Holdings: O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne

O skipetrach, o lošadjach, o vojne: ėtjudy v zaščitu migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Dergačev, Valentin A. 1943- (Author)
Format:	Book
Language:	Russian
Published:	Sankt-Peterburg Izdat. "Nestor-Istorija" 2007
Series:	Programma knigoizdanija "Kantemir"
Subjects:	Gimbutas, Marija > 1921-1994 Cucuteni-Kultur Bronzezeit Pferd Vor- und Frühgeschichte Tripolje-Kultur Zepter Neolithikum Osteuropa Südosteuropa
Online Access:	Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract
Item Description:	In kyrill. Schr., russ. - Zsfassung in engl. Sprache
Physical Description:	486 S. Ill., graph. Darst., Kt.
ISBN:	5981871733

Staff View

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

Record in the Search Index

_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

Holdings

There is no print copy available.

Interlibrary loan Place Request Caution: Not in THWS collection! Indexes

MARC

Record in the Search Index

There is no print copy available.

Similar Items