The paper presents the results of studying the elements of the funerary rite of the eastern variant of the Pakhomov culture at the Old Garden burial ground in the Barabinsk forest-steppe. The variability of the types of organization of sacred space (17 units), the variety of objects used to create sacred space (ditches, punctures, pits, etc.), which differ in shape and number under each mound, are established. It is traced that the mound was a permanent object of sacralization, in all the graves the rite of placing a corpse is recorded, and not a secondary burial, which is characteristic of the Pakhom culture of the Tobolsk-Ishim interfluve. A hypothesis is put forward about the mixing of various traditions, about the active interaction of the population of the eastern area of the Pakhom culture with the autochthons of the Barabinsk forest-steppe, and the preservation of the main features of the funeral rite by all participants in these processes.

Keywords: archeology, organization of sacred space, funeral rite, Eastern version of the Pakhom culture, Late Bronze Age, cultural interactions.

The Old Garden Monument is located in the Vengerovsky district of the Novosibirsk region, 5 km southwest of the village. Vengerovo, 600 m south of the abandoned orchard on the southern edge of the indigenous terrace of Gosudaryovo Lake. The burial ground was actively destroyed under the influence of an anthropogenic factor: there were quarries on its territory where clay was extracted (Molodin et al., 2010, 2011). Some of the mounds were dismantled by local residents or plowed up. 97 objects were recorded on the monument (initially their number could have been more), of which 94 were excavated.

The Old Garden burial ground was opened in 1983 by V. I. Molodin. The first excavations of the monument were carried out in 1983 by N. V. Polosmak and V. I. Molodin. The main part of the burial complexes in 1983-84 and 1987 was investigated by A.V. Neskorov; he excavated 87 burial mounds (Molodin et al., 2010, p. 247). The obtained materials made it possible to determine the cultural and chronological heterogeneity of the monument and identify groups of burial mounds belonging to the epochs of the developed Bronze Age (Andronovo (Fedorovskaya) culture), Late Bronze Age (VOS-

This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Resolution No. 220), received by the Altai State University, project No. 2013 - 220 - 04 - 129 "Ancient settlement of Siberia: formation and dynamics of cultures in Northern Asia".

exact variant of the Pakhomovo culture), Early Iron Age (Sargat culture). It should be noted that at the time of V. A. Neskorov's study of the Old Garden burial ground, the eastern variant of the Pakhomovo culture had not yet been identified [Ibid.]. Later, with an increase in the amount of archaeological data, it was suggested that an independent cultural group existed on the territory of the Baraba forest-steppe in the Late Bronze Age (Molodin and Neskorov, 1992, p. 94). To date, several monuments have been identified here that correlate with the Pakhomov culture, its eastern variant (Molodin et al., 2012, pp. 62-63) (Fig. 1).

Research of the burial ground continued in 2010-2011 under the supervision of V. I. Molodin and L. N. Mylnikova (Molodin et al., 2010; Molodin, Mylnikova, and Neskorov, 2011). Seven mounds were excavated in two years. Three of them turned out to be buildings of the population of the early XX century. [Molodin et al., 2011]. Three more objects are dated to the Late Bronze Age (Pakhomovskaya culture, eastern version) and one - Andronovskaya (Fedorovskaya) culture. Using geophysical survey data, it was possible to clarify the boundaries of the monument.

Thus, the Old Garden monument consists of several necropolises of different times. The main part of it is occupied by objects of the Late Bronze Age. To date, 94 mounds have been studied in the burial ground: 76 of the eastern variant of the Pakhomovo culture, 4 of the Andronovo (Fedorovskaya) culture, 11 of the Sargat culture, and 3 of the early XX century. In addition, a burial site dating back to the Early Bronze Age was excavated (Fig. 2).

Taking into account the representativeness of the discovered material and the high degree of study, the Old Garden burial ground is recognized as the basic one for studying the features of the organization of the sacred space of representatives of the eastern version of the Pakhom culture. Today it is the largest burial ground of the Pakhomov culture not only for the territory of the Baraba forest-steppe, but also for the Tobolsk-Irtysh region [Molodin, Mylnikova, Neskorov, 2011, p. 197].

In the Tobolsk-Irtysh interfluve, 13 burials of Pakhomov culture carriers have been studied at three burial grounds-Likhachevsky, Chernoozerye II and Ust-Tersyuk P. All these objects are unpaved, located on the banks of reservoirs, and their mounds are low. Burials were performed according to the rite of secondary burial in oval or sub-rectangular pits oriented along the NW-SE or NE-SW line (Matveeva and Kostomarov, 2009, p. 23). At the Ust-Tersyuk II burial ground, traces of wooden structures and collective ground burial were recorded [Ibid., p. 20; Matveev and Kostomarov, 2011].

The Pakhom culture is characterized by the presence of burials on the territory of settlements. On the monument Pakhomovskaya Pier I (Tobolsk-Irtysh region), a burial in a pit was found, represented by fragments of a skull. At the settlement of Ust-Kiterma IV, the burial of a child who was buried in a crouched position on the right side without equipment is known, and

Fig. 1. Location of archaeological sites of the Pakhomovo culture. Compiled from: [Matveev and Kostomarov, 2011; Molodin, 1985; Molodin et al., 2012]. 1-Borki; 2-Ust-Tersyuksky 2; 3-Botniki 1b; 4-Sosnovka-10 (Yar); 5 - Oskino Swamp; 6-Ak-Pash; 7-Novo-Shadrino VII; 8-Zavodoukovskoe-11; 9-Uk III; 10-Uk VI, XIV; 11-Bolshoy Ginger-2; 12-Bolshoy Ginger-10; 13-Pakhomovskaya Pier I; 14 - Likhachevsky; 15-Ir II; 16-Novokarasuk XVI; 17-Ust-Logatka-56; 18-Ust-Logatka-37; 19-Krutinka II; 20-Ust-Kiterma I; 21-Ust-Kiterma IV; 22-Zhar-Agach I; 23-Chernoozerye II; 24-Inberen IV; 25 - Prorva; 26-Alekseyevka XXI; 27-Okunevo X; 28-Old Garden; 29-Grishkina Zaimka; 30-Novochekino-3; 31-Nizhnyaya Tunuska-3; 32-Tartas-1; 33-Khodunenkovo-2; 34-Lozhka-6; 35-Preobrazhenka-3; 36-Turunovka-4.

2. Plan of the excavated part of the Old Garden burial ground. 1 - objects of the Late Bronze Age; 2 - Andronovo (Fyodorov) culture; 3 - early Iron Age; 4 - Russian time; 5-early Bronze Age; 6-modern quarries.

collective burial with traces of fire exposure. It is worth noting the specific method of burial in the ash pit at the Novo-Shadrino VII settlement: here the remains of 14 people were mixed with animal bones [Korochkova, 2010, p. 12]. In this regard, attention should be paid to the presence of human bone fragments in the ritual complex of the Pakhom culture at the Tartas-1 monument in one of the ritual pits along with fragments of ceramics and animal bones (Molodin et al., 2013).

Thus, the following features of the funeral rite are characteristic of the Pakhom culture of the Tobol-Irtysh interfluve:: 1) burial grounds were located on the banks of water bodies; 2) burials were carried out both on a specially designated site (burial grounds) and on the territory of the settlement; 3) burials were performed according to the rite of secondary burial; 4) burials were individual and collective; 5) people were buried both in ground graves and under burial mounds; 6) the deceased are oriented along the lines of NW-SE, NE-SW; 7) the funeral inventory is small, represented by ceramic vessels that were placed in the headboard, and rare bronze products.

Two monuments with elements of the organization of sacred space have been discovered in the Tobolsk-Irtysh region. On the Chernoozerye II burial ground, these are holes with punctures located near the graves. On Ust-Tersyuk-2, 15 pillar pits were found under the mound 3 embankment, arranged in two rows. They can be considered as traces of a rectangular ground structure in which the bodies of the deceased could have been placed [Matveeva and Kostomarov, 2009, p. 21]. Punctures in the pits are presumably interpreted by researchers as echoes of the Andronovo funeral rite, in which an important role was assigned to fire (Kostomarov, 2010, p.70).

The funerary rite of the eastern version of the Pakhom culture is known from the burial grounds of the Old Garden, Grishkin's Zaimka, Preobrazhenka-3, Tartas-1, etc. [Molodin et al., 2012]. The Old Garden monument, as noted above, is the most fully studied burial ground of this culture. 49 burials of the Late Bronze Age were excavated on it. Despite the fact that some burials were heavily destroyed, it seems possible to restore some elements of the burial practice. Grave pits of 38 burials have a sub-rectangular shape (78 %), 2 - oval (4 %), 1 - trapezoid (2 %). The shape of 8 graves (16 %) could not be determined.

33 burials are oriented along the NW-SE line (67 %), NE-SW - 3 (6 %), 3-B-2 (4 %). The orientation of 11 burials (23 %) could not be determined. The depth of grave pits varies from 0.25 to 0.90 m. Despite the fact that the objects are heavily damaged (which can be considered a feature of the burial ground), in several graves, the bones were able to determine the position of the buried (Fig. 3,4):

1) cadaver position, the deceased is buried on his back with his knees raised up (see Fig. 3, 1) - 2 graveyards-

Fig. 3. Location of those buried in the Old Garden burial ground. 1-cadaver position, on the back with the knees raised up; mound No. 24, border 1; 2 - cadaver position, crouched on the left side with the legs bent at the knees; mound No. 82, border 1. 2; 3-cadaver position, crouched on the right side with the legs bent at the knees (a-ceramic vessel from the grave, b-bronze needle and two plates); mound 61, border 1; 4-cadaver position, the deceased is buried in a crouched position on the left side or on the back with the knees raised up (a-ceramic vessel from the grave; b-bronze plaques; c-fragment of a bronze double-edged knife; d-bronze products); mound 67, border 2.

3, 2) - 6 burials (60 %); 3) cadaver position, the deceased is buried in a crouched position on the left side with his legs bent at the knees (see Fig. 3, 2) - 6 burials (60%); 3) cadaver position, the deceased is buried in a crouched position on the right side with his legs bent at the knees (see Fig. 3, 3) - 2 burials (20 %). An undisturbed burial site was also found, containing the skeleton of an adult, which makes it impossible to determine the initial position of the buried person (see Figs. 3, 4). In addition, two presumably secondary burials (possibly disturbed burials) were recorded at the burial ground. Thus, today we can talk about differences in the burial practice of the Pakhomov culture carriers (Tobolo-Irtysh region) and its eastern variant.

The funerary inventory of the Old Garden burial ground is numerous and includes various categories of artifacts. The ceramic collection consists of 40 copies. The vessels are mainly low (67 %) and medium (33%), with flattened (79 %)

4. Finds from the Late Bronze Age burials of the Old Garden burial ground.

or very flattened (21 %) torso, medium (33 %), high (57 %) and very high (10 %) shoulders. According to the degree of convexity of the shoulder, very slightly convex (27%), slightly (57 %) and medium - convex (16%) are distinguished. Among the bronze items (31 copies) there are 11 convex plaques, 7 knives with specially broken handles, 2 earrings, 2 buttons, 2 needles, 2 awls, 2 plates, 2 small disks and an arrowhead. In five burials, traces of charred wood and wood decay were found (possibly overlapping graves). Fragments of clay and bone products were also found, but their reconstruction is impossible.

Thus, based on the materials of the Old Garden burial ground, we can distinguish several typical features of the funeral rite of carriers of the eastern version of the Pakhom culture: 1) individual burials, under mounds in sub-rectangular pits; 2) graves are oriented along the NW-SE line; 3) burials were performed according to the rite of cadaverous placement; 4) the deceased were placed in the graves in a crouched position on the left or right side with their legs bent at the knees or on their back with their knees raised up; 5) the burial inventory is numerous, represented by ceramic vessels, bronze objects, fragments of clay and bone products. It should be noted that the only known settlement of the "pure" Pakhom culture, Lozhka-6, in the Barabinsk forest-steppe, has not been found either collective or individual burials (Bobrov and Moor, 2011). However, the uncovered area of the monument is still small.

Based on the considered funerary complexes of the Pakhomov culture and its eastern variant, as well as the results of their comparison with each other, it is possible to distinguish differences in the ritual tradition of cultures in the territories of Baraba and Tobolo-Irtysh. The Old Garden burial ground differs from the well-known necropolises of the Pakhom culture of the Tobol-Irtysh region in the variability in the ways of organizing the sacred space for each mound.

The Old Garden necropolis is represented by a compact group of earthen structures-mounds (see Fig. 2), clearly separated from the earlier burial ground of the Andronovo (Fedorovskaya) culture. The burial structures on it are arranged haphazardly. It can be confidently stated that the burial ground was deliberately formed on the lake terrace. The necropolis structures did not disturb the more ancient Andronovsky (Fedorovsky) burial ground, but continued the latter in a northerly direction. The parameters of the Pakhomovsky cemetery are clearly defined. Its length along the C-S line is 434.2 m, 3-B-285.7 m. If we take into account the destruction that occurred in connection with the construction work on the territory of the monument today, we can assume that initially there was approx. 90 structures. The question of how long the necropolis was formed remains open. However, radiocarbon dating of the complexes may help to answer this question to some extent. It remains unclear how the space of the necropolis was filled with graves and tombstones. At the same time, information about each of the excavated structures gives grounds to draw some conclusions.

Analysis of information about the following objects allows you to get an idea of the organization of the sacred space of the eastern version of the Pakhomov culture of the Old Garden monument: 1) mound mound (Tables 1, 2), 2) grave pit, 3) pit, 4) punctures and hearths, 5) ditches. We have developed a classification scheme:

1. Class (grave structure);

1.1. Type (a combination of ways to organize a mound space);

1.1.1. Subspecies (number of certain elements of the mound space organization);

1.1.1.1. Variant (form of certain elements of the organization of the burial mound space);

1.1.1.1.1. Sub-variant (features of the structure of certain elements of the organization of the burial mound space).

Table 1. Characteristics of burial mounds and structures of the Old Garden necropolis

End of Table 1

The values of length, width, and power are given.

Table 2. Characteristics of pits and burials of the Old Garden Necropolis

Continuation of Table 2

End of Table 2

* Length, width, and power values are shown where no other indicators are specified.

In the above scheme, all possible combinations of ways of organizing sacred space are taken into account as much as possible. This allows us to determine the variability or lack of it in the sacralization of space, which can, in turn, serve as evidence of heterogeneity and mixing of different traditions in the burial complex under study and in the culture itself.

On the basis of the presented scheme, a classification of ways of organizing sacred space in the Late Bronze Age at the Old Garden burial ground is compiled (Fig. 5).:

1. Kurgan embankment - 1 unit. (mound No. 22; Fig. 5, 1):

1.1. Burial mounds + burials - 21 units. (Fig. 5, 2):

1.1.1. Mound mound + 1 burial - 17 units. (mound N 3, 4, 10 - 15, 25, 27, 29, 30, 37, 66, 75, 87, 92);

1.1.2. Mound mound + 2 burials - 3 units. (kurg. N 24, 38, 85);

1.1.3. Mound mound + 3 burials - 1 unit. (mound No. 82);

1.2. Mound mound + punctures - 3 units. (mound N 28, 39, 55; fig. 5, 3);

1.3. Mound mound + pit - 2 units. (mound N 5, 23; Fig. 5, 4):

1.4. Mound mound + moat - 7 units. (Figs. 5, 5);

1.4.1.1. Mound mound + round open moat - 4 units (mound N 17, 21, 31, 35, 84);

1.4.1.1.1. Mound mound + round moat, consisting of four parts - 1 unit. (mound No. 84);

1.4.1.2. Mound embankment + open sub-rectangular moat - 2 units (mound N 34, 36);

1.5. Burial mound + burial ground + pits - 7 units. 5, 6):

1.5.1. Mound + burial + 1 pit-3 units. (kurg. N 16, 18, 59);

1.5.2. Mound mound + burial + 2 pits -4 units. (kurg. N 2, 7, 49, 52);

1.6. Mound mound + burial + punctures-2 units. (kurg. N 44, 96; fig. 5, 7);

1.7. Mound + burial + moat - 5 units. (figs. 5, 8);

1.7.1.1. Mound mound + burial + round moat-3 units.;

1.7.1.1.1. Mound mound + burial + moat closed - 1 unit (mound N 6);

1.7.1.1.2. Mound mound + burial + open moat - 2 units (mound N 9, 20);

1.7.1.2. Mound mound + burial + moat under-rectangular open - 1 unit. (mound No. 32);

1.7.1.3. Mound mound + burial + open polygonal moat - 1 unit. (mound No. 8);

1.8. Mound mound + moat + puncture - 1 unit. (mound No. 68; Fig. 5, 9):

1.9. Mound mound + ditch + pit - 1 unit. (mound No. 88; figs. 5, 10);

1.10. Mound mound + pits + punctures - 1 unit. (mound No. 41; Fig. 5, 11);

1.11. Mound mound + burial + pits + punctures - 11 units. 5, 12):

1.11.1. Mound mound + 2 burials + 2 pits + 2 punctures - 1 unit. (mound No. 61);

1.11.2. Mound mound + 2 burials + 3 pits + 2 punctures - 1 unit. (mound No. 65);

1.11.3. Mound mound + 3 burials + pit + 3 punctures - 1 unit (mound N 91);

1.11.4. Mound mound + burial + 2 pits + + 5 punctures - 1 unit (mound N 40);

1.11.5. Mound mound + burial + 2 pits + + 2 punctures - 1 unit (mound. N 1);

1.11.6. Mound mound + burial + 2 pits + + puncture - 3 units (mound N 51, 58, 70);

Fig. 5. Variants of organization of the sacred space of the Late Bronze Age in the Old Garden burial ground. 1-mound mound (mound No. 22); 2-mound mound + burials (mound No. 4); 3-mound mound + prokals (mound No. 39); 4-mound mound + pit (mound N 5); 5 - mound mound + ditch (mound N 17); 6 - mound mound + burial + pits (mound N 52); 7 - mound mound + burial + punctures (mound N 44); 8 - mound mound + burial + + ditch (mound No. 32); 9 - mound mound + moat + puncture (mound. N 68); 10-mound + ditch + pit (mound N 88); 11 - mound + pits + punctures (mound N 41); 12 - mound + burial + + pits + punctures (mound N 65); 13 - mound + + burial + ditch + pits (mound No. 54); 14-mound mound + burial + ditch + holes (mound. N 50); 15-mound + burial + ditch + punctures (mound N 26); 16 - mound + burial + + ditch + pits + punctures (mound N 57); 17 - mound + burial + puncture on the entire area (mound N 48).

6. Types of organization of sacred space in the Old Garden burial ground,%. 1-mound mound; 2 - mound mound + burials; 3-mound mound + punctures; 4-mound mound + pit; 5-mound mound + moat; b - mound mound + burial + holes; 7-mound + burial + + punctures; 8 - mound + burial + moat; 9 - mound + + moat + puncture; 10 - mound + moat + pit; 11 - mound + + pit + punctures; 12 - mound + burial + pits + punctures; 13-burial mound + burial + moat + pits; 14 - burial mound + + burial + moat + punctures; 15 - burial mound + burial + moat + + punctures; 16 - burial mound + burial + moat + punctures; 17 - burial mound + burial + puncture on the entire kurgan squares.

1.11.7. Mound mound + burial + + 3 pits + 4 punctures - 1 unit (mound N 69);

1.11.8. Mound mound + burial + 3 pits + puncture - 2 units (mound N 56, 86);

1.12. Mound + burial + + ditch + pits - 2 units. 5, 13):

1.12.1. Mound mound + burial + + moat open in three places, sub-rectangular + 2 pits - 1 unit. (mound No. 54);

1.12.2. Mound mound + burial + + ditch, open in two places, sub-rectangular + 3 pits - 1 unit. (mound No. 64);

1.13. Mound mound + burial + moat + punctures - 2 units (figs. 5, 14):

1.13.1.1. Mound mound + burial + + open oval moat + puncture - 1 unit. (mound No. 42);

1.13.1.2. Mound mound + burial + + open sub-rectangular moat + puncture - 1 unit. (mound No. 50);

1.14. Mound mound + burial + moat + punctures - 3 units (figs. 5, 15):

1.14.1. Burial mound + burial mound + oval closed moat + 3 punctures -1 unit. (mound No. 26);

1.14.2. Mound mound + burial + + oval moat, open in one place, + + 2 punctures - 1 unit. (mound No. 60);

1.14.3. Mound mound + burial + oval moat, open in four places, + 1 puncture - 1 unit. (mound No. 83);

1.15. Mound mound + burial + ditch + + pits + punctures - 4 units (figs. 5, 16):

1.15.1. Mound mound + burial + oval moat, open in four places, + 2 burials + 3 pits + puncture - 1 unit (mound N 57);

1.15.2. Mound + burial + moat of complex construction + burial + pit + puncture - 1 unit. (mound No. 63);

1.15.3. Mound mound + burial + sub-rectangular moat, open in three places, + 2 burials + pit + 2 punctures - 1 unit (mound N 67);

1.15.4. Mound mound + burial + round open moat + burial + pit + 3 punctures -1 unit. (mound N71);

1.16. Mound mound + burial + puncture on the entire area - 1 unit (mound N 48; fig. 5, 17).

Thus, 17 different types of organization of sacred space were identified (Fig. 6), which are characterized by the presence of a mound mound. However, these types vary greatly both in the combination of objects, as well as in their number and shape. This may indicate the heterogeneity and mixing of various traditions, as well as the active interaction of the population of the eastern area of the Pakhom culture with other cultural groups of the Baraba forest-steppe.

Two dominant groups of funerary structures are clearly recorded. 1. One-third of all the analyzed monument complexes (29 %) contain only a mound and burial (Fig. 6). If we add to them complexes that had punctures and pits in addition to these elements (16 %), then in total they will make up almost half (!) of the entire complex (45%). If you add to them the complexes where the mound + burial were found, as well as pits and punctures (9+3+1=13 %), then their share will reach 58 %. 2. The second group of structures includes complexes where there is necessarily a ditch. A simple calculation shows that there are more than a third of such structures: (9 + 7 + 1 + 1 + 3 + + 3+4 + 5), or 33%. Apparently, the moat should be considered as another element that determines the specifics of the organization of the burial space (Fig. 7).

Of interest is the variety of rovers in shape. Information on the shape of rovs, for example, at the Tartas-1 burial ground (Molodin, Kobeleva, and Mylnikova, 2011) suggests that the diversity was even wider than we currently know. In Baraba, on the monuments of the Andronovo (Fyodorov) culture (Preobrazhenka-3, Stary Tartas-4, Pogorelka), which preceded Pakhomovskaya, rovers were rather an exception. Equally rare are ros-

Fig. 7. Types of burial complexes in the Old Garden burial ground, which differ in their main design features (ditches, burials)%. 1-mound mound + ditch; 2 - mound mound + burials; 3-mound mound without ditches and burials.

wiki and on the burial grounds of the Irma culture (Preobrazhenka-6), partially synchronous with Pakhomovskaya. The Old Garden complex under study shows that this element of funerary practice is becoming more and more noticeable over time. However, this conclusion cannot be considered final, since there are no rovers at all at the Pakhomovsky necropolis of Grishkin Zaimka in Baraba.

In accordance with the above scheme, objects of burial grounds of the Pakhomov culture of the Tobol-Irtysh interfluve were considered. On the burial ground of Ust-Tersyuk I are marked:

1. Mound mound;

1.1. Without building a grave;

1.2. Collective burial;

1.3. Burial;

1.4. Burial + pillar pits (tombstone structure).

Structures have been identified at the Likhachevsky and Chernoozerye II burial grounds:

2. Without a mound;

2.1. Burial (Likhachevsky);

2.2. Burial + pit + puncture (Chernoozerye II). This classification allows us to see the similarity in the organization of sacred space in these necropolises. Here are simple ground burials, some in combination with ritual pits. Different principles of organization of sacred space and methods of burial are traced at the Ust-Tersyuk P. burial ground. The authors of the excavations note Barkhat features in two Pakhomov vessels from the burial ground, which may reflect a mixture of different cultural traditions. In addition, a bronze celt of the XII-VIII centuries BC was found in one of the burial pits. This discovery, as well as the Barkhat features of dishes, allows us to conclude that the burial ground was functioning late, and may also be another evidence in favor of the assumption of the mixed nature of the traditions of the population who owned the Ust-Tersyuk II burial ground [Matveeva and Kostomarov, 2009, p. 23]. The variability in the organization of sacred space can be a sign not only of mixing traditions, but also of contacts between different cultural groups. It should be noted that structures similar to the moats on the Old Garden burial ground are found in the Late Bronze age burials of the Abatsky I burial mound (Tobolsk-Irtysh region), which belong to the Suzgun culture. The similarity of these elements of the two necropolises is emphasized by the presence of vessels at the bottom of the ditches [Polevodov, 2003, p. 53].

Thus, the mounds of the eastern version of the Pakhomov culture of the Old Garden burial ground are characterized by a large number of types of organization of sacred space, a variety of objects used for its creation (ditches, punctures, pits, etc.), as well as differing in shape and number under each mound. Complexes are clearly divided into two groups: with rovers (one third) and without them. In the groups, elements such as pits and punctures are represented to varying degrees or not at all. Common features for all burial mounds are the presence of a mound and the rite of placing a corpse, rather than a secondary burial, as in the monuments of the Pakhom culture of the Tobolsk-Ishim interfluve (Kostomarov, 2010, p.68). The listed features are evidence of mixing of various traditions, active interaction of the population of the eastern area of the Pakhom culture with other inhabitants of the Barabinsk forest-steppe, and the preservation of the main features of the funeral rite (burial mound, corpse placement). Some analogies to the examples of the organization of sacred space in the Old Garden necropolis can be traced in the burial grounds of the Begaza-Dandybayev archaeological culture - the principle of fencing the buried person with various moats (round, square, etc.) [Molodin and Neskorov, 1992, p. 95].

The study of other elements of the Pakhomov culture allowed us to conclude that the carriers of the eastern version of the Pakhomov culture were not indigenous inhabitants of the Barabinsk forest-steppe. Subsequently, they were mixed with the autochthonous population. In the course of genetic studies of bone remains from the Late Bronze Age burials of the Stary Sad burial ground, it was found that mtDNA samples of carriers of the eastern variant of the Pakhomov culture are at least two-component and include genetic substrates of both the autochthonous pre-Andronov population and the Early Russian population.-

* Excavations of V. I. Molodin, materials not published.

shlyogo andronovsky. According to most of the mtDNA lines studied, a significant part of the carriers of the eastern variant of the Pakhomov culture in the Stary Sad burial ground comes from the autochthonous Preandron population of the Central Baraba (Molodin et al., 2012, p. 67). However, taking into account the fragmented data and insufficient knowledge of the paleoanthropological series of all cultural groups participating in culturogenetic processes, as well as the fact that mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line and reflects the processes of forming the genetic composition of the female part of the population under consideration, these conclusions cannot be considered final [Ibid., p. 68].

According to the results of an anthropological analysis, the population that owned the Old Garden burial ground shows similarities with the carriers of andronoid cultural traditions. This, according to T. A. Chikisheva, speaks "not about the Irmen, but about the Andronovo basis" of culture [2010, p. 32]. The connection of the female part of the series with representatives of the Andronovo group from Northern Kazakhstan, in her opinion, may indicate the participation "in the formation of the female component of the population of individuals connected by genetic roots with the anthropological substrate of this community and its descendants", which may be explained by "the influx of women from the Begazydandyvay tribes, who also brought Begazy-Dandybay to Baraba traditions of making ceramic products " [Ibid., pp. 32-33].

Thus, the data obtained in the course of research in various scientific fields complement each other. The continuation of such studies, as well as a more detailed analysis of the specifics of burial equipment and other elements of burial practice, will allow us to approach the reconstruction of the ethno-cultural processes of the ancient population of Western Siberia in general and the Barabinsk forest-steppe in particular.

List of literature

Bobrov V. V., Moor N. N. Rezul'taty arkheologicheskogo issledovaniya na pamyatnike Lozhka-6 [Results of archaeological research on the monument Lozhka-6]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: mat-ly sessii IAET SB RAS 2011-Novosibirsk: Izd.IAET SB RAS, 2011-Vol. XVII. - pp. 139-142.

Korochkova O. N. Interaction of cultures in the Late Bronze Age (Andronoid antiquities of the Tobol-Irtysh region). - Yekaterinburg: Uralurizdat Publ., 2010, 103 p. (in Russian)

Kostomarov V. M. Pakhomovsky antiquities of Western Siberia: cultural attribution, chronological and territorial localization: dis. ... kand. ist. nauk. - Tyumen, 2010. - 168 p.

Matveev A.V., Kostomarov V. M. Pakhomovskiye drevnosti Zapadnoy Sibiri [Pakhomov antiquities of Western Siberia]. archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography. - Tyumen, 2011. - N 1. - p. 46-55.

Matveeva N. P. Kostomarov V. M. To the question about the features of the burial rite of the population of the pakhomovskaya culture forest-steppe of Western Siberia // Vestn. Tyumen State University. - 2009. - N 1. - p. 15-25.

Molodin V. I. Baraba in the Bronze Age. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publishing House, 1985, 200 p.

Molodin V. I., Kobeleva L. S., Mylnikova L. N. Late Bronze age burial complex at the monument Tartas-1 (Barabinsk forest-steppe) // Vestn. Novosibirsk State University of Literature: History, Philology. 2011, vol. 10, issue 3, pp. 100-105.

Molodin V. I., Kobeleva L. S., Nagler A., Durakov N. A., Efremova N. S., Nenakhov D. A., Demakhina M. S., Mylnikova L. N., Hansen S. Kul'tovye kompleksy vostochnogo areala pakhomovskaya kul'tury na mnogosloynom pamyatnik Tartas-1 [Cult complexes of the eastern area of the Pakhom culture on the multi-layered monument Tartas-1]: Proceedings of the 2013 IAET SB RAS Session, Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publishing House, 2013. - Vol. XIX. - pp. 265-269.

Molodin V. I., Mylnikova L. N., Durakov N. A., Kobeleva L. S. Khozyaistvennoe sostroenie novogo vremeni (po materialam mogilnika Stary Sad) [Economic construction of the New Time (based on the materials of the Old Garden burial ground)]. Kul'tura russkikh v arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh: mezhdistsiplinarnye metody i tekhnologii [Russian Culture in archaeological research: interdisciplinary methods and technologies]. Omsk: Publishing House of Om. in-ta (branch) of the Russian State Trade-econ . un-ta, 2011, pp. 342-351.

Molodin V. I., Mylnikova L. N., Durakov N. A., Kobeleva L. S., Neskorov A.V. Continuation of studies of the burial ground of the Late Bronze Age Old Garden in the Barabinsk forest-steppe / / Problems of archeology, ethnography, anthropology of Siberia and adjacent territories: materials of the outcome, sessions of the IAET SB RAS 2010-Novosibirsk: Izd.vo IAET SB RAS, 2010, vol. XVI, pp. 247-251.

Molodin V. I., Mylnikova L. N., Neskoroe A.V. Obershenie issledovaniy mogilnika Stary Sad epokhi pozdnoi bronzy [Completion of research of the Stary Garden burial ground of the Late Bronze Age]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: mat-ly itog. sessions of the IAET SB RAS 2011-Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the IAET SB RAS, 2011. - Vol. XVII. - pp. 195-199.

Molodin V. N., Neskorov A.V. O svyazyakh naseleniya zapadnosibirskoi lesostepi i Kazakhstanii v epokhu pozdnoi bronzy [On the relations of the population of the West Siberian forest-steppe and Kazakhstan in the Late Bronze Age].

Molodin V. I., Pilipenko A. S., Zhuravlev A. A., Trapezov R. O., Romashchenko A. G. Genofund mtDNA repre-sentatives of the eastern variant of the Pakhom culture / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2012. - N 4. - p. 62-70.

Polevodov A.V. Suzgunskaya kul'tura v lesostepi Zapadnoy Sibiri [Suzgun culture in the forest-steppe of Western Siberia]. - Omsk, 2003. - 290 p.

Chikisheva T. A. Dinamika antropologicheskoi differentiatsii naseleniya yuga Zapadnoy Sibiri v epokhi bronzy - rannego zheleznogo veka [Dynamics of anthropological differentiation of the population of the South of Western Siberia in the Bronze Age-Early Iron Age]. Novosibirsk, 2010, 50 p. (in Russian)

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 19.05.14.

Permanent link to this publication: