the role of migration in the evolution of the andronov community
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 1/9
Copyright © 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the RussianAcademy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1016/j.aeae.2008.11.007
ARCHAEOLOGY,
ETHNOLOGY
& ANTHROPOLOGY
OF EURASIAArchaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96
E-mail: [email protected]
88 THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. TkachevTyumen Oil and Gas University,
Volodarskogo 38, Tyumen, 625000, Russia
E-mail: [email protected]
Institute for the Exploration of the North, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Malygina 86, Tyumen, 625000, Russia
E-mail: [email protected]
THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION
OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
Introduction
Being virtually universal, migration is a multifaceted
socio-cultural phenomenon. One of its functions is
to redistribute human populations between regions,
stimulating cultural translation and the emergence of
new traditions, which, in turn, results in the convergence
of unrelated cultures and in the formation of new
ethnic groups. Also, migration is an important factor
affecting socio-economic processes and demographic
characteristics such as birth rate, mortality, marriage
patterns, and sex-and-age structure.The emergence of new cultural stereotypes in newly-
populated regions is closely linked to the migrants’
cultural and economic activities. Insofar as these activities
concern adaptation to new environments, their traces are
preserved in material culture and are documented by the
archaeological record. One of the best cultural indicators
is ceramics, which is very sensitive to migratory
processes.
The article explores new approaches to the study of the Andronov culture, with special reference to migration.
Archaeological data from a vast territory over the steppes between the Urals and the Yenisei suggest that migration
was a key factor in population history. In the Middle Bronze Age, two migration waves from the Irtysh River basin,
Kazakhstan, have been reconstructed. The ¿rst of them led to the convergence of groups representing various cultures,
and eventually to the emergence of the Andronov community; the second wave not only brought about the territorial
expansion of the Andronov traditions, but also provided a basis for the emergence of Late Bronze Age rolled pottery
and Andronov-type cultures.
Archaeological findings of recent decades have
prompted us to address the role of migration in the origin
and evolution of the Andronov cultural community, which
occupied huge territories of the steppe and forest-steppe
belts stretching from the Urals to the Yenisei.
The study of prehistoric migration has proceeded in
two major directions. On the one hand, attempts have
been made to reveal the causes underlying migration, and
on the other hand, consequences for both the immigrants
and the autochthonous populations have been analyzed
(Chernosvitov, 1999: 5).
Two main theories have been put forward to explainthe causes of migration. One of them focuses on the
importance of surplus population pressure under a stable
economic level, whereas another one emphasizes the role
of environmental, primarily climatic, processes occurring
within specific geographic zones. Reconstructing the
Eurasian steppe environments during the Bronze Age is a
dif cult task since no palynological record is available for
most of these territories. Normally, archaeologists conduct
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 2/9
N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96 89
paleogeographic analysis with regard to their own region
on the basis of general climatic diachronic tendencies,
extrapolating these to local landscape and climate changes
(see, e.g., (Kosarev, 1974)).
Bronze Age migrations were evidently affected by
both surplus population pressure and climatic changes.
The migration proceeded both in the longitudinal andthe latitudinal direction, in both reverse and crosswise
streams. Sometimes the immigrants formed enclaves
surrounded by the native populations, resulting in a
patchy cultural pattern. Intercultural contacts caused
cultural amalgamation, eventually contributing to
cultural progress.
The impact of climate on migration
To reconstruct the climate of central Eurasia, it is
especially important to examine data concerning theuctuations of the Aral Sea level. Being a lake, the Aral
was a sensitive indicator of general humidization and
aridization of the paleoclimate in the region. Divergent
views have been expressed as to the causes underlying
the fluctuations of the Aral Sea level. According to
A.V. Shnitnikov (1969: 116, 136, 157, table 15), the key
factor was general humidity, which follows 1850-year-
long cycles of solar activity. He estimated the duration of
the three last cycles based on historical and archaeological
data pertaining to the Aral area.
I.G. Weinbergs and V.Y. Stelle (1980: 177 – 180)
have proposed a different reconstruction, based on
palynological evidence. In their view, during the Late
Pleistocene and Early Holocene the Aral Sea receded.
The environment at that time was characterized by
tundra and steppe landscapes, and the climate was dry
and cold. Later, the transgression of the Aral Sea began,
coinciding with the climatic optimum. The next regression
stage, coinciding with the Bronze Age, was caused by a
certain aridization of the climate. The above differences
notwithstanding, both Shnitnikov’s and Weinbergs and
Stelle’s reconstructions proceed from the assumption that
uctuations of the Aral Sea level were caused by changes
in humidity level.
A divergent view concerning the causes was published by memb ers of th e Khor ezm Ar chaeol og ical and
Ethnographical Expedition (Nizovya Amu-Daryi…,
1960: 14, 23, 80–81, 83–89; Kes, Andrianov, Itina, 1980:
188–189). They believe that the transgressions of the Aral
Sea occurred only when the Amu-Darya drained into it;
when the river changed its course, regression took place.
Before the 2nd millennium BC, the Aral Sea was in the
regressive stage as the Amu-Darya disembogued all its
waters into Lake Sarykamysh, and only in the late 3rd
and early 2nd millennia did the river break through the
Akchadarya into the Aral Sea for the rst time. The date
of the event was established on the basis of the presence
of late Kelteminar and Kamyshla sites in the northern
Akchadarya delta. Throughout the 2nd millennium BC,
the Aral delta of the Amudarya was formed, and from the
early 1st millennium onward, the Amudarya disembogued
into the Aral Sea, resulting in the last transgression.
A study of the ora and fauna of the Ustyurt Plateauand of the Syrdarya and Amudarya inter uve suggests
that over the interval from 10–4 ka BP, the climate was
similar to that of the modern steppe zone. At that time,
northwestern Central Asia and the Ustyurt were covered
with rich herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, making those
territories favorable for human residence (Vinogradov,
1981: 19–46; Mamedov, 1980: 98, 170–171). Later, the
climate became more arid, and desertification began
(Markov et al., 1982: 235–240).
The reconstructed climatic changes in Western Central
Asia and Kazakhstan during the Holocene were paralleled
by those described by N.A. Khotinsky for Western Siberia(1977: 163–165, 180; Khotinsky, Nemkova, Surova,
1982: 150–151). According to Khotinsky et al., the
climatic optimum began during the Boreal period, and
its upper limit was the Atlantic – Sub-Boreal boundary.
The Sub-Boreal and Sub-Atlantic stages of the Holocene
are regarded as a single and relatively stable period in
the climatic history of Northern Eurasia. In Western
Siberia, the climate became somewhat colder compared
to the Atlantic period, the area covered by r and broad-
leaved forests shrank, and the sub-taiga and taiga zones
became swampier. These processes were unaccompanied
by considerable uctuations of humidity level or shifts of
the boundary between forest and steppe, which had been
established as early as the Atlantic period.
The topography of archaeological sites in various
regions of Western Siberia and Kazakhstan indicates that
the climate in the Sub-Boreal period was very unstable.
Humidification led to the northward displacement of
landscape and vegetation zones. Not only the border
between the steppe and the forest-steppe shifted, but that
between the forest-steppe and the forest as well (Kosarev,
1974: 24–27; 1979; Molodin, Zakh, 1979: 52; Potemkina,
1979: 59; Khabdulina, Zdanovich, 1984: 150). The
Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2nd – early 1st millennia
BC), as most specialists believe, coincided with the sub-Boreal period. Unlike the preceding period, which was
moderately humid and relatively warm, and the beginning
of the Early Iron Age, which was moderately arid and
warm, the Sub-Boreal period was characterized by a dry
climate with temperatures 2–4 °С below modern ones
(Evdokimov, 2000: 58; Potemkina, 1985: 28).
The comparison of climatic processes that occurred
in northern Kazakhstan and Western Siberia, on the one
hand, and in Western Central Asia, on the other, suggests
that these processes largely paralleled one another in
intermediate steppe zones. This idea is supported by
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 3/9
90 N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96
archaeological observations: sites dating from all periods
of the Bronze Age are situated on riverine terraces which
are not submerged during oods; deep utility pits are
dug down below the modern ground-water level; and
the cultural layers in depressions are overlaid by alluvial
deposits.
The above facts indicate that despite a somewhatlesser humidity of climate in the Bronze Age, the overall
environmental conditions during the Sub-Boreal period
were close to modern ones. The temperature was somewhat
above the modern temperature, and the vegetation period
was longer. The territory between the Urals and the Aral
Sea was covered by grassland steppe with considerable
arboreal vegetation in river valleys, passing into forest-
steppe with patches of forest in the north. Thus, favorable
conditions of the Trans-Ural steppes contributed to the
emergence of several Bronze Age cultures based on
a mixed economy, apparently due to the immigrants’
successful adaptation to local environments.
Migration and the emergence
of the Andronov cultures
The Andronov cultural community is a central element in
the Bronze Age history of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes.
By the mid-1900s, the principal viewpoints regarding the
origin, chronology, and evolution of the Andronov culture
had been formulated, including the idea that Andronov
cultures had existed in the Trans-Ural steppes for a
long time. The study of Andronov assemblages resulted
in a scheme where local cultures were merged under
the blanket term “Andronov community” (Formozov,
1951: 18). In later years, dozens of Andronov sites were
excavated throughout a vast territory stretching from the
Volga to the Yenisey, and from the southern fringes of the
taiga to Western Central Asia. As a result, the principal
challenge is to develop a cultural and chronological
classification of artifacts representing the Andronov
community (Fedorova-Davydova, 1973: 152). The
further accumulation of data over the entire distribution
range of that community led to the appearance of
divergent theories concerning the origin and interaction
of its constituent cultures (Matyuschenko, 1973; Kosarev,1981; Kiryushin, 1985; Potemkina, 1985; Zdanovich,
1988; Avanesova, 1991; Varfolomeyev, 1991; Kuzmina,
1994; A.A. Tkachev, 2002).
A separate theory is proposed by S.S. Chernikov
(1960) and is based on materials from the Kazakhstan
part of the Irtysh basin. Chernikov proceeds from the fact
that the Andronov traditions originated in a culturally
diverse core area in the steppe zone of Kazakhstan, from
where they spread to the Trans-Ural region, the Upper Ob,
Yenisei, and Western Central Asia. Cultural uniformity,
according to that view, was due both to common descent
and to similar economies. Ethnic differences arose in
the course of migrations and interactions. According
to Chernikov, the evolution of the Andronov culture
evidences a community of several cultural, hence ethnic,
groups, and this community is especially pronounced at
the nal stage of their existence. This theory accounts
not only for the cultural and chronological specicity of Andronov tribes of eastern Kazakhstan, but also for the
similar sequence of historical processes across the vast
distribution area of the Andronov community.
Modern theories fall into two major groups –
migrationist and evolutionist. Most scholars feel that the
Alakul culture is rooted in the Trans-Ural Chalcolithic
(Matyushin, 1982: 297–300; Stokolos, 1983: 257; Logvin,
1991: 52–53; 2002: 35–37). The focal area was initially
believed to have been situated in the Tobol and Ishim
steppes (Potemkina, 1983: 13, g. 1; 1985: 273), and
since the discovery of Sintashta assemblages and the
recognition of the independent cultural status of earlyAlakul (Petrovka) sites, the southern Trans-Ural area and
the adjoining steppe regions of Kazakhstan have been
viewed as the most likely sources (Tkachev V.V., 1998:
46; Vinogradov N.B., 2007: 35–36).
The migrationists expressed divergent views as to
the core area where the Andronov (Fedorovo) culture
had originated. Three areas have been mentioned: the
Trans-Ural region (Potemkina, 1985: 272–273; Kosarev,
1991: 81), eastern Kazakhstan (Stokolos, 1972: 115;
Maksimenkov, 1978: 87; Tkacheva, 1997; Tkachev A.A.,
2002: 190), and central Kazakhstan (Kuzmina, 1994: 114–
122; Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006: 135). The evolutionists
regard the Andronov community as polyphyletic and
resulting from a continuous in situ evolution of various
cultures representing this community (Salnikov, 1967;
Zdanovich, 1984; Avanesova, 1991; Matveyev, 1998).
Stratigraphic observations made at several multi-
layered sites in the Tobol basin, and in northern and
central Kazakhstan indicate that the Alakul-Atasu and
Fedorovo-Nura ceramics are present with roughly equal
frequencies in the same cultural horizons (Zdanovich,
1974: 65, g. 4; Potemkina, 1976: 101–105; 1985: 47,
83; Kadyrbayev, 1983: 134–139; Tkachev A.A., 2002:
tables 22, 31). In most cases, those horizons are overlaid
by deposits with Alexeyevka-Sargary pottery decoratedwith rolls. At stratied Western Siberian sites (Omsk,
Irmen I, Krasny Yar, and Kudelka-2), Andronov deposits,
situated at the bottom of the sequence, are overlaid by
Irmen layers of the Late Bronze Age (Gryaznov, 1956:
30–36; Chlenova, 1955: 38–47; Zakh, 1997: 66). In other
words, no stratigraphic data is available to date to assess
the relative chronology of Alakul-Atasu and Fedorovo-
Nura assemblages.
The stratigraphy and planigraphy of the sites along
with results of the statistical analysis of the proportion
of various types of ceramics indicate, first, that an
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 4/9
N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96 91
independent Andronov culture (Kanay) existed in the
region between the Irtysh and the Yenisei, and second,
that the Alakul-Atasu and Andronov-Kanay populations
coexisted in the Tobol – Irtysh interfluve during the
Middle Bronze Age. No evidence suggesting that one of
the two traditions is ancestral to the other, i.e. that Alakul
originated from Fedorovo (as Salnikov believes) or viceversa (as Zdanovich, Avanesova, and Matveyev believe)
is known to date. Rather, ceramic assemblages from
nonstratied Andronov-type sites attest to a common basis
of early Alakul (Sintashta, Petrovka, Nurtay) and early
Andronov (Kanay) traditions; apparently those traditions,
their specicity notwithstanding, emerged on adjacent and
environmentally similar territories.
The principal source of the Andronov tradition in the
Upper Irtysh basin was the pre-Andronov Ust-Bukon
tradition, believed to represent a separate stage of the
Bronze Age of that region (Chernikov, 1960; Tkacheva,
1997). According to Kosarev (1981: 105), the Ust-Bukonceramics display certain original features linking it
to the Samus ceramics of Western Siberia. Kiryushin
(2002: 84) suggested that pre-Andronov assemblages
of eastern Kazakhstan, the foothills of the Altai, and
the Upper Ob represent a single culture. This idea is
hardly acceptable since the difference between the
eastern Kazakhstan sites and those of the Altai is more
pronounced than the similarity between them. A certain
resemblance of ceramic assemblages of both territories is
“more likely due to evolutionary factors” (Ibid.: 86) than
to cultural ones.
Pottery similar to that of the Ust-Bukon tradition has
been found at the Chalcolithic sites of Chemar I, and
Nurbay II and III on the borderline between the Upper
Irtysh basin and its Pavlodar section (Maerz, 2004:
g. 2). Traditions represented by sites such as Chemar I,
in our view, underlie the origin of the Early Bronze Age
assemblages of the Ust-Bukon type. These sites dene
the northern border of the pre-Andronov tradition of
eastern Kazakhstan, coinciding with that of the Kazakh
hummocky topography and of the southwestern foothills
of the Altai. Sites situated north of it, in the steppe zone of
the Pavlodar part of the Irtysh basin, are in some respect
similar to those of the Yelunino-Krotovo type (Maerz,
2003: 133, g. 1, 1, 18 – 20). Populations associated withthese sites were apparently displaced or, more likely,
assimilated, by the early Kanay tribes living on the Upper
Irtysh at the early stage of the northward migration along
the Irtysh valley.
The Ust-Bukon pottery resembles that of the
southwestern Siberian cultures: Odinovo, Krokhalevka,
Yelunino, and Vishnevka, mostly that of Vishnevka in
northern Kazakhstan, richly decorated with oblique
imprints, and round and triangular pits combined with
wavy and horizontal lines (Tatarintseva, 1984: 104–110,
g. 2, 2, 5, 4 – 15). Most researchers date the Early Bronze
Age traditions to the last quarter of the 3rd millennium –
rst third of the 2nd millennium BC (Krizhevskaya, 1977:
96; Kosarev, 1981: 62; Tatarintseva, 1984: 112; Molodin,
1985: 34; Kiryushin, 2002: 82).
The Ust-Bukon tradition, from which the Andronov
tradition originated, was related to the Kanay culture,
which, having emerged in eastern Kazakhstan, underwentthree continuous stages (Tkacheva, 1997). At the
early stage of Kanay proper (18th–17th cent. BC), its
distribution area was restricted to the mountain-steppe
part of the Upper Irtysh basin. The ceramics of that
stage is still similar to that of the Okunev culture of the
Minusinsk Basin and of the Krotovo-Yelunino tradition of
the Western Siberian forest-steppe. At the next, Marinino,
stage (17th–16th cent. BC), the Kanay populations
began expanding into the steppe regions of the Pavlodar
part of the Irtysh basin and the adjoining parts of the
Altai. Marinino ceramics is represented by jars and pot-
jars decorated with incisions and comb imprints. Thedecoration became progressively more geometric, and
oblique triangles appeared.
Marinino artifacts are diverse, the most distinct ones
being palmate pendants with bosses. Apart from marking
the Marinino stage of the Kanay culture, these pendants
make it possible to delineate the distribution area of that
culture in the second quarter of the 2nd millennium BC –
the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin and the adjacent
steppe regions of the Altai. Similar pendants were found
at burial grounds such as Michurino I, Kenzhekol I,
Novo- Al exan drovka, Firsov o XI V, Kytma novo,
Rublevo VIII, as well as in a Krotovo culture burial
at Sopka II, the Baraba forest-steppe (Molodin, 1985:
fig. 34, 21). Outside the Ob-Irtysh region, the only
pendant of that type was discovered at Murza-Shoku in
central Kazakhstan (Margulan, 1979: 311, g. 226, 58).
The resemblance of ceramic assemblages of the
above sites, situated close to one another in the same
environmental zone, points to the territory where the
common Andronov cultural tradition had formed, and
from where it spread across the steppe belt of Eurasia
mostly due to migration. At the Marinino stage, when
the climate was becoming progressively more arid, some
groups of migrants advanced along the steppe corridor as
far east as the Yenisei (Elkin, 1967; Maksimenkov, 1978),and, along the Irtysh valley, into the forest-steppe and the
sub-taiga zone, where they contacted the Krotovo people,
who borrowed from them certain elements of ceramic
decoration and some types of ornaments (Molodin, 1985:
37, 115, g. 34, 1, 16 , 21).
Other Kanay groups migrated into the steppes of central
Kazakhstan, resulting in the emergence of settlements
with a peculiar economy based on animal breeding and
metallurgy (Atasu, Ust-Kenetay, Ikpen I and III). Contacts
between the natives and the immigrants led to the
emergence of the Atasu and Nura cultures (Margulan et al.,
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 5/9
92 N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96
1966; Kadyrbayev, 1983: 139–142, g. 2; A.A. Tkachev,
2002: 18–29, 95–113, 191). In the Ishim basin, migrations
and inter-tribal clashes among the Petrovka populations
are evidenced by the appearance of fortied settlements
on the left bank of the Ishim (Zdanovich, 1988: 133). In
the forest-steppe part of the Tobol basin, the situation
was apparently more stable. Here, only a single fortiedsettlement is known: Kamyshnoye II (Potemkina, 1985:
99). Such settlements are absent in the Kustanay part of
the Tobol basin, suggestive of a relatively late migration
of groups associated with the already formed Fedorovo
tradition. The source of migration was the trans-Uralian
forest-steppe, where a local variant of the Fedorovo
culture originated from the tradition introduced by Kanay
migrants. In the Tobol–Ishim inter uve, contacts between
native and immigrant groups are reected by numerous
sites showing mixed Alakul-Fedorovo assemblages
(Evdokimov, Varfolomeyev, 2002: g. 8, 1, 3, 17 – 19; 10,
1 – 21; Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006; Usmanov, 2005).The scarcity and small size of fortied sites associated
with the Petrovka culture, on the one hand, and the
presence of burials with Kanay pottery at the Petrovka
burial ground, on the other, indicate that migrants from the
Irtysh area coexisted with Petrovka natives. What purpose
the Sintashta fortified sites served, is yet uncertain.
Specialists studying these trans-Uralian “proto-cities,”
claim that people who had constructed those settlements
differed from the natives by a higher socio-cultural level,
and controlled the steppes from the Volga to the Ishim. If
so, the emergence of fortied settlements such as Arkaim
and Sintashta in the southern Urals is even more dif cult
to explain.
Two scenarios that might account for the observed
facts have been proposed. The rst possibility is that
people who constructed those sites had migrated to the
Trans-Ural area from very distant territories (Grigoryev,
1999). Alternatively, the fortications may have been
built by the natives in order to resist the Abashevo people,
who had arrived from the west (Potemkina, 1984), or the
Andronov-Kanay people who had arrived from the east
(Tkacheva, 1997).
The first hypothesis is unacceptable since
no assemblages that could possibly be regarded as
prototypical for Sintashta have been discovered either in areas adjacent to the trans-Uralian steppes or in more
distant territories such as Kazakhstan, the northern Black
Sea area, Western Central Asia, the Near and the Middle
East, or the Balkans. The second hypothesis is more
plausible since all the Sintashta settlements and burial
grounds contain a considerable amount of Abashevo
ceramics and a somewhat lesser proportion of Andronov-
Kanay ceramics (Gening V.F., Zdanovich, Gening V.V.,
1992). This testies to the heterogeneity of the Sintashta
culture, which included both autochthonous and newly
introduced traditions. Also, this evidences a complex
military and political situation in the Trans-Uralian region,
culminating in the appearance of fortied settlements and
the emergence of a war-oriented society.
At the same time, the map of Sintashta fortied centers
shows that these occupy a narrow strip along the eastern
piedmonts of the Urals. Possibly they protected the inland
steppe areas of the Trans-Urals and Kazakhstan (theTobol basin and the Turgay steppes, which had been the
core area of the Sintashta-Petrovka people) from western
intruders – the Abashevo people. While the study of
relevant sites in that area is in the initial stage, large and
original burial grounds of the Sintashta-Petrovka type
have already been discovered.
Having migrated from their homeland to the
forest-steppe zone east of the Urals, the Kanay people
encountered the autochthonous tribes associated with
the Sintashta-Petrovka tradition. The contacts led to the
emergence of the Alakul and Fedorovo assemblages.
Ceramics found at Fedorovo-type sites east of the Urals(Fedorovo, Urefty I, Smolino), differs from that of
eastern Andronov sites: while the shape of the vessels
and the arrangement of patterns is similar, certain Alakul
traits are present. These include the impoverishment
of the decoration and the appearance of a specically
Alakul feature – an unornamented stripe between the
neck and the body. This feature is present in ceramics
both from classical Fedorovo sites such as Fedorovo
(Salnikov, 1940: pl. I, 1, 2, 5, 6 , 11), Smolino (Salnikov,
1967: fig. 48, 10), and Sineglazovo (Andronovskaya
kultura…, 1966: pl. VI, 8, 9)), and from mixed Alakul-
Fedorovo assemblages (Chernyaki II (Stokolos, 1968:
g. 2, 1, 3 – 5), Subbotino (Potemkina, 1973: g. 3, 6 , 7 ),
Urefty I (Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006: g. 59, 8, 10; 60,
4), and Priplodny Log I (Malyutina, 1984: g. 5, 4)). The
unornamented stripe and scantier patterns distinguish
sites such as Fedorovo from eastern Andronov ones such
as Andronov proper. Apparently, the sources of these
traditions were different.
The first migration of the Kanay people occurred
before the appearance of funneled earrings in their
culture (such earrings are absent at Fedorovo sites east
of the Urals). However, a distinctly eastern (Fedorovo)
feature did appear as a result of in situ evolution of the
Kanay tradition: quadrangular dishes. The Kanay groups’attempts to maintain their ethnic specificity in alien
surroundings are evidenced by the transformation of the
burial rite of the newly-formed Fedorovo population.
While in the Irtysh basin, cremation was practiced by the
Kanay people in exceptional cases only, the westward
migration led to the distribution of that rite, which was
practiced more and more frequently, eventually becoming
predominant in the Trans-Ural area. All these facts
testify to the emergence of a separate population group
characterized by distinct cultural traits. In our view, the
name “Fedorovo” should be used only with regard to the
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 6/9
N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96 93
trans-Ural sites, as suggested by Salnikov (1951: 109;
1967: 288), and not with regard to the entire Andronov
cultural community.
The Fedorovo ceramics of the trans-Ural region is very
different from that of the Kyzyltas type manufactured
in the Upper Irtysh basin at the nal stage of the Kanay
culture, which had originated from the Marinino tradition.The Kyzyltas ceramics evolved from the Marinino
ceramics, whereas the Fedorovo ceramics was heavily
inuenced by the Petrovka-Alakul tradition.
Small Kanay groups which had migrated into the
forest belt of Western Siberia, preserved the custom of
decorating the entire body of the vessels, which was
typical of people living in the Kazakhstan part of the
Irtysh basin, as exemplied by sites such as Duvanskoye
XVII (Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983: 147–148, g. 1, 1,
2, 4, 7 ), Cheremukhovy Kust (Zakh, 1995: g. 8, 4; 17,
10; 20, 1, 5), and Chernoozerye (Viktorov, Borzunov,
1974: 20 – 23,
g. 2, 6 , 7 ). In Chernoozerye, the Kanay people, threatened by hostile natives, had to reinforce
the settlement with a ditch, and a rampart with a wooden
palisade. Among the sites with Andronov-Kanay ceramics,
this is the only one which is fortied.
The contact zone between the steppe regions of
Kazakhstan and Altai is underexplored. It seems that one
of the main routes leading to the east began on the Uba (a
right tributary of the Irtysh), the sources of which are close
to those of the Aley (a left tributary of the Ob). On the
upper Aley, the burial ground Karbolikha I was excavated;
its burial constructions, rite, and burial goods resemble
those of the Irtysh cemeteries (Mogilnikov, 1980: 155).
The burial grounds of the Kanay culture in the Kazakhstan
part of the Irtysh area are in some respects very similar
to the Andronov ones of the steppe Altai. Specically,
surface structures above the graves are indistinct, children
were buried on separate burial grounds, and the burial rite
and artifacts share certain common features.
People whom the Andronov-Kanay tribes encountered
while migrating in various directions differed in terms
of cultural level. In the west, the migrants experienced
considerable pressure from the Alakul people, whose
society was socially, economically, and culturally similar
to theirs; by contrast, the Yelunino-Krotovo people,
whom the Andronov-Kanay people met in the forest-steppe Irtysh area and on the Upper Ob, were associated
with an evolutionary less advanced Early Bronze Age
culture. The eastward advance from the Ob into the
Yenisei steppes was rather rapid. In the steppe corridor
between the Ob and the Yenisei, in the Kuznetsk and
Minusinsk basins, far less Andronov sites are known
than in the Irtysh basin or in the steppe Altai. The
Andronov people of the Altai and the Kazakhstan part
of the Irtysh basin maintained permanent contacts, and
this territory was the core area of the Andronov cultural
tradition. That was the source of Andronov migrations,
and the area where the Andronov people coexisted with
Yelunino and Krotovo tribes for a long time, because
they occupied different ecological niches.
At the nal stage of the Kanay culture – Kyzyltas – the
decoration of ceramics manufactured by the inhabitants
of the Kazakhstan and Altai steppes became more
scantily ornamented, pots with a rich decoration becamerare, comb impressions on pottery became larger, the
standard pattern was a horizontal herringbone combined
with various pits, and the percentage of jar-like vessels
increased. The specific feature of the latest Kyzyltas
ceramics are vessels with high cylindrical necks. Among
other artifacts, funneled earrings are the most indicative.
They are believed to be typical of eastern Andronov
tribes and do not occur in non-Andronov assemblages
(Avanesova, 1991: 50–53).
The second expansion of the late Kanay tribes
coincides with the end of the Kyzyltas stage (1400–1300
BC), when, due to extremely arid conditions, dry andsemidesert steppes were distributed in Kazakhstan, and
the steppe and forest-steppe zones in Western Siberia
shifted to the north (Kosarev, 1974: 152). Assemblages
associated with this migration wave are marked by
funneled earrings, which appeared in the early second
half of the 2nd millennium BC. They were found at
Maly Koitas, Kyzyltas, Berezovsky, Barashki, Zevakino,
Menovnoye IX on the upper Irtysh, Rublevo VIII in
the Ob-Irtysh inter uve (Kiryushin et al., 2006: g. 1,
2–4), and Kytmanovo in the Chumysh basin (Umansky,
Kiryushin, Grushin, 2007: 27, 30, g. 63, 17 – 19; 64,
18, 19). Outside the steppe zone of the Kazakhstan
Irtysh basin and the Altai, a few funneled earrings were
found in burials on the Yenisei (Pristan I, Sukhoye
Ozero I (Maksimenkov, 1978: pl. 52, 2, 4)), in northern
Kazakhstan (Sokolovka (Zdanovich, 1988: pl. 10c, 20,
21) and Borovoye (Orazbayev, 1958: pl. IV, 1, 7 ; V, 14,
20)) and in central Kazakhstan (Sanguyr II (Kadyrbayev,
1961: pl. II, 2, 5)), as well as in the Ob basin (Yelovka II
(Matyuschenko, 2004: g. 45, 6 , 7 ; 235, 3, 4)).
In our view, the latest earrings are cast with a globular
thickening in the base of the funnel, and those forged from
nail-like plates. The latter appeared in the 14th or early
13th cent. BC. Ceramic assemblages of that time include
vessels scarcely decorated with a simple herringbone, pinches, and nail imprints (Zevakino, Berezovsky,
Barashki). During the transition period from the Middle
Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age, all types of earrings
coexisted, and certain specimens were still used in the
Late Bronze Age (Ermolayeva, 1987: 69, g. 31, 2).
During the Middle to Late Bronze Age transition,
small late Kanay (Kyzyltas) populations reentered
the Minusinsk Basin and the steppes of northern and
central Kazakhstan, but the principal migration wave
was directed toward Western Central Asia, Dzhetysu,
and southern Kazakhstan. In those regions, numerous
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 7/9
94 N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96
Andronov sites are known, and in many of them funnel-
shaped earrings have been found (Avanesova, 1991:
g. 44, 29 – 31; Gorbunova, 1995: g. 3, 9; Maryashev,
Goryachev, 1999: g. 5, 1 – 3; Potemkina, 2001: g. 3,
11). Precisely at that time, temporary settlements of the
Andronov type appeared in the southern taiga zone of the
Ob basin, marking the northern border of the distributionarea of Kanay tribes during the second migration wave.
Conclusions
The settlement and economic exploitation of huge
underpopulated areas of the Eurasian steppes was affected
by numerous and diverse factors, both geographical and
socio-economical. Examining migration as a mechanism
of population history, we have arrived at the following
conclusions:
(1) The proto-Alakul and proto-Kanay groupscoexisted on adjacent territories.
(2) People associated with various related cultural
traditions, while apparently speaking related (northern
Indo-Iranian) languages and sharing a common descent
(Kuzmina, 1994: 221–222), exhibited considerable
differences, both physical (Dremov, 1997: 81; Bagashev,
2000: 9–10), and cultural. The latter concerned ceramic
production (Loman, 1993: 29; 1995: 97), elements of
costume, and ornaments (Evdokimov, Usmanova, 1990:
66–71; Khabarova, 1997: 93–94).
(3) The rst migration from eastern Kazakhstan (late
17th – early 16th cent. BC) resulted in the convergence
of various ethno-cultural groups and the emergence of the
Andronov cultural community.
(4) The second migration from the steppe areas of
the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin and the Altai
(14th – early 13th cent. BC) not only expanded the
distribution area of the Andronov community, but provided
a basis for the emergence of the Late Bronze Age tradition
of rolled ceramics in the steppes of Kazakhstan and Western
Central Asia, and of Andronov-type cultures in the forest-
steppe and southern taiga belts of Western Siberia.
References
Andronovskaya kultura: (Pamyatniki zapadnykh
raionov). 1966
Iss. 1. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka. (Sbornik arkheologi-
cheskikh istochnikov; iss. V3-2).
Avanesova N.A. 1991
Kultura pastusheskikh plemen epokhi bronzy aziatskoi
chasti SSSR. Tashkent: Fan.
Bagashev A.N. 2000
Formirovanie drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya
Zapadnoi Sibiri po dannym kraniologii. D.Sc. (History)
Dissertation. Moscow.
Chernikov S.S. 1960
Vostochnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. MIA, No. 88.
Chernosvitov P.Yu. 1999
Osvoenie Krainego Severa : Opyt imita t ivnogo
modelirovaniya po materialam arkheologii. Cand. Sc. (History)
Dissertation. Moscow: IA RAN.
Chlenova N.L. 1955
O kulturakh bronzovoi epokhi lesostepnoi zony Zapadnoi
Sibiri. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 23: 38–57.
Dremov V.A. 1997
Nas elenie Ver khne go Priobya v epok hu bron zy
(antropologichesky ocherk). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.
Elkin M.G. 1967
Pamyatniki andronovskoi kultury na yuge Kuzbassa.
Iz vest iya Laborato ri i arkheo logicheski kh is sl edovanii
(Kemerovo), iss. 1: 89–95.
Ermolayeva A.S. 1987
Pamyatniki perekhodnogo perioda ot epokhi bronzy k rannemu
zhelezu. In Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki v zone zatopleniya
Shulbinskoi GES . Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR, pp. 64–94.
Evdokimov V.V. 2000Istoricheskaya sreda epokhi bronzy stepei Tsentralnogo i
Severnogo Kazakhstana. Almaty: Inst. arkheologii NAN RK.
Evdokimov V.V., Usmanova E.R. 1990
Znakovyi status ukrashenii v pogrebalnom obryade (po
materialam mogilnikov andronovskoi kulturno-istoricheskoi
obschnosti iz Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana). In Arkheologiya
Volgo-Uralskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk. Gos. Univ.,
pp. 66–80.
Evdokimov V.V., Varfolomeyev V.V. 2002
Epoha bronzy Tsentralnogo i Severnogo Kazakhstana.
Karaganda: Karagand. Gos. Univ.
Fedorova-Davydova E.A. 1973
K probleme andronovskoi kultury. In Problemy arkheologii
Urala i Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 133–152.Formozov A.A. 1951
K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii andronovskoi kultury.
KSIIMK , iss. 39: 3–18.
Gening V.F., Zdanovich G.B., Gening V.V. 1992
Sintashta: Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki ariiskikh plemen
Uralo-Kazakhstanskih stepei, pt. 1. Chelyabinsk: Yuzh.-Ural.
kn. izd.
Gorbunova N.G. 1995
O kulture stepnoi bronzy Fergany. Arkheologichesky sbornik
Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, iss. 32: 13–30.
Grigoryev S.A. 1999
Drevnie indoevropeitsy: Opyt istoricheskoi rekonstruktsii.
Chelyabinsk: UrO RAN.
Gryaznov M.P. 1956K voprosu o kulturakh epokhi pozdnei bronzy v Sibiri.
KSIIMK , iss. 64: 27–42.
Kadyrbayev M.K. 1961
Mogilnik Sanguyr II. Trudy IIAE AN KazSSR, vol. 12: 48–60.
Kadyrbayev M.K. 1983
Shestiletnie raboty na Atasu. In Bronzovyi vek stepnoi polosy
Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos.
Univ., pp. 134–142.
Kes A.S., Andrianov V.V., Itina M.A. 1980
Dinamika gidrograficheskoi seti i izmeneniya urovnya
Aralskogo moray. In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo
regiona v golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 185–197.
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 8/9
N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96 95
Khabarova S.V. 1997
Kulturno-khronologicheskoe sootnoshenie alakulskogo i
fedorovskogo zapadnogo kompleksov. In Tobolskii istoricheskii
sbornik , iss. 2, pt. 1. Tobolsk: Tobolsk. Gos. Ped. Inst., pp. 92–102.
Khabdulina M.K., Zdanovich G.B. 1984
Landshaftno-klimaticheskie kolebaniya golotsena i voprosy
kulturno-istoricheskoi situatsii v Severnom Kazakhstane.
In Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk:
Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 136–158.
Khotinsky N.A. 1977
Golotsen Severnoi Evrazii. Moscow: Nauka.
Khotinsky N.A., Nemkova V.K., Surova T.G. 1982
Glavnye etapy razvitiya rastitelnosti i klimata Urala v
golotsene. In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya Severa Evrazii.
Sverdlovsk: Ural. Gos. Univ., pp 145–153.
Kiryushin Yu.F. 1985
Eneolit, rannyaya i razvitaya bronza Verkhnego i Srednego
Priobya. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk.
Kiryushin Yu.F. 2002
Eneolit i rannyaya bronza Zapadnoi Sibiri. Barnaul: Altai.
Gos. Univ.Kiryushin Yu.F., Pozdnyakova O.A.,
Papin D.V., Shamshin A.B. 2006
Kollektsiya metallicheskikh ukrashenii iz pogrebenii
andronovskogo kompleksa mogilnika Rublevo VIII. In Altai v
sisteme metallurgicheskikh provintsii bronzovogo veka. Barnaul:
Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 33–44.
Korochkova O.N., Stefanov V.I. 1983
Poselenie fedorovskoi kultury. In Bronzovyi vek stepnoi
polosy Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk.
Gos. Univ., pp. 143–151.
Kosarev M.F. 1974
Drevnie kultury Tomsko-Narymskogo Priobya. Moscow:
Nauka.
Kosarev M.F. 1979K probleme paleoklimatologii i paleogeograi yuga Zapadno-
Sibirskoi ravniny v bronzovom i zheleznom vekakh. InOsobennosti
estestvenno-geograficheskoi sredy i istoricheskie protsessy v
Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 37–42.
Kosarev M.F. 1981
Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoi Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka.
Kosarev M.F. 1991
Drevnyaya istoriya Zapadnoi Sibiri: Chelovek i prirodnaya
sreda. Moscow: Nauka.
Krizhevskaya L.Y. 1977
Rannebronzovoe vremya v Yuzhnom Zaurale. Leningrad:
Izd. Leningrad. Gos. Univ.
Kuzmina E.E. 1994
Otkuda prishli indoarii?: Materialnaya kultura plemenandronovskoi obschnosti i proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev.
Moscow: Ros. inst. kulturologii RAN i MK RF.
Logvin A.N. 1991
Kamennyi vek Kazakhstanskogo Pritoboliya (mezolit –
eneolit). Alma-Ata: Kaz. Gos. Ped. Univ.
Logvin A.N. 2002
Turgaisky progib v epokhu mezolita – eneolita. D.Sc.
(History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk.
Loman V.G. 1993
Goncharnaya tekhnologiya naseleniya Tsentralnogo
Kazakhstana vtoroi poloviny II tysyacheletiya do n.e. Cand. Sc.
(History) Dissertation. Moscow.
Loman V.G. 1995
Andronovskoe goncharstvo: Obschie priemy izgotovleniya
sosudov. In Rossiya i Vostok: Problemy vzaimodeistviya, Pt. 5.
bk. 1. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 96–100.
Maerz V.K. 2003
O novykh pamyatnikakh epokhi rannei bronzy Kazakhstana.
In Istorichesky opyt khozyaistvennogo i kulturnogo osvoeniya
Zapadnoi Sibiri, bk. 1. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 132–141.
Maerz V.K. 2004
Novye materialy po eneoli tu i rannei bronze Severo-
Vostochnogo Kazakhstana. In Novye is sledovaniya po
arkheologii Kazakhstana. Almaty: Inst. arkheologii MON RK,
pp. 165–169.
Maksimenkov G.A. 1978
Andronovskaya kultura na Enisee. Leningrad: Nauka.
Malyutina T.S. 1984
Mogilnik Priplodnyi Log I. In Bronzovyi vek Ura lo-
Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos. Univ.,
pp. 58–79.
Mamedov E.D. 1980
Izmenenie klimata sredneaziatskikh pustyn v golotsene.In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo regiona v
golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 170–175.
Margulan A.H. 1979
Begazy-dandybaevskaja kultura. Alma-Ata: Nauka
KazSSR.
Margulan A.H., Akishev K.A.,
Kadyrbaev M.K., Orazbaev A.M. 1966
Drevnyaya kultura Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata:
Nauka KazSSR.
Markov K.K., Burashnikova T.A.,
Muratova M.V., Suetova I.A. 1982
Klimaticheskaya model i geogracheskie zony vremeni
golotsenovogo optimuma na territorii SSSR. In Antropogenovye
faktory v istorii razvitiya sovremennykh ekosistem. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 230–240.
Maryashev A.N., Goryachev A.A. 1999
Pamyatniki kulsaiskogo tipa epokhi pozdnei i finalnoi
bronzy Semirechya. Istor iya i arkheo log iya Semirechya
(Almaty), iss. 1: 44–56.
Matveyev A.V. 1998
Pervye andronovtsy v lesakh Zauralya. Novosibirsk:
Nauka.
Matyuschenko V.I. 1973
Drevnyaya istoriya naseleniya lesnogo i lesostepnogo
Priobiya (neolit i bronzovyi vek). Pt. 3: Andronovskaya kultura
na verkhnei Obi. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.
Matyuschenko V.I. 2004
Elovsky arkheologichesky kompleks. Elovskii II mogilnik.Doirmenskie kompleksy, pt. 2. Omsk: Omsk. Gos. Univ.
Matyushin G.I. 1982
Eneolit Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka.
Mogilnikov V.A. 1980
Pamyatniki andronovskoi kultury na Verkhnem Alee.
In Drevnyaya istoriya Altaya. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ.,
pp. 155–159.
Molodin V.I. 1985
Baraba v epokhu bronzy. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
Molodin V.I., Zakh V.A. 1979
Geomorfologicheskoe raspolozhenie pamyatnikov epokhi
neolita i bronzy v basseine rek Obi, Ini, Omi i ikh pritokov.
7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 9/9
96 N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96
In Osobennosti estestvenno-geogra ¿cheskoi sredy i istoricheskie
processy v Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.,
pp. 51–53.
Nizovya Amu-Daryi, Sarykamysh, Uzboi:
Istoriya formirovaniya i zaseleniya. 1960
Materialy Khorezmiiskoi ekspeditsii, iss. 3.
Orazbayev A.M. 1958
Severnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. Trudy IIAE AN
KazSSR, vol. 5: 216–294.
Potemkina T.M. 1973
K voprosu o sootnoshenii fedorovskikh i alakulskikh
kompleksov. Iz istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 7: 53–64.
Potemkina T.M. 1976
Kamyshnoe II – mnogosloinoe poselenie epokhi bronzy na
r. Tobol. KSIA, iss. 147: 97–106.
Potemkina T.M. 1979
Topograficheskaya i gidrograficheskaya priurochennost
poselenii epokhi bronzy v Srednem Pritobole. In Osobennosti
estestvenno-geogra ¿cheskoi sredy i istoricheskie processy v
Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 58–60.
Potemkina T.M. 1983Alakulskaya kultura. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2:
13–33.
Potemkina T.M. 1984
Rol abashevtsev v protsesse razvitiya alakulskoi kultury.
In Epokha bronzy Vostochno-Evropeiskoi lesostepi. Voronezh:
Voronezh. Gos. Univ., pp. 77–108.
Potemkina T.M. 1985
Bronzovyi vek lesostepnogo Pritobolya. Moscow: Nauka.
Potemkina T.M. 2001
Ukrasheniya iz mogilnika epokhi bronzy Dashti-Kozy.
Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnogra ¿i (Tyumen), iss. 3:
62–72.
Salnikov K.V. 1940
Andronovsky kurgannyi mogilnik u s. FedorovkiChelyabinskoi oblasti. MIA, No. 1: 58–68.
Salnikov K.V. 1951
Bronzovyi vek Yuzhnogo Zauralya. MIA, No. 21: 94–151.
Salnikov K.V. 1967
Ocherki drevnei istorii Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka.
Shnitnikov A.V. 1969
Vnutrivekovaya izmenchivost komponentov obschei
uvlazhnennosti. Leningrad: Nauka.
Stefanov V.I., Korochkova O.N. 2006
Urefty I: Zauralsky pamyatnik v andronovskom kontekste.
Ekaterinburg: Ural. Gos. Univ.
Stokolos V.S. 1968
Pamyatnik epokhi bronzy – mogilnik Chernyaki II. Uchenye
zapiski Perm. gos. univ., iss. 191: 210–223.Stokolos V.S. 1972
Kultura naseleniya bronzovogo veka Yuzhnogo Zauralya
(khronologiya i periodizatsiya). Moscow: Nauka.
Stokolos V.S. 1983
Suschestvoval li novokumaksky gorizont. Sovetskaya
arkheologiya, No. 2: 257–274.
Tatarintseva N.S. 1984
Keramika poseleniya Vishnevka I v lesostepnom Priishime.
In Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk:
Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 104–113.
Tkachev A.A. 2002
Tsentralnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. Tyumen: Tyumen.
Gos. Neftegaz. Inst.
Tkachev V.V. 1998
K probleme proiskhozhdeniya petrovskoi kultury.
Arkheologicheskie pamyatnik i Orenburzhya (Orenburg),
iss. 2: 38–56.
Tkacheva N.A. 1997
Pamyatniki epokhi bronzy Verkhnego Priirtyshya. Cand. Sc.
(History) Dissertation. Barnaul.
Umansky A.P., Kiryushin Yu.F., Grushin S.P. 2007
Pogrebalnyi obryad naseleniya andronovskoi kultury
Prichumyshya (po materialam mogilnika Kytmanovo). Barnaul:
Altai. Gos. Univ.
Usmanova E.R. 2005
Mogilnik Lisakovskii I: Fakty i paralleli. Karaganda:
Karagand. Gos. Univ.; Lisakovsk: Lisakovsk. muzei istorii i
kultury Verkhnego Pritobolya.
Varfolomeyev V.V. 1991
Sary-Arka v kontse bronzovoi epokhi. Cand. Sc. (History)
Dissertation. Alma-Ata.Viktorov V.P., Borzunov V.A. 1974
Gorodische epokhi bronzy u sela Chernoozere na Irtyshe. Iz
istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 15: 19–23.
Vinogradov A.V. 1981
Drevnie okhotniki i rybolovy Sredneaziatskogo
mezhdurechya. Moscow: Nauka. (Trudy Khorezm. arkheol.-
etnogr. ekspeditsii; iss. 13).
Vinogradov N.B. 2007
Kulturno-istoricheskie protsessy v stepyakh Yuzhnogo
Urala i Kazakhstana v nachale II tys. do n.e.: Pamyatniki
sintashtinskogo i petrovskogo tipov. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation.
Moscow.
Weinbergs I.G., Stelle V.Y. 1980
Pozdnechetvertichnye stadii razvitiya Aralskogo morya i ikhsvyaz s izmeneniyami klimaticheskikh uslovii etogo vremeni.
In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo regiona v
golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 175–181.
Zakh V.A. 1995
Poselok drevnikh skotovodov na Tobole. Novosibirsk:
Nauka.
Zakh V.A. 1997
Epokha bronzy Prisalairya. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
Zdanovich G.B. 1974
Poselenie epokhi bronzy Novonikolskoe I (po raskopkam
1970 g.). Iz istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 15: 61–68.
Zdanovich G.B. 1984
K voprosu ob andronovskom kulturno-istoricheskom
edinstve. KSIA, iss. 177: 29–37.Zdanovich G.B. 1988
Bronzovyi vek uralo-kazakhstanskih stepei. Sverdlovsk:
Ural. Gos. Univ.
Received April 10, 2008.