Introduction

Metal helmets were a necessary means of personal protection for warriors in the Middle Ages among many peoples of North and Central Asia. In addition to the combat purpose, they had a very important symbolic function. Richly decorated with ornaments, a sultan or a plume of feathers and horse hair, combat headdresses served as distinctive symbols that distinguished military leaders and professional warriors-heroes. Often, such helmets were made by highly skilled gunsmiths in the urban craft centers of Iran, Central Asia and East Turkestan and exported far beyond the areas of their production. They served as trade items, were presented as diplomatic gifts, and were captured as spoils of war. Such helmets were highly valued by the ruling elite in the nomadic world, so they were rarely included in the accompanying inventory in the burials of medieval nomads, even in the graves of nobles. As a result of long-term excavations of archaeological sites in different regions of Siberia and the Far East, several such finds were discovered [Khudyakov, 1980, p. 129; Medvedev, 1981, p. 176-177; Artemyeva, 1999]. The small number of defensive warheads significantly limits the possibilities of their study and reconstruction.

Several helmets were found on the territory of Western Siberia. The first was discovered in 1889 in Tomsk while digging a cellar at the foot of the Resurrection Mountain, on which the Tomsk prison was located. According to V. M. Florinsky, it belonged to a Russian soldier of the XVII century [1898, p. 532]. Another helmet was kept in the "Jester's Treasure" from the mouth of the Amelia River (later lost) (Chindina, Yakovlev, Ozheredov, 1990, p. 193). In 1938, a military headland was found near the village of Staritsa (Ozheredov, 1987, pp. 116-119). Another spheroconically shaped iron helmet, badly damaged by corrosion, was discovered in the 1960s during excavations at the Redka burial ground (Middle Ob) in the mound of one of the mounds. L. A. Chindina dated it to the Early Middle Ages and attributed it to the Relkin culture [1977, p.32].

At the same time, in the museum collections of different cities of Russia, Mongolia and China, there are many warheads that were discovered outside the complexes under random circumstances, including quite rare in their design and appearance, which deserve attention from archaeologists and weapons experts. Among the warheads kept in the Museum of Archeology and Ethnography of Siberia of Tomsk State University, there is an iron helmet originating from the territory of the forest-steppe zone of Western Siberia, the study of which is of undoubted scientific interest. In the 19th century, information about this helmet was studied by V. M. Florinsky [Archaeological Museum..., 1888, p. 83-84; Notes..., 1888, p. 164-166; Florinsky, 1898, p. 531-532].

This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Prospect No. 04-06-80248).

page 93

Circumstances of the discovery of the Suzun helmet

The helmet was found at the end of the XIX century in the Suzun forest, 25 versts from the Suzun factory, in the vicinity of the lake. Osinina, on the territory that was part of the Tomsk Province at that time. Soon after the discovery, the find was transferred to the museum of Tomsk University for storage. A description of the circumstances of the discovery of the helmet is contained in the catalog of the museum collection published in 1888 by V. M. Florinsky [Archaeological Museum..., 1888, p. 83-84; Notes..., 1888, p. 164-166]. In a copy of the report on this discovery, compiled by the village clerk of the Chapchinskaya vol. Biysk ocd. Osipov, it is reported: "During the fire that was in 1875 in the Suzun forest, while extinguishing the fire, 25 versts from the Suzun plant, inside the forest, 2 versts from Lake Osinina, trenches were made from the fire and the ground was knocked down (the coniferous combustible layer was cleaned), where a peasant of the village of Chapchinsky Yakov Barkhatov was found an iron helmet, in the ground, with flowers on it of red gold and the image of birds in the form of an eagle. During the search (i.e., during ground fire work) by inexperienced people, the back of it is broken and the peak on top (of the helmet) is broken." The village clerk also expressed his views assumptions about this find: "And at Lake Osinina, according to folk stories, there was an ancient Asian settlement, and this helmet must be assumed to be some princes of ancient Asian tribes" [Notes..., 1888, p. 165]. The helmet found was kept by Osipov for about a year, and in May 1876 it was handed over along with a report to the volost clerk Bocharov, then to the Barnaul district police officer, who gave the find to the chief inspector of schools in Western Siberia, in whose office it was for several years. The Suzun helmet entered the museum of Tomsk University in 1884. Soon it was described in detail by V. M. Florinsky and published in the catalog of archaeological finds of this museum collection compiled by him under the number 1504: "An iron helmet of the Russian type, rusted through in many places. It has a conical shape, consists of a crown and a band, 5 mm wide, on which a small semicircular inclined visor is attached on one side (2 1/2 sant. width), and on the other was the same nasatylnik, broken off along with part of the band. The most cone, 16 cm high, is riveted from two halves, front and back. In place of the rivets, longitudinal strips are applied, from the band to the top. The pommel consists of a small cone with a round hole left at the top. Rivets on the top, stripes, visor and band have round bumps. On the lower edge of the band, on both sides of the visors, ears or loops are planted, which served to attach the headphones. Helmet circumference, outside on the band, 69 site., width inside 21 site. This entire helmet was covered in gold. Traces of gold were preserved along the band in the form of wide streaks, along the side stripes, visor and pommel. On the front and back half of the helmet, there is also a clear image of golden birds, similar to eagles, two on each side, with spread wings and wide curled tails. Each pair of birds faces each other, and between them at the top and bottom are round golden figures in the form of a ball or crown (difficult to make out)." The author of the catalog mistakenly indicated that this "remarkable helmet was found in 1876..." [Archaeological Museum..., 1888, pp. 83-84]. There are some errors and inaccuracies in the description of the helmet, which will be discussed below.

V. M. Florinsky not only described and introduced this valuable find into scientific circulation, but also proposed one of the first attributions of it. In contrast to Osipov, who suggested that the military headgear belonged to "princes of ancient Asian tribes", V. M. Florinsky strongly argued that "the helmet with golden eagles can be considered undoubtedly Russian" [Notes..., 1888, p. 164]. He gave some thoughts on this matter :" When helmets first appeared in Russia is not known; but they are so akin to Russian epics that they can be considered an ancient property of the Russian people. The Russian concept of a helmet was almost always joined by the concept of brilliance. In the Word about Igor's regiment, the sheloms are called golden and golden. In the Legend of the Battle of Kulikovo, helmets are presented on the heads of Russian heroes "like the morning dawn". The epithet "golden" is always added to the helmet in Russian fairy tales.

Among the ancient Russian helmets in the Moscow Armory is the helmet of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, found in 1818 in the forest, in the ground under a hummock, Vladimir province, near the Koloksha River, along with the chain mail that was boiled off from rust, at the very place where Yaroslav was defeated by Mstislav of Novgorod and, after fleeing from the battle, threw it off for relief from V. M. Florinsky believed that Yaroslav Vsevolodovich's helmet, dated from the 13th century, was similar in shape to the battle head found in the Suzun forest. He further wrote: "... in addition to the typical Russian form, our helmet is remarkable for its image of golden eagles. I do not know of a specimen of this kind in Russian antiquities, but in any case these images cannot be recognized as either Tatar or Mongolian. Due to the expensive finish, this helmet should have belonged to either a prince or a hero. It would be interesting to explain when and how he could have got there

page 94

to the Barnaul district, to the Suzun forest, whether it was before the conquest of Siberia or after the conquest" [Ibid., p. 165].

V. M. Florinsky tried to date the Suzun battle headland from the images of the helmets of Ermak and his Cossacks on miniatures of the Kungur chronicle. "At the end of the XVI century, during the conquest of Siberia, the Russian Cossacks had both chain mail and helmets. This can be seen from the drawings of the brief Siberian (Kungur) chronicle, the composition of which Miller attributes to the Tobolsk nobleman Remezov." One drawing shows "the corpse of Yermak, recovered from the Irtysh River, is presented in a well-paid mail shirt with two-headed eagles on the chest and in a grooved helmet with earflaps. In many other places, the fighting Cossacks are also painted in shishaks or misyurkas with long nets falling from behind" [Ibid.]. However, V. M. Florinsky immediately came to the conclusion that the Suzun helmet "could not have belonged either to Ermak or to any of the later Russian voivodes who were in Siberia. It bears traces of a much deeper antiquity. The eagles depicted on it can not be mistaken for the Russian or Byzantine state coat of arms, because they are single-headed. Rather, we can see in them an analogy with those Roman eagles that were used as a military banner, and these latter had a connection with the symbolic image of Jupiter. It may very well be that eagles were also placed on our helmet in the same meaning of the religious symbol (or memories of it) "[Ibid., p. 166]. The researcher saw some connection between these images and objects of West Siberian cult casting, among which he was known for "idols in the shape of a bird with spread wings." "Although these figures do not have a direct chronological relationship to the gilded helmet, nevertheless a distant connection between them cannot be denied unconditionally" [Ibid.]. Among other arguments in favor of the Russian origin of the Suzun helmet, V. M. Florinsky noted its difference from the Georgian and Persian battle heads, the dome of which was solid-forged. "You should also pay attention," he wrote , " that our helmet is too big for the size of the head, a real hero (circumference of 69 centimeters, width inside 21 centimeters). Even taking into account that with the inner lining, its capacity should be slightly reduced, it still corresponds in size to a very large head." The time of use of the helmet, in his opinion, can be indicated by the safety of the dome: "Rusted through thick iron, lying in the sandy and dry soil of the Suzun forest, can to some extent serve as evidence of a very long stay of this find in the ground" [Ibid.].

Paying tribute to the scientific research of V. M. Florinsky, it should be noted that his conclusions are now thoroughly outdated and require revision. On the territory of Eurasia, other battle heads have been found that resemble the Suzun helmet in design and appearance. Using these materials for analysis will help you more accurately attribute them.

Description of the Suzun helmet

Despite the fact that the Suzun helmet was described in some detail in the catalog of archaeological finds of the Tomsk University Museum, it is necessary to describe its current state and clarify some details of the design and ornamentation from the point of view of weapons science. In accordance with the method of formal typological classification of weapons developed earlier by one of the authors of this article and repeatedly tested on the materials of the cultures of medieval nomads of Southern Siberia and Central Asia, this protective combat head can be classified as iron, to the department - with a riveted two-plate crown, to the group - with an oval crown in cross-section, in domes belong to the spheroconic type (Figs. 1, 2). The dome consists of two plates-sectors, front and rear, connected to each other by means of narrow vertical overhead strips, each of which is riveted with two rivets. Only small fragments around the rivets survived from these strips, but it can be traced that they had a rectangular shape. A wide hoop or band is riveted to the lower edge of the dome, with a solid-forged arched hip visor in front. At the back, the hoop and the lower edge of the dome are broken off (damaged while the helmet was in the ground in the Suzun forest). However, there is no reason to assume, as V. M. Florinsky did, that the hoop had a "back of the head", exactly the same as the visor [Archaeological Museum..., 1888, p. 83]. Most likely, the hoop was identical around the entire circumference, with the exception of the front part of the helmet, where the visor was located. A similar design with a spheroconic dome and a visor projecting from the front was used by the military headlands of Central Asian nomads during the developed and late Middle Ages (Gorelik, 1987, p. 192; Khudyakov, Tabaddiev, and Soltobaev, 2001, p. 105). Helmets with "nasatylnikami" in North and Central Asia at the time under review are unknown. Rivets located on the upper edge of the hoop, it was riveted to the dome. Rivets located along the lower edge of the hoop served to fasten the chain mail bar mitt. Judging by that,

page 95

1. Suzun helmet. 1 - front view; 2-left side view.

2. Image of the Suzun helmet. 1 - left side view; 2-front view; 3-right side view; 4-rear view.

3. Suzun helmet. Image of a bird.

that the visor also has five rivets, it was attached around the entire circumference of the helmet. Similar chain-mail barmits with a narrow frontal stripe in front and elongated blades at the back and sides were found in Dzungarian and Kalmyk helmets (Bobrov and Khudyakov, 2003, p. 142). However, rivets on the visor are not typical for them. V. M. Florinsky's suggestion that on both sides of the visor there were "eyelets or loops that served to attach earplugs", given the location of rivets along the entire circumference of the hoop, is unlikely. Currently, there are no such loops on the helmet. Apparently, V. M. Florinsky took curved rivets for "ears".

A conical pommel is riveted to the top of the dome with four rivets. It has small semicircular protrusions in the places where the seal is located-

page 96

pok and through hole at the top. According to the report of the clerk Osipov, on the pommel of the helmet there was a "peak", carelessly broken when this combat head was found in the Suzun forest [Notes..., 1888, p. 165]. Judging by the fact that the pommel has a through hole on top, it was not attached to the "peak" - an all-metal femoral end, but a hollow tube for a plume or plume.

The dimensions of the helmet are quite accurately indicated in the published catalog [Archaeological Museum..., 1888, pp. 83-84]: the height together with the preserved part of the pommel is 21 cm, the diameter of the hoop is 21-22 cm. Contrary to the opinion of V. M. Florinsky about the belonging of the Suzun helmet to a hero with a large head, such dimensions are not at all unusual for medieval battle heads rather, they can be called typical. Most of the late medieval helmets of Central Asian nomads, which are well preserved in Russian museum collections, have a dome diameter of 20 to 22 cm (Bobrov and Khudyakov, 2003: 140-145). When assessing the size, it is necessary to take into account that the combat headgear was worn over a soft balaclava, which can partially absorb enemy blows.

The Suzun helmet suffered a lot from corrosion during its stay in the ground. On the upper part of the dome from the front and especially the back side, there are several small and one significant holes with uneven edges; the overhead strips are severely damaged. However, it is rather difficult to judge the time of the helmet's stay in the ground by the degree of its corrosion, as V. M. Florinsky tried to do, since the safety of iron things depends on various factors, including the quality of the metal and the conditions of occurrence of the object. Judging by the fact that the rear side of the dome was most affected by corrosion, the helmet was lying in the ground on this side.

Of particular interest is the ornamentation on the outer surface of the dome of the Suzun helmet, and above all the images of birds made by the gilding technique (Fig. 3). V. M. Florinsky believed that the entire surface of the battle head was covered with gold. At present, many of the details viewed during the study of the find by V. M. Florinsky at the end of the XIX century are barely noticeable. However, there is reason to believe that only the ornamentation elements were gilded, and the general background of the dome remained un-gilded for contrast, so that the figures depicted on it could be better seen. Similarly, some "ceremonial" helmets of the highest nobility were decorated among the nomads of Central Asia in the late Middle Ages [Ibid., p. 142]. Currently, the dome of the helmet can be seen not fully preserved four figures of birds. The best preserved image is on the front of the dome on the left side of the helmet. The bird is shown in a "heraldic pose": wings in the form of two arched ovals divided into several sectors, and long feathers are opened in both directions in full face; the head with a large beak, a crest on the crown and long feathers falling on a curved neck is depicted in profile. The narrow body of the bird, continuing the curve of the neck, ends with a tail of long, fluffed and curved feathers. The figure on the front side of the dome on the right clearly shows only the unfolded wings, part of the neck and torso. On the back half of the helmet, you can distinguish wings, part of the neck and tail feathers, as well as individual fragments of gilding (it is difficult to determine which part of the figure they belong to). Between the heads of the birds depicted on the front half of the dome, there is a gilded rounded detail, which is impossible to determine the shape and purpose of which. It is not clear whether it has been preserved completely or, more likely, partially. This detail was poorly discernible at the end of the XIX century, when the helmet was examined and described by V. M. Florinsky.

Images of birds, which V. M. Florinsky considered eagles, combine ornamental elements that are more characteristic of such images as a rooster, a peacock, or a mythological ornithomorphic creature-a phoenix. This is supported by the crest and long feathers on the head, a sinuous body with open wings and a fluffed tail. For images of eagles in medieval toreutics and heraldry, such details are not typical, with the exception of wide-open wings.

Despite the insufficiently well-preserved Suzun helmet, it is possible to analyze this find, as well as reconstruct the ornamental plot based on other battle heads of similar design and with similar images on the dome found in the territory of the steppe belt of Eurasia.

Questions of dating and cultural belonging of the Suzun helmet

Despite the presence of rather rare details in the design, the Suzun helmet has analogues among the protective battle heads of medieval nomads stored in museum collections in different countries of Europe and Asia, which allows us to clarify its date and cultural affiliation.

It should be noted that the parallels proposed by V. M. Florinsky are certainly outdated by now and cannot be accepted [Notes..., 1888, pp. 164-166]. Helmet from Lykov,

page 97

4. Helmet from the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest (7), unfolding of the ornament on its front side (2) and drawing of bird images on this (3) and Suzun (4) helmets.

Some researchers attributed its ownership to the Old Russian Prince Yaroslav Vsevolodovich during the 19th century, and its design and design significantly differs from that of Suzun [Kirpichnikov, 1971, pp. 29-30]. It has a solid-forged dome with cutouts for eyes and a nanosheet in the front, decorated with silver-plated plates with images of the Almighty, Saints George, Basil, Fyodor and the Archangel Michael, a dedicatory inscription in Cyrillic, as well as zoomorphic and plant ornaments [Ibid., p. 30]. The helmets of Ermak and the soldiers of his squad, depicted in the miniatures of the Kungur chronicle, are shown rather schematically, and it is difficult to judge the design of these protective battle heads from them. V. M. Florinsky himself recognized them as insufficient grounds for dating the Suzun find, since he attributed it to "much deeper antiquity" [Notes..., 1888, pp. 165-166]. Equally unconvincing are the references of this researcher to the epic characteristics of old Russian gilded helmets and the comparison of birds depicted on the Suzun helmet with" Roman eagles " or ornithozoomorphic figures in cult casting, typical of the cultures of the Early Iron Age and the Middle Ages of the taiga zone of Western Siberia. Such attempts to find analogs corresponded to the level of development of archaeological science in Russia at the end of the XIX century.

For the dating of the Suzun helmet, its design features and the nature of ornamentation are important. Very significant for determining the time and place of its manufacture are such features as a two-part spheroconic dome, the presence of overhead strips, a wide hoop with a solid-forged visor, a conical pommel and a circular arrangement of rivets for attaching a chain mail bar mitt. Helmets with a spherical dome shape were in service with nomadic warriors in the steppe belt of Eurasia throughout the Middle Ages. However, the two-part model of the dome made of plate-sectors and the whole-forged structure of the headland became widespread in the epochs of the developed and late Middle Ages (Gorelik, 1983, p. 260-261; 1987, p. 191; Bobrov and Khudyakov, 2003, p. 141). At the same time, the appearance of visors in nomadic helmets, which M. V. Gorelik considers a characteristic detail of Mongolian protective battle heads [1987, p.192], and a band or hoop connecting the dome plates [Voitov and Khudyakov, 2004, p. 104]. The system of fastening a chain mail helmet with rivets around the entire circumference of the hoop is recorded only in late medieval Kalmyk helmets (Bobrov and Khudyakov, 2003, p. 142). In general, according to the set of characteristic design features, the spheroconic helmet from the Suzun forest is most similar to similar combat headgear used by Mongol warriors in the mid-third quarter of the second millennium AD.

The ornamentation of the Suzun helmet is distinguished by a certain originality, a combination of ornithomorphic and other images. However, it is the ornithomorphic elements in the composition of the ornament of this military headland that find analogies on the "parade", richly decorated helmets that were in service with soldiers who served in the armies of the Genghisid states.

Images of birds with a sharp beak, a curved crest, an arched neck, a narrow body and wide-spread wings, a long curved multi-part tail ending in flower petals, similar in style of execution, are applied to the surface of the crown of a one-piece, richly ornamented helmet stored in the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest (Fig. 4, 1-3). Researchers associate its origin with Iran or Transcaucasia and refer it to the era of the developed Middle Ages. According to M. V. Gorelik, this helmet was made in Iran during the reign of the Il-Khans, rulers from the Mongol Hulaguid dynasty, for a noble Mongol warrior. Ornithomorphic images reproduce "Chinese phoenixes". This image became widespread in Iran at the end of the 13th century [2003, pp. 237-238]. Despite

page 98

Despite some differences, the main details of the images of ornithomorphic characters on the Budapest and Suzun helmets are very similar (Fig. 4, 3, 4). Judging by these characteristic elements of ornamentation, the Suzun helmet could have been made by special order of one of the representatives of the Mongol nobility by Iranian gunsmiths during the Mongol rule in Iran in the XIII-XIV centuries.

It is unlikely that this "parade" defensive military headland, which was of considerable value to its owner, could have come to Western Siberia in the era of the developed Middle Ages, when this territory was the far eastern outskirts of the Golden Horde. Probably, the gilded helmet appeared in the Suzun forest as a result of the turbulent events associated with the collapse of the Golden Horde, the power struggle between the Sheibanids and Taibugids in the Siberian Khanate, when military, political and cultural ties with Central Asia were particularly strong. Therefore, the Suzun find can be attributed to the Late Middle Ages and to the complex of protective weapons of a noble Siberian Tatar warrior or military leader. It is unlikely that such a valuable item was just accidentally lost by its owner. Apparently, the helmet ended up in the ground as a result of the death of its owner and was not noticed by the winners, who collected trophies on the battlefield after its completion. Several centuries later, at the end of the 19th century, it was accidentally discovered by peasants during fire-fighting operations in the Suzun forest. Thanks to the efforts of several people who paid due attention to this valuable find, the helmet was transferred to the Archaeological Museum of Tomsk University and preserved for national science and culture.

Conclusion

The study of the Suzun helmet shows that such rare finds, despite the random nature of their discovery, can be attributed and used as a full-fledged source on the history of wars and military art of nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe belt. Attracting them for the reconstruction of the complex of weapons of the nomads who lived on the territory of Western and Southern Siberia in the late Middle Ages is of particular importance, since the archaeological sites of this time practically do not contain protective battle heads and some other types of weapons, because because of their high value they were not placed in the burials of deceased relatives. At the same time, the collections of many museums in different cities of Russia and neighboring Central Asian countries contain a large number of various items of weapons of nomadic peoples. The study of these informative sources will help fill in the existing gaps in the military history of the medieval nomads of the Eurasian steppes.

List of literature

Artemyeva N. G. Objects of protective armament from the Krasnoyarsk settlement // Lead. Far East. Department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999, No. 5, pp. 36-41.

Archaeological Museum of Tomsk University. - Tomsk: [Type. Mikhailova and Makushina], 1888. - 155 p.

Bobrov L. A., Khudyakov Yu. S. Fighting headlands of nomads of Mongolia and Kalmykia in the second half of the XVI-early XVIII centuries. Gorno-Altaisk: Publishing House of Gorno-Altaisk State University, 2003, No. 11, pp. 138-155.

Voytov V. E., Khudyakov Yu. S. Mongol helmet from the collection of the State Museum of Art of the Peoples of the East / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 4 (20). - p. 100-106.

Gorelik M. V. Mongol-Tatar defensive armament of the second half of the XIV-beginning of the XV century / / Kulikovskaya battle in the history and culture of our Motherland, Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1983, pp. 244-269.

Gorelik M. V. Early Mongolian armor (IX-first half of the XIV century) / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Mongolia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 163-208.

Gorelik M. V. Shlemy i falynony: dva aspekta vzaimovliyaniya mongolskogo i evropeyskogo voennogo dela [Helmets and falynons: Two aspects of mutual influence of the Mongolian and European Military affairs]. - Donetsk: Donets, nat. un-t Publ., 2003, vol. 3, pp. 231-243.

Kirpichnikov A. N. Drevnerusskoe oboruzhenie [Ancient Russian weapons], Nauka Publ., 1971, issue 3, 148 p.

Medvedev V. E. O shleme srednevekovogo amurskogo voina (taynik s otstavkami dospekh v Korsakovskom mogilnikom) [About the helmet of the medieval Amur warrior (cache with remnants of armor in the Korsakov burial ground)]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1981, pp. 172-184.

Ozheredov Yu. I. Staritsinsky finds // Military affairs of the ancient population of North Asia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1987, pp. 114-120.

Notes to the description of the Archaeological Museum of the Siberian University / / Archaeological Museum of Tomsk University. - Tomsk: [Type. Mikhailova and Makushina], 1888. -276 p.

Florinsky V. M. Primevitnye slavyane po pamyatnikam ikh prehistoricheskoi zhizni: Opyt slavyanskoi arkheologii [Primitive Slavs on the monuments of their prehistoric life: The Experience of Slavic Archeology]. - Tomsk, 1898. - Ch. P. - Issue 2. - pp. 401-571.

Khudyakov Yu. S. Armament of the Yenisei Kyrgyz of the VI-XII centuries. - Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1980. - 176 p.

Khudyakov Yu. S., Tabaldiev K. Sh., Soltobaev O. A. Helmets found on the territory of Kyrgyzstan / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. 2001, No. 1 (5), pp. 101-106.

Chindina L. A. Relka burial ground on the middle Ob River, Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk State University, 1977, 192 p.

Chindina L. A., Yakovlev D. A., Ozheredov Yu. I. Archaeological map of the Tomsk region. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1990, vol. 1, 340 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 07.09.06.

page 99

Permanent link to this publication: