Institute of History and Ethnology named after Sh. Sh. Ualikhanov

The first records of archaeological monuments in Kazakhstan belong to medieval scholars, historians, geographers, and travelers. In their works, they mentioned extraordinary objects and images they personally witnessed or knew about through stories, which existed long before the events of their time. The scientific study of Kazakhstan’s past was significantly influenced by the decrees of Peter I, which called for careful treatment, description, and collection of ancient relics, as well as initiatives undertaken at his behest to study Siberia and the territories adjacent to Russia, including Kazakhstan. As a result of these efforts, the “Drawing Book of Siberia” was written in 1701 by Semyon Remezov, the son of a Tobolsk nobleman. This book contains not only geographical data but also information about archaeological monuments in the Kazakh steppes.

Subsequent interesting data on archaeology were recorded in the reports of the first academic expedition to Siberia in 1733, led by academician G.F. Miller. The expedition included well-known scholars such as L. De Laclaux, I. Fischer, and geodesists A. Krasilnikov, A. Ivanov, and M. Ushakov. The archaeological study of Kazakhstan continued in 1768-1774 with the second academic expedition, organized to study the history, geography, and ethnography of the peoples of the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia, and Kazakhstan. The expedition included prominent scholars of the time: P.S. Pallas, I.P. Falk, I.G. Georgi, P.I. Rychkov, and H. Bardames.

In the first half of the 19th century, interest in the natural resources of Central and Eastern Kazakhstan increased in Russia. Geologists and mining engineers, while following their routes, also paid attention to ancient relics, describing them and making sketches, thereby increasing the knowledge about the monuments in these regions. By the mid-19th century, significant material had been collected, mainly concerning Central, Northern, and Eastern Kazakhstan. This period can be characterized as one of initial data accumulation, often random and not the result of targeted research, but mostly incidental. Some researchers excavated burial mounds, but the lack of proper excavation methodology and, most importantly, documentation at the time meant that the primary goal of excavations was often the search for artifacts. However, there are facts of monument registration, mapping, and recording, which underline the value of their work. Much of what was done then remains significant even today. This stage in the development of Kazakhstan’s archaeology can be characterized as the initial stage.

From the second half of the 19th century, the antiquities of the Kazakh steppe began to attract the attention of the Archaeological Commission, the Historical Museum, the Moscow Archaeological Society, and other central scientific institutions of Russia. With the establishment of the Turkestan General-Governorate, consisting of the Syrdarya (Turkestan) and Semirechye regions, interest in the new region, including its past, increased sharply. Important notes on the archaeological monuments of Semirechye’s history were left by Ch.Ch. Valikhanov, who described the Talgar settlement and the Chingil ruins. In 1862, archaeological work in Kazakhstan was carried out by V.V. Radlov, who is credited with conducting the first scientifically based excavations of Bronze Age burials. V.V. Radlov proposed a classification and periodization of the ancient monuments of northeastern Kazakhstan and Siberia. He divided the cultural history of these regions into periods: the Copper and Bronze Ages, the Ancient Iron Age, the New Iron Age, and the Early Middle Ages. It was V.V. Radlov who had the honor of discovering and excavating permafrost burial mounds in the Altai, including the Berel burial ground. The works of this scholar represented a significant step forward in the development of Kazakhstan’s archaeology.

In 1867, by order of the Archaeological Commission, the famous Russian Orientalist P.I. Lerkh studied the Turkestan region. He inspected the ruins of the Syrdarya cities of Sauran and Sygnak, visited several settlements in the Talas Valley, and conducted excavations at the Zhankent settlement. In addition to registering and carefully describing the medieval settlements, P.I. Lerkh collected written records about them, providing analysis and commentary on these extracts. By comparing written sources with his archaeological findings, he identified some ruins with specific historical cities. A pivotal event in the development of archaeology was the expedition to this region by V.V. Barthold in 1893-1894. He surveyed the monuments of the Chui and Talas valleys, the Issyk-Kul Basin, and the Ili River Valley. His “Report on a Journey to Central Asia for Scientific Purposes” remains a model of historical-archaeological research. Relying on numerous written sources, the researcher provided the localization of cities, identifying them with specific monuments he had examined, including Taraz. He noted the ancient origins of urban culture in the area around the city of Verny. Subsequent works by V.V. Barthold lifted the veil on the past of the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. His fundamental research laid the foundation for many subsequent studies in the field of historical topography of cities, their localization, their role in historical events of antiquity and the Middle Ages, and the history of the emergence and development of cities in the context of Turkic-Sogdian relations. His name is associated with the organization of the Turkestan Archaeological Circle, created in Tashkent in 1895, which brought together representatives of the local intelligentsia, military personnel, and officials interested in the past of the region, its history, and its architectural and artistic monuments.

Significant contributions to the archaeological study of Central and Northeastern Kazakhstan were made by the West Siberian, Semipalatinsk, and Orenburg branches of the Russian Geographical Society, as well as the Orenburg Scientific Archival Commission, established in the early 20th century. As a result, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, a rich body of factual material was accumulated and, to some extent, systematized. Measures were also taken to protect ancient relics. Many of the monuments of that time have now been destroyed, but thanks to the enthusiasm of the first researchers, science today has information about them. Overall, the first period of archaeological development in Kazakhstan, which spans from the mid-19th century to 1917, stands out. After the 1917 revolution, archaeological research continued but on a state basis. In 1919, the Academy of the History of Material Culture was established in St. Petersburg, and in 1920, the Turkestan Committee for Museums and the Protection of Monuments of Antiquity, Art, and Nature (Turkkomstaris) was established in Tashkent. On the proposal of V.V. Barthold, the committee’s immediate task was to compile an archaeological map of Turkestan. Thus, the accounting, study, and preservation of ancient monuments began. Among the works of the early post-revolutionary years, the studies of P.P. Ivanov in Sairam and V.D. Gorodetsky in Semirechye and southern Kazakhstan, in the Talas Valley, are of particular interest. The discovery and excavation in Western Kazakhstan of the Kurgilda I and Kurgilda II, Ural-Sai, and Kunanbai-Sai burial mounds by M.P. Gryaznov in 1926 yielded rich material and changed the prevailing opinion that the Andronovo culture was characteristic only of Western Siberia. In the 1930s, a number of large expeditions covered many regions of the republic with their research. Among them were expeditions led by P.S. Rykov, O.A. Krivtsova-Grakova, and S.S. Chernikov. K.I. Satpayev played an important role in the study of ancient monuments of Sary-Arka, particularly ancient mining and copper-smelting production. During these years, the activities of scientific institutions in Kazakhstan intensified. The Central Museum of Kazakhstan registered monuments, recorded accidental finds, and conducted small-scale excavations. Articles on the Koksy River settlement and the monuments of Semirechye appeared in print. One of the important aspects of archaeological work in the 1930s was the field research conducted in Semirechye, organized by the Institute of the History of Material Culture (IIМК АН СССР) in collaboration with the Kazakh branch of the Academy of Sciences under the leadership of A. N. Bernshtam. Over the four pre-war field seasons (1936-1940), the Semirechye Archaeological Expedition carried out extensive surveys and stationary excavations at several archaeological sites. The results of these large-scale excavations at the medieval Taraz site and the survey of its surrounding monuments led to the proposal of a periodization of the archaeological material from this area, the identification of key stages in the city’s development, and the determination of the formation paths of its surrounding region. This represented the first comprehensive historical and archaeological study of a medieval city in Kazakhstan.

In A. N. Bernshtam’s articles, not only were new materials published, but important issues were also outlined and partially resolved. These included the history of the medieval city, the interaction between settled and nomadic populations in southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye, the formation of the city and its cultural-historical connections, as well as historical topography. The period from the late 1920s to the early 1940s can be considered the second phase in the development of Kazakhstani archaeology.

With the establishment of the Academy of Sciences in Kazakhstan in 1946, most archaeological work in the republic began to be conducted by the Institute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnography named after Ch. Ch. Valikhanov. From this time, the focus of archaeological research shifted to Alma-Ata, where the Department of Archaeology was formed, with A. Kh. Margulan as its first head. The department included active members such as E. I. Ageeva, G. I. Patsevich, T. N. Senigova, A. G. Maksimova, and later K. A. Akishev, G. V. Kushayev, A. M. Orazbayev, and M. K. Kadyrbayev. Overall, 1946 marked the beginning of the third, qualitatively new phase in the development of Kazakhstani archaeology.

The first archaeological expedition organized by the department was the Central Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition (CKAE), led by A. Kh. Margulan. To this day, the CKAE continues to systematically study the ancient sites of Sary-Arka, which are characterized not only by their territorial scope but also by the broad chronological range of the investigated monuments. The expedition discovered, surveyed, and excavated Neolithic and Eneolithic sites, settlements and cemeteries of the Andronovo and Dandybay-Begazy cultures, burial structures from the 7th-1st centuries BC, Turkic-era burial mounds, medieval towns, and settlements. A. Kh. Margulan managed to prove that in the Middle Ages, Central Kazakhstan was not only a land of nomads but also one of the centers of settled and urban culture. In the valleys of Nura and Sarysu and the foothills of Ulutau, remnants of medieval settlements and towns were discovered, which were centers of craftsmanship, trade, and agriculture. Many of these towns and villages were also centers of metal production – copper, tin, silver, bronze, and gold.

The second major post-war expedition was the South Kazakhstan Expedition, led by A. N. Bernshtam and E. I. Ageeva (SKAE). Its work resulted in the survey, mapping, and chronology of a large group of towns and settlements in the Otrar Oasis, on the northern slopes of Karatau, and in the Syr Darya Valley. The study of the topography of settlements and the classification of ceramics allowed for the identification of key cultural-historical stages of urban culture and revealed the direction of trade and ethno-political connections with Central Asia. Significant work by the SKAE in the 1950s included comprehensive studies of the Juvantobe site and the Borijary cemetery on the Aris River, and excavations at the Baba-Ata site, which were the first large-scale medieval excavations in Kazakhstan.

The identification of the Otrar-Karatau (Kangyu-Karatau) culture in southern Kazakhstan, compared to the culture of the Kangyu state, and the excavations at the Aktobe settlement, as well as the discovery of Bronze Age monuments and petroglyphs on the northern slopes of Karatau, are noteworthy. Parallel to the CKAE and SKAE, starting in 1945, the Khorezm Archaeological and Ethnographic Expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences, led by S. P. Tolstov, conducted archaeological research in the Aral Sea region. Excavations at Chirik-Rabat and Balandy, as well as studies of the Jetyasar and “Guz” sites, were initiated.

From 1947, the East Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition, led by Leningrad scholar S. S. Chernikov, began its work. The main task of the expedition was to identify and study monuments located in the flood zone due to the construction of the Ust-Kamenogorsk and Bukhtarma dams. Numerous monuments from the Neolithic to the medieval period were recorded here, providing material characterizing the historical past of East Kazakhstan. A. G. Maksimova from the Department of Archaeology at the IIАЭ prepared a candidate dissertation on the Bronze Age of the region. In 1948-1950, the Saratov State University Archaeological Expedition, led by Prof. I. V. Sinitsyn, worked in West Kazakhstan. They conducted research in the valleys of the Big and Small Uzen Rivers, the Kamysh-Samarsk floods, and the Caspian sands near Dungul, revealing numerous Sarmatian and medieval sites and accumulating a rich collection of artifacts.

In 1950, the West Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition (WKAЕ) led by A. Kh. Margulan worked at the Saraychik site. In 1953, the WKAЕ, directed by T. N. Senigova, discovered Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Early Iron Age sites. In 1954, the Institute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnography organized the Ili Archaeological Expedition under K. A. Akishev to survey the future flood zone of the Kapchagay Dam. In its first season, the expedition uncovered a large concentration of burial mounds from the Saka and Usun eras. The Zhambyl Regional Historical and Local History Museum also conducted archaeological work within the republic. In the late 1940s and 1950s, a number of interesting chance finds were made in Kazakhstan, with information regularly appearing in the IIАЭ AN KazSSR publications.

In 1954-1956, due to the development of virgin and fallow lands, special archaeological studies were organized in many areas of Kazakhstan, providing information on the deteriorating monuments. One of the significant discoveries in Kazakhstani archaeology in the mid-1950s was the Paleolithic sites in the Karatau Mountains in Southern Kazakhstan. This discovery, made by geologist G. Ya. Yarmak and archaeologist X. A. Alpyssbaev, marked the beginning of a new direction in Kazakhstani archaeology – the study of the Paleolithic era.

Overall, the late 1940s and 1950s were marked by a broad scope of archaeological research. These studies covered almost all major regions of Kazakhstan and included monuments from a wide chronological range. Among the important discoveries of these years were Paleolithic sites in Southern Kazakhstan, Saka and Usun burial mounds in the Ili River Valley, and rock paintings in the Tamgalytas region. Excavations began at the Besshatyr cemetery on the Ili River, catacomb burials on the Syr Darya, and at the Baba-Ata citadel. Alongside Kazakhstani scholars, prominent archaeologists from Moscow and Leningrad – S. P. Tolstov, A. N. Bernshtam, S. S. Chernikov, I. V. Sinitsyn, and V. S. Sorokin – were involved in the research.

A significant summary of the third phase in the development of Kazakhstani archaeology, which began in 1946, was provided by the publication of the Archaeological Map of Kazakhstan in 1960. This map summarized many years of extensive archaeological work and outlined the most promising directions for future research.

The next phase of Kazakhstani archaeology, the fourth, spans the 1960s and 1970s. This period saw not only the expansion of research associated with the discovery of new monuments and their initial descriptions but also their in-depth study through the organization of long-term stationary excavations and the addressing of major scientific problems.

The fourth phase of Kazakhstani archaeology (1960s-1970s) was characterized by the expansion of research efforts, which included discovering new sites, conducting preliminary descriptions, and delving deeper into the study of these sites through long-term stationary excavations. This period marked a significant advancement in the field, focusing on addressing major scientific issues.

Archaeological research continued to flourish, with a particular emphasis on systematic excavation and detailed analysis. The 1960s and 1970s were marked by substantial progress, including the development of new methodologies and the discovery of previously unknown historical and cultural contexts. This era saw the establishment of a solid foundation for future archaeological studies in Kazakhstan, setting the stage for further advancements in the understanding of the region’s rich and diverse history.

As a result, the archaeological community in Kazakhstan experienced a period of growth and refinement, contributing significantly to the broader field of archaeology and enhancing the understanding of Kazakhstan’s historical and cultural heritage.

The Central Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition, led by A. K. Margulan, later by M. K. Kadyrbayev and S. M. Akhinzhanov, continued to define the main objectives in studying Bronze Age and early Iron Age monuments. The Tasmol culture cemeteries were investigated, as well as Andronov monuments in the Tasmola and Nurmanbay areas. At the same time, 30 Bronze Age settlements were surveyed, including Atasu, Ortau, Buguly, Aksu-Ayuly, Baibola, Zhamantas, and Tagibay-Bulak. In Northern Betpak-Dala, the Aksay and Sartaban cemeteries, the Karauzek cemetery in the Atasu Valley, and mining operations were studied. Numerous Andronov monuments were discovered and examined in the Karaganda and Bayanaul mountains.

In 1966, a fundamental study on the archaeology of Central Kazakhstan was published, prepared by A. K. Margulan, K. A. Akishev, M. K. Kadyrbayev, and A. M. Orazbayev. Later, in 1979, A. K. Margulan, using materials accumulated in the 1950s and 1960s, published a monograph dedicated to the Begazy-Dandybay culture, a prominent phenomenon of ancient Sary-Arka. Extensive excavations and careful analysis of materials from Northern and Central Kazakhstan allowed G. B. Zdanovich to propose a new periodization and chronology. Collecting new data, V. V. Yevdokimov studied the economy and demographics of Central Kazakhstan during the Bronze Age. Intensive studies of Stone Age monuments were carried out by H. A. Alpysbayev in southern Kazakhstan, in the Karatau gorges and the Sirdarya Valley. The result of this work was a 1979 monograph, where materials from the Paleolithic sites of Borykazan, Kemer, Kyzylrysbek, Tokaly, and Darbaza were published.

Paleolithic sites in the central part of Northern Balkhash were studied by a team led by A. G. Medoev. During these years, Stone Age sites were discovered and studied in Western Kazakhstan, in Mangyshlak. Systematic research and excavation of Neolithic sites began in the Priirtysh area, in Pavlodar Region. In the 1960s, work on the study of Saka and Usun monuments in Semirechye also continued. In the monograph dedicated to the Saka and Usun cultures of the Ili Valley, K. A. Akishev addressed issues of the origin of the Sakas and Saka culture, and provided a chronological classification of arrowheads. G. A. Kushayev outlined the stages of periodization of the Usun culture of Semirechye.

A significant event in Kazakhstan archaeology of global importance was the discovery of the “Issyk” burial, which provided new impetus for the study of Saka culture, its mythology, art, writing, and social structure. Monuments of Saka culture in Central Kazakhstan, known as the “Tasmola culture,” were examined by M. K. Kadyrbayev. The scholar was able to demonstrate the characteristics of this culture, develop issues of periodization, and analyze the economy of ancient tribes. Valuable finds from the Sarmatian period were made in Western Kazakhstan, in the Lebedev cemetery. Monuments of the Jetyasar culture in the Djussaly area, in the lower reaches of the Sirdarya, were studied by a team from the Khorezm Archaeological and Ethnographic Expedition. Work continued in the Jetyasar area, where settlements and cemeteries were discovered. Based on new data and previous materials, a monograph on the ceramics of the Sirdarya in the 1st millennium AD was prepared.

In the 1970s, another direction in Kazakhstan archaeology was clearly defined – the study of petroglyphs. Whereas earlier research on this archaeological source was irregular, it now became the subject of special studies by M. K. Kadyrbayev, A. N. Maryashev, and A. G. Medoev. Their names are associated with the appearance of major comprehensive works dedicated to the rock paintings of the Karatau, Mangyshlak, and other regions. In 1969, the Otrar Archaeological Expedition was organized, renamed in 1971 as the South Kazakhstan Comprehensive Archaeological Expedition. The main objects of long-term stationary excavations were selected as the settlements of Otrar, Kostobe, Kok-Mardan, Mardan-Kuyuk, and Kuyryktobe in the Otrar oasis; Turkestan, Ran, and Kultobe on the northern slopes of Karatau. Cemeteries from different periods were studied, including the well-known and previously investigated Boryzhar cemetery, Shaga, and Kok-Mardan. Extensive excavations were organized at the Otrar-Tobe settlement, revealing numerous residential quarters, pottery and brick-making workshops, and public buildings such as mosques, mausoleums, and baths. Large-scale excavations were conducted at the 1st millennium AD Kok-Mardan settlement, where residential quarters, houses, and temples were discovered. At the citadel of the Kuyryktobe settlement, a palace structure from the VI-IX centuries was excavated, where unique carved boards depicting deities and secular scenes were found. In the shahristan of the settlement, complexes from the VI-VIII centuries, IX-XI centuries, XII centuries, and a cathedral mosque from the X-XI centuries were uncovered. Interesting materials related to burial rituals and reflecting the religious views of ancient and medieval populations were obtained during the excavation of the Boryzhar cemetery. The expedition team conducted irrigation research in the Otrar oasis, on the southern and northern slopes of Karatau, and in the Saura region, where a system of late medieval qyarizs was discovered. Simultaneously, paleoethnographic research was conducted, specifically excavations of Kazakh winter camps to determine the processes of Kazakh settlement. The results of the work in Taraz were published in a monograph about this city.

In the construction zone of the Chardarya hydroelectric power station, on the Syr Darya, the Kazakh-Russian archaeological expedition worked in 1959-1963. The materials have been published. In the mid-60s, Kazakh numismatics associated with the name of R. Z.

Burnasheva and V. N. Nastich began to develop. Mass coin material was accumulated during excavations of Otrar, Kuiruktobe. These were not only single finds, but also hoards. The coins were studied as dating material, as well as a source for studying the political and economic history of medieval Kazakhstan, its trade and cultural ties. As a result, it was established that mints functioned in Kazakhstan in Otrar, Ispidzhab, Turkestan, Djend, Sygnak, Taraz. The work of the South Kazakhstan complex expedition raised the republican archeology to a qualitatively new level, as a result of which a number of new scientific directions were outlined. Based on the results of the work, several monographs were published. The results of the archaeological work of this stage were summed up in two volumes of the five-volume “History of the Kazakh SSR” (Alma-Ata, 1977, 1979), where archaeological sources were analyzed, the dynamics of the historical process in Kazakhstan in ancient times and the Middle Ages were shown. Next: the fifth stage of the history of Kazakhstan archeology began in the 80s. It is characterized by organizational changes in it, the emergence of archaeological centers in the regions, the expansion of archaeological work, the publication of numerous articles, monographs devoted to current problems of archeology, the emergence of new directions in archaeological science, the use of natural science methods in archeology. In 1981, the first all-Union conference on the problems of medieval urban culture of Kazakhstan and Central Asia was held in Alma-Ata. A new direction was identified at it – late medieval archeology. One of the main tasks at this time was the preparation of a collection of historical and cultural monuments of Kazakhstan – a scientific register of all monuments on the territory of the republic. Such an encyclopedic publication should serve as a basis for the development of strategic research in the field of archeology, as well as improve the preservation of cultural heritage. Research on the paleoeconomics of ancient and medieval Kazakhstan is expanding: the study of the antiquity of mining and metallurgy of paleometals, the development of cattle breeding in all forms of its existence; research into crafts, trade and money circulation, agriculture and irrigation. In 1987, an international symposium was held in Almaty devoted to the interaction of nomadic and sedentary cultures. The need to consider and analyze the accumulated knowledge from the angle of interaction between nomads and sedentary populations was dictated by the course of development of science, which decisively rejected stereotypes in the interpretation of this problem. There was an acute need to identify the main patterns of intercultural interaction at various stages of history and to study the general and regional features of this process. An important result of the symposium was a book that collected new materials, problems and solutions. One of the priorities was the study of nomadism, the interaction of agricultural civilizations and nomadic cultures. In the 1980s, the Central Archaeological Museum continued excavations of the Atasu settlement, where metal smelting sites and ancient metallurgical furnaces were discovered. In light of new data, including on the paleoeconomics of Central Kazakhstan in the Bronze and Early Iron Ages, materials on cattle breeding, mining and ancient metallurgy, and pottery were analyzed. During these years, striking discoveries were made in the steppe zone of Kazakhstan. Thus, archaeologists led by V. F. Zaibert discovered the settlement of Botai and identified the Botai culture, dating back to the Eneolithic era. It was possible to discover proto-urban complexes in Kazakhstan and the Trans-Urals, which make it possible to expand and deepen the substantiation of cattle breeding and cattle-breeding and agricultural civilization for the Bronze Age. In 1980-1983, the Shulbinskaya archaeological expedition worked in the construction zone of the Shulbinskaya hydroelectric power station. Extensive archaeological research included excavations of monuments of the Stone, Bronze, Early Iron, medieval nomads ages, and the study of petroglyphs. Materials related to the study of burial monuments of the Kimaks and Kipchaks were published in the monograph of S. M. Akhinzhanov, the first on the history of the Kipchaks of Kazakhstan. The geographical position and size of the territory of Kazakhstan are of particular importance in clarifying the evolutionary paths of Paleolithic cultures and the migration processes of the ancient population of the region. Karatau Paleolithic monuments reveal similarities in sites of both adjacent territories and very remote areas – Central Asia, China, Pakistan, India, Mongolia. This similarity gives reason to assume “a single path of development of ancient cultures. For further in-depth study of the Palaeolithic of Kazakhstan, obtaining reliable chronological links, studies of stratified, non-redeposited sites, such as the site named after Ch. Valikhanov (Southern Kazakhstan), Shulbinskaya (Eastern Kazakhstan) are of great importance. The results of these studies, new materials allowed to pose a new question about the time and ways of settlement of the territory of Kazakhstan by primitive man. The Mesolithic of Central Kazakhstan is represented by the sites of Karaganda XV and Akimbek. The early Neolithic site of Telman XIV is characterized as a workshop for the manufacture of flint tools. The Neolithic and Eneolithic of Kazakhstan remained poorly studied for a long time. The material obtained in the bulk as a result of collections was considered by analogies of neighboring territories. The allocation of microdistricts, their comparative-typological characteristics and analysis of the Neolithic industry of the region allowed to single out the Atbasar culture. The proposed periodization of the Neolithic and Eneolithic with a fractional division of the first into early, middle and late, covers the period from the 5th to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Another Neolithic culture is distinguished on the territory of the Turgay trough. The Eneolithic of the vast region of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve is considered through the prism of the economic and cultural type of the Botai culture, characterized as multi-sectoral with the dominance of cattle breeding (horse breeding). Climate change in this region towards drying, aridization entailed migrations of the region’s population, part of which during the Bronze Age was an integral component of the Andronovo cultures. Turgay monuments of the 3rd millennium BC are correlated with synchronous monuments of the Southern Trans-Urals and Priishimye, left by the bearers of the Botai, Surtandy and Tersek cultures, as an integral part of the cultures of geometric ceramics. The osteological material from the Kaindy III site characterizes the economy of the population as transhumant, pastoral cattle breeding. Hunting played a significant role in the economy. Andronic studies in the period described also developed along the lines of in-depth study of proto-urban culture and society, ideology and paleoeconomics. To a large extent, this was facilitated by the discoveries of such unique sites as Arkaim, Sintashta, Kent, which gave a new impetus to the study of the Bronze Age cultures of Eurasia. Numerous new data from settlements and burial grounds in northern Betpakdala were introduced into scientific circulation. The monograph by Kadyrbaev M.K. and Kurmankulov Zh.K. systematizes and analyzes the materials, reveals patterns in the placement of the sites of Atasu I, Myrzhik, Ak-Mustafa, Akmaya. Of particular importance are the results of the study of the settlement of Atasu I, a large settlement with an area of over 15 thousand.

One of the chapters of the work examines the burial rite and burial ground material. Typological methods were used to date the monuments based on the collected items and ceramics. A dating of the monuments was proposed, dividing them into two chronological stages: early – 15th-13th centuries BC and late – 12th-8th centuries BC, with the first stage divided into two stages: 15th-14th centuries BC and 14th-13th centuries BC. The accumulation of materials on the Bronze Age of Semirechye also continued, where dozens of new settlements and burial grounds were discovered, turning this region into one of the major centers of the Andronovo culture. Interesting results were obtained in the study of Bronze Age monuments in Western Kazakhstan. G. A. Kushaev noted that Western Kazakhstan is characterized by the proximity of two cultural communities – Andronovo and Srubnaya, the border between which, in his opinion, passed in the interfluve of the Or and Ilek. A similar situation, judging by the research in the Mangistau region, was there. It is noted that nomadic cattle breeding here was formed already in the 2nd millennium BC. The study of monuments of early nomads and problems of cultural, socio-economic life of the Sakas, Sarmatians, Usuns, Kangyuis, Huns traditionally constitutes one of the important areas of research in Kazakhstan. In particular, in the works of K. A. Akishev, the thesis on the stratification of the Saka society of Semirechye is developed based on the materials of mapping the royal burial grounds in the region from Alakul to Talas. The issues of the origin of the Saka (Scythian) art were also considered in connection with new finds of Saka art objects. According to A.K. Akishev, the finds of gold earrings with images of kulans allow us to insist on a local basis in the formation of the “animal” style. Works have appeared devoted to the origin of the Scythians, in particular, the work of R.B. Ismagilov attracts attention, where he writes that the “royal” burial mounds of the Black Sea region can be associated with the migration of a group of nomads – carriers of the Saka culture of Semirechye, according to some signs of the burial rite. In science, the opinion appears and spreads that some of the Scythians and Sakas spoke proto-Turkic languages. There is an intensification of field research in Western Kazakhstan and Mangyshlak. Materials from the excavations of the Baite sanctuary, associated with cult buildings and a large number of sculptures of nomadic tribes, possibly Parns, find great resonance in scientific and popular science literature. A notable achievement in the field of sarmatology should be considered the generalizing work of G. A. Kushaev “Etudes in the Ancient History of the Steppe Priuralye”. It systematizes the richest material, including from many years of excavations of Sarmatian monuments, attempts were made to determine their epic attribution with the Issedones and Sarmatians, as well as the continuation of Sarmatian history until the 8th century. AD. It is worth noting the appearance of the generalizing work of M. K. Khabdulina on the archeology of the early Iron Age of Northern Kazakhstan. The author of the study determines the historical and geographical definition of the region, understanding it as a section of central Eurasia,located at the junction of two natural and geographical regions: the south of the West Siberian Plain and the northern steppe expanses of the Kazakhstan Uplands. Long-term research conducted in these places allowed us to accumulate material, on the basis of which it became possible to propose a periodization of the early Iron Age, clarify the problems of the origin of the Scythian-Saka type cultures, the mechanisms of the formation of nomadic cattle breeding, issues of stratification of ancient society and the statehood of nomads. Progress is noticeable in the study of the paleoeconomics of Kazakhstan. It has been established that Kazakhstan was one of the most ancient regions of the formation and development of cattle breeding in Eurasia, including in the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages. Problems associated with the emergence of a producing economy, domestication of animals, early stages of horse breeding, are correlated with the study of osteological material from excavations, primarily settlements. Such work has been carried out for many years for the regions of the Central and Northern Kazakhstan. A huge amount of material from the settlements of the Eneolithic period – Solenoe Ozero and Botai, settlements of the Bronze Age – Atasu, Sargary, Novo-Nikolskoye I and Petrovka II and others was analyzed and systematically processed using a computer. A number of new conclusions were obtained, in particular, that horse bones predominate in Eneolithic settlements, as well as in settlements of the Early Bronze Age, which allows us to speak about the prevalence of horse breeding here. For the Bronze Age, the existence of a developed form of cattle breeding with breeding of large and small cattle and horses was established. Now we can confidently speak about horse breeding in Kazakhstan already in the Eneolithic era. The study of the bones of wild animals made it possible to obtain a picture of the development of hunting in the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages, to identify the most valuable game animals. For the first time in the historiography of Kazakhstan archeology, a general work has been completed on the metallurgy and pottery of the Bronze and Early Iron Ages of a large region – Sary-Arka (Central Kazakhstan). The use of modern analytical methods made it possible to determine the chemical and mineral composition of the products of ancient metallurgists, revealing the technological features of the process of obtaining copper, bronze, gold and silver products. Important observations were made in terms of establishing the potential of ancient metallurgists, which was not inferior to the advanced technologies of the leading metallurgical centers of Eurasia. The issues of linking the raw material base with the metallurgical production of specific objects were resolved. Progressive features in the development of metallurgy in the era of early nomads (VII-III centuries BC) were traced. This was expressed, first of all, in the quality of the metal. As a result of a comprehensive study of metallurgy and mining, technological features and the composition of additives, 7 metallurgical centers were identified in the Kazakhstan mining and metallurgical region. Technical and technological studies of ceramic complexes allowed us to draw conclusions about the level of pottery development in Central Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age, about contacts between different population groups, and about tribal migrations. The study of petroglyphs was actively developing during this period. The group of rock paintings on the Eshki-Olmes ridge, which is the western spur of the Dzungarian Alatau, is divided into three groups according to chronological features: images of the Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, and the Middle Ages. The stylistic features of the images in the first group distinguish Eshkiolmes from a number of other synchronous monuments. The cult nature of a significant number of the most ancient petroglyphs of Eshkiolmes is emphasized. Z. S. Samashev’s monograph “Rock Paintings of the Upper Irtysh Region” summarizes the materials from the petroglyph sites of Eastern Kazakhstan. The issues of migration processes of the population of the steppe zone of Eurasia in the Eneolithic Age and the Bronze Age were considered. A study of images of carts from various regions made it possible to identify the directions of the spread of wheeled transport in the territory of Eurasia at the end of the 4th-3rd millennia BC.The concept of two centers of wheeled transport development is proposed – Mesopotamia and the steppe zone. The formation of the second center, according to the author, may be associated with the migration of the cattle-breeding population, the bearers of the Maikop culture, or as a result of borrowing knowledge recorded in images and clay models. The direction in petroglyphics associated with the study of Kazakh drawings on shell rock tombstones, common in Mangyshlak, has been developed. They provide information not only about the material and spiritual culture of the Kazakhs, but also allow us to see the tradition of early rock paintings in the drawings. One of the most important scientific programs during this period was the international program “The Great Silk Road: Dialogue of Cultures. It included issues traditionally developed in Kazakhstan related to the urbanization of ancient and medieval Kazakhstan, the interaction of the city and the steppe, which were Certain successes have been achieved and interesting developments have been made. As part of the study of the sedentary culture and urbanization of Kazakhstan, research was conducted with the aim of obtaining materials that would allow establishing patterns in the development of sedentarism, agriculture and urban culture among nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists; identifying the role of the geographical environment in the formation of the economy of the population of arid zones, foothills and river valleys, tracing the evolution of material and spiritual culture, identifying ethnic factors and cultural traditions. The focus remained on the task of studying the dynamics of urbanization development: research into the urban structure, functions of the city, construction, architecture, and spiritual life of the population of Kazakhstan in interaction with neighboring countries and peoples. In connection with these problems, excavations continued in Otrar and the ancient settlements of the Otrar oasis; Kostobe in the Talas Valley, Kulan in the Chui Valley and Talgar (Talhir) in the Ili Valley. An important place was given to the study of the early stages of urbanization associated with the solution of the Tocharian and Kangyui problems, the study of the ethnocultural history of the eastern Aral Sea region, based on large-scale work on the settlements and burial grounds of the Dzhetyasar tract. The issues of the topography of medieval settlements; buildings, as before, were in the center of attention of archaeologists of Kazakhstan. A number of articles appeared about Otrar, about the Otrar dwelling, its evolution, new types that appeared in this or that chronological period, their social and ethnocultural interpretation. Attempts to search for the sources of the origin and formation of a residential building in the Otrar oasis were interesting. Issues related to determining the ethnicity of the population of the late medieval south of Kazakhstan, made on the basis of housing analysis and written data, are worthy of interest. Several articles about the Sarts, their ethnogenesis and destinies testify to how complex this issue is. In science, however, the prevailing opinion is that the Sarts of Kazakhstan are a fragment of the ancient and medieval urban population, descendants of the Kangyuis and Kangars, who played a certain role in the formation of the Kazakh ethnic group. Research and observations were conducted on the development of pottery, the technology of making dishes, including glazed ones. The achievements of archeology include the publication of an album of medieval artistic ceramics of medieval Otrar, where samples of works of artistic craft and art were published. Issues of ancient agriculture are being studied: farming and irrigation in medieval Kazakhstan, in the south of the republic and in Semirechye. Research in numismatics expanded during this period. It was found that the cities of Dzhent, Barchkent (Barchin) in the 14th century were in the trading zone gravitating towards the Golden Horde cities of the Volga region, although they were under the control of Khorezm. Two late 16th century coins from Jend indicate the city’s close trade ties with Turkestan and that the city was experiencing a period of prosperity at that time.New numismatic data were obtained during excavations of Semirechye settlements. According to researchers, coins from the 7th-8th centuries from Kostobe indicate trade relations between Dzhamukat and Chach and Taraz, with the latter exerting a great influence on trade in the Talas Valley. Trade, including international trade, often determined the life of the city. Local, regional and international trade converged here. The life of the city, its well-being and prosperity largely depended on trade. Trade relations, descriptions of trade routes and goods found during excavations of cities are characterized in a number of studies. A new direction in Kazakhstani archeology, which developed during this period, was the study of archaeological architecture. For the first time, the remains of monumental buildings and ordinary dwellings began to be studied from the point of view of the history of architecture. Among them are the palace complexes of the early Middle Ages of the cities of Keder and Dzhamukat, the cult Muslim architecture of the south of Kazakhstan and Semirechye. Planning features, construction techniques and decor were revealed: carved wood, carved stucco and ganch carving. Cultural connections and the spread of architectural standards along the Great Silk Road were traced. New archaeological materials made it possible to solve problems of the ideology of the ancient and medieval population of Kazakhstan, to trace the routes of spread of Buddhism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, shamanism and various cults here. The time and centers of spread of Islam were clarified. General studies on medieval archeology appeared. One of them is devoted to the sedentary culture of one of the large regions of the Ili Valley – the northern slopes of the Trans-Ili Alatau (the left bank of the Ili River). The study is based on materials from the excavations of the large settlement of Talgar, identified with the medieval Talkhir, a city known from the anonymous Persian-language work of the 10th century “Hudud al-Alem”. For the first time, the routes of nomads’ settlement and their integration into the urban population are traced from specific data. This is evidenced, in particular, by the nature of the urban dwelling of Talgar, which traditionally had large yards for cattle and yurts in the yards. New material on the development of the city, its block structure, house-building, fortification, and urban improvements was obtained and analyzed. A conclusion was also made about the uniqueness of the local urban culture, but at the same time its connection with the development of Central Asian culture was shown. The history of the Silk Road in Kazakhstan, the directions of the main roads, and the distribution of goods, cultural patterns, and religions along them are characterized. Articles appeared on the stone sculptures of Kazakhstan and the burial monuments of the Turks of Kazakhstan. Archaeological materials on the ancient Turks, in connection with the study of written sources on the Kypchaks and Kimaks, are of particular relevance. As is known, one of the fundamental problems of historical science is the problem of the social structure of the nomads of Eurasia. The process of updating and improving the conceptual foundations of the analysis of the historical process that has unfolded in science, the formation of a qualitatively new theory of typology of social systems have created fundamental opportunities for overcoming chronic inconsistency in the typological assessment of nomadic societies and for constructing an adequate model of nomadic civilization. One of the important, qualitatively new shifts in the historiography of Kazakhstani archeology has become generalizing works on ancient and medieval history and archeology. From a series of volumes prepared on the once all-Union and republican theme, the first volume “Chimkent Region” was published in the series Collection of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstani archeology has not only been able to enrich world science with outstanding discoveries, but has also made it possible to identify the main stages of the development of society in Kazakhstan in ancient times and the Middle Ages. A major achievement of Kazakhstani archeologists was the identification of the dynamics of urbanization processes,development of a settled and urban culture. Archaeological materials testify to the multi-component nature of the culture of Kazakhstan. Its development was greatly influenced by political, economic and cultural ties with China, the Near and Middle East, Central Asia, the Volga region, the Urals, and Siberia. The interaction and mutual influence of various cultures and cultural zones was a major factor in the development of ethnogenesis. It has been established that the Western Turkic Khaganate, and then the Turgesh, Karluk and later the Karakhanids, whose centers were located on the territory of Kazakhstan, were medieval state entities that creatively combined multi-ethnic traditions in their culture. The statehood of the Kazakhs, the culture of the Kazakh Khanate, as is evident from archaeological studies of Otrar, Keder, Taraz, Turkestan, Saraichik, Talkhir, date back to the statehood and culture of the ancient Turks, Karakhanids, Kipchaks. Study of nomadic and sedentary civilizations clearly shows that the interaction and mutual enrichment of cultures of different peoples *was the main line of world progress. In the depths of such interactions lie the origins of the ethnogenesis of the modern peoples of Kazakhstan and Central Asia. The beginning of the sixth stage in the development of archaeological science should begin in 1991, which became the year of the proclamation of the independent state of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The creation of an objective picture of the past became one of the main factors influencing the formation of the national unity of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the establishment of its statehood, and the strengthening of its sovereignty. Therefore, scientific knowledge of history, which contains the fate of the people, the development of its self-awareness, serves to educate the qualities of citizenship and patriotism in an individual and society as a whole. However, some pages of history still remain undisclosed, others, if illuminated, demonstrate fragmentation and do not give a complete picture of historical identity. On the “blank spots” of ancient history there appear speculative unscientific constructions, myths created by non-professionals, amateurs, and not only by them, but also by biased specialists. The collapse of the Soviet Union, socio-economic and political changes gave rise to numerous imbalances in society, including in the ideological sphere. Confusion and chaos manifested themselves in the field of methodology of historical science and in archeology as well. The question of the legacy left by the Soviet era arose acutely: about the methodology of historical science in the conditions of ideological pressure and adaptation that took place in the USSR. Then, in the atmosphere of politicization of science, a number of methodological stereotypes were formed, ascending, terminologically, to the basic provisions of the general concept of K. Marx and F. Engels on the nature of historical development and the ways of its implementation. All this, as a rule, took a simplified dogmatic form, where primitivism could discredit any, even the most reasonable theoretical provisions. One of the results of this process was a kind of formational evolutionism. Socioeconomic formations were fixed in a rigid list consisting of five – primitive, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and socialist, turning into utopian communism. At the same time, the division of the historical process into successive periods fully corresponded to the existing realities. The only negative thing was the desire to give this periodization the rigid character of mandatory evolution. As science developed, thinking scientists increasingly realized how unpromising the approach of formational evolutionism with its limited conceptual grid was becoming. Attempts were made to find in the works, and even in individual notes and private letters of scientists ranked among the “classics of Marxism-Leninism” some possibilities for coordinating new aspects and theoretical approaches. This was the case, in particular,the desire to single out a special formation – the Asian mode of production as an attempt to reconcile the concept of uniformity and vital diversity. The primitivism of the dogmatic formational approach to the historical process goes back to a simplified understanding of Darwinian evolutionism as a kind of absolute imperative. In the new Darwinian biology, the doctrine of punctuality as a movement reflecting the gradual nature of development with stops, slowdowns and return movements is being developed. In this regard, the antithesis of formational evolutionism is the concept of the rhythms of cultural genesis. History abounds in real examples of the slowdown of the historical process, stagnation, evolution with the opposite sign, pushing back one or another society by an entire historical era. The reasons for these phenomena are different: natural factors, military-political components. In a number of cases a specific social system, probably having exhausted the possibilities inherent in it, was unable to find a way to productive restructuring. Thus, the beginning of a new stage was characterized by complex processes of restructuring of previous ideological attitudes, and on the other hand, by the emergence and wide dissemination of historical myths, mostly of an ethnocentric nature. These processes also took place in archeology, but, of course, it would be naive to think that “everything changed” after 1991, because the main directions of the archeological direction of cultural heritage remained the same, academically verified, and the passions raging in pseudo-scientific literature to rewrite all history did not particularly affect archeological research. Over the years of the existence of archeological science in Kazakhstan, scientists have reproduced a relatively complete picture of the development of the ancient history of Kazakhstan, including the history of culture. If we note the most significant achievements of Kazakhstan archeology, which bring it to the level of global problems, the following should be highlighted: in the field of anthropogenesis, materials have been obtained that allow us to consider the territory of Kazakhstan as one of the centers of the formation of homo sapiens and the inclusion of the Paleolithic cultures of Kazakhstan in the system of development of ancient man. It has been established that in the IV-III millennia BC, the climate in the steppe zone of Eurasia became more humid, qualitative changes occurred, manifested in the transition to productive forms of economy – cattle breeding and agriculture. The culture of horse breeders, known from the excavations of the settlement of Botai, was formed. It was established that Kazakhstan was part of the zone of horse domestication – that important process that played an outstanding role in the development of the entire civilization of Eurasia. As early as the early 80s, monuments of the proto-urban civilization were discovered in the steppe zone. They date back to the 18th-14th centuries BC. – the Early Bronze Age. The civilization discovered by archaeologists is characterized by monuments such as Arkaim in Sintashta. These settlements, or rather proto-cities, had fortifications, a communications system – streets, a system of water collectors. Temple complexes were also located nearby. Clay “tablets” with various signs were found. Perhaps we are dealing with the beginnings of a sign writing system. This fact is of great importance for understanding the level of culture of the society. The origin of writing is associated, as proven, with the beginning of statehood. The inhabitants of the proto-cities were agricultural and cattle-breeding communities. People were engaged in agriculture, knew irrigation, bred purebred cattle. The extraction, smelting and processing of metal – copper and bronze – reached a high level. It was bronze metallurgy that underlay the economy of this civilization. The Begazy-Dandybaevskaya culture of Central Kazakhstan, discovered by archaeologists, with its monumental architecture and numerous settlements focused on copper smelting, belongs to the Late Bronze Age. Central Kazakhstan is becoming one of the largest centers of copper and bronze production,tools and weapons from them on the scale of Eurasia. Thus, research in the field of archeology of the Bronze Age has reached the level of solving global cultural and sociological problems. Already in the Bronze Age, the culture of early nomads was formed in Kazakhstan, the study of which remains a priority task of Kazakhstani archeology. The processes of the emergence of nomadic cattle breeding have been identified, which in their significance are equated in world history with the formation of ancient agricultural civilizations. The steppe civilization with a number of its inherent features has been identified and substantiated: the presence of statehood, regular trade, cultural and political ties, cultural and ideological community, which was expressed in the presence of monumental burial architecture, ideology, and social stratification of society. With the era of early nomads, as established Archaeological research is associated with the politogenesis of the peoples inhabiting Kazakhstan: the formation of the ancient states of the Sakas, Usuns, Xiongnu (Hunnu), Kangyui, Sarmatians and their entry into the arena of world history. Economic ties between the nomadic and sedentary population, as has been established, were of the most diverse nature: regular exchange of livestock and agricultural products, handicrafts, Thus, achievements in the field of military affairs, weapons, horse equipment spread from the steppe to the oasis, while luxury goods, fabrics, incense, and precious utensils went from the urban centers – oases to the steppe. A number of settlements located on the borders of the oases in the steppe specialized in the supply of certain handicrafts to the nomads. It has been convincingly proven that the relationships between nomads and farmers were often carried out within the framework of a single socio-economic structure – cattle breeders and sedentary residents formed the basis of a specific political or ethno-political association. As archaeological sites show, in the early Middle Ages, cities were formed within the ancient Turkic states, which were based on sedentary Kangyui and Usun settlements. The urban culture here absorbed the traditions of local sedentary cultures and innovations of the urban culture of Sogd, which was at a higher level of development. Sogdian standards, Sogdian samples are widely distributed in the south of Kazakhstan and in Semirechye. To a certain extent, their distribution was associated with the process of resettlement of the Sogdians along international trade routes. At the same time, the development of urban culture was strongly influenced by the culture of the Turks who settled in the oases and cities of Zhetysu, southern Kazakhstan, in Central Asia – in Chach, Ustrushana, Fergana, Tokharistan. More convincing evidence is needed to explain why the so-called Turkic-Sogdian cultural synthesis became possible in the system of the Western Turkic and Turgesh Khaganates and why its processes are most clearly traced in Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye. Archaeological evidence is emerging that one of the centers of the early formation of the Turkic culture, along with Altai, was Zhetysu. The connection of the centers of the ancient Turkic states, their domains to Zhetysu and Southern Kazakhstan, the valleys of Ili, Chu, Talas and Syr Darya becomes clear. In the period of the developed and late Middle Ages, the processes of interaction between cattle breeders, sedentary population and townspeople are reconstructed in the same regular phenomena that were noted for earlier periods of history: economic, cultural ties within the framework of such a political association as the Karakhanid state. The city and the steppe were not two antagonistic worlds, but its economic base. The growth of Central Asian cities in the 9th – early 13th centuries was largely associated with the process of settling nomads. They brought many steppe elements into urban culture, and in general, a unique urban culture was formed at this time.Archaeologists of Kazakhstan have studied numerous cities on the Great Silk Road, which passed through the territory of the country, determined their location, development, culture: economy, connections with neighboring cities and countries. The largest studies and excavations were conducted in Otrar, Taraz, Keder, Talkhir. Cultural and economic ties between nomads and townspeople can be traced in later times – when clarifying the history of the development of Ak Orda, Magulistan and the Kazakh Khanate. The late medieval cities of Sairam, Sauran, Sygnak and Suzak served in the Kazakh Khanate as centers of economic ties between nomads and farmers, where cultural exchange and trade took place not only between the townspeople of Southern Kazakhstan and the nomads of the Syr Darya, but also between Central Asia, the Volga region and Eastern Turkestan. In 1991, significant changes occurred in the organization of academic archeology. By the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 496 of August 28, 1991 and the Resolution By the Decree of the Presidium of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 73 of September 6, 1991, on the basis of the Archaeological Center of the Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography named after Ch. Ch. Valikhanov of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, the Institute of Archaeology was established, which was named after the outstanding scientist archaeologist, historian, ethnographer, orientalist, philologist, academician A. Kh. The state did not ignore the issues of ideology, cultural strategy, history and science. In 1995, the National Council for State Policy under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan approved the Concept of Historical Consciousness of the Republic of Kazakhstan 1998. The year 1999 was declared the Year of National Unity and National History. In February 1998, the Decree of the President approved the state program of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Revival of the historical centers of the Silk Road, preservation and successive development of the cultural heritage of the Turkic-speaking states, creation of tourism infrastructure”, including a set of measures for research, museification, conservation, restoration of monuments of historical and cultural heritage. By the Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2002 was declared the Year of Culture Support, in 2004 the Decree of the President adopted the State Program “Cultural Heritage”. During the described period, many areas of archeology received a new impetus. All available data on the typology and periodization of Paleolithic monuments were summarized, Mousterian complexes of Central and Southern Kazakhstan were processed. Trace studies of tools of the Holocene era of the Tobol-Irtysh interfluve made it possible to reconstruct the economic complexes of the Atbasar culture and determine the main areas of economic activity of the Mesolithic and Neolithic population of Northern Kazakhstan. The analysis of archaeological materials of the final stage of the Bronze Age of Saryarka was carried out, materials on the culture of the Bronze Age tribes of Semirechye and Southern Kazakhstan were systematized, and studies of a unique archaeological complex – the Tamgaly tract, including monuments of a wide chronological range from the Bronze Age to the Middle Ages were carried out. In the reconstruction of the ideological ideas of the population in the Bronze Age, the cult of fire was considered, and ritual and cult practices were reconstructed. All available data on the monuments of the early Iron Age of Northern Kazakhstan were introduced into scientific circulation, a typology of burial monuments and cult-ritual structures of the 7th-1st centuries BC in Central Kazakhstan was developed. In the study of monuments of medieval sedentary and urban culture, typologies of ancient settlements and settlements of the Talas Valley and the interfluve of the Chu and Talas rivers of the 6th-13th centuries, and Central Kazakhstan of the 8th-17th centuries were developed. , the Aral Sea region of the 12th-18th centuries, North-Eastern Semirechye and the Keles steppe. The architecture of medieval cities in Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye of the 7th-8th centuries was studied. In studying the culture of medieval nomads, studies were conducted on the burial rites of the population of Semirechye of the 6th-8th centuries and Western Kazakhstan of the 6th-13th centuries. Individual problems of the paleoeconomics of ancient Kazakhstan were developed. Based on archaeological materials and the latest methods of typologization of social systems, the productive forces of nomads of the Middle Ages were studied, the irrigation of Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye from the 5th century BC to the 18th century and the ceramic craft of late medieval Otrar were studied. Data on rock paintings of Central Asia, Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye were summarized, and the image of man in petroglyphs of Central Asia was considered. Based on the analysis of works of art obtained as a result of archaeological excavations, a reconstruction of the worldview of the urban population of Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye in the 6th-11th centuries was carried out. Every year, in the process of archaeological research of monuments, new materials containing additional information have appeared and are appearing. Replenishment of funds and expansion of the information field are a necessary and mandatory link in the process archaeological research. Kazakhstan archaeology has accumulated a significant source base that allows developing and improving the typology and classification of monuments, identifying new archaeological cultures, economic and cultural types, historical and cultural communities, and successfully resolving issues of chronology and periodization. Archaeological sources are the most important basis for restoring the historical picture of the ancient and medieval history of Kazakhstan in a broad chronological framework from the Paleolithic to the late Middle Ages. Of great importance in conducting a continuous survey of the territory of Kazakhstan and large-scale systematic excavations is the initially practiced organization of the largest archaeological expeditions. The Central Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition (operating since 1946) continues its work; West Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition (operating since 1953); East Kazakhstan Archaeological Expedition (operating since 1947); South Kazakhstan Complex Archaeological Expedition (operating since 1946); Semirechensk Complex Archaeological Expedition (operating since 1954); Saryarka Archaeological Expedition; Merken Complex Archaeological Expedition; Kazakh-Russian Archaeological Expedition, Ural Archaeological Expedition. Large long-term archaeological expeditions are conducted by Petropavlovsk State University, Karaganda State University, where the Department of Archaeology and Ethnology was created, Kazakh National University, where the Department of Archaeology and Ethnology has been functioning since 1970; Kustanay State University, South Kazakhstan State University. Since 1991, researchers from France, the USA, China, Italy, Germany, and Poland have taken part in the work of archaeological expeditions. Stationary archaeological excavations were carried out at 115 sites: Paleolithic sites of Koshkurgan I, II, Shoktas, Kyzyltau, Sorkul; Neolithic: multi-layered site of the Neolithic –   Eneolithic era Koskuduk (Western Kazakhstan); monuments of the Bronze Age, settlements: Serektas, Asy, Turgen II, Butakty, Talapty III (Semirechye, Southern Kazakhstan), Taldysay, Taskora (Central Kazakhstan), Toksanbay (Western Kazakhstan), Airtau, Novoshulbinskoye (Eastern Kazakhstan), burial grounds: Tamgaly, Kulsay I, Uzunbulak Kyzyl, Bulak I, II, III, Kalakai, Kuigan, Terkety-Aulie, Kartugai, Boraldai, Talapty III, Sherubai; settlements of the Sako-Usun time: Talgar III, Tsyganka VIII, Zhailautobe, Tuzusai, Taldy-Bulak; burial mounds of the Usun period: in the Akterek gorge, burial grounds of Koksu I, II; burial grounds of the Early Iron Age: Taras I, Mayemir II, III, Berel I, II (Eastern Kazakhstan), Nurken, Aksu-Ayuly III, Birlik, Taimbulak (Central Kazakhstan), Amirsai, Issyk, Ushbulak, Turgen, Besshatyr (Southern Kazakhstan, Semirechye), Dikiltas (Western Kazakhstan); settlements: Kenotkel, Buguly I, Dongal, Karabulak, Endrey, Taskora I, II, Kyzyl-Kainartobe, dune burials of Sarykamys,Karaton, Sarmatian temples-sanctuaries in the town of Kyzyluyik, Bayte III, Karamunka; monuments of the Middle Ages: the settlements of Altyntobe, Kazygurt, Shukurtobe (Southern Kazakhstan), the settlements of Turkestan, Shoitobe, Kultobe, Sidak, Otrar, Sauran, Talgar, Akyrtas, Taraz, Kayalyk, Kuiruktobe, Zhuvantobe, Tortkultobe, Kulan, Kostobe, Kokmardan, Ornek, Karamergen (Southern Kazakhstan), Akzhol, Buzuk, Baskamyr (Central Kazakhstan), Saraichik (Western Kazakhstan); burial grounds Altyntobe, Borizhary, Araltobe, Belsaz I, II; monuments of the Turks of Zhanashin Zhartasy I, II, Turkic burials in the Merke tract, the burial grounds of Teskensu, Momynbaysazy, Oy-Dzhailau. Petroglyphs of the tracts of Eshkiolmes, Tamgaly, Bayan-Zurek, Terekty-Auliye, Ters, Karasai were studied. Archaeological explorations covered the territories of the Mangistau plateau, the Northern the coast of the Aral Sea, Mugodzhar, Eastern and Northern Pribalkhashye, Semirechye, East Kazakhstan, South Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda, Atyrau, Mangistau, Aktobe, West Kazakhstan, Akmola and Karaganda regions. Hundreds of monuments of various types have been discovered: sites, settlements, ancient settlements, burial grounds, remains of ancient mine workings, sanctuaries, rock paintings, stone sculptures belonging to different eras from the Stone Age to the late Middle Ages. Over the past decade, the human resources potential has increased, doctoral dissertations have been defended. V. F. Zaibert, who wrote a work on the Eneolithic of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve (1992); A. M. Maryashev on the petroglyphs of Kazakhstan, T. V. Savelyeva on the urbanization of Zhetysu; A. N. Podushkin on the problems of archaeological monuments of Kangyuy (1999); V. V. Evdokimov, who devoted his work to the Bronze Age of the steppes of Central Kazakhstan (2001); M. E. Eleuov, who prepared a dissertation on the urbanization of medieval cities of the Chui and Talas valleys; Zh. K. Taimagambetov on the issues of the Paleolithic of Kazakhstan (1993); V. A. Groshev on the irrigation of Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye in ancient times and the Middle Ages (1997). In recent years, the Kazakhstan school of specialists in the Stone Age has been formed, headed by Zh. K. Taimagambetov.

Defended candidate dissertations Bekseitov G. T. (2003). Study(2002),of Boygunakov D.S. stone industry of Priishimye of the Holocene era dedicated his PhD dissertation to Pleshakov A.A. (1993). Mousterian monuments O. A. Artyukhova dedicated her PhD dissertation to the Central and Southern Kazakhstan (1992). Novozhenov V. A. (1992); Rogozhinsky A. E. (1994) and Shvets I. N. (1999) dedicated their PhD dissertations to the study of petroglyphs. Tkachev V. A. conducted a study on the culture of the population of Central Kazakhstan in the late Bronze Age (1991); Kukushkin I. A. – on the cult of fire among the tribes of Central Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age (1993); Karabaspakova K. M. – on the culture of the tribes of Semirechye and Southern Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age (1998); Lysenko Yu. A. – on the house-building of the Andronovo tribes of the Ural-Irtysh interfluve (2003) dedicated their PhD dissertations to the Kazakh monuments of the Iron Age. Khabdullina M. K. (1992); Ismagilov R. B. (1993); Beisenov A. Z. (1997). Dosymbaeva A. M. and Bisembayev A. A. prepared and defended their candidate dissertations on the culture of the Zhetisu Usuns (1999) and the burial monuments of medieval nomads of Western Kazakhstan (2000). A group of researchers defended their candidate dissertations on medieval archeology and urbanization. M. S. Kasenov prepared a work on the medieval urban culture of the Talas Valley (1985). Z. Zh. Shardenova devoted her research to the early medieval residential architecture of Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye in the 6th – early 9th centuries (1995); D. E. Toleev – on the medieval city and settlement of the Keles Valley (1995); M. B. Kozhaev – Otrar ceramic craft in the XIII-XVIII centuries. (1996); Smailov Zh. E. – the medieval urban culture of Central Kazakhstan dedicated (1997); Ternovaya G.A. her work to the worldview of the urban population Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechye in the 6th-12th centuries.         (based on archaeological materials) (1998); S. V. Bashtannik – agriculture in southern Kazakhstan in the Middle Ages (2003). As is known, under the influence of natural and climatic factors and as a result of technogenic and anthropogenic impact, archaeological monuments are destroyed and annihilated. In this regard, work on the preservation and use of historical and cultural heritage is of national importance. The first experience of a continuous survey of the territory of Kazakhstan to identify and record archaeological monuments was the “Archaeological Map of Kazakhstan”, published in 1960. Since 1981, work has been underway in Kazakhstan to compile a multi-volume Collection of Historical and Cultural Monuments. During this time, the “Collection of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the South Kazakhstan Region” was prepared and published. The “Collection of Historical and Cultural Monuments of the Zhambyl Region” was completed.

The remaining regional volumes of the Code are being prepared. The Code can serve not only as a source for the development of fundamental and theoretical research in archeology, history, and culture, but also as a basis for long-term planning of large-scale stationary works on the territory of the republic, and allows for the identification of the most important areas and objects of research for science. It facilitates the implementation of the most important practical tasks related to the protection, restoration, use, and effective registration of monuments with their division into objects of international, republican, and local significance. Being a scientific reference publication of an encyclopedic nature, the materials of the Code can be widely used in organizing various forms of tourism, compiling excursion routes, maps, and schemes, serve as a manual and guide for museum workers in local history and research work, and be used by teachers for teaching and patriotic education of the younger generation. Entering information from the Code of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Kazakhstan onto electronic media (database) will ensure the input of materials into the international electronic communication system INTERNET in the future. The developed topics of archaeological research and at the new stage represents the development of traditional priority areas of archaeology of Kazakhstan, in the study of which significant results have been achieved, recognized not only in our country but also abroad, as well as new areas that have developed in recent years, making it possible to reach a new level of understanding the problems of ancient and medieval history and culture of Kazakhstan. The content of the works covers issues from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages in the chronological aspect and from the process of archaeological excavations to theoretical modeling and reconstructions. Along with the ongoing accumulation and primary classification of sources, there is a natural transition to research of a generalizing nature, the recreation of a specific historical reality in socio-economic, political, ethnocultural aspects, the practice of developments of a methodological nature. On the territory of Kazakhstan, original civilizations arose and developed, representing complex multi-level phenomena. Here, cultural innovations of a Eurasian scale arose and spread. The development of the peoples of the Eurasian continent had its own unique content, pace and dynamics, determined by the natural environment and methods of adaptation to it. Archaeological materials testify to the multi-component nature of the culture of Kazakhstan, its territory was a contact zone where mutual enrichment of cultures took place. In the Paleolithic era, a complex process of the emergence of both the anthropological type of Homo sapiens and the main basic elements of human culture took place. The territory of Kazakhstan is located at the junction of the Near Asian and Siberian-Asian zones,having different evolutionary paths of Stone Age cultures and is a unique research area in archaeological terms. The initial development of this territory by human populations began 1 million years ago. In Kazakhstan, interesting monuments of all periods of the Stone Age in terms of chronology, stratigraphy and their characteristics have been discovered and studied, three regions of concentration of Paleolithic monuments have been identified: Southern Kazakhstan (Karatau, Semirechye), Western Kazakhstan (Mangistau, Mugodzhary) and Central Kazakhstan (Northern Pribalkhashye, Saryarka). Based on interregional correlations, the main framework for the existence of Paleolithic eras in Kazakhstan has been established: pre-Acheulean industries – older than 800 thousand years; Acheulean industries – 800-100 thousand years; Mousterian industries – 100-30 thousand years; Late Paleolithic industries – 35-10 thousand years. In the study of the Stone Age of Kazakhstan, the main attention is paid to the development of periodization and typology of stone industry of paleolithic complexes of arid zone, having specific features caused by natural factors: locations in travertines – Koshkurgan, Shoktas and open-air sites – Kyzyltau, Sorkol. Research is conducted by the Kazakh-Russian archaeological expedition (since 1992). In 1996-1998, under the grant INTAS “Early Paleolithic complexes in travertines of the arid zone of Eurasia”, specialists from the University of Liege (Belgium) took part in the work, in 1997-1998 – specialists from the Institute of Archaeology named after Gulyamov of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan. A feature of the travertine sites in Kazakhstan is the extremely rare for arid regions joint occurrence of archaeological material and faunal complexes of the Lower Pleistocene containing bone remains of fossil animals, the study of which is of great importance not only for archaeology, but also for other natural sciences. The technical and typological study of stone products from the point of view of manufacturing techniques, methods of splitting rocks, secondary finishing of tools, their morphology, typology, the ratio of different types of tools in individual sites, local features of the inventory composition made it possible to compare the industries of Kazakhstan sites with those of Europe (Bilzengeleben, Verteszselesh), determine their stadial and cultural affiliation, and conduct chronological correlations. Comparison of the materials of the travertine sites of Southern Kazakhstan with similar complexes of Eurasia indicates their formation in a single ecological and cultural-chronological context and allows us to put forward a hypothesis about the existence on its territory, starting from approximately 700-800 and up to 150-100 thousand years ago, of an area of essentially uniform cultures with a clearly expressed microindustry. Among the open-air sites, the Semizbugu complex is especially informative with fifteen locations concentrated in a limited space in similar geomorphological conditions, based on the same raw materials and belonging to different stages of the Stone Age. A generalized revision of the collections of stone tools collected by A. G. Medoev and stored at the K. I. Satpayev Institute of Geological Sciences was carried out. Of particular importance for the Paleolithic of Kazakhstan are the materials of the multilayered site named after Ch. Ch. Valikhanov, according to the stratigraphic columns of which the chronological sequence of cultural deposits was traced. The materials obtained from the early Holocene monument Shakhantai made it possible to trace the evolution of the stone industry of Southern Kazakhstan from the initial settlement of hominids to the end of the Stone Age. Comprehensive studies of the Neolithic cave site of Karaungur in Southern Kazakhstan were conducted. For the first time in Kazakhstan, as a result of archaeological excavations at the multi-layered monument of Koskuduk, anthropological material was obtained – a skull, which made it possible to reconstruct the appearance of a Neolithic inhabitant of the Mangistau Peninsula.The richest interesting materials on the Eneolithic of Turgay and Northern Kazakhstan have been obtained. The current state of the section of archeology studying the Bronze Age can be characterized as a period of new understanding and systematization of the accumulated material. This is typical of the work in Central and Northern Kazakhstan. Of interest is the discovery of the Sherbai burial ground, located in the flat part of the Turkestan oasis, which testifies to the settlement of Bronze Age tribes in the Syr Darya valley and a wider than previously thought distribution of the Andronovo culture in southern Kazakhstan. As a result of many years of systematic research of Bronze Age monuments in the steppe and foothill zones of Semirechye, three groups of archaeological complexes localized in the area of the ridge Dzungarian Alatau, Ili Mountains and on the northern slopes of Zailiysky Alatau. In the mountainous zone of Semirechye, a series of monuments were excavated: the Turgen complex, the settlements of Butakty I, Serektas, Asy, the burial grounds of Kyzydbulak I, II, Kalakai, Kuigan II, Kulsay, Uzunbulak, on the materials of which a special type of monuments was identified, relating to the late and final stages of the Bronze Age, united by a number of distinctive features that make it possible to identify an independent “Kulsay” archaeological culture with local variants of both chronological and ethnocultural nature. The cultural and chronological attribution of the Kulsay-type monuments in the territory of Semirechye was determined, the proximity of a number of elements of burial structures to later Saka monuments was noted, which contributes to the study of the problems of the formation and development of the Saka culture in the region. Under the INTAS grant “Study of the formation of nomadic society in Semirechye in the Bronze Age and early Iron Age. The monuments of Semirechye and the steppe zone were studied: these are burial grounds in the Tamgaly tract, the Seriktas settlement. In the Bronze Age, there was an adaptation of the economic structures of ancient peoples to the climatic conditions of the semi-desert and desert zones of the Eastern Caspian and Ustyurt. During the Holocene, the North Ustyurt region was a kind of natural and historical reserve, in which, as a result of close interaction of the population with the natural environment, unique monuments were formed, each with its own appearance and specific development. Extended studies in Ustyurt revealed a cultural center that existed from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages. The accumulated, significant in volume, archaeological material from the Toksanbay settlement, dated to the end of the 3rd millennium – 19th (13th) centuries BC. e., indicates the multicomponent nature of the culture of the population and determines the prospects of the monument in solving a number of key problems of the history of the Paleometal era both in the Eastern Caspian region and in the adjacent agricultural and cattle-breeding centers of the steppes and deserts of Eurasia. One of the pressing problems of the ancient history of Kazakhstan is the development of the issue of the emergence and further development of the producing economy, the time when the processes of mining polymetallic ores, metal smelting were first mastered, animals were domesticated, primitive methods of agriculture arose. Based on the results of archaeological research of the Bronze Age settlements of Taldysai, Atasu, Myrzhik, Akmai, Ak-Mustafa, the issues of ancient copper smelting and development of copper ores in Central Kazakhstan are considered. Based on the materials obtained, a conclusion was made that in the 2nd millennium BC. e. Central Kazakhstan became one of the centers of metallurgy on the Eurasian continent. T. M. Teplovodskaya and E. F. Kuznetsova conducted a comprehensive study of metallurgical and pottery production in the Bronze Age of Eastern Kazakhstan. Stable forms of metal and clay products were traced,Local traditional features at different stages of the evolution of bronze casting and clay forms within the entire Bronze Age are outlined. As a result of the study and analysis of archaeological, geological and physicochemical data, three mining and metallurgical centers were identified on the territory of Eastern Kazakhstan that operated during the studied period: 1) in the area of the southeastern spurs of the Rudny Altai; 2) in the western part relative to the Irtysh-Kalba watershed; 3) in the eastern part – Kurchum (Narym) district. In the field of experimental archeology, on the territory of the Zhezda Museum of Mining and Copper Smelting, models of two ancient copper smelting furnaces were made and copper was smelted using ancient technology. Based on the materials of the Tap-Asu 1 and Mayemir burial grounds, dated to the first half of the 1st millennium BC. e., the problems associated with the transformation of the culture of the tribes of the Late Bronze Age and its ethnocultural continuity with the Scythian-Saka monuments of the Eastern Kazakhstan. It is fundamentally important to study the mechanism, ways of formation and features of the transition from the Bronze Age to the early Iron Age at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC (9th-8th centuries BC). An achievement in the study of the culture of the Saks and Usuns is the discovery of numerous sedentary settlements in the foothill and steppe zone of the Zailiysky Alatau, archaeological excavations of the settlements of Tuzusay, Tsygynka, Talgar III. Research is being conducted jointly with specialists from the American college “Sweet Briar” (headed by K. Chang). It has been established that the Saks knew sedentary life and agriculture, including irrigated agriculture, using artificial irrigation, and built stationary settlements. Early forms of sedentarism and agriculture among the nomads of ancient Saryarka were studied using materials from two settlements of the early Saka period on the river Selety-Taskora I, II, dated to the VII-VI centuries BC. Archaeological excavations were conducted at sites of the transitional Dongal-Kenotkel stage of the IX-VII centuries BC: Buguly I, Dongal, Karabulak, Endrey. Jointly with specialists from the National Center for Scientific Research of France, the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Novosibirsk), the Dokuchaev Institute of Soil Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), and the York Archaeological Center (Great Britain), studies were conducted at the Berel burial ground, which contains cultural remains in permafrost. The unique preservation of the finds determined the rare information value of the material, which provides broad opportunities for the reconstruction of a number of aspects of material and spiritual culture. Based on interdisciplinary studies of burial sites, preliminary results were obtained on paleogenetics, paleoecology, material and spiritual culture of the Scythian-Saka tribes of the Kazakh Altai, a database was created on various aspects of the problem: DNA was isolated and purified from collected blood samples of the modern population and mummified remains; primary anthropological characteristics of the buried were given; a study of the above-ground and intra-grave structures of the mound with permafrost was completed; relative and absolute chronology of the burial structures was determined; the mechanism of permafrost formation in burials was traced; osteometric characteristics of horses were prepared; a soil map was compiled for the territory of distribution of archaeological sites; patterns of geographic distribution of modern and paleosols were revealed. palynological complexes were identified, and stylistic analysis of images made in the animal style was made. Laboratory and analytical processing, systematization, analysis and generalization of the obtained material were carried out. Together with the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow) and with the support of the INTAS grant “Study of ancient sanctuaries of the Aral-Caspian region: reconstruction of the ethnocultural and socio-political history of nomads of the 1st millennium BC.” studies of the Sarmatian sanctuary of Baite III in Western Kazakhstan and the dune burials of Sarykamys and Karaton were carried out.A comprehensive study of the monuments of early nomads of Kazakhstan opens up broad prospects for the study of the features and historical patterns of the formation and development of the cultures of the early Iron Age. Significant results have been achieved in the study of rock paintings in Kazakhstan. Since 1991, the Institute, together with the National Center for Scientific Research of France, has been developing the program “Corpus of Petroglyphs of Central Asia”. Specialists from Russia, China, Spain, Tunisia, Poland, and Uzbekistan took part in its implementation. A universal territorial-chronological scheme of the distribution of rock paintings has been developed, modern methods of absolute dating and copying of petroglyphs have been mastered. The materials of a large center of rock art of ancient and medieval Kazakhstan-Semirechye are summarized. The work presents materials from more than 30 sanctuaries with petroglyphs of different eras (from the Bronze Age to the late Middle Ages and ethnographic time). To date, this is one of the largest works in terms of the amount of material from one region. The problems of semantic analysis of rock paintings are considered. The interpretation of the most significant plots and images is given, individual semantic blocks related to a certain system of ritual practice of the Semirechye population in ancient times and the Middle Ages are considered. A study of the typology and functional features of sanctuaries with petroglyphs is conducted. A definition of the concept of “sanctuary” is given, clusters of petroglyphs are considered, small clan and large intertribal sanctuaries are identified, their main characteristics are given. The features of the functioning of the sanctuaries made it possible to identify both religious and ritual centers and sanctuaries associated with the features of the economic cycle. The study of Kazakh ethnographic drawings was continued using the material of Ustyurt, the Tyub-Karagan Peninsula, northern Mangistau and the south of the Atyrau region, applied to rocks, walls of burial and cult structures: mausoleums, sagan, tams, works of monumental art: koytases, kulpytases. In solving the problem of continuity of cultural traditions, the mechanism of transformation and elements of innovations from ancient times to ethnographic time were considered, some semantic and mythological aspects in the reconstruction of individual plots were developed. Research of settlements and burial grounds dating back to the end of the 1st millennium BC – 7th century AD in Southern Kazakhstan opened up new prospects for studying the history of the Kangyui state. The study of early sedentary agricultural cultures of southern Kazakhstan is closely related to the study of the initial stage of development of urban civilization. As studies of archaeological sites in the early Middle Ages in Talas, Arys and Syr Darya show, cities are being formed on the basis of settled Kangyui settlements. A number of works were carried out jointly with the National Center for Scientific Research of France. In the last decade, there has been an active understanding of the materials of the Jetyasar culture, its characteristics, the chronology of monuments, the analysis of the huge accumulated material and its systematization. The issues of solving the ethnic content of culture, a component of the formation of an ethnos, were also carried out. Generalizing works have appeared, summing up the results of many years of archaeological research in the Aral Sea region. Under the INTAS program, comprehensive studies of geologists, hydrogeologists, soil scientists, paleoitologists and archaeologists have been carried out in the north-eastern Aral Sea region. On the dry bottom of the Aral Sea, 120 m east of Terenozek, the remains of two settlements of the 14th – early 15th centuries were discovered, explaining that the “Aral crises” took place not only in the late 20th – early 21st centuries, but also earlier. The material culture and stages of development of the Kulan settlement of the 9th-10th centuries were studied, excavations of the castle were carried out, in one of the rooms of which a carved piece with a plant-geometric ornament, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic compositions was found,representing three-dimensional parts of sculpture, deep and graphic carving, figured applique. Along with pre-Islamic motifs, the composition contains Arabic inscriptions of religious content. At the Juvantobe settlement, layers of the city with buildings of the 6th-8th centuries were studied. The development of the city of Dzhamukata of the 6th-10th centuries (the Kostobe settlement) was studied in detail. At the Antonovka settlement, identified with the medieval Kayalyk (Kaylak), the capital of the Karluk Djabgu, excavations of a Buddhist temple of the 12th-13th centuries were completed, and a rich city estate of the 12th-12th centuries was studied. Additional interesting information was obtained on the issue of the device of room heating systems – kans, when the structure was heated not by one powerful furnace, but by local small furnaces located in different parts of the building. Among the interesting structures of the city the 14th century hammam bathhouse should be named. Research was continued in the protected area of the mausoleum’s architectural complex: at the Turkestan, Kultobe (Yasi), and Shoitobe (Shavgar) settlements. A preliminary map of the distribution of sedentary urban culture monuments (settlements, settlements) in the region was compiled. It was established that the city’s topography has two main periods of development: the 5th-14th and 14th-20th centuries. The first took place on the territory of the Kultobe hill and its immediate vicinity, the second is associated with the movement of the city’s territory to the west, its significant territorial growth, and the inclusion of the territory of the ancient necropolis with the khanaka of Kh. A. Yasawi. It was established that the allocation of the part now called the “citadel” – “ark” occurred no earlier than the mid-19th century, when the outer fortress walls encompassed the areas adjacent to the territory of the medieval city. Archaeological exploration in the Turkestan oasis revealed medieval settlements, among which the settlement of Sidakrana of the medieval and late Kangyui era (1st-9th centuries) stands out. The materials obtained allow us to consider the environs of the city of Turkestan as one of the large early agricultural oases in the south of Kazakhstan. As before, the main object of study of the South Kazakhstan complex archaeological expedition was Otrar. Excavations of the cathedral mosque of the late 13th-early 14th centuries were carried out here. This unique building was erected simultaneously with the construction of the Khoja Akhmed Yasawi complex in Turkestan by order of Timur. In 2000-2004. Archaeological conservation work in Otrar and the ancient settlements of the Otrar oasis was carried out under the international UNESCO-Kazakhstan-Japan project “Preservation and conservation of the ancient settlement of Otrar”. Its goal was to obtain new information through excavations and conservation of the previously excavated sites in Otrar: a cathedral mosque from the end of the 14th – beginning of the 15th century; a mosque from the 16th-17th centuries; a bathhouse from the 13th-14th centuries; a pottery workshop from the 13th – 14th centuries; an urban quarter from the 16th – 17th centuries; fortifications with the aim of turning Otrar and the oasis into an archaeological park and a tourist center on the Great Silk Road. Since 2004, after the completion of this program, work has begun to continue the line of preservation and museumification of Otrar under the project “Revival of Ancient Otrar”. Excavations of the cathedral mosque, city baths; conservation of the palace and mosque on Kuyruktobe and the fortification of Mardan-Kuika are underway. Among the large medieval urban centers where research has been carried out under the State Program “Cultural Heritage” are Ispidzhab, Shymkent and Sauran. Research has been conducted related to the localization of cities in the Ispidzhab district, excavations of Shymkent (stratigraphic pit) and work on the Ispidzhab rabad have begun. In connection with the celebration of the two-thousandth anniversary of the city of Taraz, a series of articles was published in scientific literature devoted to the archaeological monuments of the Talas Valley, the localization of cities, and the urbanization of the region. It has already been noted that one of the phenomena of this period of development of archaeology is the connection with researchers from near and far abroad, participation in INTAS grants,joint scientific conferences, which certainly expands the capabilities of the country’s archaeological science. One of the significant events in this regard is the “breakthrough” of Kazakhstani scientists in scientific publishing houses of foreign countries. Over the years, joint collections of works on archeology have been published, dozens of scientific articles have been published in the USA, France, Italy, Germany, China, South Korea, Pakistan. On the other hand, foreign researchers publish their articles in scientific publications of Kazakhstan. Among the publications that have gained fame in the scientific world are those devoted to archaeological research in Kazakhstan, published in Russia, France, Italy and Kazakhstan. The Institute of Archeology does a lot in terms of publishing albums and catalogs devoted to the publication of archaeological collections from excavations of individual monuments, thematic albums of works of art of the Saks of Kazakhstan, ancient gold, bronze, ceramics, architecture, arts and crafts. These publications contain texts in Kazakh, Russian and English, which gives the opportunity to get acquainted with the cultural heritage of Kazakhstan to a wide readership. The Institute of Archeology pays great attention to the issues of propaganda of cultural heritage in the country and abroad. The exhibitions “Golden Man and Ancient Treasures of Kazakhstan”, “Ancient Religions of Kazakhstan”, prepared by the museum of the Institute of Archeology were demonstrated with great success in the regional centers of the republic and abroad in Italy and France. The materials of scientific symposia held at the opening of these events have been published. Kazakhstan archeology is developing in the system of global scientific trends both in the study of traditional directions and in new ones put forward by the demands of modernity. One of the important areas of global science, including archeology, is the clarification of the issues of the origin of man and his development (anthropogenesis). In cultural terms, this is the study of the culture of the Stone Age (Paleolithic). Researchers, especially those of the English, American and Russian schools, have made great strides in studying the interaction of the natural environment and societies themselves, taken in their dynamic interaction. All these developments create a reliable foundation for understanding the ancient past of mankind. Today, world science is showing increased interest in studying mummified remains of people from different eras. Several major studies on this issue have been published in the last decade. These include a monograph published in Great Britain devoted to the study of mummified objects found on almost all continents of the Earth, as well as a three-volume work by Austrian scientists, which contains materials from a comprehensive study of the famous “Iceman”, information about mummies found in different parts of the world. The study of archaeological realities obtained during excavations, the publication of field observations, materials on the features of burial and funeral rites were carried out by Russian scientists N. V. Polosmak and V. I. Molodin, and a Kazakhstani researcher Z. S. Samashev. A new and promising direction at the junction of archeology and genetics is the molecular genetic analysis of deletion-insertion polymorphism of the VMT DNA region. A breakthrough in the field of genetics has made it possible to open a new and very promising direction in archeology – the study of the molecular genetics of social groups and clans. At present, two lines are being developed: the genetic history of tribes and genetic connections at the individual level. This area of science opens up a powerful layer of previously hidden knowledge related to the study of ancient society. The possibility of interpreting the obtained molecular genetic data will significantly expand in the future as information on modern populations accumulates. A comprehensive study of ancient societies continues to be a relevant direction in archeological science. This direction is called social archeology.Archaeological study of urban centers and small settlements, public buildings and individual “private” households, agricultural irrigation systems and caravan routes, jewelry and production inventory of the ancient metallurgist’s workshop – provides the basis for modeling the social and political structure of society. New modeling methods are emerging and those that have long been developed (XTENT modeling, center and periphery theory, etc.) are being developed. Ethnoarchaeology has become one of the fundamental areas within social archeology. This is explained by the fact that archaeologists themselves are now engaged in field studies of what was previously the property of ethnographers. Accordingly, emphases are placed differently and scientific problems are solved. Environmental archeology is today very a rapidly developing discipline. Within this discipline, we can distinguish many different directions using various research methods. The most famous of them are: the study of ancient coastlines, ancient landscapes, plant environment, micro and macro faunal complex and, finally, the human environment. A wide range of specialists work on solving the problems set by archeology, these are carpologists and soil scientists, geomorphologists and palynologists. A promising and new direction in archeological science today has become, for example, the process of collecting data, analyzing and recreating the ancient landscape. It is the ancient landscape that is the scene of the deployment of numerous processes, the essence of which archeology seeks to penetrate. Modern aerospace photographs provide information about the modern landscape, and therefore it is preferable to use old archival plans, maps, photographs instead of modern useless textures (aerial and space photographs) in order to determine the anthropogenic impact on the ancient environment and analyze the process of its change. Each detail can establish the desired relationship in the model created by a specialist in the Geographic Information System and become a fundamental part in the direction of future research. Careful study of osteological material collected during archaeological excavations of burial grounds and settlements has opened up the possibility of studying the flora and diet of ancient inhabitants. For this purpose, a series of analyses are carried out to determine the presence of minerals and microelements in bones. Thus, the breadth of coverage of various scientific fields by environmental archaeology is very large and the results of the research often astound the scientific world. An important area in archeology is the study of ancient technologies. Experimental archeology and a series of various natural science methods have become dominant in this area. Metallography and a series of chemical analyses in the field of paleometal studies are widely used. Trade routes, their comprehensive study, documentation, identification of main routes and numerous branches are another rapidly developing area in archeology. It is so broad that individual researchers often try to use the entire baggage of accumulated knowledge to achieve the highest possible results. An equally important and broad area in recent times has been the study of art and religion – cognitive archeology, which attempts to penetrate the thinking and worldview of the ancients through the study of material remains – artifacts. Archaeology and the public is a direction in science that includes the concept of work on already collected and published dry scientific documentation and analytics, carried out for the presentation of the studied monument to the general public. This sphere includes such complex aspects as scientific conservation, restoration and museification. Recently, archaeological science, absorbing the latest achievements of technical progress, has opened up new perspectives for studying the past. Magnetic and electrical exploration, satellite photography and geoinformation systems,various dating methods, which have become more reliable and accurate, have entered archaeological science. Any archaeological research now, as a rule, begins with a thorough study of aerial photographs and topographic maps. The development of digital equipment now allows us to take a new look at aerial photography by manipulating the sharpness and contrast of the image. In addition, combining a large number of images into one using various computer programs speeds up and facilitates the routine part of research. The use of GIS and aerial photography has allowed scientists to achieve unprecedented heights in the analytical sphere. The acquisition, processing and analysis of topographic data have recently acquired special significance, mainly due to the widespread introduction of electronic tacheometers and specific software. Very popular in archaeological circles Microtopography is used when the object selected for study is documented in high detail. Digitized topographic information transferred to an interactive environment is now presented in the form of three-dimensional models, allowing not only to enhance visualization, but also to solve a number of issues regarding the study of ancient and modern landscape situations. Some time ago, photographs of the Earth taken from space were of little use in archeology due to their large scale and lack of detail. But after the opening of data from LANDSAT, SPOT satellites to a wide review, recording the earth’s surface by recording the intensity of light reflection, as well as infrared radiation and transferring electronic data to a photographic image, space photographs became extremely popular in the archaeological environment. Now space photography is one of the fundamental ones in projects aimed at studying agro-irrigation systems, ancient landscapes, cities. The so-called non-excavation methods of documenting archaeological objects are becoming increasingly “fashionable” in science. Of course, neither space nor aerial photographs nor topography can show individual details, for example, of underground structures. In order to obtain these data hidden in the earth’s thickness without using radical research methods (excavations and samples) or to specify the location of the object’s elements for more accurate and at the same time fast research, a whole range of remote data collection is widely and successfully used in world science. Such methods include seismic and acoustic studies, during which sound waves are recorded and, based on the data obtained, conclusions are made about the location of buried structures; the principle of electrical resistance: the wetter the soil, the higher the conductivity and vice versa, has become fundamental in the use of a new method of remote research, most actively used mainly in Europe. Magnetic exploration is the most popular method, most successfully used in the search for and localization of structures created from baked clay. These structures have a magnetic field that can be recorded using magnetometers. The use of metal detectors not only in the search for metal objects, but also for other underground structures, has brought success in a number of scientific archaeological projects. Thermography, detailed mapping of vegetation, geochemical analysis of soil are natural science methods accepted by archaeology as auxiliary means of scientific research. The computer, as a tool that not only accelerates all sorts of processes in various branches of science and technology, but also opens up completely new, previously unknown horizons of scientific knowledge, has “burst” into all scientific research and often changed its direction. In world archaeology, a term that has become very fashionable in the last decade is now widely used – virtual archaeology.Methods of creating virtual reality in archeology – reconstructions, three-dimensional graphics, immersive display allow making information that is difficult to see accessible, visual, dialogic (interactive), and also open up new ways of presenting research. Modeling in the field of virtual archeology makes it possible to use all modern knowledge, to begin thinking about the object in an interactive user presentation. To collect and process the necessary information, many different computer programs and technical equipment have come to the aid of archeology. The most popular computer programs are AutoCAD with its numerous applications, as well as geographic information systems (for example, Arc View or Mapinfo), a huge number of programs for creating and managing databases, as for technical equipment, the undisputed leaders here are electronic tacheometers of various models and modifications, mentioned above, digital cameras, as well as very widespread and used receivers of the global positioning system (GPS). Archaeological science has achieved great results in the field of chronology and the latest natural science methods of the so-called relative and absolute dating. Below we will mention some of them: radiocarbon, potassium-argon, uranium isotope, chlorine-36, thermoluminescent method, archeo- and paleomagnetism, method of determining the degree of carbon oxidation, dating by plant pollen, by faunal remains, dendrochronology. New extensive data obtained in the course of using all kinds of dating methods allow us to correct previously established theories, build new chronological chains, find a place for facts in the historical canvas. The rapid development and wide use of numerous dating methods clearly presents this area as relevant and a priority. The scientific completeness of the study also depends entirely on the information collected and the conclusions made. Archaeologists constantly create virtual models of the objects they study, be it a small estate, a hillfort, or a series of hillforts. How close the created theoretical model is to the real object is evidenced only by the data collected during archaeological research. A virtual model can serve as a standard for recreating parts of a monument lost as a result of any cataclysms. Despite the fact that scientific and technological progress has contributed to the creation of all kinds of computer programs and equipment adapted for use in the field of archaeology, this area remains weak and is often perceived by domestic specialists as “know-how”, although in the West archaeological science achieves its greatest successes precisely due to the wide and widespread use of these tools. In Russian science, the use of, for example, electronic tacheometers (laser theodolites), called in the West as “workhorses”, without which it is difficult to understand the process of collecting high-quality documentation, is a new phenomenon, but with each field season it is gaining momentum. Undoubtedly, a major step forward was the use of global positioning system receivers, which allow geographically fixing a monument with an accuracy of 5-15 meters. These devices are now practically in every archaeologist’s possession, but several years ago, in the old-fashioned way, the object was “tied” to the third pole, standing 100 meters from a large tree, north of the Communism state farm. In Western universities and non-governmental companies engaged in archaeological practice, there are departments for the study of computer software, which makes it possible to more accurately, deeply and presentably remove and process data. These groups of specialists study not monuments as such,and digital systems with the purpose of finding out the capabilities of the latter for the study of monuments. The activities of domestic specialists in the field of computer use in science are largely concentrated on the digitization of text documents and photographic images. Recently, there has been a need to create scientific groups with a technical focus, a kind of avant-garde, theoretically mastering and then practically applying the latest computer programs in Kazakhstan’s archaeological research. In the field of archaeological research, the undisputed leaders in the field of computer program application have become GIS and the so-called CAD (computer semi-automatic design). GIS – geographic information system, a new technology that, despite its recent emergence, is widely used in numerous scientific disciplines. GIS has successfully is used, for example, in such areas as forestry, water supply system management, geology, economics, forensics, etc. CAD is a series of programs widely used mainly by specialists involved in the creation of all kinds of drawings, diagrams and other graphics. The capabilities of these systems are well known in the scientific circles of Kazakhstan, but the use of the latter is still a rare phenomenon. Basically, these programs are used in practice and scientific results are published by foreign specialists working in Kazakhstan. Archaeologists often turn to the fields of exact sciences and invite narrow specialists to cooperate – geologists, chemists, soil scientists, palynologists, geomorphologists. Complex data open up new research prospects. Unfortunately, the methods available to these scientists require modernization, and often even replacement with alternative latest developments. For example, geophysical methods of remote study of monuments are “in their infancy” and as a result of using the latter do not give the expected result. Although constant testing and improvement of geophysical research methods by Western specialists give results of maximum accuracy. Scientists-archaeologists should be armed with all sorts of the latest computer developments, technical means, the ability to work with extensive data from satellite studies of the earth, methods of exact sciences that help to establish absolute age, provide data on the location of structures hidden in the ground, analyze the composition of solutions of ancient masonry, and so on. Filling this gap has already begun, but for the successful continuation of this process, it is necessary to carry out the following activities: the creation of the technical department mentioned above, business trips for advanced training, financing projects for free access to the Internet, inviting foreign specialists to conduct special courses, master classes, trainings, seminars, lectures. The successes and achievements of the archaeology of Kazakhstan in the very near future will be laid in the development of new directions in archeology, the development of world-class methods, the introduction of new technologies in the documentation of archaeological material.

1.  Чертежная книга Сибири, составленная сыном боярским Семеном Ремезовым в 1701 г..  Спб, 1882. 2.  Археологическая карта Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1960, с. 8-9.  Маргулан А. Х. , Акигоев К. А. , Кадырбаев М. К.  Древняя культура Центрального Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1966, с.  17-20. 3.  Археологическая карта Казахстана.  С. 11; Маргулан А. Х. , Акишев К. А. , Кадырбаев А. М. , Оразбаев А. М. , с.  21-31. 4.  Валиханов Ч. Ч.  Очерки Джунгарии.  Избр. произведения.  Алма-Ата, 1958, с. 83-116; Он же, Дневник поездки на Иссык-Куль.  Здесь же, с.  239-240, 245-280-281, 334-339. 5.  Радлов В. В.  Сообщение о раскопках.  Отчеты археологической комиссии (ОАИ) за 1866 г.  СПб. , 1867, Верного, ОАК за 1862 г. , с.  XXII-XXIII ; Он же.  Из Сибири.  М. , 1989, с.  419-531. 6.  Лерх П. И.  Археологическая поездка в Туркестанский край в 1867 г.  СПб. , 1870. 7.  Бартольд В. В.  Соч.  т.  IV, М. , 1966, с.  21-87; Байпаков К. М. , Кумеков Б. Е.  В. В. Бартольд как историк и археолог средневекового Казахстана.  Известия АН КазССР (НАН КазССР), серия общественная, № 6, 1974, с. 83-88. 8.  Савельева Т. В.  Охрана и изучение древностей Казахстана Туркеметарисом (Средазкомстарисом).  Прошлое Казахстана по археологическим источникам.  Алма-Ата, 1976, с. 227-233. 9.  Грязнов М. С.  Погребения бронзовой эпохи в Западном Казахстане, Казаки, Антропологические очерки, вып. 2.  Л. , 1927, с.  172-215. 10.  Рыков П.  С. , Работы в совхозе «Гигант» (Караганда), Известия Гос.  Академии истории матер, культуры (ИГАИМК) 110, Археологические работы Академии наук СССР на Новостройках, Т. У.  М. , 1935; Кривцова-Гракова О.  А, Алексеевское поселение и могильник, Труды Гос.  историч.  музея (ТГИМ) XVII, М. , 1948; Черников С.  С. , Древняя металлургия и горное дело Западного Алтая.  Алма-Ата, 1949. 11.  Сатпаев К.  И. , Избранные труды, Алма-Ата, 1970, Т.  5, с.  44-45, 68-69,70. 12.  Ходжиков К.  Древнейшие памятники Семиречья Труды Казахстанского научно-исследов.  ин-та национальной культуры, т.  1.  – Алма-Ата, 1935 Танышпаев М.  История казахского народа.  – Алма-Ата, 1993, с.  200-218; Дублицкий Б.  Н. , Хроника археологических разведок и находок на территории КазССР, Архив института археологии им.  А. Х. Маргулана, Ф. 2, д.  161-162. 13.  Бернштам АН.  Историко-археологические очерки Центрального Тянь-Шаня и Памиро-Алтая.  Материалы исследования по археологии СССР (МИА) 26. M. -Л, 1952.  Список основных печатных работ А. Н. Бернштама, Краткие сообщения Ин-та ист.  матер, культуры (КСИИМК), 80, М. , 1960, с.  9-16. 14.  Байпаков К. М.  Археологическая литература в издании АН КазССР.  Советская археология (СА) 1964 № 2; Маргулан А. Х.  Некоторые итоги и перспективы археологического изучения Казахстана.  ИАН КазССР № 46, Серия археологии, вып.  1, 1948, с. 3-9; Бернштам А. Н.  Древний Отрар.  ИАН КазССР, № 108, серия археология, вып. 3, 1951, с.  81-97; Археологические исследования на северных склонах Каратау.  Труды ИИАЭ АН КазССР, Труды ИИАЭ т.  14 Алма-Ата, 1962; Агеева Е. И. , Пацевич Г. И.  Из истории оседлых поселений и городов Южного Казахстана.  Труды ИИАЭ, т. 5, Алма-Ата, 1958; Толстов С. П.  По следам древнехорезмской цивилизации.  М. , 1948, с.  234-274; Толстов С. П.  По древним дельтам Окса и Яксарта.  М. , 1962, с.  273-314; Черников С. С.  Отчет о работах Восточно-Казахстанской экспедиции, 1948, ИАН КазССР № 108, серия археологическая, вып.  3, 1951.  с.  64-80; Акишев К. А.  Отчет о работе Илийской археологической экспедиции 1954 г. , труды ИИАЭ, т.  I, с.  5-32. ; Синицын И. В.  Археологические исследования в Западном Казахстане.  Труды ИИАЭ, т.  I, 1956, с.  87-139; Пацевич Г. И.  Гончарная печь на городище Сарайчик.  Труды ИИАЭ, т.  1, 1956, с.  221-224; Сенигова Т. Н.  Отчет о работе Западно-казахстанской археологической экспедиции.  Труды ИИАЭ, т.  1, 1956, с.  140-156; Максимова А. Г.  Эпоха бронзы Центрального Казахстана.  Труды ИИАЭ, сер.  Т.  7, 1959, с.  86-161; Ремпель Л. И.  Археологические памятники в дальних низовьях Таласа.  Труды ИИАЭ, т.  1, 1956, с.  60-72; Макисмова А. Г.  Предметы эпохи ранних кочевников в Центральном музее Казахстана (Алма-Ата).  Труды ИИАЭ т.  1, 1956, с.  253-261; Джусупов А.  Орудия эпохи бронзы из случайных находок в окрестностях Алматы.  Труды ИИАЭ, 1956, с.  261-263; Копылов И. И.  Находка скифского шлема в Семиречье.  Ученые записки Алматинского гос. педагогического института (АГПИ).  Т.  XIV (2), серия общ. -политическая.  Алма-Ата, 1957, с.  300-302; Акишев К. А.  Памятники старины Северного Казахстана.  Труды ИИАЭ.  Т.  7, 1959, с.  3-32; Агеева Е. И. , Максимова А. Г.  Отчет Павлодарской экспедиции 1955.  Труды ИИАЭ, т.  7, 1959, с.  33-58. 15.  Алпысбаев А. Х.  Памятники нижнего палеолита Южного Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1979. 16.  Акишев К. А. , Археология Казахстана за советский период, СА 4,1967, с. 76-78. 17.  Маргулан А. X, Акишев К. А. , Кадырбаев М. К. , Оразбаев А. М. , Древняя культура Центрального Казахстана, Алма-Ата, 1966, Маргулан А. X. , Бегазы-дандыбаевская культура Центрального Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1979; Оразбаев А. М.  Поселение Чагалинка (Шагалы), Некоторые формы и типы жилищ.  По следам древних культур Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1970, с.  129-146; Оразбаев А. М.  Северный Казахстан в эпоху бронзы.  Труды ИИАЭ, т.  5, Алма-Ата, 1958, с.  216-294. 18.  Таймагамбетов Ж. Т.  История изучения палеолита Казахстана, Актуальные проблемы историографии древнего Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1989, с. 22-40. 19.  Чалая Л. А.  Озерные стоянки Павлодарской области Пеньки Л. Г. , Поиски и раскопки в Казахстане.  Алма-Ата, 1972, с. 163-181. 20.  Акишев К. А. , Кушаев Г. А.  Древняя культура саков и усуней долины р.  Или.  Алма-Ата, 1963. 21.  Акишев К.  А.  Курган Иссык.  М. , 1978. 22.  Кадырбаев М. К.  Памятники тасмолинской культуры.  В кн.  Маргулана А. Х. ; Акишев К. А. , Кадырбаев М. К. , Оразбаев А. М.  Древняя культура Центрального Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1966, с.  303-433; Багриков Г.  И. , Сенигова Т.  Н. , Открытие гробниц в Западном Казахстане.  Известия АН КазССР серия обществ.  наук 2, 1968, с. 71-89. 23.  Левина Л. И.  Керамика Нижней и Средней Сырдаръи в I тыс.  н. э. , М. , 1972. 24.  Кадырбаев М. К. , Марьяшев А.  М.  Наскальные изображения хребта Каратау, Алма-Ата, 1977; Медоев А.  Г.  Гравюры на скалах, Алма-Ата, 1979. 25.  Акишев К А. , Байпаков К.  М. , Ерзакович Л.  Б.  Древний Отрар.  Алма-Ата, 1981; Они же, Отрар в ХШ-XV вв. , Алма-Ата, 1987; Байпаков К. М.  Средневековая городская культура Южного Казахстана и Семиречья.  Алма-Ата, 1986; Савельева Т.  В. , Костина Д. М.  Отрар, Отрарский оазис и Южный Казахстан проблемные исследования Южно-Казахстанской комплексной археологической экспедиции, 1971-1985.  Алма-Ата, 1986; Сенигова Т. Н.  Средневековый Тараз.  Алма-Ата, 1972; Максимова, Мерщиев М. С. , Вайнберг, Левина А. М.  Древности Чардары.  Алма-Ата, 1969. ; Бурнашева Р. 3.  Отрар, отрарский оазис и Южный Казахстан, Нумизматические исследования по денежному делу южно-казахстанских городов VII-ХVII вв.  Алма-Ата, 1989; Настич В. Н.  К периодизации монетной чеканки Отрара и ее роли в денежном хозяйстве города и области.  Ближний и Средний Восток.  Товарно-денежные отношения при феодализме.  М. , 1980, с.  162-171. 26.  Средневековая городская культура Казахстана и Средней Азии.  Алма-Ата, 1983. ; Взаимодействие кочевых культур и древних цивилизаций.  Алма-Ата, 1989; Зайберт В.  Ф.  Динамика взаимодействия природно-экологических и социально-экономических факторов в процессе становления и развития производящего хозяйства в степях Казахстана.  Взаимодействие кочевых культур и древних цивилизаций.  Алма-Ата, 1989, с.  171-179; Зданович Г.  Б. , Феномен протоцивилизации бронзового века Урало-казахстанских степей, Культурная и социально-экономическая общность, Здесь же, с.  179-189. 27.  Археологические памятники в зоне затопления Шульбинской ГЭС.  Алма-Ата, 1987; Ахинжанов С. М.  Кыпчаки в истории средневекового Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1989. 28.  Таймагамбетов Ж.  К. , О постановке вопроса о древних связях палеолитических культур Казахстана и сопредельных территорий Взаимодействие кочевых и оседлых культур на Великом Шелковом пути.  Алма-Ата, 1991, с. 43-44. 29.  Аубекеров В.  Ж. , Артюхова О.  А. , Таймагамбетов Ж.  К.  О значении стратифицированных стоянок в изучении палеолита Казахстана Маргулановские чтения, Петропавловск, 1992, с. 22-24; Артюхова О. А.  Аубекеров Б. Ж. , Таймагамбетов Ж. К. , Древнейшие этапы развития палеолита Казахстана, Палеоэкология и расселение древнего человека в Северной Азии и Америке.  Красноярск, 1993, с. 6-10. 30.  Чиндин А.  Ю. , Новые данные по мезолиту Центрального Казахстана Маргулановские чтения.  Петропавловск, 1993, с. 32-35. 31.  Плешаков А. А. , Реконструкция хозяйственных комплексов ранненеолитической стоянки Тельмана XIV по результатам трасологических исследований.  Маргулановские чтения.  М. , 1992, с. 65-71. 32.  Зайберт В.  Ф. , Энеолит Урало-Иртышского междуречья Петропавловск, 1993. 33.  Калиева С. С.. К проблеме культурной атрибуции энеолитически памятников Тургая Ш тыс.  до н. э.  Маргулановские чтения.  М. , 1992, с. 54 – 59. 34.  Логвин В.  Н. , Новые данные по хозяйству терсекского населения Маргулановские чтения.  Петропавловск, 1992, с.  40-42. 35.  Усманова Э.  Р. , Дифференцированный подход к умершему в погребальном обряде.  Маргулановские чтения, 1990, М. , 1992, с. 97-104; Ткачев А. К проблеме миграции в андроновскую эпоху, Маргулановские чтения.  Петропавловск, 1992, с. 51-53; Кукушкин И.  А. , Огонь в андроновском погребальном обряде.  Здесь же, с.  63-65; Варфоломеев В.  В. , Кент как поселение городского типа.  Здесь же, с.  59-62; Зданович С.  Я.  Орудия горного дела и металообработки на поселениях бронзового века Урало-Ишимского региона.  Здесь же, с.  67-69. 36.  Кадырбаев М.  К. , Курманкулов Ж.  К, Культура древних скотоводов и металлургов Сары-Арки.  Алма-Ата, 1992. 37.  Карабаспакова К.  М. , К вопросу о становлении семиреченского очага металлообработки в эпоху бронзы.  Маргулановские чтения, Петропавловск,1992.  с.  49-51; Марьяшев А.  Н. , Горячев А.  Н. , Археологические памятники эпохи бронзы урочища Ок-Джайляу (Семиречье), Археологически исследования в Казахстане.  Алма-Ата, 1992, с. 3-15. 38.  Кушаев Г.  А. , Этюды древней истории степного Приуралья.  Уральск, 1993.  с. 41-45. 39.  Галкин Л.  Л. , Кочевники эпохи бронзы Западного Казахстана Маргулановские чтения, 1990.  М. , 1992, с. 77-79. 40.  Акишев А.  К. , Происхождение «звериного стиля» в изобразительном искусстве саков.  Маргулановские чтения.  М. , 1992, с.  4-9. 41.  Исмагилов Р.  Б. , Скифо-греческий торговый путь или миграционный путь сарматов, Взаимодействие кочевых и оседлых культур на Великом Шелковом пути.  Алма-Ата, 1991, с.  34-35. 42.  Исмагилов Р. Б. , Таргитай, прародитель скифов, Маргулановские чтения.  Петропавловск, 1992, с.  98-100. 43.  Ольховский В.  С. , Святилище Байте Ш в Западном Казахстане, Маргулановские чтения 1990.  М.  1992, с.  157-162; Галкин Л. , Каменные батыры Устюрта, Памятники истории и культуры Казахстана, Вып.  5.  Алма-Ата, 1992, с.  158-162. 44.  Кушаев Г.  А.  Этюды древней истории степного Приуралья.  Уральск, 1993, с.  51-60. 45.  Хабдулина М.  К.  Степное Приишимье в эпоху раннего железа.  Алматы, 1994. 46.  Ахинжанов С.  М. , Макарова Л.  А. , Нурумов Т.  Н.  К истории скотоводства и охоты в Казахстане.  Алма-Ата, 1992. 47.  Кузнецова Э.  Ф. , Тепловодская Т.  М.  Древняя металлургия и гончарство Центрального Казахстана.  Алматы, 1994. 48.  Марьяшев А Н. , Рогожинский А Е.  Наскальные изображения в горах Ешки-Ольмес.  Алма-Ата, 1991. 49.  Самашев 3.  С.  Наскальные изображения Верхнего Прииртышья.  Алма-Ата, 1992. 50.  Новоженов В. А.  Наскальные изображения повозок Средней и Центральной Азии (К проблеме миграции населения степной Евразии в эпоху энеолита и бронзы).  Алматы, 1994. 51.  Жетыбаев Ж.  М.  Виды оружия в этнографических рисунках казахов Устюрта и Мангыстау, Известия НАН РК. , Сер.  общ.  наук.  № 5, 1993, с.  61-68, (на каз. яз. ). 52.  Байпаков К.  М.  Археологические исследования по программе ЮНЕСКО «Великий Шелковый путь».  Вестник АН КазССР, 1991, № 12, с. 17-28. 53.  Взаимодействие кочевых культур и оседлых цивилизаций.  Алма-Ата, 1989; Байпаков К.  М..  Подушкин А. Н.  Памятники земледельческо-скотоводческой культуры Южного Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1989; Байпаков К.  М.  По следам древних городов Казахстана.  Алма-Ата, 1990. 54.  Низовья Сырдарьи в древности, вып.  П. , Джетыасарская культура, Склепы.  М. , 1993; Низовья Сырдарьи в древности вып.  Ш, Джетыасарская культура.  Могильники Томпакасар и Косасар.  М. , 1993. 55.  Байпаков К.  М.  Городище Куйрыкгобе, Памятники истории и культуры Казахстана, Вып.  5.  -Алма-Ата, 1992, с.  150-158. 56.  Байпаков К.  М. , Некоторые социально-экономические и этнокультурные аспекты в изучении жилища Южного Казахстана, Известие НАН РК 1994, № 5, с.  20-33. 57.  Ерзакович Л.  Б.  О периодизации развития средневекового Отрара, Маргулановские чтения.  1990.  М. , 1992, с.  177-182; Он же.  К вопросу о застройке рабада Отрара, Археологические памятники на Великом Шелковом пути, Алматы, 1993, с.  93-101; Он же, Об одном типе жилого дома Отрара XVII в.  Известия НАН РК.  Серя общественных наук 1993, № 5, с.  51-56; Ходжаев М.  Б.  Причины последнего общегородского пожара и окончательное запустение Отрара, Известия НАН РК, 1994, № 5, с.  57-61; Смагулов Е.  А, К вопросу об этнической принадлежности культуры позднесредневекового Отрара.  Маргулановские чтения, 1990.  М. , 1992, с.  196-206. 58.  Ходжаев М.  О керамическом производстве Отрара второй половины ХШ-первой половины XV в.  Маргулановские чтения 1992.  Петропавловск, 1992; Кузнецова О.  В. , Керамика с городища Алматы, Известия НАН РК. , серия общественных наук, 1994, № 5, с.  63; Тепловодская Т.  М.  Структурный анализ изделий с росписью кобальтом из Отрара, Известие НАН РК. , серия общественных наук, 1994. 59.  Керамика средневекового Отрара.  Составители Байпаков К.  М. , Ерзакович Л.  Б.  Алма-Ата, 1990. 60.  Грошев В.  А.  Водные источники и трасса Шелкового пути юга Казахстана.  Взаимодействие кочевых и оседлых культур на Великом Шелковом пути.  Алма-Ата, 1991, с.  62-63. 61.  Бурнашева Р. 3.  Новые монетные дворы (VII-XVII вв. ), Памятники истории и культуры Казахстана.  Алма-Ата,1992, с.  164-171, Бурнашева Р. З. , Неизвестный медный чекан Дженда, Археологические памятники на Великом Шелковом пути.  Алматы, 1993,с.  80-86; Бурнашева Р. 3. , Юсупова.  С. М. , Новые данные по денежному обращению сырдарыгаских городов золотоордыиского периода, Известия НАН РК, Сер. общ. наук, 1994, № 5, с.  45-50. 62.  Бурнашева Р. З. , Юсупова С. М.  Торговые связи города Джамуката по монетным данным.  Взаимодействие кочевых и оседлых культур на Великом Шелковом пути.  Алма-Ата, 1991, с.  60-62. 63.  Ерзакович Л.  Б. , Ходжаев М.  К вопросу о торговых связях Отрара в эпоху средневековья.  Взаимодействие кочевых и оседлых культур на Великом Шелковом пути.  Алма-Ата, 1991, с.  68-69; Савельева Т.  В.  Международные культурные и торговые связи городов Южного Казахстана в XII-XV вв. , здесь же, с.  93-94. 64.  Шарденова 3.  Ж.  Архитектура центрального зала дворца городища Костобе, Археологические исследования в Казахстане.  Алма-Ата, 1992, с. 51-61. ; Шарденова 3. Ж.  Ранняя мусульманская архитектура на Сырдарье, Древний Амуль, Проблемы истории и культуры Средней Амударьи.  Чарджев, 1993, с.  37-39. 65.  Смагулов Е. А.  Комплекс ритуальных атрибутов из Отрарского оазиса.  Археологические исследования в Казахстане, Алма-Ата, 1992, с.  34-42; Терновая Г.  А. , О семантике сосуда из Садыр-Кургана, Археологические памятники на Великом Шелковом пути.  Алматы, 1993, с.  137-144; Она же, Керамика Таласской долины.  Известия HAH PK, 1993, серия обществ. наук.  № 5, с.  40-51. 66.  Нурмуханбетов Б. Н.  Некоторые черты раннего ислама в Средней и Нижней Арыси.  Известия НАН РК,серия обществ.  Наук.  № 4,№ 5, с.  34-39. 67.  Савельева Т.  В..  Оседлая культура северных склонов Заилийского Алатау в УШ-ХШ вв.  Алматы, 1994. 68.  По Великому Шелковому пути.  Алма-Ата, 1991. 69.  Ермоленко Л.  Н. , Курманкулов Ж.  К.  Центрально-казахстанские памятники с изваяниями кипчакского облика.  Маргулановские чтения.  Петропавловск, 1992, с.  116-119; Илюшин А. М.  Об этнокультурной идентификации погребений по обряду кремации конца I тыс.  из Казахстанского Прииртышья и Кузнецкой котловины.  Маргулановские чтения.  Петропавловск, 1992, с.  119-121; Кушаев Г. А.  Этюды древней истории Степного Приуралья.  – Уральск, 1993, с.  94-112. 70.  Ахинжанов С.  М.  Кыпчаки в истории средневекового Казахстана.  -Алматы, 1989; Кумеков Б. Е.  Арабские источники по истории кипчаков, куманов и кимаков VIII- начала ХШ в..  Диссертация в виде научного доклада на соискание учёной степени докт.  ист.  наук.  СПб. , 1994. 71.  Цинман М. 3.  Методологические проблемы типологии отношений собственности у кочевников.  Алма-Ата, 1992. 72.  История Казахстана.  Очерки.  Алматы, 1993; Байпаков К. М. , Таймагамбетов Ж. К. , Жумагамбетов Т. , Археология Казахстана.  Алматы, 199373. . Свод памятников истории и культуры Казахстана, Южно-Казахстанская область.  Алматы, 1994. 74.  Байпаков К. М. , Таймагамбетов Ж. К. , Жумагамбетов Т.  Археология Казахстана.  Алматы, 1993. 75.  Шнирельман В.  Ценность прошлого: этноцентрические исторические мифы, идентичность и этнополитика.  Реальность этнических мифов.  М. , 2000, с.  12-33; Кореняко В.  Этнонационализм, квазиисториография и академическая наука.  Реальность этнических мифов.  М. , 2000, с.  34-52; Массон В. М.  Перспективы методологических разработок в исторической науке.  СПб, 2004, с.  3-6. 76.  Байпаков К. М.  Итоги и перспективы развития казахстанской археологии.  Известия НАН РК.  Серия обществ.  наук № 5, 1993, с. 3-7. 77.  Байпаков К. М.  Концепция становления исторического сознания в Республики Казахстан и задачи отечественной археологии.  Известия МН-АН РК, серия общественных наук № 2, 1996, с.  3-14; Байпаков К. М.  Задачи археологической науки Казахстана в год народного единства и национальной истории, Известия МН ВО РК, НАН РК серия обществ.  наук.  № 1, 1999, с.  3-5; Государственная программа «Культурное наследие».  Астана, 2004. 78.  Свод памятников истории и культуры Казахстана.  Южно-Казахстанская область.  Алматы, 1994. ; Свод памятников истории и культуры Казахстана.  Джамбульская область.  Алматы, 2002. 79.  Деревянко А. П. , Аубекеров Б. Ж. , Петрин В. Т. , Таймагамбетов Ж. К. , Артюхова О. А. , Зенин В. Н. , Петров В. Г.  Палеолит Северного Прибилхашья (Семизбугу, пункт 2, поздний палеолит) Новосибирск, 1993; Деревянко А. П. , Петрин В. Т. , Таймагамбетов Ж. К.  Палеолитические стоянки аридной зоны Евразии.  Методы исследования и информативные источники.  Новосибирск, 1997 (на английском языке); Деревянко А. П. , Петрин В. Т. , Таймагамбетов Ж. К.  Раннепалеолитические комплексы в травертинах Южного Казахстана.  Новосибирск, 1997 (на английском языке); Таймагамбетов Ж. К. , Исабеков З. К. , Рыбалко А. Г. , Отт М.  Раннепалеолитические микроиндустриальные комплексы в травертинах Южного Казахстана.  Новосибирск, 2000; Каменный век Казазстана и сопредельных территорий.  Туркестан, 1998. 80.  Таймагамбетов Ж. К. , Нохрина Т. И.  Археологические комплексы пещеры Караунгур (Южный Казахстан).  Туркестан.  1998; Самашев З. С. , Астафьев А. Е.  Неолит и энеолит Мангыстау.  История Казахстана.  Т.  1, 1996, с.  91-92; Калиева С. С. , Логвин В. Н.  Скотоводы Тургая в третьем тысячелетии до нашей эры.  Кустанай Алматы, 1998; Зайберт В. Ф.  Энеолит Урало-Иртышского междуречья.  Петропавловск, 1993. 81.  Евдокимов В. В.  Историческая среда эпохи бронзы степей Центрального и Северного Казахстана.  Алматы, 2000; Евдакимов В. В. , Варфоломеев В. В.  Эпоха бронзы Центрального и Северного Казахстана.  Караганда, 2002; Смагулов Е. А. , Баратов С. Р.  Предварительные итоги археологических исследований на могильнике эпохи бронзы Шербай.  Известия МОН РК-НАН РК, серия обществ. наук № 1.  2001, с.  32-38. 82.  Марьяшев А. Н.  Новые материалы о поселениях эпохи бронзы в горах Баян-Журик.  Известия МОН РК-НАН РК, серия обществ. наук № 1.  2002, с.  23-41; Марьяшев А. Н. , Горячев А. А.  Памятники Кульсайского типа эпохи поздней и финальной бронзы Семиречья.  История и археология Семиречья.  Алматы, 1999, с.  44-56; Мрьяшев А. Н. , Горячев А. А.  Поселения эпохи бронзы в верховьях ущелья Тургень и на плато Асы.  История и археология Семиречья.  Алматы, 2001, с. 112-123; Рогожинский А. Е.  Могильники эпохи бронзы урочища Тамгалы.  История и археология Семиречья.  Алматы, 1999, с.  7-43. 83.  Самашев З. С. , Ермолаева А. С. , Тепловодская Т. М.  Поселение Токсанбай на Устюрте.  Известия МН и ВО РК, НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 1999, с.  49-70; Макарова Л. А. , Нурумов Т. Н.  Ископаемые кости животных поселения Токсанбай.  Известия МН и ВО РК, НАН РК. , серия обществ.  наук № 1, 1999, с. 79-82. 84.  Кузнецова Э. Ф. , Тепловодская Т. М.  Древняя металлургия и гончарство Центрального Казахстана.  Алматы, 1994; Ермолаева А. С. , Ермоленко Л. Н. ,Кузнецова Э. Ф. , Тепловодская Т. М.  Поселение древних металлургов VIII-VII вв.  до н. э.  на семипалатинском правобережье Иртыша.  Вопросы археологии Казахстана.  Вып.  2.  Алматы-Москва, 1998, с.  39-46. 85.  Chang C. , Tortellote P. , Baipakov K. M. , Grigoriev F. P.  The evolution of steppe communities from the bronze age thorough medieval periods in Southeastern Kazakhstan (Zhetusu).  (The Kazakh – American Talgar project 1994-2001).  Almaty, 2002. 86.  Хабдулина М. К.  Поселения раннесакского времени на р.  Селеты.  Степная цивилизация восточной Евразии.  Астана, 2003, с.  189-214. 87.  Бейсенов А. З.  Исследование Сарыаркинской экспедиции в Центральном Казахстане.  Известия Национальной Академии наук РК, серия общественных наук № 1, 2002, с.  31-41. 88.  Самашев З. С. , Джумабекова Г. С. , Сунгатай С. , Берел.  Алматы, 2000; Горбунов А. П. , Самашев З. С. , Северский Э. В.  Вечная мерзлота – хранительница древностей.  Алматы, 2000; Самашев З. С. , Фаизов К. Ш. , Базарбаева Г. А.  Археологические памятники и палеопочва Казахского Алтая.  Алматы, 2001; Самашев З. , Мыльников В.  Деревообработка у древних скотоводов Казахского Алтая.  Алматы, 2004. 89.  Самашев З. С. , Ольховский В. С. , Веселовская Е. В. , Жетибаев Ж. М.  Население арало-каспийского региона в сарматскую эпоху.  История исследования культуры Казахстана.  Алматы, 1997, с.  132-165. 90.  Самашев З. С.  Наскальные изображения Верхнего Прииртышья.  Алма-Ата, 1992; Мартынов А. И. , Марьяшев А. Н. , Абетеков А. К.  Наскальные изображения Саймалы-таша.  Алма-Ата, 1992; Новоженов В. А.  Наскальные изображения повозок Средней и Центральной Азии (К проблеме миграции населения степной Евразии в эпоху неолита и бронзы).  Алматы, 1994; Марьяшев А. Н. , Горячев А. А.  Наскальные изображения Семиречья.  Алматы, 1998; Mar’jasev A. N. , Gorjacev A. A. , Potapov S. A.  Repertoire des petroglyphes d’Asie Centrale.  Fas.  5.  Kazakhstan Choix de petrogliphes du Semichh’e (Felsliller in siebenstomland.  Paris, 1998. ; Рогожинский А. Е.  Изобразительный ряд петроглифов эпохи бронзы Тамгалы.  История и археология Семиречья, вып. 2.  Алматы, 2001, с.  7-44; Байпаков К. М. , Марьяшев А. Н.  Петроглифы в горах Кульжабасы.  Алматы, 2004; Наскальные рисунки края Кереку-Баян.  Павлодар, 2002; Самашев З. , Жетибаев Ж.  Казак петроглифтер, Алматы, 2005. 91.  Подушкин А. Н.  Арысская культура Южного Казахстана.  Туркестан, 2000; Смагулов Е. А.  Арысская культура: миф или реальность.  Заметки по поводу.  Известия НАН РК.  Серия обществ.  наук № 1, 2004, с.  284-301; Baipakov K. , Smagulov E. , Toor M.  Archaeological excavation in the Tallas valley.  International for the study of the cultures of Central Asia.  IS. 21.  M. , 1998, p.  98-111; Baipakov K. M. , Smagulov E. A.  Doneness recenftes sul le probleme de Kangju.  Recherdes archaeologiques a Kazakhstan.  Paris, 1998, p.  27-37; Байпаков К. М. , Воякин Д. А.  Исследование комплекса Талтакай.  Известия МОН РК, НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 2003, с.  108-125; Байпаков К. М. , Бурнашева Р. З.  Лекомт О. , Руссе М. О.  О совместной работе казахстанских и французских археологов.  Доклады НАН РК № 5, 1993, с.  70-77. 92.  Левина Л. М.  Этнокультурная история Восточного Приаралья.  М. , 1996; Рапопорт Ю. А. , Неразик Е. Е. , Левина Л. М.  В низовьях Окса и Яксарта.  М. , 2000; Байпаков К. М. , Бороффка Н. , Савельева Т. В. , Ахатов Г. А. , Лобас Д. А. , Ержанова А. А.  Итоги археологических исследований по проекту INTAS «Climan».  Известия НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 2004, с.  237-254; Байпаков К. , Воякин Д. , Айдосов А. , Мамиев Т.  Города на дне Арала.  Промышленность № 12, 2004, с.  94-97. 93.  Байпаков К. М. , Терновая Г. А.  Резная глина Жетысу.  Алматы 2004. 94.  Байпаков К. М. , Грищенко А. Н. , Савельева Т. В.  Ходжа М. Б.  Археологические исследования Южно-Казахстанской комплексной археологической экспедиции.  Известия МН и ВО РК, НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 1999, с.  12-16; Байпаков К. М. , Воякин Д. А.  Хаммам в средневековом Каялыке.  Известия МОН РК, НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 2003, с.  120-146; Байпаков К. М. , Пешков Ю. М.  Раскопки усадьбы средневекового Каялыка.  Известия МОН РК, НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 2000, с. 229-236. 95.  Смагулов Е. А. , Григорьев, Ф. П. , Итенов А.  Очерки по истории и археологии средневекового Туркестана.  1999; Города Туркестана.  Сброник статей.  Алматы.  1999;, Смагулов Е. А.  Некоторые итоги полевых археологических работ в Южном Казахстане.  Известия МН и ВО РК, НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 1999, с.  37-40; Смагулов Е. А. , Туякбаев М. Х.  Археологические исследования городища Сидак.  Известия МОН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 2003, с. 83-98. 96.  Города Туркестана.  Сборник статей.  Алматы, 1999, с.  30-58; 57-164; Baipakov K. M.  Jansen M. , Franken-Vost U.  Zheleznykov B, Pezhkov Y, Voyakin D.  Archaeological investigation in Otrar (2003), Известия НАН РК, серия обществ.  наук № 1, 2004, с.  254-281; Отрар ЮНЕСКО, 2003; Консервация и менеджмент археологических и сырцовых памятников.  Отрар- Туркестан, ЮНЕСКО, 2004. 97.  Байтанаев Б. А.  Древний Испиджаб.  Шымкент, Алматы, 2003; Байтанаев Б. А.  Вопросы локализации Нуджикета.  Новые исследования по археологии Казахстана.  Труды научно-практической конференции «Маргулановские чтения – 15» Алматы, 2004, с.  66-81. 98.  Байпаков К. М.  Таразу -2000 лет.  Материалы Республиканской научно-практической конференции 4-5 апреля 2002 г.  Тараз, 2002, с. 5-8; Байпаков К. М.  Тараз и средневековые города Таласской долины.  Тараз, 2000.  Материалы международной научно-практической конференции.  26-27 октября.  Тараз, 2002, с.  19-29. ; Northedje A.  Akyrtash and Islamic culture in Talas valley.  Тараз, 2000.  Материалы международной научно-практической конференции 26-27 октября.  Тараз 2002, с.  50-5299.  Средняя Азия в раннем средневековье.  Археология.  М. , 1999, с.  151-174. ; Nomades sedentaires en Asia Central.  Paris, 1990; Cavalier dell steppe.  Memoria delle terre del Kazakhstan.  Electa, Milano, 2000; Chang C. , Tourtellote P. , Baipakov K. M. , Grigoriev F. P.  The evolution of steppe communities from bronze age through medieval periods in southeagfern Kazakhstan (Zhetysу).  (The Kazakh-American Talgar project).  Sweet-Briar-Almaty,2002; Baipakov K.  The Silk Route across Central Asia.  History of civilization of Central Asia.  Vol. IV, Р. II,UNESCO, 2000, p.  221-226; Baipakov K. M.  and Kumekov B. E.  The Kazakhs; Baipakov K. M.  Handicrafts.  History of civilization of Central Asia.  Vol.  V.  UNESCO, 2003, pp.  89-108; 379-391; Parsinger H, Zajbert V, Naglar A, Plesakov A.  Der grobe kurgan von Baikaza.  Mainr an Rhein, 2002. ; Samashev Z. S. , Bazarbaeva G. A. , Zumabekova G. S.  «Die, goldhutenden Griefe» des Gerodot und die archaologische kultur dez fruhen nomaden in kazachischen Altai.  Eurasia Antiqua.  Band 8.  Mainz am Khein, 2002, C. 237-276; Marjasev A. N. , Gorjacev A. A. , Potapov S. A.  Kazakhstan : choix de petroglyphes du Semirech’e (Felsbilder in sielbenstromland) Kepertoire des petrogleyhhes D’Asie Centrale.  T. V.  Paris, 1998. 100.  Тасмагамбетов И. , Самашев З.  Сарайчик.  Алматы, 2001; Тасмагамбетов И.  Кулпытас.  Алматы, 2002; Тасмагамбетов И.  Кентавры Великой степи.  Алматы, 2003; Древнее золото Казахстана.  Алматы, 1998; Древняя бронза Казахстана.  Алматы, 1998; Древняя керамика Казахстана.  Алматы 1998; Heritage of Kazakhstan.  Т. I.  Алматы, 2001, T. II. , 2001; Есмаханов А. , Байпаков К.  Туркестан – очег цивилизации.  Алматы-Туркестан, 2000; Байпаков К. М. , Танабаева С. И. , Сдыков М. Н.  Древние сокровища Западного Казахстана.  Алматы, 2001; Байпаков К. М. , Савельева Т. В.  Древние сокровища Алматы и Жетысу, Алматы, 2004,см.  так же: Воякин Д.  Новые книги по археологии Казахстана.  Известия МН-ВО РК-НАН РК, серия обществ. наук № 1, 1999, с.  186-189; Лошакова Т. Н.  Новые издания НАН РК, серия обществ. наук № 1, 2004, с.  302-308. 101.  Luomo d’oro la cultura dell steppe del Kazakhstan dalla’eta del brozo alle grandi migrazioni A cura di Grigri albore popescu, Chiara Sievi Antonini, Karl Baipakov.  Electa, 1998; Altun Adam L’Uomo d’Oro.  A cura di Chiara Silvi Antonini, Karl Baipakov.  Roma,1999; Shamani e dervisci dale steppe del Pretre Gianni.  Religiosita del Kazakhstan e percerione del fantastico a Venezia.  A.  cura di Giovanni Curatola.  Edizioni multigraf, 2000. 102.  Gamble C.  Paleolithic settlement in Europe.  Camrridge, 1985; Массон В. М.  Палеолитическое общество Восточной Европы (вопросы палеоэкономики, культурогенеза и социогенеза).  Санкт-Петербург, 1996. 103.  The Bog.  Man and archeology of people.  London, 1991; Spindler K, Rastbidhle Z. , Zissernig E. , Welfing H.  Der Mann I Eis.  Wein, 1995; Spindler K. , Rastbidhle Z. , Zissernig E.  The Man in the Ice.  A. Global Survey of their status and the techniques of conservation.  Vol.  3, Wein, 1996104.  Феномен Алтайских Мумий.  Новосибирск, 2000; Полосьмак Н. В.  Всадник Укока.  Новосибирск, 2001; Самашев З. С. , Базарбаева Г. А. ,Жумабекова Г. С. , Сунгатай С.  Берел.  Алматы 2000. 105.  Овчиников И. В. , Друзина Е. Б.  и др.  Молекулярно-генетический анализ делеционно-инсерционного полиформизма региона V мт ДНК у мумии из погребального комплекса Ак-Алаха 3.  Феномен Алтайский мумий.  Новосибирск, 2000.  С.  222-223; Воеводова М. И.  и др.  Расовые и эттноспецифические особенности мт ДНК предстваителей пазырыкской культуры Горного Алтая.  Феномен Алтайских мумий.  Новосибирск, 2000.  с.  230. 106.  Renfrew C. , Bahn P.  Archaeology: Theories Methods and Practice,2001. 107.  Этнографо- археологические комплексы// Проблемы культуры и социума.  Новосибирск, 2002. 108.  Cattani M.  Fiorini A. , Rondelli B.  Virtual archaeology or time machine: scientific paths for a reconstruction of archaeological landscape.  The reconstruction of archaeological landscapes through digital technologies.  Roma,2003. 109.  Renfrew C. , Bahn P.  Archaeology: Theories Methods and Practice.  2001. 110.  Santana M. Q.  The or Three-dimentional techniques or Documentation and dissemination in Studying Built Heritage.  Leuven. 2003. 111.  Scollar I. , Tabbagh A. , Hesse A. , Herzog I.  Remote Sensing in Archaeology.  Cambridge and New York, 1990.