Introduction

On the scale of Northern Eurasia, the Okunevsky complex is a cultural phenomenon that demonstrates the rich inner world of the ancient people. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the logic of development of this complex. The revealed comparative stratigraphy of Okunev burials allowed us to make a general correlation of the features of burial structures with the types of ceramics, tools (knives, jewelry) and images. As a result of the work done, it was possible to identify four stages of the formation of this cultural tradition and identify the main components that took part in its composition. This article is limited to the most important topic - the identification of chronological correspondences of types of ceramics and burial complexes.

Currently, the Okunevskaya cultural tradition is represented by 75 burial complexes (a complex means any single object, whether it is a single grave or a mound as part of a burial ground). In total, approximately 440 graves were excavated, including approximately 330 burials in stone boxes and 110 in ground pits. They found the remains of 750 people, a third of whom belong to children under 5 years of age. More than half (41) of the complexes (each with 1 to 39 burials) are graves with a square fence made of stone blocks or sandstone slabs dug into the mainland. Of these, 37 contained Okunevsky implements, and four contained both Okunevsky and Afanasyev implements (Tas-Khaza, figs. 2, 4; Karasuk VIII).

In the materials of 15 complexes with round fences of the Afanasyev type, signs of both the Okunev and Afanasyev traditions were found (Afanasyeva Gora, mogr. 6, 26; Kamyshta; Beltyry ogr. 6; Moiseikha-5, - 24; Letnik VI, ogr. 3, 37). In five monuments with such fences, only Okunevsky implements were found in the main burials (Krasny Yar II, ogr. 2-4; Beltyry, ogr. 6; Uybat-Khulgan, mound. 2). Fourteen complexes are represented by single stone boxes or ground graves. Five monuments were destroyed and are known only from the inventory collected in their place (Bright) or not clear in detail (Abakan council).

In the course of many years of research of Okunevsky monuments, their catalog was compiled, typologies of funerary structures, ceramics and other equipment were created. In the course of studying the Siberian Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, we reconstructed and sketched about 2 thousand fragments of Neolithic vessels from the settlements of Ulan-Khada, Ust-Belaya, Lower Seredkino, Unyuk, Nyasha; created catalogues of collections with detailed descriptions of dough texture, morphology, and ornamental techniques. The Okunev ceramic complexes from burial grounds on the Uybat, Verkh-Askiz, Chernovaya VIII, Syda V rivers were also studied. The conclusions made during visual inspection were verified and confirmed during the study of a series of Okunev ceramics in the Laboratory of Archaeological Technology of the Institute of Archaeological Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences using an MBS-9 (x 28)*microscope. The results obtained are the basis for studying the technological features of this complex.

* I would like to express my gratitude to G. N. Poplevko, Candidate of Historical Sciences, for invaluable assistance in this work.

page 41

Paradoxes of Okunev's historiography

In historiography, the Okunev problem is presented rather inconsistently - the researchers ' points of view regarding the place in the general periodization of the Middle Yenisei cultures seem incompatible at first glance.

According to M. N. Komarova, the burials of Okunev ulus belong to the early stage of the Andronovo culture [1947], which she dates back to the pre-Afanasyev time, Eneolithic [1981]. L. R. Kyzlasov believed that the Okunev monuments represent the late stage of the Afanasyev culture [1986]. G. A. Maksimenkov insisted on their independent status (in the format of "ancient monuments").reference monument " Chernovaya VIII) as an archaeological culture that occupies a place in the stratigraphic column between Afanasievskaya and Andronovskaya [1975, p. 14].

After analyzing the evidence base of the hypotheses expressed, we had to admit that all researchers are right, because, despite the inconsistency, their points of view are based on the analysis of real complexes and their features identified during the study. Each author, based on the materials of the monuments he excavated, identified one of the periods of the Okunev phenomenon's existence, which took place from the stage of post-Neolithic transformation to the Middle Bronze Age. The conclusion is natural - the phenomenon itself turned out to be much more complex than previously thought.

The concept of "Okunevskaya culture" was introduced into scientific circulation by G. A. Maksimenkov with a rigid set of features [Ibid.]. Now they correspond only to the third chronological group and do not reflect the whole variety of forms and structures formed during the progressive development of the Okunevsky complex. It is important to take into account that G. A. Maksimenkov insisted on breaking the continuity between the early (post-Neolithic) forms of the Okunevsky complex and the developed ones presented on the "reference monument - Chernovaya VIII". According to the author's logic, the Okunevites were displaced by the Afanasyevite tribes that came to the Minusinsk basin, developed beyond its borders, and carried out a" reconquista", expelling the Afanasyevites [Ibid.].

The excavated mounds in the Uibat valley (Lazaretov, 1997) largely supplemented the collection of early monuments and made it possible to prove continuity between different chronological groups. The current level of knowledge forces us to reconsider the simplified approach to the Okunev culture as a stable formation with specified parameters, which was already expressed in the very submission of the Chernovaya VIII burial ground as a reference [Sher, 2006, pp. 248-249]. This circumstance allows us to raise the question of the need to apply a new definition that reflects the processes of formation of defining features over time - the Okunev cultural tradition.

Stages of development of Okunevskaya funerary tradition

The Okunevskaya funerary tradition is not a fixed set of features, but it demonstrates its development over time. Due to the custom of filling the fence with numerous burials, let into the mound at different levels, almost every Okunevsky mound is a stratigraphic column. Unfortunately, not all burials are representative, as graves belonging to late chronological groups often lack ceramics, which is the most reliable criterion for belonging to a particular chronogroup.

A careful analysis of the direct overlap of burials with later burials allowed us to construct a stratigraphic column reflecting the four stages of development of the Okunev cultural tradition (Table 1). The oldest Okunev complex to date is Mound 1 of the Uibat III burial ground. In the central dirt grave of this mound there was a single looted burial, overlaid by a collective burial, also disturbed, but containing a large amount of ceramics (Lazaretov, 1997). The latter is clearly archaic and is similar in the sum of features to Neolithic vessels from the settlement of Unyuk and ceramics from the settlement of Ust-Belaya. This complex marks the first chronological group of burials of the Okunev cultural tradition, characterized by single-grave planigraphy, deep soil pits, archaic ceramics with a large percentage of round-bottomed vessels.

Eight burials of the second chronological group were allowed into the mound that overlapped the central grave, containing technologically and typologically more developed ceramics, mainly with a flat bottom, clearly accentuated ornaments, dense ceramic dough with a small amount of otoshchitel in the form of sand. Vessels of a similar type were found in mound 1 of the Uibat V burial ground [Ibid.] and in the Lebyazhye burial ground [Maksimenkov, 1981]. The funerary structures of this chronological group differ from the earlier ones both planographically and structurally. Several graves are located in the center and parallel to the walls of the fence. Burials are mostly no longer in ground graves, but in massive stone boxes built in deep pits. Primary

page 42

Table 1. Stages of development of Okunevskaya cultural tradition

page 43

the level of burials is blocked by a mound, which contains inlet burials of later chronological groups.

A similar stratigraphic situation is observed in the Mokhov-6 mound. There is a direct overlap of an ancient ground grave with a later burial in a stone box. Unfortunately, there were no ceramics in the early grave, but a round-bottomed vessel with complex ornamentation was found under the slabs of a stone layout, which is the primary structural element of this mound. Thus, this vessel corresponds in time to an early burial (Kirginekov, 1997).

The same stratigraphic sequence of burials of chronological groups I and II is also observed in the Ust-Byur mound (Kyzlasov, 1986, pp. 269-278). Here, the central deep dirt pit was, unfortunately, completely destroyed by robbers. The entire area inside the fence was blocked by a stone platform, in the northern part of which an inlet burial in a stone box was found. Ceramics corresponding to the second chronological group were found in it; the image on the slab of the overlap is stylistically closest to the faces from the Lebyazhye burial ground (Vadetskaya, 2005).

Chronological group III in the system of direct stratigraphy is not sufficiently representative, since quite numerous cases of overlapping graves are rarely accompanied by the presence of inventory indicating that the burial belongs to one or another chronogroup. The scarcity of tools and especially ceramics in late burials is probably a natural phenomenon. In addition, the inlet burials in the upper layer of the mound are most often looted or destroyed.

As an example, consider the stratigraphy of mound 3 of the Lebyazhye burial ground. Here burials of the second chronological group (graves 1, 5, 7-9) were made in massive stone boxes dug into the bottom of deep grave pits, and covered with a dirt embankment. In its upper layer, inlet burials of Chronogroup III (mog. 2,4) were found, which did not contain any inventory (Maksimenkov, 1981).

In mound 1 of the Uibat V burial ground, grave 13 with a stone box was located in a mound exactly above grave 3, which belongs to a group of deep graves dug in the mainland from the level of the ancient horizon. The stone box was almost completely destroyed by the robbers and contained no inventory. However, structurally, it corresponds to most of the Okunev burial structures noted by G. A. Maksimenkov at the Chernovaya VIII burial ground [1980]. These are stone boxes or shallow ground graves, the overlap of which lies at the level of the buried soil or the blackened part of the mound of the mound.

Chronological group IV closes the stratigraphic column; it is represented by shallow ground grave 8 located in the upper layer of mound 1 of the Uibat V burial ground. The vessel from this burial has a characteristic shape with a bent corolla and ornamentation more typical of pre-Alexandron ceramics: the Christmas tree composition is made with a fine-toothed stamp, the crown and bottom parts are highlighted with parallel combed and carved lines.

Chronotypology of the Okunevsky complex

Based on the obtained stratigraphic column and analysis of the corresponding signs of burial structures and inventory, a general correlation table of signs of the Okunev cultural tradition was compiled. Table 2 shows the part of it that concerns funerary structures and ceramics. The identification of types of burial structures is based on significant differences in the planigraphy of mounds and grave structures. Ceramics are classified on the basis of morphology, taking into account the ornamental patterns characteristic of each type of vessel.

The first chronological group of monuments of the Okunev cultural tradition corresponds to the Eneolithic pre-Afanasiev stage identified by M. N. Komarova [1981, p. 90]. Structurally, these monuments are distinguished by a single-grave planigraphy inside a square fence, often with additional elements: crepids, diagonal layouts and stone platforms (type I: a, b, c). A striking feature of funerary rites is the significant depth of the prevailing ground graves - up to 1.7 m.

According to the general stratigraphy of the Okunev monuments, the chronotypology of funerary structures was compiled (Sokolova, 2006, Table 4). Type I represents their earliest generation-mounds with one deep grave in the center of the fence. It is very rare - seven sites (Uibat III, Karasuk II, Karasuk VIII, Pristan, Mokhov-6, Ust-Byur-5, Chernovaya VIII, Mound 2), which is 10.7% of the total number of Okunevsky monuments with recorded planigraphy. Nevertheless, it is necessary to note the special significance of this group in the chronological aspect. Round-bottomed ceramics of type A (Sokolova, 2002, Fig. 3) occur in 52% of cases in these mounds. Since it is most closely related to Neolithic samples from the settlements of the Krasnoyarsk-Kansky district and the settlement of Unyuk on the Middle Yenisei, the type I burial structures identified by us really correspond to the earliest stage at this level of study.

page 44

Table 2. Correlation of types of burial structures and types of ceramics

page 45

Chronological group II reflects the further development of the Okunevsky complex in the conditions of co-existence with the Afanasyev culture and is represented by two types of monuments that differ in the shape of the fence.

Type II-burials with Okunev equipment in round fences typical of Afanasyev burial complexes (Afanasyev Mountain, mogs. 6, 24, 26; Kamyshta BC; Krasny Yar II, ogr. 1-3). In the Listakh mound, a hybrid version is presented - a circle of sandstone slabs is laid out inside a square fence made of dug-in slabs.

Type II burials make up 24 % of the total number of representative Okunevsky monuments and are mostly located on the territory of Afanasyevsky burial grounds. Ceramics are represented by types B, C, D, as well as Afanasyev vessels found together with Okunevsky ones. Burials of this type, as well as ceramics of types B and D, have signs of both the Afanasiev and Okunev traditions. It is in this chronological group that vessels on pallets (type B) and dishes (type D) appear, which are distinguished by an unusual profile of Okunev ceramics and a general similarity to Afanasiev ceramics [Ibid.]. In these burials, there are no vessels with a rounded bottom of type A. The characteristics of flat-bottomed ceramics, contrary to expectations, do not allow these monuments to be attributed to the early chronological group. These ceramics (Type B) find convincing analogs in the "classic" Type IV mounds.

Type III-burials in square fences with a central grave (ground or in the form of a stone box dug into a deep hole), oriented along the 3 - B line, and peripheral with a free orientation. These burial complexes form a transitional group: there is still a tradition of burial in deep ground pits, but planographically they already correspond to Type IV monuments, where the idea of filling most of the mound with graves dominates. This group is the smallest - only six sites (Lebyazhye, kurg. 1-3; Tas-Khaza; Uybat V, kurg. 1; Uybat-Tibik), which is 9% of the total number of Okunevsky monuments. Ceramics from these burials are represented by type B-1-3. On the vessels of this group there are elements of early ornamentation: "zhemchuzhnik", notches on the corolla, an ornament on the bottom. Horizontal and diagonal tattoos predominate. This group of ceramics is a transition to later types.

Chronological group III is represented by burial complexes of type IV, which have the same planigraphic scheme as monuments of type III, but differ in the design of graves, which are stone boxes with an overlap lying on the buried soil or on the daytime surface.

Type IV is divided into two subtypes, which differ in the layout of graves: type IV-a - burials of the western sector are oriented along the C - Y line (located parallel to the western wall of the fence), the rest - 3-B (Chernovaya XI; Chernovaya VIII, mound. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14; Syda V, kurg. 1, 2, 4type IV-b-most of the graves are oriented along the 3 - C line and form parallel rows inside the fence (Verkh-Askiz, mound 1, 2; Syda V, mound 3; Uybat V, mound 4; Chernovaya VIII, mound 5, 10, 11).

The most numerous type makes up 38% of the total number of monuments. The 25 complexes included in it are almost a single type with different variants of skeletal orientations relative to the cardinal directions.

In mound 3 of the Syda V burial ground, in mounds 1, 2, 4 of the Uybat V burial ground, and in the Chernovaya XI burial mound, the tradition of marking the corners of the mound fences with vertically dug massive stones, which left rounded pits, is recorded. Behind the fence of the Chernovaya XI mound on the western side, a stele was installed, a fragment of its base and a deep pit with a zabutovka were preserved. It is possible that this type of funerary structures is associated with the appearance of menhir-like steles with anthropomorphic images.

This type of monument corresponds to ceramics of type B-3, - 4 [Ibid.]. The ornamental scheme of these vessels, unlike the earlier ones, is unified and well recognized. These ceramics mark a developed stage of Okunev pottery. It is characterized by a tendency to standard forms and methods of ornamentation, coarsening of technological methods of forming vessels. Typical ornamental schemes are represented by parallel rows of impressions of a receding, straight or obliquely placed comb stamp (Table 3). The corolla and bottom zones are distinguished by three or four parallel, in most cases slotted lines; sometimes they are made with a comb stamp placed horizontally. At this stage, the ornament along the cut and the inner edge of the corolla practically disappears, and the bottom of the vessel is rarely ornamented.

IV chronological group - few monuments of the V type. These are separate graves and stone boxes containing B-4 vessels with a straight or curved corolla [Ibid.]. At the final stage, the mound tradition degrades and is reduced to single stone boxes (Savinov, 1981). However, it cannot be ruled out that single burials may have occurred at all stages of the Okunev culture's development. For example, on the monument of Uybat V, one burial was located under the layout-

page 46

Table 3. Chronotypology of the Okunev ceramic tradition

page 47

It was made of rubble stone outside the mound structure of mound 3 and did not contain any inventory, but the teenager was buried in it in a typical position for the Okunev rite: in a crouched position on his back. Here, the position of the buried person is the only criterion of cultural belonging of the burial.

At this stage, comb-like ornamentation appears in ceramics. Judging by the clear, sharp prints, metal ornamentation was used here. In the collection from the destroyed Yarki burial ground, there is a whole series of ceramics with decoration on the upper third of the vessels. The molding and ornamentation are very sloppy. This ceramic is practically no different from the Andronovo tinware.

Describing Okunev ceramics, G. A. Maksimenkov describes its typological scheme as follows: "Dishes are represented by four types: pots - vessels with a curved profile, jars - vessels in the form of a truncated cone placed on a smaller base, individual shapes and ritual" incense burners " - bowls on pallets with a partition inside. The ornament on most vessels is individual, it is divided into zones: along the corolla, along the body, at the bottom and at the bottom" [1975]. It is obvious that all the diversity of Okunev ceramics cannot be reflected in such a formal typological scheme. It indicates an approach to the Oka Nevsky complex as a one-time formation, and does not reflect the features that characterize the internal chronology of the culture.

Retrospective analysis of the Okunev ceramic complex

Analysis of the morphology and principles of vessel ornamentation reveals similarities between Ust-Belsky and Early Okunev ceramics. First of all, it is a rounded bottom. Such vessels belonging to the I chronological group make up 52 % in the Okunev complex. The following similar ornamental patterns are noted: 1) the ornament covers the entire body of the vessel, including the bottom; 2) notches along the corolla and its inner edge; 3) under the corolla - a series of pits (Ust-Belsky ceramics) or "pearls" (Early Okunevskaya). In both complexes, the preferred ornamental pattern is parallel rows of pins. The ornamental patterns used are almost identical: teardrop-shaped, semi-lunar, square-shaped, or short comb with a working edge (Table 4).

When analyzing the technological features of early Okunev ceramics, it was revealed that potters in their work adhered to the system of knowledge and skills developed in the Late Neolithic Ust-Belskaya tradition (Vinogradov, 1984, p. 13), represented in the settlements of Ust-Belaya, Gorely Les (on the Belaya River in the Lower Angara region), Kazachka, Nyasha (on the Kan River near Kansk), Unyuk, Ust-Sobakino, Ladeyki, Bazaikha (on the middle Yenisei), Ust-Biryusa. Thus, the regions of the Middle Yenisei, Angara, and Belaya represented a single cultural province in the Neolithic (Krizhevskaya, 1978).

Early Okunev vessels differ significantly from Neolithic ones in size: the capacity of the former is from 0.05 to 1.5 liters, the latter-up to 3-5 liters. Perhaps this difference is of a stadium nature, since in the Eneolithic period, the appearance of individual dishes is widely noted. However, it should also be taken into account that Neolithic monuments are mainly settlements, and Eneolithic ones are funerary complexes.

In the materials of these Neolithic settlements, the authors note a small number of flat-bottomed vessels, which is interpreted by all researchers as a late innovation. In the Early Okunev ceramic tradition, a sharp increase in the specific weight of flat-bottomed vessels is observed, although a rounded and thickened-rounded bottom is also found in late complexes. In the developed Okunev culture, flat-bottomed ceramics become dominant (see Table 3). This fact can hardly be considered as an example of spontaneous transformation. A change in the shape of the bottom of most vessels means a change in the hearth structure, the type of which, along with the type of dwelling, serves as a cultural defining feature and indicates migration that began in the Middle Yenisei region in the final Neolithic. Under the influence of migrants, the classical Okunev culture was formed (in the interpretation of G. A. Maksimenko).

Technological features of Okunevskaya ceramics

Ceramics have an independent value as a cultural indicator, as it has a complex of independent features, such as the composition of molding masses, the method of molding, surface treatment, firing, vessel morphology, the main method of applying ornaments, and dominant ornamental compositions. Since all these components are deeply traditional and are passed only "from hand to hand", stable combinations of features are the determinant of the corresponding ethnic group.

According to technological features, Okunev ceramics can be divided into three groups - early, developed and late.

Early ceramics (Uybat III, mogh. 1; Karasuk II, VIII, Pristan) are characterized by poorly mixed loose dough, a ribbon-shaped vessel

page 48

See Table 4. Comparative table of Early Okunevskaya and Ust-Belskaya ceramics

page 49

and ornamental schemes that represent a kind of "tracing paper" from Neolithic Ust-Belsky vessels.

The developed ceramics are interesting because they clearly show technological innovations, which, in our opinion, are associated with the migration wave and, most likely, are an integral part of the complex of features of flat-bottomed ceramics. Since this method of making dishes in the Oka Nevsky context was not previously described, we should dwell on it in more detail.

Vessels were formed by knocking out. Such ceramics are characterized by a dense homogeneous dough, a clear parallel orientation of the plastic material particles. The smooth thickness of the vessel walls, the absence of fingerprints and nails on the inner surface, and the system of vertical cracks during the destruction of products indicate molding on a rigid template [Glushkov and Glushkova, 1992, p. 71], which could be used as a specially made clay or wooden billet. Traces of gouging on the outer surface of the vessels are not recorded, possibly due to the dense pinned ornament covering the entire body. Knocking out could be done with some kind of tool with a smooth surface, for example, a plank covered with leather, or a bone scapula (Zhushchikhovskaya, 2002, p. 133).

Each technological technique has its pros and cons. Knocking out significantly improves the performance of vessels, because in the process of mechanical impact on the molding mass, excess moisture is removed from the dough, the pores in the ceramics narrow parallel to the direction of impact, and the adhesion of all fractions of the clay mass increases. As a result, when firing the vessel, the probability of deformation during shrinkage of ceramic dough is significantly reduced, the product becomes lighter and more durable. The high quality of the knockout is indicated by negative prints of the ornament on the inner surface of the vessels - this is possible only with a very dense, dry, homogeneous test. For example, an equally dense, accented ornament on Afanasiev ceramics "sinks" in a loose dough, without standing out on the inner surface.

Among the disadvantages of the method of knocking out on a solid template, it is necessary to note the rigid dependence of the morphology of vessels on the shape of the template, from which the product should be easily removed, which is possible only if the maximum diameter of the vessel corresponds to the upper edge of the template. A truncated-conic or paraboloid shape meets this condition. This technological determinism of ceramic morphology is observed everywhere in North-East Asia, where the use of the method of embossing on a solid template has been recorded since ancient times (Gasya settlement- 12980 +/- 120 L. N.) to ethnographic modernity [Ibid., p. 118].

Late ceramics are close in terms of the sum of features to the jar Andronovo vessels. This explains the fact that the Okunev assemblages were originally defined as Early Aronian (Komarova, 1947). Late ceramics are characterized by a general deterioration in the quality of molding, careless orna-

Positioning of archaeological cultures of the early Bronze Age in the Minusinsk basin.

page 50

mentation, the appearance of vessels with a bent corolla. These trends are already evident in the third chronological group, in particular in the materials of the late burial mounds of the Chernovaya VIII burial ground.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the continuous progressive development of the Okunev cultural tradition from the early Post-Neolithic period to the Middle Bronze Age. The results obtained made adjustments to the positioning scheme of crops in the Minusinsk basin (see diagram). The proposed version is a compromise that takes into account both the points of view expressed and the results of independent research. According to the scheme, the Okunevskaya cultural tradition was formed on the basis of the Middle Yenisei version of the Neolithic Ust-Belskaya, presented at the settlement of Unyuk. Then it came into contact with the Afanasiev culture. Apparently, the Afanasyevites were partially assimilated, after which the Okunev tradition experienced a flourishing period. The final stage of its development is represented by the most uncertain group of monuments. Judging by the morphological changes in ceramics and the appearance of Andronov features in the ornamentation of vessels, the Okunevites were subordinated to the Andronovites, who expanded their territories in the first third of the second millennium up to the Minusinsk basin.

List of literature

Vadetskaya E. B. Drawings on the slabs of the Okunevsky burial ground near the village of Lebyazhye on the right bank of the Yenisei // Lead. SAIPI. Kemerovo, 2005, No. 6/7, pp. 8-17.

Vinogradov A.V. Novoselovsky-type ceramics in the Eneolithic of the Middle Yenisei. // Problems of studying the Stone Age of Eurasia. Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical Institute, 1984, pp. 153-147.

Glushkov I. G., Glushkova T. N. Tekstil'naya keramika kak istoricheskiy istochnik [Textile ceramics as a historical source]. - Tobolsk: Tobol, State University, 1992. - 130 p.

Zhushchikhovskaya I. S. Early ceramics of the Far East and East Asia // Tr. Institute of History and Ethnography of the peoples of the Far East. Vladivostok, 2002, vol. 11: Actual problems of Far Eastern archeology, pp. 109-150.

Kirginekov E. N. Okunevsky kurgan near u. Mokhov / / Okunevsky collection. St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS: St. Petersburg State University, 1997, pp. 128-133.

Komarova M. N. Burials of Okunev ulus: K voprosu o khronologicheskom razdelenii pamyatnikov andronovskoy kul'tury Minusskogo kraya [On the chronological division of monuments of the Andronovo culture of the Minusinsk region].

Komarova, M. N., A peculiar group of Eneolithic monuments on the Yenisei River, Problemy zapadno-sibirskoy arkheologii: The age of stone and bronze. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1981, pp. 76-90.

Krizhevskaya L. Ya. Neolithic settlements in the mouth of the Belaya River / / Ancient cultures of the Angara region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1978, pp. 69-96.

Kyzlasov L. R. Drevneyshiaya Khakasiya [Ancient Khakassia]. state University, 1986, 295 p. (in Russian)

Lazaretov I. P. Okunevskie mogilniki v doline reki Uybat [Okunev burial grounds in the Uybat River Valley]. St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS: St. Petersburg State University, 1997, pp. 19-64.

Maksimenkov G. A. Okunevskaya kul'tura: Avtoref. dis. ... d-ra ist. nauk [Okunevskaya culture: Abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences]. Novosibirsk, 1975, 39 p. (in Russian)

Maksimenkov G. A. Mylnik Chernovaya VIII - etalonny pamyatnik okunevskoy kul'tury [Burial ground Chernovaya VIII-an etalon monument of Okunevskaya culture]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, pp. 3-34.

Maksimenkov G. A. Mogilnik okunevskoy kul'tury u sela Lebyazhye [Burial ground of Okunev culture near the village of Lebyazhye]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1981, pp. 91-110.

Savinov D. G. Okunevskie mogili na severo Khakasii [Okunev graves in the north of Khakassia]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1981, pp. 111-117.

Sokolova L. A. Kharakteristika i tipologiya okunevskogo keramicheskogo kompleksa [Characteristics and typology of the Okunevsky ceramic complex]. - St. Petersburg: State Publishing House. Hermitage, 2002, pp. 230-236.

Sokolova L. A. Tipologiya pogrebal'nykh pamyatnikov okunevskoy kul'tury [Typology of funeral monuments of Okunevskaya culture]. Okunevsky sbornik-2, St. Petersburg: SPb State University, 2006, pp. 251-259.

Sher Ya. A. Was there any Okunevskaya culture? // Okunevsky sbornik-2. - SPb.: SPb. state University, 2006. - pp. 248-250.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 07.07.06.

page 51

Permanent link to this publication: