Кафедра этнологии, антропологии, археологии и музеологии | Этнография Западной Сибири | Библиотека сайта | Архив сайта | Контакты
Этноархеологические исследования | Полевой архив | Этнографические заметки | Этнографическая экспозиция МАЭ ОмГУ | ЭтноФото | Этнография Омского Прииртышья
Симпозиум по этноархеологии | О работе семинара в 1993-1999 гг. | О серии "Этнографо-археологические комплексы" | Ethnoarcheological research in the Omsk Irtysh Region (1993–2008)
Ethnoarcheological research in the Omsk Irtysh Region (1993–2008)
On March, 23 1993 some archeologists and ethnographers of Omsk Branch of United Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy (Siberian branch of Russian Academy of Science) and Omsk State University held a meeting and decided to set up the on-going interdepartmental academic seminar «Ethnographo-Archeological Complexes of the Peoples of Western Siberia». The main aim of the researchers-permanent participants of the seminar is to study ethnographo-archeological sociocultural complexes. The important objectives are training the specialists who are able to work across the sections and also the development of a new branch of science, ethnoarchology. It is presupposed that apart from archeological and ethnographical research it is necessary to explore the allied fields of culturology, comparative history and the methodology of historical research.
Now, 15 years later, it is possible to tell about this group’s activities under the condition that all the results of both its academic and managerial work are taken into consideration.
1. The results of academic activities
The members of the group decided they were to come to grips with theoretical,
methodological and methodical developments as well as field archeological and
ethnographical research, as the materials at hand are often insufficient for
study by instruments of several sciences.
As a result of the active development of ethnoarcheological research, Omsk scientists can present their vision of ethnoarcheology as a science. Despite the insignificant period of its independent development, the roots of this discipline go deep into the past. Getting to grips with the problem of periodization of the archeological-ethnographical branch in the Russian science, we had to take into consideration several factors, which determined its development. Among them is the fact of archeology and ethnography being relatively young sciences themselves. The beginning of the XVIIIth century is supposed to be the start of archeological research and ethnography spinned off in the 1820s, in Russia in 1840s. The fact that the connections between archeological and ethnographical research used to have and still have different degree of contingence was also considered.
The periodization of ethnoarcheological science belongs to N.A. Tomilov with some assistance from A.V. Zhuk. There was accepted the opinion of A.V. Zhuk that the starting date of Russian archeology is not the beginning of the XVIII century, as it is universally considered, but the end of the XVII century, or in other words, the turn of the XVII–XVIII centuries, with the reference to N.K.Vitzen, S.U. Remezov and other researchers of the XVII century.
The first period of archeologo-ethnographical branch in the native science is dated by N.A. Tomilov and A.V. Zhuk from the end of the XVIIth century and till the end of 1820s. The main feature of this period is the direct comparison of archeological and ethnographical material objects. This period if subdivided into two stages. The first stage – since the end of the XVIIth century and up to the end of 1750s – is characterized by the first attempts to compare archeological and ethnographical objects, the strive to define archeological objects ethnically through the known at those times Siberian peoples (the works of N.K.Vitzen, I.G. Gmelin, V.N. Tatischev and others). The second stage – from 1760s to the end of 1820s – the introduction of the propositions of the theory of categorization of objects according to the types of their forms, of the development of the form of objects (I.I. Vinkelman) etc. into the correlation of archeological and ethnographical materials, the merge at the level of the synthesis of the source bases of archeology and the newly born (in 1820s) ethnography (the works of V.F. Zouev, P.S. Pallas, P.I. Rychkov etc.).
The second period dates from 1820s to the end of 1920s. It was in 1830s when a systematic archeological and ethnographical research appeared in Russia. In the field of ethnoarcheology this period is characterized by elaboration of a new complex approach to the sources study. This complex approach was applied in archeology as well as in ethnography – i.e. to study not separate objects (things) as they are, but their combination in an archeological monument (or a group of monuments) or their mixture in the culture of an ethnos, an ethnical group, etc.
The first stage of this period embraces 1830s–1870s and is characterized by the development of the complex approach and first cases of its application in the research across archeology and ethnography (the works of C.C. Valikhanov, M.A. Kastren, I.S. Polyakov and others). The second stage is 1880s – 1920s. This is Anouchin’s stage. D.N. Anouchin (1843–1923) grounded the concept of the complex research method for history and culture as well as history and society problems by three sciences – anthropology, ethnography and archeology, therefore his theory is known as «the Anouchin’s triad». It was recognized and widely used in the practice of scientific research even after D.N. Anouchin’s death by his followers (V.V. Bogdanov, B.S. Zhoukov, B.А. Kouftin, N.I. Lebedeva and others) up to the end of 1920-s. In those years significant results in complex ethno-archeological research (often complimented with anthropological research) were achieved by F.К. Volkov, B.E. Petri, E.Y. Petri, V.V. Padlov, S.I. Roudenko and others.
The results in the sphere of complex ethno-archeological research obtained in those times and especially in the third decade of the XX century were so important, that some scientists suppose (though, only orally) that it was in those times when ethnoarcheology spinned off as an independent branch of science. To tell the truth, this term was out of use in the time, and ethnoarcheological knowledge was accumulated in the body of paleoethnography. Not going into details of the question of the ratio of ethnoarcheology and paleoethnology (paleoethnography), let us though note that there were no necessary social, scientific and organizational conditions for singling out the field of ethnoarcheology into a separate science. The branch of paleoethnology was actually liquidated in the beginning of 1930s.
The third period of archeological-ethnographical branch is dated from the 1930s up to the present. It is determined first of all by significant joint archeologo-ethnographical research performed by big and well-organized complex expeditions, ventured by temporary teams and prominent specialists, who worked simultaneously in both archeology and ethnography and promoted the development of the new ethnoarcheological knowledge (B.А. Kouftin, S.I. Roudenko, S.P. Tolstov, V.N. Tchernetsov and others). The most successful in this field have been the presently alive scientists S.I. Veinstein, V.P. Diakonova and some Tomsk archeologists and ethnographers, who have created with the assistance from scientists from Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Omsk and some other cities the multivolume work Sketches on the «Culturogenesis of the Peoples of Western Siberia» ( under the editorship of N.V. Loukina).
In this period, which is yet underresearched and defined as the modern one, it seems to be possible to distinguish the following stages. The first stage is 1930s–1940s, which is characterized not by the large scale of expeditions but by formation and development of inner scientific-interpretational approaches to the problem of correlation of archeological and ethnographical knowledge. The second stage in from the second half of the 1940s to the end of 1970s, when along with the ongoing methodological-theoretical and methodical developments across archeology, ethnography and other allied sciences (А.P. Doulzon, А.P. Okladnikov, S.P. Tolstov, V.N. Tchernetsov and others) practical archeologo-ethnographical complex research with fabulous expeditions in Siberia and Middle Asia (Tuvinskaya, Khorezmskaya), partly in Caucasus and other regions of the USSR were run.
The third stage which started in the end of 1970s and is still going on is characterized by the significant increase of methodological-theoretical, historiographical research in the field of integration (not simply coordination and complexity) of archeological and ethnographical research (the works of S.А. Aroutiunov, V.V. Bobrov, V.B. Bogomolov, I.G. Gloushkov, А.V. Golovnev, S.V. Goussev, А.V. Zhouk, А.М. Iliushin, А.N. Kalabanov, А.V. Kenig, L.S. Klein, М.А. Koroussenko, Е.Е. Kouzmina, G.Е. Markov, А.В. Matveyev, V.I. Matiuschenko, B.V. Melnikov, О.М. Melnikova, V.I. Molodin, А.М. Reshetov, О.М. Ryndina, D.G. Savinov, B.I. Semenova, S.F. Tataurov, L.V. Tataurova, S.S. Tikhonov, N.А. Тоmilov, А.М. Khazanov, Y.Y. Shevchenko, V.А. Shnirelman and others). At the same time concrete and at times very significant scientific results in the integrated archeologo-ethnographical research of culture, society, ethnic history and other problems are achieved by researchers from Izhevsk, Kemerovo, Moscow, Novosibirsk, Omsk, St.Petersburg, Sourgut, Tomsk, Yakutsk and other cities.
The teething significant changes in the formation of ethnoarcheology as an independent branch lead us to the possibility of singling out in the nearest future one more, the forth stage, whose beginning might be defined as the middle of 1990s. It was in the middle – the second half of the 90s when the basic concepts of ethnoarcheology as a branch of academic knowledge and a discipline of study were formulated, its object, subject-matter, problems, sources, methods etc. were defined and methodological-theoretical basis for the native ethnoarcheology was laid alongside with academic developments and the accumulated ethnoarcheological knowledge. Let us note, that the first definitions of ethnoarcheology and its problems were given in Soviet science back in the 1980s by V.А. Shnirelman, who treated it as «the direction of research across the sections of archeology and ethnography…». Nowadays, after Omsk researchers many native scientists understand ethnoarcheology as a branch of science, formed in the second half of the XX century as a result of integration of archeological and ethnographical research aiming at solving the problems of history of culture and society by special means of coordination of archeological and ethnographical visions of these problems.
The scale of interaction and mutual understanding between archeology and ethnography in the task of reconstruction and construction of sociocultural complexes of the archeological past and their separate parts, in the task of studying these complexes and the processes of their forming and functioning turned out to be very large. That is why the question of qualitatively new approaching each other on the level of integration and the birth of the new ethnoarcheological branch arose.
The second thing is a wide enough range of problems, various types and methods of work in ethnoarcheology. In fact, the field of academic knowledge and experience in ethnoarcheology includes introduction, interpretation and research of ethnographical material in the sphere of archeology, by means of archeologo-ethnical analogies (direct and corrected), ethnographical understanding of archeological remnants and archeological situations, by introduction of the system approach, analysis and synthesis of functional connections with the purpose of reconstruction of archeological being, the studying of the processes of «archeologisation of the alive culture» etc. The strive of the ethnoarcheological branch for the new scientific search, for enlarging its range of problems and for elaboration of new study methods is on hand.
Here is what an Izhevsk researcher О.М. Melnikova has to say about the issue: «...integral perception of ethnoarcheology as a branch of science is formed by the specialists whose research is primarily based on the understanding of the object of ethnoarcheology as a sociocultural system, reconstructed by the means of integration of archeological and ethnographical knowledge… Ethnoarcheology seems to be transforming from a research method (as the way of studying the material culture through traditional methods of source – study analysis of archeology and ethnography) to a research branch with a wide subject-matter range – from ancient fossil material culture to modern material culture (the archeology of ourselves), from this method to an independent discipline, genetically connected with archeology, ethnography by the means of the source, in a broader sense, with the history in general, with all the structural components of an academic discipline – the object, the subject-matter, the study attitudes, the theory, the research methods, the terminology, etc».
As they are progressing, Omsk archeologists and ethnographers who have started the ethnoarcheological research are getting more and more convinced that the scale of ethnoarcheological research and its problem range are large enough, and even much larger than they could imagine at the start. They think that ethnoarcheology should be thought of in the terms of a specific branch of science, not just a method of reconstruction of ancient cultures and societies. In this respect the essence of ethnoarcheological knowledge is in learning the processes of structurization and system organization (the appearance of structure and system) of sociocultural phenomena and archeological and ethnographical reality. Finally, we end up searching, reconstructing, constructing and researching the sociality, society, community, which organize their relationships in accordance with cultural artifacts; in other words, we end up looking for and studying the models of sociocultural reality and their dynamics.
Nowadays there is a vivid discussion in the native science about the subject -matter of ethnoarcheology as a discipline in the process of formation. It is linked first of all to the question of the object – what is to be studied: the reality, the methods or both? The answer to this question will have practical meaning. If ethnoarcheology is reduced to the elaboration of method, it will take its place among so-called non-traditional disciplines, connected with guidelines (creation of projects, technologies etc.) and elaboration of the methods of research. There are certain achievements in this direction not only in foreign but also in native science.
But one can see the prospective of ethnoarcheology in the study of sociocultural reality of the past as well. There appear and will probably appear in the future new research programs. There are possibilities of launching the program of the new systematization of knowledge which has been accumulated in ethnography and archeology for decades. The unity of research and collector programs can open the horizons of getting qualitatively new knowledge in ethnoarcheology which will significantly enlarge the knowledge of history. There is a need in methodological research programs in the field of ethnoarcheology nowadays. A very important place must be given to the programs aiming at elaboration of the methods of researching the object of ethnoarcheology.
The object of ethnoarcheology is made up, as it can be seen from its mission described above, of sociocultural systems and their complicated structure and connections, which are constructed and reconstructed by the integration of ethnographical and archeological ways of learning.
The subject-matter of ethnoarcheology is generally made up of the ability of the sociocultural phenomena to reflect the historical reality and processes and also of the ability of these phenomena to merge into one system, which allows constructing and reconstructing the sociocultural systems of the past, their inner functional connections and interrelations with other systems. We suppose that the topicality of ethnoarcheological research is connected with getting new knowledge, with rethinking (as far as it is possible) the results of the previous research (probably, in archeology and paleontology, first of all) under the angle of the subject matter and the problems of ehnoarcheology, using ethnoarcheological knowledge in other spheres (culture studies, sociology, social philosophy, etc.) and also, partially, in the modern practice of solving sociocultural problems.
Now let us consider the question whether ethnoarcheology is an academic discipline in Russian science or not. For establishing a new academic discipline, definite conditions and factors need to be present. Among them: 1) social need in the knowledge of this new branch of science; 2) academic groundwork, methods, accumulated knowledge, etc.; 3) the level of the disciplinary organization of the branch, contact between scientists, etc; 4) the training of specialists in the field (the existence of a specialty, syllabuses, text-books, departments, etc.).
What concerns social and academic conditions for formation of native
ethnoarcheological discipline, the answer is by far positive, such conditions
are present. As for the third and the forth positions, there and considerable
gaps here though there is positive dynamics as well.
The first steps are being taken in training ethnoarcheologists in higher education institutions – study aids have been published and the new ones are being prepared, a lecture course “Introduction into Ethnoarcheology” is being conducted in OmSU, the Omskovites defend diploma papers and Kandidatskaya theses, which integrate ethnographical and archeological materials, methods, knowledge etc. However, the question whether this is the forth period in the development of ethnoarchelogy is to be answered in the XXI century, and the answer depends on the results of today’s ethnoarcheologists work.
In the sphere of methods Omsk ethnoarcheologists have elaborated a whole range of programs on gathering of ethnographical and archeological materials during expeditions and student field trips. These are the programs of methodical recommendations on keeping field digging journals at the monuments of the Russians (L.V. Tataurova), on household activities (A.G. Seleznov, S.F. Tataurov, N.A. Tomilov), on land use management and lines of communication (M.A. Koroussenko, S.F. Tataurov), on pottery and the use of kitchenware (L.V. Tataurova), the burial rite of the Russians (K.N. Tikhomirov, D.V. Sorokoumov), historical legends and tales of Turkic peoples (B.V. Melnikov, A.G. Seleznov), on folk knowledge (N.A. Tomilov, L.M. Kadyrova, S.F. Tataurov, S.S. Tikhonov) etc. But the solution of the main problems in the sphere of sources and methods, connected with the question of the ethnoarcheological source and the methods of integration of ethnographical and archeological materials and interpretations still lies ahead.
In the sphere of methodology and theory we have paid much attention to the definition of the notion «ethnoarcheology» (which was discussed earlier) and to the new, «home-grown» definition of an ethnographo-archeological complex. In 1981 N.A. Tomilov and V.B. Bogomolov proposed to name the multicomponental sociocultural complex, singled out according to the data of ethnography and archeology, and ethnographo-archeological complex (EAC), underpinning its archeological base and the introduction of the methods and data of ethnography. We understand it as an actually reconstructed or constructed with the help of the data of ethnography archeological sociocultural complex. Its basement is ethnically determined archeological materials of the monuments, fortified by ethnographical information. The EAC, singled out according to historical data can be researched, as far as the materials allow, up to finding its earliest stages. Such work can be conducted, as it seems, up to the total disappearance of the main set of features of the complex on the territory under study and in the neighboring regions in an earlier period.
The method of EAC construction is seen as prospective in Western Siberia up to the depth of 1,5–2 thousands of years, beginning in many cases with the ХIХ and even the ХХ century. On further stages the continuation of this work may be possible with the use of already constructed EAC scales for the Ugors, the Samodians, and the Turks of this region in the following periods. In some cases with wide variety of archeological data (especially at the monuments which due to peculiar earth condition or some other reasons had kept the objects made from soft materials) the construction of EAC can be prolonged. But the possibilities of EAC’s identification with ethnic communities lie in early stages, as it seems, in the sphere of their correlation not with some concrete ethnos of language communities but with ethnocultural unities, say, the Ugors, the Samodians, the Turks of their predecessors.
We must admit, however, that the EACs of nearly all the time faces are incomplete, as a certain part of cultural phenomena, due to the fragmentarity of archeological materials, is difficult to reconstruct. This relates, first of all to spiritual values, family and community rites, etc., and also to some spheres of material culture. Although the EAC is much larger in comparison with archeological culture, in majority of cases it can be ethnically defined. The fragmentarity of the cultural complex at the use of ethnographical data decreses dramatically. What happens is the increase of the materials informational potential, which may be sufficient for the clarification of ethnocultural connections and using these materials for studying ethnogenetic, ethnohistorical and sociocultural processes.
The EAC should be viewed upon, in our opinion, as an organism, as a system, closely connected with ecological, economic, social and historical environment, going through the stages of initiation, full functioning and dissolving (transformation) or death, the one which used to have its “motherland” and different dissemination territory at different time cuts. There can also be subcomplexes and earlier complexes.
In the case of practical research it turned out that the study of EAC is more science-driven as it seemed before. In some cases it can be reconstructed only logically, as the sources of the period have not been introduced. Secondly, an EAC is a very complex phenomenon which appeared as a result of the synthesis of many factors: the interaction of different ethnic groups in the sphere of interethnic contacts, in the process of the common land use, mutual cultural influence, etc., and also as a result of these interactions being considered by researchers. Apart form the elaboration of general theoretical as well as methodological problems of the integration of two sciences, the EACs study allows for not only seeing the historical prospective of the ethnogenetic and ethnohistoric processes, but also to solve other problems: to reconstruct the system of the land utilization of the ancient, the Middle Ages and the New Age population, to find the consistent pattern of the distribution of people in a geographical zone in different periods of history, a complex popular rational knowledge, etc. All the abovementioned can give a lot of clues for solving modern problems.
2. The organizational activity of the group and its forms
At the first meeting of the interdepartmental seminar «Ethnographo-Archeological Complexes of the Peoples of Western Siberia» its main objectives were determined, they are: to develop theoretically and methodologically the problems of the integration of ethnography and archeology, to develop ethnoarcheological, i.e. integral learning of the historical reality, to study the ethnographo-archeological complexes of the peoples of Western Siberia and to coordinate the efforts of the scientists involved into these problems.
The meetings of the interdepartmental seminar «Ethnographo-Archeological Complexes of the Peoples of Western Siberia» happen during the academic year, from October to May, 1-3 times a month. Among the participants there are not only the scientists from the already mentioned institutions but also from the Siberian Branch of the Russian Institute of Culture Studies, and from our city museums. For the permanent members of the group it is mandatory to be present at the seminar (N.A. Tomilov – the head, M.L. Berezhnova, M.A. Koroussenko, S.N. Koroussenko, S.F. Tataurov, L.V. Tataurova, S.S. Tikhonov, K.N. Tikhomirov, M.N. Tikhomirova). B.V. Bogomolov, A.V.Zhouk, A.V. Polevodov, E.M. Danchenko cooperate closely with the group, take part in discussions, being in fact the associated members of the seminar. Apart from the permanent team-members students also take part in the seminar (about 20–25 people), as well as post-graduates (3–5 people).
The following scheme has been chosen for the seminar: a couple of reports, then answering the questions and debate, further on – discussion of current problems, such as the preprint preparation of the latest volume in the series «Ethnographo-Archeological Complexes: the Problems of Culture and Society», the arrangement and running of the international seminar «Integration of Archeological and Ethnographical Research», the plans of the forthcoming works and reports. The participants of the seminar make reports on the themes of concrete research (field or office), usually such reports are scheduled for October-December each year. The remaining time is devoted to the development of theoretical-methodological problems, and, as a rule, this part of the seminar arouses most interest.
In the first years of the seminar’s activity (1993–1997) the major part of
the reports was devoted to the peculiarities of field ethnographical and
archeological research and the review of sources at hand. It turned out that
archeologists and ethnographers look at the same things differently and pay
attention to different aspects of objects and phenomena of culture, which
brought the participants of the seminar to the necessity of the development of a
more precise instruments’ set for gathering and initial processing of the
sources. For finding the correlation points of ethnographical and archeological
visions of the source base by the working groups, built up from the members of
the seminar, questionnaires and programs of material gathering on different
topics were compiled. Simultaneously the work at the theoretical-methodological
problems of the integration of ethnography and archeology started. At the time
of summer field trips (since 1993) mutual visits of expeditions and getting to
know the peculiarities of field studies were arranged.
At the meeting of the seminar on January 8 1998 the question of the further development of research was considered. This is connected with the closure of the first stage of studying the concrete materials on the archeology and ethnography of the Tara Irtysh region and gradual shift to the construction of theoretical-methodical models of ethnographo-archeological complexes. In this connection there aroused the question of the development in the sphere of the object and subject matter, the perfection of the set of concepts, the theoretical analysis of the source base, etc. It was decided to prepare and listen to a series of reports on the subject.
One of the obvious results of the seminars activity is the defense of 23 Kandidatskaya theses by the members of the seminar and its participants. The following researchers acted as scientific advisers: S.N. Koroussenko, V.I. Matuschenko, V.I.Molodin, A.G.Seleznev, S.S. Tikhonov, N.A. Tomilov. The seminar propelled professional development of a whole bunch of talented young researchers: I.V. Volokhina, О.P. Kolomiets, А.V. Маtveyev, I.I. Nazarov, B.К. Smagoulov, Е.V. Тitov, Y.V. Тrofimov, K.N. Tikhomirov, M.N. Tikhomirova, F.М. Fatkoulina, А.А. Yarzoutkina and others). Some of them have gone through the seminar since student years and up to the thesis defense.
The members of the research group have arranged and successfully run a series of academic seminars «The Integration Archeological and Ethnographical Research». This forum has been operating since 1993 annually in different cities of Siberia, the Far East and the European Russia. Since 1998 this annual All-Russian seminar got the status of the International one, since 2007 it became an international symposium. Researchers from Great Britain, Hungary, Spain, Kazakhstan, China, the USA, Tadgikistan, the Ukraine, Germany and other countries have participated in it. The collections of works are published annually as a result of these seminars. New approaches to the complex study of social and cultural components of life activities of modern and ancient societies are being considered, the results of research are discussed, and the exchange of ideas and opinions takes place.
During the years of the seminar’s run a steady academic community made up
from researchers from the Far East, Siberia and the European Russia has grown
around it. The community is aiming at the development of the problems of the
study of the late Middle Ages, The New Age and the Newest age, of the
reconstruction and the retrospectives in the field of ethnography and
archeology, the construction of ethnographo-archeological complexes and other
Omsk ethnoarcheologists have started to publish monographs and collective works. In 2007 K.N. Tikhomirov’s monograph «The Migration Processes on the Territory of Western Siberia (the Epoch of Bronze – the Middle Ages)» was published, in 2008 – a book by D.A. Miagkov «Hunting, Fishing and Gathering of the Baraba Tatars at the turn of XIX –XX centuries». In the 10th volume ob the series «Ethnographo-Archeological Complexes: the Problems of Culture and Society» the monograph of a Novosibirsk scientist B.I. Sobolev «The history of Siberian Khanates (based on archeological materials)» was published, the following monographs are being prepared: А.I. Кazannik, S.F. Tataurov and N.A. Tomilov «Traditional, Household, Nature and Environment Culture of the Siberial Peoples and its Place in Ethnology and Ethnical Ecology», A.G.Seleznov «The Complexes in Traditional Culture of the Forest and Taiga Areas of the south of Siberia: Formation, Genesis, Adaptation», L.V. Tataurova «The Burial Rite of the Russian Population of the Omsk Irtysh Region in XVII–XVIII centuries: to the Problem of Ethnocultural Transformations» ,etc.
Nowadays the members of the seminar are working at the generalizing monograph «The Ethnographo-Archeological Research of the Problems of Culture and Society» where the theoretical and practical results obtained in the last 15 years will be made available to the public. In the prospective, after the completion of the work at the generalizing monograph (it will definitely not be limited by a single volume) we are planning to intensify the research of ethnographo-archeological complexes of other peoples: the Kazakhs (the research has already started), the Mansi, the Selkoups, the Khanti.
We invite for collaboration any colleagues engaged in the problems of integration of ethnography and archeology and the allied sciences. This can be joint projects, participation in the seminar «The Integration Archeological and Ethnographical Research», publishing of their works in the series «Ethnographo-Archeological Complexes: the Problems of Culture and Society».
The review is prepared with the use of the following articles:
Koroussenko M.A., Tikhonov S.S. The 10th anniversary of the interdepartmental academic seminar «Ethnographo-Archeological Complexes of the Peoples of Western Siberia» (1993-2004) // Istoricheskiy ezhegodnik: 2004. – Оmsk, 2005. – pp. 238–241;
Tomilov N.А. The ethnoarcheological branch at Omsk academic center of Russia // The Integration Archeological and Ethnographical Research: the collection of academic works – Оmsk; Оdessa, 2007. – pp. 40–48.