“The Population of the Middle Yenisei (III millennium BCE – mid-I millennium CE): The Legacy of the Kyrgyz” by D.G. Savinov

"The Minusin basin" V.I. Surikov

“The Minusinsk Basin — the homeland of the Yenisei Kyrgyz — is a relatively small region at the junction of Central and Northern Asia. It is bounded to the south and east by the ridges of the Western and Eastern Sayan Mountains, to the west by the spurs of the Altai Mountains and the Kuznetsk Alatau, and to the north by the forest-steppe zone and the beginning of the Siberian taiga.

Due to its favorable conditions, the Minusinsk Basin, or the Middle Yenisei Basin, has always been a point of attraction for various population groups bearing different cultural traditions. Because of the region’s relative isolation, these traditions did not disappear with the succession of archaeological cultures but were preserved for a significant period, ensuring continuity in the overall stream of cultural development.

This is fully applicable to the Yenisei Kyrgyz, whose culture reveals elements of many traditions that, for various reasons, ‘converged’ along the Yenisei.

Moreover, living in the steppes of the Minusinsk Basin—among ancient burial mounds surrounded by tall stones, mysterious Bronze Age statues, numerous clusters of petroglyphs, and the remains of settlements (which were far more numerous in the past than today)—must have, in a certain way, shaped the ‘aura’ of Yenisei Kyrgyz culture as the heirs and successors of this great past.

The Minusinsk Basin is sometimes called the ‘Siberian Troy.’ In its upper archaeological layers, by the middle of the 1st millennium CE, the ethnic contours of the Yenisei Kyrgyz culture become distinguishable—though many of its elements have far deeper origins.

Various types of migration processes also played a significant role in the ethnocultural development of the Kyrgyz along the Yenisei. However, as noted by S.M. Abramzon, one of the most prominent ethnographers and scholars of Kyrgyz culture, ’Ethnic history is a set of social, economic, and other phenomena, as well as processes that affect cultural, everyday, and ethnic traditions.

It cannot be reduced primarily to migrations caused by political events and military conflicts’ (Abramzon, 1971, p. 17). It is precisely from this perspective that the historical and cultural processes that took place in the Minusinsk Basin are examined below — from the appearance of the first pastoralists on the Yenisei (3rd millennium BCE) to the earliest written mentions of the Yenisei Kyrgyz (mid-1st millennium CE).

The periodization of the ancient history of the tribes of the Minusinsk Basin was developed in the 1820s by S.A. Teploukhov, who, based on his excavations near the village of Bateni on the left bank of the Yenisei, identified a sequence of archaeological cultures from the Early Bronze Age to the Mongol period.

Despite the vast number of archaeological materials discovered since then, Teploukhov’s periodization still retains its relevance. The names he proposed for the cultures—Afanasievo, Andronovo, Karasuk, and Tashtyk—based on the sites of his initial excavations, have become firmly established in scholarly literature.

The only later addition was the Okunevo culture, identified by G.A. Maksimenkov. It occupies an intermediate position between the Afanasievo and Andronovo cultures and was named after the burials in the Okunevo ulus, which were also excavated by Teploukhov in 1928.

The first in the series of pastoral cultures in the Middle Yenisei region is the Afanasievo culture, which is associated with major innovations in the cultural development of the ancient population of Southern Siberia, shaping the course of its subsequent development for a long time.

Firstly, this marks the emergence of animal husbandry: from this time (on the Yenisei — from the mid-3rd millennium BCE), livestock breeding (initially herding, and later transhumant and semi-nomadic) became the foundation of the productive economy for the populations of the mountain-steppe regions of Southern Siberia.

Secondly, this period saw the appearance of a Europoid population (the Afanasievo people were the first Europoids in Southern Siberia). Later, Europoid features (in pure or mixed form) would become characteristic of all the carriers of the Southern Siberian cultures of the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, up to the end of the Tagar culture—that is, up to the time of the Xiongnu.

In this sense, it is quite possible that the legendary “red-haired and blue-eyed” Dinlins, who according to written sources became part of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, could have been distant descendants of this Europoid population.

Thirdly, this era saw the advent of metal production (first as individual ornaments and small tools made of copper, and later of alloys, such as bronze). From this point begins the progressive development of Southern Siberian metallurgy, which led to the creation of the famous Minusinsk (Karasuk and Tagar) bronzes.

These innovations—above all, livestock herding and metallurgy—led to an accelerated pace of development for the population of Southern Siberia compared to all surrounding areas, where Neolithic traditions persisted for much longer.

Therefore, it is entirely logical that the first state formation in Southern Siberia—the state of the Yenisei Kyrgyz—arose precisely here, in the Minusinsk Basin, where processes of cultural and, consequently, social development unfolded most dynamically.

The monuments of the Afanasievo culture on the Yenisei are represented mainly by burial complexes. According to 1986 data, a total of 183 burial mounds containing 309 burials had been excavated (here and elsewhere, the number of investigated sites is taken from E.B. Vadetskaya’s book “Archaeological Monuments in the Steppes of the Middle Yenisei”; later such calculations were not made).

In terms of burial rites, the Minusinsk monuments of the Afanasievo culture are fairly homogeneous. These are round enclosures, 5–8 to 12–15 meters in diameter, made of horizontally placed stone slabs. Burials are most often collective, in shallow (up to 1.5 meters deep) square pits. The deceased were positioned on their backs with their knees raised, or, more rarely, on their sides with legs bent.

There is a hypothesis that such a “pose” of the deceased might be explained by the fact that, prior to burial, they could have been seated in some kind of special chambers, and then the “petrified” dead were placed in the grave on their sides, and sometimes on their backs (History of Siberia, 1968, pp. 160–161).

It is possible that this is the first indication that the Afanasievo people had designated places where the bodies of the dead were kept before burial. This is also suggested by traces of wild animal teeth on some bones, instances of the separate burial of skulls, as well as the fact that all collective burials—sometimes up to 5–8 people—were conducted simultaneously.

The grave goods of Afanasievo burials are comparatively modest. They consist of copper ornaments and small items, flint arrowheads, as well as bone and stone objects. A few individual finds include ornaments made of gold, silver, and meteoric iron—perhaps a kind of early “experiment” in the initial acquaintance with metalworking.

The bulk of the finds from Afanasievo graves is made up of characteristic sharp-bottomed pottery, decorated with “fir tree” (herringbone) patterns. Ritual vessels—incense burners—also appear. The Afanasievo material culture is relatively uniform and does not exhibit clear chronological stages, which likely indicates that this culture emerged in the Yenisei region already fully formed.

Against the general background of socially egalitarian Afanasievo burials, one kurgan near the village of Vostochnoye stands out: a large, solitary structure with a fence over 2 meters high, and its interior area paved with flat stone slabs.

In the central grave were buried two decapitated individuals—a man and a woman. At their feet and heads were the remains of infants. Elsewhere on the mound’s grounds, there was a single accompanying burial, similar to those found in other Afanasievo cemeteries.

Near the male skeleton were found more than 200 small bone studs that once decorated a staff (or long scepter), indicating the exceptionally high social status of the deceased. As E.B. Vadetskaya rightly noted, the kurgan near Vostochnoye “marks the beginning of a series of especially monumental elite barrows found in the Minusinsk steppes throughout all eras” (Vadetskaya, 1986, p. 22).

The question of the origin of the Afanasievo culture remains unresolved. For a long time, the dominant view was the migration theory, which linked the appearance of the Afanasievo people in the Minusinsk Basin with an influx of people from the Yamnaya culture (or one of the cultures of the Yamnaya cultural horizon) from the steppe regions of the North Pontic area. However, due to the lack of similar archaeological sites in the vast intermediate territories, this theory is difficult to accept.

Later hypotheses suggesting a Near Eastern, Central Asian, or Middle Asian origin for the Afanasievo culture also lack sufficient substantiation. When we turn directly to the archaeological evidence, it is now known that a number of Afanasievo sites approximately equal to those of the Minusinsk Basin have been found in the Altai Mountains. Unlike the Minusinsk sites, however, the Altai material is typologically divided into at least two chronological phases.

Individual burials analogous to the earlier Altai phase have been found in Mongolia and Tuva. Meanwhile, the Minusinsk Afanasievo monuments are synchronous with the later Altai phase.

Thus, a general outline begins to emerge for the migration pattern of the first Afanasievo pastoralists: from a broad substratal base covering the vast, and still archaeologically understudied, mountain-steppe territories of northern Central Asia, to the settlement of specific population groups in the valleys of the Altai Mountains—and evidently, from there (rather than from the distant Pontic steppe), a migration with an already established culture into the fertile Minusinsk Basin.

In the early 2nd millennium BCE, around the 18th century BCE, the Afanasievo culture was replaced by a new one—the Okunevo culture—one of the most vivid and enigmatic cultures of the Bronze Age in Southern Siberia. As of 1986, over 300 Okunevo burials had been identified; today, that number is significantly higher.

The monuments of the Okunevo culture are divided into two chronological stages: an early stage, the Uibat phase (named after the Uibat III burial ground, excavated by I.P. Lazaretov), and a later one, the Chernov phase (named after the Chernovaya VIII burial ground, excavated by G.A. Maksimenkov).

The Okunevo culture existed for approximately five centuries, until about the 13th century BCE. Some elements of the Okunevo cultural complex (such as the posture of the buried and ritual incense vessels) may have been adopted from the Afanasievo culture; however, overall, it was a distinctly different culture.

Alongside animal husbandry, hunting played a significant role in the Okunevo economy. Anthropologically, the population showed a blend of Europoid and Mongoloid features. The construction and layout of burial structures, the shapes and ornamentation of pottery, the types of metal artifacts, and, most notably, their forms of artistic expression were all markedly different from those of the Afanasievo culture.

One of the most important components of the Okunevo cultural complex is its remarkable figurative art, rich with mythological content—whereas the Afanasievo people only had ceramic ornamentation.

For the early Uibat phase, characteristic features include square enclosures made of large stone blocks, sometimes with cross-shaped pathways; clearly defined central burials in deep, sometimes two-tiered graves with stone boxes at the bottom and wooden coverings on ledges; and individual catacomb-style burials. A custom first documented at Uibat III was the placing of stone stelae over graves with schematic human facial depictions.

Afanasievo pottery was found in some of these early Okunevo burials. Researchers offer various interpretations: as evidence of coexistence between late-Afanasievo and early-Okunevo populations; as Okunevo intrusive burials into older Afanasievo enclosures; or as an indication that the Afanasievo and Okunevo peoples occupied different ecological niches—the Afanasievo in steppe regions and the Okunevo in the foothills.

A definitive answer to this question awaits further discoveries. However, the very possibility of the coexistence of bearers of different cultural traditions within the Minusinsk Basin seems quite plausible.

Monuments of the later Chernov phase are characterized by low, roughly rectangular enclosures up to 20–25 meters in length, made of vertically set stone slabs, and by numerous burials in stone boxes. These boxes are “tight,” located close to the ancient surface, usually containing one or two individuals; however, secondary burials were often added later, bringing the total number of individuals in a single box to three, four, or more.

The traditional burial posture was on the back, with knees raised. There are cases of separate skull burials bearing traces of artificial trepanation. Some skulls even retained traces of pigment or paint. Thin slabs of Devonian sandstone, often reused from earlier ritual contexts and bearing pre-existing drawings, were commonly employed in constructing the stone boxes.

Apparently, these illustrated slabs were originally created for ritual structures associated with death rites, and later, repurposed as components of the burial structures, they accompanied the deceased into the “otherworld.” Taken together, this evidence more clearly than in the Afanasievo culture indicates the existence of special ritual centers where bodies of the deceased were preserved and perhaps “displayed” prior to burial.

Later on, this same idea would find its most vivid expression in the famous Tashtyk masks — the posthumous “portraits” of Tashtyk culture bearers, who were the historical predecessors of the Kyrgyz on the Yenisei.

There are no fundamental differences in the accompanying grave goods between the Uibat and Chernov phases of the Okunevo culture. The most common finds are ornamented clay vessels in a jar-like shape; notably, the decoration covers not only the vessel walls but also the bottoms — a distinguishing feature of Okunevo pottery. The designs on the bottoms (crosses, rhombuses, multi-rayed symbols) clearly exhibit solar symbolism.

The grave goods also include various stone tools (arrowheads, axes, adzes), bronze items (tanged knives, rings, awls, beads), and bone artifacts (points, needle cases, small ornaments), among others.

A unique feature of some burials is the large number of ritual objects (bone plaques and pestle-shaped figurines with female faces; in one case, a crescent-shaped pendant, a staff finial, and a rhyton with zoomorphic figures were found together).

The composition of animal bones found in burial structures is also notable: bones of wild animals (or items made from them) are usually found directly in the burials, while bones of domestic sacrificial animals — used during funerary rituals — are found across the mound area. Altogether, these findings point to a highly sacralized society, as reflected in Okunevo cultural materials.

Discussion of the social structure of the Okunevo population can only be based on indirect evidence. From the burial goods, it can be inferred that certain individuals may have held ritual (possibly priestly) roles. The largest Okunevo structure was excavated by L. R. Kyzlasov on the Tuyim River.

It was a gigantic cromlech, 82 meters in diameter, made of vertically set granite menhirs ranging from 0.6 to 1.2 meters in height. At its center stood an earthen “pyramid” up to 3 meters tall, with an enclosure crossed by intersecting “pathways.”

At the crossing point of the pathways was a burial of a woman in a stone box, the walls of which were decorated with images of bulls and predators. A specially constructed “entrance” led to the burial — made of six vertically placed stones (three on each side). By its layout, the structure on the Tuyim River belongs to the early Uibat phase of the Okunevo culture.

Who this woman was — a great “shamaness,” the head of a powerful clan, or someone combining religious and political power, as was common in many ancient civilizations — is hard to say. Yet the mere fact of such monumental structures appearing in the early Okunevo period indicates a complex societal organization, overall more advanced than that of the Afanasievo culture.

The most striking element of the Okunevo culture is its art, represented by a wide range of visual expressions: petroglyphs and images on stone slabs (pecked, engraved, and painted), sculptural monuments (the famous Minusinsk stone statues), and small-scale figurines (made of bone, soft stone, etc.).

Equally broad is the “repertoire” of Okunevo art: complex anthropomorphic figures — masks with a transverse line across the face and a third eye on the forehead, adorned with bull horns or elaborate “crowns”; fantastical predators with long protruding tongues and complex solar symbolism; images of bulls in various stylistic renditions.

These were represented individually, in various combinations, and in multi-figure compositions, all of which undoubtedly reflect a complex mythological system held by the Okunevo people.

The repetition of certain motifs has allowed researchers to identify the content of specific Okunevo “myths,” such as the “myth of the totem and the ancestral woman,” the “myth of the cosmic hunt,” the “myth of the solar chariot,” and the “myth of the sun and serpents,” which, in the words of M.D. Khlobystina, evoke “the breath of ancient Eastern civilizations” (Khlobystina, 1971, p. 166).

Later, individual images, stylistic elements, and compositional techniques developed within the Okunevo visual tradition would outlast the chronological boundaries of the culture itself and play a major role in the formation of the Scytho-Siberian animal style.

The question of the origin of the Okunevo culture on the Yenisei is very complex and still unresolved. At present, it can be confidently said that it had a two-component structure.

The first component is local, most likely Neolithic (evidenced by the important role of hunting and fishing in the economy, along with associated bone and stone tools; the presence of Mongoloid features in the anthropological type; a small number of elk images in the characteristic “Angara” style; and possibly some ceramic forms and decoration techniques).

It is quite likely that this “forest” population settled in territories left vacant after the disappearance of the Afanasievo culture. The second component is clearly intrusive, associated with the arrival of new groups with a developed pastoral economy (the generally Europoid appearance of Okunevo culture bearers; numerous signs of advanced herding, including domestic animal bones found at campsites and burial excavations; in the art — images of bulls with yoke fittings, ox-drawn carts, and a range of solar and cosmological symbols typical only for societies with a developed productive economy).

Researchers’ opinions on the origin of this intrusive component—traced mainly through works of visual art—differ. Possible proposed origins include the Near East, Asia Minor, Central Asia, the mountainous regions of northern India, and the steppe zone of the North Pontic region. However, all these hypotheses require further development and substantiation.

One thing is clear: as a result of the symbiosis of local and imported cultural traditions, a unique and vibrant “Siberian civilization” emerged in the mid-2nd millennium BCE in the Middle Yenisei region. This civilization exerted an influence—direct or indirect—on all surrounding tribes (the so-called “periphery” of the Okunevo culture).

Interestingly, the boundaries of this “periphery” (stretching from Lake Baikal to the Irtysh River) largely coincide with the future zone of influence of the Yenisei Kyrgyz culture—the northernmost “outpost” of Central Asian statehood.

The Okunevo culture, like other cultures of the “pre-Andronovo Bronze Age,” was destroyed in the early 13th century BCE by the arrival of the Andronovo people (specifically, the Fedorovo culture or Fedorovo variant of the Andronovo cultural complex). According to general scholarly consensus, the Andronovo people were Europoids, pastoralists who traveled in chariots, and Indo-Iranian in their linguistic affiliation.

Today, many archaeological sites mark the path of Andronovo migration eastward: across southern Western Siberia, the forest-steppe of the Altai, and through the Mariinsk-Achinsk “corridor” to the Yenisei and the northern Minusinsk Basin. There was also a southern migration route through the Tian Shan toward Xinjiang and western China, though this path remains less clearly established.

In the Yenisei region, the Andronovo people came into contact with the Okunevo tribes and pushed them southward. A portion of the Okunevo population likely migrated to Tuva and northwestern Mongolia, where traces of their presence can be observed up to the Scythian period.

The Andronovo people themselves “settled” only the northern parts of the Middle Yenisei basin; in the southern Minusinsk Basin—despite its extensive archaeological investigation—no Andronovo sites have yet been found.

As of 1986, approximately 300 Andronovo burials had been identified (including children’s burials). That number has not significantly increased since. Economically, the Andronovo population practiced a combination of pastoral herding and primitive, likely floodplain-based, agriculture—resulting in a relatively stable way of life.

Hunting and fishing played a secondary role. This mixed economy, best suited to the physical and geographic conditions of the Minusinsk Basin, would later define the subsistence practices of the Tagar culture population.

Andronovo burial monuments include circular and square enclosures with individual or paired interments. The dimensions of these enclosures usually range from 5 to 10 meters, though larger structures—up to 30 meters or more—are known (e.g., the Sukhoe Ozero 1 burial ground).

The practice of cremation appears in Andronovo burials for the first time, later becoming widespread in the Tashtyk culture and eventually becoming dominant in the culture of the Yenisei Kyrgyz.

For inhumation burials, the body position is fairly consistent—on the left side, with legs bent and hands folded in front of the face (the “Andronovo pose”). Burial structures vary widely: stone boxes, wooden frames or single-tier log chambers, cysts, and “hybrid” constructions combining stone boxes and cysts.

Some stone box walls bear geometric “carpet-like” patterns, possibly imitating actual textiles or mats hung in dwellings. Other than ornamental compositions on ceramics and stone box walls, no additional types of visual art have been identified among the Andronovo people—similar to the Afanasievo culture.

The variety of burial constructions and the apparent “bi-ritualism” (the coexistence of cremation and inhumation within the same burial complexes) likely reflect the complex origins of the Andronovo population, enriched by diverse traditions during their movement toward the Yenisei.

The accompanying grave goods of Andronovo burials, due to the ritual exclusion of weapons, do not fully reflect the material culture of their makers. Yet this same period saw a wide spread of Seima-Turbino type bronze weapons, especially socketed spearheads, which are also known from stray finds in the Middle Yenisei region.

It is quite likely that Andronovo populations may have used Seima-Turbino weapons. The core inventory from Andronovo culture burials consists of two main types of pottery, conventionally labeled as “pots” and “jars,” along with some transitional forms. The jar-shaped vessels, very simply ornamented, were ordinary kitchenware.

The so-called “pots,” however, were large, tulip-shaped vessels made from well-levigated clay, beautifully crafted and adorned with intricate geometric designs—rows of triangles, variously arranged zigzag lines, ornamental meander patterns, and solar symbols. The Western origin of this ornamentation system, previously unknown in Southern Siberia, is beyond doubt.

These Andronovo “pots,” or ceremonial wares, appear to have been made specifically for burial purposes rather than daily use. From this point on, the production of dedicated funerary vessels becomes common across all Southern Siberian cultures.

The Afanasievo, the Okunevo (in one of its components), and especially the Andronovo cultures—whose carriers likely followed similar migration routes to the Middle Yenisei—laid the foundations of stable western connections that would remain characteristic of the Minusinsk Basin population in subsequent historical periods.

In the Late Bronze Age, with the emergence of the Karasuk culture (11th–mid-8th centuries BCE), a new East and Central Asian vector of cultural (and likely genetic) relations began to dominate among the Minusinsk tribes. The term “Karasuk culture,” first introduced by S.A. Teploukhov, has since taken on broader usage: “Karasuk era,” “Karasuk bronzes,” etc.

Thousands of Karasuk burials have now been identified throughout the Minusinsk Basin. These are fairly uniform and lack clear signs of social stratification.

The sharply increased number of burials compared to the Andronovo period—and their widespread distribution across the entire Minusinsk Basin—points to a large influx of new population groups who entered into complex interactions with the bearers of earlier archaeological cultures.

The Karasuk culture introduced a number of important innovations that finalized the development of the pastoral economy on the Yenisei. First was the shift to yaylaj or transhumant herding, as evidenced by the animal bones found in Karasuk burials and settlements—not only cattle but also horses, and especially sheep, which require this form of grazing.

From this point forward, “meat offerings”—particularly sheep or lamb bones—were buried directly with the deceased, emphasizing their inextricable link to their former way of life.

Remains of meat (ribs, shoulder blades, and long leg bones) are also found in all Yenisei Kyrgyz burials. Second, there is indisputable evidence of horseback riding—horn bits (psalia) have been found at Karasuk settlements such as Kamenny Log and Torgazhak.

More than 10 such bits have been discovered so far, in various shapes—indicating experimentation with optimal designs for this critical part of horse gear. The advent of horseback riding undoubtedly revolutionized not only the economy but also warfare, trade, and the overall mobility of the population.

Third, the Karasuk period saw the flourishing of bronze metallurgy. Numerous bronze items, primarily weapons such as daggers, knives, and axes, have been found in Mongolia and northern Chinese provinces. These are collectively known as “Karasuk bronzes.”

The hilts of some knives and daggers are decorated with images of mountain goats and rams—stylistically very close to early examples of the Scytho-Siberian animal style.

Within the Karasuk burials on the Yenisei, such items are rare—likely due to ritual restrictions or extensive looting of the graves. However, this scarcity does not mean that Karasuk-style weapons weren’t used by the Karasuk people themselves.

The formation of the Karasuk culture (or cultural complex) was likely quite complex. In the anthropological type of the Karasuk people—usually mixed—researchers find features of both the Far Eastern Mongoloid race and more Western types, including the Pamir-Fergana Europoid type.

Some features link segments of the Karasuk population to the preceding Andronovo and Okunevo cultures. In the north, Andronovo traits are more pronounced, while in the south, Okunevo traits dominate—consistent with the general pattern of historical-cultural processes in which the Andronovo people pushed the Okunevo southward after settling the northern Minusinsk Basin.

Among numerous theories on the origin of the Karasuk culture, the most substantiated is that of E.A. Novgorodova, who argued that the population of the Karasuk culture originated in the northern regions of Mongolia, where the production center for Karasuk bronzes was likely located.

From there, the Karasuk people migrated in several waves: one group moved into the northern Minusinsk Basin and intermingled with late Andronovo populations; another settled in the southern Minusinsk Basin and absorbed some elements of Okunevo culture; finally, some groups migrated eastward, into the western and northern provinces of China, where large numbers of Karasuk-type bronze objects have also been found.

It was this last migratory route that established the East-Central Asian connections of the Minusinsk Basin population, which, alongside the traditional western links, became defining from this period onward. However, even this seemingly convincing reconstruction can only be accepted in the broadest sense, as archaeological analysis presents a closely related but not entirely matching picture.

It can now be considered established that the term “Karasuk culture” in fact encompasses two essentially distinct cultural complexes. One of them can be referred to as the “proper” Karasuk culture; the other was identified by M.P. Gryaznov as the “Kamennolog phase” of the Karasuk culture, and by N.L. Chlenova as a separate Lugav culture.

There is no clear territorial boundary between these two groups of archaeological sites, although a certain tendency can be observed: “proper” Karasuk cemeteries tend to concentrate in steppe regions, while Kamennolog (or Lugav) sites are more common in foothill zones.

Burials of the proper Karasuk culture are characterized by numerous interments in stone boxes made of thin Devonian sandstone slabs, placed very close to the surface and enclosed in square fences with extensions, which often merge with each other. The deceased were laid on their backs or partially on their left sides, with their heads facing northeast. Metal objects mostly consist of small ornaments, typologically similar to Andronovo types.

The most typical pottery includes small spherical vessels with burnished surfaces, decorated with geometric designs such as hatched triangles, festoons, zigzags, and rhombuses. Especially striking are vessels with black burnished surfaces and ornamentation filled with white paste. Although the shapes of Karasuk pottery clearly differ from those of the Andronovo culture, many decorative motifs are comparable.

At the same time, Okunevo cultural traditions also influenced the formation of Karasuk culture in the southern Minusinsk Basin. This is particularly evident at the Karasuk settlement of Torgazhak, where a large number of pebbles with engraved designs were found.

Many of them depict women in elaborately decorated clothing, executed in a style consistent with the Okunevo artistic tradition. In one specially designated “niche,” a stone block (or a fragment of a statue) of Okunevo type was discovered, clearly revered by the inhabitants of Torgazhak.

Burials of the Kamennolog phase (or Lugav culture) consist of small cemeteries made up of square enclosures arranged in “chains.” Larger stones are sometimes placed at the corners of the enclosures—a constructional feature that later shaped the distinctive appearance of all Minusinsk kurgans, including the stone stelae (chaatas) of the Kyrgyz. The burials were made in comparatively deep graves, with stone boxes or wooden chambers at the bottom.

The deceased were laid on their backs, with heads facing west or southwest. The ceramics are entirely different from those of the Karasuk culture. These include large, round-bottomed gray-clay vessels, somewhat reminiscent of Afanasievo pottery in appearance. Ornamentation typically consists of simple slanted lines or diagonal “net” patterns applied only to the vessel rims.

Flat-bottomed jar-shaped vessels are also found, along with tray-based vessels that typologically anticipate those of the Tagar culture. Most finds of so-called “Karasuk bronzes”—crooked knives, bracelets, “charioteer’s buckles,” trefoil pendants, six-petaled heavy plaques, and more—are associated with these types of burials, not with proper Karasuk ones. Rock art executed in the so-called “Karasuk style,” known both in the Minusinsk Basin and in Mongolia, should likely be considered within this same cultural context.

Even this superficial comparison of the two groups of archaeological sites shows that they represent different cultural traditions. One (proper Karasuk) is more closely linked to the Andronovo and perhaps Okunevo traditions, while the other (Kamennolog or Lugav) likely arrived from the more southern regions of Central Asia—though, as in previous cases, the precise area of origin remains unknown. With the bearers of this Kamennolog tradition came the “Karasuk bronzes,” which were later possibly adopted by the Karasuk people.

Thus, the transition from the 2nd to the 1st millennium BCE was a turning point for the population of the Minusinsk Basin—not only in chronological terms but also in historical and cultural development.

For the first time, two major cultural spheres interacted in this region: the western sphere, linked primarily to the Andronovo legacy, and the eastern—or more precisely, Central Asian—sphere, associated with the rise of early nomadic cultures.

On this foundation, the Tagar culture took shape in the mid-8th century BCE. Initially, it was defined by S.A. Teploukhov under the name “Minusinsk Kurgan Culture”—a rather accurate designation (as the kurgans of this culture, with their earthen mounds and vertically placed stones, form an integral part of the historical landscape of the Minusinsk Basin), but one that was later deemed too cumbersome and replaced by S.V. Kiselev with the more concise term “Tagar culture,” based on early excavations on Tagar Island near the city of Minusinsk.

The Tagar culture is one of the Scythian-type cultures, incorporating the main elements of the so-called “Scythian triad” (distinctive types of weapons, horse-riding gear, and the Scytho-Siberian animal style). However, due to the specific conditions of the Minusinsk Basin, it is marked by a more stable mixed economy, greater societal continuity, and long-lasting cultural traditions.

Tagar culture sites are clearly localized within the Minusinsk Basin and the southern part of Krasnoyarsk Krai, extending only northwest into the neighboring Kuznetsk Basin (the so-called “forest-steppe Tagar culture”). The Tagar culture endured for about seven centuries—from approximately the mid-8th century BCE to the mid-1st century BCE.

Although the periodizations of the Tagar culture vary in the naming of its phases (four stages of the Minusinsk Kurgan Culture by S.A. Teploukhov; three stages of Tagar culture by S.V. Kiselev; and the Bainovsky, Podgornovsky, Saragashen, and Tesinsky stages by M.P. Gryaznov), they do not differ significantly.

All these systems reflect the same cultural evolution, covering—as in general historical periodization—the three sequential stages: emergence, peak, and decline. For consistency, we will follow M.P. Gryaznov’s framework and refer to the Podgornovsky, Saragashen, and Tesinsky stages of Tagar culture development.

The origin of the Tagar culture has no definitive answer. It is clear that it incorporated many components from preceding cultures. Among them, the Kamennolog (or Lugav) influence is the most apparent: square enclosures with tall stones at the corners, burials in wooden frames and single-tiered log structures, extended body positions of the deceased, jar-shaped pottery, specific ornamentation techniques, and certain types of bronze artifacts such as knives, mirrors, and ornaments.

Based on these features, the Tagar culture was once believed to have directly evolved from the Karasuk culture (specifically the Bainovsky stage in Gryaznov’s periodization). However, such a purely evolutionary model fails to account for the full diversity of the Tagar cultural complex.

Other hypotheses suggest links with the Andronovo culture, or posit the arrival of new populations in the Minusinsk Basin at this time—such as Saka groups from Kazakhstan or people of the Bolsherets culture from the Upper Ob region. All of these theories, however, require additional evidence. Most likely, the key to solving this question lies in anthropological data.

The Tagar people were Europoid. According to anthropologist A.G. Kozintsev, “based on the totality of traits, the Tagar group is closest to the combined Afanasievo sample from the Minusinsk Basin and the Altai, the Andronovo sample (from eastern, northern, and central Kazakhstan), the atypical Karasuk population (i.e., the Kamennolog group), and the Alay Saka” (Kozintsev, 1977, p. 67).

Two of these comparative samples (Afanasievo and Kamennolog) may be considered local, and two (Andronovo from Kazakhstan and the Alay Saka) are of external origin. It is quite likely that this distribution reflects the actual composition of the population involved in the formation of the Tagar culture along the Yenisei.

The monuments of the Tagar culture include numerous kurgan cemeteries; individual, often poorly preserved settlements; irrigation channels and remnants of production workshops; engraved images on kurgan slabs and petroglyphs.

The total number of Tagar burial structures or kurgans—many of them plowed over, destroyed, or looted—is incalculable. As of 1986, the number of excavated kurgans stood at over 435 for the Podgornovo stage and about 200 for the Saragashen stage.

That number has since grown significantly: more than 1,500 Podgornovo-stage cemeteries were identified through archaeological surveys (Vadetskaya, 1986, pp. 79–80). Such a concentration of sites points to an extremely dense population inhabiting the Middle Yenisei region during Scythian times—likely forming a powerful tribal union with a distinct and vibrant culture.

S.A. Teploukhov was the first to observe and classify, as a chronological marker, the number of vertically placed stones in the enclosures of the Minusinsk Kurgan (Tagar) culture.

In Podgornovo-stage kurgans, there are 4 (at the corners) or 6 (corners and midpoints of the longer sides); in Saragashen-stage kurgans, 8, 10, 12 or more corner and intermediate stones; in the large Tesinsky-stage kurgans, up to 20–30 pillar-like slabs are evenly spaced along the enclosing walls. The further development of this tradition is reflected in the tall stone stelae, arranged in quadrangles, found at Kyrgyz chaatas (memorial sites).

From the low corner stones of Kamennolog-phase enclosures to these three-meter-tall stelae in Yenisei Kyrgyz burial grounds, one can trace a continuous line of development in grave architecture—testifying to a consistent worldview and shared concepts of sacred space.

Within the same chronological span, the custom of engraving various images on kurgan slabs also emerges—images that likely played a role in burial rituals. Thus, the Tagar culture—arguably the most stable of all archaeological cultures in the Minusinsk Basin—not only accumulated and developed earlier traditions, but also served as a unique “transmitter” of these traditions into subsequent historical eras.

Burials from the early Podgornovo stage are located beneath low earthen mounds (up to 1–1.5 meters high), enclosed by square or rectangular fences measuring 6 to 10 meters per side. The total number of upright corner stones typically ranges from 4 to 6 (in rare cases 8). Sometimes multiple enclosures were joined together, increasing the number of corner and intermediate stones.

Within the kurgan areas, several graves were arranged in a row, with wooden or stone coverings. At the bottom of each grave pit was a stone box or a wooden frame reinforced with stone slabs. Burials were single or paired, sometimes with later secondary interments.

The accompanying grave goods include large jar-shaped clay vessels decorated with grooved rims; full-scale bronze items such as daggers, battle axes, knives, socketed tools, disk-shaped mirrors, awls; costume elements and numerous ornaments. Artifacts of the animal style are rarely found in Podgornovo-stage burials; their modeling still reflects the influence of “Karasuk bronzes.”

Several so-called “elite kurgans” are known—larger in size, with enclosures up to 30 meters per side and specially arranged “entrances” (e.g., at Poltakov Ulus, Uzun-Oba, and Tigei). However, in most other respects, they differ little from ordinary Podgornovo burials.

At the turn of the 6th–5th centuries BCE, significant changes occurred in the traditional culture of the Tagar tribes, marking the transition to the next, Saragashen stage. N.L. Chlenova was the first to identify this shift, noting the emergence of an “Altai style” in Tagar art (Chlenova, 1967, pp. 135–144).

However, it is clear that these changes affected other aspects of the Tagar culture as well: stone grave constructions were completely replaced by wooden ones, gold items appeared, and widespread use began of images of reclining deer (“deer plaques”), which had not appeared in Podgornovo-stage burials.

Whether this reflects increased influence from neighboring Mountain Altai, or broader cultural transformations occurring across the Eurasian steppe at the cusp of the early and classic Scythian periods, is difficult to determine. In any case, Saragashen-stage monuments, though genetically linked to Podgornovo traditions, present a somewhat different face of the Tagar culture.

Saragashen-stage kurgans, which typically do not form large cemeteries, are considerably larger than Podgornovo ones: their earthen mounds reach 2–3 meters or more in height, their enclosures are built from massive stone slabs, and the number of intermediate stones increases.

In the center of the kurgan area, there is usually one, sometimes two large burial pits, at the bottom of which are placed wooden log structures covered with logs and birch bark. These are collective burials—up to 10–15 individuals in a single chamber—with the remains of socially dependent individuals typically found outside the main chamber walls.

The accompanying inventory remains similar, though the bronze items (daggers, knives, and battle axes) are generally smaller in size—likely votive offerings. Pottery becomes more diverse in form: vessels with tray-like bases and cauldron-shaped pots appear frequently; the number of grooved flutings on jar-shaped vessels increases.

New types of bronze artifacts emerge: bell-shaped finials and torch-holders with figures of mountain goats, numerous deer plaques, yoke-shaped items with animal heads at each end resembling “charioteer’s buckles,” knives with zoomorphic pommels, and others. Overall, the material culture of the Saragashen stage is considerably richer than that of the Podgornovo stage.

Socially, a group of large or “royal” kurgans stands out. One of them is the famous Salbyk kurgan, excavated by S.V. Kiselev. The mound of this kurgan reached 11 meters in height; the enclosure, formed of massive stone slabs, measured 70 meters per side. The height of the corner and intermediate stones reached 5–6 meters, with each weighing up to 50 tons.

Unfortunately, the burial itself was completely looted, but the grand scale of the structure leaves no doubt that it belonged to a person of the highest rank in the social (perhaps dynastic?) hierarchy of the Tagar society.

In the Salbyk Valley, five more such kurgans of slightly smaller size (7–9 meters in height) are known but have not yet been excavated. Clearly, the second half of the 4th century BCE—the time when such monumental kurgans were constructed—marks the peak of Tagar cultural development.

By the 3rd century BCE—identified by some scholars as a distinct Lepeshkino stage—the number of sites noticeably decreases. Collective burials become more common. A new custom appears: the cremation of the burial chamber. Traces of clay coating on skulls are occasionally found—an early precursor of the clay masks in the Tesinsky and Tashtyk stages.

The votivization of grave goods continues, and genuine “miniatures”—simplified replicas of bronze originals, never used in life and made specifically for burial—begin to appear. Gold artifacts disappear, and animal-style imagery becomes increasingly schematic. All this reflects internal evolutionary processes within the Tagar culture, preparing the way for the next phase: the Tesinsky stage.

Monuments from the 2nd–1st centuries BCE (the Tesinsky stage) are interpreted differently by researchers: as a subsequent stage in the development of the Tagar culture (M.P. Gryaznov, M.N. Pshenitsyna); as a “third transitional stage” of Tagar culture (S.V. Kiselev); as a “transitional Tagar-Tashtyk stage” (L.R. Kyzlasov); or as the early phase of the Tashtyk culture (N.L. Chlenova). These differing interpretations primarily stem from the diversity of burial structures that existed simultaneously, yet reflect different cultural traditions.

Large individual kurgans with enclosures marked by vertically placed stones and collective burials in timber log chambers (about 10 are known, including the Great Tesinsky Kurgan excavated in the late 19th century, which gave the Tesinsky stage its name) are clearly linked to the Saragashen phase and represent a further development of the Tagar tradition.

The upper date for these monuments likely does not extend beyond the 1st century BCE. The main distinguishing feature of the large Tesinsky kurgans is the enormous number of interred individuals—up to 200 or more (in one case nearly 300)—in a single burial pit. It is evident that these burials were conducted over time, and the kurgans themselves functioned as long-term crypts.

In essence, each of these kurgans replaces an entire cemetery that once consisted of multiple structures, now concentrated under a single burial mound. The reasons for this may vary, including the shrinking of clan territories or the forced relocation of traditional burial grounds.

Cremation of the burial chamber continues to be observed; widespread becomes the custom of artificial mummification and the creation of “mannequins” with clay masks. Undoubtedly, these bodies were kept for some time in specially designated places where ritual ceremonies were conducted.

It is quite possible that the depiction of such a “village of the dead” is reflected in the famous Boyarskaya petroglyph, which dates roughly to this period. The grave goods in these large crypt-kurgans are modest and consist mainly of unornamented jar-shaped vessels and bronze votive items, which only formally reproduce earlier Tagar forms.

Another type of site from this period is the so-called “flat-grave cemeteries,” which include numerous burials in stone boxes, wooden frames, or soil pits covered with stone layers. Repeated burials in the same boxes, secondary and inserted interments, are frequently documented. Around 30 such kurgan-cemeteries are known, each containing dozens of graves. The body positions vary: extended, on the side, with knees drawn up (a revival of the earlier “Okunevo pose”). The orientation of the deceased is equally inconsistent. Among those buried in Tesinsky flat graves are individuals of Central Asian anthropological types.

The accompanying grave inventory includes mainly iron items—previously unknown in Tagar contexts—such as ring-pommel knives, buckles, arrowheads, and more. Bone artifacts are also relatively numerous.

The pottery remains largely traditional: mostly unornamented jar-shaped vessels, but new forms appear as well—jug-like vessels with arched ornamentation, flat trays with dividers, small faceted containers, and others.

Bronze items, including artistic pieces (openwork buckles, rings, spoon-shaped clasps, etc.), do not follow classic Tagar forms but are closely analogous to those found in Xiongnu burials in Mongolia and Transbaikalia.

In two cases (Tepsai VII and the “Blizhniy” Kurgan), Chinese Wu Zhu coins were found—their first minting dates to 118 BCE—thus providing a terminus post quem for these burial types. Their existence is most likely dated to the late 2nd century BCE to the 1st century CE.

Socially, Tesinsky “flat-grave cemeteries” show little differentiation, though several elite, “wealthy” burials are known (Tepsai VII, Kamenka V), marked by unique ritual features and large quantities of imported goods.

The archaeological materials of the Tesinsky stage provide insight into the ethno-cultural situation in the Middle Yenisei region at the end of the 1st millennium BCE: the conclusion of the Tagar culture, likely due to both internal and external causes; the appearance of new populations well acquainted with Xiongnu cultural traditions—whose influx, judging by the number of flat cemeteries, was substantial; and the inclusion of Southern Siberia into the cultural sphere of the Xiongnu empire, which on a new historical turn continued the Central and East Asian connections established back in the Karasuk era.

No explicitly Xiongnu burials have yet been found in the Minusinsk Basin, but one of the clearest indicators of their invisible presence is the bronze openwork belt plaques, known from both Tesinsky burials (e.g., Tepsai VII) and numerous stray finds, as well as from hoards discovered in the northern parts of the region.

The largest of these hoards, the Kosogol hoard, contains around 200 bronze items, including several openwork belt plaques of Xiongnu type. Based on the quantity and social significance of these finds, it is reasonable to conclude that the Minusinsk Basin was within the sphere not only of cultural but also political influence of the Xiongnu.

The events of this time are also reflected in written sources, where the first ethnonyms appear that directly relate to the beginnings of the ethnic history of the Yenisei Kyrgyz.

The starting point is the reference in the Chinese chronicle Xin Tangshu, which states that “the Khagas (i.e., the Kyrgyz — D.S.) are the ancient state of Gyan’gun… The inhabitants intermingled with the Dinlins” (Bichurin, 1950, pp. 350–351). In the history of the Xiongnu state, there are two instances in which the Dinlins and the Gyan’gun are mentioned together.

The first is in 201 BCE, when the founder of the Xiongnu tribal confederation, Shanyu Mao-dun, subjugated several peoples in the north, including the Dinlins and the Gyan’gun. The second is in 49 BCE, after the division of the Xiongnu into Northern and Southern groups, when the leader of the Northern Xiongnu, Zhizhi Shanyu, again defeated the Dinlins and the Gyan’gun.

It is stated that the lands of the Gyan’gun “were located 7,000 li west of the Shanyu’s headquarters (on the Tola River in Mongolia? — D.S.) and 5,000 li north of the territory of Cheshi (the Turfan oasis in Eastern Turkestan — D.S.). There Zhizhi remained to live” (Taskin, 1973, p. 37).

Unfortunately, these early records of the ethnogeography of northern Central Asia are insufficient for precisely determining the habitats of the Dinlins and Gyan’gun—two key “participants” in the early stages of Kyrgyz ethnogenesis.

Historical reconstructions based mainly on these written accounts vary considerably.

The “blue-eyed and red-haired” Dinlins are most often associated with the Europoid population of the Tagar culture, which even led to the emergence of the tentative term “Tagar Dinlins.”

However, there is no indisputable evidence for such identification. It is known that the Dinlins, first mentioned in the 4th–3rd centuries BCE, occupied a very large territory on the northern periphery of Xiongnu domains and were nomadic pastoralists. Tagar culture tribes may have been among the Dinlins, but the Dinlin settlement area was not limited to the Minusinsk Basin.

As for the Gyan’gun, the only generally agreed-upon fact is that they lived south of the Dinlins. Crucially, the study by S.E. Yakhontov established that the names Gegu, Gyan’gun, Kigu, Cigu, Hegu, Heguni, and Khagasy represent phonetic variants of one and the same ethnonym—Kyrgyz—recorded in different periods (Yakhontov, 1970).

There is no consensus on the original settlement area of the Gyan’gun-Kyrgyz. The geographical coordinates of Zhizhi Shanyu’s encampment led V.V. Bartold to suggest that “the Kyrgyz at that time lived not only on the Yenisei, but also farther south, in the area now known as Lake Kyrgyz-Nor” (Bartold, 1963, p. 477), i.e., in northwestern Mongolia.

This hypothesis forms the basis of the theory, first proposed by S.V. Kiselev and later developed by L.R. Kyzlasov, of a two-stage migration of the Turkic-speaking Gyan’gun northward—first under Mao-dun and again under Zhizhi Shanyu—into the Minusinsk Basin, where they merged with the Tagar culture tribes. This interaction, they argue, marked the beginning of the formation of the Kyrgyz ethnic group.

Some archaeological data are also cited in support of the Mongolian “homeland” of the Gyan’gun, but apparently these relate to a later period. Based on the same written sources, L.A. Borovkova localized the territory of Gyan’gun much farther west—in the northern foothills of the Tian Shan and south of Lake Alakol (Borovkova, 1989, pp. 61–62).

This serves as the foundation for Y.S. Khudyakov’s hypothesis that the Gyan’gun lived in Eastern Turkestan from the time of the Xiongnu, where they intermingled with the western branch of the Tiele tribes (the Gaoju Dinlins), and were then relocated to the Yenisei already as a consolidated group during the reign of the Rouran, in the 5th to the first half of the 6th century CE (Khudyakov, 2001). Unfortunately, this otherwise interesting hypothesis also lacks direct archaeological evidence. Thus, the question of the original location of the Gyan’gun remains open.

Turning to archaeological materials, it must be emphasized that the long process of cultural development that had unfolded in the Minusinsk Basin was, by this time, evidently coming to a close. Certain “transitional” elements of cultural tradition later entered the culture of the Yenisei Kyrgyz.

At the same time, it is equally important—based on both archaeological and written sources—to recognize that the beginning of the ethnic history of the Yenisei Kyrgyz was, in one way or another, connected with the ethno-cultural processes occurring within the Xiongnu state.

From this perspective, beyond the military campaigns of the Xiongnu shanyus, the decisive factors appear to be events in Xiongnu history that point to the gradual contraction of the empire’s territory: from being pushed out of the oases of Eastern Turkestan, to the loss of the Ordos region, and finally the relocation of the political center around 120 BCE to Northern Mongolia. After this shift, “south of the desert (the Gobi — D.S.) the shanyu’s headquarters no longer existed” (Taskin, 1968, p. 55). This northward shift of the Xiongnu frontier must have significantly intensified their interactions with neighboring South Siberian tribes.

It is precisely to this period—not earlier—that the numerous Xiongnu artistic bronzes found in the Minusinsk Basin should be attributed, along with Chinese Wu Zhu coins (first issued in 118 BCE), which correspond to the time when the shanyu’s seat was moved north, and the appearance in the Middle Yenisei of new population groups well-versed in Xiongnu cultural traditions. Among them may well have been the Gyan’gun mentioned in the written sources, although the exact location of their original settlement remains unclear.

An outstanding monument reflecting the symbiosis of Chinese and Central Asian traditions—borrowed by the Xiongnu either through close ties with the Han dynasty or during their time in Eastern Turkestan—is the so-called palace of the “Xiongnu ruler” on the Tash-Tebe River near the city of Abakan.

Regardless of its interpretation—whether as the residence of a Xiongnu governor or that of the Chinese general Li Ling, captured by the Xiongnu in 99 BCE (S.V. Kiselev, L.R. Kyzlasov), or as the palace of the Chinese princess Imo, dated according to inscriptions on roof tiles to 9–23 CE (S.I. Vainshtein, M.V. Kryukov)—the palace complex on the Tash-Tebe River stands as the clearest testament to the inclusion of local tribes within the social structure of the Xiongnu political union.

The few artifacts uncovered during excavations of the palace are either Xiongnu (grooved pottery and a jade claw-shaped pendant) or Tesinsky (a ring-pommel knife and a bronze buckle with a protruding tongue). Also significant is the fact that after the palace was destroyed, a Tashtyk cemetery was established on the same site, allowing it to be considered part of the broader group of Tesinsky-phase monuments.

The period of dependence on Xiongnu influence must have ended in the mid-2nd century CE, when the Xianbei leader Tanshihuai “took possession of all the lands formerly held by the Xiongnu” (Bichurin, 1950, p. 156). Isolated items of Xianbei origin found in inserted Tashtyk burials at the Salbyk kurgan suggest that these events affected the population of the Minusinsk Basin as well.

The period of Xianbei and Rouran dominance in Central Asia (2nd century – mid-6th century CE) likely corresponds to the timeframe of the Tashtyk culture on the Yenisei, which was originally defined by S.A. Teploukhov as the “Tashtyk transitional phase.”

The monuments of the Tashtyk culture are represented by two main types of burials—flat-grave cemeteries and crypts—about the chronological relationship of which scholars disagree.

Some consider them contemporaneous; others, beginning with S.A. Teploukhov, date the flat graves to an earlier period and the crypts to a later one. As of 1986, 55 crypts and about 400 flat graves had been excavated (with more discovered since).

According to M.P. Gryaznov’s periodization, the flat graves (Batenyovsky stage) date to the 1st–2nd centuries CE, while the crypts (Tepsinsky stage) date to the 3rd–5th centuries CE. With some chronological adjustments, this periodization is generally accepted. “In both shape and ornamentation,” Gryaznov notes, “the ceramics of the Batenyovsky stage are very close to those of the preceding Tesinsky stage and are genetically connected to them,” whereas “no such parallels are found in the monuments of the Tepsinsky stage” (Gryaznov, 1971, pp. 96–99).

Even so, the composition of the Tashtyk culture remains complex: different burial types coexisted at different times.

By the start of the Tashtyk culture, burials in stone boxes and earth graves with stone constructions of the Tesinsky stage had disappeared, indicating the assimilation of their creators into the local population. The large single crypt-mounds of the late Tagar period also vanished.

The main type of burial became interments in shallow pits with square or rectangular timber chambers—genetically linked to one type of grave found in the Tesinsky flat cemeteries.

These still combine cremation and inhumation rites (a tradition going back to the Andronovo era), but now the cremated remains are placed in specially made pouches or mannequin-like effigies, sometimes with clay masks.

The accompanying grave goods from such burials are relatively sparse; unlike the Tesinsky graves, no items associated with Xiongnu cultural traditions have ever been found in them. How long this type of burial lasted is difficult to determine.

From the 3rd century CE onward, the population practicing cremation became dominant in the Minusinsk Basin. The primary burial form became the crypt with many interred individuals, suggesting a revival of earlier Tagar traditions.

Tashtyk crypts are large, nearly square shallow pits up to 100 square meters in size, surrounded by walls of horizontally laid stone slabs, with a specially arranged entrance passage (dromos) and a timber roof.

They are divided into “large” and “small” crypts based on their size and construction complexity; in terms of quantity, they are distributed roughly equally.

Inside the crypts were the remains of numerous cremated individuals, covered with “portrait” funerary masks and busts. The realism and diversity of the faces captured in these masks are striking—depicting typical Europoids, Mongoloids, and variously mixed anthropological types.

If one were to draw parallels, it is likely that this was the period during which the “merging” of the Gyan’gun and Dinlin peoples mentioned in historical records occurred. The processes of making these masks, conducting the appropriate rituals, cremating, and burying the dead must have taken considerable time.

A similar practice may have existed among the Yenisei Kyrgyz. According to written sources, the Kyrgyz “wrap the body of the deceased in three layers and weep; then they burn it, and the collected bones are buried a year later” (Bichurin, 1950, p. 353).

The accompanying inventory of Tashtyk crypts includes many types of clay vessels with varied shapes and decorative techniques; various ornaments; bronze belt fittings; and votive iron items such as quiver hooks, twisted chains for attaching scabbards, bits, knives, and in one case, a model of a looped stirrup.

Despite variations in size and construction details, the Tashtyk crypts undoubtedly represent a single cultural type of monument—testifying to a relatively high level of development among the population that created them.

Of particular interest are elements of the Tashtyk cultural complex that later appear in the culture of the Yenisei Kyrgyz: the cremation ritual practiced in both cultures; the custom of lining grave walls with upright stakes and placing animal figurines in burials; certain ceramic forms; and distinctive ornaments such as amulets with horse heads facing in opposite directions, found in both Tashtyk and Kyrgyz graves. The number of such “transitional elements” is quite large and is unlikely to be coincidental.

There is no doubt that in this case we are dealing with a cultural continuity between the Kyrgyz (or at least part of their culture) and the Tashtyk. A remarkable source on the history and culture of the Tashtyk tribes is the set of wooden plaques with multi-figure compositions discovered in the Tashtyk crypts near the city of Tepsai. Among the many depicted scenes (hunting, horse raids, oxen-drawn carts, etc.), the battle scenes stand out.

In one instance, we see a clash between the Tashtyk people—recognizable by their characteristic hairstyles with bone pins, dressed in light caftans and armed with composite bows—and foreigners arriving by boat, presumably from the upper reaches of a river, clad in belted, closed garments and flat headgear (perhaps birch bark?), armed with simple bows. In another, “knights” in helmets and lamellar armor are shown, also with composite bows; several of these warriors are depicted as fallen.

Clearly, the Tepsai plaques depict people of different ethnic backgrounds, which fully corresponds to the complex process of formation of the Tashtyk culture. From this time onward, the mythological content of ancient Yenisei art gives way to narrative scenes.

There is no doubt that this tradition influenced the development of Yenisei Kyrgyz art—its most vivid example being the famous Sulek petroglyphs.

At the same time, materials from Tashtyk crypts also include a number of East Asian elements: funerary animal figurines, ceremonial umbrellas or parts of wagon models, preserved heads and hands of charioteers, and fragments of Han mirrors—parallels of which are found in Han dynasty tombs in China. These items most likely reached the Yenisei after the fall of the Han dynasty (220 CE).

It is plausible that the distinct features of the so-called “Tashtyk style” derive from artistic conventions used in Han Chinese stone bas-reliefs depicting funerary processions.

All of this suggests not only the multi-component nature of the Tashtyk crypt culture but also intense processes of social development—leading toward the ethnic integration of various population groups into a new ethno-social entity, whose center, according to L.R. Kyzlasov, was located on the left bank of the Yenisei, in the Uibat steppe.

The name of this union—Cigu—has been preserved in Old Turkic genealogical traditions. According to the research of S.E. Yakhontov, Cigu (or Kigu) is one of the early phonetic renderings of the ethnonym “Kyrgyz,” dating back to before 700 CE (Yakhontov, 1970, p. 114).

In one ancient Turkic genealogical legend, recorded in the Chinese dynastic chronicle Zhou Shu, it is said that the forefather of the ancient Turks, Yizhini Shidu, called “Son of the She-Wolf,” had several sons, each of whom was granted a principality.

One of them, Nodulu Shad, became the ancestor of the ancient Turkic ruling dynasty; another “reigned between the rivers A-fu and Gyan under the name Cigu” (Bichurin, 1950, p. 222).

The scholar S.G. Klyashtorny, who studied ancient Turkic genealogical traditions in detail, noted that “they contain a realistic core, the historiographic value of which now seems indisputable” (Klyashtorny, 1965, p. 278).

The geographical names “Afu” and “Gyan” mentioned in the legend are commonly identified by researchers with the Abakan and Yenisei rivers, between which lay the ancient Turkic domain of Cigu.

In terms of its chronology (after the Ashina Turks migrated to the Altai in 460 CE) and its location, the Cigu domain coincides with the final phase of the Tepsinsky stage of the Tashtyk culture—making their identification a strong possibility.

It can be assumed that it was during this time that a few Turkic-type stone statues (so-called “Tashtyk stelae”) began to appear in the Minusinsk Basin. It is also possible that the “knights” in lamellar armor depicted on the Tepsai wooden plaques represent ancient Turkic warriors who had reached the Yenisei and came into conflict with the Tashtyk population.

The name Cigu, designating the early Kyrgyz community on the Yenisei, is mentioned one more time in written sources—in the account of the campaigns of the third ruler of the First Turkic Khaganate, Muhan Khagan, who in 555 CE “conquered Cigu in the north and struck fear into all the territories beyond the frontier” (Bichurin, 1950, p. 229).

This date can most likely be regarded, at least symbolically, as marking the end of the Tashtyk culture and the beginning of the spread of the Old Turkic cultural complex in the Middle Yenisei region—one that would become foundational to the culture of the early medieval Kyrgyz.”

Literature:

Абрамзон С.М. Киргизы и их этногенетические и историко-культурные

связи. Л., 1971. Бартольд В. В. Киргизы. Исторический очерк//Сочинения, Т. II, ч. 1. М., 1968. С. 471-543.

Бичурин Н.Я. (Иакинф). Собрание сведений о народах, обитавших в средней Азии в древние времена. Ч. 1. М.-Л., 1950.

Боровкова Л.А. Запад Центральной Азии во II в. до н.э. - VII в. н.э. М., 1989.

Бутанаев В.Я., Худяков Ю. С. История енисейских кыргызов. Абакан, 2000.

Вадецкая Э.Б. Археологические памятники в степях Среднего Енисея. Л.,1986.

Вадецкая Э. Б. Таштыкская эпоха в древней истории Сибири. СПб, 1999.

Вадецкая Э.Б., Леонтьев Н. В., Максименков Г. А. Памятники окуневской культуры. Л., 1980.

Грязнов М.П. Миниатюры таштыкской культуры (из работ красноярской

экспедиции 1968 года) // Археологический сборник Гос.

Эрмитажа. № 3. Л., 1971. С. 94-106.

Грязнов М.П. Афанасьевская культура на Енисее. СПб, 1999.

Дэвлет М.А. Большая Боярская писаница. М., 1976.

Дэвлет М.А. Сибирские поясные ажурные пластины II в.до н.э.

— I в. н.э. //Свод археологических источников (САИ). Вып. Д 4-7. М., 1980.

Евтюхова Л.А. Археологические памятники енисейских кыргызов (хакасов). Абакан, 1948.

Завитухина М.П. Древнее искусство на Енисее. Скифское время. Л., 1983.

История Сибири с древнейших времен до наших дней. Т. 1 ("Древняя

Сибирь"). Л., 1968.

Киселев С.В. Древняя история Южной Сибири. М., 1951.

Кляшторный С.Г. Проблемы ранней истории племени Турк (Ашина) // Новое в советской археологии. М., 1965. С. 278-281.

Козинцев А.Г. Антропологический состав и происхождение населения тагарской культуры. Л., 1977. Комплекс археологических памятников у горы Тепсей на Енисее. Новосибирск, 1979.

Кузьмина Э. В.Е. Откуда пришли индоарии? Материальная культура племен андроновской общности и происхождение индоиранцев. М.,

1994. 

Кызласов Л.Р. Таштыкская эпоха в истории Хакасско-Минусинской котловины. М., 1960.

Кызласов Л.Р. История Южной Сибири в средние века. М., 1984.

Кызласов Л.Р. Гуннский дворец на Енисее. Проблема ранней государственности Южной Сибири. М., 2001.

Максименков Г.А. Андроновская культура на Енисее. Л., 1978.

Максименков Г.А. Материалы по ранней истории тагарской культуры. СПб, 2003.

Мартынов А.И. Лесостепная тагарская культура. Новосибирск, 1979.

Новгородова Э.А. Центральная Азия и карасукская проблема. М., 1970. Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. СПб, 1997.

Савинов Д.Г. Народы Южной Сибири в древнетюркскую эпоху. Изд. ЛГУ. Л., 1984.

Савинов Д.Г. Владение Цигу древнетюркских генеалогических преданий и таштыкская культура // Историко-культурные связи народов

Южной Сибири. Абакан, 1988. С. 64-74.

Савинов Д.Г. Древние поселения Хакасии. СПб, 1996.

Таскин В.С. Материалы по истории сюнну (по китайским источникам). Вып. 1. М.,1968. Вып. 2. М., 1973.

Теплоухов С.А. Опыт классификации древних металлических культур Минусинского края (в кратком изложении) // Материалы по этнографии. Т. IV. Вып. 2. Л., 1929. С. 6-62.

Хлобыстана М.Д. Древнейшие южносибирские мифы в памятниках окуневского искусства // Первобытное искусство. Новосибирск, 1971.С. 173-178.

Худяков Ю.С. Проблемы истории древних кыргызов (первоначальное расселение) //Этнографическое обозрение. № 5. 2001. С. 75-83.

Членова Н.Л. Происхождение и ранняя история племен тагарской культуры. М., 1967. 

Членова Н.Л. Хронология памятников карасукской эпохи. М., 1972. Яхонтов С.Е. Древнейшие упоминания названия «киргиз» // Советская этнография. №2. 1970. С. 110-120.