THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY

7/27/2019 THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-migration-in-the-evolution-of-the-andronov-community 1/9

Copyright © 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the RussianAcademy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi: 10.1016/j.aeae.2008.11.007

ARCHAEOLOGY,

ETHNOLOGY

& ANTHROPOLOGY

OF EURASIAArchaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96

E-mail: [email protected]

88 THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. TkachevTyumen Oil and Gas University,

Volodarskogo 38, Tyumen, 625000, Russia


Institute for the Exploration of the North, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,

Malygina 86, Tyumen, 625000, Russia


THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION

OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY

Introduction

Being virtually universal, migration is a multifaceted

socio-cultural phenomenon. One of its functions is

to redistribute human populations between regions,

stimulating cultural translation and the emergence of

new traditions, which, in turn, results in the convergence

of unrelated cultures and in the formation of new

ethnic groups. Also, migration is an important factor

affecting socio-economic processes and demographic

characteristics such as birth rate, mortality, marriage

patterns, and sex-and-age structure.The emergence of new cultural stereotypes in newly-

populated regions is closely linked to the migrants’

cultural and economic activities. Insofar as these activities

concern adaptation to new environments, their traces are

preserved in material culture and are documented by the

archaeological record. One of the best cultural indicators

is ceramics, which is very sensitive to migratory

processes.

The article explores new approaches to the study of the Andronov culture, with special reference to migration.

Archaeological data from a vast territory over the steppes between the Urals and the Yenisei suggest that migration

was a key factor in population history. In the Middle Bronze Age, two migration waves from the Irtysh River basin,

Kazakhstan, have been reconstructed. The ¿rst of them led to the convergence of groups representing various cultures,

and eventually to the emergence of the Andronov community; the second wave not only brought about the territorial

expansion of the Andronov traditions, but also provided a basis for the emergence of Late Bronze Age rolled pottery

and Andronov-type cultures.

Archaeological findings of recent decades have

prompted us to address the role of migration in the origin

and evolution of the Andronov cultural community, which

occupied huge territories of the steppe and forest-steppe

belts stretching from the Urals to the Yenisei.

The study of prehistoric migration has proceeded in

two major directions. On the one hand, attempts have

been made to reveal the causes underlying migration, and

on the other hand, consequences for both the immigrants

and the autochthonous populations have been analyzed

(Chernosvitov, 1999: 5).

Two main theories have been put forward to explainthe causes of migration. One of them focuses on the

importance of surplus population pressure under a stable

economic level, whereas another one emphasizes the role

of environmental, primarily climatic, processes occurring

within specific geographic zones. Reconstructing the

Eurasian steppe environments during the Bronze Age is a

dif cult task since no palynological record is available for

most of these territories. Normally, archaeologists conduct



N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96 89

paleogeographic analysis with regard to their own region

on the basis of general climatic diachronic tendencies,

extrapolating these to local landscape and climate changes

(see, e.g., (Kosarev, 1974)).

Bronze Age migrations were evidently affected by

both surplus population pressure and climatic changes.

The migration proceeded both in the longitudinal andthe latitudinal direction, in both reverse and crosswise

streams. Sometimes the immigrants formed enclaves

surrounded by the native populations, resulting in a

patchy cultural pattern. Intercultural contacts caused

cultural amalgamation, eventually contributing to

cultural progress.

The impact of climate on migration

To reconstruct the climate of central Eurasia, it is

especially important to examine data concerning theuctuations of the Aral Sea level. Being a lake, the Aral

was a sensitive indicator of general humidization and

aridization of the paleoclimate in the region. Divergent

views have been expressed as to the causes underlying

the fluctuations of the Aral Sea level. According to

A.V. Shnitnikov (1969: 116, 136, 157, table 15), the key

factor was general humidity, which follows 1850-year-

long cycles of solar activity. He estimated the duration of

the three last cycles based on historical and archaeological

data pertaining to the Aral area.

I.G. Weinbergs and V.Y. Stelle (1980: 177 – 180)

have proposed a different reconstruction, based on

palynological evidence. In their view, during the Late

Pleistocene and Early Holocene the Aral Sea receded.

The environment at that time was characterized by

tundra and steppe landscapes, and the climate was dry

and cold. Later, the transgression of the Aral Sea began,

coinciding with the climatic optimum. The next regression

stage, coinciding with the Bronze Age, was caused by a

certain aridization of the climate. The above differences

notwithstanding, both Shnitnikov’s and Weinbergs and

Stelle’s reconstructions proceed from the assumption that

uctuations of the Aral Sea level were caused by changes

in humidity level.

A divergent view concerning the causes was published by memb ers of th e Khor ezm Ar chaeol og ical and

Ethnographical Expedition (Nizovya Amu-Daryi…,

1960: 14, 23, 80–81, 83–89; Kes, Andrianov, Itina, 1980:

188–189). They believe that the transgressions of the Aral

Sea occurred only when the Amu-Darya drained into it;

when the river changed its course, regression took place.

Before the 2nd millennium BC, the Aral Sea was in the

regressive stage as the Amu-Darya disembogued all its

waters into Lake Sarykamysh, and only in the late 3rd

and early 2nd millennia did the river break through the

Akchadarya into the Aral Sea for the rst time. The date

of the event was established on the basis of the presence

of late Kelteminar and Kamyshla sites in the northern

Akchadarya delta. Throughout the 2nd millennium BC,

the Aral delta of the Amudarya was formed, and from the

early 1st millennium onward, the Amudarya disembogued

into the Aral Sea, resulting in the last transgression.

A study of the ora and fauna of the Ustyurt Plateauand of the Syrdarya and Amudarya inter uve suggests

that over the interval from 10–4 ka BP, the climate was

similar to that of the modern steppe zone. At that time,

northwestern Central Asia and the Ustyurt were covered

with rich herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, making those

territories favorable for human residence (Vinogradov,

1981: 19–46; Mamedov, 1980: 98, 170–171). Later, the

climate became more arid, and desertification began

(Markov et al., 1982: 235–240).

The reconstructed climatic changes in Western Central

Asia and Kazakhstan during the Holocene were paralleled

by those described by N.A. Khotinsky for Western Siberia(1977: 163–165, 180; Khotinsky, Nemkova, Surova,

1982: 150–151). According to Khotinsky et al., the

climatic optimum began during the Boreal period, and

its upper limit was the Atlantic – Sub-Boreal boundary.

The Sub-Boreal and Sub-Atlantic stages of the Holocene

are regarded as a single and relatively stable period in

the climatic history of Northern Eurasia. In Western

Siberia, the climate became somewhat colder compared

to the Atlantic period, the area covered by r and broad-

leaved forests shrank, and the sub-taiga and taiga zones

became swampier. These processes were unaccompanied

by considerable uctuations of humidity level or shifts of

the boundary between forest and steppe, which had been

established as early as the Atlantic period.

The topography of archaeological sites in various

regions of Western Siberia and Kazakhstan indicates that

the climate in the Sub-Boreal period was very unstable.

Humidification led to the northward displacement of

landscape and vegetation zones. Not only the border

between the steppe and the forest-steppe shifted, but that

between the forest-steppe and the forest as well (Kosarev,

1974: 24–27; 1979; Molodin, Zakh, 1979: 52; Potemkina,

1979: 59; Khabdulina, Zdanovich, 1984: 150). The

Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2nd – early 1st millennia

BC), as most specialists believe, coincided with the sub-Boreal period. Unlike the preceding period, which was

moderately humid and relatively warm, and the beginning

of the Early Iron Age, which was moderately arid and

warm, the Sub-Boreal period was characterized by a dry

climate with temperatures 2–4 °С below modern ones

(Evdokimov, 2000: 58; Potemkina, 1985: 28).

The comparison of climatic processes that occurred

in northern Kazakhstan and Western Siberia, on the one

hand, and in Western Central Asia, on the other, suggests

that these processes largely paralleled one another in

intermediate steppe zones. This idea is supported by



90 N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 88–96

archaeological observations: sites dating from all periods

of the Bronze Age are situated on riverine terraces which

are not submerged during oods; deep utility pits are

dug down below the modern ground-water level; and

the cultural layers in depressions are overlaid by alluvial

deposits.

The above facts indicate that despite a somewhatlesser humidity of climate in the Bronze Age, the overall

environmental conditions during the Sub-Boreal period

were close to modern ones. The temperature was somewhat

above the modern temperature, and the vegetation period

was longer. The territory between the Urals and the Aral

Sea was covered by grassland steppe with considerable

arboreal vegetation in river valleys, passing into forest-

steppe with patches of forest in the north. Thus, favorable

conditions of the Trans-Ural steppes contributed to the

emergence of several Bronze Age cultures based on

a mixed economy, apparently due to the immigrants’

successful adaptation to local environments.

Migration and the emergence

of the Andronov cultures

The Andronov cultural community is a central element in

the Bronze Age history of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes.

By the mid-1900s, the principal viewpoints regarding the

origin, chronology, and evolution of the Andronov culture

had been formulated, including the idea that Andronov

cultures had existed in the Trans-Ural steppes for a

long time. The study of Andronov assemblages resulted

in a scheme where local cultures were merged under

the blanket term “Andronov community” (Formozov,

1951: 18). In later years, dozens of Andronov sites were

excavated throughout a vast territory stretching from the

Volga to the Yenisey, and from the southern fringes of the

taiga to Western Central Asia. As a result, the principal

challenge is to develop a cultural and chronological

classification of artifacts representing the Andronov

community (Fedorova-Davydova, 1973: 152). The

further accumulation of data over the entire distribution

range of that community led to the appearance of

divergent theories concerning the origin and interaction

of its constituent cultures (Matyuschenko, 1973; Kosarev,1981; Kiryushin, 1985; Potemkina, 1985; Zdanovich,

1988; Avanesova, 1991; Varfolomeyev, 1991; Kuzmina,

1994; A.A. Tkachev, 2002).

A separate theory is proposed by S.S. Chernikov

(1960) and is based on materials from the Kazakhstan

part of the Irtysh basin. Chernikov proceeds from the fact

that the Andronov traditions originated in a culturally

diverse core area in the steppe zone of Kazakhstan, from

where they spread to the Trans-Ural region, the Upper Ob,

Yenisei, and Western Central Asia. Cultural uniformity,

according to that view, was due both to common descent

and to similar economies. Ethnic differences arose in

the course of migrations and interactions. According

to Chernikov, the evolution of the Andronov culture

evidences a community of several cultural, hence ethnic,

groups, and this community is especially pronounced at

the nal stage of their existence. This theory accounts

not only for the cultural and chronological specicity of Andronov tribes of eastern Kazakhstan, but also for the

similar sequence of historical processes across the vast

distribution area of the Andronov community.

Modern theories fall into two major groups –

migrationist and evolutionist. Most scholars feel that the

Alakul culture is rooted in the Trans-Ural Chalcolithic

(Matyushin, 1982: 297–300; Stokolos, 1983: 257; Logvin,

1991: 52–53; 2002: 35–37). The focal area was initially

believed to have been situated in the Tobol and Ishim

steppes (Potemkina, 1983: 13, g. 1; 1985: 273), and

since the discovery of Sintashta assemblages and the

recognition of the independent cultural status of earlyAlakul (Petrovka) sites, the southern Trans-Ural area and

the adjoining steppe regions of Kazakhstan have been

viewed as the most likely sources (Tkachev V.V., 1998:

46; Vinogradov N.B., 2007: 35–36).

The migrationists expressed divergent views as to

the core area where the Andronov (Fedorovo) culture

had originated. Three areas have been mentioned: the

Trans-Ural region (Potemkina, 1985: 272–273; Kosarev,

1991: 81), eastern Kazakhstan (Stokolos, 1972: 115;

Maksimenkov, 1978: 87; Tkacheva, 1997; Tkachev A.A.,

2002: 190), and central Kazakhstan (Kuzmina, 1994: 114–

122; Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006: 135). The evolutionists

regard the Andronov community as polyphyletic and

resulting from a continuous in situ evolution of various

cultures representing this community (Salnikov, 1967;

Zdanovich, 1984; Avanesova, 1991; Matveyev, 1998).

Stratigraphic observations made at several multi-

layered sites in the Tobol basin, and in northern and

central Kazakhstan indicate that the Alakul-Atasu and

Fedorovo-Nura ceramics are present with roughly equal

frequencies in the same cultural horizons (Zdanovich,

1974: 65, g. 4; Potemkina, 1976: 101–105; 1985: 47,

83; Kadyrbayev, 1983: 134–139; Tkachev A.A., 2002:

tables 22, 31). In most cases, those horizons are overlaid

by deposits with Alexeyevka-Sargary pottery decoratedwith rolls. At stratied Western Siberian sites (Omsk,

Irmen I, Krasny Yar, and Kudelka-2), Andronov deposits,

situated at the bottom of the sequence, are overlaid by

Irmen layers of the Late Bronze Age (Gryaznov, 1956:

30–36; Chlenova, 1955: 38–47; Zakh, 1997: 66). In other

words, no stratigraphic data is available to date to assess

the relative chronology of Alakul-Atasu and Fedorovo-

Nura assemblages.

The stratigraphy and planigraphy of the sites along

with results of the statistical analysis of the proportion

of various types of ceramics indicate, first, that an




independent Andronov culture (Kanay) existed in the

region between the Irtysh and the Yenisei, and second,

that the Alakul-Atasu and Andronov-Kanay populations

coexisted in the Tobol – Irtysh interfluve during the

Middle Bronze Age. No evidence suggesting that one of

the two traditions is ancestral to the other, i.e. that Alakul

originated from Fedorovo (as Salnikov believes) or viceversa (as Zdanovich, Avanesova, and Matveyev believe)

is known to date. Rather, ceramic assemblages from

nonstratied Andronov-type sites attest to a common basis

of early Alakul (Sintashta, Petrovka, Nurtay) and early

Andronov (Kanay) traditions; apparently those traditions,

their specicity notwithstanding, emerged on adjacent and

environmentally similar territories.

The principal source of the Andronov tradition in the

Upper Irtysh basin was the pre-Andronov Ust-Bukon

tradition, believed to represent a separate stage of the

Bronze Age of that region (Chernikov, 1960; Tkacheva,

1997). According to Kosarev (1981: 105), the Ust-Bukonceramics display certain original features linking it

to the Samus ceramics of Western Siberia. Kiryushin

(2002: 84) suggested that pre-Andronov assemblages

of eastern Kazakhstan, the foothills of the Altai, and

the Upper Ob represent a single culture. This idea is

hardly acceptable since the difference between the

eastern Kazakhstan sites and those of the Altai is more

pronounced than the similarity between them. A certain

resemblance of ceramic assemblages of both territories is

“more likely due to evolutionary factors” (Ibid.: 86) than

to cultural ones.

Pottery similar to that of the Ust-Bukon tradition has

been found at the Chalcolithic sites of Chemar I, and

Nurbay II and III on the borderline between the Upper

Irtysh basin and its Pavlodar section (Maerz, 2004:

g. 2). Traditions represented by sites such as Chemar I,

in our view, underlie the origin of the Early Bronze Age

assemblages of the Ust-Bukon type. These sites dene

the northern border of the pre-Andronov tradition of

eastern Kazakhstan, coinciding with that of the Kazakh

hummocky topography and of the southwestern foothills

of the Altai. Sites situated north of it, in the steppe zone of

the Pavlodar part of the Irtysh basin, are in some respect

similar to those of the Yelunino-Krotovo type (Maerz,

2003: 133, g. 1, 1, 18 – 20). Populations associated withthese sites were apparently displaced or, more likely,

assimilated, by the early Kanay tribes living on the Upper

Irtysh at the early stage of the northward migration along

the Irtysh valley.

The Ust-Bukon pottery resembles that of the

southwestern Siberian cultures: Odinovo, Krokhalevka,

Yelunino, and Vishnevka, mostly that of Vishnevka in

northern Kazakhstan, richly decorated with oblique

imprints, and round and triangular pits combined with

wavy and horizontal lines (Tatarintseva, 1984: 104–110,

g. 2, 2, 5, 4 – 15). Most researchers date the Early Bronze

Age traditions to the last quarter of the 3rd millennium –

rst third of the 2nd millennium BC (Krizhevskaya, 1977:

96; Kosarev, 1981: 62; Tatarintseva, 1984: 112; Molodin,

1985: 34; Kiryushin, 2002: 82).

The Ust-Bukon tradition, from which the Andronov

tradition originated, was related to the Kanay culture,

which, having emerged in eastern Kazakhstan, underwentthree continuous stages (Tkacheva, 1997). At the

early stage of Kanay proper (18th–17th cent. BC), its

distribution area was restricted to the mountain-steppe

part of the Upper Irtysh basin. The ceramics of that

stage is still similar to that of the Okunev culture of the

Minusinsk Basin and of the Krotovo-Yelunino tradition of

the Western Siberian forest-steppe. At the next, Marinino,

stage (17th–16th cent. BC), the Kanay populations

began expanding into the steppe regions of the Pavlodar

part of the Irtysh basin and the adjoining parts of the

Altai. Marinino ceramics is represented by jars and pot-

jars decorated with incisions and comb imprints. Thedecoration became progressively more geometric, and

oblique triangles appeared.

Marinino artifacts are diverse, the most distinct ones

being palmate pendants with bosses. Apart from marking

the Marinino stage of the Kanay culture, these pendants

make it possible to delineate the distribution area of that

culture in the second quarter of the 2nd millennium BC –

the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin and the adjacent

steppe regions of the Altai. Similar pendants were found

at burial grounds such as Michurino I, Kenzhekol I,

Novo- Al exan drovka, Firsov o XI V, Kytma novo,

Rublevo VIII, as well as in a Krotovo culture burial

at Sopka II, the Baraba forest-steppe (Molodin, 1985:

fig. 34, 21). Outside the Ob-Irtysh region, the only

pendant of that type was discovered at Murza-Shoku in

central Kazakhstan (Margulan, 1979: 311, g. 226, 58).

The resemblance of ceramic assemblages of the

above sites, situated close to one another in the same

environmental zone, points to the territory where the

common Andronov cultural tradition had formed, and

from where it spread across the steppe belt of Eurasia

mostly due to migration. At the Marinino stage, when

the climate was becoming progressively more arid, some

groups of migrants advanced along the steppe corridor as

far east as the Yenisei (Elkin, 1967; Maksimenkov, 1978),and, along the Irtysh valley, into the forest-steppe and the

sub-taiga zone, where they contacted the Krotovo people,

who borrowed from them certain elements of ceramic

decoration and some types of ornaments (Molodin, 1985:

37, 115, g. 34, 1, 16 , 21).

Other Kanay groups migrated into the steppes of central

Kazakhstan, resulting in the emergence of settlements

with a peculiar economy based on animal breeding and

metallurgy (Atasu, Ust-Kenetay, Ikpen I and III). Contacts

between the natives and the immigrants led to the

emergence of the Atasu and Nura cultures (Margulan et al.,




1966; Kadyrbayev, 1983: 139–142, g. 2; A.A. Tkachev,

2002: 18–29, 95–113, 191). In the Ishim basin, migrations

and inter-tribal clashes among the Petrovka populations

are evidenced by the appearance of fortied settlements

on the left bank of the Ishim (Zdanovich, 1988: 133). In

the forest-steppe part of the Tobol basin, the situation

was apparently more stable. Here, only a single fortiedsettlement is known: Kamyshnoye II (Potemkina, 1985:

99). Such settlements are absent in the Kustanay part of

the Tobol basin, suggestive of a relatively late migration

of groups associated with the already formed Fedorovo

tradition. The source of migration was the trans-Uralian

forest-steppe, where a local variant of the Fedorovo

culture originated from the tradition introduced by Kanay

migrants. In the Tobol–Ishim inter uve, contacts between

native and immigrant groups are reected by numerous

sites showing mixed Alakul-Fedorovo assemblages

(Evdokimov, Varfolomeyev, 2002: g. 8, 1, 3, 17 – 19; 10,

1 – 21; Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006; Usmanov, 2005).The scarcity and small size of fortied sites associated

with the Petrovka culture, on the one hand, and the

presence of burials with Kanay pottery at the Petrovka

burial ground, on the other, indicate that migrants from the

Irtysh area coexisted with Petrovka natives. What purpose

the Sintashta fortified sites served, is yet uncertain.

Specialists studying these trans-Uralian “proto-cities,”

claim that people who had constructed those settlements

differed from the natives by a higher socio-cultural level,

and controlled the steppes from the Volga to the Ishim. If

so, the emergence of fortied settlements such as Arkaim

and Sintashta in the southern Urals is even more dif cult

to explain.

Two scenarios that might account for the observed

facts have been proposed. The rst possibility is that

people who constructed those sites had migrated to the

Trans-Ural area from very distant territories (Grigoryev,

1999). Alternatively, the fortications may have been

built by the natives in order to resist the Abashevo people,

who had arrived from the west (Potemkina, 1984), or the

Andronov-Kanay people who had arrived from the east

(Tkacheva, 1997).

The first hypothesis is unacceptable since

no assemblages that could possibly be regarded as

prototypical for Sintashta have been discovered either in areas adjacent to the trans-Uralian steppes or in more

distant territories such as Kazakhstan, the northern Black

Sea area, Western Central Asia, the Near and the Middle

East, or the Balkans. The second hypothesis is more

plausible since all the Sintashta settlements and burial

grounds contain a considerable amount of Abashevo

ceramics and a somewhat lesser proportion of Andronov-

Kanay ceramics (Gening V.F., Zdanovich, Gening V.V.,

1992). This testies to the heterogeneity of the Sintashta

culture, which included both autochthonous and newly

introduced traditions. Also, this evidences a complex

military and political situation in the Trans-Uralian region,

culminating in the appearance of fortied settlements and

the emergence of a war-oriented society.

At the same time, the map of Sintashta fortied centers

shows that these occupy a narrow strip along the eastern

piedmonts of the Urals. Possibly they protected the inland

steppe areas of the Trans-Urals and Kazakhstan (theTobol basin and the Turgay steppes, which had been the

core area of the Sintashta-Petrovka people) from western

intruders – the Abashevo people. While the study of

relevant sites in that area is in the initial stage, large and

original burial grounds of the Sintashta-Petrovka type

have already been discovered.

Having migrated from their homeland to the

forest-steppe zone east of the Urals, the Kanay people

encountered the autochthonous tribes associated with

the Sintashta-Petrovka tradition. The contacts led to the

emergence of the Alakul and Fedorovo assemblages.

Ceramics found at Fedorovo-type sites east of the Urals(Fedorovo, Urefty I, Smolino), differs from that of

eastern Andronov sites: while the shape of the vessels

and the arrangement of patterns is similar, certain Alakul

traits are present. These include the impoverishment

of the decoration and the appearance of a specically

Alakul feature – an unornamented stripe between the

neck and the body. This feature is present in ceramics

both from classical Fedorovo sites such as Fedorovo

(Salnikov, 1940: pl. I, 1, 2, 5, 6 , 11), Smolino (Salnikov,

1967: fig. 48, 10), and Sineglazovo (Andronovskaya

kultura…, 1966: pl. VI, 8, 9)), and from mixed Alakul-

Fedorovo assemblages (Chernyaki II (Stokolos, 1968:

g. 2, 1, 3 – 5), Subbotino (Potemkina, 1973: g. 3, 6 , 7 ),

Urefty I (Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006: g. 59, 8, 10; 60,

4), and Priplodny Log I (Malyutina, 1984: g. 5, 4)). The

unornamented stripe and scantier patterns distinguish

sites such as Fedorovo from eastern Andronov ones such

as Andronov proper. Apparently, the sources of these

traditions were different.

The first migration of the Kanay people occurred

before the appearance of funneled earrings in their

culture (such earrings are absent at Fedorovo sites east

of the Urals). However, a distinctly eastern (Fedorovo)

feature did appear as a result of in situ evolution of the

Kanay tradition: quadrangular dishes. The Kanay groups’attempts to maintain their ethnic specificity in alien

surroundings are evidenced by the transformation of the

burial rite of the newly-formed Fedorovo population.

While in the Irtysh basin, cremation was practiced by the

Kanay people in exceptional cases only, the westward

migration led to the distribution of that rite, which was

practiced more and more frequently, eventually becoming

predominant in the Trans-Ural area. All these facts

testify to the emergence of a separate population group

characterized by distinct cultural traits. In our view, the

name “Fedorovo” should be used only with regard to the




trans-Ural sites, as suggested by Salnikov (1951: 109;

1967: 288), and not with regard to the entire Andronov

cultural community.

The Fedorovo ceramics of the trans-Ural region is very

different from that of the Kyzyltas type manufactured

in the Upper Irtysh basin at the nal stage of the Kanay

culture, which had originated from the Marinino tradition.The Kyzyltas ceramics evolved from the Marinino

ceramics, whereas the Fedorovo ceramics was heavily

inuenced by the Petrovka-Alakul tradition.

Small Kanay groups which had migrated into the

forest belt of Western Siberia, preserved the custom of

decorating the entire body of the vessels, which was

typical of people living in the Kazakhstan part of the

Irtysh basin, as exemplied by sites such as Duvanskoye

XVII (Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983: 147–148, g. 1, 1,

2, 4, 7 ), Cheremukhovy Kust (Zakh, 1995: g. 8, 4; 17,

10; 20, 1, 5), and Chernoozerye (Viktorov, Borzunov,

1974: 20 – 23,

g. 2, 6 , 7 ). In Chernoozerye, the Kanay people, threatened by hostile natives, had to reinforce

the settlement with a ditch, and a rampart with a wooden

palisade. Among the sites with Andronov-Kanay ceramics,

this is the only one which is fortied.

The contact zone between the steppe regions of

Kazakhstan and Altai is underexplored. It seems that one

of the main routes leading to the east began on the Uba (a

right tributary of the Irtysh), the sources of which are close

to those of the Aley (a left tributary of the Ob). On the

upper Aley, the burial ground Karbolikha I was excavated;

its burial constructions, rite, and burial goods resemble

those of the Irtysh cemeteries (Mogilnikov, 1980: 155).

The burial grounds of the Kanay culture in the Kazakhstan

part of the Irtysh area are in some respects very similar

to the Andronov ones of the steppe Altai. Specically,

surface structures above the graves are indistinct, children

were buried on separate burial grounds, and the burial rite

and artifacts share certain common features.

People whom the Andronov-Kanay tribes encountered

while migrating in various directions differed in terms

of cultural level. In the west, the migrants experienced

considerable pressure from the Alakul people, whose

society was socially, economically, and culturally similar

to theirs; by contrast, the Yelunino-Krotovo people,

whom the Andronov-Kanay people met in the forest-steppe Irtysh area and on the Upper Ob, were associated

with an evolutionary less advanced Early Bronze Age

culture. The eastward advance from the Ob into the

Yenisei steppes was rather rapid. In the steppe corridor

between the Ob and the Yenisei, in the Kuznetsk and

Minusinsk basins, far less Andronov sites are known

than in the Irtysh basin or in the steppe Altai. The

Andronov people of the Altai and the Kazakhstan part

of the Irtysh basin maintained permanent contacts, and

this territory was the core area of the Andronov cultural

tradition. That was the source of Andronov migrations,

and the area where the Andronov people coexisted with

Yelunino and Krotovo tribes for a long time, because

they occupied different ecological niches.

At the nal stage of the Kanay culture – Kyzyltas – the

decoration of ceramics manufactured by the inhabitants

of the Kazakhstan and Altai steppes became more

scantily ornamented, pots with a rich decoration becamerare, comb impressions on pottery became larger, the

standard pattern was a horizontal herringbone combined

with various pits, and the percentage of jar-like vessels

increased. The specific feature of the latest Kyzyltas

ceramics are vessels with high cylindrical necks. Among

other artifacts, funneled earrings are the most indicative.

They are believed to be typical of eastern Andronov

tribes and do not occur in non-Andronov assemblages

(Avanesova, 1991: 50–53).

The second expansion of the late Kanay tribes

coincides with the end of the Kyzyltas stage (1400–1300

BC), when, due to extremely arid conditions, dry andsemidesert steppes were distributed in Kazakhstan, and

the steppe and forest-steppe zones in Western Siberia

shifted to the north (Kosarev, 1974: 152). Assemblages

associated with this migration wave are marked by

funneled earrings, which appeared in the early second

half of the 2nd millennium BC. They were found at

Maly Koitas, Kyzyltas, Berezovsky, Barashki, Zevakino,

Menovnoye IX on the upper Irtysh, Rublevo VIII in

the Ob-Irtysh inter uve (Kiryushin et al., 2006: g. 1,

2–4), and Kytmanovo in the Chumysh basin (Umansky,

Kiryushin, Grushin, 2007: 27, 30, g. 63, 17 – 19; 64,

18, 19). Outside the steppe zone of the Kazakhstan

Irtysh basin and the Altai, a few funneled earrings were

found in burials on the Yenisei (Pristan I, Sukhoye

Ozero I (Maksimenkov, 1978: pl. 52, 2, 4)), in northern

Kazakhstan (Sokolovka (Zdanovich, 1988: pl. 10c, 20,

21) and Borovoye (Orazbayev, 1958: pl. IV, 1, 7 ; V, 14,

20)) and in central Kazakhstan (Sanguyr II (Kadyrbayev,

1961: pl. II, 2, 5)), as well as in the Ob basin (Yelovka II

(Matyuschenko, 2004: g. 45, 6 , 7 ; 235, 3, 4)).

In our view, the latest earrings are cast with a globular

thickening in the base of the funnel, and those forged from

nail-like plates. The latter appeared in the 14th or early

13th cent. BC. Ceramic assemblages of that time include

vessels scarcely decorated with a simple herringbone, pinches, and nail imprints (Zevakino, Berezovsky,

Barashki). During the transition period from the Middle

Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age, all types of earrings

coexisted, and certain specimens were still used in the

Late Bronze Age (Ermolayeva, 1987: 69, g. 31, 2).

During the Middle to Late Bronze Age transition,

small late Kanay (Kyzyltas) populations reentered

the Minusinsk Basin and the steppes of northern and

central Kazakhstan, but the principal migration wave

was directed toward Western Central Asia, Dzhetysu,

and southern Kazakhstan. In those regions, numerous




Andronov sites are known, and in many of them funnel-

shaped earrings have been found (Avanesova, 1991:

g. 44, 29 – 31; Gorbunova, 1995: g. 3, 9; Maryashev,

Goryachev, 1999: g. 5, 1 – 3; Potemkina, 2001: g. 3,

11). Precisely at that time, temporary settlements of the

Andronov type appeared in the southern taiga zone of the

Ob basin, marking the northern border of the distributionarea of Kanay tribes during the second migration wave.

Conclusions

The settlement and economic exploitation of huge

underpopulated areas of the Eurasian steppes was affected

by numerous and diverse factors, both geographical and

socio-economical. Examining migration as a mechanism

of population history, we have arrived at the following

conclusions:

(1) The proto-Alakul and proto-Kanay groupscoexisted on adjacent territories.

(2) People associated with various related cultural

traditions, while apparently speaking related (northern

Indo-Iranian) languages and sharing a common descent

(Kuzmina, 1994: 221–222), exhibited considerable

differences, both physical (Dremov, 1997: 81; Bagashev,

2000: 9–10), and cultural. The latter concerned ceramic

production (Loman, 1993: 29; 1995: 97), elements of

costume, and ornaments (Evdokimov, Usmanova, 1990:

66–71; Khabarova, 1997: 93–94).

(3) The rst migration from eastern Kazakhstan (late

17th – early 16th cent. BC) resulted in the convergence

of various ethno-cultural groups and the emergence of the

Andronov cultural community.

(4) The second migration from the steppe areas of

the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin and the Altai

(14th – early 13th cent. BC) not only expanded the

distribution area of the Andronov community, but provided

a basis for the emergence of the Late Bronze Age tradition

of rolled ceramics in the steppes of Kazakhstan and Western

Central Asia, and of Andronov-type cultures in the forest-

steppe and southern taiga belts of Western Siberia.

References

Andronovskaya kultura: (Pamyatniki zapadnykh

raionov). 1966

Iss. 1. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka. (Sbornik arkheologi-

cheskikh istochnikov; iss. V3-2).

Avanesova N.A. 1991

Kultura pastusheskikh plemen epokhi bronzy aziatskoi

chasti SSSR. Tashkent: Fan.

Bagashev A.N. 2000

Formirovanie drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya

Zapadnoi Sibiri po dannym kraniologii. D.Sc. (History)

Dissertation. Moscow.

Chernikov S.S. 1960

Vostochnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. MIA, No. 88.

Chernosvitov P.Yu. 1999

Osvoenie Krainego Severa : Opyt imita t ivnogo

modelirovaniya po materialam arkheologii. Cand. Sc. (History)

Dissertation. Moscow: IA RAN.

Chlenova N.L. 1955

O kulturakh bronzovoi epokhi lesostepnoi zony Zapadnoi

Sibiri. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 23: 38–57.

Dremov V.A. 1997

Nas elenie Ver khne go Priobya v epok hu bron zy

(antropologichesky ocherk). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.

Elkin M.G. 1967

Pamyatniki andronovskoi kultury na yuge Kuzbassa.

Iz vest iya Laborato ri i arkheo logicheski kh is sl edovanii

(Kemerovo), iss. 1: 89–95.

Ermolayeva A.S. 1987

Pamyatniki perekhodnogo perioda ot epokhi bronzy k rannemu

zhelezu. In Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki v zone zatopleniya

Shulbinskoi GES . Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR, pp. 64–94.

Evdokimov V.V. 2000Istoricheskaya sreda epokhi bronzy stepei Tsentralnogo i

Severnogo Kazakhstana. Almaty: Inst. arkheologii NAN RK.

Evdokimov V.V., Usmanova E.R. 1990

Znakovyi status ukrashenii v pogrebalnom obryade (po

materialam mogilnikov andronovskoi kulturno-istoricheskoi

obschnosti iz Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana). In Arkheologiya

Volgo-Uralskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk. Gos. Univ.,

pp. 66–80.

Evdokimov V.V., Varfolomeyev V.V. 2002

Epoha bronzy Tsentralnogo i Severnogo Kazakhstana.

Karaganda: Karagand. Gos. Univ.

Fedorova-Davydova E.A. 1973

K probleme andronovskoi kultury. In Problemy arkheologii

Urala i Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 133–152.Formozov A.A. 1951

K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii andronovskoi kultury.

KSIIMK , iss. 39: 3–18.

Gening V.F., Zdanovich G.B., Gening V.V. 1992

Sintashta: Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki ariiskikh plemen

Uralo-Kazakhstanskih stepei, pt. 1. Chelyabinsk: Yuzh.-Ural.

kn. izd.

Gorbunova N.G. 1995

O kulture stepnoi bronzy Fergany. Arkheologichesky sbornik

Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, iss. 32: 13–30.

Grigoryev S.A. 1999

Drevnie indoevropeitsy: Opyt istoricheskoi rekonstruktsii.

Chelyabinsk: UrO RAN.

Gryaznov M.P. 1956K voprosu o kulturakh epokhi pozdnei bronzy v Sibiri.

KSIIMK , iss. 64: 27–42.

Kadyrbayev M.K. 1961

Mogilnik Sanguyr II. Trudy IIAE AN KazSSR, vol. 12: 48–60.

Kadyrbayev M.K. 1983

Shestiletnie raboty na Atasu. In Bronzovyi vek stepnoi polosy

Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos.

Univ., pp. 134–142.

Kes A.S., Andrianov V.V., Itina M.A. 1980

Dinamika gidrograficheskoi seti i izmeneniya urovnya

Aralskogo moray. In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo

regiona v golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 185–197.




Khabarova S.V. 1997

Kulturno-khronologicheskoe sootnoshenie alakulskogo i

fedorovskogo zapadnogo kompleksov. In Tobolskii istoricheskii

sbornik , iss. 2, pt. 1. Tobolsk: Tobolsk. Gos. Ped. Inst., pp. 92–102.

Khabdulina M.K., Zdanovich G.B. 1984

Landshaftno-klimaticheskie kolebaniya golotsena i voprosy

kulturno-istoricheskoi situatsii v Severnom Kazakhstane.

In Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk:

Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 136–158.

Khotinsky N.A. 1977

Golotsen Severnoi Evrazii. Moscow: Nauka.

Khotinsky N.A., Nemkova V.K., Surova T.G. 1982

Glavnye etapy razvitiya rastitelnosti i klimata Urala v

golotsene. In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya Severa Evrazii.

Sverdlovsk: Ural. Gos. Univ., pp 145–153.

Kiryushin Yu.F. 1985

Eneolit, rannyaya i razvitaya bronza Verkhnego i Srednego

Priobya. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk.

Kiryushin Yu.F. 2002

Eneolit i rannyaya bronza Zapadnoi Sibiri. Barnaul: Altai.

Gos. Univ.Kiryushin Yu.F., Pozdnyakova O.A.,

Papin D.V., Shamshin A.B. 2006

Kollektsiya metallicheskikh ukrashenii iz pogrebenii

andronovskogo kompleksa mogilnika Rublevo VIII. In Altai v

sisteme metallurgicheskikh provintsii bronzovogo veka. Barnaul:

Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 33–44.

Korochkova O.N., Stefanov V.I. 1983

Poselenie fedorovskoi kultury. In Bronzovyi vek stepnoi

polosy Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk.

Gos. Univ., pp. 143–151.

Kosarev M.F. 1974

Drevnie kultury Tomsko-Narymskogo Priobya. Moscow:

Nauka.

Kosarev M.F. 1979K probleme paleoklimatologii i paleogeograi yuga Zapadno-

Sibirskoi ravniny v bronzovom i zheleznom vekakh. InOsobennosti

estestvenno-geograficheskoi sredy i istoricheskie protsessy v

Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 37–42.

Kosarev M.F. 1981

Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoi Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka.

Kosarev M.F. 1991

Drevnyaya istoriya Zapadnoi Sibiri: Chelovek i prirodnaya

sreda. Moscow: Nauka.

Krizhevskaya L.Y. 1977

Rannebronzovoe vremya v Yuzhnom Zaurale. Leningrad:

Izd. Leningrad. Gos. Univ.

Kuzmina E.E. 1994

Otkuda prishli indoarii?: Materialnaya kultura plemenandronovskoi obschnosti i proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev.

Moscow: Ros. inst. kulturologii RAN i MK RF.

Logvin A.N. 1991

Kamennyi vek Kazakhstanskogo Pritoboliya (mezolit –

eneolit). Alma-Ata: Kaz. Gos. Ped. Univ.

Logvin A.N. 2002

Turgaisky progib v epokhu mezolita – eneolita. D.Sc.

(History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk.

Loman V.G. 1993

Goncharnaya tekhnologiya naseleniya Tsentralnogo

Kazakhstana vtoroi poloviny II tysyacheletiya do n.e. Cand. Sc.

(History) Dissertation. Moscow.

Loman V.G. 1995

Andronovskoe goncharstvo: Obschie priemy izgotovleniya

sosudov. In Rossiya i Vostok: Problemy vzaimodeistviya, Pt. 5.

bk. 1. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 96–100.

Maerz V.K. 2003

O novykh pamyatnikakh epokhi rannei bronzy Kazakhstana.

In Istorichesky opyt khozyaistvennogo i kulturnogo osvoeniya

Zapadnoi Sibiri, bk. 1. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 132–141.

Maerz V.K. 2004

Novye materialy po eneoli tu i rannei bronze Severo-

Vostochnogo Kazakhstana. In Novye is sledovaniya po

arkheologii Kazakhstana. Almaty: Inst. arkheologii MON RK,

pp. 165–169.

Maksimenkov G.A. 1978

Andronovskaya kultura na Enisee. Leningrad: Nauka.

Malyutina T.S. 1984

Mogilnik Priplodnyi Log I. In Bronzovyi vek Ura lo-

Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos. Univ.,

pp. 58–79.

Mamedov E.D. 1980

Izmenenie klimata sredneaziatskikh pustyn v golotsene.In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo regiona v

golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 170–175.

Margulan A.H. 1979

Begazy-dandybaevskaja kultura. Alma-Ata: Nauka

KazSSR.

Margulan A.H., Akishev K.A.,

Kadyrbaev M.K., Orazbaev A.M. 1966

Drevnyaya kultura Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata:

Nauka KazSSR.

Markov K.K., Burashnikova T.A.,

Muratova M.V., Suetova I.A. 1982

Klimaticheskaya model i geogracheskie zony vremeni

golotsenovogo optimuma na territorii SSSR. In Antropogenovye

faktory v istorii razvitiya sovremennykh ekosistem. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 230–240.

Maryashev A.N., Goryachev A.A. 1999

Pamyatniki kulsaiskogo tipa epokhi pozdnei i finalnoi

bronzy Semirechya. Istor iya i arkheo log iya Semirechya

(Almaty), iss. 1: 44–56.

Matveyev A.V. 1998

Pervye andronovtsy v lesakh Zauralya. Novosibirsk:

Nauka.

Matyuschenko V.I. 1973

Drevnyaya istoriya naseleniya lesnogo i lesostepnogo

Priobiya (neolit i bronzovyi vek). Pt. 3: Andronovskaya kultura

na verkhnei Obi. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.

Matyuschenko V.I. 2004

Elovsky arkheologichesky kompleks. Elovskii II mogilnik.Doirmenskie kompleksy, pt. 2. Omsk: Omsk. Gos. Univ.

Matyushin G.I. 1982

Eneolit Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka.

Mogilnikov V.A. 1980

Pamyatniki andronovskoi kultury na Verkhnem Alee.

In Drevnyaya istoriya Altaya. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ.,

pp. 155–159.

Molodin V.I. 1985

Baraba v epokhu bronzy. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Molodin V.I., Zakh V.A. 1979

Geomorfologicheskoe raspolozhenie pamyatnikov epokhi

neolita i bronzy v basseine rek Obi, Ini, Omi i ikh pritokov.




In Osobennosti estestvenno-geogra ¿cheskoi sredy i istoricheskie

processy v Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ.,

pp. 51–53.

Nizovya Amu-Daryi, Sarykamysh, Uzboi:

Istoriya formirovaniya i zaseleniya. 1960

Materialy Khorezmiiskoi ekspeditsii, iss. 3.

Orazbayev A.M. 1958

Severnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. Trudy IIAE AN

KazSSR, vol. 5: 216–294.

Potemkina T.M. 1973

K voprosu o sootnoshenii fedorovskikh i alakulskikh

kompleksov. Iz istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 7: 53–64.

Potemkina T.M. 1976

Kamyshnoe II – mnogosloinoe poselenie epokhi bronzy na

r. Tobol. KSIA, iss. 147: 97–106.

Potemkina T.M. 1979

Topograficheskaya i gidrograficheskaya priurochennost

poselenii epokhi bronzy v Srednem Pritobole. In Osobennosti

estestvenno-geogra ¿cheskoi sredy i istoricheskie processy v

Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 58–60.

Potemkina T.M. 1983Alakulskaya kultura. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2:

13–33.

Potemkina T.M. 1984

Rol abashevtsev v protsesse razvitiya alakulskoi kultury.

In Epokha bronzy Vostochno-Evropeiskoi lesostepi. Voronezh:

Voronezh. Gos. Univ., pp. 77–108.

Potemkina T.M. 1985

Bronzovyi vek lesostepnogo Pritobolya. Moscow: Nauka.

Potemkina T.M. 2001

Ukrasheniya iz mogilnika epokhi bronzy Dashti-Kozy.

Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnogra ¿i (Tyumen), iss. 3:

62–72.

Salnikov K.V. 1940

Andronovsky kurgannyi mogilnik u s. FedorovkiChelyabinskoi oblasti. MIA, No. 1: 58–68.

Salnikov K.V. 1951

Bronzovyi vek Yuzhnogo Zauralya. MIA, No. 21: 94–151.

Salnikov K.V. 1967

Ocherki drevnei istorii Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka.

Shnitnikov A.V. 1969

Vnutrivekovaya izmenchivost komponentov obschei

uvlazhnennosti. Leningrad: Nauka.

Stefanov V.I., Korochkova O.N. 2006

Urefty I: Zauralsky pamyatnik v andronovskom kontekste.

Ekaterinburg: Ural. Gos. Univ.

Stokolos V.S. 1968

Pamyatnik epokhi bronzy – mogilnik Chernyaki II. Uchenye

zapiski Perm. gos. univ., iss. 191: 210–223.Stokolos V.S. 1972

Kultura naseleniya bronzovogo veka Yuzhnogo Zauralya

(khronologiya i periodizatsiya). Moscow: Nauka.

Stokolos V.S. 1983

Suschestvoval li novokumaksky gorizont. Sovetskaya

arkheologiya, No. 2: 257–274.

Tatarintseva N.S. 1984

Keramika poseleniya Vishnevka I v lesostepnom Priishime.

In Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk:

Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 104–113.

Tkachev A.A. 2002

Tsentralnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. Tyumen: Tyumen.

Gos. Neftegaz. Inst.

Tkachev V.V. 1998

K probleme proiskhozhdeniya petrovskoi kultury.

Arkheologicheskie pamyatnik i Orenburzhya (Orenburg),

iss. 2: 38–56.

Tkacheva N.A. 1997

Pamyatniki epokhi bronzy Verkhnego Priirtyshya. Cand. Sc.

(History) Dissertation. Barnaul.

Umansky A.P., Kiryushin Yu.F., Grushin S.P. 2007

Pogrebalnyi obryad naseleniya andronovskoi kultury

Prichumyshya (po materialam mogilnika Kytmanovo). Barnaul:

Altai. Gos. Univ.

Usmanova E.R. 2005

Mogilnik Lisakovskii I: Fakty i paralleli. Karaganda:

Karagand. Gos. Univ.; Lisakovsk: Lisakovsk. muzei istorii i

kultury Verkhnego Pritobolya.

Varfolomeyev V.V. 1991

Sary-Arka v kontse bronzovoi epokhi. Cand. Sc. (History)

Dissertation. Alma-Ata.Viktorov V.P., Borzunov V.A. 1974

Gorodische epokhi bronzy u sela Chernoozere na Irtyshe. Iz

istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 15: 19–23.

Vinogradov A.V. 1981

Drevnie okhotniki i rybolovy Sredneaziatskogo

mezhdurechya. Moscow: Nauka. (Trudy Khorezm. arkheol.-

etnogr. ekspeditsii; iss. 13).

Vinogradov N.B. 2007

Kulturno-istoricheskie protsessy v stepyakh Yuzhnogo

Urala i Kazakhstana v nachale II tys. do n.e.: Pamyatniki

sintashtinskogo i petrovskogo tipov. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation.

Moscow.

Weinbergs I.G., Stelle V.Y. 1980

Pozdnechetvertichnye stadii razvitiya Aralskogo morya i ikhsvyaz s izmeneniyami klimaticheskikh uslovii etogo vremeni.

In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo regiona v

golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 175–181.

Zakh V.A. 1995

Poselok drevnikh skotovodov na Tobole. Novosibirsk:

Nauka.

Zakh V.A. 1997

Epokha bronzy Prisalairya. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Zdanovich G.B. 1974

Poselenie epokhi bronzy Novonikolskoe I (po raskopkam

1970 g.). Iz istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 15: 61–68.

Zdanovich G.B. 1984

K voprosu ob andronovskom kulturno-istoricheskom

edinstve. KSIA, iss. 177: 29–37.Zdanovich G.B. 1988

Bronzovyi vek uralo-kazakhstanskih stepei. Sverdlovsk:

Ural. Gos. Univ.

Received April 10, 2008.

THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY

Documents

Transcript of THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY