Socio-cultural processes in the Eneolithic of the Ural region were associated with both evolutionary changes in local post-Neolithic societies and migration activity of the population of more southern territories, which significantly complicates the cultural and historical analysis of archaeological materials. Until recently, the chronology and periodization of the Ural Eneolithic was based primarily on stratigraphy, artifact typology, and researchers ' intuition. The article analyzes more than 150 radiocarbon dates obtained for different regions of the Urals and adjacent territories. The beginning of the Eneolithic period in the Volga-Ural region at the turn of the VI and V millennia BC is associated with migrations of the carriers of the ceramic traditions of the Vyezzhensk and Khvalyn types. In the second half of the 5th millennium BC, local Eneolithic traditions were formed: the Tok and Turganik Volga-Urals, comb and lozhnurovaya Trans-Urals, Noeoilinskaya and Garinsko-Bor Kama regions. The most recent is the beginning of the Eneolithic on the territory of Northern Kazakhstan.

Keywords: Eneolithic of the Urals, chronology, radiocarbon dates, ceramic traditions.

Introduction

The chronology and periodization of the early metal epoch in the Urals can only be considered in the general context of the Volga-Ural and West Siberian processes. At the beginning of the Eneolithic, and then at the turn of the Eneolithic period and the Bronze Age, migration activity was noted in the southern part of the region, which led to the transformation of the foundations of the socio-economic system. In the northern part, the process of transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic was of an evolutionary nature. The changes that took place radically changed the appearance and composition of archaeological sites, making it very difficult to compare different groups: pit burials contain a minimum amount of utensils, which is the main cultural diagnostic category for Eneolithic sites and settlements. At the same time, the nature of Eneolithic funerary rites differs significantly from pit traditions.

Finally, there is the problem of periodization criteria (in terms of distinguishing the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age), since technological grounds do not give a clear answer to this question. It is also likely that the process of mastering the metallurgy of copper and bronze is asynchronous, suggesting the possibility of parallel existence of different technological traditions in neighboring territories. One of the possible solutions to this problem is serial radiocarbon dating of cultural types (including direct determination of absolute age).

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project N 14 - 06 - 00041) and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (state assignments No. 32.2644.2014/ k, 33.1195.2014/k).

ceramics) and comparison of the intervals obtained as a result of summation of probabilities among themselves. Without discussing the existing problems of such work, it should be noted that for the Neolithic period, this version of the study demonstrated its effectiveness [Vybornoye, Mosin, and Epimakhov, 2014].

Characteristics of the radiocarbon date database

The accumulation of the source base for the Eneolithic of the Urals took place in the second half of the XX century. By the 1980s, the criteria for its allocation were defined, materials of the main monuments were published, and existing problems were identified [Bader, 1961; Krizhevskaya, 1977; Eneolithic..., 1980; Starkov, 1980; Volga-Ural Steppe..., 1982; Matyushin, 1982]. Due to the lack of radiocarbon dates, the chronology and periodization of the Ural Eneolithic was based primarily on stratigraphy, artifact typology, and researchers ' intuition. The frequent co-occurrence of various types of ceramics in cultural layers created serious problems in the chronological and cultural identification of Eneolithic complexes. Obtaining and publishing a series of radiocarbon dates at the beginning of the XXI century [Vybornoye, 2008; Kosintsev, 2008; Lychagina, 2011,2013; Morgunova, 2011; Voprosy arkheologii..., 2011; Chernykh, Kuzminykh, Orlovskaya, 2011; Anthony, 2007; Kislenko, Tatarintseva, 1999; Shishlina et al., 2009] allowed for the following data:- a new approach to the characteristics of the Eneolithic period in the Urals.

At the time of writing, there were more than 150 dates for the territory under consideration (for 58 monuments), grouped according to the territorial principle (Volga-Urals, Kama Region, Trans-Urals and Northern Kazakhstan; Figure 1). The data set for the first two regions was considered in series in accordance with the generally accepted cultural division, and for the Trans - Urals-the entire sample, since no significant chronological differences were found between the individual groups. Analyses were performed in 13 laboratories for ceramics (about half), wood, coal and bone (human and animal). The share of AMS dates is small (12 %). A number of extremely old and rejuvenated dates had to be abandoned (less than 6 %). To summarize the results, we used the procedure for summing the probabilities of calibrated values (OxCal 3.10 program). In our conclusions, we were forced to focus on calibration with a probability of one sigma, otherwise the intervals turned out to be too wide for comparative analysis.

Data for diachronic analysis are available primarily for the Volga-Ural region (Morgunova, Zaitseva, Kovalyukh, and Skripkin, 2009; Morgunova, Khokhlova, and Zai-

Fig. 1. Map-diagram of the study region.

tseva et al., 2003; Chernykh and Orlovskaya, 2009; et al.] and the forest Trans-Urals [Chairkina, Kuzmin, Burr, 2013], where monuments of the Early Bronze Age are not only identified, but also serially dated. There is noticeably less certainty about the Trans-Ural steppe and forest-steppe materials, which are similar to the yamal ones in a number of features [Degtyareva, 2010; Malyutina and Zdanovich, 2013; et al.]. There is also a lot of uncertainty in the chronology of monuments in the forest zone of the western slope of the Ural Mountains [Chernykh, Kuzminykh, Orlovskaya, 2011]. Single dates are available for materials from the beginning of the Bronze Age in Northern Kazakhstan (Kislenko and Tatarintseva, 1999).

Results of radiocarbon dating of cultural types

The Volga-Ural antiquities of the Eneolithic period represent several traditions: Szezhenskaya, Khvalynskaya, Tokskaya, Turganikskaya, etc. (Figure 2).

2. Eneolithic ceramics of the Volga-Ural region. 1-Sizhinsky burial ground [Vasiliev and Matveeva, 1979, p. 156, fig. 7, 5]; 2, 6 - Khvalynsky I burial ground [Agapov, Vasiliev, Pestrikova, 1990, p. 130, fig. 34, 2]; 3, 5, 7 - Ivanovskoe poselenie [Morgunova, 1995, 58, 1: p. 158, fig. 62, 2; Vasiliev, 1990, p. 60, fig. 4, 4]; 4-settlement of Lebyazhinka III [Ovchinnikova, 1995, p. 171, fig. 4,1]; 8, 11-Gundorovskoe settlement [Vasiliev and Ovchinnikova, 2000, p. 274, Fig. 34, 10; Korolev and Ovchinnikova, 2009, p. 299, fig. 2, 4]; 9-Lebyazhinka IV settlement [Vasiliev and Ovchinnikova, 2000, p. 276, Fig. 36, 1]; 10 - Chekalino IV parking lot [Korolev, 2011, p. 221, fig. 2, 1].

3. Radiocarbon chronology of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age of the Volga-Ural region: graphs of probability sums of the main traditions. I - sezzhenskaya; II-khvalynskaya; III - bezvorotnichkovaya.

Detailed characteristics of sites and burial grounds are well presented in special publications, some of which are mentioned above. The oldest in the series is the szhezzhensky interval (25 dates)* - 5250 - 4500/ 5400 - 4000 On the one hand, it is precisely in the Sezzhenskaya series that a large number of strongly dated dates are revealed (Fig. 1) excluded from the statistical generalization; on the other hand, in some cases, the results of analyses are verified by cross-dating in different laboratories, including using accelerator technologies. In addition, similar values were obtained for different dating materials. These circumstances allow us to think that the overall result is generally reliable. This is also indicated by the uniformity of the distribution of dates in the time interval. The division of the Sezzhenskaya series into two stages according to typological criteria did not reveal their asynchrony (with a reservation about the insufficient number of analyses in each case), although there are a number of younger dates for the second stage.

The Khvalynsky series (17 samples) differs radically from the rest by the extensive use of accelerator technologies and the predominance of dates obtained from human bones. The latter circumstance could significantly affect the overall result (5050 - 4350/5400 - 3900 BC) due to the reservoir effect, the presence of which is confirmed by special studies; for specific samples, the difference in values can reach two to three centuries [Shishlina et al., 2009]. The adoption of this amendment corrects the conclusion about the relative chronology of the Khvalyn and Szezhenskaya traditions, determining the great antiquity of the latter.

The turnless ceramic complexes of the Volga-Ural region are most often considered separately (the Tok and Turganik traditions, etc.)**, but in our case their combination allowed us to obtain a series close to the confidence threshold (24)*** * and forming a monolithic interval when summing up 4300 - 3700/4450 - 3500 years B.C. Comparison with Szezhenskoye and Khvalyn graphs shows a significantly lower age of the analyzed series.

The number of dates for pit antiquities corresponds to the confidence threshold, but there is a significant difference in the values obtained from different materials. The dates for soil and ceramics are significantly older. The latter can be explained by the use of fossil mollusk shells by ancient potters [Chernykh and Orlovskaya, 2011, p.67] or silts [Kuznetsov, 2013, p. 20]. Regardless of the reasons for this effect, using these results in summation significantly distorts the overall result. Therefore, not considering all values collectively seems more appropriate. Chronological framework

*The calculations used the results of 21 analyses. Dates that are significantly older than the rest of the population (more than 200 years in conventional values) and require additional verification are not taken into account when adding up.

** Hereafter, the first calibration interval has a probability of one sigma (68.2 %), the second - two (95.4 %).

*** Table 1 contains ten dates related to the Volosovo tradition of the Gundorovo settlement.

**** Excluded three results whose uncalibrated values are more than 350 years older than the others.

Table 1. Volga-Ural region

End of Table 1

Note: Italics indicate data that was not taken into account when summing probabilities.

pit antiquities without taking into account dates for ceramics 3350-2490 BC (Chernykh and Orlovskaya, 2011, p. 66) do not coincide with the Eneolithic boundaries. The probable reason for this is that the interval of the latter is determined mainly by the results of dating ceramic complexes. A special mention should be made of a series of monuments with Repin ceramics (Kuznetsov, 2013). Separate consideration of groups of dates obtained from different materials clearly illustrates the conclusion that almost all the early ones are the result of dating ceramics. In this regard, the interval 3090-2630 BC, determined by summing up six dates by bone, seems more reliable than 3700-2600 BC, calculated from the sum of all values.

4. Eneolithic ceramics of the Kama region. 1,2 - Russko-Azibeyskaya parking lot [Gabyashev, 1978, p. 30, fig. 7, 3, 4]; 3,4 - South II settlement [Vybornoye, Elizarov and Ovchinnikova, 1985, p. 46, fig. 12, 1; fig.. 11, 1]; 5, 7 - Kochurovskoe IV [Nagovitsyn, 1987, p. 164, fig. 8, 22; p. 164, fig. 8, 18]; b-Novoilinskoe III [Nagovitsyn 8, 18]; 8-Tatarsko-Azibeyskoe II [Ibid., fig. 8, 21]; 9 - Bor I settlement [Bader, 1961, p. 38, Fig. 14]; 10, 11-Bor V [Ibid., p. 89 55, 4; 3].

Table 2. Kama region

The Prikamskaya series is the most ambiguous in terms of cultural identification of specific samples (Fig. 4) and the spread of dates. It distinguishes two groups, none of which reaches the threshold value of 20 samples (Table 2). In addition, the vast majority of analyses were performed for ceramics in one laboratory, although the earliest and latest dates were obtained for coal.

The collared ceramic tradition, which arose under the influence of migrants who left the Siezzhensky and Khvalynsky burial grounds, is dated in the interval when summing up the probabilities of calibrated values (six samples). 4490 - 4050/4600 - 3500 years BC (fig. 5). This allows us to state that it is more recent relative to the Sezzhenskaya and Khvalynskaya rivers. Novoilinsky and Garinsko-Bor materials (19 analyses) demonstrate extreme heterogeneity. Received interval (4300 - 1900/4300 - 1700 BC) is divided into three parts:

5. Radiocarbon chronology of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age of the Kama region: graphs of probability sums of the main traditions. I - vorotnichkovaya; II-novoilinskaya, garinsko-borskaya.

b. Eneolithic ceramics of the Trans-Urals. 1-Savin I sanctuary (excavations by M. P. Vokhmentsev); 2, 3-Robber Island site (Chairkina, 2005, p. 138); 4-Slabodchiki I sanctuary (excavations by M. P. Vokhmentsev); 5-Makusha Sh settlement [Ibid., p. 174]; 6-Chepkul-21 burial ground (Zakh, 2009, color incl., fig. 11); 7, 8-Kochegarovo I settlement (excavations by V. S. Mosin).

7. Radiocarbon chronology of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age of the Trans-Urals: graphs of the sum of probabilities of the main periods. I - Eneolithic; II-Early Bronze age.

the line segment*. Obviously, in this form, the series cannot be fully interpreted meaningfully. At the same time, even at this level, the chronological position of Novoilya-type materials can be traced earlier than that of Garin and Bor.

The Trans-Ural Eneolithic is currently represented by more than 100 monuments, but objects made of copper or traces of metallurgy are found only in every fifth, despite the rich ore base. These complexes include various types of ceramics, which are characterized by ornamentation with impressions of a comb stamp with simple and geometric motifs, a "walking comb", impressions of large-combed and framed stamps," caterpillars", a rope and retreating tattoos (lozhnoshnurovaya) [Mosin, 2008]. The remaining Trans-Ural monuments are assigned to the Eneolithic on the basis of typological features in ceramics (Fig. 6) and stone tools. The list of dates given describes sites and settlements, including peat bogs, sanctuaries (Savin I and Slabodchiki I), the cult site Koksharovsky hill and the ground burial grounds Buzan-3 and Chepkul-21 (Table 3).

The total number of analyses exceeds the confidence threshold (41). Samples of wood, coal, ceramics and animal bones were dated in eight laboratories, three of them using accelerator technology. There are no formal grounds for excluding any dates from the summation procedure, although they form a two-vertex figure on the graph with a "boundary" near the middle of the IV millennium BC (Fig. 7)**, but when summing the probabilities of the calibrated values, a very long interval is obtained (4300 - 3000/4500 - 2200 years BC).

The number of post-Eneolithic materials is currently limited, but a small but very compact series of dates dating back to the Early Bronze Age of the forest zone has been obtained from them. Interval 2470 - 2200/2600 - 2000 The period from 2000 to 2000 BC does not coincide with the Eneolithic period, but generally corresponds to the ideas of periodization. Time will tell whether the gap is caused by the scanty nature of the series or the difference in dating materials and dating technologies.

Given the presence of pit-shaped monuments in the Trans-Ural steppe, their correlation with the Eneolithic chronology should also be considered. The zone of overlapping intervals is the last third of the IV millennium BC. Materials of the post-well period in the steppe regions are fragmentary and, in fact, undated.

The Seero-Kazakhstan series, despite its small number (11 samples), still does not raise doubts due to its monolithic nature and a significant proportion of AMS dates (Table 4). However, this applies only to the Eneolithic (3750 - 2900/3800 - 2700 years BC; fig. 8)***. For the Early Bronze Age, there are only two very heterogeneous samples that can be formally combined within an extended interval - 2900 - 2000/2950 - 1950 It seems that in this case the uncertainty of cultural attribution of the sample from the materials of the Balandino settlement also affected. Based on these considerations, as well as due to the inconsistency of the date with the general periodization, we focused on the earlier one

* Separate calculation of the Novoilinskaya and Garinsko-Bor groups did not give fundamentally new results due to their internal inconsistency.

** In some cases, it is not possible to clearly correlate samples with one cultural type on peatland sites, but there is no doubt that they belong to the Eneolithic period.

*** In our opinion, the multi-vertex graph is caused only by a relatively small number of analyses.

Table 3. Trans-Urals

End of Table 3

Note: italics indicate data without cultural identification included in the series on the occurrence of the sample in the Eneolithic layer.

See Table 4. Northern Kazakhstan

Note: Italics indicate data that was not taken into account when summing probabilities.

Figure 8. Radiocarbon chronology of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age on the territory of Northern Kazakhstan: graphs of the sum of probabilities of the main periods. I - Eneolithic; II-Early Bronze age.

Figure 9. Absolute chronology of the main cultural traditions of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age in the regions under consideration. Volga-Ural region: 1-szhezhenskaya, 2-khvalynskaya, 3-vorotnichkovaya, 4-yamnaya, 5 - Repin Khutor; Prikamye: 6-Vorotnichkovaya, 7-novoilinskaya, Garinsko-borskaya; Trans-Urals: 8-Eneolithic, 9-Early Bronze; Northern Kazakhstan: 8-Eneolithic, 9-Early bronze.

interval 2880 - 2630/2910 - 2490 years BC, which is generally close to the chronology of monuments of the early Bronze Age of the forest Trans-Urals (see above).

Conclusions

The transition to the Eneolithic in the Ural region was very uneven. In the middle of the Neolithic period, at the turn of the VI-V millennium BC, carriers of Eneolithic ceramic traditions of the Syezzhensky and Khvalynsky types migrated from the south to the Volga-Urals with dishes made of silt with an artificial admixture of shells and having a collar design of corollas. Migrants had a significant impact on the local Neolithic population, forming symbiotic "collar" traditions not only in the Southern Urals, but also in the Lower Kama region. However, this was not a complete replacement process. Throughout the first half of the fifth millennium BC, the Eneolithic traditions of migrants coexisted with the local Neolithic ones - the unornamented, late ringed, and toothed-combed ones. In the second half of the fifth millennium BC, the Tok, Turganik, and similar Eneolithic sites were formed on the basis of the comb-shaped tradition of the Late Neolithic of the Volga-Urals(Fig.

At the turn of the Neolithic and Eneolithic, in the second half of the fifth millennium BC, in the Trans-Urals, the retreating-knurled component of the Poludensk complexes evolved into a lozhnosnurovaya, combed - into a combed Eneolithic with simple and geometric patterns. At the same time, the Boborykin tradition continued to exist, the latest dates of which relate to the final phase of the Eneolithic (Vybornov, Mosin, and Epimakhov, 2014). In the Kama region in the second half of the fifth millennium BC, the Novoilya and Garin-Bor complexes were formed on the basis of the Kama Neolithic tradition.

At present, the Eneolithic complexes of the Urals can be effectively analyzed only from the standpoint of identifying ornamental and technological traditions of making dishes and their combinations in individual societies. The communities were linked by a wide network of social ties through family-marriage and economic relations, as well as the mobility of groups within economic zones that united different landscapes.

List of literature

Agapov S. A., Vasiliev I. B., Pestrikova V. I. Khvalynsky Eneolithic burial ground. Saratov: Sarat State University, 1990, 159 p.

Bader O. N. Settlements of the Turbinsky type in the Middle Kama region, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1961, 199 p. (MIA; N 99).

Vasiliev I. B. Pozdny eneolit yuga lesostepnogo Povolzhya [Late Eneolithic of the southern forest-steppe Volga region]. Izhevsk: Udmurt, Institute of History, Language and Literature of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1990, pp. 52-69.

Vasiliev, I. B. and Matveeva, G. I., Burial ground near the village of Szhezheye on the Samara River, SA. - 1979. - N 4. - pp. 147-166.

Vasil'ev I. B., Ovchinnikova N. V. Eneolit // Istoriya Samarskogo Povolzhya s drevneyshikh vremen do nashim dne: Kamenny vek [History of the Samara Volga region from ancient times to our days: Stone Age]. - Samara: Samar. Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000, pp. 216-277.

Volga-Ural steppe and forest-steppe in the Early Metal age. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev State Pedagogical Institute, 1982, 210 p.

Voprosy arkheologii Urala: sb. nauch. trudy [Questions of the Archeology of the Urals], Yekaterinburg; Surgut: Magellan, 2011. 26. - 263 p.

Vybornov A. A. Neolithic of the Volga-Kama Region. Samara: Publishing House of the Samara State Pedagogical University. univ., 2008, 490 p. (in Russian)

Vybornov A. A., Elizarov A. B., Ovchinnikova N. V.

The settlement of Sauz II and the problem of periodization of the Early metal epoch of Lower Belaya / / Antiquities of the Middle Volga region. - Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev. State University, 1985, pp. 30-50.

Vybornoye A. A., Mosin V. S., Epimakhov A.V. Khronologiya uralskogo neolita [Chronology of the Ural Neolithic]. - 2014. - N 1. - p. 33-48.

Gabyashev R. S. Russian-Azibey parking lot // Antiquities of the Ik-Belsky interfluve. Kazan: [B. I.], 1978, pp. 22-39.

Degtyareva A. D. Istoriya metalloproizvodstva Yuzhnogo Zaural'ya v epokhu bronzy [History of metal production in the Southern Trans-Urals in the Bronze Age]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 2010, 162 p. (in Russian)

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

Korolev, A. N., Materials of the Forest Circle from the Chekalino IV site in the Forest-steppe Trans-Volga region (based on the results of excavations in 2007), Tverskoy arkheologicheskiy sbornik, 2011, issue 8, pp. 219-228.

Korolev A. I., Ovchinnikova N. V. K voprosu o kul'turno-khronologicheskoi otnoshenii keramiki "s vnutrennego rebrom" s poseleniyakh Samarskogo Povolzhya [On the question of cultural and chronological belonging of ceramics "with an inner edge" from settlements of the Samara Volga region]. Tver: Triada Publ., 2009, issue 7, pp. 296-1304.

Kosintsev P. A. Results of determination of bone remains from the settlement of Novo-Bairamgulovo (from excavations in 2004). East. ekon. - jur. gumanit. Academies, 2008, No. 6, pp. 52-55.

Krizhevskaya L. Ya. Early Bronze age in the Southern Trans-Urals. - L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1977. - 287 p.

Kuznetsov, N. F., Dating of the monument at Repin Khutor and chronology of culturally related materials of the Early Bronze Age of the Steppe zone of Eastern Europe, RA. -2013. - N 1. - pp. 13-21.

Lychagina E. L. Problems of Neolithic - Early Eneolithic chronology in the Kama region // Vestn. Perm. Ser. University: History and Political Science. - 2011. - Issue 1. - p. 17-21.

Lychagina E. L. Rannii eneolit Prikamya: Voprosy khronologii novoilinskaya kul'tury [The Early Eneolithic of the Kama Region: Issues of Chronology of the Novoilya culture]. theme of the scientific conference-St. Petersburg: Scythia-print, 2013. - pp. 153-156.

Malyutina T. S., Zdanovich G. B. Kizilsky I burial ground: at the origins of the construction of Arkaim fortresses // Etnicheskie vzaimodeystviya na Yuzhnom Urale: sb. nauch. trudy [Ethnic interactions in the Southern Urals: collection of scientific works]. Chelyabinsk: Rifey, 2013, pp. 51-64

Matyushin G. N. Eneolite of the Southern Urals, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1982, 328 p.

Morgunova N. L. Neolithic and Eneolithic of the southern forest-steppe of the Volga-Ural interfluve. Orenburg: Publishing House Orenburg, State Pedagogical University. univ., 1995, 222 p. (in Russian)

Morgunova N. L. Eneolith of the Volga-Ural interfluve. Orenburg: Publishing House of Orenburg State Pedagogical University. univ., 2011, 220 p. (in Russian)

Morgunova, N. L., Zaitseva, G. I., Kovalyukh, N. N., and Skripkin, V. V., New radiocarbon dates of Eneolithic, Early and Middle Stages of the Bronze Age in the Volga and Ural regions, in Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Orenburzhya. Orenburg: Orenburg Publishing House. state ped. un-ta, 2009, issue 9, pp. 53-75.

Morgunova N. L., Khokhlova O. S., Zaitseva G. N., Chichagova O. A., Goleva A. A. Results of radiocarbon dating of archaeological sites of the Southern Urals. Appendix 1 / / Shumaevskie kurgany. Orenburg: Publishing House of Orenburg State Pedagogical University. un-ta, 2003, pp. 264-274.

Mosin V. S. Tsentral'nyi Ural ' v IV-III ka B.C. [The Central Urals in the IV-III millennium BC].

Nagovitsyn A. L. Novoilinskaya, garinsko-bor'skaya i yurtikovskaya kul'tury [Novoilinskaya, garinsko-bor'skaya and yurtikovskaya cultures]. Epokha bronzy lesnoy poloski SSSR [The Bronze Age of the forest strip of the USSR], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 28-34, 164.

Ovchinnikova N. V. Lebyazhinka III-settlement of the Eneolithic era in the forest-steppe Zavolzhye / / Ancient cultures of the Forest-steppe Volga region. Samara: Samara State Pedagogical University . un-t Publ., 1995, pp. 164-191.

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

Chairkina N. M. Eneolith of the Middle Trans-Urals. Yekaterinburg: Ural State University Publ., 2005, 410 p. (in Russian)

Chernykh E. N., Kuzminykh S. V., Orlovskaya L. B. Metalliferous cultures of the forest zone outside the Circum-Pontic province system: problems of radiocarbon chronology of the IV-III millennium BC / / Analytical Studies of the Laboratory of Natural Science Methods, Moscow: Taus, 2011, issue 2, pp. 59-61.

Chernykh, E. N. and Orlovskaya, L. B., Databases of radiocarbon dating and corrections of the relativistic chronology of the Early Metal epoch, Analiticheskie issledovaniya laboratorii naturalnonauchnykh metodov, Moscow: Taus, 2009, issue 1, pp. 26-41.

Chernykh E. N., Orlovskaya L. B. Ceramics and radiocarbon dating in the framework of the yamnaya archaeological community: problems of interpretation // Analytical studies of the Laboratory of Natural Science Methods, Moscow: Taus, 2011, issue 2, pp. 63-79.

Eneolith of Eastern Europe: collection of scientific works-Kuibyshev: Kuibyshev State Pedagogical Institute, 1980, 192 p.

Anthony D.W. The horse, The wheel and language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. -Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2007. - 553 p.

Chairkina N.M., Kuzmin Y.V., Burr G.S. Chronology of the perishables: first AMS ¹⁴C dates of wooden artifacts from Aeneolithic-Bronze Age waterlogged sites in the Trans-Urals, Russia // Antiquity. - 2013. - Vol. 87, N 336. - P. 418 - 429.

Kislenko A., Tatarintseva N. The Eastern Ural Steppe at the End of the Stone Age // Late prehistoric exploitation of the Eurasian steppe. - Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 1999. -P. 183 - 216.

Shishlina N.I., Zazovskaya E.P., Plicht J. van der, Hedges R.E.M., Sevastyanov V.S., Chichagova O.A. Paleoecology, Subsistence, and ¹⁴C Chronology of the Eurasian Caspian Steppe Bronze Age // Radiocarbon. - Vol. 51, N 2. - 2009. -P. 481 - 499.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 22.01.14.

Permanent link to this publication: