The initial stage of the Bronze Age is one of the most poorly studied periods of the ancient history of the Middle Volga region. One of the main problems is the origin of several traditions of this time and the degree of participation of the local Eneolithic population in their formation. Analysis of the multicomponent ornamental complex of the Bairik-Lybaevskian antiquities of the Eneolithic era allowed us to propose a hypothesis that the formation of ornamental traditions of the early Bronze Age is associated with the migration of a foreign cultural population that entered into direct interaction with the carriers of local Eneolithic cultures. In this process, two main trends are outlined: the smooth development of individual ornamental components of the Bayryk-Lybaevsky complex, which broke away from the general massif (monuments of the Imbirya and Mostovsky types), and "revolutionary" transformations caused by active cultural interaction with migrants, which led to the formation of the Tashkovo culture.

Keywords: initial stage of the Bronze Age, Eneolithic, Middle Partobolye, Priishimye, Irtysh region, Bayryk-Lybaevskaya, Andreevskaya, Tashkovskaya cultures, Imbirya cultural type, Mostovoe-1 settlement, Eluninskaya, Krotovskaya cultures, migration.

Introduction

Until recently, the concept of the early Bronze Age in the Middle Part of the Volga Basin was based on the materials of the Tashkovo culture, whose "business card" is a large area of round-plan settlements (Kovaleva, 1997; Kovaleva, Ryzhkova, Shamanaev, 2000). The state of the problem changed with the identification of the Ginger monuments, where the ornamental complex is characterized by a combination of dimpled rows, compositions made with smooth, C-prominent and other stamps, as well as in a "deep-ringed" manner. A special feature of these collections is the decoration of some vessels with textile prints (Volkov, 2004). Later, similar ceramics were found on a number of monuments in the region (Volkov, 2007). Later, during the excavations of the Mostovoe-1 settlement, a representative ceramic series was obtained with the decoration of prints of a short comb stamp, the features of which made it possible to correlate it with the time under consideration (Volkov and Zimina, 2009) (Fig. 1).

Problem statement

Based on the available data, it should be noted that in the Middle Pritobol region in the early Bronze Age there were at least three traditions, represented by Tashkovsky, Ginger antiquities and materials of monuments of the Mostovoi-1 type. However, the mechanism of their formation and their connection with local Eneolithic cultures have not yet been fully elucidated.

V. T. Kovaleva considers the origin of the Tashkovo culture from the point of view of migration of southern Indo-European groups that assimilated local Eneolithic populations [1997, p. 70]. V. I. Stefanov and O. N. Korochkova admit the possibility of participation in its formation of carriers of Peter's traditions [2000, p.92]. According to T. M. Potemkina, tashkov-

page 47

1. Map-scheme of the areas of Eneolithic cultures - the initial stage of the Bronze Age in Western Siberia. 1-Bayryk-Lybaevskaya culture; 2-Tashkovskaya culture; 3-Ginger-type monuments; 4-location of the Mostovoe-1 settlement; 5-Odinovskaya, Loinovskaya cultures of the Ishim region; 6-Vishnevsky-type monuments; 7-area of the Eluninsky culture (according to Yu. F. Kiryushin); 8 - area of the Sintashta-Petrinsky region.Russian antiquities.

Historical data indicate the Sintashta-Abashev influence [1995, p. 18, 23].V. A. Zakh believes that the Tashkov culture was formed as a result of contacts of local Eneolithic groups with carriers of the Petrovsky or Alakul tradition [2009, p. 281]. We hypothesized that it was formed on the basis of the Lipchinsk culture (Volkov, 1999).

The formation of the Ginger complexes was considered as a result of the evolution of the Eneolithic St. Andrew's culture. The difference in the views of researchers concerned only the status - an independent type of monuments [Volkov, 2007, p. 48] or belonging to the Mysaevo stage of this culture [Zakh, 2009, p.219]. Ornamentation of dishes from the settlement of Mostovoe-1 is the result of self-development of one of the ornamental components of the local Eneolithic tradition (Volkov and Zimina, 2009). It should be noted that some fragments of such ceramics obtained from multi-layered monuments were previously interpreted as Odin's [Zakh, 2009, p. 243], which was facilitated by the wide occurrence of pit decoration on the body of vessels.

To date, the scientific community has only formed ideas about the Tashkov culture [Kovaleva, 1997; Kovaleva, Ryzhkova, Shamanaev, 2000]. Ginger antiquities and monuments of the Mostovoi-1 type have less informative opportunities. At the same time, the analysis of the considered complexes allows us to offer reasonable hypotheses about the historical destinies of the carriers of local Eneolithic cultures and their participation in the formation of traditions of the initial stage of the Bronze Age.

Until recently, Lipchinskaya was considered one of the main local Eneolithic cultures (see, for example, [Starkov, 1980]). Recent research has led to different conclusions. First, based on the materials of the forest-steppe region of the Volga region, the Lybaevsky type monuments were identified* (Volkov, 2002), then the Lybaevskaya culture (Volkov, 2006), and in the subtaiga zone of the region, the Bayryk culture (Zakh, 2006)**. Further research has shown that these complexes are of the same type, allowing them to be combined into the Bairyk-Lybaevskian culture (Volkov, 2009). Only the Velizhany-1 settlement (excavation 2) can now be considered as" clean " Lipchinsky objects [Astashkin,

* The concept of "cultural type" as applied to the Lybaevsky antiquities at the initial stage of their study and the Ginger monuments, which will be discussed below, reflects the temporary state of the problem, when the first information was obtained, insufficient for a full-scale characteristic of their specifics, based on the identity of ornamental compositions on dishes that distinguish them from the synchronous complexes of the region. With the replenishment of the fund of sources on the Lybaevskaya, later Bayryk-Lybaevskaya culture, represented by a number of studied settlement and funerary monuments, it became possible to establish its general and special features and identify the stages of development. In the case of the Ginger antiquities, unfortunately, we do not have sufficient information about their specifics due to the extremely small number of monuments studied, the lack of data on funerary rituals, etc., which does not yet allow us to distinguish an independent culture.

** Initially, the Bayryk type of monuments was identified by M. F. Kosarev [1981, p. 54-59] on the basis of ceramics with a peculiar pechash-comb ornamentation with a wide use of pit decoration on the body of vessels. The Bayryk culture, identified by V. A. Zach, is characterized by a multicomponent ornamental complex, including a receding-knurled and combed decor. One of the basic characteristics of the tradition is the widespread use of dimpled ornaments on the torso of vessels [2006].

page 48
Astashkina and Dryabina, 1995] and early deposits of the multi - layered monument-the Mysovskaya burial ground (Volkov, 2007). It should be noted that" lozhnoshnurovaya " Lipchinskaya ware is found on most of the Bayryk-Lybaevsky monuments, but its share in the samples of "retreating-knurled" ceramics does not exceed 5-10%. This indicates that the bearers of the tradition rather quickly dissolved into the mass of the Bayryk-Lyba population [Ibid., p. 39].

In the multicomponent Bayryk-Lybayev ornamental complex, three main technical and stylistic groups are distinguished: "short-ribbed", the main element of which is short impressions of a combed stamp (Fig. 2, 9); "long - ribbed" - with an ornament of solid closed lines and prints of a long narrow comb (Fig. 2, 2); " indenting- knurled " - with a decor made by ornamenters who leave teardrop-shaped (Fig. 2, 1), sub-triangular, and two-pronged (Fig. 2, 5) traces [Ibid., p. 31]. Most collections include tableware decorated with impressions of smooth and other stamps, the proportion of which does not exceed 5-7%, and ceramics decorated in a "pure" pin - shaped style (see, for example, [Volkov, 2002, p. 64, 65]) (Figs. 2, 6). It should be noted that vessels decorated with a two-pronged stick ("large-spiked" style) are represented to varying degrees in various samples, the weakest-in the forest-steppe: 5-10% within the "retreating-spiked" series. In the subtaig, even in synchronous collections, the share of such dishes varies from 10-15 to 30-40%. It is noted that the "large-ringed" decoration for the end of the Eneolithic period evolves into an ornament made from impressions of a C-shaped stamp. In a number of cases, several methods of applying decor are used together on Bairyk-Lybaevskaya dishes. Reference to Eneolithic materials was intended to illustrate the ornamental features of the Bayryk-Lybaevskoi culture, the search for "traces" of which in the traditions of the initial stage of the Bronze Age will be devoted to the next part of the work.

Collections from the Tashkovo monuments indicate the absence of a rigid set of ornamental and stylistic groups of dishes in various complexes. The materials of Tashkovo-2 show the presence of three main samples: "retreating-spiked" (Figs. 2, 3), "long-ribbed"(Fig.

2. Ceramics of the Eneolithic period and the initial stage of the Bronze Age from the monuments of the Middle Partobol region. A-Eneolithic Bayryk-Lybaevskaya and Tashkovskaya of the initial stage of the Bronze Age (1, 3 - "retreating-knurled", 2, 4 - "long-ribbed"); B - Eneolithic Bayryk-Lybaevskaya and Ginger of the beginning of the Bronze Age (5 - "large-knolled", 6, 8 - "sparse-knolled", 7-decorated with a prominent stamp); C-Eneolithic Bayryk-Lybaevskaya and Ginger type of the initial stage of the Bronze Age (9-11 - "short - combed"); D-Tashkovskaya and Yeluninskaya of the beginning of the Bronze Age (12, 13 - "walking-combed"); D - Tashkovskaya and Yeluninskaya of the initial stage of the epoch bronze (14-16 - "retreating-(dragged)-combed"). 2, 4, 12, 14-according to: [Kovaleva, 1997; Kovaleva, Ryzhkova, Shamanaev, 2000]; 13, 15, 16 - [Kiryushin, 2002].

page 49
2, 4) and "dragged-comb" (Figs. 2, 14), as well as ceramics with a combination of various ornamental characteristics (Kovaleva, 1997, pp. 81-121, figs. 6, 46). There are separate components in the complex that are comparable to the Bayryk-Lybay tradition: "retreating-knurled" and "long-ribbed". The main discrepancies with the Eneolithic schemes in the "retreating-knurled" sample are the widespread use of meanders, straight lines that turn into a "wave" or zigzag," wave-like "motifs, inclined" snake-like " segments; the disappearance of sub-triangular, false-cord decors and prints of two-pronged ornamentation. Visual inspection of the published part of the collection suggests a significant "reworking" of Eneolithic ornaments, which resulted in a change in the sequence of patterns, the disappearance of individual elements and the appearance of new ones. The "long-rib" component shows a greater similarity to Eneolithic materials both in the manner of applying the ornament and in the set of elements (closed straight and long inclined lines, zigzags, rhombuses, triangles, etc.). The facts of "processing" of decorative schemes are also noted, which are expressed in changing the sequence of pattern elements. The "dragged-comb" component is practically not represented in the local Eneolithic, although individual vessels decorated using this technique are found. Regarding the uniqueness of the collection, we note the representativeness of the pit ornament on the body of pottery. A fairly significant part of the complex (14.3%) is made up of ceramics, which demonstrate a combination of various decorating techniques: receding stick and comb stamp, receding stick and dragged comb, etc. [Ibid., p. 30, Table 2].

A somewhat different picture is recorded in the settlement of the Southern Administrative District-13, the main ornamental components of which are "retreating-knurled", "walking-combed" (Fig. 2, 12) and "printed-combed" (Kovaleva, Ryzhkova, Shamanaev, 2000, pp. 112-146, Fig. 11, 45). Judging by the published materials, the "retreating-knurled" ceramics are close to the same sample from the settlement of Tashkovo-2, which is expressed in the use of similar decorative elements and compositions. However, the collection shows a slightly smaller change in Eneolithic patterns, as evidenced by the relatively low proportion of" wave-like "motifs, straight lines turning into a" wave", meanders, rollers and the widespread use of knurled patterns. The peculiarity of the "printed-comb" sample is expressed in the presence of vessels associated with both "short-rib" and "long-rib" ceramics. The "walking-comb" decor is not typical for dishes from local Eneolithic monuments and from the settlement of Tashkovo-2. The complex is characterized by the widespread use of dimpled patterns on the torso of vessels. It should also be noted that there is a rather high percentage of ceramics that demonstrate a combination of several technical methods of applying decor [Ibid., p. 50].

The collection from the settlement of Uk-3, due to incomplete publication of materials from the early Bronze Age, allows us to judge only some features of the Tashkovsky complex. Information about the replacement of the retreating-knurled technique with a drawn one and about the "Petrovsky" appearance of individual vessels is indicative [Stefanov, Korochkova, 2000, p. 92].

The original ceramic complex of the initial stage of the Bronze Age from the settlement of Kurya-1, which deserves consideration, despite the small number of vessels (30 - 35). Here you can find typical Tashkovo dishes with "receding-knurled", "long-combed" and "dragged-combed" decor, as well as decorated in other styles. The main part of the collection consists of ceramics, ornamented with a prominent stamp and a deep, sparse tattoo. A number of vessels are decorated in a "short-rib" style, the surface of several products is covered with textile prints. In this complex, the Tashkovskaya and Ginger ornamental series can be distinguished, which probably existed synchronously.

Turning to the Ginger problem, we note that with the exception of the settlement of Kurya-1, we do not know the joint existence of Tashkovo and Ginger ceramics. A repeated analysis of the collections under consideration made it possible to verify that each of them presents dishes decorated with a prominent stamp (Figs. 2, 7), the specifics of which and the features of the compositions performed by it indicate a connection with the "large-ringed" Bairyk-Lybaevskian series. This, together with the presence in the collections of ceramics decorated with a smooth stamp and in a "pure" pin-shaped style (Figs. 2, 8), which is also present in the Bayryk-Lybaevsky complexes, makes us abandon the hypothesis of a genetic connection between the objects under consideration and the St. Andrew's culture. It should be noted that the use of various techniques for applying decor on ginger vessels is recorded quite rarely.

A special feature of the Mostovoe-1 settlement is the predominance of" short-ribbed " ceramics (Figs. 2, 10, 11), which clearly resemble the similar Bayryk-Lybaevian series (Volkov and Zimina, 2009). As in the Eneolithic collections, compositions of inclined and vertical prints of a comb stamp and zigzag predominate here. On some products, "retreating-knurled" patterns are marked, but they play a subordinate role in relation to "short-ribbed"ones.

page 50
The differences from Eneolithic samples consist in the dominance of flat-bottomed dishes and the widespread use of dimpled decoration on the body of vessels.

Discussion of the results

We believe that the recorded situation allows us to state the following facts. First, at the turn of the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age, there was a break in the unified Bayryk-Lybaevsky cultural field, which was expressed in the separation of individual components from the multicomponent ornamental complex. Secondly, it should be noted that there is no uniformity in the set of technical and stylistic groups of dishes in the collections of individual monuments of the Tashkovo culture. Third, on all objects of the time under consideration, without exception, foreign cultural innovations are traced, but expressed to varying degrees.

It is most likely that the current situation is caused by the penetration of foreign groups into the Middle Pritobolye. Of course, the individual technical and stylistic components of the Bayryk-Lybaevsky ceramic complex were based on communities of ornamental traditions that had the right to make decisions, which indicates a complex structure of the population formed on the basis of various groups of origin. The mosaic composition of the culture, which has passed the test of a thousand-year history (end of the IV-end of the III millennium BC [Volkov, 2007, p. 45]), probably could not withstand the new historical realities. The above suggests that the population moved significantly at the turn of the epoch, which was expressed not in local migrations, but in the global movement of carriers of foreign cultures that were at a higher level of development than their contemporaries in the Pritobol region. It is possible that the individual ornamental components of the Bayryk-Lybaevskiye antiquities were based on various ethnic and cultural structures that preserved the historical memory of their roots and had the opportunity to determine their future historical fate.

There are two main trends in the process of disintegration of the Bayryk-Lybay community. The first one is related to the smooth evolution of ornamentality, which is comparable to the Ginger monuments and objects of the Moi vo go-1 type. Previously, we assumed the genetic continuity of the Ginger tradition with the St. Andrew's culture [Volkov, 2004, p. 36]. A re-examination of the material after the sources were replenished led to the conclusion that the formation of this cultural type involved the bearers of the Bayryk-Lybay tradition, who decorated ceramics in "large-ringed", "ringed" and "stamped" techniques. Perhaps the St. Andrew's population also took part in this process, which was reflected in the increase in the depth of punctures on dishes. In this trend, the Mostovoe-1 collection from the settlement fits even more organically, illustrating the smooth evolution of" short-rib " schemes.

The second trend is associated with a sharp change in ornamental canons, which is typical for Tashkov antiquities. Probably, the materials of the forest-steppe monuments of Tashkovo-2 and Uk-3 reflect the situation when the foreign cultural influence reached its apogee. This conclusion is also supported by the fact of mass construction of large-scale settlements with a complex layout, unknown in the Eneolithic period. The hypothesis that the Tashkov antiquities were formed on the basis of the Lipchinsky ones (Volkov, 1999) turned out to be incorrect.

It is possible that the reconstructed trends illustrate the peculiarities of the attitude of various groups of native speakers of the Bayryk-Lybay culture to possible contacts and integration with migrants. In the first case, apparently, the position of preference for preserving traditional foundations was reflected. It is possible that the separation of native speakers of the Imbiryaisk and Mostovsky stereotypes was caused by an ambiguous attitude to close interaction with the Andreevsky population.

The absolute age of the cultures of the initial stage of the Bronze Age is determined by radiocarbon dates of the settlements of the Southern Administrative District-13 and Tashkovo-2: 3660 ± 45 and 3600 ± 45 BP, respectively, i.e., the XVIII-XVII centuries BC [Kovaleva, Ryzhkova, Shamanaev, 2000, p. 17]. To clarify the question, it is logical to draw on the data of relative chronology, based on the fact of the coexistence of Alakul and Tashkov antiquities (Matveev, 1995). According to the chronology of Alakul monuments developed by A.V. Matveev [2000, p. 23-26], the burials of the Chistolebyazhsky necropolis containing Tashkov materials [Matveev, 1995, p. 50] are mainly related to the "Chistolebyazhsky" stage of cultural development, the final of which is determined no later than the second quarter of the XX century BC [Matveev, 1995,p. 50]. 1998, p. 371]. The authors of the excavations of the Uk-3 settlement synchronize the Tashkovsky complex of the monument with Early Petrine antiquities [Koryakova, Stefanov, Stefanova, 1991, pp. 21-22]. Perhaps, in this case, it is logical to speak about the "Kulevchinsky" phase, which reflects the process of formation of the Alakul culture at the turn of the third and second millennium BC (Matveev, 1998, p. 370). Late Alakul monuments belonging to the" Alakul "(part of the burials of the Chistolebyazhsky burial ground, Khripunovsky necropolis) [Matveev, 2000, p. 24] and" Kamyshinsky " (Nizhneingalskoe-3, Uk-3) stages [Ibid., p. 25; Matveeva, Volkov, Ryabogina, 2003, p. 66-67], There are no traces of the Tashkovo-Alakul interaction (Volkov, 2007,

page 51

Fig. 3. The main decorative elements presented on the Elunin and Tashkovskaya dishes.

pp. 50-51]. This allows us to speak about the contacts of Tashkov and Alakul collectives only during the "Kulevchinsky" phase and the "chistolebyazhsky" stage of the Alakul culture.

Assuming the possibility of underestimated values in the chronology of A. V. Matveev, it is logical to assume that the Tashkovo culture was formed no later than the end of the XIX century BC. The upper chronological boundary of the" forest-steppe " Tashkovo monuments should probably be associated with the end of the XVIII-beginning of the XVII century BC. those who did not experience such a strong Andronovo influence, functioned for a longer time.

The chronology of the Ginger antiquities and monuments of the Mostovoi-1 type is not so clearly established. Indirect evidence of the synchronicity of the Tashkovo and Ginger complexes is provided by the materials of the Kurya-1 settlement, where the dishes under consideration were located under identical conditions. The relatively early age of the Ginger series of the monument is probably also indicated by the fact of a proportionate ratio of flat and flattened bottoms. Most likely, the period of functioning of objects such as Ginger-1 and Mostovoi-1 was less long than the Tashkov time, which is indicated both by the insignificant number of such monuments and the logic of the study. We believe that the Tashkov population, which absorbed progressive cultural and economic innovations, turned out to be more competitive than their contemporaries, who used traditional management systems. It seems to us that the period of operation of the Mostovoi-1 type of objects and monuments in Imbiryaisk does not exceed 100 years.

We should agree with the assumption that one of the main factors contributing to the formation of the Tashkovo culture was the influence of the "Kulevchinskaya" (Petrovskaya?)culture. traditions. The innovations perceived by the local population probably resulted in significant changes in the "retreating-knurled" schemes, the appearance of large - scale settlements with a complex layout, the idea of which is known in the prehistory of the Alakul culture, and, possibly, elements of a productive economy [Kovaleva, 1997, p. 45, 46]. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the "long-rib" schemes were not so significantly "reworked". The peculiarity of the ornamental complex of the Tashkovo culture also suggests an Eastern influence, which was expressed in the appearance of" walking-comb "and" dragged-comb " decor on dishes.

Unmistakable analogs of "walking-comb" ceramics are found in the Krotovo-Elunin * antiquities (see Fig. 2, 13). This component is associated with the first group of Elunin dishes [Kiryushin, 2002, pp. 48-50, 185, fig. 79,1, 2]. Its main difference from Tashkovskaya is the weak representation of dimple decoration on the body. Similar comparisons are also appropriate in relation to Krotovo ceramics.

Certain parallels to the" dragged-combed " component of the Tashkovo monuments can be traced in one of the groups of dishes from the settlement of Vishnevka-1 in the Petropavlovsk Priishimye region (Seibert, 1973, p. 107, fig. 40, 17, 19 - 22]. It should be noted that the collection contains items decorated with dimples and depressions made with an obliquely placed tube [Ibid., p. 107]. Judging by the published samples [Ibid., p. 109, figs. 40, 15, 23], it is possible to compare this sample with the Ginger ceramics decorated with a C-shaped stamp. The latter observation may indicate an innovation obtained from the Pritobol region and the multicomponent nature of the complex.

Ceramics of the first type of the Elunin culture, along with "walking-combed" ones, also include "retreating-(dragged)-combed" vessels (see Figures 2.15, 16) [Kiryushin, 2002, p. 48]. Similar ceramics also have analogies in the Tashkov antiquities. The determining feature is the identity of the arrangement of the basic elements of the ornament, represented by a combination of straight horizontal lines and a" wave " (Fig. 3) or a zigzag, which is most fully reflected in the materials of the settlements of Korovya Pristan III, Kostenkova Izbushka, etc. [Ibid., p. 178, Fig.. 72, 1, 4; . 180, rice 74, 1, 2; p. 182, fig. 76, 3; Kovaleva, 1997, p. 86, fig. 11, 4; p. 105, fig. 30,2; p. 107, fig. 32,2, 3; p. 117, fig. 32, 7]. We also note the rivet rollers characteristic of both Tashkovo and Elunin ceramics (Kiryushin, 2002, p. 186, Fig. 80, 1, 5, 6; p. 186, fig. 82, 3; Kovaleva, 1997, p. 83, fig. 8, 3; p. 91, fig. 16, 2; p. 93, fig. 18, 7]. Among other similar features, we will highlight

* We do not enter into a discussion about the correlation between the Elunin and Krotovo cultures. The term " Yelunin culture "is used primarily because of the original ornamental complex of" early " monuments united by Yu.F. Kiryushin in this culture. This complex shows an undoubted similarity with Tashkovsky.

page 52
the belt method of making dishes [Kiryushin, 2002, p. 48; Kovaleva, 1997, p. 26] and the dominance in the complexes of pot and jar forms [Kiryushin, 2002, p.48-51; Kovaleva, 1997, p. 27].

The differences lie in the presence of "pearls" on a part of Elunin vessels (see, for example, [Kiryushin, 2002, p. 180, fig. 74, 1, 2]) and the weak representation of the pit decoration on the body. It should also be noted that the Tashkov vessels are somewhat longer than the Elunin vessels, and their height is larger than the corolla diameter (Kovaleva, 1997, p. 27). The composition of the molding masses does not completely coincide. Elunin ceramics are characterized by an admixture of sand and crushed stone [Kiryushin, 2002, p.48], while the latter ingredient is not found in Tashkovskaya ceramics [Kovaleva, 1997, p. 26]. It should be noted that the ceramic dough of Krotovo ware in the Irtysh and Baraba regions contains sand and chamotte, sometimes burnt bone (Glushkov, 1996, p. 94), as well as traces of organic matter, probably manure (Ibid., p. 97). These differences, however, are local in nature.

Until recently, the impossibility of the Elunino-Krotovo component's participation in the formation of Tashkovo antiquities was based on the idea of the chronology of these traditions. The lower boundary of the Tashkovo culture was determined by the beginning of the second millennium BC (Kovaleva, 1997, p. 69), whereas the Krotovo-Elunin monuments were dated no earlier than the 17th and possibly 18th centuries BC (see, for example, Chernykh and Kuzminykh, 1989, p. 261), and the final Krotovo culture was determined by the end of the second millennium BC (Kovaleva, 1997, p. 69). -XIV-XII centuries BC [Molodin, 1985, p. 87]. Recently, Yu. F. Kiryushin, having examined the Elunin materials in detail, made their correct chronological differentiation based on a series of absolute dates and the typology of ceramics. It is noteworthy that the earliest monuments are those with a predominance of dishes of the first group, dated to the last quarter of the III-beginning of the II millennium BC (Kiryushin, 2002, p. 77, 82). Since a significant part of the Tashkov vessels, which are ornamented in a "receding-knurled" manner, is characterized by alternating horizontal lines and "waves" [Kovaleva, 1997, p. 85, Fig. 10, 2; p. 90, Fig. 15,2; p. 103, fig. 28, 1; p. 113, fig. 38 41, 1; Kovaleva, Ryzhkova, Shamanaev, 2000, p. 124, fig. 23, 3; p. 126, fig. 25, 2; p. 138, fig. 37, 1; p. 140, fig. 39, 3; p. 144, fig. 43, 3], the determining role of the Eastern impulse in the formation of culture cannot be excluded.

Analogies of the "textile" Ginger ceramics can be traced over a vast territory. In the Eneolithic period, similar ware is represented on the Botai (Seibert, 1993, p. 87) and Itersek (Kalieva and Logvin, 1997, p.80) monuments of Northern Kazakhstan, as well as on the Tukh-Sigat IV settlement in Vasyugan (Kiryushin, 2004, p. 177, Fig. 67). In the Early Bronze Age, it is known from the materials of Vishnevka-1 in Northern Kazakhstan (Seibert, 1973, p. 109) and Mysaevka-1 in the taiga Irtysh region (Panfilov, 1989, p.153).

The tradition of dimpled ornamentation of the body of vessels, which is rather poorly represented in the Bayryk-Lybayev complexes, probably also has a foreign origin. According to our data, ceramics without such decoration, even on Late Neolithic sites, account for up to 75-80%. Probably, the widespread use of pit ornaments dates back to the turn of the Eneolithic - early Bronze Age. Traditionally, monuments of the Priishimsko-Priirtysh region have a high share of dishes with dimpled decoration on the body (see, for example, [Panfilov, 1993, p. 27]).

Conclusion

The considered material indicates that during the transition period from the Eneolithic to the Bronze Age, a sharp change in the historical and cultural situation occurred in the Middle Pritobol region, associated with the split of the Bayryk-Lybaevsky multicomponent ornamental complex into separate components that continued to develop in different traditions. The reconstructed situation was caused by a number of factors, the main one of which was the migration of the non-cultural population from different territories, which entered into direct interaction with the carriers of local Eneolithic cultures.

The process of formation of the Tashkov tradition at present can be logically considered as a synthesis of the "retreating-knurled" and "long-ribbed" components of the local ornamental complex, southern innovations perceived from the Kulevchinsky (Petrovsky?) groups. population, with the defining eastern influence associated with the Yelunin culture. The formation of complexes of the Ginger type most likely reflects the process of interaction between the bearers of the Bayryk-Lyba tradition, who decorated ceramics in a "stamped", "large-knurled" and knurled manner, the Andreevsky population, newcomers who decorated dishes with textile prints, as well as the bearers of the "comb-pit" ornamental tradition from the Ishim and Irtysh regions. It is reasonable to consider the materials of the Moegovoi-1 type of monuments as the result of a smooth evolution of the" short-rib " component of the Bayryk-Lybaevskoi culture. Innovations in this process are seen in the widespread use of pit decoration on the body of vessels, which may reflect contacts with the population of the Priishimsko-Priirtysh region.

In conclusion, we note that the picture associated with the identification of three main lines of development of ornamental traditions in the early Bronze Age of the Middle Volga region may not be complete. Svoeob-

page 53
The diversity of the Tashkovo culture, expressed in the presence of a mismatched set of ornamental and stylistic groups of ceramics on various objects, synchronicity and, probably, cultural conjugation of the Tashkovo and Ginger complexes of the Kurya-1 settlement, suggests the possibility of identifying new monuments that can change the perception of the situation at the time under consideration. We can assume that we can find both objects illustrating the self-development of individual ornamental components of the Bayryk-Lybay tradition, and complexes reflecting their most diverse combination. But in any case, the picture will be mosaic, predetermined by the chaotic movement of carriers of individual decorative styles of the once monolithic culture, due to new historical realities.

List of literature

Astashkin V. I., Astashkina O. V., Dryabina L. A. Eneolithic complexes of the Velizhany-1 settlement // Ancient and modern culture of the peoples of Western Siberia. Tyumen: Tyumen State University, 1995, pp. 29-38.

Volkov E. N. On the issue of ethnic attribution of the population of the Tashkovskaya culture // Ecology of ancient and modern societies. Tyumen: IPOS SB RAS, 1999, issue 1, pp. 161-163.

Volkov E. N. Eneolithic complex of the settlement of Dvoozernoye-1 / / Vesti, arkheologii, antropologii i etnografii / IPOS SB RAS. - 2002. - Issue 4. - pp. 57-70.

Volkov E. N. Poselenie Imbiryai-1 [The settlement of Ginger-1]. Vesti, arkheologii, antropologii i etnografii [News, Archeology, Anthropology and Ethnography], IPOS SB RAS, 2004, issue 5, pp. 32-37.

Volkov E. N. Lybaevskiye drevnosti lesostepnogo Pritobol'ya (epoha eneolita) [Lybaevskiye drevnosti lesostepnogo Pritobol'ya (Eneolithic era)]. Archeology, Anthropology and Ethnography / IPOS SB RAS, 2006, issue 7, pp. 22-35.

Volkov E. N. Complex of archaeological monuments Ingalskaya Dolina. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2007, 224 p. (in Russian)

Volkov E. N. The problem of the study Eneolithic cultures of Tyumen Tobol region // Vestn. Archeology, Anthropology and Ethnography / IPOS SB RAS, 2009, issue 11, pp. 4-15.

Volkov E. N., Zimina O. Yu. Poselenie Mostovoe-1 i nekotorye problemy izucheniya nachalnogo etapa bronzovogo veka Tyumenskogo Pritobol'ya [The settlement of Mostovoe-1 and some problems of studying the initial stage of the Bronze Age in the Tyumen region]. Tyumen: IPOS SB RAS, 2009, issue 1, pp. 50-54.

Glushkov I. G. Keramika kak istoricheskiy istochnik [Ceramics as a historical source]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1996, 328 p. (in Russian)

Zaybert V. F. Novye pamyatniki ranney bronzy na r. Ishim [New monuments of Early Bronze on the Ishim River]. KSIA, 1973, issue 134: Bronzovyi vek na territorii SSSR, pp. 106-113.

Seibert V. F. Eneolith of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve. Petropavlovsk: Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan. Kazakhstan, 1993. - 246 p.

Zakh V. A. Khronostratigrafiya neolita i rannego metalla lesnogo Tobolo-Ishimya [Chronostratigraphy of the Neolithic and early metal of the forest Tobolsk-Ishim region]. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2006, 55 p. (in Russian)

Zakh V. A. Neolithic and Early metal chronostratigraphy of the Tobolsk-Ishim forest region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2009, 320 p. (in Russian)

Kalieva S. S., Logvin V. N. Cattle breeders of Turgai in the third millennium BC. - Kustanai: AN Rep. Kazakhstan, 1997. - 180 p.

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age in the south of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2002, 293 p. (in Russian)

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Southern Taiga zone of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2004, 295 p. (in Russian)

Kovaleva V. T. Vzaimodeystvie kul'tury i etnosov po materialam arkheologii: Poselenie Tashkovo-2 [Interaction of cultures and ethnic groups based on the materials of archeology: Tashkovo - 2 Settlement]. state University, 1997, 132 p. (in Russian)

Kovaleva V. T., Ryzhkova O. V., Shamanaev A.V. Tashkovskaya kul'tura: Poselenie Andreevskoe ozero-13. - Yekaterinburg: Ural. state University, 2000. - 160 p.

Koryakova L. N., Stefanov V. I., Stefanova N. K. Problemy metodiki issledovaniya drevnykh pamyatnikov i kul'turno-khronologicheskaya stratigrafiya poseleniya Uk-3 [Problems of methods for studying ancient monuments and cultural and chronological stratigraphy of the settlement of Uk-3]. Sverdlovsk: Institute of History and Archeology of the Ural Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1991, 72 p.

Kosarev M. F. Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoy Sibiri [The Bronze Age of Western Siberia], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, 278 p.

Matveev A.V. The first traces of interaction between the Alakul and Tashkov tribes of the Pritobol region // Ancient and modern culture of the peoples of Western Siberia. Tyumen: Tyumen State University, 1995, pp. 48-52.

Matveev A.V. The first Andronovtsy in the forests of the Trans-Urals. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1998, 417 p. (in Russian)

Matveev A.V. Forest-steppe Trans-Urals in the second - early first millennium. B.C.: Author's abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS, 2000, 50 p. (in Russian)

Matveeva N. P., Volkov E. N., Ryabogina N. E. Antiquities of the Ingal Valley: New monuments of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2003, issue 1, 174 p.

Molodin V. I. Baraba in the Bronze Age. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1985, 200 p. (in Russian)

Panfilov A. N. Novyi tip pamyatnikov rannego bronzovogo veka v yuzhno-taezhnom Tobolo-Irtysh'e [A new type of monuments of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern taiga Tobolo-Irtysh region]. Tyumen: Tyumen State University, 1989, pp. 150-157.

Panfilov A. N. Multilayer settlement Serebryanka-1 in the Lower Ishim region: Results of field research. Tyumen: IPOS SB RAS, 1993, 80 p. (in Russian)

Potemkina T. M. Problema svyazi i smena kul'tury naseleniya Zaural'ya v epokhu bronzy (rannii i sredni etapy) [The problem of connections and change of cultures of the Trans-Urals population in the Bronze Age (early and Middle stages)].

Starkov V. F. Mesolith and Neolith of the forest Trans-Urals, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, 220 p.

Stefanov V. I., Korochkova O. N. Andronovo antiquities of the Tyumen region. Yekaterinburg: Ural State University, 2000, 106 p. (in Russian)

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 16.06.10, in the final version-on 26.12.10.

page 54

Permanent link to this publication: