Institute of Human Ecology SB RAS

10 Leningradsky Ave., Kemerovo, 650065, Russia

E-mail: ivkovtun@mail.ru

The article highlights the features of the visual embodiment and semantics of the bear image presented in sculptural miniatures and metalplastics of West Siberian cultures of the first half of the second millennium BC. The author traces the connection of the formative features of bear images with various cultural traditions of the Bronze Age of Western Siberia. There are four groups of finds that capture the image of a bear: wands, pendants,"container" heads, and heads. The key points of the work are related to the identification of the context of suspensions in the form of a bear figurine of the advanced Bronze Age, included in the mise en scene compositions, and to the consideration of the hypothesis about the ritual-ritual conjugation of the image of a bear and bronze-casting cults. Taking into account new archaeological materials, the area of one of the most mysterious West Siberian cultures, the Samus culture, has been significantly expanded. Its bearers left both images of bears and a system of complex ideographic signs on ceramics. It is suggested that there are Samus rock carvings on the eastern slopes of the Kuznetsk Alatau, in the area of the discovery of the Samus burial site.

Introduction

In 2007, in the village of Utinka, Tisul district, Kemerovo region. on the shore of the lake of the same name, employees of the laboratory of the Institute of Human Ecology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences examined the destroyed Samus burial. Among the finds that were received from local residents who discovered the burial site in 2004 are miniature stone sculptures of a bird and a bear with a hole for hanging, as well as five beads that formed a single set necklace [Bobrov and Herman, 2007, pp. 178-179, Fig. 1; p. 180, fig. 2, 6-10]. An indicator of the cultural affiliation of the complex is ceramics with ornaments similar to the decor on the so-called cult (the term MF). Kosareva) vessels from the monument of Samus IV [Ibid., pp. 179-181, Fig. 2, 7-5]. V. I. Matyushchenko referred vessels with such ornaments to the third and fourth types of Samus ceramics, known only on Samus IV [1973, p. 31-33], and M. F. Kosarev singled them out in the second group of ceramics of this monument [1981, p. 97-99]. Molodin and I. G. Glushkov combined such dishes into the Samus ceramic complex-group B, which has no "roots in previous West Siberian cultures" [1989, p. 100-101]. A special place is given to such ceramics by Yu. N. Esin [2004].

V. I. Molodin and I. G. Glushkov mention fragments of the Okunev vessel decorated with a corolla with rows of diamond-shaped stamp impressions, which were found by Yu. G. Belokobylsky in the north-west of the Minusinsk basin. They believe that such an ornamental plot is "quite characteristic of the ceramics of the Samus culture", and consider it a reflection of " possible

page 97
contacts of the Samus and Okunev people who inhabited the northwestern part of the Minusinsk basin" [1989, p. 113]. Similar objects were found in the Nazarov basin, the northernmost of the Middle Yenisei intermountain basins. As noted by S. V. Krasnienko and A. V. Subbotin, " on the settlements of Ingol and Ashpyl... there were also fragments of ceramics with ornaments typical of the tribes of the Samus archaeological culture: with a horizontal small herringbone, with an ornamental bottom and bottom part, with a spiral pattern on the bottom " [2006, p. 237]. But in both cases, we are not talking about the original features that defined the" face " of the Samus culture, but about elements that are also found in synstadial complexes. Therefore, these finds cannot be considered indisputable evidence of the Samus ' exploration of the north-west of the Middle Yenisei basins. The materials of the Utinkinsky burial site leave no doubt that the Samus people lived beyond the north-eastern border of the Kuznetsk Basin.

There is a well-known attempt to identify the Samus burial complex on the territory of the Sharypovsky district of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. Here, to the west of the village of Bolshoe Ozero, A. S. Vdovin investigated a burial ground, which the authors of the monograph on the petroglyphs of Karataga and Mount Kedrovaya attributed to the Samus culture [Semenov et al., 2000, p. 37]. But according to the author of the excavations, there is nothing Samus, especially in ceramics, in the materials of this burial ground. Some finds from this monument show features that are rather close to the Krotovo cultural substrate (oral information by A. S. Vdovin).

V. I. Matyushchenko identifies three burials in the Yelovsky II burial ground, "which go back to the Samus horizon" [2002, p. 105]. V. A. Zakh reports that the pre-Andronovo burials at the Zarechnoye-1 burial ground and the dilapidated grave at the Yinya-4 monument belong to the Samus culture. But he does not support his definitions of non-invariant complexes with convincing evidence. Moreover, the researcher states: "Analogies to such burials are found primarily in the burial grounds of the Krotovo culture..." [1997, p. 31-32]. Thus, the listed burials can not be unconditionally attributed to the Samus proper. As for the six burials in the Krokhalevka-7A ground burial ground, they contain undoubtedly Samus ceramics, which, according to the classification of V. I. Molodin and I. G. Glushkov, belong to Group B from Samus IV [Titova and Sumin, 2002]. Along with the cult dishes of Group B, the ceramics of Group B seem to be a reliable indicator of the Samus culture. Consequently, the Utinkinsky burial site is another funerary monument of the Samus culture proper. Taking into account its remoteness from the cultural center located in the Lower Pritomye and Upper Ob region, the boundaries of the Samus culture range significantly expand to the east: from the lower reaches of the Tom River to the basin of the Kii River, a left tributary of the Chulym River. The assumptions about Samus-Okunev contacts are confirmed by data on the existence of a Samus hearth outside the Kuznetsk Basin, which generated such cross-cultural interaction. Thus, the Utinka burial site marks the eastern boundary of the Samus antiquities distribution zone; it represents the remote Samus cultural periphery in the Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe. To the east stretches the territory marked by the mentioned cross-cultural contacts. Here, in the north-west of the Central Yenisei basins, researchers probably record a certain samusoid component in the composition of inoculyur complexes, but there are no Samus monuments themselves. The area of "pure" Samus and" substrate " (with Samus elements) complexes (Ashpyl, Ingol) fits into the boundaries of the Kuznetsk-Salair mountain region and the areas of the Novosibirsk Ob region adjacent to its northwestern tip. This is historically understandable and is due to the fact that the Samus groups were located in a foreign cultural environment: in the north there was a zone of taiga, including printed-comb (Stepanov) and comb-pit, cultures, in the south - Verkhneobsky, or Altai, cultural center of the Bronze Age, in the west - the area of the Krotovo culture, in the east - sredneeniseysky multicultural center.

Little is known about the cultural groups that co-existed with the Samus people in this part of the Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe. Oka Neva objects were found here in the settlements of Bolshoy Berchikul I and Tambarskoe Reservoir, and ceramic complexes of the Tretyakov type were found in the settlements of Shestakovo 1a, Tambarskoe Reservoir, and Tretyakov II (Bobrov, 1992, pp. 11-12). The latter shows, in particular, burial materials of unidentified cultural affiliation, but according to a number of signs they can be attributed to synstadial Utinkinsky [Ibid., p. 12; Bobrov, 2003, p. 86-93]. A bronze celt of the Sejminsko-Turbinsky, rather than Samussko-Kizhirov type, found in the 1960s on Mount Archekas on the right bank of the Kii River, 3 km away, decorated with a belt of triangles and a garland of rhombuses, is close in time to them. from the city of Mariinsk [Baukhnik, 1970, p. 49, 53, fig. 4, 1].

Images of bears

Of particular interest is a necklace of stone sculptures found in the Utinkinsky burial site

page 98
a bear, a bird, and five stone beads. The decoration consists of seven elements: five of them are typologically identical, two (images of representatives of the animal world) differ from each other. Moreover, both animal figurines and iconic symbols have parallels in Siberian ethnography. So, the image of the raven was played out in the rite of the bear festival among the Evenks. The hunter who found the den, returning to the camp, pretended to be a raven, and his tribesmen, playing along with him, expressed their readiness to" peck " the found prey. Having pulled the killed animal out of the den, the hunters, repeating the movements of the ravens that had flown to the prey, called their "relatives" by shouting [Turov, 2000, p.51]. One of the storylines of Ugric myths, embodied in "bear songs", is about how" a bear robs the house of an Owl, and as a result, hunters from the Filin family kill the bear " [Lyutsidarskaya, 2000, p.81]. It is probably no coincidence that the number of beads in the Utinkinsky necklace is also significant. Among the Ob Ugrians, the number "five" is associated with the cult of the bear and the bear festival, symbolizing the five souls of the male bear, as opposed to the four souls of the female bear [Kulemzin, 2000, p.72].

The presence of a bear figurine in the Utinkinsky burial gave rise to a classification generalization of similar images found in the south of Western Siberia and presumably belonging to the Advanced Bronze Age, i.e. no later than the XVII-XV centuries BC. A broader territorial and chronological grouping of bear images was proposed earlier [Kirillova, 2006, pp. 124-126; 2007, p. 25-27]; its typological principles overlap with some of the criteria of our classification.

So, sculptural images of a bear, including ceramic and metal-plastic ones, can be divided into four groups. According to formative and functional characteristics, the following are distinguished: A) wands (Fig. 1), B) pendants (Fig. 2, 1-6)*, C) heads - "containers" (Fig. 3, 4)**, D) heads (Fig. 5). Not included in this list row: a rod-like statuette from the Samus burial ground, belonging to an earlier, Eneolithic time (Kiryushin, 2004, pp. 7-12) (Fig. 6), and a stylized multi-figure plastic composition, including a bear's head, from the Okunevsky Strelka burial ground (Fig. 7).

Group A products reflect the fusion of two traditions. The first one is represented by the North and Central Asian steppe cultures of the Seimin-Turbinsky time. This cultural substratum is associated with-

Figure 1. Images of Group A bears.

1-oz. Itkul (according to [Chenchenkova, 2004]); 2-the neighborhood of Bratsk (according to [Studzitskaya, 1987]).

2. Images of Group B bears and bear sculptures from the Eneolithic and Late Bronze Ages. 1-Aidashinskaya cave (according to [Molodin, Bobrov, Ravnushkin, 1980]); 2 - burial near the village of Utinka (according to [Bobrov, German, 2007]); 3 - Karasuk II (according to [Komarova, 1981]); 4-Krokhalevka-13 ([Troitskaya, Durakov Savin, 2001]); 5-Krokhalevka-1 (after [Molodin and Glushkov, 1989]); 6 - Sopka II (after [Molodin, 1992], author's photo); 7 - Old Muslim Cemetery (after [Kiryushin, 2004]); 8 - Torgazhak (by: [Savinov, 1996]).

* The author is grateful to Academician V. I. Molodil and I. V. Salnikova, Head of the Museum and Source Studies Section of the Institute of Applied History of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, for their help in organizing the photocopying of fine art objects.

** The author is grateful to the Director of the V. M. Florinsky Museum of Archeology and Ethnography of Siberia of TSU Yu. I. Ozheredov for his help in studying the collections.

page 99

Figure 3. Images of bears of group B-heads-"tanks".

1-Samus IV (photo by the author); 2-Ust-Kuyum (based on [Molodin, 2006], photo by the author).

4. Images of bears of group B on the corollas of ceramic vessels.

1-Igrekovo I (based on [Kiryushin, 2004]); 2-Samus IV (author's photo).

Fig. 5. Images of bears of group G.

1-Samus IV (photo by the author); 2-Sopka II (by: [Molodin, 1992], photo by the author).

Fig. 6. Sculpture of a bear. Samus burial ground (photo by the author).

page 100

Figure 7. Multi-figure composition. Strelka (based on: [Savinov, 1981], photo by the author).

the outcome of the very idea of a statuesque miniature. But the image of the bear depicted in it is one of the most popular in the traditional beliefs and cults of the Siberian aborigines. Consequently, both products of Group A are a unique product of the synthesis of visual and ideological stereotypes of two different worlds. This feature distinguishes these finds from other West Siberian bear images (small plastic and/or miniature sculpture) of the Eneolithic - Bronze Age (see Figs. 2-7).

The most organic group is B. The images of Krotovsky, Samussky, and Okunevsky bears are made of different materials: stone, bronze, and horns (see Figs. 2, 2-6). All of them have a hanging hole. This feature indicates the inseparability of such sculptures from some things or accessories of the individual, which, in turn, could be inseparable from their owner. It is possible that the non-obvious function of bear images was realized in this way - to be an amulet or a personalized symbol of their owner. At the same time, the nature of the cultural tradition was also manifested, which allowed the identification of the owner of the pendant in the form of a bear figurine with the image of a sacred character. The features of the owner of the taiga, whose image accompanied the person everywhere, were projected onto the individual. However, a different interpretation is also possible: not the image of the beast "dissolved" in the person, but the living person "joined" in the otherness of the hero embodied in the sculpture of the bear. The presence of a real person in this bundle - the receptacle of life force-is due to the need to impart dynamics and "animation"to the image of the bear worn by them. But this is not the only thing that unites the suspended images of bears from Karasuk II, Utinka, Krokhalevka-1, - 13, and Sopka P. Hanging seems to be a stadium-general way of handling such figurative miniatures. But much more important is where and with what the figures of Krotovsky, Samussky and Okunevsky bears were hung. The Utinka sculpture miniature is an element of the pictorial system; probably all other sculptures of group B. The image of a bear in a set decoration made of Utinka is combined with the image of a bird and five beads, which could also have a symbolic meaning. V. I. Molodin made a similar suggestion about the image of a bear from Sopka II: "The sculpture that was worn on a string of beads was obviously an amulet" [1992, p. 41]. Thus, the suspended images of bears were part of more complex compositions. For this purpose, they were included in printed body jewelry or attached to clothing and other accessories, possibly with applied, embroidered or figurative images of other characters and symbols. Therefore, the main common quality of all the miniatures under consideration is the" inclusion " of bear images in the symbolic composition, the interpretation of which assumed narrative, plot plot and deployment of the content of the action. This is no longer just a stadium, but, in fact, a stylistic feature that distinguishes one cultural tradition from another. This is illustrated by the composition from the Okunevsky Strelka burial ground, which is synchronous to the images of Group B. It depicts a bear, an elk, and stylized zoomorphic creatures (see Figure 7). It is possible that a bone pendant in the form of a bear from the Aydashinsky cave is also among the products of Group B (see Fig. 2, 1). It "can equally be dated to the Neolithic and Bronze Age. In this case, it is important that the item served as part of a neckband or was sewn onto clothing. It was thrown into a vertical cave, which for centuries served as a sanctuary for both the taiga and steppe populations" [Molodin, Oktyabrskaya, Chemyakina, 2000, p. 26].

The design concept of wands with a bear's head is quite different. These statuesque miniatures represent a higher level of abstraction, a fundamentally different worldview, and therefore a different worldview and cultural tradition. A rod-like figurine of a bear from the Samus burial ground is similar to this type of image. It focuses on all the main content and form-forming features inherent in a miniature statuesque sculpture, which also includes stone wands. The uniqueness of such portable sculptures is determined by the uniqueness of the character, the static nature of the image and the partiality of the image. The design and functions of the wands do not allow us to assume that the bear heads depicted on them were accompanied by other images. Therefore, the" self-sufficiency "of the character was "supplemented" only by the personality of the product owner. Partiality also distinguishes

page 101
wands from the full-size Krotovsky, Samussky and Okunevsky pendants included in the composition.

The bear's head was embodied in the figures of two more groups. Group D is allocated conditionally (see Figure 5). Group C deserves special attention. It includes images of bear heads coupled with hollow and capacitive shapes for various purposes (see Figures 3, 4). Most of these findings have long been familiar to specialists, but there is no consensus on their function yet. The head of the Ust-Kuyum bear (see Figs. 3, 2) was interpreted by E. M. Bers as "a hollow sculpture for casting metal in the shape of a bear's head". The researcher pointed out: "The thing is made of diorite and polished to a high gloss. Scratches from metal scraping are visible in the center of the snout, the bottom is covered with spots from a strong puncture, and there are through holes at the end of the muzzle and on the sides" [1974, p. 25]. P. M. Kozhin and V. I. Molodin suggested that the Ust-Kuyum head-"tank" was a stone belt buckle [Kozhin, 1987, p. 25]. p. 100; Molodin, 1994; 2006, p. 277]. Both versions are interesting and reasonable, and one does not exclude the other. As a lyachka, such an artistic product could only be used for ritual purposes, i.e. relatively rarely. All the rest of the time, this object, associated with the cult mysteries of bronze casting, may have served as a buckle, which symbolized the prerogatives, special status and professional skills of its owner. E. M. Bers proposed a reconstruction of the ritual situation involving the Ust-Kuyum find. "In the found bear - headed box," the researcher noted, " we have a unique item that can be used to restore the ritual of the first copper smelting. Crushed ore or a bit of copper, re-melted in the ice-box, was poured through a hole on the side; and at the bear festival, it was clearly shown how, with the help of the spirit of the bear - the totem of tribal groups - metal is obtained from stone" [1974, p. 27-28]. This is probably the first suggestion about the connection of metallurgical rituals with the cult of the bear that existed in the West Siberian cultures of the Bronze Age. There are other assumptions. For example, S. V. Studzitskaya allows the use of the Ust-Kuyum product as a mask or masquerade [1987, p. 321].

It is possible that a ceramic "spoon" with the image of a bear's head from Samus IV was also used in the ceremonial ceremonies of the bronzers (see Figs. 3, 1). On the lower side face (scrap) of this product, P. V. Herman found a clearly distinguishable Latinized section. According to S. V. Kuzminykh, this green oxide on the scrap may be a trace from the flow of copper or bronze into the crack at the time of the ice break during melting. The researcher does not exclude that there are traces of weak slagging on the inner surface of the ice closer to the edge. Experts determined the purpose of the Samus find in different ways: a lid of a vessel, a ceramic spoon, a fragment of a vessel like a ladle, etc. But this product has never been interpreted as an attribute of the cult actions of bronzers. By the way, in the materials of Samus IV there is another similar "spoon", only instead of a bear's head it has a schematic bird's head (Matyushchenko, 1973, Fig. 8). It is the figures of a bear and a bird that are combined in the Utinkinsky necklace; images of the heads of these same characters adorn both unique Samus containers. It seems that these coincidences are not accidental. Ethnographic evidence of the ornithomorphic character's participation in the bear festival is known. The ritual-ceremonial intersection of the image of the bear and ideas about metalworking finds ethnographic parallels. Thus, in Russian folk art, images of a bear and a blacksmith are contrasted in one of the bear-themed plots [Mainicheva, 2000, pp. 91-93, Fig. 4]. In the Mansi "Bear Song about a Blacksmith's Youngest Daughter", a bear bound by a "bear oath" kills first an innocent blacksmith, and then the daughter of the man he killed who pushed him to unjustified cruelty [Lyutsidarskaya, 2000, p. 82]. Probably, even in this story, the professional status and kinship ties of the dying characters are due not only to the imagination of the songwriters.

Yu. I. Mikhailov believes that "in the ideas of the Siberian peoples, the bear was the patron saint of blacksmiths" [2001, p. 144], and "the materials of the Samus settlements (Samus IV, Krokhalevka-2) demonstrate the connection of the bear cult with a complex of sacred ideas in the field of metallurgy and metalworking" [Ibid., p. 145]. The latter assumption, unfortunately, was left without argument by the researcher. But in support of the patronizing role of the owner of the taiga, an interesting example of the reflection of the ritual practice of handling bear skulls in archaeological materials from Preobrazhenka III is given. At this settlement, six bear skulls were found in two utility pits, and one of them was preserved.-

Fig. 8. Ornithomorphic cheekbones-"capacity". Samus IV (photo by the author).

page 102
there were traces of bronze oxide (Molodin, 1977, p. 51). According to V. I. Molodin, "the pits were sacrificial" [Ibid.]. Therefore, contextually noteworthy is the parallel between the bear skull with bronze oxide from the Krotovo altar, the Samus "spoon" - lyachka with the image of a bear's head, and traces of a similar oxide and the ust-Kuyum "buckle-lyachka", presumably used in the rituals of Altai bronzoliteyshchik. Now the Ust-Kuyum burial ground belongs to the Karakol culture [Molodin, 2006, p.277], which is chronologically close to the Okunev, Samus, and Krotovo antiquities. Hence, like the bear figurine pendants that reflect the rituals of various cultures, the bear head cult associated with metallurgical rites is also transcultural.

Another category of Group B bear images is represented by sculptures of heads on the corollas of ceramic vessels (see Fig. 4). V. I. Moshinskaya divided such zoomorphic images into those facing (a) with their faces inside the vessel, and (b) with their faces facing out [1976, pp. 26-27]. The tradition of creating such mini-bas-reliefs goes back to the Early Bronze Age, and possibly to the Eneolithic period. Fragments of vessels decorated with bear heads, similar to those in West Siberia, were found in the Ural complexes (Serikov, 2002, p. 132, Fig. 3, 1-3). Custom "to place the beast or part of it on the edge of the vessel... It could be related to the widespread idea of the need to protect the contents of vessels" or, taking into account the different food "specialization" of vessels, "images on them could indicate what a particular vessel was intended for" [Moshinskaya, 1976, p.29, 32]. But in the Igrekovskaya and Samus ceramics, the animal faces are not turned outward, as in the Ural images, but inside the vessel (see Figure 4). Perhaps the purpose of this arrangement of bear sculptures is to "feed" the soul of the killed and/or revered beast. The very isolation of the head of the depicted animal is explained by its special status. According to ethnographic data, many Siberian aborigines especially treated the head of a dead bear. Probably, similar ideas contributed to the appearance of partial sculptures of group G (see Fig. 5), which also correspond to the mentioned ideological context.

Conclusion

1. The discovery of the Samus burial site in the Achinsk-Mariinsk forest-steppe made it possible to "push" the boundary of the area of the culture of the same name to the east by approximately 200 - 300 km. Previously, it was assumed that the easternmost reliably identified Samus sites are located in the Kuznetsk Basin on the left and right banks of the Tom River in its middle and lower reaches (Bobrov, 1992, p. 11). Petroglyphic localities are concentrated in the Lower Pritomye, one of the oldest complexes of which is represented by drawings of the Samus fine art tradition. However, the petroglyphs of Karataga in the east are located closer to the Utinkinsky burial site than the Lower Tomsky scribes in the west (Semenov et al., 2000, pp. 37-54, Tables 21-33). The latter were found on the rocks of a Large lake in the Sharypovsky district of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, which are located approximately 60-70 km from Utinka. Here are recorded images that are stylistically and / or meaningfully close to some Lower Tom petroglyphs of the Samus period. Therefore, it can be assumed that in the area where the Utinkinsky burial was discovered, there are sites of rock carvings of the Samus period, for example, within the eastern slopes of the Kuznetsk Alatau. You can check this only during field surveys, which were not previously conducted here.

2. The Krotovo, Samus and Okunev images of the bear are close in time, but they are not connected by a common iconographic canon. However, a single transcultural feature of these images is their adaptability for hanging. This feature characterizes the epoch-making method of handling bear miniatures. The need to hang bear figurines was due to their "inclusion" in more complex compositions-mise en scene. This is the fundamental similarity of the Krotovsky, Samussky and Okunevsky bear pendants, and in the same way they are radically different from the monosyllabic figurines of the Eneolithic and Late Bronze Age that look like such products.

3. The assumption about the ritual and ceremonial connection of bear images with bronze casting needs additional confirmation. The Medvezhye lyachki from Ust-Kuyum and Samus IV ,as well as the bear skull with traces of bronze oxide from Preobrazhenka III, are interesting, but not sufficient for an unambiguous conclusion about their purpose. Therefore, the problem of the role and place of the image of the bear in the rituals of West Siberian bronzers remains open.

List of literature

Baukhnik, I. I., Archaeological finds from Mount Archekas, Izv. Laboratorii arkheol. research. Kemerovo, 1970, issue 2, pp. 49-53.

Bers E. M. From excavations in Gorny Altai near the mouth of the Kuyum River. Bronze and Iron Age of Siberia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1974, pp. 18-31 (Materials on the History of Siberia; issue 4).

page 103
Bobrov V. V. Kuznetsk-Salair mountain region in the Bronze Age: Author's abstract of dd. ... Doctor of Historical Sciences. Novosibirsk, 1992, 41 p. (in Russian).

Bobrov V. V. Burial of the Early Bronze Age in the Mariinsky forest-steppe //Archaeological and ethnographic collection. Kemerovo: Raduga Publ., 2003, pp. 82-97.

Bobrov V. V., German I. V. Pogrebenie seiminsko-turbinskogo vremeni v Achinsk-Mariinskaya lesostepi [The burial of the Seiminsko-Turbinsky time in the Achinsk-Mariinskaya forest-steppe]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: Mat-ly Godovoi sessii Instituta arkheologii i etnografii SB RAS 2007-Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SB RAS, 2007. - Vol. 13. P. 178-183.

Esin Yu. N. Iskusstvo samusskoi kul'tury: Avtoref. dis. ... kand. ist.nauk [The art of Samus culture]. Novosibirsk, 2004, 22 p. (in Russian)

Zakh V. A. The Bronze Age of the Himalayan region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1997, 132 p. (in Russian)

Kirillova Yu. V. K voprosu o prednachenii izobrazheniy medvedya (epokha neolita - bronzy) [On the question of the purpose of images of the Bear (Neolithic-Bronze Age)]. Krasnoyarsk: Publishing House of the Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University. un-ta, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 124-127.

Kirillova Yu. V. Sculptural images of the bear of the Neolithic - Bronze Age (pragmatic aspect) / / Stone sculpture and small plastic of ancient and medieval peoples of Eurasia. Barnaul: Azbuka Publ., 2007, pp. 25-27.

Kiryushin Yu. F. Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Southern Taiga zone of Western Siberia. Barnaul: Alt State University Publ., 2004, 295 p. (in Russian)

Kozhin I. M. Znachenie material'noi kul'tury dlya diagnostiki protsessov prehistoricheskogo etnogeneza [The significance of material culture for the diagnosis of prehistoric ethnogenesis processes]. Istoricheskaya dinamika rasovoi i etnicheskoi differentiatsii naseleniya Azii [Historical dynamics of racial and ethnic differentiation of the Asian population].

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

Kosarev M. F. Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoy Sibiri [The Bronze Age of Western Siberia]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, 280 p.

Krasnienko S. V., Subbotin A.V. Okunevskie pamyatniki na territorii Nazarovskaya kotloviny [Okunevskie pamyatniki na territorii Nazarovskaya kotloviny]. Saint Petersburg: Elexis Print Publ., 2006, pp. 235-241.

Kulemzin V. M. Kult medvedya i shamanizm u obskikh ugrov [The Cult of the Bear and shamanism among the Ob Ugrians]. Bear in ancient and modern cultures of Siberia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2000, pp. 72-77.

Lyutsidarskaya A. A. Medvezhye pesni kak fenomen kul'tury sibirskikh ugrov [Bear songs as a cultural phenomenon of the Siberian Ugrians]. Bear in ancient and modern cultures of Siberia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2000, pp. 78-83.

Obraz medvedya v russkom prikladnom iskusstve [The image of a bear in Russian applied Art]. Bear in ancient and modern cultures of Siberia. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2000, pp. 90-99.

Matyushchenko V. And the ancient history of the population of the forest and forest-steppe Ob region (Neolithic and Bronze Age). - Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. State University, 1973. - Ch. 2: Samus culture. - 210 p. - (From the history of Siberia; issue 10).

Matyushchenko V. I. Samus materials as part of the Yelovsky archaeological complex // Northern Eurasia in the Bronze Age: Space, Time, Culture. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 2002, pp. 103-106.

Mikhailov Yu. And the worldview of ancient societies in the south of Western Siberia (Bronze Age). Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat Publ., 2001, 363 p.

Molodin V. I. Neolithic and Bronze Age of the forest-steppe Ob-Irtysh region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1977, 173 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I. Ancient art of Western Siberia (Ob-Irtysh forest-steppe). Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1992, 191 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I. Original belt buckles of the developed Bronze Age from the Gorny Altai and West Siberian forest-steppe / / Ancient cultures of Southern Siberia and North-Eastern China. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1994, pp. 82-86.

Molodin V. I. Karakol culture // Okunevsky collection 2: Culture and its environment. Saint Petersburg: Elexis Print Publ., 2006, pp. 273-282.

Molodin V. I., Bobrov V. V., Ravnushkin V. I. Aidashinskaya cave. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1980, 208 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I., Glushkov I. G. Samus culture in the Upper Ob region. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1989, 168 p. (in Russian)

Molodin V. I., Oktyabrskaya I. V., Chemyakina M. A. Obraz medvedya v plastike zapadnosibirskikh aborigenov epokhi neolita i bronzy [The image of a bear in the plastic of the Neolithic and Bronze Age West Siberian Aborigines]. Bear in ancient and modern cultures of Siberia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2000, pp. 23-36.

Moshinskaya V. I. Ancient sculpture of the Urals and Western Siberia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1976, 132 p.

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

Savinov D. G. Ancient settlements of Khakassia: Torgazhak. - St. Petersburg: Center "Petersburg Oriental Studies", 1996. - 112 p.

Semenov V. A., Kilunovskaya M. E., Krasnienko S. V., Subbotin A.V. Petroglyphs of Karataga and Cedar Mountain (Sharypovsky district of the Krasnoyarsk Territory). Saint Petersburg: IIMK RAS Publishing House, 2000, 66 p. (in Russian)

Serikov Yu. B. Works of primitive art from the eastern slope of the Urals // Questions of archeology of the Urals. - 2002. - Issue 24. - p. 127-150.

Studzitskaya S. V. Iskusstvo Vostochnogo Urala i Zapadnoy Sibiri v epokhu bronzy [The Art of the Eastern Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze Age].

Titova M. V., Sumin V. A. Otkrytie mogilnika samus'skoy kul'tury v krokhalevskom arkheologicheskom mikrorayone [Opening of the burial ground of the Samus culture in the Krokhalevsky archaeological microdistrict]. Tyumen: IPOS SB RAS Publishing House, 2002, issue 4, pp. 77-83.

Troitskaya T. N., Durakov I. A., Savin A. N. Samus'skiye bronzovye figuriny s poseleniya Krokhalevka-13 [Samus ' bronze figurines from the settlement of Krokhalevka-13]. - 2001. - N 1. - p. 91-93.

Turov M. G. Kul't medvedya v fol'klore i obryadovoi praktike evenkov [The Cult of the Bear in Evenk folklore and ritual practice]. Bear in ancient and modern cultures of Siberia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2000, pp. 48-59.

Chenchenkova O. P. Stone sculpture of forest-steppe Asia of the Paleometallic epoch of the III-I millennium BC-Yekaterinburg: Thesis, 2004. - 336 p.; ill.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 18.03.08.

page 104

Permanent link to this publication: