(ORIGINAL QUESTION OF THE ARYAN PROBLEM)

The Aryan 1 problem is studied by scientists of various specialties: historians, archaeologists, linguists. There are big and small questions in this problem; there are questions that can already be considered solved, and questions that are still waiting to be solved. The Aryan problem remains relevant to this day, since it serves as the foundation for the history of all existing Indo-European peoples, depending on its solution, the specific history of most European peoples, including the Slavic ones, is considered. The proposed article raises only one historical and archaeological question related to the definition of the economic basis of the ancient Indo-Iranians, that is, an attempt is made to answer the question: who were the Indo-Iranians-farmers or pastoralists?

The scientific opinion has been established that the Avesta reflects the state of the society of Iranians in the first half of the first millennium BC.e. and that this society was at that time sedentary and engaged in agriculture and cattle breeding. However, scholars who have dealt with the Aryan problem have asked themselves what was the economic basis of the alleged ancestors of the Avestan and Vedic Aryans and what archaeological cultures can be considered material traces of the oldest Aryans. Almost all researchers came to similar conclusions, which were summarized by Academician V. V. Struve: "During the second millennium BC, in Central Asia up to Kopet-Dagh, cultures with certain connections with the so-called Andronovo culture of Kazakhstan spread. A number of researchers interpret this phenomenon as evidence of the spread of Iranian-speaking Indo-European tribes here, which actually occupied the entire Central Asia later, in the first millennium. Due to the development of productive forces during the Bronze Age and in accordance with the natural conditions of Central Asia, its Iranian-speaking population seems to have been divided as early as the second millennium into nomadic pastoralists (Massagets, Saks) and farmers who settled in mountain valleys and oases, probably mixing here with the indigenous population"2 .

This generally accepted point of view is based on the works of famous Soviet archaeologists, researchers of Central Asia, S. P. Tolstov, A. N. Bernshtam and M. M. Diakonov. Each of them, in part-

1 The term "Aryan" is used as an ethnonym in the oldest Indo-Iranian written monuments of the Avesta and Rig Veda, so it can be applied when it comes to events in the chronological period between the division of the ancient Indo-Iranians into Avestan and Vedic Aryans and the appearance of the pre-Achaemenid Persians in the historical arena. Before this period of time, these societies should be called Indo - Iranian, and after-Persian and Indian.

2 V. V. Struve. Ancient Iran and Central Asia. "World History", Vol. I. Moscow, 1955, p. 591.

page 88
He tried to connect the materials of his excavations with the history of the peoples who lived, according to written sources, on the territory of Central Asia.

In 1948, S. P. Tolstov for the first time formulated the idea that "it is precisely in the crossing of carriers of the painted ceramics culture (Southern Turkmenistan) with carriers of first hunting and fishing, and then cattle-breeding and agricultural cultures of the Eurasian north that one can see one of the most important prerequisites for Indo-European ethnogenesis in general and the addition of the Indo-Iranian group of Indo-Europeans in particular"3 . A decade and a half later, S. P. Tolstov developed and refined this basically correct idea in a slightly different direction. He already explicitly states that " the appearance in Khorezm in the middle of the second millennium BC of the Tazabagyab (i.e., Andronovo) culture is obviously connected with the first significant wave of Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, or Iranian tribes advancing from the northwest." In his opinion, the discovery of Tazabagyab (steppe, nomadic, andronoid) ceramics in the agricultural settlements of Southern Turkmenistan of the Namazga VI period indicates the penetration, or rather, " the advance of the Tazabagyab culture - bearing tribes in the southern direction." "Given the probable connection of the Tazabagyab culture with the first wave of Indo-European, Indo-Iranian or Iranian tribes that came to Khorezm from the northwest, and the archaeologically recorded appearance in the southern regions of Central Asia of Tazabagyab and Late Suyargan tribes-carriers of the steppe Bronze culture, we can again raise the question of the ways of penetration of Indo-Iranian tribes in Afghanistan and India"4 ."As we can see, S. P. Tolstov's concept of the Indo-Iranian identity of the Andronovo and stagially similar Srubnaya cultures remains unchanged, as well as the thesis about the movement of the carriers of these cultures from the northwest to the southeast in the second half of the second millennium BC. To confirm the point of view about the Iranian-speaking nature of the carriers of the Andronovo culture, S. P. Tolstov It attracts the statements of A. N. Bernshtam, who in one of his last works a priori identifies the carriers of the Andronovo culture with the Vedic Aryans. "The wide distribution of monuments of the Andronovo culture," A. N. Bernshtam wrote, "suggests that the Andronovo people were those' shepherds-pastoralists of the cold North ' who, according to the Vedas and the geography of the Avesta, were Aryans, i.e., conquerors of India in the second millennium BC." it is assumed that it consists of three campaigns, three consecutive stages of the invasion of the Indo-European Aryan tribes: Andronovo, Saka and Tocharian; the last two stages are named after the names of the most important peoples preserved in written sources. Finally, when determining the place of origin of the Eastern Iranian tribes of the Aryans, A. N. Bernstam puts forward the thesis that the territory of the Andronovites and Saks should be considered the center of origin of the Eastern Iranian tribes .5
Quite remarkable is the opinion of M. M. Diakonov, who in his posthumously published book "An Outline of the History of Ancient Iran" specifically refers to the ancestors of the Avestan Aryans. "Archaeological data," he writes, " give us some idea, apparently, about the ancestors of nomadic Iranian-speaking tribes. Vast territories of the North-Eastern Black Sea region, the Southern Volga region, the Urals, Kazakhstan and Central Asia, occupied in the middle of the first millennium BC, according to the data of

3 S. P. Tolstov. Ancient Khorezm, Moscow, 1948, p. 68.

4 S. P. Tolstov. Po drevnim deltam Oksa i Yaxarta [On the ancient deltas of the Oxus and Yaxarta], Moscow, 1962, pp. 59, 60, 67.

5 A. N. Bernshtam. Controversial issues of the history of the nomadic peoples of Central Asia in ancient times. "Brief Reports" of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Issue XXVI, Moscow, 1957, p. 19.

page 89
According to written sources, nomadic Iranian-speaking tribes of Scythians and Saks, in the late II - early I millennium BC, were occupied by tribes of two closely related archaeological cultures - Srubnaya and Andronovskaya, and the latter also covered Southern Siberia." "In Iran, native speakers of Iranian languages, - continues M. M. Diakonov, - seeped gradually, over many centuries. Tribal alliances were formed, including both local and some alien tribes. Various historical reasons led to the fact that one or another language won in these tribal unions. Especially viable was the language of the Iranian tribes, understood over a vast territory over which it was spread by mobile pastoral tribes. At the same time, the mass extermination of the former inhabitants of Iran and the abrupt change in the ethnic composition of the population, as shown by anthropology, and archeology, was not"6 . Let us note here the main idea of M. M. Dyakonov: the Aryans were originally steppe nomads-pastoralists and, under favorable circumstances, settled down and became farmers.

A brief overview of the above points of view is well summed up in the words of V. M. Masson: "An attempt to concretize the opinion about the northern origin of Indo-Iranian tribes on the basis of the available archaeological material is to identify the carriers of the Andronovo culture with the ancient Indo-Iranian tribes. In essence, such an identification is a further specification of the widespread opinion in Western literature about "pastoral tribes of the Black Sea region and the Caspian region as the oldest Indo-Europeans" 7 .

Extensive archaeological excavations of the primitive monuments of Southern Turkmenistan, which began in 1954, allowed V. M. Masson to raise the question that these areas, on the one hand, could be intermediate for Indo - Iranian tribes advancing from the north, and on the other hand, these areas are the same as the regions of North-Eastern Iran. they could have been the habitat of Indo-Iranian tribes from a very early time, at least from the time of the developed Bronze Age (Namazga V period) 8. I. M. Diakonov, in his review of the work of V. M. Masson, commenting on the latter's opinions, admits that the carriers of the Namazga VI culture, and perhaps V and IV, were Indo-Iranians; At the same time, he fully shares the opinion about the western, that is, south - eastern European, center of origin of Indo - European languages and their penetration into the territory of southern Central Asia, Iranian Khorasan and India from the northwest, that is, from the steppe belt. Thus, he also accepts the position of the probable identity of "Andronovtsy-Aryans", although he narrows the concept of Aryans to Scythians and Saks .9
The author of these lines also wrote about the possible, rather probable, Iranian - speaking nature of the ancient population of South Turkmenistan, and about its original Iranian-speaking nature from the V-IV millennium BC, but this opinion had no solid evidence and therefore did not go beyond the working hypothesis .10
Search for the original habitats and ways of penetration of Indo-Iranian tribes into Iran and India in the Soviet historical literature-

6 M. M. Diakonov. Essay on the History of Ancient Iran, Moscow, 1961, pp. 42, 64.

7 V. M. Mass. Study of the Eneolithic and Bronze Age of Central Asia. "Soviet Archeology", 1957, N 4, p. 54.

8 V. M. Masson. Study of the Eneolithic and Bronze Age of Central Asia. Ancient agricultural culture of Margiana. "Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR", N 73. Moscow-L. 1959, pp. 117-121.

9 See Vestnik drevnoi Istorii, 1960, No. 3, pp. 119-120.

10 I. N. Khlopin. Dashlydzhi-depe and Eneolithic farmers of Southern Turkmenistan. "Proceedings of the South Turkmenistan Archaeological complex expedition", Vol. X. Ashgabat. 1961, pp. 203-204; his. Early Eneolithic tribes of Southern Turkmenistan. Abstract of the candidate's thesis, L. 1962, p. 18.

page 90
the rally continues until recently. Studies in Southern Tajikistan and Southern Turkmenistan allowed A. M. Mandelstam to express the opinion that " the archaeologically documented movements of "steppe" cultures to the southern marginal regions of Central Asia are not associated with the Andronovo tribes (or, in any case, not only with them), but with other groups: one of them is the "steppe" culture. (burials in south - western Turkmenistan. - I. Kh.) - close to the log tribes, the second, very peculiar (Bishkent culture in Tajikistan. - I. Kh.), is not yet clear in its origin; in addition, there are good reasons to assume the presence of a third group, which is characterized by burials in fences"11. Along with this, he notes the well-known fact that up to the turn of the second and first millennia BC in the ancient settled agricultural regions of the south-west of Central Asia, there is no change of cultures and, consequently, population. Then, in his opinion, "follows an insufficiently studied period, characterized, on the one hand, by certain changes in the sphere of material culture of the agricultural population, and on the other - by the presence of evidence of direct contact with pastoral tribes and, probably, even the penetration of the latter into the oases. The subsequent development is again of a continuous nature and is basically a continuation of the old tradition." Saying further that the language of the indigenous agricultural population is unknown to him, although "there are strong historical reasons (? - I. Kh. A. M. Mandelstam notes the spread of Iranian dialects in these places since the middle of the first millennium BC. From all this, it follows, in his opinion, that"a change of language must have taken place during some previous period, which, naturally, could not have taken place without the emergence of new ethnic groups, in this case, undoubtedly belonging to the number of Iranian speakers" 12 .

All of the above arguments are not new and do not go beyond tradition 13 . The desire to replace some pastoral tribes of Indo-Iranians (Andronovo) with others (Srubnye, Bishkent), on the one hand, and ignoring other opinions (for example, the opinion of I. M. Dyakonov about the Iranian language of the speakers of the settled agricultural culture of Southern Turkmenistan of the Bronze Age), on the other, cannot, in our opinion, be considered a solution to the problem. In addition, no less "compelling reasons" not only of a historical but also of an archaeological nature strongly demand a revision of many traditional provisions.

Here are the main provisions that have become traditional and indisputable: a) the Aryans of the Avesta were originally nomadic pastoralists and somewhere at the turn of the second and first millennium BC moved to sedentarism and agriculture; b) the Aryans of the Avesta originally inhabited a vast belt of Eurasian steppes and are represented by archaeological pastoral cultures, Andronovskaya and Srubnaya, outgrowing c) the Aryans of the Avesta, as part of other Iranian-speaking tribes, moved from north to south in search of new pastures for their ever-increasing herds and occupied the territory of Central Asia and a number of regions

11 "Central Asia in the Age of stone and bronze", L. 1966, p. 258; see also A. M. Mandelstam. Monuments of the Bronze Age in Southern Tajikistan. "Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR", N 145. L. 1968.

12 "Central Asia in the Stone and Bronze Age", pp. 255-256.

13 We deliberately do not dwell on the works in which the authors address the Aryan problem only indirectly. See, for example, E. E. Kuzmina. On the southern limits of distribution of steppe Bronze Age cultures in Central Asia. "Monuments of the Stone and Bronze Ages of Eurasia", Moscow, 1964, pp. 141-158; Yu. A. Zadneprovsky. Ancient agricultural culture of Ferghana. "Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR", N 118. Moscow-L. 1962, pp. 91-94, etc.

page 91
d) the Aryans of the Avesta moved to a sedentary lifestyle earlier than other pastoral Iranian tribes, who still remained nomads, which gave rise to constant hostility between them.

Our further task is not to prove the Iranian linguistic and ethnic identity of the sedentary agricultural communities of southern Central Asia, but, first, to show the origins of the existing scientific and still very widespread point of view about the possibility of settling on the land of ancient nomads in principle; secondly, to show the infidelity of the generally accepted view of the ancient peoples of the In this paper, we will present our views on the original pastoral nature of the ancient Indo-Iranians, the ancestors of the Vedic and Avestan Aryans; and, third, to show how, from our point of view, we can approach the question of the original economic basis of these peoples.

In the XVIII - XIX centuries, the so-called "three-step theory" prevailed among human scientists (sociologists, economists, historians, ethnographers and geographers), which through the humanists of the late Middle Ages goes back to ancient science. The essence of this theory was, and it was considered generally accepted and proven, that humanity in its historical development passed through three consecutive economic stages-roving hunting, nomadic cattle breeding and, finally, sedentary agriculture. This theory seemed so obvious that it did not even cause anyone to doubt. It was reflected in the works of major scientists of the XIX century: Adam Smith, Elise Reclu and others.

In 1892, the first work of the German geographer and ethnographer Eduard Hahn was published, which not only called into question the truth of the "three-step theory", but also marked the beginning of its scientific critique .14 In this and subsequent works, he proved that agriculture developed independently in many places from primitive gathering, that agriculture is much older than cattle breeding, that the domestication of animals (except for the dog) could not be achieved under the conditions of appropriating hunters, since its essence already presupposed a solid settlement and the presence of constant food supplies. E. Khan's criticism of the" three-step theory " showed its simplicity and antiquity, and most importantly, its inaccuracy and inconsistency with the actual material. His works dealt her an irreparable blow and ended her reign .15 However, even in the twentieth century, many works of a scientific and popular nature contained statements in favor of this theory .16
The "three-step theory" was also used in solving a number of questions of the Aryan problem. Practically all the works devoted to this problem contain the opinion, which in most cases cannot be proved, that, as I. Markwart said, the Iranian tribes of the Sairim and Turov continued to remain nomads, while the Aryans moved to sedentarism and began to assimilate with the agricultural cultural peoples in Iran proper .17 This is the only explanation for all the inconsistencies and disagreements that exist today in the question of the original basis of the ancestors of the Aryans of the Avesta, about the places of origin of the Aryans.

14 E. Hahn. Die Wirtschaftsformen der Erde. "Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen". Bd. 38. Gotha. 1892.

15 See G. Kunov. Universal History of the Economy, vol. I. M.-L. 1929, p. 428; Yu. Lips. The origin of things, Moscow, 1954 (ibid., bibliography of the question).

16 For example, K. M. Takhtarev. Essays on the history of primitive culture. Ptgr. 1922, pp. 132-142; L. Krzywicki. Economic and social order of primitive peoples, Moscow, L. 1925; V. I. Ravdonikas. Istoriya primevitnogo obshchestva [History of Primitive society]. Vol. II. l. 1947, pp. 11-16.

17 I. Marquart. Eransahr nach der Geographie des Moses Xorenac'i. B. 1901, S. 155.

page 92
primary habitat and places subsequently developed by Indo-Iranian tribes.

Since ancient times and almost to the present day, there are tribes and peoples in whose economy cattle breeding plays a major role and which we call pastoralists. It is usually customary to talk about pastoralists in general, without thinking about how the distant "ancestors" of historical or current pastoralists moved to this type of economic activity. In fact, pastoralists, from the point of view of the origin of their economy, are divided into two fundamental varieties: primary pastoralists and secondary pastoralists. The former should be understood as those who (or whose ancestors) themselves moved to raising livestock, taming it in places where wild species of this livestock were found. Secondary pastoralists should include those who have not domesticated the animals themselves, but have already received the cattle in a domesticated form in the process of cultural influence on the part of the more advanced in all respects part of humanity.

The opinion that it is possible to form a cattle-breeding farm (even a productive farm in general) in the zone of the forest-steppe border (pre-Andronovo and Andronovo cultures) approximately at the turn of the third and second millennia BC18 loses ground with a specific approach to this issue. An animal suitable for domestication can be tamed in almost any climate zone, but with one prerequisite-there must be an object for domestication. Modern biology and paleozoology are well aware of the wild forms of almost all domestic animals, as well as their former and current habitats .19 However, they were not found in the border zone of forests and steppes, so the question of domestication in this zone can only be solved in a negative form: there was no one to domesticate here. By the way, the question of cultivated plants can also be solved in the same way - cereals could only be cultivated in places of their wild growth. Just as the transfer of cereals from the mountain pockets of their original growth to the plain shattered their heredity and led to a positive mutation, so cattle, originally tamed in their wild habitats, became different when they moved to the steppes. Both cultivated plants and domestic animals could spread almost all over the Earth only as a result of their transfer, together with the skills of productive farming, from one group of people to another. 20
The beginning of the domestication of wild animals in the zone of the most ancient agricultural cultures of the Near and Near East, which some researchers refer to the Mesolithic period, is not in itself evidence of the transition to a productive economy there - the domestication and domestication of animals was only one of its conditions, one of its prerequisites. The fact that the Neolithic revolution took place can be said when archaeological excavations present the full range of evidence for this: a long-term settled settlement, a traditional complex of agricultural equipment, and, finally, the bone remains of domestic animals. Settlement, agriculture and cattle breeding were at that time the three whales on which-

18 This traditional view is still held by many researchers (see: K. V. Salnikov. Essays on the ancient history of the Southern Urals, Moscow, 1967, pp. 340-342; "History of Siberia", vol. 1. L. 1968, pp. 117, 159-161, 170).

19 N. N. Kolesnik. Evolution of cattle. "Proceedings" of the Institute of Animal Husbandry of the Tajik branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Vol. XXIV. 1949, Child. The Ancient East in the light of new excavations, Moscow, 1956, p. 59.

20 See I. N. Khlopin. Some questions of development of the most ancient farmers. "Research on the archeology of the USSR", L. 1961, pp. 47-55.

page 93
on it rested the world, the triune foundation of the existence of a human society with a progressive productive economy.

The standard of such an archaeological culture is the settlements of the northern foothill zone of Kopet-Dagh, which are usually dated to the VI - V millennium BC; this is the Jeytun culture 21, discovered and studied in the post-war years. The settlements belonging to this culture are located in the delta parts of mountain streams; they consist of a significant number of one-room houses, the walls of which were not yet built of bricks, but of characteristic clay blocks on the same site from generation to generation. The huge number of tools made of flint, stone and bone (with no traces of metal) indicates the productive basis of the agricultural economy of the ancient population of these localities .22 The syncretism of the original productive economy is emphasized by the bones of animals that cannot yet be recognized as domestic, but these bones have clear traces of morphological changes obtained during domestication .23 The constant settlement of the population, combined with food security, led not only to the emergence and development of new branches of domestic production (primarily ceramic), but also to the development of a complex of beliefs reflected in the most ancient fire sanctuaries decorated with wall paintings with geometric and zoomorphic subjects .24
The true significance of such cultures for human progress becomes clearer when compared with more northern cultures. Indeed, in the Caspian region, along the ancient Amu-Darya - Uzboy riverbed that was functioning at that time, in the Aral Sea region and in the interfluve of the Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya rivers, there is archaeological evidence that these territories were inhabited by people for this time .25 But the culture of this population in the V-IV millennium BC was very far from a productive economy. They were typical hunters and gatherers, with an appropriating form of economy and all the other characteristics of their culture derived from their way of life. Insignificant connections of this population with the southern zone, which can be traced on flint tools and ceramics, did not lead to drastic changes in their way of life, since these connections were of a diffusive nature .26
Thus, the human collectives of a certain natural-historical zone moved to the productive economy; the latter, as is well known, was an incentive for an increase in the population in this zone. As a result of this increase, the entire territory suitable for a new way of farming is developed in a relatively short time; an increase in population density entails an intensification of production, the development of new branches of it.

Not all human collectives, whether ancestral or more recent and perfect tribal ones, turn out to be the will of fate in the same way

21 See V. M. Masson. Jeytun culture. "Proceedings of the South Turkmenistan Archaeological complex expedition", Vol. X. Ashgabat. 1961; same name. Central Asia and the Ancient East, Moscow, 1964.

22 See G. F. Korobkov. Tools of labor and economy of Neolithic tribes of Central Asia. "Materials and research on the archeology of the USSR", N 158. L. 1969.

23 A. I. Shevchenko. To the history of domestic animals of Southern Turkmenistan. "Proceedings of the South Turkmenistan Archaeological complex expedition", vol. X, p. 475.

24 O. K. Berdyev. Pessedjik depe is the center of a Neolithic oasis. "Archaeological discoveries of 1969", Moscow, 1970, p. 414.

25 A.V. Vinogradov. Neolithic monuments of Khorezm, Moscow, 1968; Ya. G. Gulyamov, U. Islamov, A. Askarov. Primitive culture and the emergence of irrigated agriculture in the lower reaches of Zarafshan. Tashkent, 1966; "Central Asia in the Age of Stone and Bronze".

26 G. F. Korobkov. Op. ed., pp. 125-126.

page 94
favorable conditions for its development. Many factors play a role here: natural conditions, land fertility, quality and quantity of pastures, farming skills, finally, individual abilities of team members, and much more. The combination of these factors led to intergenerational differentiation, that is, the phenomenon that later, already in historical times, led to uneven historical development. So it turned out that some tribes that lived in favorable natural conditions began to conduct mainly agricultural farming, in which cattle breeding was only a significant addition. Others, also due to certain natural conditions, began to give preference to raising livestock, engaging in agriculture only as an auxiliary branch of the economy.

As a result of the continuous increase in the number and density of the population in a relatively limited area, a situation is emerging among agricultural and pastoral tribes in which a part of the population must leave their homes for centuries, so that they themselves, as well as the remaining ones, can exist in the usual conditions of the primitive communal mode of production. 27 Those human collectives that were mainly engaged in pastoral farming turned out to be less attached to the land than their fellow farmers. It was they who were forced to leave their original places and move to new ones.

The part of the agricultural-pastoral population that was rejected from its homeland for natural-historical reasons came into contact with the peripheral Neolithic tribes, and with more backward ones, since the rejection of a part of the population does not mean that it could go in any direction. By this time, the original agricultural areas were so densely populated that the "outcasts" were left with only barren mountain or desert areas nearby. Therefore, they were forced to undertake relatively long journeys in search of areas that were practically not developed by the producing economy. There were such areas, but the appropriating type of economy prevailed there, the population was engaged in hunting, fishing and gathering. These regions were located mainly to the north of the original agricultural belt; these were the Central Asian interfluve, the Aral Sea region, and the areas along the Uzboy, the ancient Amu-Darya riverbed that flowed into the Caspian Sea. That's where the rejected collectives went.

The contact of farmers with gatherers led to the formation of a vast area of secondary-type pastoralists. It is difficult for us now to imagine how the introduction and initial parallel existence of collectives with different economic structures took place. Most likely, at first, there were a great many types of dating, ranging from the acceptance of aliens as part of the aborigines and ending with mutual cruel extermination. Be that as it may, in each particular case, in general, there was obviously a tendency towards peaceful coexistence. Tribes with an appropriating form of economy adopted from the newcomers their achievements-agriculture, cattle breeding, production of ceramics and metal, finally, all the terminology that did not exist before and which would have to be invented anew. The newcomers, having passed on their achievements, after several generations were dissolved in the local population.

Archaeological excavations, which have been carried out in Central Asia for 25 years, provide us with facts that prove the correctness of the above-mentioned facts.

27 I. N. Khlopin. Segmentation in the history of primitive society. Voprosy Hysteria, 1968, No. 8, pp. 99-111.

page 95
we have drawn a schematically theoretical picture. It has already been mentioned above that from the 7th-6th millennia BC, when groups of people in the southern part of Central Asia switched to a productive economy and a sedentary lifestyle, the entire ethnic mass of these places broke up into two cultural and economic zones. In the south, a zone of settled farmers and pastoralists developed, which tended to the Far eastern focus of the producing economy (Jeytun-type cultures). In the north there was a vast zone of semi-sedentary hunters and gatherers (Early Celteminar cultures), many times larger than the first one. During the fifth and fourth millennia B.C., the population of these zones was very isolated in relation to each other; sporadic contacts were still far from becoming a system, and the episodic influence of progressive southern regions on more backward northern ones did not bring tangible results for the latter. However, since the third millennium BC, the situation has changed markedly: in the monuments of this time, located in the Aral Sea region and along the ancient Amu-Darya riverbed, which flowed into the Caspian Sea, archaeologists begin to find obvious traces of the intense influence of southern cultures on northern ones.

By the middle of the third millennium BC, traditionally agricultural areas were located along the northern foothills of the Kopet Dagh (from Kyzyl-Arvat in the west to the ancient Tejen River delta in the east), in southeastern Transcaspia (in the Atrek and Gorgan River basins), and in northern Iran. The population of these areas was very dense, as a sedentary lifestyle and a productive economy contributed to the growth of the population, but they also prevented its outflow outside this zone. By the middle of the third millennium BC, all the land suitable for conducting a productive economy was firmly occupied, and the population continued to grow. In its daily life, it was engaged in cultivating fields, raising livestock, and many domestic crafts that had already developed into crafts, including metallurgy. The production of ceramic tableware, which with its ornamentation and its consistent changes has turned into a fairly accurate chronological scale, has reached a high level of perfection. It is precisely the finds of these ceramics, the places of manufacture of which are clearly established, that are for the northern and eastern monuments those witnesses of the penetration of carriers of southern cultures with a producing farm into the environment of northern cultures with an appropriating farm, whose testimony in archeology is recognized as indisputable.

On the monuments of the late phase of the Celteminar culture in Khorezm around the middle of the third millennium BC, evidence appears that their ancient population is beginning to move to a productive economy. Since it is quite obvious that neither cereals nor livestock themselves could move over significant distances, and the Aral Sea region was not part of the zone where wild forms of cereals grew and wild initial forms of domestic animals were found, the appearance of both should be explained only by introducing the skill of conducting a productive farm. The starting point of the new economy is determined by some ceramic finds at the sites of Kavat 7 and Dingilja 6, which have clear parallels in the monuments of the Astrabad Bronze Age, in particular at the settlement of Shah Tepe 28 . Since even in the early Kelteminar sites of the upper Uzboy there were clear evidences of the penetration of flint tools from Mazenderan monuments, we have every reason to consider the penetration of the culture of sedentary farmers and pastoralists from the southern Caspian region and the lower reaches of the Atrek and Gorgan rivers into Khorezm as a continuation of the ancient traditions of the Russian Empire.-

28 A. V. Vinogradov. Op. ed., p. 151.

page 96
functions. Moreover, fragments of Shakhtepa pottery in the Neolithic Jebel 29 cave indicate intermediate points of these traditions.

The facts of the penetration of the producing economy on the right bank of the middle course of the Amu Darya refer to approximately the same time. There was found a settlement with raspiona ceramics typical of the early Bronze Age Kopet-Dag foothill zone (Namazga IV culture); this discovery leaves no doubt that some people moved to the Central Asian interfluve and brought with them all their property and knowledge, and not (handed over to the local population the objects they made). and guns. This settlement is located in a certain proximity to the local monuments of the Celteminar type, which do not show any signs of producing farms.

The economic and social level of development of the local population between the Amu - Darya and Syr-Darya rivers, with which the natives of the foothill zone came into contact, can be traced relatively fully on the material of open sites located to the west of the Bukhara oasis. There are more than 30 of them, but only one site, Darbaza - Kyr, has preserved three cultural layers, and from the others only material remains on the surface. Analysis of flint, bone and stone tools, remains of animal bones and other finds made it possible to establish that the Aboriginal economy was firmly based on the appropriation of finished products of nature, its main industries were hunting (for gazelles, horses) and (fishing '(pike, carp, catfish, etc. were caught). the production of ceramics was the most primitive and did not go beyond the gathering Neolithic 30 . However, it can be assumed that the natives of the Central Asian interfluve were already approaching the level at which it was possible to move to a productive economy: this is evidenced by settled, relatively long-term dwellings, skills of developed gathering and home production; the arrival of a population with a progressive economy would cause them a kind of mutation.

The reference monument, which combines the features of the agricultural culture of the south and the hunting culture of the Central Asian interfluve, is the burial ground and settlement of Zaman-Baba in the lower reaches of Zarafshan, which are usually dated to the end of the III-beginning of the II millennium BC. 31. A complex of obviously brought things (copper products, cross-shaped beads, single copies of ceramics of the Namazga IV type) with a complete set of tools and products of the producing economy (reaping knives, grain grinders, imprints of wheat and barley grains, and finally the bones of domestic animals-large and small cattle), it gets along with large semi-earthen ladies, with rough local ceramics, with the former rite of burial in the catacombs. Taking into account the anthropological proximity of the population of Zaman Baba with the population of the foothill strip of Kopet Dagh32, it is possible to assume with good reason that a certain group of people moved from southern Turkmenistan to the Amu Darya and Syr Darya interfluves, and not to see the Zamanbaba culture as a result of diffusive influence from the same regions 33 . The entire Zamanbabinsky complex records

29 A. P. Okladnikov. Jebel Cave. "Proceedings of the South Turkmenistan Archaeological Complex expedition", vol. VII. Ashgabat. 1956, p. 36.

30 Yandex Units. Islamists. Neolithic culture in the lower reaches of Zarafshan. Abstract of the candidate's thesis, L. 1963; "Central Asia in the era of stone and bronze", p. 142.

31 E. E. Kuzmina. Zaman Baba burial ground. "Soviet Ethnography", 1958, N 2, pp. 24-33; A. Askarov. Lower reaches of Zarafshan in the Bronze Age. Abstract of the candidate's thesis, L. 1962; "Central Asia in the era of stone and bronze", pp. 208-212.

32 L. V. Oshanin, V. Ya. Zezenkova. Issues of ethnogenesis of the peoples of Central Asia in the light of anthropological data. Tashkent, 1953.

33 "Central Asia in the Stone and Bronze Age", p. 212.

page 97
the moment of interaction between two different economic bases at a very early stage: in the everyday life of this population, not only jewelry that can be passed down from generation to generation was preserved, but even ceramics brought with them. At the same time, there is a complete monotony of the funeral rite - burial in the catacombs, which was not typical of the population of the foothill strip of Kopet Dagh and can therefore be considered a local phenomenon. It is possible that no more than 2 or 4 generations have passed since the beginning of the contact of two different economies, since this local burial rite, apparently, already indicates the beginning of assimilation of newcomers by the local population.

It can be assumed that the fact of positive contact between two different economic bases was not isolated, although at present we do not yet know other similar centers of this culture. In all likelihood, the relatively large territory of the Central Asian interfluve was a kind of contact zone between the two economies. The Aborigines, who were probably already close to the possibility of moving to a higher stage of economic and social development, made this transition without a long and sometimes painful path of experimentation, absorbing all the positive, advanced and progressive things brought from outside. All this, like a chain reaction, spread over a vast territory in a relatively short time, which explains the fact that in the interval between the end of the third and middle of the second millennium BC, we find fully developed pastoral cultures of the Yamnaya and then Andronovo types not only in the Central Asian steppes, but also in Kazakhstan and Kazakhstan. further east to the Minusinsk basin on the Yenisei.

Thus, at the current level of our knowledge, which follows from well-known archaeological materials, we can assume that the same-type cultures of the Bronze Age, spread from the Urals to the Yenisei and known under the collective name Yamno - Afanasyevsky, and then Andronovsky, were formed initially in the contact zone of the local hunting-gathering population with the newcomer who brought with them skills and forms of productive farming. These skills fell into favorable conditions, and after a few centuries, qualitatively different cultures emerged, different from both the local Neolithic and the once-alien cultures of the Bronze Age. Preserving some features of the alien culture, in particular the subjects of ceramic ornamentation, the new and young ethnic stratum spread throughout the vast forest-steppe and steppe zones (the taiga became an obstacle to its further spread to the north and east, in which it was impossible to maintain the usual economy). This gives us the right to believe that the bearers of steppe Bronze cultures are descendants of both" exiled " agricultural families and the population of the Aral Sea region and the Central Asian interfluve with an appropriating economy.

Noting the tendency of steppe cultures to spread in a fan-like manner from south to north, one cannot but recall again the existing views on the movement of carriers of the Andronovo culture from the opposite direction (see above). These views, in particular, are based on the findings of ceramics of a peculiar appearance in the southern Turkmen settlements of the Late Bronze Age. As it is now clear, these ceramics, despite their formal similarity to the so-called steppe dishes, should still be considered local kitchen. In our opinion, these facts contradict the version about the advancement of the Andronovo tribes (whether they are identified with the Vedic Aryans or not). to the south and their invasion of native agricultural areas. The hypothesis of the origin of these cultures put forward by us already in itself denies the possibility of identifying the carriers of the Andronovo culture with the Vedic Aryans, since the first Aryans were the first Aryans.

page 98
they did not move from north to south, and the latter still passed this way, although it certainly did not begin in the steppe zone.

Thus, summing up the above and answering the above questions, we can state the following:

1. The origins of the view of the possibility of settling of ancient nomadic pastoralists and their penetration into the environment of settled tribes lie within the framework of the now outdated "theory of three stages"; this opinion, as well as the underlying theory, cannot be considered correct, since history does not know examples of settling of ancient primitive nomadic pastoralists, excluding /tribes that have been subjected to the corrupting influence of neighboring socially more developed, usually class-based, societies.

2. An incorrect view of the possibility of settling of primitive nomadic pastoralists on the land led to an equally incorrect opinion about the original pastoral essence of the ancestors of the Vedic and Avestan Aryans; however, objecting to the opinion about the Iranian identity of the carriers of pastoral cultures of the second millennium BC, we believe that their Iranian-speaking language did not arise autochthonously, not in their environment, and was not then brought to India and Iran, but genetically goes back to the ancient agricultural-pastoral cultures located on the northern outskirts of the sedentary-agricultural ecumene of the Fore-East 34 .

3. The pastoral basis should be derived from a settled agricultural-pastoral economy, and not from a wandering hunting-gathering way of life, since the domestication of livestock became possible only in the conditions of settlement, only with the transition to a productive economy. The formation of pastoral cultures and societies with a pastoral economy became possible in the steppe Neolithic zone only after the organic merger of the population that came there with the producing economy and the local population with the appropriating one, and the pastoral economy is the result of this merger.

34 I. N. Khlopin. On the origin of the Andronovo substratum of the Siberian peoples. "The origin of the aborigines of Siberia and their languages". Tomsk, 1969, pp. 162-164; his. The problem of the origin of steppe Bronze cultures. "Brief Reports of the Institute of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences", Issue 122, Moscow, 1970.

page 99

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: