Humboldt University of Berlin

Institute of History, Department of Archeology

Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultat I

Institut fur Geschichtswissenschaften Ur- und Frtihgeschichtliche Archaologie

Hausvogteiplatz, 5 - 7, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland

E-mail: arch.kuzmin@gmx.de

In the last decade, a large series of radiocarbon dates have been obtained for the burial complexes of the Sayano-Altai region, and the age measurements of the samples taken in previous years have been calibrated. Radiocarbon dates for Scythian and Early Hunnic monuments are the most controversial; many of them differ from archaeological ones. Most often, the legitimacy of the rejuvenation of the Large Pazyryk Mounds in the Altai before 300 - 250 BC, the aging of the early Uyuk-Saglyn complexes in Tuva and the early Saragashen mounds in the Minusinsk basin before the VIII-VII centuries BC, the attribution of some Tesinsky burial mounds to the Scythian, rather than the Hunnic, time, and the use of ancient monuments in the Altai territory is questioned. also dates for later Uyuk-Saglyn and Saragashen monuments. Probably, in some cases, errors reflect the objective complexity of radiocarbon dating of complexes built in 800-400 BC. e. Obtaining reliable dates is possible using a set of methods; it is important to compare the results obtained for individual cultural and historical periods.

Introduction

Radiocarbon dating occupies a leading position among other natural-scientific methods of dating archaeological sites. Due to the improvement of technical capabilities in the last decade, the scope of its application is expanding. It is hoped that determining the absolute age of archaeological sites will no longer be particularly difficult: it is only necessary to correctly take samples for radiocarbon analysis. However, as the dates obtained earlier and now recalculated using new methods were published, discrepancies between the results of radiocarbon dating and data based on traditional archaeological dating methods (typological, clothing analogies, historical identification, etc.) became apparent. As a result of generalization of a series of new radiocarbon dates for archaeological sites of Southern Siberia, the Bronze and Early Iron Age cultures are assigned to an earlier period than previously determined (Gorsdorf, Parzinger, Nagler, 2004).

Discrepancies in the dates needed to be explained and, if possible, eliminated. M. L. Podolsky highlighted the philosophical aspect of the problem: "Archaeological modeling (meaning the creation of archaeological typologies. - N. K.) and radiocarbon analysis are heterogeneous, they lie in different planes of our knowledge. There are points of contact (intersection) of these planes, the totality of which is

page 77
we conditionally consider the time axis. But it would be naive to assume that numerical results related to fundamentally different areas of science, projected on this conditional axis, must necessarily coincide." At the same time, M. L. Podolsky does not reject either the fundamental possibility of these coincidences, or the prospects of the radiocarbon analysis method itself, which, according to his conclusion, can be used to construct "workable archaeological models" [2002, p. 66]. L. S. Marsadolov, who has been engaged in dendrochronology of Sayano-Altai mounds for many years and established an absolute chronology On the basis of archaeological parallels in well-dated Seven-year-old mounds, he identified the "pitfalls" of the radiocarbon dating method itself, which are usually kept silent by experts. The reason for criticism was the 150-year rejuvenation of the Pazyryk mounds of Altai, based on the recalculation of old and attraction of new radiocarbon dates [2002, pp. 93 - 103]. Changes in the calibration scales and the conditional nature of the half-life determination are mentioned as possible reasons that affect the final results.14 S, possible radioactive anomalies in the excavation sites [Ibid., p. 99]. V. A. Dergachev noted the difference in the obtained dates and recognized the need to "adjust" and" control " both research methods, but did not explain the principle by which such an adjustment should be made [1997, p. 66-67].

A comparison of the above works allows us to identify three main issues:: 1. Should radiocarbon dates be absolutely trusted? 2. What are the reasons for the discrepancy between radiocarbon and archaeological dates? 3. Is it possible to correlate dates obtained by different methods? It is almost impossible for one specialist to answer them unambiguously. Additional explanations from representatives of different sciences are needed. Such explanations are contained in the collective monograph " Eurasia in the Scythian Era. Radiocarbon and archaeological chronology" [2005].

The appearance of this book is undoubtedly an event in Eurasian Scythology. It has no analogues in the breadth, problem, scope of the archaeological complexes involved in the study, and the significance of the conclusions obtained. This work is a brilliant result of the collaboration of leading experts in the field of humanities and natural sciences from well-known research centers in Russia, Ukraine, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Scotland. The advantage of the book is, first of all, the objectivity of the description of the research method itself and the study of specific materials from various monuments. Possible errors in radiocarbon dating are not hidden, and the resulting contradictions are not obscured. The monograph clearly defines the place of the radiocarbon method in comparison with other methods: typological, the method of dating by analogy and imported materials, the method of historical identifications. The essence of dendrochronological and radiocarbon dating methods is clearly stated, and the principle of calibration of radiocarbon dates is explained. On the example of a number of objects of study, the principles of constructing dendrorads, their correlation, relative dating, and the use of calibration data are shown. curves for converting radiocarbon age to a calendar date. The time interval from 800 to 400 BC, the so-called Galstadt plateau, is particularly highlighted, where the calibrated calendar interval of the radiocarbon date is much wider than in other areas. To eliminate this shortcoming, the method of matching with the calibration curve (wiggle matching) was applied, which requires a series of radiocarbon dates for individual tree sections of at least ten annual rings each. The use of this method made it possible to more accurately determine the age of some Asian complexes. According to the authors, the dates obtained are the reference dates for determining the age of other monuments of the same type in a particular region. Based on calibrated radiocarbon dates, the age of monuments located on a vast territory from the Sayano-Altai to the North Caucasus will be determined. Summary tables of radiocarbon chronology of Scythian sites in Central Asia (Tuva, Altai), Karasuk and Tatar sites in the Minusinsk basin, and Scythian sites in the Southern Urals, Lower Volga, North Caucasus, and Northern Black Sea region are presented. The authors draw conclusions about the nature and sequence of development of pre-Scythian and Scythian cultures of the Sayano-Altai region.

Due to certain circumstances, periodizations and chronologies of monuments from different eras have always been worked out and clarified on the archaeological materials of the Minusinsk basin. These schemes were of key importance in the study of archaeological complexes in neighboring regions of Central Asia, Southern and Western Siberia. Among the cultures of the Scythian period, the reference one is the bright and original Tatar one. Therefore, it is quite understandable that after reading the book, there is a desire to check the reliability of conclusions, first of all, on the materials of excavations of archaeological sites in the Minusinsk basin. However, before discussing radiocarbon dates, it is necessary to provide some significant explanations, without which further discussion is impossible.

Historical identification method

Illustrative examples of the application of this method are contained in S. V. Kiselev's monograph "The Ancient History of Southern Siberia" [1949]. One of the most popular ones so far-

page 78
The po is a historical identification made for a palace of Chinese architecture excavated near Abakan. According to S. V. Kiselyov, in the first quarter of the first century BC, the former Han commander, the Hunnic governor Li Ling, could have lived in it [Ibid., pp. 267-272]. However, later it was established that the building was built in 9-23 AD and in this connection the historical interpretation of the monument changed (Vainshtein and Kryukov, 1976).

In fact, the method of historical identification is close to chronologically linking the most significant changes that occurred at the junctions of archaeological cultures and their stages in the features of the construction of monuments, funerary rites and inventory, to specific historical events recorded in written sources.

S. V. Kiselev noted the earliest analogs of the Karasuk bronzes in the excavations of the last capital of the Yin dynasty in Anyang (starting from the XR / c. BC), but synchronized the appearance and existence of the Karasuk culture in the Minusinsk basin with the time of the early Zhou (1122-722 BC) [1949, pp. 95, 105 - 106]. In accordance with these ideas, the beginning of the Tatar culture was attributed to the VII century BC. The researcher identified three stages of cultural development; the final of the latter, in his opinion, corresponds approximately to the turn of the era [Ibid., pp. 108-176]. Analyzing the monuments of the Hunno-Sarmatian period, S. V. Kiselev noted the most important historical events of the late IV-III centuries BC, which help to understand the essence of the changes that took place: Alexander the Great's campaigns in Central Asia and the formation of Hellenistic states, the migration of Saka and Massaget tribes, the activation of the Sarmatians in the west, the formation of the Hunnic military alliance in the east [Ibid., p. 177]. Among the large Altai mounds, the First Pazyryk mound (mid-3rd century BC) was attributed to the beginning of the early (Hunnic) period of the Hunno-Sarmatian era.), as the younger ones are defined by Katandinsky, followed by Berel and Shibe [Ibid., pp. 189,216]. From this understanding of the beginning of the new era, it follows that in the Minusinsk basin in the early Hunnic period, late mounds of the second stage of development of the Tatar culture were built, then Tesinsky mounds appeared-crypts and ground graves, attributed by S. V. Kiselyov to the third stage, in the late period of the Hunno-Sarmatian era monuments of Tashtyk culture were erected. It should be noted that the large mounds of the Pazyryk culture S. V. Kiselyov, based on their similarity in design, burial rites and some things with the mounds of the Xiongnu nobility excavated in Mongolia in the Noin-Uly mountains, attributed to the Xiongnu era. He found parallels in the construction of Large Pazyryk mounds and some Tashtyk crypts, for example, earthen mound 1 on the Uibat. These parallels are now explicable. The Pazyryk and later Noin-Ula architectural traditions were organically combined (together with others) in the structures of the Tesin burial mounds and were preserved until the Tashtyk time (Kouzmine, 2005).

Researchers are still trying to correlate historical events with periodizations and chronological definitions for Sayano-Altai archaeological sites. D. G. Savinov compared the time of the emergence of new cultures (or their stages) on the territory of Tuva, the Minusinsk basin and the Altai with specific historical events - the end of the state of Western Zhou (770 BC), the creation of the Achaemenid Empire (550 BC), the campaigns of Alexander the Great in Central Asia (20s of the IV century BC), the northern campaign of Maodun (201 BC). B.C.), the transfer of the Xiongnu capital to Northern Mongolia (120 B.C.), the division of the Xiongnu into northern and southern (55 B.C.), the victory of the Xianbians over the Huns (93 A.D.), the end of the Xianbian rule (mid-third century A.D.), the migration of the Ashin Turks to the Mongol Altai (460 AD). It is assumed that there is a causal relationship between historical events and changes in archaeological sites [Savinov, 1991, pp. 93-96]. D. G. Savinov made historical comparisons, but only for archaeological cultures on the territory of Tuva [2002, Table I]. Note that in the researcher's diagrams, there is a time gap between archaeological and historical events.

In the work of V. V. Bobrov, A. S. Vasyutin, and S. A. Vasyutin, the same dates associated with the history of the Xiongnu are compared with the time of existence of specific archaeological complexes on the territory of Tuva and Altai [2002, pp. 123-130]. In the table proposed by the authors [Ibid., p. 129], the unambiguity of the interpretation of the appearance of a number of cultural complexes in the Altai and Tuva in connection with the events of 201 BC is surprising, without taking into account possible time tolerances. It is a pity that the simultaneous funerary monuments of the Tesin culture of the Minusinsk basin were not used for comparison - the overall picture would have been more informative.

Archaeological method

There are no clear dating analogues of Pre-Scythian and Old Scythian objects found in the Sayano-Altai mounds. Their search in dated complexes in China may be successful, and then it will be possible to more accurately determine the time of distribution of similar things; this direction of communication seems to be the most promising. There are no reference archaeological dates confirming that the cessation of the construction of monuments of the Early Scythian period and the appearance of complexes of the Scythian time occurred after the middle of the VI century BC.

page 79
In the Minusinsk basin at this time, the barrows of the Bijinsky type became widespread.

Researchers have not yet come to a consensus on the archaeological date for Late Scythian and Early Hunnic monuments in the Sayano-Altai region. The most important thing here is to determine the time of distribution of objects of the "Hunnic type", which are found in the later complexes of the Scythian period, are present in mixed monuments combining traditional and innovative features, and in a complete set are characteristic of the inventory of monuments of the Hunnic era. According to the well-reasoned opinion of S. S. Minyaev, the Xiongnu clothing complex was formed by the end of the second century BC [1998, pp. 70-83]. However, this does not mean that some items that later became an integral part of Xiongnu burials could not have appeared earlier, during the formation of this complex at the end of the III-II centuries BC. Moreover, S. S. Minyaev himself notes that the earlier monuments studied in China could have been the basis for the formation of the Xiongnu material culture [1998, pp. 81-82].

Thus, the archaeological dating of the late III - late II century BC complexes is extremely difficult, and each of the researchers solves this problem in their own way. For example, V. V. Bobrov, A. S. Vasyutin, and S. A. Vasyutin attribute the appearance of Ulughem-type monuments in Tuva to 201 BC and associate them with the northern campaign of Maodun [2002, p. 129]. D. G. Savinov believes that these objects were built later than 120 BC, after the transfer of the Xiongnu headquarters in Northern Mongolia and the Xiongnu material complex [2002, Table I].

In this regard, it should be noted that when using historical and archaeological dating methods, different results can be obtained. Thus, D. G. Savinov, based on the above-mentioned most important events in the history of the Xiongnu, characterized the successive cultural changes that manifested themselves in the territory of Tuva in the new era [Ibid., pp. 150-154]. At the same time, he noted: "Such an understanding of the cultural and historical processes that took place in the initial period of the Hunnic-Sarmatian time, in our opinion, is more consistent with reality than considering various kinds of innovations of Hunnic origin in one chronological section, as suggested by V. A. Semenov*" [Ibid., p. 154]. V. A. Semenov was perplexed by this criticism [2003, p. 82]. And this is completely understandable. Analyzing the complexes of the Ozen-Alabeliga stage (log cabins, stone boxes, and crypts) that he studied, V. A. Semenov identified 13 indicator objects, most of which have analogues in the burial grounds of the northern Xiongnu. The date given by him (II-I centuries BC) is justified archaeologically [Ibid., pp. 76-79]. For the reasons mentioned above, it cannot be more accurately linked to specific historical events. D. G. Savinov's reconstruction is flexible and attractive, but it is based more on an intuitive understanding of cultural changes than on specific archaeological dates.

E. B. Vadetskaya developed and applied a method of archaeological dating of burial complexes in the Minusinsk basin of the turn of the EON based on beads similar to those found in the monuments of the Northern Black Sea region [1999]. The given date is clarified by conclusions based on the results of chemical analysis of beads (Galibin, 2001).

Chronology and periodization of Tagar cultural monuments

In the above-mentioned collective monograph [Eurasia.. ., 2005] for the Tatar monuments of the Minusinsk basin, the periodization of M. P. Gryaznov [1979] is called the most reasonable: in it, within the VIII-I centuries BC, the mounds of each of the six consecutive stages (Bayinovsky, Chernovsky, Podgornovsky, Bidzhinsky, Saragashensky, Lepeshkinsky) exist for about one century, and the mounds are crypts and crypts. ground graves of the last (Tesinsky) stage - two centuries. M. P. Gryaznov attributed the Saragashen and Lepeshkin mounds to the IV-III centuries BC (Evraziya..., 2005, pp. 96-97).

In 1979, another work was published devoted to the periodization of Tatar monuments; it gives a general description of the burial complexes of each of the three cultural and historical periods in Tagar culture identified by the author: Early Tatar (VIII-VI centuries BC, monuments of the first three stages according to M. P. Gryaznov), Srednetagar (or Saragashen, V- III centuries. monuments of the subsequent three stages according to M. P. Gryaznov) and the Late Dagestan (II-I centuries BC, Tesinsky monuments) (Kuzmin, 1979). This topic was developed in subsequent publications [Kuzmin, 1984, 1987a, b]. From the context of the research, it follows that the funerary complexes of each of the three cultural and historical periods can, in principle, be assessed as multicultural.

Later, the mounds of the second (Saragashen) period (V-III centuries BC) were studied in more detail: the early, middle and late (Lepeshkin type) groups of monuments were identified and characterized. The date of the earliest Saragashen mounds was dated to the fifth century BC. Accordingly, the construction of the Bijin-type mounds, which occupy an intermediate position between the Podgornov and Saragashen mounds, should be associated with the sixth century BC (Kuzmin, 1994a).

G. N. Kurochkin in the course of analyzing the materials of the excavations of the Bolshoy Poltakovsky mound, relying on the earliest analogues of Saragashen items in the monuments-

* We are talking about the work of [Semenov, 1999].

page 80
Kakhov, who studied in adjacent and more remote territories, dated the Saragashen graves to the period from the end of the seventh to the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries BC (1993, p. 33). The correctness of attributing finds from the Early Saka burial grounds Tagisken and Uigarak, as well as Sauromatian monuments of the Southern Urals, to distant analogues requires careful verification; the closest analogues are noted in the Tuekta-2 mound. The date of the monument is given in SI. Rudenko, who associated the construction of the Tuekta-1 and - 2 mounds with the second half of the VI century BC. 2 was built later than Mound 1 [1960, p. 336]. According to the results of radiocarbon dating, the Tuekta-1 mound belongs to approximately the middle of the fifth century BC (Evraziya..., 2005, pp. 82-83, 215).

Analysis of funerary monuments of the last (Tesin) stage of the Tatar culture allowed us to conclude that in the steppe part of the Minusinsk basin from the end of the 3rd century BC to the beginning of the 3rd century AD, there was a Tesin culture that replaced the Tatar one (Kuzmin, 1992,1995; Kouzmine, 2005). According to E. B. Vadetskaya, the Late Saragashen burial mounds, Tesin burial mounds and ground burial grounds, Tashtyk ground graves and some of the small Tashtyk crypts were built simultaneously in the first centuries AD [1999].

The most reliable is the archaeological date, which is consistent with the relative chronology based on the results of analysis of horizontal and vertical stratigraphy data of monuments excavated in one small area. A similar research procedure was successfully used in the first third of the 20th century by S. A. Teploukhov in the isolation of cultures of the Minusinsk basin [1927, 1929], and later by M. P. Gryaznov during excavations of monuments near Mount Tepsey [1979].

This method was also used to analyze the stratigraphic relationships of Saragashen burial mounds, Tesin burial mounds and ground graves, as well as Tashtyk monuments studied on the territory of the Znamenskaya irrigation system (southern Khakassia) in 1979-1985. As a result, it was possible to determine the time sequence of construction of monuments of Tagar, Tesin and Tashtyk cultures here, as well as to establish the relative chronology of the Tesin burial complexes: Saragashen burial mounds-Tesin burial mounds-crypts with bronze miniatures (I stage of the Tesin culture) - Tesin burial mounds-crypts and ground graves with iron objects (II stage) - ground graves with iron objects. iron objects (Stage III) - Tashtyk monuments. To verify the relative chronology of the monuments of the Tesin culture, stratigraphic materials obtained during excavations in other places of the Minusinsk Basin were used (Kouzmine, 2005).

The relative chronology of the Tesinsky monuments became the basis for creating their periodization. Due to this periodization, it was later possible to conduct a typological analysis of funerary structures, rites, and inventory, as well as to identify significant features and correlate them. The selected indicator objects allowed us to draw conclusions about the coexistence of a number of later Saragashen burial mounds and early Tesin burial mounds of the First stage, as well as about belonging to the third stage of the Tesin culture in addition to the ground graves of the two crypts. The time of functioning of the funerary monuments of the Tesin culture (late 3rd century BC - early 3rd century AD) established by dating analogues corresponds to the era of the Han Dynasty in China and the periods of domination in Central Asia, first by the Xiongnu, and then by the Xianbi [Ibid].

Evaluation of radiocarbon dating results

Taking into account the specifics of radiocarbon analysis, there were theoretically possible discrepancies between archaeological and radiocarbon dates in the time period of the VIII-V centuries BC ("Galstadt plateau"), and they were discovered. There are no questions about the aging of the absolute dates of the Bayinovsky, Chernovsky, and part of the Podgornovsky mounds in the interval from the XI to the beginning and middle of the VIII century BC; this conclusion is consistent with M. P. Gryaznov's earlier observation that analogues of Arzhansky objects are found in the Podgornovsky complexes (Evraziya..., 2005, Fig. 4, 6)..

The broad date of the Podgornov mounds, the initial boundary of which is earlier than the VIII century BC, includes the VII (Kazanovka-3, mound 2, mogh. 2) or even almost the entire VI century BC (Kazanovka-2, Kurgan ID, mogh. 1; Kazanovka-3, mound 3B, grave 2; Letnik-6), which determines the upper limit of the time of their construction [Ibid.]. One grave attributed to the Bijinsky stage (Prigorsk-1, mound 1, grave 2) dates back to the VIII-VI centuries BC [Ibid., pp. 140, 227, Fig. 4, b]. Some of the Saragashen complexes - Medvedka-II, Mound 1, mound 1; Mound 2, Mound 1; Cheremshino, Mound 1, mound 1 - 3-are dated incorrectly and assigned to the early group incorrectly. A group of late Saragashen mounds, which were studied in the 1980s on the territory of the Saragashen irrigation system, clearly separated within the IV-III centuries BC; these objects can be synchronized with the Large Pazyryk mounds of Altai [Ibid., Figs.4, 6]. For the earlier Saragashen monuments, dates from the eighth to fifth centuries BC are given; this variation in dates is due to the difficulties that arise in determining the absolute time on the site called the "Hallstadt plateau". Even taking into account these difficulties, the conclusion of the authors of the study "Eurasia..." about the construction of early saras comes as a complete surprise-

page 81
the Gashen burial mounds in the eighth or even at the end of the ninth century BC [Ibid., pp. 118, 223]. In this regard, we need to make some important comments for the subsequent discussion: 1) the current situation is not entirely clear, in which radiocarbon dates for the Sayan-Altai archaeological complexes of the same cultural and historical period, which have numerous clothing analogues in the monuments of neighboring regions, in one case rejuvenate these objects to the IV-III centuries BC (Altai, Pazyryk mounds), in the other two they age to the VI B. B.C. (Tuva, log houses of the Suglug-Khem-1 and - 2 burial grounds) or even up to the VIII century B.C. (Minusinsk basin, Saragashen mounds), which in the latter case takes these monuments beyond the given cultural and historical period; 2) with a "stretched" date for crypts with collective burials If the period of operation of these sites could have been quite long, then we should probably focus on the upper dates, since closed archaeological complexes are dated according to the latest items. This position can be verified by radiocarbon dating itself. To date, a large amount of anthropological material has been accumulated from Saragashen and Tesinsky burial mounds. The skeletons in these monuments lay in layers. Dating from skeletal bones from different levels of occurrence would help solve the problem of the duration of crypts ' functioning (even in terms of the relative ratio of dates) and improve the method itself; 3) the authors of the book noted a certain pattern: the most likely age of objects dated in wide intervals (within the "Galstadt plateau") is in the middle or late parts of these regions. intervals [Ibid., p. 216 et seq.]. This conclusion is quite consistent with the proposal to date the crypts to the late part of the time interval; 4) Saragashen burial complexes are characterized by bronze plaques in the form of deer with bent legs; they appeared in the mounds of the Minusinsk basin not earlier than the fifth century BC (see, for example, [Chlenova, 1962, 1967, 1992]). Recognition of the new date of the Saragashen complexes (from the 8th century BC) would mean that the Minusinsk basin was the Eurasian center of distribution of this image, with all the consequences that follow from this. This situation cannot be real for another reason: according to stratigraphic data, the Bijin and Saragashen graves overlap the Early Dagar ones; there are no facts confirming the opposite. The main criterion for verifying radiocarbon dates should be their consistency with stratigraphic data; 5) most of the samples for radiocarbon dating of Tagar mounds belong to the burial complexes studied by N. A. Bokovenko. Some of the materials of these excavations have been published; it is possible to compare the archaeological and radiocarbon dates of some monuments. To estimate the archaeological date for the remaining mounds, the materials of the excavations of which are not published, the information provided in the book about monuments is not enough; when cultural identification of objects is necessary to rely on the researcher's opinion, reflecting his current understanding of the sequence of cultural processes, which changed after the excavations of Arzhan-2 [Evraziya..., 2005, p.138].

Mound 1 of the Cheremshino I burial ground, whose central grave (1) is dated by the wiggle matching method to 723 BC, became a reference monument for the aging of the initial date of the Saragashen stage [Ibid., pp. 76-77]. The mound is described briefly: there are three graves in the fence, the central one was built first, and the other two, located to the north and south of it, were built later. Clothing inventory is listed in a single list for three graves: "Tatar vessels, a deer plaque, a bronze hryvnia covered with a gold leaf, knives, etc.". According to the drawing given in the book under consideration, it is clear that the deer plaque was found not in the first, dated grave, but in the second, built later [Ibid., p. 117-119]. Thus, it is impossible to determine the cultural identity of the central grave by its items. On page 73, calibrated calendar intervals are indicated for successive layers of logs from mog. 1. At ±2, they are: for the 1st layer (from the center)-1000 - 790, for the 2nd - 810-520, for the 3rd - 760 - 390, for the 4th-520-380, the outer rings are 760-400 years BC. e. The picture is very clear: the dates are consistently rejuvenated from the first to the fourth layer. The date for the outer rings gives a "glitch" and almost corresponds to the date of the 3rd layer. In this situation, it is logical to date the sample by the 4th layer, which corresponds to the period from the end of the VI to the end of the IV century BC.

Calibrated calendar intervals for mog. 2 at ± 2 - 880 - 540 3 (two samples) - 910-520 and 770±410 years BC, respectively [Ibid., p. 240]. Graves 2 and 3 were built later than graves 1, so the most appropriate interval is the last one, which corresponds to the VI-V centuries BC. The average date for the mound as a whole lies within the V century BC.

Materials of mound 5 of the Kobyak burial ground have been published, which makes it possible to verify its archaeological date. In the mound disturbed by the road builders, there were two graves; the first one was built in the north (grave 1), the second-in the south (grave 2). Both graves are attributed to the Saragashen stage (Bokovenko and Smirnov, 1998, pp. 29-38). Unfortunately, during the excavations, a general section was not made for two graves, separate sections were given. Missed the opportunity to establish whether the Saragashenskaya grave overlapped the earlier one - Podgornovskaya. The bronze knife, jewelry, and clay vessels found at the bottom of grave 1 [Ibid., figs.28, 35] are similar, for example, to things from graves. 2 mounds 1 grave-

page 82
nickname Shaman Mountain, attributed by the authors of the book " Eurasia.. ."to the Podgornov stage [Ibid., p. 15, fig. 10].

The inventory of mog. 2 is indeed typical of Saragash, with a "deer plaque" among the finds [Ibid., Fig. 34]. N. A. Bokovenko and Yu. A. Smirnov published calibrated dates and comments on them [Ibid., pp. 72-73]. According to the date of the outer rings of the log house, grave 1 was built at the turn of the IX-VIII centuries BC; for grave 2, these authors considered the most acceptable late intervals corresponding to the V century BC [Ibid., p. 73]. All these contradictions are repeated in the book " Eurasia...", where, however, a conclusion is made about the early date of the mound (the end of the IX century BC) and, as a consequence, about the early time of the appearance of Saragashen monuments [Eurasia..., 2005, p.140-144].

For mound 2 of the Sarala burial ground, stratigraphic data determined the sequence of construction of graves: first appeared graves 4 and 3, then-mogs. 2 and the last-Mog1. According to radiocarbon dates, Mog4, 2 and 1 belong to the VIII-V centuries BC. e. The chronological definition of the mound is clarified by the radiocarbon date obtained for the early (according to stratigraphic data) MOG3, from the IV to III centuries BC [Ibid., pp. 173-174). Therefore, he could. 2 and 1 belong to a later time.

The fact that the aging of the initial date of Saragashen monuments is erroneous is confirmed by the analysis of materials from the territory of the Saragashen irrigation system - burial mounds Kolok, Medvedka II and Kirbinsky Log. Calibrated date for kurg. 10 of the Kolok burial ground lies within the VIII-IV centuries BC. The date for mound 3 (X-VIII centuries BC) is clearly erroneous; the authors of the book" Eurasia... " speculatively refer the object to the VIII-beginning of the VI century BC [Ibid., pp. 144-145]. Meanwhile, when publishing the materials of the excavations, the authors noted things similar to the finds from the monuments of the Pazyryk culture [Pshenitsyna and Polyakov, 1989]; this similarity, taking into account the modern date for the latter, excludes the possibility of dating mound 3 within the VIII-beginning of the VI century BC. e. Stable cultural ties of the Saragashen population of the Minusinsk basin with the Pazyryk tribes of Altai they were repeatedly mentioned in the literature. The aging of the Saragashen burial mounds breaks these ties and leaves the monuments in a cultural "vacuum".

The burial ground of Medvedka II consisted of three mounds. The authors of the excavations established the sequence of their appearance: the first mound was built. 3, the second-the mound. 2 and the third - mound 1. The archaeological date of the burial mounds lies within the IV-III centuries BC, the later mound 1 is attributed to the III century BC (Bokovenko and Krasnienko, 1988). The radiocarbon-calibrated date for mound 3 from the log cabin lies within a wide range - from the 8th to the 5th centuries BC, which coincides with the date for the overlap of mound 1 from mound 2. The combined date for four samples of the log cabin from the mound. 2 mounds. 2 narrows this range to the end of the 5th-beginning of the 4th century BC [Evraziya 2005, pp. 177-178].

Of greatest interest are five dates for log samples taken in layers from mound 1, in the mound of which a children's grave was built and a dog was buried in the Tesin period. Two calibrated dates (Le-2007 and Le-2007a) for the 12 central and subsequent rings (from the 12th to the 24th) fit approximately in the framework of the VIII-V centuries BC, but three subsequent calibrated dates (probably for the next series of rings: Le-2008, Le-2008). Le-2008s) give a reliable date-approximately within the II-I centuries BC [Ibid., pp. 178-179, 250-251]. The authors of the book" Eurasia...", however, average all five dates and assign Mound 1 to the beginning of the IV century BC [Ibid., p. 178]. The date for the three outer rings seems more legitimate, which supports the earlier statement about the construction of the later Saragashen crypts in the early Hunnic period.

The date obtained for the stump that was placed on the floor during the grave looting in the Tesin period (late 1st century BC - 1st century AD) is also important [Ibid., pp. 179-180]; it confirms the date of monuments of the middle Tesin stage, where, in addition to crypts, ground graves appeared [Kouzmine, 2005]. Stratigraphic data obtained during the study of mound 1, which are consistent with radiocarbon dates, suggest that the later Saragashen mounds were built before the appearance of Tesinsky ground graves.

The version about the construction of the latest Saragashen burial mounds in the early Hunnic period is also confirmed by radiocarbon dates obtained from wood samples from the burial mounds of the Kirbinsky Log burial ground. The upper bound of calibrated dates for Mound 5 is the beginning of the fourth century. B.C., for mound 1,4 - the boundary of the III and II centuries B.C., for mound 2-the II century B.C., for mound 3 - the beginning of the I century B.C. [Evraziya..., 2005, pp. 170-172].

As shown by the example of Mound 1 of the Medvedka II burial ground, radiocarbon dates can be interpreted in different ways. Moreover, it is possible to specify absolute dates for graves of this time not only by analogy with the Xiongnu materials.

There were three graves in the fence of the mound studied near the village of Novomikhailovka in the south of the Minusinsk basin. According to the stratigraphic data of the latter, the southern grave 3 was constructed, in which the remains of at least 35 people were found. The presence of bone and wooden arrowheads with a split nozzle in the burial suggests that the grave was built at the beginning of the Xiongnu era. An additional argument in favor of this definition is the similarity of the beads found near Novomikhailovka with

page 83
some types of beads that appeared in the Northern Black Sea region not earlier than the II-I centuries BC. In 1994, Mog3 was dated by me to the second half of the III century BC; at that time, it seemed premature to state the idea that Late Saragashen monuments continued to be built in the Xiongnu period without additional justification [Kuzmin, 1994a;Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kuzmin, 1994a; Kouzmine, 1994].

The proposed radiocarbon date for grave 3 of the mound near Novomikhailovka ranges from the end of the fifth to the beginning of the fourth century BC (Evraziya..., 2005, p. 173). According to the dates established for Tatar beads based on analogs from monuments of the Northern Black Sea region and their chemical composition, the time of appearance of such types of beads in Saragashen mounds is not earlier than the II - I centuries BC [Vadetskaya, 1999, p.153; Galibin, 2001, p. 93].

Thus, the validity of the aging of the initial stage of the distribution of Saragashen monuments is not confirmed by stratigraphic data of the Podgornov, Bijinsky and Saragashen graves, nor by the archaeological chronology of objects, nor by radiocarbon dates.

The aging of the Saragashen monuments is undoubtedly related to the date of the Ar-zhan-2 burial mound excavated in Tuva, whose inventory has analogues in the Saragashen complexes [Chugunov, Parzinger, Nagler, 2002, 2004; Cugunov, Parzinger, Nagler, 2003]. Date when the bridge was built. 5, obtained by the matching method when dating tree rings, fits at ± 2 in the range from 671 to 609 BC, the most likely is 659 BC [Evraziya..., 2005, pp. 84-88]. For some reason, no calibrated intervals of years before the New Era are given for wood samples from this grave; they are not found either in Table 2.14 or in the appendix. Various organic remains (17 samples) from grave 5 were dated by accelerator mass spectrometry. The calendar interval at ± 2 is 690-540 years BC. In other words, there is a possibility of dating this grave to a later time [Ibid., pp. 87-88].

To confirm the early radiocarbon date for the Arzhan-2 mound, broad parallels are given to arrowheads from graves 5 and accompanying graves, as well as items of horse equipment from the burial of horses and hoards found among the fence slabs [Ibid., pp. 134-137]. However, mog 5 also contains items whose analogs date back to a later time, such as images of a horse and deer with their legs bent (Chugunov, Parzinger, Nagler, 2004). Direct analogs of the image of a horse with bent legs are found in the monuments of the Sagly culture, for example, Sagly-Bazhi II, kurg. 8, 13 [Grach, 1980, pp. 178-179, figs. 40, 41]. As noted above, bronze plaques depicting deer with bent legs are typical of Saragashen mounds. These and other monuments are dated no earlier than the fifth century BC. Thus, the radiocarbon date of Mog5 of the Arzhan-2 mound is 150 years older than the archaeological date determined from later items, which connects this complex with the previous Aldybel culture.

The thesis that in grave 5 with the paired burial of representatives of the elite of society there are prestigious things that are subsequently distributed among the ordinary population is valid [Evraziya..., 2005, p. 137]. But who has ever tried to calculate the actual duration of this period? Given the general cultural and historical situation of that time, it can be assumed that the Arzhan-2 mound appeared no earlier than the middle of the VI century BC.

Let us turn to the question of dating the Salbyk royal mound, which was studied in the Minusinsk basin. The combined radiocarbon date for it is from the middle of the VIII to V centuries BC. However, the authors of the book" Eurasia...", referring to the constructive similarity of this mound with the Cheremshino and Tigey mounds, tend to associate the monument with the early part of the time range (VIII-VII centuries BC) [Ibid., pp. 174-175]. As for the structural analogies, they can be seen in the later Saragashen and Tesinsky mounds (Kuzmin, 19946, pp. 127-138; Kouzmine, 1994; Kuzmin, 1994), and the size and construction of the Salbyk are most similar to the mounds with elite burials - Bolshoy Novoselovsky (Kurochkin, 1993) and the recently studied Barsuchy Log [Parzinger, Nagler, Gotlib, 2007]. These parallels take us back to the traditional dates for Saragashen monuments (no earlier than the fifth century BC); the three above-mentioned mounds with elite burials can be associated with the boundary of Scythian and early Hunnic times.

All of the above does not allow us to trust the updated radiocarbon dates that lie in the time zone of the VIII-V centuries BC. Apparently, the method itself requires further refinement. In this situation, we can offer a compromise solution - try to create a similar stratigraphic column from radiocarbon dates for different monuments, where terminus ante quem will correspond to the upper value of the calibrated dates. This approach identifies mounds built no later than at the turn of the X-IX centuries BC (monuments of the late Bronze Age), in the middle of the VIII century BC (Bayinovsky), at the end of the VIII century BC (Chernovsky), in the middle of the VI century BC (Podgornovsky), at the turn of the V-IV centuries BC (Bijin), early IV century BC (Early Saragashen), early II century BC (Late Saragashen), mid-I century BC (later Saragashen-Lepeshkin) (see Figure*).

* Two more dates were added to the list of historical dates given by D. G. Savinov [1991, 2002]: 215 AD (the end of the independent history of the southern Xiongnu) and 235 AD (the final collapse of the Xianbi state) [Gumilev, 1993,

page 84

Correlation of historical, archaeological, and radiocarbon dates that characterize the dynamics of Minusinsk basin cultures in the Scythian and Hunno-Sarmatian eras.

Dotted lines indicate periods that require further clarification, and arrows indicate possible links between cultural and historical events and the appearance of new types of monuments.

The looting of the Saragashen crypts (possibly by the Tesins) probably took place no earlier than in the second half of the first century BC (Evraziya..., 2005, pp. 179-180). If this proposition is correct, then the date determines the terminus post quem for Tesin ground (inlet) graves. But the Tesin ground graves were also let into the mounds of those who were also looted (by the Tesins ?) early Tesinsky burial mounds-crypts with bronze miniatures. Burials may have been allowed into the early Tesinsky mounds before the subsiding of the wooden floors of underground crypts and mounds, as well as before the complete decomposition of the soft tissues of the buried, which suggests a relatively short time elapsed after the crypts ceased to function.

Thus, it can be assumed that by the middle of the first century BC, the early Tesin crypts were no longer used, and this time roughly determines the end of the first stage of the Tesin culture. By the middle of the first century BC, the later Saragashen burial mounds, which, unlike the earlier Tesin burial mounds, were built within the Saragashen burial mounds, also ceased to function. In the inventory of the later Saragashen crypts, there are bronze "deer plaques" and objects of unknown purpose that are not found in the early Tesinsky crypts (in the southern part of the Minusinsky basins). The synchronicity of these monuments is confirmed by the presence of indicator objects in them-bronze double-edged punctures with an expanding middle part, pyramidal pendants, as well as clay vessels with specific ornaments in the form of hanging triangles filled with pits (Kouzmine, 2005).

At the second stage of the Tesin culture, in addition to ground graves that were let into the mounds of older mounds or built in separate cemeteries, burial mounds were erected. In the inventory of these and other monuments there are iron products and objects of the "Xiongnu appearance". New calibrated radiocarbon dates for the Tesin ground graves fit within the first century BC - first century AD (Gorsdorf, Parzinger, Nagler, 2004). The same interval is also covered by radiocarbon dates obtained for the Novye Mochagi mound and the burial ground near the village of Kala, if there are others that age the mound and rejuvenate the burial ground.

On the basis of stratigraphic data, the third stage of the Tessin culture includes the following soils:

p. 199-200]. Additionally, the periods of Chinese dynasties are shown, since the time of change of some of them sometimes coincides with the time of appearance of new type of monuments in the Sayano-Altai.

page 85
tesinsky graves, let into the mounds of burial mounds of the second stage, and according to the results of typological analysis of structures and inventory - the most recent graves of individual ground burial grounds and two burial mounds. The time of their construction is most likely the second-beginning of the third century A.D. Apparently, towards the end of this period, early Tashtyk soil burial grounds of the Komarkov type also appeared, but the time ratio of Tesin and Tashtyk monuments requires clarification: here territorial differences in the dynamics of cultural processes that occurred in the steppe and forest-steppe parts of the Minusinsk basin are possible [Kouzmine, 2005]. However, the fact that the Tashtyk graves appeared later than the Tesinsky ones is confirmed by radiocarbon dating. The current calibrated date for grave 4 of the Oglakhty burial ground (excavated by L. R. Kyzlasov), which coincides with the date of imported silk fabric, lies within the last third of the 3rd century AD (Zaitseva et al., 2007, pp. 300-307).

The agreement of archaeological and radiocarbon dating methods for funerary monuments of the Scythian and Hunno-Sarmatian epochs of the Minusinsk basin with simultaneous "linking" of the most significant cultural changes to specific historical events makes it possible to distinguish four archaeological cultures (see figure). The Early Dagar and Late Dagar (Saragash) cultures existed in the Scythian epoch, the Tesin - in the early period of the Hunno-Sarmatian epoch, and the Tashtyk-in its late period. There was no abrupt change of cultures; for some time, monuments of previous cultures were built simultaneously with monuments of a new type. These periods of co-existence of monuments of different cultures are the most difficult to study.

Conclusion

Comparison of the periodization tables and chronology of monuments in three regions-Altai, Tuva, and the Minusinsk Basin (Savinov, 1991, 2002; Bobrov, Vasyutin A. S., Vasyutin S. A., 2002; Fig. 1) - allows us to make some adjustments to the existing periodization:

1) the initial period of the "Early Scythian-type" cultures in the Sayano-Altai region spanned at least the 9th century BC. The early-type cultures that were formed lasted until the end of the 6th century BC.;

2) in the sixth century BC, the spread of new cultural elements began, which may be associated with the creation of the Achaemenid Empire and the advance of nomadic tribes to the east. Perhaps, in the second half of this century, the Arzhan-2 mound was built, the materials of which combine early things (horse harness, arrowheads). There are also plaques in the form of a horse or deer with bent legs, a wooden bucket with a handle in the form of a hoofed animal's foot, which are characteristic of Sayano-Altai monuments of later times.;

3) the formation of new cultures (Pazyryk, Uyuk-Saglyn, Saragash) took place against the background of the tradition of erecting monuments of the "early type" and was completed by the turn of the VI-V centuries BC. Later, funerary monuments of the "early type" were not built;

4) funerary complexes characteristic of new cultures were created in the V-III centuries BC and in the early Hunnic period (before the beginning and middle of the first century BC), when new types of monuments were already being erected (in the Minusinsk basin - early Tesinsky burial mounds);

5) probably, around the middle of the first century BC, the construction of Tesinsky ground graves, comparable to those of the Ulughem type in Tuva and some funerary monuments in the Altai, began in the Minusinsk basin (Savinov, 2002, pp. 143-149).

List of literature

Bobrov V. V., Vasyutin A. S., Vasyutin S. A. The beginning of the Xiongnu epoch in the Sayano-Altai //Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2002. - N 1. - p. 123-130.

Krasnienko S. V. Bokovenko N. A., the burial ground of Medvedka II // Monuments of archeology in the zones of melioration of Southern Siberia. - L.: Nauka, 1988. - pp. 23-45.

Bokovenko N. A., Smirnov Yu. A. Archaeological sites of the Bely Ius Valley in the north of Khakassia. Saint Petersburg: IIMK RAS, 1998, 94 p. (Archeol. research; issue 59).

Vadetskaya E. B. Tashtykskaya epokha v drevnoi istorii Sibiri [The Tashtyk Epoch in the Ancient History of Siberia]. - St. Petersburg: Petersburg, vostokovedenie Publ., 1999, 438 p. (Archeologica Petrovitana; VII).

Vainshtein S. N., Kryukov M. V. "The Palace of Li Lin", or the end of one legend / / SE. - 1976. - N 3. - pp. 137-149.

Galibin V. A. Glass composition as an archaeological source. - St. Petersburg: Petersburg, vostokovedenie Publ., 2001, 216 p. (Archeologica Petrovitana; XI).

Grach A.D. Ancient nomads in the center of Asia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1980, 256 p.
Gryaznov M. N. Vvedenie [Introduction] / / The complex of archaeological monuments at Mount Tepsei on the Yenisei. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1979, pp. 3-6.

Gumilyov L. N. Khunnu. The Steppe trilogy. - SPb.: Time-out-Compass, 1993. - 224 p.

Dergachev V. A. Exact chronological scales extending over 10 thousand years and "statistical chronology" by A. Kh. Fomenko / / Radiocarbon Dating and Archeology. - 1997. - Issue 2. - p. 52-69.

Eurasia in the Scythian era. Alekseev A. Yu., Bokovenko N. A., Vasiliev S. S., van der I. V. Radiocarbon and archaeological chronology. Plicht, V. A. Dergachev, G. I. Zaitseva, N. N. Kovalyukh, G. Cook, G. Possnert, A. A. Sementsov, E. M. Scott, K. V. Chugunov. St. Petersburg: Teza Publ., 2005, 290 p. (in Russian)

Zaitseva G. I., Sementsov A. A., Lebedeva L. M., Pankova S., Vasiliev S. S., Dergachev V. A., Junger H., Sonninen E. New data on the chronology of the Oglakhty-6 monument / / Radiocarbon dating in archaeological and paleoecological studies. St. Petersburg: Teza Publ., 2007, pp. 300-307.

page 86
Kiselev S. V. Drevnyaya istoriya Yuzhnoi Sibiri [Ancient History of Southern Siberia], Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1949, 364 p. (MIA; No. 9).

Osnovnye traditsii i osobennosti izmenenii pogrebal'nykh pamyatnikov tatarskoy kul'tury [The main traditions and features of changes in the funeral monuments of Tatar culture]. Problemy skifo-sibirskogo kul'turno-istoricheskogo edinstva: Tez.dokl. Vsesoyuz. Archeol. conf. - Kemerovo, 1979, pp. 44-47.

K metodike izucheniya pogrebalnogo obryada tatarskoi kul'tury [On the methodology of studying the funeral rite of Tatar culture]. Art and ideology: Tez. dokl. Second Archaeological Conference, Kemerovo, 1984, pp. 148-151.

Voprosy periodizatsii i khronologii tatarskoy kul'tury [Issues of periodization and chronology of Tatar culture]. Problemy arkheologii stepnoy Evrazii: Tez. dokl. - Kemerovo, 1987a. - ch.2. - pp. 68-71.

K voprosu o formirovanii rannetesinskikh kul'turnykh traditsii [On the question of the formation of Early Georgian cultural traditions]. Scythian-Siberian cultural and historical community. Early and Late Middle Ages: Tez. dokl. - Omsk, 19876. - pp. 112-116.

Kuzmin N. Yu. Tesinskaya kul'tura v stepyakh Srednego Yenisei [Tesinskaya culture in the steppes of the Middle Yenisei]. Omsk, 1992, part 2, pp. 72-74.

Kuzmin N. Y. Kurgan near the village of Novomikhailovka. Problems of studying the culture of steppe tribes of the Yenisei of the V-III centuries BC-St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS, 1994a. - 60 p.- (Archeol. research; issue 15).

Elite kurgans of the steppes of Eurasia in the Scythian-Sarmatian era (materials of the Round table meetings). - St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS, State University. Hermitage, 19946. - P. 127-138.- (Archeol. research; issue 18).

Kuzmin N. Yu. Nekotorye itogi i problemy izucheniya tesinskikh pogrebal'nykh pamyatnikov Khakasii [Some results and problems of studying the Tesin burial monuments of Khakassia]. St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS, 1995, pp. 151-162. (Archeol. research; issue 24).

Kurochkin G. N. Rich mounds of the Scythian nobility in the south of Siberia (Bolshoy Novoselovsky and Bolshoy Poltakovsky mounds). Saint Petersburg: IIMK RAS, 1993, 94 p. (Archeol. research; issue 7).

Marsadolov L. S. Once again on the sequence of construction of the Pazyryk and Bertek mounds / / Steppes of Eurasia in antiquity and the Middle Ages: Collection of materials of the conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of M. P. Gryaznov. St. Petersburg: Teza Publ., 2002, Book 2, pp. 93-103.

Minyaev S. S. Dyrestuysky burial ground. - St. Petersburg: Europe. dom, 1998. - 233 p.- (Archeol. Xiongnu monuments; issue 3).

Podolsky M. L. Minusinsk antiquities: the problem of dating // Steppes of Eurasia in antiquity and the Middle Ages: Collection of materials of the conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of M. P. Gryaznov. - SPb., 2002. - Book 1. - p. 64-66.

Pshenitsyna M. N., Polyakov A. S. Burials of the tribal nobility of the Tatar society in the south of Khakassia / / KSIA. - 1989. - N196. - pp. 58-66.

Rudenko S. I. Kul'tura naseleniya Tsentralnogo Altay v skifskoe vremeni [Culture of the population of the Central Altai in the Scythian period].

Savinov D. G. Vozmozhnosti synchronizatsii pis'isnykh i arkheologicheskikh dat v izuchenii kul'tury Yuzhnoi Sibiri skifo-sarmatiskogo vremeni [Possibilities of synchronization of written and archaeological dates in the study of the culture of Southern Siberia in the Scythian-Sarmatian time]. Vsesoyuz. science. conf. - Barnaul: Alt State University, 1991, pp. 93-96.

Savinov D. G. Early nomads of the Upper Yenisei (archaeological cultures and cultural genesis). - SPb.: Publishing House of SPb. state University, 2002, 204 p. (in Russian)

Semenov V. A. Synchronization of Xiongnu monuments of Transbaikalia and late Scythians of Tuva and Northwestern Mongolia // Study of the cultural heritage of the East. Cultural traditions and continuity in the development of ancient cultures and civilizations: Materials between the nar. conf. - St. Petersburg, 1999, pp. 117-121.

Semenov V. A. Suglug-Khem and Khayyrakan-burial grounds of the Scythian period in the Central Tuva basin. St. Petersburg: Peterburg, vostokovedenie Publ., 2003, 240 p. (Archeologica Petrovitana; XV).

Teploukhov S. A. Ancient burials in the Minusinsk region//Materials on ethnography. - L., 1927. - Vol. 3, issue 2. - pp. 57-112.

Teploukhov S. A. Experience of classification of ancient metal cultures of the Minusinsk region // Materials on ethnography. - L, 1929. - Vol. 4, issue 2. - pp. 41-62.

Chlenova N. L. Scythian deer / / Monuments of the Scythian-Sarmatian culture. - Moscow; L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962. - pp. 167-203. - (MIA; N 115).

Chlenova N. L. Proiskhozhdenie i rannaya istoriya plemen tatarskoy kul'tury [Origin and early history of Tatar culture tribes], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1967, 299 p.

Chlenova N. L. Tatarskaya kul'tura [Tatar culture] / / Steppe strip of the Asian part of the USSR in the Scythian-Sarmatian time. - Moscow: Nauka, 1992. - pp. 206-224. - (Archeology of the USSR).

Chugunov K. V., Parzinger G., Nagler A. Elite burial of nomads of the early Scythian period in Tuva / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2002. - N2. - p. 115-124.

Chugunov K. V., Parzinger G., Nagler A. Golden beasts from the Valley of the Kings. Discoveries of the Russian-German archaeological expedition in Tuva. - St. Petersburg: Gos. Hermitage, 2004. - 16 p.

Cugunov K. V., Parzinger H., Nagler A. Der skythische Furstengrabhugel von Arzhan 2 in Tuva // Eurasia Antiqua. - 2003. - Bd. 9. - S. 113 - 162.

14 Gorsdorf J., Parzinger H., Nagler A.C Datings of the Siberian Steppe Zone from Bronze Age to Scythian Time // Impact of the Environment on Human migration in Eurasia. - 2004. - Vol. 42. - P. 83 - 89. - (NATO Science Series; IV Earth and Environmenal Sciens).

Kuzmin N. Y. Burial mounds of nobles of the early scythian period in the Mnusinsk hollou, Siberia // Neu archaeological discoveries in asiatic Russia and Central Asia. - SPb.: IIMK RAN, 1994. - P. 44^17. - (Archaeological studies; N 16).

Kouzmine N. I. Pes steppes de Siberie du Sud: coutumes funeraires a l'epoque scythe // Pes Scythen. - P.: Faton S.A., 1994. - P. 44 - 51. - (Pes Dossiers d'Archeologie; N 194).

Kouzmine N. Grabdenkmaler der Friihen Hunnenzeit in den Steppen des mittleren Jenissej (dieTes'-Kultur): Doktorarbeitzur Erlangung des akademischen Grades D-r. Phil, vorgelegt an der Philosophischen Fakultat 1 der Humboldt Universitatzu Berlin. - Berlin, 2005. - Bd. 1. - 323 S.; Bd. 2. - 108 S. und 127 Tabel.

Parzinger H., Nagler A., Gotlib A. Die Furstengraber der Tagar-Kultur // Im Zeichen des goldenen Greifen. Konigsgraber der Skythen. - Munchen; Berlin; P.; N.Y.: Prestel, 2007. - S. 102 - 115.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 15.08.07.

page 87

Permanent link to this publication: