geometrizm of the forest Trans-Ural region which arose in the Neolithic era and sees a genetic linkage of a koptyakovsky ornamental complex, on the one hand, with earlier, ayatsky, with another — with later, cherkaskulsky and fedorovsky [Kosarev, 1981, page 77-81, 112116]. M.F. Obydennov and A.F. Shorin incline to a thought that koptyakovsky, cherka-skulsky and fedorovsky ceramics developed on a uniform basis, from ware with the so-called not dismembered decor combining elements of all three ornamental schemes. Subsequently the part of the Sredneuralsk population manufacturing ceramics to which ornaments fedorovsky lines were peculiar moved to the forest-steppe and North steppe Areas of Trans-Ural region and Kazakhstan and made the contribution to addition of fedorovsky culture [Obydennov, Shorin, 1995, page 47-48].

It should be noted that these points of view are based mainly on the analysis of ceramic material and in much smaller degree — a funeral ceremony. In our opinion, if the hypothesis of relationship of cherkaskulets and fedorovets is right, then not only in a ceramic complex, but, apparently, and in funeral ceremonialism of these groups nase-

the line, and it is possible, and late abashevets and also koptyakovets has to be much general. Unfortunately, balanbashsky and smoking-kovsky burial grounds in the Southern Trans-Ural region are not opened yet therefore we have an opportunity to compare only cherkaskulsky and fedorovsky funeral pamyatniki1.

At characteristic of a funeral ceremony the following data were considered: type of a nadmogilny construction; fencing form; construction reception; system of extensions; sacrificial complex; fire traces; planning, orientation, type of a grave; type of overlapping; way of burial; the number of vessels and their arrangement in a grave; jewelry; instruments of labor; bones of animals. The Fedorovsky funeral ceremony of the Southern Trans-Ural region was analyzed by us on materials of 14 burial grounds: Fedorovsky [Sealing glands, 1940], Churilovo, Nurbakovo, Isakovsky, Smolino, Sosnovsky, Sukhomesov-sky, Sineglazovo [Andronovsky culture, 1966], Tuktubayevo, Kinzersky [Kuzmina, 1973, 1975], Urefta I [Stefanov, Dneprov, Co-rochkova, 1983], Priplodny Loga I [Malyutina, 1984], Putilovsky small settlement of II [Zdanovich, 1988], Sun Talika [Vinogradov, Kostyukov, Markov, 1996]. In them 74 nadmogilny constructions, 98 burials which were attributed by authors of publications as fedorovsky are dug out.

Funeral constructions are presented by earth embankments (49%) and barrows fencings — earth embankments in combination with stone designs (51%).

Fencings have the round, oval and rectangular form. Single round fencings (68%) are most widespread. They prevail as in general on the region, and in each certain burial ground. Oval and rectangular designs are met in smaller quantity (16 and 12%). Constructions of the extended forms (oval, rectangular) contain usually several graves.

Only one construction represented the system of extensions — barrow No. 6 in the burial ground the Putilovsky small settlement of II. Under an embankment there were two round fencings, one of which is attached to another. In each fencing there was about one sepulchral hole which

Only one koptyakovsky burial, in the Berezki Ug burial ground is known. It was destroyed by later graves, but the remained in situ a backbone allowed to define orientation of buried — the head on the East. The stock consisted of a vessel of koptyakovsky type, a bronzy knife and a needle [Is ordinary-is new, Shorin, 1995, page 11].

are almost parallel [Zdanovich, 1988, page 95]. At construction of fencings the fedorovets used three receptions — the horizontal, vertical and combined laying. The majority of constructions is constructed by means of horizontal (56%) and vertical (32%) layings. The third method was used usually for construction of more monumental designs (12%).

Planning of graves on the funeral platform submits to three principles: central single, linear and linearly-odi-nochnomu2. Holes with the central single system of planning (75%) prevail. Linear planning is studied in six burial grounds (18%): Smolino, the Putilovsky small settlement of II, Fedorovsky, Urefta, Tuktubayevo, Kinzersky, and linearly - single is known only in one case (the Putilovsky small settlement of II, kurg. No. 6).

In orientation of graves the width direction with seasonal deviations (90%) accurately prevails.

In the considered area soil holes (50%) and holes with wooden designs (fellings and graves with a facing of walls a tree) (28%), holes with a stone facing or overlapping dominate and stone boxes meet less often (17 and 7%), it is even less holes from combined (a tree & #43; stone) facing (5%).

The vast majority of burials represent truposozhzheniye (85.5%). The dead were burned on the party, the calcinated bones placed in the graves identical by the sizes of subjects in which buried the whole bodies. The cremated remains of the dead were put most often at east wall of a hole (45%). Single truposozhzheniye (92.6%) prevail. Cremation steam rooms (7.4%) are very rare, adult truposozhzheniye considerably prevail over nurseries (respectively 85.4 and 4.6%).

Trupolozheniya are single (4%), buried the dead in the writhed pose, on the left side. Only single adults on - are investigated

2

Here the types of planning of sepulchral holes allocated to T.S. Malyutina in one funeral construction are used: "1) central single — when under an embankment... or in a fencing in the center one sepulchral hole was located; 2) the central circular system includes one central hole and several peripheral, located around, under one isolated embankment, within fencings; 3) the linear systems of planning form two-three-five holes located in parallel each other to one or several lines located in one" (linear planning) or slozh-nosostavny (linearly - single planning) a fencing [Malyutina, 1994, page 9-10].

grebeniye. In some graves, in the presence of stock, remains of buried were absent (10.5%).

The stock of burials is rather poor and presented, as a rule, by 1-2 vessels (though in rare instances their quantity can reach 5 and more). Instruments of labor (knives, needles, prickers, a zernoterka) are found in some graves except vessels, jewelry (beads, temporal rings, earrings) occasionally meet. In many burials (30%) there were ceramic dishes.

Placement of vessels in graves is subordinated to the uniform principle: at an ingumation they stand near the head buried, at a truposozh-zheniye — mainly at the western wall though occasionally — when in the specified place the cremated remains are put — vessels are at an opposite wall, i.e. again kind of "in the heads" buried.

Usually near vessels, and sometimes also in dishes and vessels there are separate bones (edges, shovels, pelvic, metapodiya, etc.) small and cattle, horses — the remains of meat parting food. More often for its preparation meat of a horse (56%) and cattle (28%) was used.

Occasionally in funeral complexes sacrifices (5.4%) meet. They can settle down: 1) on overlapping of a grave or in its filling (result of drawdown of overlapping); 2) near a grave; 3) away from a grave. The following types of sacrifices are recorded: 1) one or several vessels; 2) a bone house (a sheep, a cow, a horse, a dog) and wild (a badger, a fox) animals — skulls, the whole skeletons, the remains of various parts of ink. Sacrifices of the first look prevail.

Fire use was characteristic feature of ceremonialism of fedo-rovets of the Southern Trans-Ural region. Its traces are recorded in many funeral complexes of the considered area and presented: 1) campfires at the level of the funeral platform; 2) campfires at the bottom of a grave; 3) coals in filling or at the bottom of a grave; 4) burning of wooden sepulchral designs.

In the Kinzersky burial ground cult constructions of fedorovets are open. Barrow 10 had a round fence from the stones laid by a tsistovy laying on an embankment. Under an embankment, from depth of 0.2 m, the layer of bright red clay and ochre forming a ring was traced. In this layer at a depth of 0.6 m the hole was cleared away by the sizes of 2.6x1.2x0.5 m, it is focused -

Nye in the area of SZ-YuV, filled with red clay mixed up with lumps of yellow ochre. Along walls of a hole the firm layer of black color reminding ceramic slag was traced. On its corners traces of four columns were recorded. Under a black layer, at a depth of 0.8-0.9 m, pure ashes, and below, to the bottom graves — the chernozem lay. Were at the bottom found: whole vessel which was at the western wall, fragments of one more vessel, shovel of an animal. According to E.E. Kuzmina, originally burial on a fedorovsky ceremony was made here, and then in the ritual purposes repeatedly made fire in which the wooden designs covered with clay burned down. After each such burning the platform was filled up with ochre [Kuzmina, 1975, page 222].

Under an embankment of a barrow 33, the largest (diameter of 20 m, height of 1.05 m), holding the central position in the burial ground, burials did not appear. In the center of an embankment at a depth of 0.8-0.9 m (possibly, on the buried soil) the big campfire, and near it skulls, legs, a sacrum, a basin of four cows and fragments of at least five vessels was cleared away. In the northwest sector, in the hole the sizes of 1.4x0.8x0.65 m which is let in the continent, focused in the area of SSV-YuYuZ the skeleton of a calf, and over it a skeleton of a cow, focused by skulls on YuYuZ lay. In the southeast sector there was one more campfire. The center of a barrow was surrounded with a ditch with a diameter of 14 m [In the same place, page 226-227].

The main lines and features of a funeral ceremony of fedorovsky culture in the territory of the Southern Trans-Ural region are that.

N.A. Krut-skikh and A.F. Shorin attributed

On ceramic material as rannecherkaskulsky (X! U-H!!! centuries BC) two burial grounds, Berezki Ug and Perevozny! and, located in the forest Trans-Ural region and occupying the periphery of the settlements of the same name. In them 12 funeral complexes in the form of the round beskurganny fences of the small sizes constructed by means of a horizontal laying are dug out (diameter from 2.5 to 5.7 m) which part had 1-2 extensions of a similar form. In some fences (Birches of Ug, ogr. 3) and extensions (Birches of Ug, ogr. 3, ave. 4; Perevozny! and, ogr. 3, the ave. 1, 2) burials did not appear. Apparently, it is connected with the insignificant depth of sepulchral holes and late destructions as in two cases (Perevozny! and, ogr. 3, the ave. 1, 2) found vessels. Thus, planning pogre-

ball constructions was central single (54.5%) and linearly - single (45.5%). Fencings and extensions contained on one simple soil hole (all them 15) focused most often shirotno with seasonal deviations (83.3%) and is only sometimes meridional (16.7%). Burials are made on an ingumation ceremony (83.3%), in some graves, in the presence of stock (vessels), remains of buried were absent (16.7%). The dead lay is writhed, on the right side, by the head on the East (85.7%); only in one case the frame was focused in the opposite direction. In the heads there were 1-2 vessels. At the bottom of one of graves the small spot of a puncture is noted. Anthropological definition was made only in one case (Berezki Ug, ogr. 2) — the child is more senior than two years, but, judging by the sizes of graves, 45.5% buried were children, 36.3% — children or teenagers, 18.2% — adults. From three holes without the remains buried two corresponded in parameters to graves of adults and one — the child's grave [Krutsky, Shorin, 1984, page 150-162].

The developed and late phases of cherkaskulsky culture in the forest and forest-steppe Trans-Ural region are presented by burial grounds New and Burinsky [Sealing glands, 1959], Bolshe-Karabolksky [Hundred - an ear, 1972], Kinzersky [Kuzmina, 1975], Tuk-tubayevo [Kuzmina, 1973], Priplodny Log I [Malyutina, 1984] in which 12 funeral constructions with 31 graves are investigated in total. Four more graves relating, apparently, to not remained funeral complexes are dug out on Chernyaki II'S burial grounds [Stokolos, 1968] and Kok-sharovsky I [Starkov, 1970]. The main kind of nadmogilny constructions — barrows fencings (66.7%) in one of which there was a vymostka from stones (Tuktubayevo, kurg. 11), there are twice less earth embankments (33.3%). The majority of fencings have square (28.6%) and rectangular (28.6%) a form, round fencings meet slightly less often (42.8%). Burial ground fencings Priplodny Log I have local design feature — entrances from vertically put plates from East and southeast side. Under a barrow of the 26th burial ground of Tuktubayevo the round fencing with two consistently built extensions — semicircular and square is open. Possibly, strongly destroyed fencing under a barrow 32 these burial grounds also had an extension. Fencings were built generally by means of horizontal (37.5%), including tsistovy with a blousing inside (Priplodny Log I, kurg. 9), and

the combined laying (37.5%). Also vertical laying (25%) was applied. The central single principle of planning of graves (58.3%) prevails, meets linear less often (25%), is even more rare — linearly - single (16.7%). Most often burials were made in simple soil holes (77.4%), is more rare in holes with a wooden facing (16.1%) and fellings (6.5%). In many graves (48.4%) the remains of wooden overlappings remained, in two cases the overlapping was combined — from a stone and a tree. Some burials were coupled: they had the general overlapping, and were divided into two "compartments" by a continental partition below (Priplodny Log I, kurg. 10, pogr. 1; Kinzersky, kurg. 15, pogr. 1). Almost all graves (90.3%) were focused on an axis the West — the East with seasonal deviations, meridional orientation met very seldom (9.7%). A half of burials contained single cremation, made on the party (51.6%), in the others there were no remains of the dead. The cremated bones most often were at the western wall (55.5%) or in the center (33.3%) and only occasionally at east wall of a grave (11.2%). Vessels (from 1 to 6), and sometimes in addition and quadrangular dishes (12.9%) always entered stock of burials. Vessels were located, as a rule, at the western wall (76%), is much more rare in the center (16%) and is very rare at east wall of a grave (8%); dishes always stood at east or southern wall. In some burials (16.1%) the remains of meat parting food in the form of separate bones of a sheep or horse were found. In one of fencings the skull of a horse, on blocking of burial 3 was found in a barrow of the 16th burial ground Kinzer-sky — a skeleton of a dog. Judging by the large sizes of holes, all dead who underwent cremation were adults. A grave in which there were no remains of the dead had the similar sizes [Starkov, 1970; Kuzmina, 1973, 1975; Malyutina, 1984; Hundred-ear of 1972].

In cherkaskulsky burial grounds of the developed and late phase there were constructions interpreted by researchers as not funeral. In the burial ground Big Ka-rabolka under a barrow was found a hole of very large sizes (7.0x1.5 m). In its filling coals and fragments of the semi-burned tree concentrated, on walls pieces of the burned bark were tracked. In the central part of a hole the campfire about 2 m long at the bottom was located. Not burned shovel, a tubular bone were found in it

sheep and pot. Two other pots stood west of previous and three more — at a northwest corner of a grave. All six pots stood in a row along a northern wall. The campfire and roasting of walls were formed, most likely, as a result of drawdown of the burned-down overlapping [Andronovsky culture, 1966, page 19].

In the burial ground Priplodny Log 1 two such complexes are dug out. Under a barrow 5 there was a hole of a crosswise form blocked by two rows of logs. Around it the small fencing was built from horizontally laid plates on which the design in the form of the truncated pyramid leaned. All this construction was crowned by the soil platform put from well stamped clay and sand. In a hole conducted with East side measles-doroobrazny an entrance 1 m wide. The crosswise camera had the sizes of 3.3x3.5 m. Its filling was made by powerful layers of coal and a puncture. On a floor of a hole seven strongly burned vessels were revealed. In a northwest corner, on a continental ledge, there were several calcinated stones which, according to the author of excavation, could belong to a sacrifice. Fire was repeatedly made both in the camera, and in a hollow pyramidal design which as a result died from fire [Malyutina, 1984, page 63-64, 71-72].

On this monument there was one more construction connected with departure of similar rituals — barrow No. 13. Under it the fencing in which center there was a funeral camera blocked by a timbered flooring with traces of powerful fire exposure was found massive, almost square shape. Over a flooring, as well as in a barrow 5, the platform from the stamped clay was located. On overlapping the skull and bones of a skeleton of a dog were found. The camera was divided a continental ledge into two "compartments". They were connected by pass which conducted to the corridor from stone plates adjoining east wall of a construction. The entrance to southern "compartment" on a vymostka from stones had a vessel [In the same place, page 67-68].

So, in the Southern Trans-Ural region the funeral ceremony of fedorovets has only the few common features with rannecherkaskulsky of which materials of burial grounds Berezki Ug and Perevozny 1a give an idea:

1. The round fencings constructed by means of a horizontal laying (however, wounds-necherkaskulsky fences, unlike fedorovsky, are very small by the sizes).
2. Central and linearly - single planning of graves.
3. Simple soil holes.
4. Cenotaphs.
5. Width orientation of holes.

The absence in two rannecherkaskulsky burial grounds of such expressive components of ceremonialism of the South Ural fedorovets as barrows and barrows fencings, linear planning of graves, wooden and stone intra sepulchral designs, a truposozhzheniye and other manifestations of a cult of fire, ceramic dishes, sacrifices and doleful food in the form of parts of carcasses of animals is very indicative. It is curious that even for that part of an extensive fedorovsky oykumena where the ceremony of an ingumation dominated or played a noticeable role, such signs as east orientation of the dead (placement of ceramics in this part of graves is its consequence) and their situation on the right side, peculiar to early cherkaskulets are a little characteristic.

Significant general elements of the fedorovsky and developed (late) cherkaskulsky funeral ceremonialism it is much bigger:

1. Barrows and barrows fencings.
2. The round and square fencings constructed by means of horizontal (as well tsistovy) layings.
3. Central single, linear and linearly - single the principles of planning of graves.
4. Simple soil holes and holes with wooden designs (the facing of walls, fellings, overlappings including combined).
5. Width orientation of graves.
6. Cremation on the party as the only way of treatment of the dead.
7. Cenotaphs.
8. Arrangement of vessels at the western wall of a hole.
9. Ceramic dishes.
10. The remains of parting food in the form of separate bones of animals (a shovel, an edge) in graves and sacrifices out of graves.
11. Not funeral constructions connected with departure of fiery cults in the territory mogilnikov1.

Quantitative ratio of options of some ceremonial signs in the compared groups often is unequal (for example, at fedorovets in the considered region pimerno equal quantity of earth barrows and barrows fencings, at cherkaskulets the barrows fencings prevail, etc.). It is necessary to remember, however, that the sample of the developed and late cherkaskulsky monuments is small.

We will emphasize that in the Southern Trans-Ural region the monuments of the developed and late phase of cherka-skulsky culture, at all the similarity with fedorovsky, have also a number of features. Square and rectangular fencings and extensions, arrangement of the remains of cremation at the western wall of a hole are much more characteristic of them, the coupled graves and overlappings in the form of powerful setups from 1 — 2 layers of the logs which are far going beyond a hole are specific. Cherkaskulsky not funeral cult constructions structurally differ from fedorovsky.

Thus, in the Southern Trans-Ural region the ceremonialism of fedorovsky monuments shows quite considerable similarity to ceremonialism of the developed and late phase "cherka-whining", but has much less common features from rannecherkaskulsky. It forces to belong with the known care to the ideas about division of koptyakovsky "trunk" on cherka-skulskiya and fedorovskiya (M.F. Kosarev) or predkoptyakovsky (ceramics of the "not dismembered" type) on koptyakovsky, cherkaskulskiya and fedorovskiya (M.F. Obydennov, A.F. Shorin) though, certainly, does not exclude a possibility of genetic relationship between cherkaskulsky and fedorovsky cultures on a little deeper genetic (and respectively chronological) level (L.P. Hlobystin).

In our opinion, existence in a funeral ritual of cherkaskulets of a number of fedorovsky elements can quite speak the intensive contacts of two cultures taking place in the territory of the Southern Trans-Ural region in the XIII—XII centuries BC [Stokolos, 1972, page 84 —85, 92, 131—132, 138—141, 144—146]. In literature the opinion is expressed that during these contacts there could be even "joint cherkaskulsko-fedorovsky collectives which then developed new regions to the West and, perhaps, east of the Urals" [Obydennov, Shorin, 1995, page 109]. However, active interaction of carriers of two cultures did not cause assimilation of cherkaskulets fedorovets what some features of cherkaskulsky funeral ceremonialism mentioned above testify to, in particular.

Everything told does not mean at all that the idea of close relationship of cherkaskulsky and fedorovsky cultures and their registration in adjacent areas has to be rejected as unproductive; on the contrary, it demands comprehensive verification as on the basis of already available material (it is possible to study and compare, for example, not only a decor, but also ceramics manufacturing techniques carriers of both cultures, etc.), and by means of any new dannykh1.

LITERATURE

Andronovsky culture. Issue 1: Monuments of the western areas//SAI. 1966. Issue B3-2.

N.B. Vinogradov, V.P. Kostyukov, Markov S.V. Mogilnik the Sun Talika and a problem of genesis of fedorovsky culture of a bronze age in the Southern Trans-Ural region//New in archeology of South Ural. Chelyabinsk, 1996.

G.B. Zdanovich. Bronze age of Uralo-Kazakhstansky steppes. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

M.F. Kosarev. Bronze age of Western Siberia. M.: Science, 1981. 279 pages

M.F. Kosarev. Western Siberia in the ancient time. M.: Science, 1984.

N.A. Krutsky, Shorin A.F. Cherkaskulsky the burial ground in Chelyabinsk region//SA. 1984. No. 4. Page 150 — 162.

Kuzmina E.E. Mogilnik Tuktubayevo and a question of chronology of monuments of fedorovsky type in the Urals//Problems of archeology of the Urals and Siberia. M, 1973.

Kuzmina E.E. About a ratio of types of andronovsky monuments of the Urals (on the burial ground materials Kinzersko-go)//Monuments to the ancient history of Eurasia. M, 1975.

Malyutina T.S. Mogilnik Priplodny Log of I//Bronze age of Uralo-Irtyshsky Entre Rios. Chelyabinsk: Bashkir. un-t, 1984. Page 58 — 79.

Malyutina T.S. Fedorovskaya culture of Uralo-Kazakhstansky steppes: Avtoref. yew.... edging. east. sciences. M, 1994.

1

Possibly, a lot of things would be cleared by further researches of rannecherkaskulsky funeral monuments. The fact is that we do not know how adequate idea of funeral ceremonialism of cherkaskulets in HM — ХШ of centuries BC is given burial grounds by Berezki Ug and Perevozny! and. In them there are a lot of children's burials, and children, as we know, are not always buried on a ceremony, uniform with adults. Fedorovets of Khakass Minusinsk Depression in children's barrows cemeteries have no kremation at all, frames often lie the head to east sector though the died adults were quite often burned, and at an ingumation focused on the West. Also position of the died children in single burials on the right side is characteristic of fedorovsky culture while the died adults in similar conditions are laid on the left side. At the same time in confirmation of our point of view it is possible to mention the pozdnecherkaskulsky burials of the burial ground of Tartyshevo I investigated in Bashkiria in which the died adults are buried on a way of a trupopolozheniye on the right side, the head on the East [Sealing glands, 1967, page 372 — 373]. On the other hand, it can be explained as result of interaction with srubny tribes.

M.F. Obydennov, Shorin A.F. Archaeological cultures of a late bronze age of ancient Ural residents (cherkaskulsky and mezhovsky cultures). Yekaterinburg, 1995.

T.M. Potemkina. Bronze age forest-steppe Pritobolya. M, 1985.

Sealing glands K.V. Andronovsky the kurganny burial ground at the village of Fyodorovka of Chelyabinsk region//MIA. 1940. No. 1.

K.V. Salnikov. Excavation at the village of New Burino//SA. 1959. T. 29-30.

K.V. Salnikov. Essays of ancient history of South Ural. M, 1967.

Starkov of V.F. Koksharovo I — a multilayered monument of the Neolithic and bronze on average the Trans-Ural region//SA. 1970. No. 1. V.I. Stefanov, Dneprov S.A., O.N. Korochkova. Barrows of fedorovsky type of the burial ground Uref-ty of I//SA. 1983. No. 1. A hundred-ear V.S. Pamyatnik bronze eras — Chernyaki II'S burial ground//Uch. zap. Perm. state. un-that. 1968. No. 191.

V.S. Kultur's hundred-ear of the population of a bronze age of the Southern Trans-Ural region (chronology and periodization). M, 1972. L.P. Hlobystin. The settlement Lime Kurya in the Southern Trans-Ural region. L., 1976.

Moscow, Institute of archeology of RAS

Irene Matthews
Other scientific works: