VESTNIK ARHEOLOGII ANTROPOLOGII I ETNOGRAFII ¹ 2 (37) (2017)
ON THE COMB-PIT ORNAMENTAL TRADITION AND PERIODIZATION OF THE NEOLITHIC OF THE LOWER ISHIM BASIN
The article analyzes the time of formation of the comb-pit ornamental tradition, its area, and periodization of the Neolithic of the Lower Ishim basin connected with the process. Lack of roads («corridors») to the Ishim and Irtysh basins and to the Baraba from the North-Western, Western and Northern territories marked by monuments whose complexes would have ceramics with the comb-pit decoration, as well as absence of enough early centers with such tradition in the «mother countries», assumed by some researchers, most likely, mean that it was formed within the limits of the Ishim basin and the Baraba region. Local complexes with divergent-scratched, divergent-scrathched-comb ornamentation probably served as a basis for its formation. However, already at early stages of the Neolithic, they had an increased number of single sequences of pits, or pits of various forms at different zones of a vessel in the region. Stratigraphical occurrence of the complex under consideration above the Boborykino-Koshkino culture in the settlements of Borovlyanka 2 and Avtodrom 2/2 and the fact that it is overlapped by dwellings containing ceramics proximate to the Sosnovka-Ostrov culture at the settlement of Serebryanka 1 are indicative of the time of formation of the comb-pit tradition or, more specifically, of the divergent-comb-pit tradition. A research of a complex in the Ishim basin, at the settlement of Mergen 7, which is close to the Kozlovo culture and chronologically follows the Koshkino culture, allows us to arrange the periodization scheme of the Ishim basin so that the Kokuy materials (with divergent-scratched-comb ornamentation) are between the Kozlovo culture and the settlement of Serebryanka 1, which is located on the Western border of the area and is close to the Sosnovka-Ostrov culture. Materials with comb ornamentation were not found in the settlement, thus the scheme of development of the comb-pit ornamental tradition there could differ, excluding a break between the Kokuy and Ekaterininsk complexes. Materials of the settlement of Mergen 7 narrow the period of the beginning of formation of the tradition under consideration. Taking into account correlation of the calibrated dates of the monuments of Mergen 7, Serebryanka 1, Protoka and Sopka 2, we argue that, most likely, it is a period between V and IV thousands BC.
Key words: Western Siberia, Ishim basin, Baraba, the divergent-comb-pit, comb-pit ornamental tradition, periodization.
Enshin D.N., Skochina S.N.
ORNAMENTS ON BONE AND HORN ARTEFACTS FROM THE NEOLITHIC COMPLEX OF THE SETTLEMENT OF MERGEN 6
This article analyzes ornamented items of bone and horn from the Neolithic complex of the settlement of Mergen 6 (forest-steppe zone of the Ishim River basin). Working method of application of an image was described with the help of use wear analysis. Micro photos of traces of application of images on the surface of the artefacts were made. The study highlighted two groups of images — marks and ornaments. Notches dominate in the first group, and zigzags and straight lines dominate in the second group. Composite constructions are singled out on the whole artefacts. Image location analysis on the whole artefacts revealed features of their dislocation, manifested in delineation with marks and ornaments of zones of hand grip and working parts of the items. Ornamentation and, in particular, its composition allow us to firmly connect the core Neolithic pottery complex of the settlement (Boborykino and Koshkino materials) and the artefacts under consideration. In addition to co-occurrence of ceramic vessels and tools of bone and horn in the dwellings, as well as to analogous compositions on ceramics and bones, the relation is observed on the basis of the dominant position of the main ornamental elements (straight lines, zigzags) regarding the others. Moreover, a clear determination of cultural identity of the ornamented tools and analogies within Boborykino and Koshkino antiquities of the whole Trans-Urals allowed us to to reach a wider range of comparisons and to consider the ornaments and the artefacts as links between the Trans-Urals and such Southern territories, as the North Caspian Sea, steppe Volga region, etc. This scale allows us to use the artefacts under consideration as one more evidence of a hypothesis that the Southern migrations were a driving force of neolitisation of the region. In turn, variability of functional purpose of the ornamented items of the Neolithic period, in comparison with the previous chronological periods, allows us to consider them as an indicator of changes in the ideology and the economic and ecological adaptation of ancient societies at the frontier of two epochs.
Key words: Neolithic, forest-steppe zone of the Ishim River basin, settlement of Mergen 6, ornaments, use wear analysis, tools of bone and horn, the Boborykino culture, Koshkino stage.
USING SHELLS IN THE CULT AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF ANCIENT POPULATION
The article is dedicated to one of the aspects of symbolic activities of ancient population regarding the use of a rare variety of natural material. From ancient times, shells, as bright and unusual material, served for making jewelry: bead necklaces and pendants. In the Urals, such artefacts had been used from the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic to the Modern Times. The shells rarely served as combs punches, scrapers and containers for paints. Petrified shells were very rare and unusual. That is why they were used in symbolic activities and could serve as amulets, cult symbols and communicative signs.
Key words: shell, petrous shells, jewelry, symbolic activity.
QUESTIONS OF SYNCHRONIZATION, CULTURAL AFFINITY OF SINTASHTA AND PETROVKA SITES AND THEIR POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
The paper is aimed to discuss problems of synchronization and cultural affinity of Sintashta and Petrovka sites. The author denies a possibility of complete synchronization of Sintashta and Petrovka sites. He believes that comparing Sintashta and Petrovka sites, we try to compare incomparable phenomen: materialized remnants of the history of a community of the Sintashta clans of miners, metal-makers, blacksmiths, foundrymen, on the one hand, and sites of a community of the Alakul pastoral cultures, on the other.
Key words: the Bronze Age, Southern Trans-Urals, Northern Kazakhstan, Sintashta sites, Petrovka sites, clans of miners, metal-makers, blacksmiths, foundrymen, Alakul cultural-historical community sites.
Kukushkin I.A., Zhusupov D.S., Dmitriev E.A.
AKSHOKY BURIAL GROUND: A NEW MONUMENT IN THE SYSTEM OF ANDRONOVO ANTIQUITIES OF SARYARKA
In recent years, archaeological studies have covered a group of Fedorovo monuments, which demonstrate a «pure» line of development (Besoba, Sherubai-1, Bada, etc.). A multigrave structure 1 excavated at the Akshoky burial is one of these complexes. It consists of two rectangular fences penetrating each other and elongated latitudinally. Seven graves arranged in a line with remains of cremation are buried in the internal site. Key features of a burial rite of the Akshoky fence are similar to Fedorov antiquities of Saryarka and adjacent regions, they also reflect a combination of some essential features of the regional and common cultural scale: multigrave complexes (Sanguir II, Aishrak), paired boxes (Aishrak, Belasar, Balakulboldi II), construction of double fencing, including different construction methods which are known according to the materials of the burial grounds of Aksu-Ayuly II, Zhylandy III, Besoba. Simultaneous burials of many people are probably associated with exceptional circumstances of death beyond natural mortality. Perhaps, one of those reasons was some kind of military tribal clash, which is not contrary to the variegated cultural situation in Central Kazakhstan, where the complex processes of assimilation and integration at different stages occurred between the Petrovka, Alakul and Fedorovo groups of population. It is problematic to determine a specific chronological position of the Akshoky fence, firstly, due to lack of detailed periodization of the Fedorovo culture; second, because of the almost continuous robbery of the investigated graves in ancient times. It seems to the authors that the most correct decision is to accept a wide date range within the first half of the II Millennium BC, as it is evidenced by wide application of methods of radiocarbon dating of Fedorovo antiquities.
Key words: Saryarka, the Bronze Age, Andronovo antiquity, the Fedorovo culture, burial grounds, cremation.