In 2000, archaeologists from Yekaterinburg and Surgut excavated a preserved part (380 m2) of a fortified Bronze Age dwelling located on the Bystry Kul'egan River (right bank of the Ob River), 35 km west of Surgut. The original size of the settlement is approx. 650 m2. The single dwelling was located on a small sandy promontory, protected from the floor side by an arched moat, and along the perimeter, probably, by a defensive log wall. The building is rectangular in plan, similar in general shape to a high truncated pyramid with rounded corners; the structure is frame-pillar with vertical support posts, sloping walls made of logs and poles, and a flat or very low gable roof, similar to those found in traditional Khanty land dwellings and tombstone "domovin". The base of the walls was reinforced from the outside with a sand blockage. The main area of the room was occupied by a rectangular pit with vertical walls with a height of 0.4-0.9 m, sheathed with half-logs or scaffolds. Along them were wooden bunks-"beds". The elevated space between the pit and the base of the walls of the dwelling was used for storing dishes, tools and supplies. The Bronze Age finds include 33 stone objects and 1,640 fragments of at least 25 Culiegan-type vessels. The vessels are jar-shaped, flat-bottomed, and decorated with comb-and-dimple patterns. The monument is tentatively dated to the first half or first third of the second millennium BC. BCE

Keywords: Surgut Ob region, p. Bystry Kul'egan, fortified dwelling, Bronze age, Kul'egan type ceramics.

Introduction

Over the past three or four decades, a huge number of archaeological sites dating from the Neolithic to the late Middle Ages have been identified in the Surgut Ob region. Only in the Surgut district of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug), they are now known for approx. 2 thousand rubles. Many ancient sites are located on elevated areas of the lake coasts, but most of them tend to be watercourses, not only large ones (Ob, Bolshoy Yugan, Trom'egan), but also small ones that feed them. There are hundreds of such small rivers - less than 100 km long, with a basin area of up to 2 thousand km2, located within the same geographical zone - in the taiga Ob-Irtysh region. The river with the Russian-Khanty name Fast Kulyegan, on the bank of which the monument of interest is located, flows 35-40 km to the west of Surgut. It originates from Oz. Culleganlor, has a length of 59 km, a basin area of 421 km2, flows from the left side into the

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project N 10 - 06 - 00405-a, and a grant from the Governor of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, the project "Archaeological phenomenon of Small rivers".

page 55
R. Minchimkina. The latter connects to the right - bank Ob Ionina channel in 12-13 km (Fig. 1). This is a typical river for the Middle Taiga subzone, flowing through a swampy floodplain, strongly meandered, in some areas approaching one or the other root bank, with a width of 10 - 15 m and a depth of 1.5 - 2.0 m.

The seemingly unremarkable Bystry Kulyegan River, or, as it is often called, Bystrinka, has one remarkable feature: in its middle course, over a length of about 20 km, more than 155 locations have been discovered, including objects from one or more eras. Such a high concentration of archaeological sites on the malaya river is perhaps not a unique phenomenon, but it is by no means ordinary and certainly deserves attention. Another interesting fact is that Bystrinka and its left tributary, the Serebryanka River, contain a large cluster of original Bronze Age settlements - so-called fortified dwellings (Borzunov, 1995, 1997, 1999). Usually they are very dispersed, but here there are eight of them, despite the fact that only 11 such sites are known on the territory of the Surgut district (Figure 1). Since the survey of the river is not completed, the number of such monuments may increase. Not only are the settlements original, but also, as will be shown below, the ceramic material that originates from them. In 2000, by a joint expedition of the Ural State University (USU, Moscow). Yekaterinburg) and the Surgut State Pedagogical Institute (now the University) conducted a stationary study of the settlement of Bystry Kulyegan-38 (head of excavations-V. A. Borzunov; see: [Borzunov and Pogodin, 2001]).

Description of the monument and excavation results

The Bystry Kulyegan-38 settlement was discovered by USU archaeologists in 1994 (Pogodin, 1995, pp. 48-52; Borzunov et al., 1996). It was located on a promontory-shaped sandy ledge of the right root bank of the river. The ledge is now narrow, sub-trapezoidal, with sloping slopes, 4.0 - 4.5 m high, and is oriented along the SSW - SE line (Fig. 2). The overall dimensions of the cape are 60 (65) × 20 (40) m, and the upper platform is 45 × 10 (25) m. Its central and southern parts were occupied by the remains of a fortified Bronze Age dwelling. Once the river skirted the cape from the western side, but after the separation of the old meander and the formation of a new bend, it began to intensively wash away the cape from the opposite side. The meander that separated from the riverbed gradually turned into an old tree. The new riverbed destroyed the south-eastern part of the ledge and half of the remains of the fortified object. Prior to the excavations on the surface of the cape, traces of a housing depression were traced in the form of a swollen triangular depression 17 (18) × 10 (12) × 0,15 (0,3) m, delineated from the north by a pineal shaft 15 (16) × 5 × 0,8 (1,0) m, from the west and south-

1. Kulyegan-type settlements in the Surgut Ob region.

1-Bystry Kulyegan-2; 2-Bystry Kulyegan-38; 3 - Bystry Kulyegan-40; 4 - Bystry Kulyegan-44; 5 - Bystry Kulyegan-73; 6-Bystry Kulyegan-77; 7-Bystry Kulyegan-100; 8-Bystry Kulyegan-105; 9-Barsova Gora II / 8 (early layer); 10-Barsova Gora II / 37, item 1; 11-Barsova Gora II / 22; 12-Barsov Gorodok II/14 (early layer); 13-Chernorechenskoe I; 14-Malaya Mokhovaya I, a fortified dwelling; b-settlement.

page 56

2. Situational plan of the Bystry Kulyegan-38 monument. Shooting of V. A. Borzunov 2000

1-forest, bushes; 2-swampy floodplain; 3-trails; 4-cliff and edge of the terrace; 5-hollow, remains of a hunting pit - trap; 6 - moat; 7 - shaft, walling of the walls of the dwelling; 8-pit of the dwelling.

west - more sloping and low - 24 (26) × 4 (5) × 0,5 (0,6) Moscow, Russia. The northern half of the rampart was cut by a circular depression with a diameter of 2.1 m and a depth of 0.4 m, left over from an ancient hunting pit. A similar depression in size and shape was located in the north-eastern corner of the fortification. By the beginning of the excavation, it was destroyed as a result of the ongoing erosion of the terrace. A third similar pit with a diameter of 1 m and a depth of 0.5 m is marked 13 m south of the fortification on the surface of a short (25 m) and narrow (10 - 15 m) isthmus connecting the cape with the root terrace. On the southern side of the fortified object, a narrow (1.1 m) and shallow (0.2 m) groove with a length of 4 m adjoined the rampart, which represented the western segment of the defensive ditch. The overall dimensions of the object visible on the surface were 30 × 5 (20) m (Fig. 2).

There is no doubt that during the construction and operation of the large dwelling, the cape had a different configuration. Probably, it was sub-triangular in shape, and the building occupied an area of at least 650 m2 and was protected from the floor side by a moat. The remains of a short-term Neolithic site discovered during excavations were not traced in the relief. The surface was covered with forest floor and yagel, on the rampart and the western slope of the cape there were rare large pines.

During the survey of the monument in 1994, traces of a defensive ditch, wall collapse, a housing pit (Fig. 3) and, apparently, a ground hearth located in its center were recorded in the bank cliff. The focus lens consisted of layers of brown-brown and gray carbonaceous sandy loam with organic residues. Under the cliff and in the pit found approx. 200 fragments of Bronze Age pottery, a fragment of a Neolithic vessel and four stone objects. As a result of excavations undertaken in 2000 on an area of 380 m2 (see Figures 2, 3), the entire preserved part of the Bronze Age settlement, the northern trap pit (uch.B-V/9) and another pit that was not fixed on the surface (uch. V-G/9) were uncovered. The remains of a Neolithic cultural layer were found under the ruins of the fortification and on the spit of the cape (Borzunov, 2001; Borzunov and Pogodin, 2001).

Stratigraphy of the monument (Figs. 4-8). The surface of the cape was covered with a thin forest floor consisting of coniferous litter, lichens, dark brown humus and wood decay. This was followed by layers of black and dark gray sandy loam, ash-gray podzol, and then-redeposited sands (spreading boning of the walls of the dwelling, filling the housing depression, moat, and various pits). In the rampart and lower part of the defensive ditch, layers of carbonaceous sandy loam were recorded-the remains of log walls built in the Bronze Age. The same dark-colored sandy loam was traced along the edges of the pit of the dwelling (the remains of wooden formwork of its sand walls and burnt bunks - "beds") and in the filling of pits (traces of fixing and supporting pillars). Under all these layers, outside the residential pit, pits and moat, there was a thin horizon of buried podzol (the daytime surface of the Bronze Age), below which a layer of pink-ochre sand with Neolithic ceramics was locally preserved. The total thickness of cultural deposits on the cape ranged from 0.5 to 1.2 m. The upper horizon of the continent is represented by yellow and dark yellow illuvial sand with grayish carbonaceous inclusions, below-sterile white sands with layers of egg-yellow, gray-yellow, brownish and other colors. In some cases, the lower boundary of the podzol was delineated by layers and wedges of ortsand that cut through the lower cultural and continental layers.

Within the housing depression, the upper ash-gray podzols with rusty ortsand spots turned into redeposited sands" colored " with oxides.-

page 57

Fig. 3. Excavation plan. Shooting of V. A. Borzunov 2000

1-cliff and sand scree; 2-external boundary of the blockage - the blurred boning of the base of the walls of the dwelling; 3-a strip of carbonaceous sandy loam (remains of the base of the walls of the building); 4 - the pit of the dwelling; 5-the remains of burnt wooden bunks; 6-pits from pillars; 7-pits; 8-a crushed vessel; 9 - ornamented ceramics; 10-shards without ornaments; 11-stone objects and flakes.

The upper layers were red-yellow, orange-yellow, and brown-bog tones, with pinkish-yellow, red-yellow, and yellow-gray sandy loams (the lower horizon of the pit filling and the floor of the dwelling) below, and dark yellow and gray - yellow illuvial sands below. In some areas, thin lenses of buried podzol could be traced at the bottom of the pit, and yellow and white continental sands could be seen below them. The total thickness of cultural deposits within the premises varied from 35 to 90 cm. Along the north

page 58

4. Section of the moat, wall deboning and the south-western corner of the pit of the dwelling (terrace break). Survey by V. A. Borzunov 1994 The numbering of layers corresponds to the one adopted in the report [Pogodin, 1995, fig. 72, 137].

1-forest litter (coniferous litter, moss, humus); 2-upper black and ash-gray podzols; 3-buried podzols (ancient soil); 4-light brown, rusty and brown ortsands; 5-yellow redeposited sand; 6-light yellow redeposited sand; 7-yellow-gray carbonaceous sand; 8-gray and light gray carbonaceous sands; 9-dark gray and black carbonaceous sands; 10-pink-ochre sand; 12-mainland white sand; 13-mainland yellow sand; 14-coals.

the edges of the pit under the remains of the "beds" were traced ditch-like leaks in the form of brown, brown-yellow-brown and other colored sands saturated with decayed organic matter.

Excavated objects. They belong to three epochs: stone (a Neolithic site with a complex of quartz tools and ceramics of the Bystrinsky type), bronze (a fortified dwelling) and iron (a medieval trap pit). Another commercial (?) the pit dates from the Late Neolithic - early Bronze Age.

A Bronze Age settlement. Single above-ground residential structure with an area of approx. 450-480 m2 (see fig. 3) was located on the surface of the cape and was oriented along its longitudinal axis. This object included the following main elements: a residential pit and "shoulders" along its edges (interior, room); remnants of walls, load-bearing pillars and boning of the walls of the building (general structure of the dwelling); a moat and presumably an additional protective wall (defense system).

Home interior. The living space measured 23 (24) × 14 m. The main part of it was occupied by a rectangular pit (20 × 13 m). The western and northern walls, partially - the north-eastern, south-western corner and less than half of the bottom are preserved from it. The pit was excavated from the level of the ancient surface to a depth of 0.4 - 0.6 m, and in some places - up to 0.9 m. Areas of buried soil were preserved along the edges ("shoulders") of the depression and under the boning of the walls of the dwelling, which consisted of soil removed during the construction of the pit. Its walls are strictly vertical, in ancient times they were sheathed with half-logs or split blocks of rectangular cross-section. Along them there were wooden bunks-"beds" with a width of 1.0 - 1.5 m and a height of approx. 0.4 m. The remains of the solid walls of the pit were clearly fixed from its top to the middle horizon in the form of a carbonaceous strip 10-30 cm wide, below they merged with the remains of burned bunks. The latter were traced to the bottom of the depression in the form of two parallel dark gray carbonaceous bands 20-40 cm wide, connected at certain intervals (0.5-2.0 m) by carbonaceous lintels of the same or less intense (light gray, gray, gray-yellow) color (see fig. rice. 3, 4, 6, 8). Apparently, the "beds" (more precisely, a series of platforms connected to each other in one line) were constructed from two parallel rows of hewn logs of sub-rectangular cross-section, laid in two crowns and co-edged with each other.-

page 59

Fig. 5. Sections of the moat and boning of the dwelling walls (western wall of uch. V / 1-2). V. A. Borzunov's survey of 2000. The numbering of layers corresponds to the one used in the report [Borzunov, 2001, Fig. 7].

1-forest litter (coniferous litter, moss, humus); 2a-upper ash-gray and white podzols; 2b-upper black carbonaceous podzol; 3a-buried gray and dark gray podzols; 3b-buried light and white-gray podzols; 3b-buried yellow-gray podzol; 3g - buried white and bright white podzols; 3d-buried light and white-yellow podzols; 4-coals; 4a-light gray and white-gray carbonaceous sands; 46 - gray-yellow and gray carbonaceous sands; 4b-dark gray carbonaceous sand; 4g - black carbonaceous sand; 5a - redeposited light yellow sand; 5b - redeposited yellow and dark yellow sands; 5b-dark yellow sand; 5g-white-yellow sand; 5e - grayish-yellow sand with carbonaceous inclusions; 5g - fine-grained white sand; 5z-yellow sand with a brown tint; 6b - brown-brown sand.gray sandy loam; 6d - brown-bog sand; 7b - calcined orange-pink sand; 8a - light brown ortsand; 8b-brown - rusty ortsand; 8b-dark yellow and orange - yellow ortsand; 8j-gray-beige ortsand; 8z - cream ortsand; 9a-mainland dark brown ortsand.yellow sand; 9b-mainland white and light yellow sands; 9b-mainland light gray-yellow and white-gray sands; 9g-gray-yellow illuvial sand; 9d-mainland egg - yellow layered sand; 9e - mainland cream-yellow sand; 11b-pink-yellow and red-yellow sands; 12-Bronze Age ceramics; 13 - crushed Bronze Age vessel.

connected by spacers. The surface of the bunks was assembled from thin poles and probably covered with animal skins. At the northern and eastern walls of the pit, a small space (6-12 cm) filled with redeposited sand was traced between the continental sands and the remains of a wooden crepida. In several places on the bottom of the pit along its walls within the carbon strip, pits from pillars were found. Of particular interest are the depressions adjacent to the walls. These include pits filled with black carbonaceous sandy loam in the southwestern corner of the nauch. V/3 pit, pit N45 in the same area, pit between the D/8 and D/8 sites, and a series of depressions nauch. E / 7 (see Fig. 3,4). We believe that all of them were left from the frame posts that supported the roof of the dwelling and at the same time strengthened the bunks and wooden lining of the pit walls.

The bottom of the depression under the remains of the "beds" is flat, horizontal, covered with a layer of black carbonaceous sandy loam. Perhaps these are traces of a burnt floor or covering of "beds". In other parts of the depression, the bottom is also relatively flat (see Figures 4, 6, 8). This, as well as the presence of areas of buried podzol in the center of the pit, indicate that the floor of the room had some kind of coating. This is the rule for stationary year-round dwellings.

In the central part of the room there was a round utility room (?) a pit with a diameter and depth of about 0.65 m, dug in the continental sand and half destroyed by a cliff (see Fig. 3). Its walls are almost vertical, the bottom is rounded. The main filling is brown-marsh-colored sand saturated with embers. There were no finds in the pit. To the south-west of it lay a layer of brown sandy loam, saturated with

page 60

Fig. 6. Boning sections of dwelling walls and remains of burnt bunks in the pit (western walls of sections B-B/2, B-B/3). V. A. Borzunov's survey of 2000 Usl. obozn. see Fig. 5.

7. Profile of the lower part of the ditch (uch. V / 2). V. A. Borzunov's survey of 2000 Usl. obozn. see Fig. 5.

small calcified bones, extending more than 1 m. Near this place there was previously the already mentioned destroyed central hearth of the dwelling.

The space between the pit and the walls of the building was an elevated part of the room, its width is 1.2-2.5 m, the area is approx. 80 m2 (see Figs. 3 - 6, 8). During the construction of the dwelling and the strengthening of its walls, a little sand was poured on this podium, taken out of the pit.

The bulk of the finds - ceramics and individual stone objects-were concentrated along the walls of the pit, some - on its "shoulders" (see Figure 3). Bunks served as a place of rest, and during periodic cleaning of the room, garbage, including broken dishes, was swept under them. In addition, the bunks and the space next to them were the territory of the most intensive economic and household activities within the dwelling. A sand platform along the edges of the pit was used for storing household equipment and dishes. The highest concentration of artifacts was found in the north-eastern corner of the room, which was a special economic zone, apparently as far away as possible from the entrance to the dwelling. In the center of the pit, finds are rare.

General construction of the dwelling. The building is being reconstructed as a log, frame-and-post structure, rectangular in plan (length 24 m, width 18-20 m), similar in general shape to a high truncated pyramid with rounded corners. Slant-

page 61

Fig. 8. Sections of boning of dwelling walls, remains of burnt bunks in the pit (western walls of sections G/6 - 9) and medieval pit traps. V. A. Borzunov's survey of 2000 Usl. obozn. see Fig. 5.

the main walls of the dwelling, made up of logs and poles, rested on the outer edge of a system of wooden frames mounted on vertically dug posts located within the premises. The same frames, covered with poles, split blocks, birch bark, bark, turf and moss, formed the roof (overlap) of the building. It was flat or, most likely, very low gable roof, similar to those found in traditional Khanty land dwellings and tombstone "domovin". The base of the walls was reinforced on both sides with a sand embankment, and outside, perhaps, with logs laid horizontally in a single line.

In the filling of the spread - out shaft, pits from pillars and carbonaceous layers were found- the remains of burnt log structures. The line of the house wall ran along the axis of the shaft at a distance of 1.2-2.5 m from the edge of the pit. During excavations, the base of the wall was fixed in the form of a carbonaceous strip with a width of 0.4 to 2.5 m, a thickness of 0.05-0.23 m, lying in the middle and lower horizons of a light yellow sand mound (see Fig. 3). As we approached the base of the rampart, the intensity of the color of the carbonaceous strip increased - from light gray to white-gray and gray tones to dark gray and black. The walls were not sunk into the ground, as evidenced by the absence of a characteristic groove under the shaft and the almost undisturbed horizon of ancient soil (see Figs. 4-6, 8). In ancient times, the total width of the wall boning seems to have been 3.0-4.5 m, the width of the outer "blockage" - up to 2, and its height-approx. 1 m. This is indirectly evidenced by the volume of soil removed from the pit (96 - 120 m3), the defensive ditch and a shallow (0.3 m) groove 1.5 - 1.7 m wide on the northern side of the rampart, which falls on 80 - 88 m of the perimeter of the walls of the building. Another element that characterizes the overall construction of the building is a series of rounded pits, some of which could have remained from the pillars of the frame of the dwelling. We are talking about 19 pits located in the pit at a distance of up to 2.5 m from its walls. Their sizes ranged from 10 to 25 cm in diameter and from 4 to 35 cm in depth. For comparison, 30 pits were recorded on the "shoulders" of the pit, and more than 90 depressions of artificial and natural origin were recorded within the entire excavation. Taking into account the need to create air traction for bonfires and maximize the heating of the room in winter, the height of the load-bearing pillars and the entire dwelling from the bottom of the pit hardly exceeded 3.5 m, and from the surrounding surface - 2.5 m.

page 62
in this case, the angle of inclination of the walls could be approx. 45°. The entrance to the dwelling was not found in the excavated areas. It was probably located at the southern end of the building, destroyed by the river.

Defense system. On the southern side, the settlement was protected by an arc-shaped (?) moat in plan and a trapezoid in cross-section with a flattened bottom (see Figures 3-8). The width of the preserved section is 2 m, the depth is 1.0 - 1.2 m. Unlike the moats of other fortified dwellings of the Bronze Age, this one did not cross the entire cape. Between the western end of the moat and the brovka terrace, the builders left a lintel 3-4 m wide. We assume that there was an entrance to the site of the settlement, decorated with a gate, and the entire building was surrounded by a fence of the zaplota or turge type (a log wall supported by growing trees), from which holes from pillars of various depths were preserved on the western slope of the cape. Without such a defensive wall, the construction of a moat, especially an open one, is meaningless: the low banks of the river were not a serious obstacle to a possible enemy. The northwestern slope of the cape was scarped. There was no moat on the north side of the dwelling. At this point, a shallow groove was traced along the embankment, which appeared as a result of excavation to strengthen the base of the walls (see Figure 3).

Over time, the defensive ditch partially swam and a sub - rectangular pit with a flattened bottom (length 1.12 m, width 0.50 - 0.76 m, depth 0.30-0.35 m) was dug in it (at uch. B-V/1). Its main filling is a black carbonaceous sandy loam, in which two dozen shards of the Bronze Age were found. Above the pit lay carbonaceous sandy loam, washed out from the boning of the walls of the dwelling, as well as light sand that had fallen from the walls of the moat. Judging by the stratigraphy (see Figures 3 and 5), this depression appeared near the end of the settlement's functioning. Most likely, these are the remains of some industrial object, and not an ordinary garbage pit.

Inventory

The collection of material remains obtained during the exploration survey and excavations of the settlement includes more than 1,700 fragments of ceramics and 33 stone objects. It should be noted that we are talking about finds from layers and objects of the preserved part of the monument. It is impossible to say how many of them there were in the south-eastern half of the housing pit and on the adjacent parts of the cape, which disappeared as a result of the increased washing away of the bank by the river. Taking into account the scale of destruction, we can assume that in the thickness of the bottom and channel sediments rest (?) artifacts in no less quantity.

The earliest complex in the collection, undoubtedly associated with a short-term Neolithic site, consists of 108 potsherds and 13 quartz objects (7% of the total number of finds). There is no need for a detailed review of the Neolithic materials; in all their main characteristics, they fully correspond to the inventory of the Bystrinsky archaeological culture of the turn of the V-IV millennium BC recently identified in the Surgut Ob region (Poselenie..., 2006). Among the monuments of this culture is the Fast Kulyegan-38 parking lot [Ibid., p. 57]. The rest of the collection (93 %) is definitely associated with a fortified dwelling.

Ceramics of the Bronze Age. It is represented by fragments (approx. 1,640 units) of at least 25 vessels (Figs. 9-12). The collection may be small, but it is quite sufficient for general characteristics and comparative analysis. The initial raw material for the manufacture of dishes was ironed clay with the inclusion of sand nodules. The molding mass is not laid down, not hydrogenated, contains inclusions of dry clay. To prevent cracking of ceramics during firing, coarse uncalibrated chamotte was added to the clay dough in a volume of up to 40-50 %. In addition, there was a burning organic additive present in the clay, the type of which is

Figure 9. Hooligan-type Bronze Age ceramics.

page 63

Figure 10. Bronze age ceramics of the Culiegan type (1-4, 7, 8) and stone objects (5, 6).

11. Ceramics of the Kuliegan Bronze Age.

it's hard to determine. At least three vessels have ochre particles in the clay dough.

Vessels were formed mainly from bundles with a diameter of 1.8 - 2.2 cm. In several cases, the method of sticking narrow (2.0 - 2.5 cm) tapes was recorded. The disforming of the harnesses is weak. From this it follows that the so-called sculptural modeling, and not extrusion, dominated. The bottoms are flat, also of wire rope forming. They were attached to the walls last, this is indicated by the features of junctions and cracks in the connecting zone, as well as the nature of vessel destruction - "falling out" of the bottoms. The whisk was not specially processed, by the time the molding operations were completed, it was already drying quite well. Clay bundles often disintegrated along the joints, which indicates that the joints themselves are too dry, long and gradual molding, and also indicates a special-tight-molding mass.

The surface treatment of the vessel is rough, obviously hasty. It was carried out with a solid tool with a jagged edge, most likely, a combed stamp. As a rule, on the inside of the shards and occasionally on the outside there are characteristic traces of grout on the surface with such tools. At the same time, horizontal strokes prevail. Before firing, the vessels were not subjected to additional wet treatment. Fire burning, short-term, low-temperature (below 800°). The shards are of various shades, but mostly gray, light gray, and gray-brown. In general, the quality of the products produced by Culiegan potters can be assessed as very low.

Ceramics are highly fragmented. Judging by the existing wreckage, almost 100 % of the complex consists of flat-bottomed jar-shaped vessels. Among them, elongated specimens absolutely dominate, the walls of which in the upper part are slightly inclined inwards or have a profile close to vertical. Open cans are rare, but they also have a slight inward bend in the mouth zone (see Figs. 10, 4). On the contrary, some of the closed cans have their edges slightly bent outward (see Fig. 9, 4; 10, 1; 12, 8). Torso profiling is smooth, the area of greatest expansion it falls on the upper half or middle of the vessels, the transition of the walls to the bottom is also smooth. The upper edge is smooth (see for example Fig. 10, 1; 12, 1) or gently undulating (see Fig.. 9, 4, 5; 11, 1), the corolla section is overwhelmingly flat. In addition to the usual flat horizontal corollas, occasionally there are flat, beveled on the outside (see Fig. 9, 4; 11, 1) or mushroom-shaped (see Fig. 11, 12), with edges hanging over the wall.

The collection includes fragments of vessels of medium and large sizes. Uts decided to measure the diameter

page 64
on a whisk in eight cases: in three containers, it was in the range of 16.5 - 21.0 cm, in five-26-29 cm or more. The diameter of the bottoms varied from 9 to 14 cm. The height of the single restored vessel is approx. 9, 5). Dishes, with very rare exceptions, are thick-walled: 7 - 10 mm at the top of the walls, 6 - 9 mm in the middle part, the thickness of the bottom cakes is 9 - 11 mm.

The side surface is covered with patterns in all vessels, the bottoms are ornamented in 90 % of cans, the corollas - in 66 %. The ornamentation is solid, dense, and built according to the horizontal-zonal principle. The corollas are usually decorated in a flat section with oblique impressions of a comb stamp (see, for example, Fig. 10) and only occasionally - oval depressions (see fig. 11, 7; 12, 2). In cases where deep impressions were placed often and close to each other, the edge acquired a jagged contour (see Fig. 10, 4; 11, 3).

An exhaustive description of the decoration covering the side surface of the vessels is difficult due to the small number of large fragments. With certainty, we can speak about the elementary nature of the ornament in the lower half of the body and the complexity of the compositions in the upper half. Patterns in the lower zone consist of monotonously repeating horizontal lines or rows of jagged prints - vertical or sloping to the right, sometimes alternating with each other or with belts of dimple indentations (see Fig. 9, 5; 10, 8; 11, 2,9 , 16; 12, 10, 11, 13). Approximately one-third of the vessels are similarly decorated with the upper half (see Figures 11, 1). The complexity of compositions in the upper part of the ornamental field was achieved by including elements that are not repeated anywhere else, as well as using various methods of decoration execution. 60 % of the vessels here have an original band of horizontal zigzags (from one to four). Polylines are made by printing a comb stamp (see Figs. 10, 1, 3), drawing (see Fig. 9, 3, 4; 10, 4), 9, 5, 6) and even, on one instance, a narrow molded roller (see Fig. 10, 8). The corners of zigzags are almost always marked with dimpled indentations, and on a number of cans (at least 5 copies) from them go down to the middle of the body vertical chains of the same indentations, drawn or combed segments (see Fig. 9, 5; 10, 1, 4, 8). Sometimes polylines are framed by comb impressions or angular ones indentations (see figs. 10, 4, 8). Actually, geometric figures occupy a rather modest place in the Culliegan decor: only on one jar jar the upper part of the walls is decorated with a horizontal belt of rhombuses (see Figs. 12, 1). Their upper and lower corners are also marked with shallow pits. Under the rhombuses there is a double zigzag and also with pits in the corners. It is interesting how these figures are depicted - they consist of horizontal prints of a short jagged stamp, applied in a staggered order. The band of diamond-shaped figures and zigzags in combination with pits and various vertical elements in the frame is central in the compositions.

12. Hooligan-type Bronze Age ceramics.

The area immediately below the corolla is usually covered with combed horizontal lines (see Figs. 10, 1), rows of vertical or inclined impressions of a toothed stamp (see Fig. 11, 6-8), but more often (up to 50 % of vessels) all the same horizontal impressions of a short stamp, arranged in a staggered order (see Fig. 9, 1, 4; 10, 3, 4; 12, 2 - 4, 8). "Staggered" filling in the estuary area with the help of In our opinion, specific ornamentation can be considered as one of the distinctive features of ceramics from the settlement of Bystry Kulyegan-38. The bottom of most vessels is decorated with a comb pattern in the form of radially radiating rays from the center (see Figures 11, 14-16), and in some specimens - parallel rows of comb prints (see Figures 9, 5).

Among other methods of applying decor, comb technology dominates. This conclusion is valid for both the ceramic complex as a whole and each vessel separately. Comb patterns were made in most cases stamped-

page 65
rolling, less often - rolling. Only one vessel has a "walking comb" marked on it. Ornamenters varied in length, width, shape, and number of teeth. In particular, a number of fragments contain impressions of stamps with triangular cutting of teeth (see Fig. 9, 5; 11, 12, 14, 16). Depending on the angle of inclination and depth of penetration, the same tool left different impressions.

On many jars (approx. 70%), the ornament includes dimpled depressions, usually shallow, which do not form "pearls"on the inner side of the vessels. Grouped in a row, they served as dividing elements, but in some compositions they were given a clearly decorative role (see Fig. 9, 5; 10, 1, 4). Dimple motifs are more typical for patterns located in the upper half of the vessels. Only in the estuarine zone were zigzags and horizontal lines made in the grooved technique (five vessels) or by drawing (three vessels). There is at least one roller jar in the collection.

On the walls of five vessels from the inside and outside, usually in the area under the corolla, traces of carbon deposits are noted. One specimen has drilled through holes on both sides of the crack (see Figs. 9, 5) - an obvious evidence of the repair of dishes. Fragments of vessels were sometimes used as tools for some household and household needs. Such shards have characteristic traces in the form of rubbing and smoothing on one of the edges. Perhaps these are leather scrapers, polishes, or other abrasives.

Stone products of the Bronze Age. Stone tools from the excavated part of the fortified dwelling are extremely scarce. It includes two abrasive tiles with a slightly concave working surface; a product made of a piece of limonite, on the flat faces of which traces of grinding can be traced; a suspension made of black slate tiles of segmental shape (52 × 23 × 7 mm) with an unfinished hole for hanging (see Figs. 10, 5); a blank of another suspension made of gray slate tiles (25 × 24 × 5 mm) and up to a dozen ordinary pebbles (sizes from 20 × 19 × 9 to 43 × 31 × 21 mm) without any traces of processing and use, obviously brought from somewhere in the dwelling. Several similar pebbles were found under the cliff, as well as a fragment of another abrasive tile and a tool measuring 73 × 66 × 43 mm, similar to a medium-action hammer (cf.: [Zdanovich and Korobkova, 1988, p. 63]), with traces of clogging on the side faces and two ground surfaces (see Fig. 6). There is no doubt that the stone objects belong to the complex of Bronze Age finds. Not even having an approximate idea of the number (and, of course, the composition) of stone products found in the blurred part of the building, we nevertheless believe that there were not many of them. This judgment is based, firstly, on analogies (the settlements of Chernorechenskoye I, Barsova Gora II/19, 22, Malaya Mokhovaya I, Shchetnmato-lor, etc.), and secondly, on facts indicating the use of metal tools and the development of metalworking production by the population of the Surgut Ob region at the beginning of the Bronze Age. Unfortunately, no copper or bronze objects were found on the monument we examined, but there is a large convex fragment of a vessel with a heavily slagged inner surface and an ornament typical of Culliegan ceramics on the outside. For forging metal and sharpening the blades of metal tools, the above-mentioned stone abrasives and a hammer could be used.

Discussion of the research results

Fortified dwellings are one of the most original and oldest types of fortified settlements - the forerunners of ancient settlements and towns. Until recently, it was assumed that they were distributed only in a narrow band of the Old World-between 20 and 45° N-from the Balearic Islands to China, with the exception of some western regions of Europe, North America, and southern Africa (Giandieri, 1981). The first builders of fortified dwellings were the most ancient farmers-pastoralists, as well as collectives under their direct influence with a complex economy that combined producing and appropriating industries. Currently, another area of distribution of such structures in Eurasia is identified - the taiga regions of Western Siberia and the Trans-Urals, between 56 and 64° N (Borzunov, 1995, 1997, 1999). Ural-West Siberian fortified dwellings are distinguished by a special wood-earth architecture, as well as the fact that for the first time in world practice, the creators of defensive structures were primitive societies with appropriating branches of the economy (fishing, hunting and gathering) - the distant ancestors of the modern Mansi, Khanty, Nenets, Kets and other indigenous peoples of these regions. The first mass construction of"fortress" dwellings in the north of Western Siberia occurred in the first half of the second millennium BC, when the taiga Ob region began manufacturing bronze tools and weapons from imported raw materials. According to the general periodization of the Bronze Age of Eurasia, this time corresponds to the Late Bronze Age (Chernykh, 1978; Chernykh and Kuzminykh, 1989). Prototypes of taiga fortifications-dwellings were large single "semi-underground" and above-ground log dwellings surrounded by a chain of pits and ditches, from which they were taken

page 66
soil for walling and which at the same time were drainage depressions. The earliest known examples of such housing construction date back to the Neolithic period: the settlements of Bystry Kulyegan-66 in the Surgut Ob region [Kosinskaya, 1999, p.38; 2001, p. 46; Poselenie..., 2006, p. 68] and Ust-Tara XXVIII in the Middle Irtysh region [Gorbunova and Tolpeko, 2002].

The fortified dwellings of the north of Eurasia are quite diverse. They are represented by two main variants (a small or medium-sized dwelling in the center of the courtyard, surrounded by a defensive wall and a moat; a large single dwelling, delineated by a rampart and an external moat) and several varieties (Borzunov, 1997, 1999). The fortification we excavated is one of the varieties of the second option. Synchronous housing settlements in the Surgut Ob region were located, as a rule, on high places-capes of the indigenous banks (Bystry Kulyegan-2, -40, Barsova Gora II / 37, object 1, Imnegan-2.1, object 1, Imnegan-2.2, object 8), promontories (Bystry Kulyegan-73, Barsova Mountain II / 22), at the edge of coastal terraces (Bystry Kulyegan-44, -100, -105), less often - on low promontories near streams in the depth of the coast (Bystry Kulyegan-77). On the floor side, they are enclosed by continuous or intermittent moats, while the dwelling could be approached by a swing bridge or an earthen lintel. For some objects, the moat was traced both at the base and on the cape arrow (Fast Culligan-2, -40). The Bystry Kulyegan-73 fortification is surrounded by two ring ramparts and moats, while the Mokhovaya-8 settlement consisted of two adjacent objects surrounded by moats, similar in plan to the figure 8.The size of the fortifications, judging by external signs, varied from 230 to 1500 m2, and the dwellings themselves - from 125 to 660 m2. The main elements of fortified dwellings of the second variant are standard: a rectangular residential pit surrounded by a sand embankment and partially a moat. However, the design of the walls and interior details could vary. Thus, in the case of the large building of the settlement of Barsova Gora II / 22 partially excavated in 2007-2008, the wall could be two-row, vertical; its outer belt was a palisade or fence set in a deep trench and reinforced on both sides by a powerful rampart. One of the entrances was located in the northern rounded corner of the dwelling. At the same time, bunks-"beds" were equipped not in the pit, but on a raised platform around it.

The construction of these buildings and the findings from them indicate that they were powerful fortified complexes used as year-round residential, economic and industrial premises. They also appear to have been the social centers of higher-level communities and associations. The forest-free area around the house in the warm season could be used as an economic and production site. However, small dwellings were not built on it.

The considered monuments of the Bronze Age on the Bystry Kulyegan River are concentrated in two groups, separated by an interval of 6-7 km. The distance between the extreme objects is approx. 15 km, between houses in groups - from 0.3 to 5.0 km. If we assume that the antiquities of the Culiegan type existed for at least three centuries, then two or at most three fortifications could function simultaneously in the middle and lower reaches of the river.

The mass spread of fortified dwellings of the second type at the beginning of the Bronze Age in the West Siberian taiga marks not just another stage of military tension and internecine wars caused by population growth. In all likelihood, at this time, the period of primary settlement of the north of Western Siberia (Mesolithic - Eneolithic) ends and a demographic explosion occurs, due to the obvious progress of the appropriating economy. Ultimately, the situation of relative overpopulation in the Ob region led to the first large-scale division (sometimes redistribution) of fishing grounds after the Stone Age and the beginning of mass development of deep taiga territories remote from major waterways. This process is perfectly illustrated by the monuments on the Bystry Kulyegan River. The immediate prerequisite for these changes, as we assume, was another warming of the climate, which predetermined an increase in the resource capacity of landscapes in the north of Eurasia and caused mass migrations to steppes, forest-steppes, and partly in forest areas. In the Eurasian forest-steppe and on the southern edge of the forest, with the arrival of pastoral populations from the south-west, south and south-east, a special buffer cultural and economic zone was formed, populated by tribes with a complex economy. Migrations of pastoralists were accompanied by the spread of metalworking in the north of Eurasia, including the taiga regions of the Urals and Western Siberia.

Single-court fortified settlements of various layouts and defensive architecture appeared at this time throughout the taiga Ob (Lower and Middle Ob, Konda) and in the upper reaches of the Pur. Isolated fortifications of a similar type are known in the Irtysh forest-steppe-among the carriers of the Seimin-Turbin traditions (Inberen X settlement of the Krotovo culture (Stefanova, 1985)). It is quite likely that it was through the Irtysh population that the first non-ferrous metal arrived in the Priobskaya taiga through multi-stage exchange operations. Economic and social changes in the life of forest communities may have been promoted by the influence of migrating Seimin-Turbine groups (Chernykh and Kuzminykh, 1989, pp. 271-277).

page 67
As for the village-dwelling Bystry Kulyegan-38, it apparently died as a result of a fire and was not restored on this site anymore. No expressive objects were found on the ashes, except for broken dishes and individual stone products. In all likelihood, the inhabitants of the burned-out village built a new fortification somewhere nearby. It is possible that its remains are located 300 m to the north-west of this place, a fortified dwelling Bystry Kulyegan-40 with similar ceramics.

Bystry Kulyegan-38 remains to date the only almost completely investigated and published object from among the settlements of this kind known in the Surgut Ob region. This is a practically closed and clean archaeological complex, which does not contain any inocular impurities, and is also quite representative. We believe that it may well qualify for the status of a reference monument, reflecting some features of the culture of the local population in one of the periods of the Bronze Age. Of course, based on the materials of only one monument, even if it is a reference one, and without taking into account other stationary and seasonal settlements that are more or less close to it, we will not get a complete picture. What kind of settlements are you referring to? If we look at the archaeological literature and archival materials of recent years, there are quite a lot of them. The settlements of Barsova Gora II/8b, II/9b, II/36 (Chemyakin and Karacharov, 2002, pp. 28-30; Chemyakin and Karacharov, 2002, p. 28-30) are among those comparable to Bystry Kulyegan-38 (primarily in terms of ceramics) and, moreover, directly related, according to a number of authors, to the antiquities of the Kulyegan type, 2008, p. 42-46], Chernorechenskoe I [Kosinskaya, 1998a; Chemyakin, 2008, pp. 42-46], Malaya Mokhovaya I [Stefanov, 2002], Shchetnmato-lor [Kosinskaya, 19986; 2000, p. 18], Balinskoe-1 [Baranov, 2006, pp. 345-346], Koim-1 [Sergeev and Pogodin, 2008, pp. 191-192]. In the vicinity of Surgut in 2007 - 2008, the settlement of Barsova Gora II/19 (head of excavations E. N. Dubovtseva) and the fortified dwelling of Barsova Gora II/22 (head of excavations V. A. Borzunov), even more powerful than Bystry Kulyegan-38, were studied. This list can be supplemented with a series of settlements, including fortified ones, identified during the survey of the Bystry Kulyegan, Serebryanka, Mokhovaya Rivers, etc. One gets the impression that this stage/period of the Bronze Age, represented in the Surgut Ob region and in the adjacent territories (the settlement of Shchetnmato-lor - Nadym-Purovskaya lowland) by the listed monuments, has a capital source base. As far as it is true, we will not undertake to judge, at least not yet. First, it is not a fact that all the settlements mentioned above belong to the same chronological horizon. Secondly, the degree of their proximity to the reference monument of the Kuliegan type - the settlement of Bystry Kuliegan-38-has not been established. This could not be done until the full publication of the results of the excavation of the fortified dwelling. We believe that now the situation will be simplified, and researchers will be able to make adjustments to their understanding of Culiegan-type antiquities and clarify the position of complexes compared with the object we studied.

We did not set ourselves the task of conducting a detailed comparative analysis of the materials of the fortified house Bystry Kulyegan-38, substantiating its cultural and chronological position, and presenting a detailed content description of the antiquities conventionally attributed as Kulyegan. This is explained by the desire to use as strong arguments a series of expected radiocarbon dates for samples from the settlements of Barsova Gora II / 19 and II / 22, as well as the results of preliminary analysis of ceramic dishes and other finds obtained during their excavations. Together with the existing data, we hope that the new data will allow us to concretize the judgments about the local uniqueness of the Culiegan complexes and, what is most important at the moment, to clarify their relative and absolute chronology. In the meantime, we will limit ourselves to a summary of some conclusions.

1. In the regional periodization scheme, Bystry Kulyegan-38 is a monument of the early stage of the Bronze Age.

2. According to the periodization of the early metal epoch (Chernykh and Kuzminykh, 1989; Chernykh, Agapov, Kuzminykh, 1990), it belongs to the period of formation of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province in the Asian zone (PBV-1).

3. The time of the settlement's existence is determined presumably within the first half or, most likely, the first third of the second millennium BC.

4. Fortified dwelling Bystry Kulyegan-38 is an eponym for monuments (and, of course, ceramics) of the Kulyegan cultural type, which are included-as a local entity - in the cultural and historical community characterized by comb-pit ceramics.

List of literature

The complex of archaeological monuments of the Bronze Age on the Balinskaya River in the Middle Ob region and its cultural and economic interpretation (based on the materials of archaeological research of the Balinskoye settlements 1, 3, 8, 10) // Modern problems of archeology in Russia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2006, pp. 343-346.

page 68
Borzunov V. A. Fortified dwellings of the Trans-Urals and Western Siberia. Yekaterinburg: NPMP "Volot" Publ., 1995, pp. 19-24.

Borzunov V. A. K voprosu o genezise i funktsii uralo-sibirskikh fortified dwellings [On the question of the genesis and function of Ural-Siberian fortified dwellings]. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, 1997, pp. 224-236.

Borzunov, V. A., A new area of fortified dwellings in the North of Eurasia, RA. - 1999. - N4. - pp. 5-23.

Borzunov V. A. Report on excavations in 2000 of the fortified settlement-dwelling Bystry Kulyegan-38 on the Bystry Kulyegan River in the Surgutsky district of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. Vol. I, II. Yekaterinburg, 2001. / / Archive of the SC (PNIAL) of USU F. P. D. 615. 166 s; D. 615a. 51 s.

Borzunov V. A., Kovrigin A. A., Pogodin A. A., Sergeev A. S., Stefanov V. I. Razvedka v zonakh neftepromyslov Surgutskogo rayon [Exploration in the zones of oil fields in the Surgut region].

Borzunov V. A., Pogodin A. A. Excavations of the fortified dwelling Bystry Kul'egan 38 / / AO 2000, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2001, pp. 206-207.

Gorbunova T. A., Tolpeko P. V. Raskopki v Ust-Tarskom arkheologicheskom mikrorayone [Excavations in the Ust-Tarsk archaeological microdistrict].

Jandieri M. P. Drevneye bashennoe oboronnoe zhilishche [Ancient tower defense dwelling]. ancient history. - 1981. - N 2. - p. 118-155.

Zdanovich S. Ya., Korobkova G. F. New data on the economic activity of the population of the Bronze Age (according to the data of the trasological study of tools of labor from the village). Petrovka II) // Problems of archeology of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes. Chelyabinsk: Publishing House of the Chelyabinsk State University, 1988, pp. 60-79.

Kosinskaya L. L. Chernorechenskoe I - poselenie epokhi bronzy v g. Surgut [Chernorechenskoe I-a Bronze Age settlement in Surgut]. Nizhnevartovsk: Publishing House of Nizhnevart State Pedagogical Institute, 1998a, pp. 87-100.

Kosinskaya L. L. Archaeological sites of the north of Western Siberia: textbook. stipend. Surgut: Inform. - publishing center Surgut, State University, 19986. - 39 p.: ill.

Kosinskaya L. L. On the schemes of development of the northern Neolithic. - Tobolsk; Omsk: Publishing House of the Omsk State Pedagogical Institute, 1999. - p. 38-41.

Kosinskaya, L. L., Archaeological sites of the Pur River basin (results of research in 1990-1998), Nauch. vestn. Salekhard, 2000, issue 3, pp. 13-23.

Kosinskaya L. L. O nekotorykh traditsiyakh domostroitel'stva na severo Zapadnoy Sibiri [On some traditions of house building in the north of Western Siberia]. XV Uralskoe arkheologicheskoe sobranie: tez. dokl. - Orenburg: Orenburg guberniya, 2001, pp. 46-47.

Pogodin A. A. Report on archaeological exploration in the Surgutsky and Berezovsky districts of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug. Vol. I: Report on archaeological research in the area of the Bystrinskoye oil field in the Surgutsky District of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug in 1994. Yekaterinburg, 1995. / / Archiv IA RAS. R-1. N19011; Archiv KA (PNIAL) USU F. P. D. 565. 206 p.

Kosinskaya L. L., Zanina V. V., Dubovtseva E. N., Baranov Yu. M., Yudina E. A., Velichko T. Yu., Ryabogin N. E. Poselenie Bystry Kulyegan 66: pamyatnik epokhi neolita Surgutskogo Priobya [The settlement of Bystry Kulyegan 66: a monument of the Neolithic Era of the Surgut Priobya]. - Yekaterinburg; Surgut: Ural. kn. izd-vo, 2006. - 192 p.

Sergeev A. S., Pogodin A. A. Kul'turno-khronologicheskie kompleksy poseleniya Koim 1 [Cultural and chronological complexes of the Koim 1 settlement]. Yekaterinburg; Surgut: Ural Publishing House, 2008, pp. 170-194.

Stefanov V. P. Novye materialy po bronzovomu veku Surgutskogo Ob'ya [New materials on the Bronze Age of the Surgut Ob region]. - Surgut: Publishing house of MU ICNCP "Barsova Gora", 2002. - p. 97-112.

Stefanova N. K. Novy pamyatnik krotovskaya kul'tury na Irtysh [A new monument to the Krot culture on the Irtysh]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1985, pp. 54-62.

Chemyakin Yu. P.Barsova Gora: ocherki arkheologii Surgutskogo Ob'ya: Drevnost ' [Barsova Gora: Essays on the archeology of the Surgut Ob Region: Antiquity]. - Surgut; Omsk: Om. house of printing, 2008. - 224 p.

Chemyakin Yu. P., Karacharov K. G. Drevnyaya istoriya Surgutskogo Priobya [The ancient history of the Surgut Ob region].- East essays. - 2nd ed., ispr. and add. - Yekaterinburg: Thesis, 2002. - p. 5-74.

Chernykh, E. P., Metallurgical provinces and periodization of the Early metal epoch on the territory of the USSR, SA. -1978. - N4. - pp. 53-82.

Chernykh E. N., Agapov S. A., Kuzminykh S. V. Asiaticheskaya zona Evraziyskoy metallurgicheskoi gubernii [The Asian zone of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province]. Problemy istoricheskoi interpretatsii arkheologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh istochnikov Zapadnoy Sibiri: tez. dokl. - Tomsk: Izd. Tom.gosudarstvennogo un-ta, 1990, pp. 34-37.

Chernykh E. N., Kuzminykh S. V. Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoi Evrazii (seiminsko-turbinsky fenomen) [Ancient metallurgy of Northern Eurasia (Seiminsko-Turbinsky phenomenon)]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1989, 320 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 09.02.10.

page 69

Permanent link to this publication: