O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne: ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Russian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Sankt-Peterburg
Izdat. "Nestor-Istorija"
2007
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Programma knigoizdanija "Kantemir"
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Beschreibung: | 486 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| ISBN: | 5981871733 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV022576748 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20070914 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 070813s2007 abd| |||| 00||| rus d | ||
| 020 | |a 5981871733 |9 5-98187-173-3 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)254938962 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV022576748 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rus | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 6,11 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 6,12 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Dergačev, Valentin A. |d 1943- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)10322565X |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne |b ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas |c V. A. Dergačev |
| 264 | 1 | |a Sankt-Peterburg |b Izdat. "Nestor-Istorija" |c 2007 | |
| 300 | |a 486 S. |b Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a Programma knigoizdanija "Kantemir" | |
| 500 | |a In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 600 | 1 | 7 | |a Gimbutas, Marija |d 1921-1994 |0 (DE-588)119269821 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Cucuteni-Kultur |0 (DE-588)4493976-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Bronzezeit |0 (DE-588)4008357-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Pferd |0 (DE-588)4045503-8 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Vor- und Frühgeschichte |0 (DE-588)4078951-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Tripolje-Kultur |0 (DE-588)4186213-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Zepter |0 (DE-588)4126411-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Neolithikum |0 (DE-588)4075272-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Osteuropa |0 (DE-588)4075739-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Südosteuropa |0 (DE-588)4058449-5 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Gimbutas, Marija |d 1921-1994 |0 (DE-588)119269821 |D p |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Cucuteni-Kultur |0 (DE-588)4493976-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Tripolje-Kultur |0 (DE-588)4186213-2 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 1 | 0 | |a Osteuropa |0 (DE-588)4075739-0 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 1 | |a Zepter |0 (DE-588)4126411-3 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | 2 | |a Südosteuropa |0 (DE-588)4058449-5 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 3 | |a Neolithikum |0 (DE-588)4075272-0 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | 4 | |a Bronzezeit |0 (DE-588)4008357-3 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 2 | 0 | |a Osteuropa |0 (DE-588)4075739-0 |D g |
| 689 | 2 | 1 | |a Pferd |0 (DE-588)4045503-8 |D s |
| 689 | 2 | 2 | |a Südosteuropa |0 (DE-588)4058449-5 |D g |
| 689 | 2 | 3 | |a Vor- und Frühgeschichte |0 (DE-588)4078951-2 |D s |
| 689 | 2 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-015783001 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 370.9 |e 22/bsb |f 0904 |g 73 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09012 |g 496 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09013 |g 496 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09013 |g 47 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 09012 |g 47 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804136712990883841 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
От автора
.................................................................................................................................17
Часть
I
О миграционной концепции М. Гимбутас
и ее отражении в материалах культуры Кукутень-Триполье
К проблеме взаимодействия раннескотоводческих и древнеземледельческих обществ
энеолита
-
ранней бронзы Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европы
1.1.
Введение в ситуацию
.......................................................................................................21
Примечания
..........................................................................................................................24
1.2.
О процедуре археологического исследования
................................................................25
Примечания
..........................................................................................................................29
1.3.
О «гражданском» состоянии
кукутень-трипольского общества
.......................................................................................30
1.3.1.
Задача исследования. Абстракции
............................................................................30
1.3.2.
Динамика развития культуры Прекукутень-Кукутень-Триполье
.............................30
1.3.3.
О «гражданской обороне»кукутень-трипольского общества
..................................36
1.3.4.
Память народов (топонимика)
..................................................................................42
1.3.5.
Орудия войны
.............................................................................................................49
1.3.6.
Визитная карточка непрошеного гостя
.....................................................................56
Примечания
..........................................................................................................................58
ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ. Сводные данные о памятниках культуры Прекукутень-Кукутень-
Триполье
..............................................................................................................................59
Часть
Π
О скипетрах
Введение
............................................................................................,.....................................69
П.
1.
История изучения скипетров в контексте общих знаний по неолиту
-
ранней бронзе Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европы
....................................................70
11.1.1.
Период
1-й
(до конца 50-х гг.
XX
в.)
........................................................................70
П.1.2. Период
2-й
(60-е-80-е годы)
..................................................................................78
И.1.3. Период
3-й
(90-е годы)
.............................................................................................87
11.1.4.
Состояние проблемы
................................................................................................91
Примечания
..........................................................................................................................93
П.2. Источники и их внешняя критика
..................................................................................94
Примечания
..........................................................................................................................99
ΙΙ.3.
Проблема классификации «и» типологии
....................................................................101
ΙΙ.3.1.
Из опыта классификации-типологии
....................................................................101
ΙΙ.3.2.
И снова о процедуре, или Абстракции об абстрактах
...........................................103
П.З.З.И еще
-
о классификации и/или типологии
..........................................................106
П.3.4. Реалистические и схематические навершия
-
категория-тип или категории-типы?
..........................................................................107
11.3.5.
Классификация наверший на основе визуального восприятия
морфологических признаков
........................................................................................112
11.3.6.
Классификация наверший на базе формально-статистических методов
...........119
П.
3.7.
Классификация наверший на основе корреляции метрических показателей
.... 127
11.3.8.
Критерии верификации классификации
...............................................................131
11.
3.9.
Итоги классификации и вопрос культурного контекста
.......................................142
Примечания
.......................................................................................................................148
П.
4.
О функциональности наверший
...................................................................................150
И.4.1. Предварительные замечания
..................................................................................150
11.
4.2.
Функциональное предназначение наверший, или Простые констатации
.........151
Примечания
.......................................................................................................................160
П.
5.
Культурная функция скипетров и модель их возможной археологизации
(поданным гомеровского эпоса)
.....................................................................................161
Введение
............................................................................................................................161
II.5.1.
Гомеровский эпос: проблема источников
.............................................................162
П.5.2. Жезлы богов
.............................................................................................................169
11.
5.3.
Скипетры смертных
................................................................................................171
П.5.4. Скипетры в условиях мирной жизни
....................................................................172
П.5.5. Скипетры в условиях Троянской войны
...............................................................174
П.5.6. Скипетры в системе ритуала власти
.....................................................................179
П.5.7. Царская власть и скипетры в системе «наследования»
.......................................183
И.
5.8.
Модель возможного депонирования ахейских скипетров
в археологических комплексах
.....................................................................................185
Примечания
.......................................................................................................................191
11.6.
О знаках-символах и возможностях их расшифровки
................................................192
11.6.1.
О знаках и символах как таковых
...........................................................................192
П.6.2. Возможности раскрытия содержания знака-символа
..........................................194
Примечания
.......................................................................................................................197
11.7.
Идентификация образа, или Распознавание исходного Смысла
...............................198
П.7.1. Историографические ретроспекции
......................................................................199
Ц.7.2. Числовые параметры образа лошади
....................................................................200
П.7.3. К вопросу об условностях и
схематизмах
.............................................................207
Ы.7.4. Навершия-скипетры как этнографические объекты
.............................................210
Примечания
.......................................................................................................................212
Часть
III
О лошадях
111.1.
О лошадях, или О смыслах некоторых из «иных реальностей»
................................215
III.
1.1.
Немного историографии
........................................................................................215
III.
1.2.
Цели исследования, источники, методика
..........................................................219
III.
1.3.
Культуры, хронология,
предварительная характеристика данных археозоологии
.........................................221
III.
1.4.
Предварительные замечания: из опыта статистического анализа фауны
..........235
III.
1.5.
К критике источников: об информативности, сравнимости коллекций
и рабочих признаках
.....................................................................................................239
111.1.6.
Обоснование
зональностей
и эпицентр наибольшей значимости лошади
по археозоологическим данным
..................................................................................249
111.1.7.
Анализ внутризональных проявлений остатков лошади
...................................262
111.1.8.
Сравнительный анализ межзональных показателей
и их возможная интерпретация
...................................................................................277
III.
1.9.
Проявление надзональных показателей,
или Динамика процесса доместикации и распространения лошади
.......................283
111.1.10.
Собственно археологические источники к проблеме лошади
.........................287
Примечания
........................................................................................................................301
Ш.2. Верификация выводов, или Об особенностях археологизации домашних видов
...........303
111.2.1.
Предварительные замечания
................................................................................303
Ш.2.2. Представление дополнительного банка данных
.................................................307
Ш.2.3. И снова о внутренней критике источников и рабочих признаках
.....................313
111.2.4.
Кости
—
особи, или Два свойства одного и того же отношения
........................315
111.2.5.
О признаках-перевертышах, или Еще одна проблема,
в которой не разобрались археозоологи
......................................................................327
Ш.2.6. О логике внутреннего соотношения части к целому
..........................................331
111.2.7.
Закономерность соотношения числа костей к числу особей
..............................332
111.2.8.
Оппозиция: домашние
—
дикие, или К модели основных закономерностей
и противоположных тенденций
..................................................................................334
ΙΠ.2.9.
От модели к конкретным материалам
..................................................................343
Ш.2.10. Особенности археозоологизации домашних видов
..........................................351
ΠΙ.2.1
1.
К верификации одомашненности нео-энеолитической лошади
......................369
Примечания
........................................................................................................................375
III.
3.
К динамике развития домашнего животноводства в эпохи неолита
-
бронзы
юга Восточной Европы, или Лошадь в контексте других животных
...........................376
Ш.3.1
.
Особенности развития комплекса домашних видов западной и восточной
культурных зон
..............................................................................................................376
111.3.2.
Особенности развития основных домашних видов западной и восточной
культурных зон
..............................................................................................................379
Ш.3.3. Позональные особенности развития домашних видов
......................................386
Ш.3.4. О временных особенностях и сбалансированности домашнего стада
..............391
III.3.5.
Особенности развития домашнего стада в контексте природных явлений
......396
Примечания
........................................................................................................................412
Приложения
Приложение
1.
Сводные данные о коллекциях фаунистических остатков,
известных для культур неолита
-
раннего и среднего энеолита
юга Восточной Европы и Карпато-Подунавья
(
См. Карты
5-6).................................415
Приложение
2.
Реконверсия остатков костей по деформированным коллекциям
.............434
Приложение
3.
Данные о фаунистических остатках, известных для культур
позднего энеолита
-
эпохи бронзы юга Восточной Европы (см. Карту
12)................441
Резюме
....................................................................................................................................455
Summary
..................................................................................................................................460
Rezumat...................................................................................................................................
465
Литература
.............................................................................................................................470
Сокращения
...........................................................................................................................487
CONTENTS
The Author
s
Remarks
................................................................................................................17
Part One
On the Migration Concept by M. Gimbutas
and its reflection in the Materials of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture
1.1.
The Introduction into the Situation
..........................................................................................21
Comments
..............................................................................................................................24
1.2.
On the Procedure of the Archeological Research
....................................................................25
Comments
..............................................................................................................................29
1.3.
On the «Civil» State ofthe Cucuteni-Tripolye Community
...................................................... 30
1.3.1.
The Tasks of the Research. Abstractions
.........................................................................30
1.3.2.
The Development Dynamics ofthe Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture
.......................30
1.3.3.
On the «Civil Defense» ofthe Cucuteni-Tripolye Community
............................................36
1.3.4.
The Memory of the Peoples (Toponymy)
........................................................................42
1.3.5.
The Implements ofthe War
.............................................................................................49
1.3.6.
The Visiting Card ofthe Unbidden Guest
.........................................................................56
Comments
..............................................................................................................................58
Annex. The Summary Data on Cultural Sites Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolye
..................................59
Part Two
The Scepters
Introduction
................................................................................................................................69
II.
1.
The History ofthe Study in the Context ofthe General Knowledge Neolithic
-
the Early Bronze in the Eastern and the South-Eastern Europe
..................................................70
II.
1.1.
The First Period (until the end of the 50ies of the XX century)
48....................................70
П.
1.2.
The Second Period (the
óOies-SOies)
..........................................................................78
II.
1.3.
The Third Period (the 90ies)
..........................................................................................87
П.1.4.
The State of the Problem
...............................................................................................91
Comments
..............................................................................................................................93
П.2.
The Sources and the External Criticisms
...............................................................................94
Comments
..............................................................................................................................99
ИЗ.
Tlie
Problem
of the Classification and Typology
...............................................................101
П.З.1.
From the Experience of the Typology Classification
......................................................101
II.3.2. Once More on the Procedure or the Abstraction about the Abstracts
.........................103
II.
3.3.
Once More-on the Classification and/or the Typology
................................................106
II.3.4. The Realistic or Schematic
Pommes
-Type-category or Category-Type?
.....................107
II
.3.5.
The Classification of the
Pommes
on the Basis of the Visual Perception
of the morphological Attributes
..........................................................................................112
П.З.6.
The Classification ofthe
Pommes
on the Basis ofthe Formal Statistic Methods
.............119
П.3
.7.
The Classification ofthe
Pommes
ofthe Correlation of Metric Parameters
.....................127
Ц.З.8.
The Criteria for the Verification ofthe Classification
......................................................131
П.3.
9.
The results of the Classification and the Issue of the Cultural Context
.............................142
Comments
............................................................................................................................148
П.4.
On the Functionality ofthe
Pommes....................................................................................150
ЇЇ.4.1.
Preliminary Remarks
...................................................................................................150
П.4.2.ОП
Functional Purpose ofthe
Pommes
or Simple Statements
.........................................151
Comments
............................................................................................................................160
П.5
.
The Cultural Functions ofthe Scepters and the Model of their Possible Archeologization
(on the data ofthe Homer Epos)
...........................................................................................161
Introduction
..........................................................................................................................161
П.5.1.
The Homer Epos: Problems and Sources
....................................................................162
П.5.2.
The Batons ofthe Gods
..............................................................................................169
11.53.
The Sceptres ofthe Mortals
........................................................................................171
П.5.4.
The Sceptres under die Conditions ofthe Peaceful Life
.................................................172
II.5.5.The
Sceptres under the Conditions of the Trojan War
...................................................174
II.5.6. The Sceptres of the Power Ritual
.................................................................................179
П.5.7.
The Tzar s Rule and the Sceptres in the «Inheritance» System
.......................................183
П.5.8.
The Model ofthe Possible Depositing ofthe Achean Sceptres intheArcheological Sites....
185
Comments
............................................................................................................................191
11.6.0η
the Signs-Symbols and the Possibilities of their Dicyphering
...........................................192
11.6.1.
On Signs and Symbols as such
...................................................................................192
Π.6.2.
The Possibilities ofthe Disclosing of a Sign-Symbol
......................................................194
Comments
............................................................................................................................197
Π.7.
The Identification ofthe Image or the Recognition ofthe Initial Sewe
.................................. 198
П.7.1.
The Historiographer Retrospectives
.............................................................................199
П.7.2.
The Numeric Parameters ofthe Horse Image
...............................................................200
П.7.3.ОП
the Issue of Conventionalities and Sketchinesses
......................................................207
II.
7.4.
The Sceptres
-Pommes
as Ethnographic Objects
.........................................................210
Comments
............................................................................................................................212
Part Three
The Horses
III.
1.
The Horses -on the Sense of Some of
Certam
Realities
.................................................215
III.
1.1.
A little of Historiography
.............................................................................................215
Ш.12.
The Research Objectives, Sources, Methods
...............................................................219
Ш.1.З.
Cultures, Chronology, Tentative Characteristic oftheArcheozoological Data
................221
Ш.1.4.
Preliminary Remarks: from the Experience ofthe Statistic Analysis ofthe Fauna
...........235
ΠΙ.
1.5.
The Criticism of the Sources: on Informative Nature, the Comparability
of the Collections, Working Attributes
................................................................................239
Ш.
1
.6.The Substantiation of the Zone Categories and the Epicenter of the Supreme Significance
of the Horse on the Basis of the Archeozoological Data
......................................................249
ΠΙ.1.
7.
The
Analys
is of the Internal Zonal Manifestation of the Horse Remains
.........................262
ΠΙ.
1.8.
The Comparative of the Inter-zonal Indices and their Possible Interpretation
................277
ΙΠ.
1.9.
The Manifestation of Super-zonal Indices or the Process of Domestication and the
Distribution of the Horse
...................................................................................................283
ΙΠ.
1.10.
The Proper Archeological Sources on the Horse Problem
.........................................287
Comments
............................................................................................................................301
ΠΙ.2.
The Verification of the Conclusions or On the Specific Features of the Archeologization
of the Domestic Species
.......................................................................................................303
Ш.2.1.
Preliminary Remarks
..................................................................................................303
Ш.2.2.
The Presentation of the Additional Database
...............................................................307
Ш.2.З.
Again on the Internal Criticism of the Sources and on the Working Attributes
................313
Ш.2.4.
Bones-Animals or Two Properties of One and the Same Relation
.............................315
Ш.2.5.
On the Overturned Attributes or Another Problem, whichhas not been solved by the
Archeo-zoologists
.............................................................................................................327
ΙΠ.2.6.
On the Logic of the Internal Correlation of a Part and the Whole
.................................331
ΠΙ.2.7.
The Regularity of the Correlation of the Bones and the Number of the Animals
.............332
Ш.2.8.
Opposition: Domestic
-
Wild or on the Model of the Main Regularities
and the Reverse Trends
.....................................................................................................334
ΙΠ.2.9.
From the Model to the Concrete Materials
.................................................................343
ΠΙ.2.
10.
The Specific Feature of the Archeologization of Domestic Species
.............................351
Ш.2.
11.
On the Verification of the Domestication of the Neo-Eneolithic Horse
.........................369
Comments
............................................................................................................................375
Ш.З
.
The Development Dynamics of the Domestic Livestock Breeding
during the Neolithic Period
-
the Bronze Age of the South-Eastern Europe
or the Horse in the Context of Other Domestic Animals
..........................................................376
ΠΙ.3.
1
.The Specific Features in the Development of the Complex of the Domestic Species
of the Western and the Eastern Cultural Zone
.....................................................................376
ÏÏI.3.2.
The Specific Features in the Development of the Main Domestic Species
.....................379
ΠΙ. 3.3.
The Zonal Specific Features in the Development of the Domestic Herd
........................386
ΙΠ.3
.4.
On the Time Specific Features and the Balance of the Domestic Herd
..........................391
ΠΙ.3.5.
The Specific Features in the Development of the Domestic Herd in the Context
of the Natural Phenomena
.................................................................................................396
Comments
............................................................................................................................412
Annex
1....................................................................................................................................415
Annex
2....................................................................................................................................434
Annex
3....................................................................................................................................441
Резюме
....................................................................................................................................455
Resume
....................................................................................................................................460
Rezumat
...................................................................................................................................465
Literature
..................................................................................................................................470
The list of the abbreviation
.........................................................................................................487
Summary
The monograph is devoted to the verification of
the Migration Concept by M. Gimbutas on the ancient
motherland of the Indo-Europeans and their
expansion from East to West into the Carpathian-
Danubian zone and into the Balkans (the archeological
aspect).
The book gives a detailed analysis of the stone
zoomorphous Eneolithic scepters of the East and the
Southeastern Europe: typology, origin issues,
chronology, territorial dissemination, cultural function
and so on (Part Two) in addition to the previously
published etudes (Part One).
The main conclusions:
1.
The schematic and realistic tops of the
Eneolithic epoch, known from the Volga region and
the Northern Caucasus up to the central Balkans, is
a homogeneous category, representing two variants
of one and the same cultural type from the typological
viewpoint (Fig.
38).
2.
From the evolution point of view they constitute
relatively independent stylistic groups, which
developed simultaneously in the time and according
to the same canons (from the simple to the com¬
plicated, from small sizes to the relatively big ones),
originating from the same prototypes: extremely gene¬
ralized tops, known from the Hvalynsk cemeteries
1-2
(Fig.
38).
3.
Accordingly, the origin of these original pieces
is associated with the carriers of the Hvalynsk culture
of the Middle Volga zone, from which they were
transferred through the carriers of theNovodanilovka
type sites to the area of the cultures of the Northern
Caucasus, the Carpathian-Danubian region and the
Balkans (Fig.
39;
Maps
1-2).
4.
The chronology of these sites determines also
the period of the existence and the dissemination of
the very tops, which falls, mainly, on the Cucuteni
A
-
Tripolye
В
I or Gumelnitsa A
2
in accordance
with the division in periods of the early farming cultures
the Carpathian-Danubian region (Table
20).
5.
From the
iconographie
viewpoint both the
schematic and the realistic tops represent the images
of horses on the different stylization extent that is
clearly proved on the basis of the analysis of the
metric parameters of these tops, compared with the
horse images of the preceding (Paleolithic) or the
successive (antic, medieval) epochs (Fig.
57-67).
6.
In the functional relation the tops in question
represented undoubtedly the ensigns of military power.
The main military leaders were endowed with these
symbols (Fig.
69).
The validity of this conclusion is
confirmed exclusively by the exclusive character
of these pieces, by the analysis of the later written
epic works of the Homer Epos , the specific features
in the archeologization of the military symbols as such
(Maps
3-4).
7.
The results of the analysis and the interpretation
of the horse head scepters pass completely into the
general cultural-historical scheme of the correlation
of the archeological realities of the Middle Eneolithic
of the south of the Eastern and the Southeastern
Europe and therefore they completely confirm the
conceptual views of M. Gimbutas, in the relation to
the first migration wave or the expansion of the
steppe East-European population fromEast to West
into the area of the ancient farming civilizations of
Carpathian-Danubian region and the Balkans.
Further (Part III,
1)
the paper considers the
problem of the possible identification of the time and
the place of the horse domestication
—
one of the key
problems in the solution of the Indo-European topics
on the whole on the basis of the analysis of both the
archeozoological and the very archeological sources.
We attract for the analysis all the available
archeozoological Neolithic collections
—
from the
Middle Eneolithic to the Middle Eneolithic from the
Tisza
and the
Danubian
zone to Caucasus and the
Southern Ural mountains (about
190
collections,
containing complete or fragmentary data
—
Annex
1 ;
Table
21;
Maps
5-6),
as well as all the archeological
data, embodying the horse image (pictures of horses,
cultural complexes or burials, containing horse bones
and so on
-
Fig.
70-71 ;
Table
31).
The autonomous analysis of each of these
categories made the author make unambiguously the
same conclusion, namely:
1.
The domestication of the horse is a pheno¬
menon, connected with the area of the steppe and
the forest-steppe cultures of the South of the Eastern
Europe, but not with the area of the early farming
Summary
461
cultures of the Northern Caucasus or the Carpathian-
Danubian region (Table
30;
Maps
7-Ю).
2.
The beginning of the horse domestication dates
undoubtedly back into the Early Neolithic period (that
is to say, simultaneously with the adaptation of the
local and the borrowed (goat/sheep species).
However, one can surely speak about the com¬
pleteness of this process in the connection with the
Developed or Late Neolithic that was expressed in
the emergence of the specialized horse breeding
(Table
30;
Maps
7-Ю).
3.
The main and only epicenter of the horse
domestication are the forest-steppe regions of the
Middle Volga zone and the Ural and the cultural
context of this process are the carriers of the Middle
Volga culture of the Developed Neolithic of the
Samara Volga region (including partly the Agidel
culture of the Southwestern Ural) (Table
30;
Maps
7-10).
4.
The significance of horse and the specialization
of the horse breeding acquires the maximal
development during the period of the Early and the
Middle Eneolithic of the same region (the Samara
and the Hvalynsk cultures) that is confirmed by the
number of the remains of this species, the wide
involvement of the horse image in the spiritual-cult
sphere (cult complexes and burials, containing horse
bones and so on), as well as the emergency of the
military symbols, bearing a horse image (horse head
scepters on the Hvalynsk cemeteries) (Table
33-34;
Map
11).
5.
The spread of the domesticated horse from
the Middle Volga zone into the remaining forest-steppe
the steppe cultures of the East-European bloc falls
most probably on the end of the Neolithic, mainly, on
the periods of the Early and Middle Eneolithic.
6.
The spread of the domesticated saddle-horse
into the area of the fanning cultures of the fore-
Caucasian zone and the Carpathian-Danubian region
is a secondary phenomenon and is due to the influence
of the Middle Volga factor.
7.
The spontaneous unexpected abrupt increase
in the number of horses in the Carpathian-Danubian
region fell on the very end of the Early Eneolithic (the
Precucuteni
Ш
-
the Bolgrad-Alden II type sites)
-
the beginning of the Middle Eneolithic (Cucuteni A
1-2 —
Gumelnitsa A
2).
This process proceeded from East to
West (from the steppe marginal regions to the internal
regions of the area of farming cultures) (Table
29).
8.
In the time this process coincides partly, with
the spread of the stone head scepters in this zone
and the sites of the Novodanilovka type that also points
out clearly to the carriers of this phenomenon and its
origin (from East) and on the artificial character of
its introduction (the result of the military expansion).
9.
The conclusions, resulted from the analysis of
the archeozoological and the very archeological
sources correlate completely with the conclusions,
formulated on the basis of the autonomous analysis
of the stone horse head scepters. And it means that
these categories of the sources completely confirm
the migration concept of M. Gimbutas independently
or separately in its main theses.
The next section of this paper (Part III,
2)
is
devoted to the verification of the earlier formulated
conclusion in respect of the horse domestication and
the general regularities in the archeologization of the
paleofauna.
The solution of these tasks is based on
the analysis of archeozoological data, known for the
Neolithic
-
the Middle Eneolithic (Annex
1)
and the
collections of the Late Eneolithic
-
the Bronze Age
(Annex
3) -
the period for which the domestication
of horse is undoubted (all in all about
270
collections,
236
of them include the complete data on bones and
animals
-
Table
35).
The conclusions on the verification of the time of
the horse domestication:
1.
The comparative analysis of the evolution of
the general fund of the fauna remains of the domestic
and the wild species of the Neolithic
-
the middle
Eneolithic of the Western (early farming) and the
East-European cultural zones confirms completely the
thesis on the horse domestication during the Neolithic
period. The assertion of the reverse would signify
that in contrast to the Western zone in the Eastern
cultural zone the development of the domestic horse
breeding had an exclusively regressive character from
the moment of its emergence to the very Middle
Eneolithic (Fig.
97-98).
2.
The same absolutely positive conclusion results
from the comparative analysis of the revelation of
the horse remains with taking into consideration the
archeologization specific features: on the one hand,
the Neolithic
-
the Middle Eneolithic (for which the
domestication of horse is disputed), and, on the other
hand, the Late
—
the Bronze Age (for which the horse
domestication is undoubted). These two set of mate¬
rials, which vary in time, have the same regularities
and the same groupings (Fig.
147-148),
confirming
the thesis on the horse domestication in the Eastern
zone from as far as the Developed Neolithic epoch
and the thesis on the early emergency of the spe¬
cialized horse breeding in this zone.
The conclusions on the general laws in the
archeologization of the
paleofauna
remains of the
past. Despite the ideas of the inadequate character of
the data on bones and animals, which ideas are
widespread among the archeozoologists. (E.E.
Antipina
and others):
1.
The bone
-
animals represent two different
qualities, however, of one and the same relation (one
and the same initial integrity). Accordingly in the
quality of the relatively independent indicators, their
percentage ratio is of a strictly mutually conditioned
character. Though, as the analysis showed, their
values can be often predetermined by many secondary
circumstances: the volume of the selection, the
conditions of selecting the collections, the perfection
extent of the methods and the professional skills of
the expert and so on.
462
Summary
2.
The detailed analysis of the natural range of
the data on the bones and animals of all the used
collections (Fig.
99)
convinces that the normal
correlation of the percentage values of the number
of animals to the number of bones, including more
than
1000
of certain bones is within the range from
1
to
4-5%
and for the collections, containing from
100
to
1000
bones this range constitutes from
3-4
to
6-
7%
(Fig.
101-103).
As it was cleared out, the
deviations from these ranges are conditioned not
rather by the non-perfection of the identification
methods of the animals (Table
36)
than by the
selection extent of the collection before their transfer
to the experts for defining them. That is why the
majority of the archeozoological collections from the
excavations of the 60-ies of the past century and the
definitions of the Romanian experts bear, as a rule,
the deformed data (Fig.
104-105).
3.
The main law of the archeologization of the
paleofauna
remains is reduced to the following
formula: the species, represented by a big number
of bones, give the reduction in the number of
animals and those, represented by a small number
of bones, gives on the contrary their relative
increase. To put it otherwise, the more bones the
collections contain, the more these collections will
demonstrate the reduction in the number of animals,
that is to say, the latter ones will give the negative
values on bones. And on the contrary: the less bones
the collections contain, the more these collections will
show the increase in the number of animals, that is to
say, the latter ones will give the positive values on
bones.
4.
The noted law-rule has a universal character
and covers both the animal categories (domestic
+
wild), and their components
-
both the domestic and
wild forms. Taken as a certain single whole (all the
archeological collection or the aggregate of the
collections), the species, which prevail in the number
of bones (for example domestic ones), will demonst¬
rate the reduction in the number of animals
-
and
the species, which cede them in the number of bones
(the wild ones) will show the increase in the number
of animals. And vice versa. But, since these both
categories are taken as the single whole, the value
in the difference of their data on bones and animals
will be the same in the both cases, only different in
their values: in the case of numerous ones (in our
case
-
the domestic ones), the animals will show a
negative value in relations to bones and in the case
of the non-numerous ones (that is to say, the wild
ones), the animals will be characterized by a positive
value in the respect of the bones, (Fig.
106-109;
Table
37-38).
5.
The above said refers equally to the remains
of the domestic and the wild species, which, depending
on the context, is integral (on the level of site, culture,
cultural zones or periods, epochs) and can be
presented in the quality of the numerous and/or the
non-numerous ones. In the first case, the animals will
naturally give the negative values in relation to bones
and in the second case the values will be positive.
However, since, the notions of numerous
-
non-
numerous acquire a relative character in the
analysis of the aggregates, including not two, but
four-five or more components (species), the values
of the data difference will be determined as a sum
of the difference, on the one hand, the negative
values (demonstrated in relation to the species, which
are relatively not numerous in bones) and, on the
other hand, as a sum of positive values. And, as it
must be, the sum of these differences must coincide
completely that is expressed properly by the action
of the above mentions law (Fig.
106-109
and
particularly-Fig
111-112).
6.
Finally, the observed rule is also confirmed
completely on the level of the data separately on each
of the species, which can reveal themselves both in
the quality of a numerous or a non-numerous species
in different cases. In this case their difference lies in
the fact that the collections, including numerous (of
the given concrete species), form two different
oppositions in relation to the collections, containing a
small number of bones (of the same species): having
different negative and different positive values. That
is why, taken in the frames of certain single aggregate,
the specific relation of the number of bones to the
number of animals of a concrete species is
determined by the average arithmetic value,
accumulating both the extreme negative and the
extreme positive values. Here are two examples: the
difference range of the data on bones and animals
for the cattle (if we follow the accepted selection)
constitutes from minus
40-48%
(for the collections,
containing the most considerable number of bones of
this species) to plus
20%
(for the collections,
containing the minimal number of bones), and their
average statistic value is equal to about minus
20%
(Fig.
125).
And for the small cattle, which cede
considerably to large cattle in our selection, this value
constitutes already about
+10%
(Fig.
131);
pigs
-
about
+7%
(Fig.
136)
and so on (Fig.
141; 146).
The revealed regularities in the archeologization
of the
paleofauna
have a principal practical
significance, particularly- in the interpretation plan:
1.
When we follow the revealed regularities, it is
it is absolutely obvious that the more was the
significance of one or other species in the ancient
time that is to say, the more bones were produced ),
the more was the probability of their secondary
utilization (artificial, natural), that properly
predetermines the difficulty of the identification of
the number of animals or their deficit . And on the
contrary, the less bones were produced , the less
was their utilization and the more was the probability
of their identification accordingly.
2.
The analysis reveals clearly certain differences
in the archeologization of the especially domestic
-
house species (cow, pig, dog) in contrast to the
movable species, which were bred under the
Summary
463
conditions of distant semi-movable livestock breeding
(sheep/goat, cow, horse). These observations call for
a very serious verification, because their confirmation
is extremely important for the reconstruction of the
forms of the livestock breeding.
3.
The refusal, manifested in the latest period, on
the part of many archeologists from the determination
and the accounting of the number of animals will
inevitably result in the impoverishment of the cognitive
possibilities of the archeozoology as an independent
subject; it will have a negative effect on the remaining
sciences, using the results of the archeozoological
definitions, particularly, for the purpose of modeling
the paleoeconomic and paleographical phenomena
and the process of the past.
4.
Despite all the relativity of the data on
bones» and/or on animals , it follows from the
discovered regularities that the characteristic, the
evaluation and the interpretation of any plans in
the understanding of the
paleofauna
remains must
be made on the basis of the average arithmetic
values of these two aspects. Accumulating,
averaging the positive and/or the negative values
on bones and animals, the average arithmetic value
comes out also relative , but it is relatively more
objective.
The last section of the book (Part III,
3)
is
devoted to some of the main problems of the
development of the domestic livestock breeding
in the Western farming and the East-European
cultural zones in the period from the Neolithic
to the end of the Bronze Age.
The main conclusions:
1.
The establishment and the development of the
domestic livestock breeding, conditioned by the
closeness to the primary centers of the productive
economy, and specific natural conditions, in the
Western Carpathian-Danubian and the East-
European cultural zones show principal differences
on all the main characteristics.
2.
In the early farming East-Carpathian zone,
where livestock breeding and fanning emerge in the
result of the direct migration of the population from
the Southern Balkans (the Starchevo-Krish-Karanovo
I-II culture), the set of domestic species begins from
the level of about
65%
(of the total
paleofauna
aggregate). It is preserved with an insignificant
increase (by
5-10%)
until the very end the Eneolithic.
Then its share is increased abruptly and reaches
90-
95%
by the Middle and Late Bronze and practically
ousts the need in hunting (Fig.
149-150).
In contrast to the Western zone, in the East-
European cultural zone, which is considerably remote
from the primary centers of the productive economy,
where the emergence of the domestic livestock
breeding and farming was, mainly, owing to
borrowings and introductions, the set of the domestic
species begins from the level of about
30%.
However,
the rhythmus and the dynamics in the increase of this
set was considerably higher than in the Western zone
(the Early Eneolithic
-
about
45%,
the Middle
Eneolithic
—
about
60%),
in the result of it the
communities of this zone reached the level of
95%
already by the beginning of the Bronze Age (Fig.
150-
151).
3.
The development of the livestock breeding in
the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones was
based on the breeding of four main species: large
cattle, small cattle, pig and horse. But if the first two
specifies were universal and common, both for the
Western and the Eastern cultural zones, the second
two species were specific: pig, mainly for the Western
zone and horse
-
for the Eastern cultural zone.
Accordmgly, the specific features of the main set of
species of the Western farming cultural zone is
defined by the notion of the common European triad
(large cattle+small cattle+pig), and the specific
features of the Eastern zone by means of the notion
-
the East-European triad (large cattle+small
cattle+horse) (Fig.
152).
4.
The development of the livestock breeding
complex begins from high values (about
40%
of the
total aggregate or about
60%
of all the domestic
animals) in the Western cultural zone. However,
beginning from the Developed Neolithic, large cattle
takes the first place in its importance and preserves
its leadership (excluding only the Late Bronze period)
until the Late Bronze Age. Competing with pig
and sheep/goat in the course of the Late Neolithic
up to the Late Eneolithic, sheep/goat occupies the
second place beginning from the Early Bronze Age
(Fig.
152-160).
The dynamics of the species composition was
different in the Eastern cultural zone. In the course
of the Neolithic and up to the Middle Eneolithic (from
15-35%
of the aggregate or from
11-30
to
57%
of
all the domestic animals), the horse was the leading
animal in this zone (that is independently confirmed
by the thesis of its domestication and the
specialization of livestock breeding). Only from the
transition from the Middle to the Late Eneolithic,
the horse cedes the leadership to small cattle and
from the Early Bronze Age large cattle takes the
first place (Fig.
152-159,161).
5.
The development and the evolution of the species
composition of the set of domestic animals breeding in
the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones was of a
strictly balanced character: the increase or the decrease
of one of the species was inevitably accompanied by
the respective decrease or the increase in the value of
some or other species. Alongside with it, this
substitution was most often accompanied by an
additional overlap of the existing deficit that obviously
reflects the general progressive trend in the
development of the total set. But if in the Western
cultural zone the balance of the set was maintained at
the cost of the reciprocal compensation of the species,
constituting the common European triad , so in the
Eastern zone
-
at the cost of the species, constituting
the East-European triad . (Table
40).
464
Summary
6.
The set of domestic animals, reviewed in the
long historical perspective with taking into consi¬
deration the natural zone, reflects two relatively
independent epochs. In their character they completely
correspond to the main cultural-historical development
vector in the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones,
but each of them has its specific features. The first
one includes all the sets from the Neolithic to the end
of Middle
-
the beginning of the Late Eneolithic. The
development of livestock breeding is connected in this
epoch, mainly, with the forest-steppe regions. But in
the Western cultural zone, where the livestock
breeding was the leading one in its importance, the
priority species in this epoch were large cattle, pig
and small cattle, whereas the horse has the secondary
importance. And in the Eastern cultural zone, which
lagged considerably behind in this aspect, the priority
species in this epoch were horse, large cattle and
small cattle whereas pig has the secondary
importance (Table
41-42;
Fig.
164-169).
The second of these epochs falls on the end of
the Eneolithic and the entire Bronze Age. It differs
considerably by the dominant importance of livestock
breeding both in the Western and, in particular, in the
Eastern cultural zones. This is the time of cardinal
changes in the relation of domestic animal species
and from the viewpoint of the coverage of the natural
zones. The large cattle acquire the leading importance
in the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones. The
importance of small cattle is increased. But in the
Western zone the pig preserves the third place,
whereas the importance of the horse is somewhat
increased. And in the Eastern cultural zone the horse,
which took the first place before, occupies the third
place. The importance of the pig is secondary, as
before. On the other hand, the transition to this epoch
signifies a wide spread of livestock breeding onto the
earlier poorly developed steppe regions. However, in
the Western cultural zone the livestock breeding
preserves its dominant importance in the forest-steppe
regions. And in the Eastern cultural zone its impor¬
tance clearly shifts mainly onto the steppe regions. It
is notable, however, if the forest-steppe regions
preserve their specific set of species (vector in the
Western zone: large cattle, followed by small cattle
and then pig; in the Eastern cultural zone: large cattle,
followed by small cattle and then horse), so in the
steppe regions both the composition of the order of
species set is the same: large cattle, followed by small
cattle and then horse, whereas the pig importance is
very low (Table
41-42;
Fig.
164-169).
7.
The development of livestock breeding
importance in the Western and in the Eastern cultural
zones reveals two principal critical moments in their
evolution. They are expressed in the cardinal changes
of the species composition of the livestock that is
characteristic of the both forest-steppe and the steppe
regions of these cultural zones. One of them falls on
the Middle Eneolithic, the second one
-
on the
transition period from the Late Eneolithic to the Late
Bronze Age (Fig.
171-172).
The critical moments
correlate completely with the crisis phenomena,
observed in the development of cultural communities
in the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones.
Taking into consideration their character and the
territorial scale, in the author s opinion, these crisis
phenomena are most probably connected with the
Black Sea transgressions, which caused considerable
paleoclimatic changes in the environment conditions
and in the plant composition.
The research is not completed. All the aggregate
of the archeological sources (including the Novo-
danilovka), revealing the expansion character of one
of the large migration waves of the East-European
population into the area of the ancient farming
cultures of the Carpathian-Danubian region and the
Balkans, will have to be analyzed. However, the
already obtained results leave no doubt in the final
assessment of the rightfulness of the concept by
M. Gimbutas.
|
| adam_txt |
СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
От автора
.17
Часть
I
О миграционной концепции М. Гимбутас
и ее отражении в материалах культуры Кукутень-Триполье
К проблеме взаимодействия раннескотоводческих и древнеземледельческих обществ
энеолита
-
ранней бронзы Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европы
1.1.
Введение в ситуацию
.21
Примечания
.24
1.2.
О процедуре археологического исследования
.25
Примечания
.29
1.3.
О «гражданском» состоянии
кукутень-трипольского общества
.30
1.3.1.
Задача исследования. Абстракции
.30
1.3.2.
Динамика развития культуры Прекукутень-Кукутень-Триполье
.30
1.3.3.
О «гражданской обороне»кукутень-трипольского общества
.36
1.3.4.
Память народов (топонимика)
.42
1.3.5.
Орудия войны
.49
1.3.6.
Визитная карточка непрошеного гостя
.56
Примечания
.58
ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ. Сводные данные о памятниках культуры Прекукутень-Кукутень-
Триполье
.59
Часть
Π
О скипетрах
Введение
.,.69
П.
1.
История изучения скипетров в контексте общих знаний по неолиту
-
ранней бронзе Восточной и Юго-Восточной Европы
.70
11.1.1.
Период
1-й
(до конца 50-х гг.
XX
в.)
.70
П.1.2. Период
2-й
(60-е-80-е годы)
.78
И.1.3. Период
3-й
(90-е годы)
.87
11.1.4.
Состояние проблемы
.91
Примечания
.93
П.2. Источники и их внешняя критика
.94
Примечания
.99
ΙΙ.3.
Проблема классификации «и» типологии
.101
ΙΙ.3.1.
Из опыта классификации-типологии
.101
ΙΙ.3.2.
И снова о процедуре, или Абстракции об абстрактах
.103
П.З.З.И еще
-
о классификации и/или типологии
.106
П.3.4. Реалистические и схематические навершия
-
категория-тип или категории-типы?
.107
11.3.5.
Классификация наверший на основе визуального восприятия
морфологических признаков
.112
11.3.6.
Классификация наверший на базе формально-статистических методов
.119
П.
3.7.
Классификация наверший на основе корреляции метрических показателей
. 127
11.3.8.
Критерии верификации классификации
.131
11.
3.9.
Итоги классификации и вопрос культурного контекста
.142
Примечания
.148
П.
4.
О функциональности наверший
.150
И.4.1. Предварительные замечания
.150
11.
4.2.
Функциональное предназначение наверший, или Простые констатации
.151
Примечания
.160
П.
5.
Культурная функция скипетров и модель их возможной археологизации
(поданным гомеровского эпоса)
.161
Введение
.161
II.5.1.
Гомеровский эпос: проблема источников
.162
П.5.2. Жезлы богов
.169
11.
5.3.
Скипетры смертных
.171
П.5.4. Скипетры в условиях мирной жизни
.172
П.5.5. Скипетры в условиях Троянской войны
.174
П.5.6. Скипетры в системе ритуала власти
.179
П.5.7. Царская власть и скипетры в системе «наследования»
.183
И.
5.8.
Модель возможного депонирования ахейских скипетров
в археологических комплексах
.185
Примечания
.191
11.6.
О знаках-символах и возможностях их расшифровки
.192
11.6.1.
О знаках и символах как таковых
.192
П.6.2. Возможности раскрытия содержания знака-символа
.194
Примечания
.197
11.7.
Идентификация образа, или Распознавание исходного Смысла
.198
П.7.1. Историографические ретроспекции
.199
Ц.7.2. Числовые параметры образа лошади
.200
П.7.3. К вопросу об условностях и
схематизмах
.207
Ы.7.4. Навершия-скипетры как этнографические объекты
.210
Примечания
.212
Часть
III
О лошадях
111.1.
О лошадях, или О смыслах некоторых из «иных реальностей»
.215
III.
1.1.
Немного историографии
.215
III.
1.2.
Цели исследования, источники, методика
.219
III.
1.3.
Культуры, хронология,
предварительная характеристика данных археозоологии
.221
III.
1.4.
Предварительные замечания: из опыта статистического анализа фауны
.235
III.
1.5.
К критике источников: об информативности, сравнимости коллекций
и рабочих признаках
.239
111.1.6.
Обоснование
зональностей
и эпицентр наибольшей значимости лошади
по археозоологическим данным
.249
111.1.7.
Анализ внутризональных проявлений остатков лошади
.262
111.1.8.
Сравнительный анализ межзональных показателей
и их возможная интерпретация
.277
III.
1.9.
Проявление надзональных показателей,
или Динамика процесса доместикации и распространения лошади
.283
111.1.10.
Собственно археологические источники к проблеме лошади
.287
Примечания
.301
Ш.2. Верификация выводов, или Об особенностях археологизации домашних видов
.303
111.2.1.
Предварительные замечания
.303
Ш.2.2. Представление дополнительного банка данных
.307
Ш.2.3. И снова о внутренней критике источников и рабочих признаках
.313
111.2.4.
Кости
—
особи, или Два свойства одного и того же отношения
.315
111.2.5.
О признаках-перевертышах, или Еще одна проблема,
в которой не разобрались археозоологи
.327
Ш.2.6. О логике внутреннего соотношения части к целому
.331
111.2.7.
Закономерность соотношения числа костей к числу особей
.332
111.2.8.
Оппозиция: домашние
—
дикие, или К модели основных закономерностей
и противоположных тенденций
.334
ΙΠ.2.9.
От модели к конкретным материалам
.343
Ш.2.10. Особенности археозоологизации домашних видов
.351
ΠΙ.2.1
1.
К верификации одомашненности нео-энеолитической лошади
.369
Примечания
.375
III.
3.
К динамике развития домашнего животноводства в эпохи неолита
-
бронзы
юга Восточной Европы, или Лошадь в контексте других животных
.376
Ш.3.1
.
Особенности развития комплекса домашних видов западной и восточной
культурных зон
.376
111.3.2.
Особенности развития основных домашних видов западной и восточной
культурных зон
.379
Ш.3.3. Позональные особенности развития домашних видов
.386
Ш.3.4. О временных особенностях и сбалансированности домашнего стада
.391
III.3.5.
Особенности развития домашнего стада в контексте природных явлений
.396
Примечания
.412
Приложения
Приложение
1.
Сводные данные о коллекциях фаунистических остатков,
известных для культур неолита
-
раннего и среднего энеолита
юга Восточной Европы и Карпато-Подунавья
(
См. Карты
5-6).415
Приложение
2.
Реконверсия остатков костей по деформированным коллекциям
.434
Приложение
3.
Данные о фаунистических остатках, известных для культур
позднего энеолита
-
эпохи бронзы юга Восточной Европы (см. Карту
12).441
Резюме
.455
Summary
.460
Rezumat.
465
Литература
.470
Сокращения
.487
CONTENTS
The Author
's
Remarks
.17
Part One
On the Migration Concept by M. Gimbutas
and its reflection in the Materials of the Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture
1.1.
The Introduction into the Situation
.21
Comments
.24
1.2.
On the Procedure of the Archeological Research
.25
Comments
.29
1.3.
On the «Civil» State ofthe Cucuteni-Tripolye Community
. 30
1.3.1.
The Tasks of the Research. Abstractions
.30
1.3.2.
The Development Dynamics ofthe Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture
.30
1.3.3.
On the «Civil Defense» ofthe Cucuteni-Tripolye Community
.36
1.3.4.
The Memory of the Peoples (Toponymy)
.42
1.3.5.
The Implements ofthe War
.49
1.3.6.
The Visiting Card ofthe Unbidden Guest
.56
Comments
.58
Annex. The Summary Data on Cultural Sites Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Tripolye
.59
Part Two
The Scepters
Introduction
.69
II.
1.
The History ofthe Study in the Context ofthe General Knowledge Neolithic
-
the Early Bronze in the Eastern and the South-Eastern Europe
.70
II.
1.1.
The First Period (until the end of the 50ies of the XX century)
48.70
П.
1.2.
The Second Period (the
óOies-SOies)
.78
II.
1.3.
The Third Period (the 90ies)
.87
П.1.4.
The State of the Problem
.91
Comments
.93
П.2.
The Sources and the External Criticisms
.94
Comments
.99
ИЗ.
Tlie
Problem
of the Classification "and" Typology
.101
П.З.1.
From the Experience of the Typology Classification
.101
II.3.2. Once More on "the Procedure" or the Abstraction about the Abstracts
.103
II.
3.3.
Once More-on the Classification and/or the Typology
.106
II.3.4. The Realistic or Schematic
Pommes
-Type-category or Category-Type?
.107
II
.3.5.
The Classification of the
Pommes
on the Basis of the Visual Perception
of the morphological Attributes
.112
П.З.6.
The Classification ofthe
Pommes
on the Basis ofthe Formal Statistic Methods
.119
П.3
.7.
The Classification ofthe
Pommes
ofthe Correlation of Metric Parameters
.127
Ц.З.8.
The Criteria for the Verification ofthe Classification
.131
П.3.
9.
The results of the Classification and the Issue of the Cultural Context
.142
Comments
.148
П.4.
On the Functionality ofthe
Pommes.150
ЇЇ.4.1.
Preliminary Remarks
.150
П.4.2.ОП
Functional Purpose ofthe
Pommes
or Simple Statements
.151
Comments
.160
П.5
.
The Cultural Functions ofthe Scepters and the Model of their Possible Archeologization
(on the data ofthe Homer Epos)
.161
Introduction
.161
П.5.1.
The Homer Epos: Problems and Sources
.162
П.5.2.
The Batons ofthe Gods
.169
11.53.
The Sceptres ofthe Mortals
.171
П.5.4.
The Sceptres under die Conditions ofthe Peaceful Life
.172
II.5.5.The
Sceptres under the Conditions of the Trojan War
.174
II.5.6. The Sceptres of the Power Ritual
.179
П.5.7.
The Tzar's Rule and the Sceptres in the «Inheritance» System
.183
П.5.8.
The Model ofthe Possible Depositing ofthe Achean Sceptres intheArcheological Sites.
185
Comments
.191
11.6.0η
the Signs-Symbols and the Possibilities of their Dicyphering
.192
11.6.1.
On Signs and Symbols as such
.192
Π.6.2.
The Possibilities ofthe Disclosing of a Sign-Symbol
.194
Comments
.197
Π.7.
The Identification ofthe Image or the Recognition ofthe Initial Sewe
. 198
П.7.1.
The Historiographer Retrospectives
.199
П.7.2.
The Numeric Parameters ofthe Horse Image
.200
П.7.3.ОП
the Issue of Conventionalities and Sketchinesses
.207
II.
7.4.
The Sceptres
-Pommes
as Ethnographic Objects
.210
Comments
.212
Part Three
The Horses
III.
1.
The Horses -on the Sense of Some of
"Certam
Realities"
.215
III.
1.1.
A little of Historiography
.215
Ш.12.
The Research Objectives, Sources, Methods
.219
Ш.1.З.
Cultures, Chronology, Tentative Characteristic oftheArcheozoological Data
.221
Ш.1.4.
Preliminary Remarks: from the Experience ofthe Statistic Analysis ofthe Fauna
.235
ΠΙ.
1.5.
The Criticism of the Sources: on Informative Nature, the Comparability
of the Collections, Working Attributes
.239
Ш.
1
.6.The Substantiation of the Zone Categories and the Epicenter of the Supreme Significance
of the Horse on the Basis of the Archeozoological Data
.249
ΠΙ.1.
7.
The
Analys
is of the Internal Zonal Manifestation of the Horse Remains
.262
ΠΙ.
1.8.
The Comparative of the Inter-zonal Indices and their Possible Interpretation
.277
ΙΠ.
1.9.
The Manifestation of Super-zonal Indices or the Process of Domestication and the
Distribution of the Horse
.283
ΙΠ.
1.10.
The Proper Archeological Sources on the Horse Problem
.287
Comments
.301
ΠΙ.2.
The Verification of the Conclusions or On the Specific Features of the Archeologization
of the Domestic Species
.303
Ш.2.1.
Preliminary Remarks
.303
Ш.2.2.
The Presentation of the Additional Database
.307
Ш.2.З.
Again on the Internal Criticism of the Sources and on the Working Attributes
.313
Ш.2.4.
Bones-Animals or Two Properties of One and the Same Relation
.315
Ш.2.5.
On the Overturned Attributes or Another Problem, whichhas not been solved by the
Archeo-zoologists
.327
ΙΠ.2.6.
On the Logic of the Internal Correlation of a Part and the Whole
.331
ΠΙ.2.7.
The Regularity of the Correlation of the Bones and the Number of the Animals
.332
Ш.2.8.
Opposition: Domestic
-
Wild or on the Model of the Main Regularities
and the Reverse Trends
.334
ΙΠ.2.9.
From the Model to the Concrete Materials
.343
ΠΙ.2.
10.
The Specific Feature of the Archeologization of Domestic Species
.351
Ш.2.
11.
On the Verification of the Domestication of the Neo-Eneolithic Horse
.369
Comments
.375
Ш.З
.
The Development Dynamics of the Domestic Livestock Breeding
during the Neolithic Period
-
the Bronze Age of the South-Eastern Europe
or the Horse in the Context of Other Domestic Animals
.376
ΠΙ.3.
1
.The Specific Features in the Development of the Complex of the Domestic Species
of the Western and the Eastern Cultural Zone
.376
ÏÏI.3.2.
The Specific Features in the Development of the Main Domestic Species
.379
ΠΙ. 3.3.
The Zonal Specific Features in the Development of the Domestic Herd
.386
ΙΠ.3
.4.
On the Time Specific Features and the Balance of the Domestic Herd
.391
ΠΙ.3.5.
The Specific Features in the Development of the Domestic Herd in the Context
of the Natural Phenomena
.396
Comments
.412
Annex
1.415
Annex
2.434
Annex
3.441
Резюме
.455
Resume
.460
Rezumat
.465
Literature
.470
The list of the abbreviation
.487
Summary
The monograph is devoted to the verification of
the Migration Concept by M. Gimbutas on the ancient
motherland of the Indo-Europeans and their
expansion from East to West into the Carpathian-
Danubian zone and into the Balkans (the archeological
aspect).
The book gives a detailed analysis of the stone
zoomorphous Eneolithic scepters of the East and the
Southeastern Europe: typology, origin issues,
chronology, territorial dissemination, cultural function
and so on (Part Two) in addition to the previously
published etudes (Part One).
The main conclusions:
1.
The schematic and realistic tops of the
Eneolithic epoch, known from the Volga region and
the Northern Caucasus up to the central Balkans, is
a homogeneous category, representing two variants
of one and the same cultural type from the typological
viewpoint (Fig.
38).
2.
From the evolution point of view they constitute
relatively independent stylistic groups, which
developed simultaneously in the time and according
to the same canons (from the simple to the com¬
plicated, from small sizes to the relatively big ones),
originating from the same prototypes: extremely gene¬
ralized tops, known from the Hvalynsk cemeteries
1-2
(Fig.
38).
3.
Accordingly, the origin of these original pieces
is associated with the carriers of the Hvalynsk culture
of the Middle Volga zone, from which they were
transferred through the carriers of theNovodanilovka
type sites to the area of the cultures of the Northern
Caucasus, the Carpathian-Danubian region and the
Balkans (Fig.
39;
Maps
1-2).
4.
The chronology of these sites determines also
the period of the existence and the dissemination of
the very tops, which falls, mainly, on the Cucuteni
A
-
Tripolye
В
I or Gumelnitsa A
2
in accordance
with the division in periods of the early farming cultures
the Carpathian-Danubian region (Table
20).
5.
From the
iconographie
viewpoint both the
schematic and the realistic tops represent the images
of horses on the different stylization extent that is
clearly proved on the basis of the analysis of the
metric parameters of these tops, compared with the
horse images of the preceding (Paleolithic) or the
successive (antic, medieval) epochs (Fig.
57-67).
6.
In the functional relation the tops in question
represented undoubtedly the ensigns of military power.
The main military leaders were endowed with these
symbols (Fig.
69).
The validity of this conclusion is
confirmed "exclusively" by the "exclusive character"
of these pieces, by the analysis of the later written
epic works of the "Homer Epos", the specific features
in the archeologization of the military symbols as such
(Maps
3-4).
7.
The results of the analysis and the interpretation
of the horse head scepters pass completely into the
general cultural-historical scheme of the correlation
of the archeological realities of the Middle Eneolithic
of the south of the Eastern and the Southeastern
Europe and therefore they completely confirm the
conceptual views of M. Gimbutas, in the relation to
the first migration wave or the expansion of the
"steppe" East-European population fromEast to West
into the area of the ancient farming civilizations of
Carpathian-Danubian region and the Balkans.
Further (Part III,
1)
the paper considers the
problem of the possible identification of the time and
the place of the horse domestication
—
one of the key
problems in the solution of the Indo-European topics
on the whole on the basis of the analysis of both the
archeozoological and the very archeological sources.
We attract for the analysis all the available
archeozoological Neolithic collections
—
from the
Middle Eneolithic to the Middle Eneolithic from the
Tisza
and the
Danubian
zone to Caucasus and the
Southern Ural mountains (about
190
collections,
containing complete or fragmentary data
—
Annex
1 ;
Table
21;
Maps
5-6),
as well as all the archeological
data, embodying the horse image (pictures of horses,
cultural complexes or burials, containing horse bones
and so on
-
Fig.
70-71 ;
Table
31).
The autonomous analysis of each of these
categories made the author make unambiguously the
same conclusion, namely:
1.
The domestication of the horse is a pheno¬
menon, connected with the area of the steppe and
the forest-steppe cultures of the South of the Eastern
Europe, but not with the area of the early farming
Summary
461
cultures of the Northern Caucasus or the Carpathian-
Danubian region (Table
30;
Maps
7-Ю).
2.
The beginning of the horse domestication dates
undoubtedly back into the Early Neolithic period (that
is to say, simultaneously with the adaptation of the
local and the borrowed (goat/sheep species).
However, one can surely speak about the com¬
pleteness of this process in the connection with the
Developed or Late Neolithic that was expressed in
the emergence of the specialized horse breeding
(Table
30;
Maps
7-Ю).
3.
The main and only epicenter of the horse
domestication are the forest-steppe regions of the
Middle Volga zone and the Ural and the cultural
context of this process are the carriers of the Middle
Volga culture of the Developed Neolithic of the
Samara Volga region (including partly the Agidel
culture of the Southwestern Ural) (Table
30;
Maps
7-10).
4.
The significance of horse and the specialization
of the horse breeding acquires the maximal
development during the period of the Early and the
Middle Eneolithic of the same region (the Samara
and the Hvalynsk cultures) that is confirmed by the
number of the remains of this species, the wide
involvement of the horse image in the spiritual-cult
sphere (cult complexes and burials, containing horse
bones and so on), as well as the emergency of the
military symbols, bearing a horse image (horse head
scepters on the Hvalynsk cemeteries) (Table
33-34;
Map
11).
5.
The spread of the domesticated horse from
the Middle Volga zone into the remaining forest-steppe
the steppe cultures of the East-European "bloc" falls
most probably on the end of the Neolithic, mainly, on
the periods of the Early and Middle Eneolithic.
6.
The spread of the domesticated saddle-horse
into the area of the fanning cultures of the fore-
Caucasian zone and the Carpathian-Danubian region
is a secondary phenomenon and is due to the influence
of the Middle Volga factor.
7.
The spontaneous unexpected abrupt increase
in the number of horses in the Carpathian-Danubian
region fell on the very end of the Early Eneolithic (the
Precucuteni
Ш
-
the Bolgrad-Alden II type sites)
-
the beginning of the Middle Eneolithic (Cucuteni A
1-2 —
Gumelnitsa A
2).
This process proceeded from East to
West (from the steppe marginal regions to the internal
regions of the area of farming cultures) (Table
29).
8.
In the time this process coincides partly, with
the spread of the stone head scepters in this zone
and the sites of the Novodanilovka type that also points
out clearly to the carriers of this phenomenon and its
origin (from East) and on the "artificial" character of
its introduction (the result of the military expansion).
9.
The conclusions, resulted from the analysis of
the archeozoological and the very archeological
sources correlate completely with the conclusions,
formulated on the basis of the autonomous analysis
of the stone horse head scepters. And it means that
these categories of the sources completely confirm
the migration concept of M. Gimbutas independently
or separately in its main theses.
The next section of this paper (Part III,
2)
is
devoted to the verification of the earlier formulated
conclusion in respect of the horse domestication and
the general regularities in the archeologization of the
paleofauna.
The solution of these tasks is based on
the analysis of archeozoological data, known for the
Neolithic
-
the Middle Eneolithic (Annex
1)
and the
collections of the Late Eneolithic
-
the Bronze Age
(Annex
3) -
the period for which the domestication
of horse is undoubted (all in all about
270
collections,
236
of them include the complete data on bones and
animals
-
Table
35).
The conclusions on the verification of the time of
the horse domestication:
1.
The comparative analysis of the evolution of
the general fund of the fauna remains of the domestic
and the wild species of the Neolithic
-
the middle
Eneolithic of the Western (early farming) and the
East-European cultural zones confirms completely the
thesis on the horse domestication during the Neolithic
period. The assertion of the reverse would signify
that in contrast to the Western zone in the Eastern
cultural zone the development of the domestic horse
breeding had an exclusively regressive character from
the moment of its emergence to the very Middle
Eneolithic (Fig.
97-98).
2.
The same absolutely positive conclusion results
from the comparative analysis of the revelation of
the horse remains with taking into consideration the
archeologization specific features: on the one hand,
the Neolithic
-
the Middle Eneolithic (for which the
domestication of horse is disputed), and, on the other
hand, the Late
—
the Bronze Age (for which the horse
domestication is undoubted). These two set of mate¬
rials, which vary in time, have the same regularities
and the same groupings (Fig.
147-148),
confirming
the thesis on the horse domestication in the Eastern
zone from as far as the Developed Neolithic epoch
and the thesis on the early emergency of the spe¬
cialized horse breeding in this zone.
The conclusions on the general laws in the
archeologization of the
paleofauna
remains of the
past. Despite the ideas of the inadequate character of
the data on bones and animals, which ideas are
widespread among the archeozoologists. (E.E.
Antipina
and others):
1.
The bone
-
animals represent two different
qualities, however, of one and the same relation (one
and the same initial integrity). Accordingly in the
quality of the relatively independent indicators, their
percentage ratio is of a strictly mutually conditioned
character. Though, as the analysis showed, their
values can be often predetermined by many secondary
circumstances: the volume of the selection, the
conditions of selecting the collections, the perfection
extent of the methods and the professional skills of
the expert and so on.
462
Summary
2.
The detailed analysis of the "natural range" of
the data on the bones and animals of all the used
collections (Fig.
99)
convinces that the "normal"
correlation of the percentage values of the number
of animals to the number of bones, including more
than
1000
of certain bones is within the range from
1
to
4-5%
and for the collections, containing from
100
to
1000
bones this range constitutes from
3-4
to
6-
7%
(Fig.
101-103).
As it was cleared out, the
deviations from these ranges are conditioned not
rather by the non-perfection of the identification
methods of the animals (Table
36)
than by the
selection extent of the collection before their transfer
to the experts for defining them. That is why the
majority of the archeozoological collections from the
excavations of the 60-ies of the past century and the
definitions of the Romanian experts bear, as a rule,
the deformed data (Fig.
104-105).
3.
The main law of the archeologization of the
paleofauna
remains is reduced to the following
formula: the species, represented by a big number
of bones, give the reduction in the number of
animals and those, represented by a small number
of bones, gives on the contrary their relative
increase. To put it otherwise, the more bones the
collections contain, the more these collections will
demonstrate the reduction in the number of animals,
that is to say, the latter ones will give the negative
values on bones. And on the contrary: the less bones
the collections contain, the more these collections will
show the increase in the number of animals, that is to
say, the latter ones will give the positive values on
bones.
4.
The noted law-rule has a universal character
and covers both the animal categories (domestic
+
wild), and their components
-
both the domestic and
wild forms. Taken as a certain single whole (all the
archeological collection or the aggregate of the
collections), the species, which prevail in the number
of bones (for example domestic ones), will demonst¬
rate the reduction in the number of animals
-
and
the species, which cede them in the number of bones
(the wild ones) will show the increase in the number
of animals. And vice versa. But, since these both
categories are taken as the single whole, the value
in the difference of their data on bones and animals
will be the same in the both cases, only different in
their values: in the case of numerous ones (in our
case
-
the domestic ones), the animals will show a
negative value in relations to bones and in the case
of the non-numerous ones (that is to say, the wild
ones), the animals will be characterized by a positive
value in the respect of the bones, (Fig.
106-109;
Table
37-38).
5.
The above said refers equally to the remains
of the domestic and the wild species, which, depending
on the context, is integral (on the level of site, culture,
cultural zones or periods, epochs) and can be
presented in the quality of the numerous and/or the
non-numerous ones. In the first case, the animals will
naturally give the negative values in relation to bones
and in the second case the values will be positive.
However, since, the notions of "numerous"
-
"non-
numerous" acquire a relative character in the
analysis of the aggregates, including not two, but
four-five or more components (species), the values
of the data difference will be determined as a sum
of the difference, on the one hand, the negative
values (demonstrated in relation to the species, which
are relatively not numerous in bones) and, on the
other hand, as a sum of positive values. And, as it
must be, the sum of these differences must coincide
completely that is expressed properly by the action
of the above mentions law (Fig.
106-109
and
particularly-Fig
111-112).
6.
Finally, the observed rule is also confirmed
completely on the level of the data separately on each
of the species, which can reveal themselves both in
the quality of a numerous or a non-numerous species
in different cases. In this case their difference lies in
the fact that the collections, including numerous (of
the given concrete species), form two different
oppositions in relation to the collections, containing a
small number of bones (of the same species): having
different negative and different positive values. That
is why, taken in the frames of certain single aggregate,
the specific relation of the number of bones to the
number of animals of a concrete species is
determined by the average arithmetic value,
accumulating both the extreme negative and the
extreme positive values. Here are two examples: the
difference range of the data on bones and animals
for the cattle (if we follow the accepted selection)
constitutes from minus
40-48%
(for the collections,
containing the most considerable number of bones of
this species) to plus
20%
(for the collections,
containing the minimal number of bones), and their
average statistic value is equal to about minus
20%
(Fig.
125).
And for the small cattle, which cede
considerably to large cattle in our selection, this value
constitutes already about
+10%
(Fig.
131);
pigs
-
about
+7%
(Fig.
136)
and so on (Fig.
141; 146).
The revealed regularities in the archeologization
of the
paleofauna
have a principal practical
significance, particularly- in the interpretation plan:
1.
When we follow the revealed regularities, it is
it is absolutely obvious that the more was the
significance of one or other species in the ancient
time that is to say, the more bones "were produced"),
the more was the probability of their secondary
utilization (artificial, natural), that properly
predetermines the difficulty of the identification of
the number of animals or their "deficit". And on the
contrary, the less bones "were produced", the less
was their utilization and the more was the probability
of their identification accordingly.
2.
The analysis reveals clearly certain differences
in the archeologization of the "especially domestic"
-
house species (cow, pig, dog) in contrast to the
"movable" species, which were bred under the
Summary
463
conditions of distant semi-movable livestock breeding
(sheep/goat, cow, horse). These observations call for
a very serious verification, because their confirmation
is extremely important for the reconstruction of the
forms of the livestock breeding.
3.
The refusal, manifested in the latest period, on
the part of many archeologists from the determination
and the accounting of the "number of animals" will
inevitably result in the impoverishment of the cognitive
possibilities of the archeozoology as an independent
subject; it will have a negative effect on the remaining
sciences, using the results of the archeozoological
definitions, particularly, for the purpose of modeling
the paleoeconomic and paleographical phenomena
and the process of the past.
4.
Despite all the relativity of the data "on
bones» and/or "on animals", it follows from the
discovered regularities that the characteristic, the
evaluation and the interpretation of any plans in
the understanding of the
paleofauna
remains must
be made on the basis of the average arithmetic
values of these two aspects. Accumulating,
averaging the positive and/or the negative values
on bones and animals, the average arithmetic value
comes out also "relative", but it is relatively more
objective.
The last section of the book (Part III,
3)
is
devoted to some of the main problems of the
development of the domestic livestock breeding
in the Western farming and the East-European
cultural zones in the period from the Neolithic
to the end of the Bronze Age.
The main conclusions:
1.
The establishment and the development of the
domestic livestock breeding, conditioned by the
closeness to the primary centers of the productive
economy, and specific natural conditions, in the
Western Carpathian-Danubian and the East-
European cultural zones show principal differences
on all the main characteristics.
2.
In the early farming East-Carpathian zone,
where livestock breeding and fanning emerge in the
result of the direct migration of the population from
the Southern Balkans (the Starchevo-Krish-Karanovo
I-II culture), the set of domestic species begins from
the level of about
65%
(of the total
paleofauna
aggregate). It is preserved with an insignificant
increase (by
5-10%)
until the very end the Eneolithic.
Then its share is increased abruptly and reaches
90-
95%
by the Middle and Late Bronze and practically
ousts the need in hunting (Fig.
149-150).
In contrast to the Western zone, in the East-
European cultural zone, which is considerably remote
from the primary centers of the productive economy,
where the emergence of the domestic livestock
breeding and farming was, mainly, owing to
borrowings and introductions, the set of the domestic
species begins from the level of about
30%.
However,
the rhythmus and the dynamics in the increase of this
set was considerably higher than in the Western zone
(the Early Eneolithic
-
about
45%,
the Middle
Eneolithic
—
about
60%),
in the result of it the
communities of this zone reached the level of
95%
already by the beginning of the Bronze Age (Fig.
150-
151).
3.
The development of the livestock breeding in
the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones was
based on the breeding of four main species: large
cattle, small cattle, pig and horse. But if the first two
specifies were universal and common, both for the
Western and the Eastern cultural zones, the second
two species were specific: pig, mainly for the Western
zone and horse
-
for the Eastern cultural zone.
Accordmgly, the specific features of the main set of
species of the Western farming cultural zone is
defined by the notion of "the common European triad"
(large cattle+small cattle+pig), and the specific
features of the Eastern zone by means of the notion
-
"the East-European triad" (large cattle+small
cattle+horse) (Fig.
152).
4.
The development of the livestock breeding
complex begins from high values (about
40%
of the
total aggregate or about
60%
of all the domestic
animals) in the Western cultural zone. However,
beginning from the Developed Neolithic, large cattle
takes the first place in its importance and preserves
its leadership (excluding only the Late Bronze period)
until the Late Bronze Age. "Competing" with pig
and sheep/goat in the course of the Late Neolithic
up to the Late Eneolithic, sheep/goat occupies the
second place beginning from the Early Bronze Age
(Fig.
152-160).
The dynamics of the species composition was
different in the Eastern cultural zone. In the course
of the Neolithic and up to the Middle Eneolithic (from
15-35%
of the aggregate or from
11-30
to
57%
of
all the domestic animals), the horse was the leading
animal in this zone (that is independently confirmed
by the thesis of its domestication and the
specialization of livestock breeding). Only from the
transition from the Middle to the Late Eneolithic,
the horse cedes the leadership to small cattle and
from the Early Bronze Age large cattle takes the
first place (Fig.
152-159,161).
5.
The development and the evolution of the species
composition of the set of domestic animals breeding in
the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones was of a
strictly balanced character: the increase or the decrease
of one of the species was inevitably accompanied by
the respective decrease or the increase in the value of
some or other species. Alongside with it, this
substitution was most often accompanied by an
additional overlap of the existing deficit that obviously
reflects the general progressive trend in the
development of the total set. But if in the Western
cultural zone the balance of the set was maintained at
the cost of the reciprocal compensation of the species,
constituting the "common European triad", so in the
Eastern zone
-
at the cost of the species, constituting
"the East-European triad". (Table
40).
464
Summary
6.
The set of domestic animals, reviewed in the
long historical perspective with taking into consi¬
deration the natural zone, reflects two relatively
independent epochs. In their character they completely
correspond to the main cultural-historical development
vector in the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones,
but each of them has its specific features. The first
one includes all the sets from the Neolithic to the end
of Middle
-
the beginning of the Late Eneolithic. The
development of livestock breeding is connected in this
epoch, mainly, with the forest-steppe regions. But in
the Western cultural zone, where the livestock
breeding was the leading one in its importance, the
priority species in this epoch were large cattle, pig
and small cattle, whereas the horse has the secondary
importance. And in the Eastern cultural zone, which
lagged considerably behind in this aspect, the priority
species in this epoch were horse, large cattle and
small cattle whereas pig has the secondary
importance (Table
41-42;
Fig.
164-169).
The second of these epochs falls on the end of
the Eneolithic and the entire Bronze Age. It differs
considerably by the dominant importance of livestock
breeding both in the Western and, in particular, in the
Eastern cultural zones. This is the time of cardinal
changes in the relation of domestic animal species
and from the viewpoint of the coverage of the natural
zones. The large cattle acquire the leading importance
in the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones. The
importance of small cattle is increased. But in the
Western zone the pig preserves the third place,
whereas the importance of the horse is somewhat
increased. And in the Eastern cultural zone the horse,
which took the first place before, occupies the third
place. The importance of the pig is secondary, as
before. On the other hand, the transition to this epoch
signifies a wide spread of livestock breeding onto the
earlier poorly developed steppe regions. However, in
the Western cultural zone the livestock breeding
preserves its dominant importance in the forest-steppe
regions. And in the Eastern cultural zone its impor¬
tance clearly shifts mainly onto the steppe regions. It
is notable, however, if the forest-steppe regions
preserve their specific set of species (vector in the
Western zone: large cattle, followed by small cattle
and then pig; in the Eastern cultural zone: large cattle,
followed by small cattle and then horse), so in the
steppe regions both the composition of the order of
species set is the same: large cattle, followed by small
cattle and then horse, whereas the pig importance is
very low (Table
41-42;
Fig.
164-169).
7.
The development of livestock breeding
importance in the Western and in the Eastern cultural
zones reveals two principal critical moments in their
evolution. They are expressed in the cardinal changes
of the species composition of the livestock that is
characteristic of the both forest-steppe and the steppe
regions of these cultural zones. One of them falls on
the Middle Eneolithic, the second one
-
on the
transition period from the Late Eneolithic to the Late
Bronze Age (Fig.
171-172).
The critical moments
correlate completely with the crisis phenomena,
observed in the development of cultural communities
in the Western and in the Eastern cultural zones.
Taking into consideration their character and the
territorial scale, in the author's opinion, these crisis
phenomena are most probably connected with the
Black Sea transgressions, which caused considerable
paleoclimatic changes in the environment conditions
and in the plant composition.
The research is not completed. All the aggregate
of the archeological sources (including the Novo-
danilovka), revealing the expansion character of one
of the large migration waves of the East-European
population into the area of the ancient farming
cultures of the Carpathian-Danubian region and the
Balkans, will have to be analyzed. However, the
already obtained results leave no doubt in the final
assessment of the rightfulness of the concept by
M. Gimbutas. |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Dergačev, Valentin A. 1943- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)10322565X |
| author_facet | Dergačev, Valentin A. 1943- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Dergačev, Valentin A. 1943- |
| author_variant | v a d va vad |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV022576748 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)254938962 (DE-599)BVBBV022576748 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>03087nam a2200709 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV022576748</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20070914 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">070813s2007 abd| |||| 00||| rus d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5981871733</subfield><subfield code="9">5-98187-173-3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)254938962</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV022576748</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rus</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,11</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6,12</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dergačev, Valentin A.</subfield><subfield code="d">1943-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)10322565X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne</subfield><subfield code="b">ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas</subfield><subfield code="c">V. A. Dergačev</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Sankt-Peterburg</subfield><subfield code="b">Izdat. "Nestor-Istorija"</subfield><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">486 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., graph. Darst., Kt.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Programma knigoizdanija "Kantemir"</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="600" ind1="1" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Gimbutas, Marija</subfield><subfield code="d">1921-1994</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)119269821</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Cucuteni-Kultur</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4493976-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Bronzezeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008357-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Pferd</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4045503-8</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Vor- und Frühgeschichte</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078951-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Tripolje-Kultur</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186213-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Zepter</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4126411-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Neolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075272-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Osteuropa</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075739-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Südosteuropa</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4058449-5</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Gimbutas, Marija</subfield><subfield code="d">1921-1994</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)119269821</subfield><subfield code="D">p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Cucuteni-Kultur</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4493976-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Tripolje-Kultur</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186213-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Osteuropa</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075739-0</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Zepter</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4126411-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Südosteuropa</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4058449-5</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Neolithikum</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075272-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bronzezeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4008357-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Osteuropa</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4075739-0</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Pferd</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4045503-8</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Südosteuropa</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4058449-5</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Vor- und Frühgeschichte</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4078951-2</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-015783001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">370.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0904</subfield><subfield code="g">73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09012</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09013</subfield><subfield code="g">496</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09013</subfield><subfield code="g">47</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09012</subfield><subfield code="g">47</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Osteuropa (DE-588)4075739-0 gnd Südosteuropa (DE-588)4058449-5 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Osteuropa Südosteuropa |
| id | DE-604.BV022576748 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T18:15:17Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:00:46Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 5981871733 |
| language | Russian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-015783001 |
| oclc_num | 254938962 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 486 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publishDateSearch | 2007 |
| publishDateSort | 2007 |
| publisher | Izdat. "Nestor-Istorija" |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Programma knigoizdanija "Kantemir" |
| spelling | Dergačev, Valentin A. 1943- Verfasser (DE-588)10322565X aut O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas V. A. Dergačev Sankt-Peterburg Izdat. "Nestor-Istorija" 2007 486 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Programma knigoizdanija "Kantemir" In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Gimbutas, Marija 1921-1994 (DE-588)119269821 gnd rswk-swf Cucuteni-Kultur (DE-588)4493976-0 gnd rswk-swf Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 gnd rswk-swf Pferd (DE-588)4045503-8 gnd rswk-swf Vor- und Frühgeschichte (DE-588)4078951-2 gnd rswk-swf Tripolje-Kultur (DE-588)4186213-2 gnd rswk-swf Zepter (DE-588)4126411-3 gnd rswk-swf Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd rswk-swf Osteuropa (DE-588)4075739-0 gnd rswk-swf Südosteuropa (DE-588)4058449-5 gnd rswk-swf Gimbutas, Marija 1921-1994 (DE-588)119269821 p Cucuteni-Kultur (DE-588)4493976-0 s Tripolje-Kultur (DE-588)4186213-2 s DE-604 Osteuropa (DE-588)4075739-0 g Zepter (DE-588)4126411-3 s Südosteuropa (DE-588)4058449-5 g Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 s Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 s Pferd (DE-588)4045503-8 s Vor- und Frühgeschichte (DE-588)4078951-2 s Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Dergačev, Valentin A. 1943- O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas Gimbutas, Marija 1921-1994 (DE-588)119269821 gnd Cucuteni-Kultur (DE-588)4493976-0 gnd Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 gnd Pferd (DE-588)4045503-8 gnd Vor- und Frühgeschichte (DE-588)4078951-2 gnd Tripolje-Kultur (DE-588)4186213-2 gnd Zepter (DE-588)4126411-3 gnd Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)119269821 (DE-588)4493976-0 (DE-588)4008357-3 (DE-588)4045503-8 (DE-588)4078951-2 (DE-588)4186213-2 (DE-588)4126411-3 (DE-588)4075272-0 (DE-588)4075739-0 (DE-588)4058449-5 |
| title | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas |
| title_auth | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas |
| title_exact_search | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas |
| title_exact_search_txtP | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas |
| title_full | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas V. A. Dergačev |
| title_fullStr | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas V. A. Dergačev |
| title_full_unstemmed | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas V. A. Dergačev |
| title_short | O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne |
| title_sort | o skipetrach o losadjach o vojne etjudy v zascitu migracionnoj koncepcii m gimbutas |
| title_sub | ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas |
| topic | Gimbutas, Marija 1921-1994 (DE-588)119269821 gnd Cucuteni-Kultur (DE-588)4493976-0 gnd Bronzezeit (DE-588)4008357-3 gnd Pferd (DE-588)4045503-8 gnd Vor- und Frühgeschichte (DE-588)4078951-2 gnd Tripolje-Kultur (DE-588)4186213-2 gnd Zepter (DE-588)4126411-3 gnd Neolithikum (DE-588)4075272-0 gnd |
| topic_facet | Gimbutas, Marija 1921-1994 Cucuteni-Kultur Bronzezeit Pferd Vor- und Frühgeschichte Tripolje-Kultur Zepter Neolithikum Osteuropa Südosteuropa |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=015783001&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dergacevvalentina oskipetracholosadjachovojneetjudyvzascitumigracionnojkoncepciimgimbutas |