ЮЖНО-УРАЛЬСКИЙ ОЧАГ КУЛЬТУРОГЕНЕЗА И КУЛЬТУРА БАБИНО (КМК): ПРОБЛЕМА ВЗАИМОСВЯЗИ

Abstract

The southern Ural centre of cultural genesis and the Babino Culture (КМК): the problem of intercommunication. The origin of cultures of the Novy Kumak chronological horizon allocated into 1970th in Ural region, spoke as influence Catacomb cultures from the west, in particular Mnogovalikovaya ceramic culture (Babino). Further research has led many authors to a conclusion about the synchronism of Babino culture with Novy Kumak chronological horizon, including Sintashta burial ground. The concept of the Volga-Urals (Southern Urals) centre of cultural genesis has generated the assumption that Babino culture (Mnogovalikovaya) is a product of influence of Sintashta culture from Ural in the western direction on the world of the Catacomb culture of the Don basin. The article is devoted to the proof of that, such script does not correspond to the data of archaeological sources. First, chrono-logical researches show, that Sintashta is younger than Catacomb cultures and that Sintashta is not senior to Early Babino culture. Second, Babino culture on all parameters is alien to "cultures of chariots" Don-Volga-Ural region. It is obvious, that formation of Babino culture did not grow out of actions (influences) from the Southern Ural centre of cultural genesis. Taking into account localization of the earliest monuments of Babino culture in an area between the Dnieper, Severski Donets and Azov Sea, preliminary we suggest allocating the Dnieper-Donets (Dnieper-Don) centre of cultural genesis and to connect with it process of formation of Babino culture and other cultures of the Post-Catacomb block. Some parallels between Babino culture and Sintashta can speak that in process of the birth of Sintashta culture, took part together Abashevo and Late Catacomb substrata (components).