Вasing on tracological analysis of the surface regarding stone and bone arrowheads from the cave sanctuary on Dyrovaty Stone (the Chousovaya river), the biggest in the Urals, the authors pick up articles which, apart from their main function, were repeatedly used as butcher and tanner knives, side scrapers, drills, punches and even a stretcher.

The article generalizes and systematizes investigation data on megalithic constructions of the Urals discovered in the XXI century, and earlier unknown in that region, in accordance with their territorial, generic, cultural and functional criteria. The megaliths being represented here in two areas: on lakesides of mountain-and-forest zone of Middle Upper Ural Region (Verkhnyaya Isset’ river, Tourgoyak lake); as well as in steppe and foreststeppe zones of eastern slopes of the South Urals. Subject to earlier dating being the megalithic constructions of the Eneolithic Age (dolmens, tunnels like corridor tombs, menhirs) in the Middle Upper Ural region (IV–III millennium B.C.). In the South Upper Ural Region, megaliths (single menhirs, rows of menhirs, cromlech) being of the later period, referring to different cultural stages of the Middle and Late Bronze Age dated back to XVI–XII cc. B.C. The appearance of megaliths in the Ural Region could be explained by specificity of natural and geographic conditions, as well as the mode of life with the population, namely, settled fishing in flowing lakes, and hunting along migration ways of big hoofed animals in the first case; and transition to distant pasture cattle breeding — in the second case. The location for the megaliths was chosen with an allowance for conditions needed to fix reference points of rise and set at the horizon for the Sun and the Moon during the most significant days in a year, which served as the orientation in space and time. For this reason, the principal elements of the megalithic architecture were connected with important astronomical directions, marking seasonal and diurnal variations, which could testify to practicing megaliths, alongside with their cultic functions, as lunar and solar calendars, regulating the main spheres of life with the population. Thus, spatial and temporal notions of ancient people were oriented at the Cosmos and correlated therewith.

The article is devoted to the description of a scientific heritage by N.L. Chlenova — one of the symbolic figures in the domestic archaeological science to which she was serving for over half a century. It is due to her works that they laid the foundation of modern knowledge regarding cultures of Late Bronze Age of North Eurasia and first of all, Middle Asia.

The article is devoted to a question of correlating the Abashevo and Sintashta antiquities of Bronze Age. Resulting from using geoinformation technologies, subject to determination being distribution areas, generally confined to different ecological niches (forest-steppe and steppe ones), specifying contacting zones, marked by sites of a syncretic type. The work made it possible to draw arguments in favour of possible synchronization of these cultural types, outlying the most perspective directions of investigation.

The article is devoted to a question of correlating the Abashevo and Sintashta antiquities of Bronze Age. Resulting from using geoinformation technologies, subject to determination being distribution areas, generally confined to different ecological niches (forest-steppe and steppe ones), specifying contacting zones, marked by sites of a syncretic type. The work made it possible to draw arguments in favour of possible synchronization of these cultural types, outlying the most perspective directions of investigation.

The article considers bronze and copper articles of the Alakul culture from Chistolebyazhye burial place. Basing on typological, spectrometric and metallographic analysis, subject to identification being typical features of their metal working. The author determines dominating chemical and metallurgic groups, including tough pitch copper and tin bronzes, as well as principal technological schemes. Judging by morphological and analytical indexes, the metal from that burial place could be attributed to the early stage of the Alakul culture.

The article considers features of domestic architecture with the Cherkaskul population from Khripunovo nonfortified settlement. Subject to reconstruction being a number of constructions, house building traditions, specifying their similar and distinctive features, compared with the data on other cultures of Bronze Age from the Upper Ural region.

The article is devoted to the investigation of principal worldview notions with the people of developed and late Bronze Age from West Siberia. Subject to analysis being sets of composite ornaments, specifying the most significant references of the ornaments as a very important source in reconstructions of ancient spiritual world: semantics and worldview basis of using the mark of «headwear» in a ritual context, colour symbolism, religious and magic function, marks and symbols.

The article quotes results of an integrated study regarding the Baitovo fortified settlement of Borovushka 2 located in the forest-steppe zone of the low Tobol basin. The main complex of the findings, as well as the studied ground сonstructions could be attributed to the early stage of the Baitovo culture of the Early Iron Age. Basing on technical and technological study of the Baitovo and Gorokhovo pottery, subject to specification being different traditions in making dishes. Following palynological data, it is determined that the Baitovo population preferred to settle down in the areas occupied by birch forest-steppe forests, at present replaced on that territory by pine forests.

The article considers grivna ornaments of the Kara-Abyz population of Early Iron Age (IV c. B.C. — IV c. A.D.) in the context of their typology and origin. Subject to consideration being 46 pieces of grivna ornaments of the Kara-Abyz culture. Following the number of rods used in the circular part, this category of ornaments could be divided into two sections: section A — consisting of one smooth rod, round at the section; and section B — representing composite grivna ornaments consisting of several rods, also round at the section. Following the look of the ends, those could be divided into types and subtypes. The grivna ornaments from section А type 1, of 1,5 turns, originate from Nomadic Scythian and Siberian world where these articles had wide distribution. The sources of the articles from branch А type 2 being the Ananyino ornaments, while the prototypes of grivna ornaments from branch B being multi-turn articles from sites of Scythian and Siberian world.