03 Part 2. Excavations.pdf

31

Part II

Archaeological Excavations

32

Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age

33

AbstractThis paper reviews a group of cultic sites dating to the 4th2ndcenturies BC recently discovered in the Aral-Caspian region,Republic of Kazakhstan. The chronological and ethnoculturalattributes, and the theory that sites are related to the Asianmilitary campaign of Alexander the Great are discussed. Ar-chaeological expeditions conducted over several years in west-ern Ustyurt and Mangyshlak revealed more than a dozen EarlyIron Age sanctuaries. Analysis of some sanctuaries indicatethat they are a unique complex of a type previously unknownthroughout the Eurasian steppes. The sanctuaries display com-monalities including stone anthropomorphic statues (more than100 have been recovered), and stone sacrificial structures withthe main feature being a round cultic construction up to 10 min diameter; the latter has parallels with the Zoroastriandakhma, although no trace of human bones or burials wererecovered. It is presumed that the sculptures represent deceasedancestors. The discovery of large monolithic altars, known assacrificial tables, suggest that the sites possibly were linkedto a cult involving fire and liquids while Sarmatian tamgas onseveral sculptures indicate the presence of a Sarmatian popu-lation at the Ustyurt sanctuaries.

KeywordsKazakhstan, Sarmatians, Massagetae, sanctuary, statue, rite

IntroductionA wide belt of steppes and deserts, often referred to as theGreat Eurasian Steppe Belt, extends across the whole ofEurasia. This belt is bounded by the taiga (forest) to the northand by inaccessible mountain ranges and plateaus to the south,and acted as a natural corridor for the migrations of large groupsof people and their animals. The history of the last four mil-lennia has revealed that nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes maderegular use of the steppe corridor for latitudinal and meridi-onal movements.

The archaeological sites of the Eurasian steppes have beenwell known for over one hundred years, yet some have re-ceived more extensive study than others. Planned, large-scaleexcavations have occurred in the steppes of the northern mari-time zone of the Caucasus, in the Volga and Ural regions, andin the desert zones around the Aral sea (Davis-Kimball et al1995). Mongolia, northern and central Kazakhstan, Turk-

menistan, and the majority of Central Asia have been studiedto a lesser extent (Vainberg et al 1992). Moreover, the rockyand sandy deserts between the Caspian and Aral Seas have re-mained very much a blank spot on the archaeological map ofwestern Asia. This region is of great importance because of itsstrategic position; it provides the shortest and most direct routefrom the north (the Volga region, the Urals, and northernKazakhstan) to the south (the agricultural oases of Khorezm,Margiana, and Bactria). Moreover, these deserts also intersectwith the Iranian and Afghanistanian plateaus. We know that dur-ing the Middle Ages one of the Great Silk Roads passed throughthe Aral-Caspian corridor, although it is highly probable thatthis route had been used during much earlier periods. The earliestscientific research of the Aral-Caspian region resulted in the iden-tification of a large number of archaeological sites ranging in datefrom the Neolithic to the Late Middle Ages (Yanshin andLitvinskyi 1963; Kamalov 1978; Samashev et al 1997).

Historic sources indicate that nomadic tribes of Central Asiaand western Kazakhstan played a significant role in the estab-lishment and the later collapse of two great first millenniumBC empiresthe Achaemenid Persian and that of Alexander ofMacedonia. For this reason the ethnocultural identification ofeach archaeological site, and its incorporation into the contextof world history, is today of great importance (Mandelshtamand Gorbunova 1992).

This paper reviews a group of cultic sites dating from the 4th2nd centuries BC that were recently discovered in the Aral-Caspian region, Republic of Kazakhstan. Their chronologicaland ethnocultural attributes will be presented, and the theorythat these sites are related to Alexander the Greats Asian mili-tary campaign will be discussed.

EnvironmentThe Ustyurt Plateau occupies a large proportion of the Aral-Caspian region, and is an extremely interesting geological areacovering 200,000 sq. km, now divided between Kazakhstanand Uzbekistan. The plateau rises much like an island approxi-mately 300500 m above the surrounding territory. Its bound-aries are clearly marked by steep precipices, which are onlypossible to climb to in specific locations (Fig. 1). The easternarea of the Ustyurt Plateau is in close proximation to the Aral

Ancient Sanctuaries of the Aral and Caspian RegionsA Reconstruction of their History

Valery S. OlkhovskiyInstitute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Russia

34


Sea maritime zone, while to the south it is defined by LakeSarykamysh and the Uzboi Valley.1 A wide depression (a driedup sea bay) separates the Ustyurt Plateau from the Caspian KaraBogaz Gol (bay) and the low Mangyshlak plateau to the west;the northern edge of the Ustyurt Plateau is not steep and gradu-ally merges into the Caspian Sea lowland valleys.

No lakes, rivers, or mature vegetation are on the Ustyurt, butsweet and salty water is obtained from deep wells. The currentecological situation of the plateau is extremely harsh; essen-tially there is no rain, and during the summer the temperaturecan reach up to 47 degrees celsius. In winter it is virtually im-possible to survive on the plateau due to the constant strongwinds and temperatures dropping as low as 30 degrees celsius.

The severe climatic conditions in Ustyurt have changed littleover the last three thousand years and consequently, becauseof the harsh environment, it is generally assumed it would havebeen impossible for large populations to have lived on the pla-teau during the Early Iron Age. The discovery of two archaeo-logical sanctuary sites on western Ustyurt near the Baite Wellsin 1983, preliminarly dated to between the 4th2nd centuries BC,was completely unexpected.

Site descriptionAnalysis of the Baite sanctuaries has revealed that they area unique complex of sites of a type previously unknownthroughout the Eurasian steppes. Archaeological expeditionsconducted over several years in western Ustyurt andMangyshlak have discovered more than a dozen other sanc-tuaries similar to the Baite examples. These other complexesare less impressive than the Baite sanctuaries in terms ofsize and the number of statues (Samashev and Olkhovskiy1996; Olkhovskiy and Galkin 1997). All of the sanctuariesdisplay a number of common features including their loca-tion on hills; the existence of one to five mounds or mound-shaped embankments; up to 35 stone anthropomorphic stat-ues; round and rectangular stone altars; and dozens of smallstone sacrificial memorial structures (Olkhovskiy andGalkin 1990). By the time the sites were discovered all thestatues had fallen from their original positions and a largenumber appear to have been deliberately destroyed. It ispossible that some of the destruction may have occurredduring antiquity.

The sanctuariesThe discovery of the Baite sanctuaries has raised a number ofimportant questions, namely who, when, and for what purposewere these sanctuaries created in an almost inaccessible desert,far from the centers of the ancient civilizations? The sites arealso important as repositories for an expressive anthropomor-phic art style. Previously it was thought that the Sarmatian,Saka, and Massagetae tribes, who lived in the western Asiansteppes, were familiar only with Animal Style. The resultsof a research program conducted over a several decades by ajoint Russian-Kazakhstan expedition has enabled us to gainvaluable insights into these issues.

Plans of the sanctuaries Baite III, Teren, and Karamunke indi-cate that a round cultic construction up to 10 m in diameter, ora large mound, was the main structural features of the sanctu-aries (Fig. 2). The cultic structures were composed of largestone blocks that formed a circular wall approximately 1.52m in height, with a width of up to 1 m. A narrow passagewaygenerally provided access into the interior of the structure. Noremains of construction debris or household refuse was recov-ered from the interior of the cultic structure or from the entiresanctuary territory; thus we are of the opinion that the sanctu-aries deliberately were kept clean. The circular cultic construc-tions have parallels with Zoroastrian dakhma, although no hu-man bones or traces of burials synchronous with the sanctuar-ies have been recovered.

The sculpturesThe anthropomorphic sculptures are the most dramatic featureof the sanctuaries (Olkhovskiy 1994). Although they had fallenand were no longer in situ, it was possible to identify their origi-nal location because of their preserved foundation pits. It be-came clear that the statues had been positioned in groups com-posed of two to four monuments, and that each group had beenlocated approximately 12 m from the next. The number ofsculptures located in each sanctuary ranged from one or twoup to as many as 35, and a total of approximately 100 statueshave been recovered. Although the majority of the statues werebroken, it was possible to reconstruct most of the monumentsfrom broken fragments. A cluster of tall statues (approximately34 m high), undoubtedly, would have made a strong visualimpression

The statues had been rather skillfully made, and provide evidence ofancient masons stone working skills; the precision with which thesculptors executed minute details enables one to authentically recon-struct the ethnographic appearance of the earliest inhabitants of theAral-Caspian steppes. In general, each sculpture represents a stand-ing man, his right arm lowered and his left arm, clasping the stomach,is bent at the elbow (Figs. 36). The faces are very expressive withalmond-shaped eyes; a clear cut forehead that gradually transformsinto an elongated straight nose; a thin drooping mustache and a smallmouth. In addition, a number of the statues also have wrinkles clearlyincised into the cheeks (Fig. 7). Although the majority of the sculp-tures display European facial characteristics, others have wide flat-tened faces, a lack of beards, and pronounced cheek-bones, featuresthat are characteristically Mongoloid. It should be noted thatpaleoanthropological studies have indicated that peoples of Europoid-Mongoloid admixture lived in the eastern Caspian region during theEarly Iron Age (Samashev et al 1997).

Their costume and assessories are also indicated. A wide leather beltwith a metallic buckle, sometimes decorated with embroidery orappliqu, appears to have been an obligatory element of a warriorsoutfit (Fig. 3). A double-edged sword in a sheath was hung from thebelt front by two straps (Figs. 5 and 6), and a gorytus (quiver) wasattached to the left side of the belt. The Bow in the gorytus small andsigma-shaped (Figs. 4 and 8), and of the type typically used by theEurasian nomads during the Scythian-Sarmatian period.

35

A dagger for both hunting and battle was an almost obligatoryaccessory for the Ustyurt nomads. Carvings of daggers on thestatues indicate that it was worn in the Saka-Median Style,attached to the hip by one or two straps (Figs. 3, 4, and 8). Anextension at the end of the sheath (buterol), or a couple of ledgeson the lower part of the sheath, prevented the dagger from fall-ing out, and ensured that it was positioned near the warriorshand. It is known that the Medians, Sarmatians, Saka, andMassagetae all wore daggers in this manner, although it is notcertain how the Scythians wore this weapon. A leather semi-spherical helmet would have covered the head and the nape ofthe warrior-nomads neck (Figs. 3 and 8).

During the Early Iron Age, objects of precious metal indicatedthe high social status of their wearer. Individuals of the upperechelons (both men and women) would have worn gold jew-elry including bracelets, earrings, and torques. In addition, thenomads decorated their horse harnesses with silver plaques andbeads. Spiral-shaped torques, earrings, and bracelets displayedin relief on the Ustyurt statues (Figs. 3, 7, and 9) replicate jew-elry that has been recovered from nomadic tombs in the Volgaand Ural regions, and in Kazakhstan. Analogous spiral-shapedtorques and bracelets are also included in the Peter the GreatCollection (Rudenko 1962), and it is thought that grave rob-bers retrieved these artifacts from tombs in southern Siberiaand northern Kazakhstan.

As mentioned earlier, prior to the discovery of the Ustyurt andMangyshlak sanctuaries, there was no evidence to indicate thatthe Sarmatians, Saka, or Massagetae created anthropomorphicsculptures, although it was known that they positioned stonestelae or menhirs in their burial grounds and sanctuaries. Itwould appear that only their western neighborsthe Scythiansfrom the northern Caucasus and the Black Sea maritime zonecreated anthropomorphic sculptures. Scythian sculpture alsoreproduces images of standing male warriors; however, theirweapons and decorations were of a different type that those onthe Ustyurt sculptures, and Scythian statues appeared in thelate 7th or early 6th century BC, much earlier than the Ustyurtmonuments (Olkhovskiy and Evdokimov 1994). It is notewor-thy that when the earliest Ustyurt sanctuaries were constructed,monumental sculpture of the western nomadic Scythians wasentering a period of decline, and it appears unlikely that Scythianart would have greatly influenced the sculptors of the Aral-Caspian region. The high quality of the Ustyurt statues, com-bined with the fact that no evidence exists for a period of artis-tic development, however, would imply that there must havebeen sculptures from some source available that inspired theUstyurt artisans. In my opinion, the Ustyurt sculptors borrowedtechnological and stylistic methods from another group orgroups that enabled them to create the realistic anthropomor-phic sculptures, but at the same time, the borrowing did notinhibit the creation of original sculptures, fulfilling their reli-gious and aesthetic requirements.

A hypothesis regarding the function of the sanctuariesBy analyzing the structure of these sites, it is possible to gaininsight as to which deities the sanctuaries were dedicated to. A

high mound or a concentric stone construction that may havesimulated, or was related to, a sacred center of the microcos-mos (the territory of the sanctuary), was positioned centrallywithin each sanctuary. The anthropomorphic statues, clusteredtogether, generally were placed to the south or east of the cen-tral construction. It is a well known that the eastern and south-ern vectors of the Indo-Iranian and Indo-European mythologi-cal systems are usually related to a theme of life, regeneration,light, and the sun. Reconstructing the site, it is now known thatthe statues were placed facing toward the north or the west. Inthe Indo-European religious systems these directions are con-sidered to represent the sunset where the mythical country ofthe dead, and cold and darkness were located.

Various stone sacrificial vessels with vertical rims were foundin close proximity to the statues. Large monolithic altars, termedsacrificial tables and measuring up to 1.2 m by 1 m, display-ing cup-shaped indentations in the corners, are of particularinterest (Fig. 9). These indentations may indicate that the tableswere linked to a cult involving the use of liquid, possibly wateror blood as well as fire, as it would have been possible to fillthe indentations with animal fat, which was then ignited. Weknow that water, blood, and fat were widely used by the priestsof the ancient Indo-Iranian culturesincluding the Sarmatians,Saka and Massagetaeduring rituals linked with the conceptsof humans, nature, death, and resurrection. It was believed thata priest, with the help of magic, could restore world order thathad been violated by the death of a person or a major calamity;priests could also appeal to the gods for help in the strugglewith imaginary and real enemies.

The role of the stone sculpturesThe occurrence of large numbers of sculptures with similarfacial features, displayed in series, may allow us to concludethat they depicted deceased warrior-ancestors, who were re-spected by the tribal community. It is also possible that eachstatue was considered a vessel for the dead warrior-ancestorssoul. The sculptors emphasized the military role of the deceasedas well as personal attributes, such as the advanced age of anindividual. It would have been natural for a nomad to appeal tothe ancestors spirits for help. Perhaps during a desperatestruggle with the Greek Macedonians and their allies in thesouthern Ustyurt region, the people invoked these idol-ances-tors who, during their time, had successfully repulsed the in-cursion of the Persian King Cyrus II, two centuries earlier.

The military leader of each tribe was considered to be the liv-ing embodiment of a mythical tribal hero-father and a protec-tor of tribal territory, and who would continue to protect hisdescendants after death. The sculptural form of the dead chief-tain, therefore, became merged into the contemporary con-sciousness with an ancestor, one who could renderer assistanceto his descendants, provided they implemented certain ritualsand offered sacrifices.

The problem of dating and ethnic interpretationAnalysis of the weapons and decorations depicted on the stat-

Ancient Sanctuaries of the Aral and Caspian Regions: A Reconstruction of their History

36


ues reveal when and by whom the Ustyurt sanctuaries werecreated. Large numbers of daggers, swords, torques, and brace-lets identical to those carved on the Ustyurt statues, have beenexcavated in Sarmatian burials dating to the 4th2nd centuriesBC. An iron dagger, as well a mirror, and bronze arrowheads,typical of those belonging to the Sarmatian Culture, were re-covered from burials at the Baite III and Teren sanctuaries. It isapparent, therefore, that the Ustyurt real objects and their rep-resentations on the sculptures, have direct parallels with arti-facts from a huge number of Eurasian steppe sites dating be-tween the 4th2nd centuries BC. The Eurasian sites, predomi-nantly comprised funerary complexes, and have been identi-fied both to the north of the Ustyurt Plateau in the Black Seamaritime region, the Volga and Ural regions, and northernKazakhstan as well as to the south in Khorezm and Sogdiana.Without doubt, weapons, harnesses, and household goodsspread quickly and widely throughout the Great Steppe Beltand were used by ethnically unrelated groups. Consequently, itis not possible in this case to regard the majority of artifactsincluding weapons, jewelry, tools, and ceramic vessels as reli-able ethnic indicators.

Many common religious and mythological concepts resultedin the use of essentially similar funeral rites by the ancient Ira-nian-speaking nomads of Eurasia, including the Sarmatians andSaka-Massagetae, each divided into a number of tribal groups.It is within the context of funerary rituals, however, that it ispossible to identify the unique traits of each specific ethnicgroup. The anthropomorphic statues and rectangular sacrifi-cial altars, the most typical elements at the Ustyurt sanctuaries,do not have analogies within the adjacent nomadic cultures.Similarity in planigraphy, and the use of monumental statuesinstalled in rows very close to supra-tombs (kurgans) are knownfrom sanctuaries in southeastern Anatolia the hyerotesyions dating from the 1st century BC (at Nimrud-Dag, Kara-Kush,etc.). It is necessary to note that although the Hellenic Cultureand its monumental art, so vividly embodied in the Anatoliacomplexes, undoubtedly made an impact on the Ustyurt arti-sans (Schlumberger 1970), this does not resolve the issues ofethnos in the desert locale.

Another archaeological indication identified at the Baite IIIsanctuary is the so-called Sarmatian tamgas2 that are apparenton a number of anthropomorphic statues (Fig. 8). These areidentical to a large group of tamgas widely spread throughoutthe western Eurasian steppes during the 1st century BC to the4th century AD (Drachuk 1975; Vainberg and Novgorodova1976). Essentially all scholars relate the tamgas to theSarmatians (Solomonik 1959). The location of the tamgas onthe anthropomorphic statues, however, suggests that they wereadded to the sculptures at a later date. This assertion is alsosupported by the fact that the time period assigned to the sculpt-ing, as suggested by the dagger style, does not coincide withthe period when tamgas were widespread throughout the Eur-asian steppes, approximately 100150 years later. The tamgas,therefore, may be considered evidence for the presence, per-haps only temporarly, of a Sarmatian population in the terri-tory of the Ustyurt sanctuaries.

Concerning the ethnicity of the Ustyurt peoples, it is very dif-ficult to combine archaeological evidence with historicalsources to determine who they might have been. Informationin Chinese and Classical texts relating to the inhabitants of theEurasian steppes and deserts is fragmentary, contradictory, andsemi-legendary. As all nomads of Middle and Central Asia dur-ing the second millennium BC were preliterate, the texts, nev-ertheless, are an extremely valuable source of information. Acritical analysis of written sources has enabled us to establishthat during the Early Iron Age (7th to 3rd centuries BC),Sauromatians and Sarmatians inhabited the steppes of the Trans-Volga and southern Urals, while the Saka, Massagetae, Dakhi(Dai)3 , Scythians, and a number of smaller nomadic tribes re-sided in the steppes and deserts of the Aral Sea maritime zone,Kazakhstan, and Central Asia (Mandelshtam and Gorbunova1992:13-20; Vainberg and Stavisky 1994). All these culturesfollowed a similar lifestyle; they were warrior horse riders,hunters, and nomadic herders, and were famous for their belli-cosity and love of freedom. A review of the archaeological dataindicates that the majority of nomads of the Eurasian steppesused essentially the same weaponry and household items.

It is not possible to ascribe the creation of the Ustyurt sanctuar-ies to the Sarmatians because it is likely that they, along withthe Massagetae and Dakhi (Dai), had the same weaponry anddecorative elements. These later two tribes would have beenthe closest relatives and neighbors of the former that belongedto the union of Sarmatian-Saka-Massagetae community. It islikely that the Baite type sanctuaries originally belonged to theMassagetae (or the Dakhi-Massagetae). At a later date another,probably related group of nomads, who belonged to theSarmatian ethnotribal association, appeared in the Ustyurt sanc-tuary region. But what motivated the nomads to install a net-work of sanctuaries, linked with the cult of heroic-ancestorsand military chieftains, and relate the idea of military powerand regeneration in this particular location in the Ustyurt desert?

A hypothesis relating to the historical reconstructionThe latter half of the 4th and early 3rd centuries BC was a timeof violent political and ethnocultural cataclysms across the en-tire ancient world; a time of clashes, and of great comminglingof European and Asian cultural traditions. This period also islinked with the famous Macedonian king, Alexander the Great.Alexander generally succeeded with his brave attempts to winover the Asia region that was familiar to him following hisvictory over the huge, but politically weak, Achaemenid Per-sian Empire in 331 BC. A large number of countries in theNear East and Central Asia (e.g. Hyrcania, Parthia, Margiana,and Sogdiana) surrendered to his forces. The Greeks came tothe East, however, not only as conquerors but also as the bear-ers of the high Hellenic civilization, a culture extremely differ-ent than that of the Ancient Near East. Greek architects builtdozens of cities and fortresses in Central Asia based on Hel-lenic styles, and elements of Greek culture including sculp-tures, temples, and theaters came to embellish many of the an-cient cities that had previously existed. The local sedentarypopulation and, to a lesser extent, the nomadic and semi-no-madic tribes (initially the nobility) could not fail to fall under

37

the powerful influence of the Hellenic conquerors. When theGreek language became the lingua franca of international com-munication, the local populations absorbed much of the Greekliterature, mythology, and fine art. Mixed marriages becamecommonplace. Greek monumental art certainly impressed thechieftains as well as the lesser nomads. It is quite possible thatit was the anthropomorphic sculpture of Hellenic gods and he-roes that inspired the nomads to create their own anthropomor-phic statues of ancestor-protectors.

It is clear from written records that not all nomadic tribes ofCentral Asia surrendered to the Macedonian conquerors. Overthe years, some nomads waged guerrilla-style warfare to thesouth and southeast of Ustyurt, in Hyrcania, Parthia, Margiana,Sogdiana, and probably in Khorezm. The Dakhi (Dai), Saka,Massagetae, and Scythians were active in both large and smallrebellions against the Macedonians, for example, the rebellionled by Spitamen, a Sogdiana nobleman. Nevertheless, the ma-jority of nomads came to acknowledge Hellenic power. It shouldbe pointed out that tribal chieftains that preferred freedom trav-eled north leaving the Uzboi River region and the SarykamyshDelta of the Amudarya. The northern plateau was both inac-cessible and practically unsurpassable for an alien foot army,yet it served as a natural defensive base from which to resistinvaders. It is understandable, to encounter in the safe westernand northern Ustyurt regions, Dakhi-Massagetae that did nothide from the enemy, but also erected sanctuaries.

Not enticed by loot and not attracted to this arid, almost unin-habitable plateau, Alexanders detachments and subservientnomads did not venture into Ustyurt. Immediately after the deathof Alexander in 323 BC, the newly created empire extending fromthe Balkans to India, quickly collapsed at which time any exter-nal threat to the Ustyurt nomads became significantly weaker.

The restoration of Ustyurt nomadic military potential requireda certain amount of time. The severe climatic conditions werenot compatible with the rapid development of the herdingeconomy, which also created constraints on population growth.Relationships between the Ustyurt nomads and Sogdiana,Bactria, and Khorezm to the south were limited or temporarilysevered. Without a serious enemy in the Aral-Caspian passage,the nomads engaged in seasonal meridional migrations to thenorthern Caspian zone, the southern Urals, and northernKazakhstan, and possibly they also used the westward routes toreach the Mangyshlak plateau where the climate was less severe.

The popularization of the ancestor-heroes cults, military valor,and weaponry was compatible with the concept of consolidat-ing forces to fight against the invaders. The possibility of em-bodying the images of the ideal with invincible ancestors in amore instructive, i.e. graphic fashion, was fully implementedupon the creation of a network of sanctuaries with numerousanthropomorphic sculptures. Techniques for artistic realizationof a human body, borrowed from the invaders, were used forcreating monumental sculptures that had both a psychologicaland emotional impact, particularly on the younger people. Ritu-als involving the use of fire, water, blood, and fat would have

served a similar purpose, namely to prepare all members of thecommunity for a decisive war against invaders. Priests wouldhave appealed to the ancestors and superior gods to enable therebirth of the spiritual and physical power of the nomadic tribes.

A peaceful respite that appears to have lasted for approximately70 years allowed the nomads to restore their strength. In addi-tion, it is probable that this respite enabled them to seek aidfrom their northern neighbors and far off relatives, theSarmatians, while preparing for a decisive counterattack. Ar-chaeological data indicates that the sanctuaries, as well as thephenomenon of Ustyurt anthropomorphic sculptures, existedfor only a little more than 100 years at which time they disap-peared as unexpectedly as they had appeared. Apparently theUstyurt sanctuaries had fulfilled their function and when themajority of the nomads left for the south they were abandoned.

The restoration of military potential enabled the nomads toabandon the protective Ustyurt island and move southward,leaving behind the Uzboi to the neighboring young Hellenicstates. In the context of a favorable military and political situ-ation, the nomadic nobility was not primarily interested in re-venge for past defeats but rather their focus was on raiding forrich loot. The beginning of this reconquista seems to be datedto the middle of the 3rd century BC. We know that in 248-247BC the nomads from the north, the Dai, Parni, and possiblyMassagetae headed by Arsak (Arsaces) captured Parthia and apart of neighboring Hyrcania, giving rise to the developmentof the Arsacid Dynasty. During the subsequent period, the no-madic and semi-nomadic nobility of the Dakhi and Saka-Massagetae played a major role in the foreign political affairsand dynastic strife of not only Parthia but also a number ofHellenic states. This, however, represents another page in thehistory of relations between the nomadic and sedentary civili-zations of Central Asia and the Near East.

ConclusionThe hypothesis offered in this paper on the development andpurpose of the Aral-Caspian sanctuaries seems to almost pre-cisely reflect the historically attested situation in the latter halfof the first millennium BC. Firstly, it provides a logical expla-nation to account for both southern and northern elementsin the culture that created the sanctuaries. It explains the sud-den appearance and disappearance of an anthropomorphic cul-tural center previously unknown to the inhabitants of CentralAsia and Kazakhstan steppes. Unfortunately artifacts discov-ered in the region of the sanctuaries have not been preciselydated (only to within 50150 years). A number of the artifactsappear to date to the time of the so called passive existenceof the sanctuaries, and it is probable that such objects are notcontemporary with the main structural features at the sites. It ishoped that further research will allow the chronology of thesanctuaries to be narrowed, thereby enabling the validity of thecurrent hypothesis to be ascertained.


38


Endnotes1. The Amudarya emptied into the Caspian Sea rather than the Aral Sea

during the Early Iron Age; the ancient river bed is known as the Uzboy.

2. Tamga is a Turkish-Mongolian word that signifies mark, sign of own-

ership, possession, brand or seal.

3. Nomadic tribes of Dakhi (Dakha) or Dai (a variant of Dakhi) inhab-

ited Aral and East Caspian region. Some ancient historians considered

Dakhi-Dai a part of the Massagetae (Dakhi-Massagetae), and othersa

separate ethnos. Modern historians have not been able to solve this prob-

lem. I consider that the Massagetae, as the general name, consisted of

many related tribes.

ReferencesDavis-Kimball, J., Bashilov, V. A. and Yablonsky, L. T. (eds.)1995. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age. Berke-ley: Zinat Press.

Drachuk, V. S. 1975. Sistemi znakov Severnogo Prichernorya. Kiev:Naukova dumka (The Systems of Signs in the northern BlackSea Maritime Region).

Kamalov, S. K. (ed.) 1978. Drevnyaya i srednevekovaya kulturaYugo-Vostochnogo Ustyurta. Tashkent: Fan (Ancient and Medi-eval Culture of South East Ustyurt).

Mandelshtam, A. M. and Gorbunova, N. G. 1992. Obschiesvedeniya o rannikh kochevnikakh Srednei Azii i ikh grup-pirovkakh, pp. 13-21 in Moshkova, M. G. (ed.), ArkheologiyaSSSR. Stepnaya polosa Aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoyevremya. Moskva: Nauka (General information on the early no-mads of Middle Asia and their groupings. Archaeology of theUSSR, The Asiatic Steppe belt of the USSR in the Scytho-Sarmatian period).

Olkhovskiy, V. S. 1994. Baite: un ensemble cultuel a lest de la Caspienne.Les dossiers darcheologie 194, 54-7 (Baite: The cultic complex in theEastern Caspian maritime region. Archaeological Materials).

Olkhovskiy, V. S. and Galkin, L. L. 1990. Kultovyi komplex naUstyurte. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya 4, 196-206 (The Ustyurt CulticComplex. Russian Archaeology).

Olkhovskiy, V. S. and Galkin, L. L. 1997. K izucheniyupamyatnikov Severo-Vostochtogo Prikaspiya epokhi rannegozheleza. Rossiyskaya arkheologiya 4, 141-56 (The study of siteslocated in the north-eastern Caspian maritime region in the EarlyIron Age. Russian Archaeology).

Olkhovskiy, V. S. and Evdokimov, G. L. 1994. Skifskie izvayaniyaVII-III vv. do n.e. Moskva: Institute of Archaeology RAS (Scythianstatues VII-III centuries BC).

Rudenko, S. I. 1962. Sibirskaya kollektziya Petra I (Svodarkheologicheskich istochnikov. Vipusk D3-9). Moskva-Leningrad: izdatelstvo SSSR. Akademii nauk (The Siberian Col-lection of Peter I. Code of Archaeological Sources).

Samashev, Z. S. and Olkhovskiy, V. S. 1996. Plemena Aralo-Kaspiyskich stepei, pp. 207-16 in Kozybayev, M. K. (ed.), IstoriyaKazakhstana s drevneishich vremen do nashich dnei (v chetirechtomach). Vol. 1. Almaty: Atamyra (The Tribes of the Aral andCaspian Steppes. The History of Kazakhstan from ancient timeup until modern days).

Samashev, Z. S., Olkhovskiy, V. S., Veselovskaya, E. V. andZhetibayev, Z. M. 1997. Naseleniye Aralo-Kaspiyskogo regionav sarmatskuyu epokhu, pp. 132-65 in Istoriya issledovanyi kulturiKazakhstana. Almaty: Kazak universiteti (The Population of theAral and Caspian regions in the Sarmatian period. The historyof the investigation of the culture of Kazakhstan).

Schlumberger, D. 1970. LOrient Hellenise. Lart Grec et sesHeritiers dans lAsie non mediterraneanne. Paris: Edition AlbinMichel (Greek art and its heritage in non-Mediterranean Asia).

Solomonik, E. I. 1959. Sarmatskiye znaki Severnogo Pricher-nomorya. Kiev: izdatelstvo Akademii nauk Ukrainskoi SSR (TheSarmatian signs of the northern Black Sea maritime region).

Vainberg, B. I., Gorbunova, N. G. and Moshkova, M. G. 1992.Osnovniye problemi v izuchenii pamyatnikov drevnikhskotovodov Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana, pp. 21-30 in Moshkova,M. G. (ed.), Arkheologiya SSSR. Stepnaya polosa Aziatskoi chastiSSSR v skifo-sarmatskoye vremya. Moskva: Nauka (Major prob-lems in the study of the sites of the ancient cattle-breeders ofMiddle Asia and Kazakhstan. Archaeology of the USSR, TheAsiatic steppe belt of the USSR in the Scytho-Sarmatian period).

Vainberg, B. I. and Novgorodova, E. A. 1976. Zametki o znakakhi tamgakh Mongolii, pp. 66-74 in Gafurov, B. D. and Litvinskyi,B. A. (eds.), Istoriya i kultura narodov Srednei Azii (Drevnost isredniye veka). Moskva: Nauka (Some notes on the signs andtamgas of Mongolia. History and Culture of the people of MiddleAsia (Antiquity and the Middle Ages)).

Vainberg, B. I. and Stavisky, B. Ya. 1994. Istoriya i kultura SredneiAzii v drevnosti. Moskva: Nauka (History and Culture of MiddleAsia in Antiquity).

Yanshin, A. L. and Goldenberg, L.A. (eds.). 1963. Perviye russkiyenauchniye issledovaniya Ustyurta. Moskva: izdatelstvo Akademiinauk SSSR (The first Russian scientific investigations ofUstyurt).

39

Fig. 1. Map of the Aral-Caspian Region.


40


Fig. 2. Teren Sanctuary. The main cultic construction.

41

Fig. 3. Konai Sanctuary. An example of an anthro-pomorphic statue.

Fig. 4. Baite III Sanctuary. An anthropomorphicstatue.

Fig. 5. Baite III Sanctuary. An anthropomorphic statue.


42


Fig. 9. Baite III. Stone sacrificial table (altar).

Fig. 6.. Baite III Sanctuary. An anthropomorphic statue. Fig. 7. Baite III Sanctuary. An anthropomorphic statue.

Fig. 8. Baite III Sanctuary. An anthropomorphic statue.

43

AbstractIn July 1997, a joint research expedition of Volgograd StateUniversity (Russia) and Mansfield University (USA) excavatednine ancient burial mounds (kurgans) on the Aksai River in theVolga-Don region. A total of 41 burials were discovered dat-ing from 3000 BC to AD 300. Burials dated to the Bronze Agerepresented three pre-Sauromatian steppe cultures: Pit, Cata-comb, and Timber-Frame, characterized by the flexed positionand earthenware ceramics as grave goods. The Early Iron Agewas represented by one undisturbed burial of the SauromatianCulture (700400 BC) and 18 burials of the Sarmatian Culture(200 BC300 AD). For the first time in this region, a paintedGreek amphora was found in a Sauromatian burial along witha bronze plate on which were depicted three griffin heads. Simi-lar bronze plates are found in Scythian sites along the northernBlack Sea coast. Artifacts such as long and short swords, ar-rowheads, ceramics, beads, bronze mirrors, and fibulae werefound in the Sarmatian burials. Preliminary analyses of theseexcavations demonstrate that the Sarmatian Culture in theVolga-Don region had connections with China in the east aswell as with the western Roman Empire provinces.

Keywordskurgans, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Sauromatian, Sarmatian, Greekamphora

IntroductionAt the beginning of the 21st century anthropologists and ar-chaeologists not only have new challenges but also new col-leagues. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, scholars fromthe old Soviet countries have emerged to seek cooperation withtheir international counterparts. Mansfield University in Penn-sylvania, USA, and Volgograd State University, Volgograd,Russia, began an archaeological research exchange in July 1997to excavate kurgans along the Aksai River, located on the leftbank of the Don River, in the steppes between the Volga andDon rivers. Alexander Nicholaevich Dyachenko and AnatolyStepanovich Skripkin directed the expedition, which includedVolgograd State University students, four Mansfield Univer-sity students, and three students from the University of Co-logne, Germany.

The ExcavationsThe site consisted of eleven kurgans, measuring from 0.2 to2.5 m in height, and from 12 to 45 m in diameter, located inmeadow flood lands of the steppe river Esaul Aksai on the leftbank of Don River, four kilometers southwest of Aksai village(Fig. 1). The expedition excavated nine kurgans containing atotal of 41 burials. Burials were unevenly distributed in thekurgans. Four kurgans (1, 4, 5, and 7) each had one burial,three (2, 3, and 6) had three burials each, Kurgan 9 contained12 burials, and Kurgan 8 held 16 burials. The material from theAksai mounds represents a diversity of artifacts and long timespan. Chronologically the burials are attributed to two epochs:23 of the burials belong to the Bronze Age and 18 to the EarlyIron Age. This article continues the published research reportson the archaeology of the Volga-Don region by Volgograd StateUniversity in 1994-1997 (Dyachenko, et al., 1995, Klepikovand Shinkar 1997).

Kurgan 9 is the oldest and is attributed to the Early Bronze Age(30002000 BC). Kurgans 6 and 8 were constructed during theMiddle Bronze period (20001500 BC). Kurgans 2 and 3 wereconstructed in the Early Iron Age (600500 BC). The remain-ing, 1, 4, 5, and 7, were created during the final period of theEarly Iron Age (200300 AD).

The Aksai River burials date to all three classical cultures ofthe southeastern European Bronze Age: one Pit burial of theEarly Bronze Age, six Catacomb burials of the Middle BronzeAge, and 14 Timber-Frame burials of the Late Bronze Age. Avariety of grave goods were discovered in these burials includ-ing Bronze Age ceramics and beads that are typical of this re-gion. This paper will focus on the burial complexes of the EarlyIron Age which contained unusual artifacts allowing us to fur-ther understand the history of the people who occupied the area.

Historic Sources and Burial Assemblages of the Early Iron AgeThe Early Iron Age of the steppes between the Volga and DonRivers coincides with the history of the Sauromatian andSarmatian tribes and dates from 700 BC400 AD. The begin-ning of the Iron Age is associated with the distribution of ironthroughout southeastern Europe and ends with the Hunnic in-

Excavations of the Aksai Kurgans in the Volga-Don Region (Russia)

A. N. Dyachenko, A. S. Skripkin, V. M. Klepikov, A. I. KubyshkinVolgograd State University, Russia

A. MabeMansfield University, Mansfield PA, USA

Translated from Russian by A. I. Kubyshkin and A. Mabe

44


vasions of the Black Sea coastal area in 375 AD. The first nar-rative sources concerning the steppe peoples of Eastern Eu-rope appeared before the Hunnic invasion. The histories con-taining the most information are the works of Herodotus (484430/424 BC), Hippocrates (460377 BC), Deodor the Sicilian(9021 BC), and Strabo (64/63 BCAD 23/24), who describedthese people as typical nomads living in tents and traveling inwagons during seasonal migrations while grazing their sheep,horses, and some cattle. The names of these Early Iron Ageaboriginal populations are taken from these ancient Greek nar-ratives. Sauromatian and Sarmatian are collective names formany independent peoples with similar cultural traits definedas a nomadic technology, a similar political organization, andnear-identical burial customs. Greek and Roman authors men-tioned Yaziks, Roxolani, Sirax, Aorsi, and Alans as indepen-dent tribes of Sarmatians. The terms Sauromatian Culture andSarmatian Culture have become established in European ar-chaeological literature. The Russian scholars Rostovtsev, Rau,Grakov, and Smirnov have created cultural subdivisions forthe Early Iron Age in the steppes of the Volga and Don Rivers:Sauromatian Culture from 700 to 400 BC; Early SarmatianCulture from 400 to100 BC; Middle Sarmatian Culture from50 BC to 150 AD; and Late Sarmatian Culture from 150 AD to300 AD. The burials of the Early Iron Age discovered in theAksai kurgans are attributed to the following cultures:Sauromatian Culturethree burials; Early Sarmatian Culturefive burials; Middle Sarmatian Culturefour burials; and LateSarmatian Culturesix burials.

Assemblages of the Bronze AgeAll the burials of the Bronze Age can be typed into three groups:Pit Burial Culture, Early Catacomb, and Timber-Framed.The earliest Pit Culture burials were found in Kurgan 9,Burial 8. This is a major burial with an encircling stonering (16 m in diameter, 60 cm wide, 15 to 40 cm high) andassumed to be associated with the central burial. Accord-ing to Merpert (1974) the burial tradition of secondary burial(the skeleton placed in a soil pit after decomposition of thebody) and associated grave goods correspond to the latestgroup of Pit burials in the lower Volga area. Generally, fu-neral ceremonies involving secondary burials are more char-acteristic of the Middle Bronze Age as is demonstrated inexcavations of lower Volga area sites that are synchronicallydated with Early Don Catacomb sites (Dyachenko 1992:7990). In this Aksai burial, it is evident that another cul-tural tradition influenced the traditional funeral canons ofancient Pit Culture burials.

Next in chronology are early Catacomb burials found in thecenter Burial 16, and later interred burials 11 and 12, in Kurgan8 as well as Burial 9 in Kurgan 9. Two of these burials were insimple soil pit catacombs. The skeletons in Burial 16, Kurgan8, were flexed to the left side (Fig. 11: 9). Burials 11 and 12 inKurgan 8, and Burial 9 in Kurgan 9 lay on their backs withtheir legs bent to the right side (Figs. 9: 11 and 14: 5). Therewas ochre in all burials in this group. The dominant orienta-tion is north and east which conforms to the local funeral tra-ditions during the Early-Middle Bronze Age.

Burial 16 in Kurgan 8 was very interesting. A woman and childwere buried with a short-necked vessel that was decorated witha combined cord-stamped and cogged-impressed design andtwo rows of finger-impressed puntates around the neck (Fig.12: 1). This vessel has numerous analogies to Donetsk Cata-comb sites. Previously, two proto-Caucasian and twoPoltavkinsk burials in the Volga-Don area had been found(Bratchenko 1976: 39; Kyashko 1998: 6). Ceramic body sherdsindicate that this was a large egg-shaped vessel typical ofPoltavkinsk ceramics (Fig. 12: 1). Other artifacts in this burialare: a bronze disk-shaped pendant (Fig. 12: 3), mushroom-shaped pendants (Fig. 12: 5), a buttonhole pendant, spiral sil-ver pendants (Fig. 12: 5), and bronze beads (Fig. 12: 13). Theseartifacts have analogies, dating between 3000 and 2000 BC,from North Caucasian burials (Markovin 1960: 30- 86). Othergrave artifacts verify this date: Caucasian mineral beads (Fig.12: 10), amber beads (Fig. 12: 7), and bone rings (Fig. 15: 1)are often found in Pit Catacomb and Catacomb burials in theterritory of the Volga and Manych Rivers (Synitsin and Ardniev1987: 119; Shilov 1985: 114, fig. 22).

Four burials are chronologically associated with the MiddleBronze Age of the proto-Caucasian Catacomb Culture. Theburial position was only able to be determined in Burial 3,Kurgan 6, where the skeleton was flexed on the left side withthe head oriented south (Fig. 6: 3). Grave goods included twovessels with buttonhole handles (Figs. 7: 13; 9: 2), a large tur-nip-shaped vessel (Fig. 9: 10), and beads made from yellowminerals (Fig. 9: 12); these are typical for Proto-CaucasianCatacomb sites of the Volga-Don steppes. The population inthis region during the Middle Bronze Age evidently had per-manent cultural influences coming from the North Caucasusthat are reflected not only in the metal artifacts, but also inceramics similar to the material culture of the developed NorthCaucasian Culture stage (Markovin 1960: 3086).

The most numerous group consists of the Timber-Frame buri-als represented in kurgans 8 and 9. The form of burial moundsand the rituals of this group are standard. The burials were madein kurgans or in small rectangular pits with the placement ofthe bodies flexed on the left side, heads oriented east. Gravegoods are also typical. Handmade ceramics without decorationdominate and are typical for Timber-Frame burials (Figs. 9: 3,6; 13: 6; 15: 3). In addition, in Burial 3, Kurgan 8, a bronzependant (Fig. 9: 4) and beads (Fig. 9: 5) were discovered; thistype has been found in sites in the region dating to the sametime period (Kachalova 1985: 28-54).

Burial 7 in Kurgan 9 is different. The non-standard position ofthe body with the head oriented north, and the presence of avessel with a surface treatment of slanting lines (Fig. 15: 4)places this burial in an earlier chronological period of the so-called Pokrovsk type.

The Sauromatian CultureTwo of the three burials attributed to the Sauromatian Culture(Burial 3 in Kurgan 2, and Burial 12 in Kurgan 9) had beenalmost completely destroyed by looters and can only be hypo-

45

thetically described. The undisturbed burial (Burial 3, Kurgan3), however, contained some unique artifacts which date theburial and provide important data on the cultural connectionsbetween the nomads living between the Volga and Don rivers.This was a pit burial 2.4 m in length, 1.2 m wide, and found ata depth of 1.7 m below the original ground surface. The skel-etal remains of a young man in a supine position with the headto the west was found at the bottom of the pit (Fig. 4: 3).

Several important artifacts were associated with this grave. Themost interesting artifact in the burial is a Greek amphora with ayellow surface and a red meander decoration painted on theneck of the vessel (Fig. 5: 1). The shoulder of the vessel wasdecorated with a stylized lotus and stripes surrounded the body.This Rhodos-Ionian style amphora was widespread during theArchaic Period (800500 BC) on the western coast of AsiaMinor (present-day Turkey) and in the Aegean Sea islands. Theshape, decoration, and production techniques indicate that theamphora was made approximately between 600 and 540 BC(Kopeykina 1986: 3840). Similar amphorae have been exca-vated in ancient Greek towns on the north coast of the BlackSea, dating to 700600 BC. More precisely, amphorae exca-vated from Germonassa and Olvia dates our amphora to thesecond half of the 6th century BC (Kastanyan & Arsenyeva 1984:229, table CXL; Kopeykina 1986: 37, table VI.XX). It is im-portant to note that this is the first and only such amphora dis-covered in a Sauromatian site, and the only amphora of thistype found in the Volga-Don area. Perhaps this vessel camethrough one of the Greek cities in the north Black Sea region tothe steppe nomads in the Volga-Don region

Burial 3 in Kurgan 3, contained a Scythian style iron sword foundnear the left femur of the skeleton. Fifteen bronze and three iron ar-rowheads, probably kept in a gorytus (quiver), were found near theleft patella. A whetstone was positioned near the sword along with apendant made from wolf teeth, a bone pipe, and a handmade vessel.Sheep ribs were also in the burial. Also in association with thisburial was a bronze clasp cast with three griffin heads and aunidentified coiled animal in the center (Fig. 5: 2). The upperpart of the clasp was missing and was not discovered in thegrave. Two other exact copies of this clasp are known. Oneoriginated in the archaic necropolis of Olvia, dating from themiddle to late 6th century BC (Kaposhina 1956: 173176, Fig.16), and another from the destroyed burials of the Dugin Moundsnear the mouth of the Don River; these date to the end of 6thcentury BC (Kopylov 1992: 79; Fig. 1: 5). This date is also sup-ported by arrowheads with distinctive archaic traits such as thosewith a bushing (Fig. 5: 10), those that are two-pronged (Fig. 5:11), and laurel leaf-shaped (Fig. 5: 13). All of these traits are char-acteristic of Scythian and Sauromatian gorytus contents duringthe 6th century BC. The other artifacts discovered in this burialare not as informative, but do support a date of 600500 BC.Sauromatian burials previously excavated in the Volga-Don Riverregion have not been dated earlier than 500 BC.

Herodotus recorded Darius the Firsts invasion of the northernBlack Sea region during the Scythian-Persian war in 512 BC.He placed the Sauromatian people east of the Don River and

the Scythians inhabiting the region west of the Don. Our dis-covery of Sauromatian kurgans, dating to 600 BC, confirmsthe information provided by Herodotus. Therefore, the artifactsfrom Burial 3, Kurgan 3, date this burial to the second half of 6thcentury BC. It is important to note that this is one of the earliestburials of the Sauromatian Culture in the Volga-Don area.

Early Sarmatian Burial AssemblagesAll the burial assemblages dating from the Early Sarmatianperiod (200100 BC) were interred in kurgans created duringthe Early Sauromatian Period. These include four pit burialswith long rectangular graves and one catacomb burial. The skel-etons were supine and oriented south, although a few were ori-ented southeast. Iron swords and arrowheads, ceramics, ironknives, whetstones, clasps, bronze mirrors, and beads were partof the grave goods. One front leg and shoulder of a sheep wereplaced in the graves as food offerings.

The iron sword in Burial 2, Kurgan 2 (Fig. 3: 2) measures 1.0m in length with a grip of 22 cm in length, and has a diamond-shaped hilt. Similar swords were found in Sarmatian sites inthe Volga-Don steppes dating not earlier than 150 BC. Thissword style also bears the influence of Chinese traditions, assimilar swords with long handles and diamond-shaped hiltsmade from iron and bronze were widespread during the HanDynasty (Skripkin 1996). We now know of about 20 swords ofthis type from Sarmatian burials, some of which are very simi-lar to Chinese bladed-weapons. A similar sword with a dia-mond-shaped jade hilt, typical for Chinese swords, was dis-covered in a Sarmatian burial near the mouth of the Don River(Skripkin 1996).

The appearance of these swords far from China can be explainedhistorically. We know that during the 2nd century BC the mo-bility of nomads in the Eurasian belt increased as nomadicpeoples moved throughout the vast territory from China to theBlack Sea. A powerful Hunnic state appeared north of the GreatChina Wall. At the end of the 3rd century BC, and particularlybetween 200100 BC, the Huns expanded westward frompresent-day Mongolia, displacing nomadic populations aftermoving into the territories of their often hostile neighbors. Theseevents caused a chain reaction as one group displaced or con-quered another (Skripkin 1996). Chinese historians Sem Tzanand Ban Gu recorded these events in Central Asia while an-cient European authors noted the same events in Eastern Eu-rope. Strabo was the first to draw attention to the great culturalchanges in this region, describing new associations of nomadicpeoples such as the Roxolani, Siraces, and Aorsi. This histo-rian placed the Aorsi in the Don River region. Perhaps EarlySarmatian burials on Aksai River are actually Aorsi burials.

The rounded iron girdle clasp with grille ornament (Fig. 2: 18)also testifies to Oriental connections between nomadic popu-lations of the Volga-Don River region. Similar clasps, datingto 200 BC100 AD, are known among the Ordos antiquities,an area now within Chinese territory, and were also commonin Siberia (Davlat 1980).

Excavations of the Aksai Kurgans in the Volga-Don Region

46


The Assemblages of the Middle Sarmatian CultureAccording to the burial rites and artifact associations, the MiddleSarmatian assemblages are very similar to those of the EarlySarmatians. The most typical shape of the pit burials is a longrectangular construction with the length approximately twicethe width. The deceased were usually supine with the head ori-ented south. As in the Early Sarmatian Period, one sheep legwith shoulder were part of the grave goods. Artifact associa-tions are also similar with swords, arrowheads, ceramics, bronzemirrors, and beads being the most common (Burial 2 in Kurgan3, Burial 1 in Kurgan 6, burials 13 and 15 in Kurgan 8). Abronze fibula was discovered in burial 1 in kurgan 6 (Fig. 7: 4).

A long sword with a rhomboid guard and a definite Orientaldesign was found in Burial 1, Kurgan 6 (Fig. 7: 12). This swordis very similar to a sword found in the Early Sarmatian Burial2, Kurgan 2. With it was a short sword with a circular pommel(Fig. 7: 9) and a bronze fibula (Fig. 7: 4). This type of fibula(milita) was widespread in western European Roman provinces,and was known from the Zarubinetsk Culture as well as fromsome sites in the northern Black Sea area. According to thelatest publications they can be dated from 150 BC150 AD(Eramenko and Zuravlev 1992).

Both Early and Middle Sarmatian burial assemblages containedsimilar forms of ceramics manufactured in one of the Kubanregion rural centers. This indicates that the nomadic people ofthe Volga-Don steppe area continued the same cultural and eco-nomic traditions incorporating some developments over time.For example, the green-glazed alabaster two-handled vessel(Fig. 11: 3) found in Burial 15, Kurgan 8, is well known fromnorthern Mesopotamia, in the Dura-Europos excavations, inthe territory of Media, and also has been found in lower Volga,lower Don, and Kuban River sites. The largest centers of pro-duction of such glazed pottery were at Selevkia-on-Tiger andDura-Europos. Research indicates the possibility of glazedpottery production in the territory of either Media or Armenia,with the green-blue glaze being transmitted throughout thesteppes at the end of the 1st century BC (Gadgiev 1997). Twoadditional vessels of the same type were discovered in Sarmatiansites on the Don and Volga rivers. The Sarmatians could haveobtained them in a variety of ways. In his Geography, Strabomentions a trade route from Media through the Caucasus to theSarmatian steppes, which was controlled by the Aorsi. The ala-baster vessel in Burial 15 could have reached the Sarmatianson the Aksai River as a result of trade. Another possibility isthat the Sarmatians could have obtained the vessel during mili-tary raids through the Caucasus and into Media and Armenia.Tactius, Flavius, and other authors also wrote about these raids.

Discussion of the Middle Sarmatian CultureThe current debate concerning the formation of the MiddleSarmatian Culture divides Sarmatian scholars into two groups:autochthonists and migrationists. The autochthonists assumethat the Early Sarmatian Culture was created based on localresources. The migrationists connect the formation of theMiddle Sarmatian culture with the movement of a new waveof nomads, probably the Alans from the East, whom the an-cient authors identify as the Massagetae. Although the artifacts

from the Middle Sarmatian period at Aksai are not numerous,it is possible to use them toward a solution of this problem.

The continuity of burial rites and material culture indicate thatprobably the same population continued to live in this regionfrom the Early through the Middle Sarmatian periods. There isnot a clear chronological split between Early and MiddleSarmatian assemblages. All the Middle Sarmatian burials date tothe 1st century AD. The bronze fibula that was excavated fromBurial 1, Kurgan 6, confirms this date. We propose that the Earlyand Middle assemblages on the banks of the Aksai River wereabandoned by the Aorsi from 100 BC through 100 AD.

This does not mean that the autochthonist point of view is theonly interpretation of the formation of Middle Sarmatian cul-ture. A more global problem also exists. The artifacts and sitesof the Sarmatian Culture cover thousands of kilometers, fromwestern Siberia to the Danube River. In our opinion, the prob-lem may be resolved by merging these two hypotheses, by ana-lyzing both local and migrational data.

Late Sarmatian Burial AssemblagesLooters destroyed five of the six burials from the Late SarmatianPeriod (Burial 1 in Kurgan 2, Burial 1 in Kurgan 3, and Burials2 in kurgans 45 and 78). Therefore, it is not possible to de-scribe the disposition of the burials, burial rites, or the materialculture. We are able, however, able to document some changesin burial customs. Late Sarmatians buried their dead individu-ally in narrow pits under smaller mounds. Previous traditionscontinued, such as the orientation of the deceased to the south,although in Later Sarmatian sites the orientation to the northpredominated. Because burials at Aksai were oriented south,these burials are designated as belonging to the early stage ofthe Late Sarmatian Culture.

Two profile fibulae (Fig. 2: 56) discovered in a Late Sarmatianundisturbed burial in Kurgan 1, allows us to date this complexfrom the end of the 1st to the 2nd century AD (Skripkin 1977).Probably all the other Late Sarmatian burials in the Aksaikurgans had been created during the same time period, built bythe same ethnic group that had lived here from the end of theEarly Sarmatian Culture.

ConclusionsIn conclusion, we can note that the oldest Aksai kurgans wereconstructed in the Bronze Age and were reused during the 6thcentury BC, and again from 100 BC through 200 AD. Thisconclusion should be considered preliminary because two ad-ditional kurgans have not yet been investigated. The artifactsof the Early Iron Age from the Aksai kurgans are valuablesupplements to available historical sources in the study of thesoutheastern European populations.

One of the most controversial problems in Sarmatian archaeol-ogy is the question of what are the distinguishing features thatmake up the Middle Sarmatian Culture. The artifacts from Aksaiare not numerous but they can be used toward a solution of thisproblem. The continuity in burial rituals and material culturelead us to propose that the same population continued to live

47

here from the Early through Middle Sarmatian time. Evidentlythe chronological gap between the two cultures is not great.This conclusion, of course, can only be applied to this site andnot to the problem of Early and Middle Sarmatian cultural de-velopment as a whole.

NoteAn earlier version of this paper was presented at The XIV International

Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, August 1998,

at the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Illustrations by V. M. Klepikov.


ReferencesBratchenko, S. N. 1976. Nizhnee Podonie v epokhu srednei bronzy. Kiev:Naukova Dumka (Lower Don Area in the Middle Bronze Age).

Davlat, M. A. 1980. Sibirskie poyasnye azhurnye plastiny II veka donashei ery. Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov. Vyp. D4-7. Moscow:Nauka (The Siberian delicate belt plates of the II century BC. So-viet Archeological Research: A code of Archaeological Sources).

Dyachenko, A. N. 1992. Rannekatakombnye pamyatnikipravoberezhia Medveditsy. Drevnosti Volgo-Donskikh stepei 2, 79-90 (The Early Catacomb sites on the right bank of theMedveditsa River. Antiquities of the Volgo-Don Steppes).

Dyachenko, A. N., Blokhin, V. G. and Shinkar, O. A. 1995.Arkheologicheskie issledovania u sela Abganerovo Oktyabrskogoraiona Volgogradskoi oblasti, pp. 83-139 in Zhelezchikov, B. F.(ed.), Arkheologo-etnograficheskie issledovania v Volgogradskoy oblasti.Volgograd: Volgograd State University (Archaeological-Ethno-graphic research in the Volgograd area. Archaeological researchnear Abganerovo village in the Volgograd area).

Eryomenko, V. E. and Zhuravlev, V. G. 1992. Khronologiamogilnika Chaplin verkhnedneprovskogo varianta zarubinetskoikultury, pp. 55-79 in Schukin, M. B. (ed.), Problemy khronologiiepokhi Latena i rimskogo vremeni. St Petersburg: St PetersburgBranch of the Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sci-ence (The Chronology of the Chaplin mound of the UpperDnepr variant of the Zarubinets Culture. Problems of the chro-nology of Latin epoch and Roman time).

Gadzhiev, M. 1997. Mezhdu Evropoi i Aziei. Iz istorii torgovykhsvyazei Dagestana v albano-sarmatskii period. MakhachkalaDagestanskii nauchnyi tsentr: Institute of History, Archaeology,& Ethnography (Between Europe and Asia: From the history ofthe trade connections of Dagestan in Albano - Sarmatian period).

Kachalova, N.K. 1985. Periodizatsiya srubnykh pamyatnikovNizhnego Povolzhia, pp 167-210 in Merpert, N. Ya. (ed.), Srubnayakulturno-istoricheskaya obschnost. Izdatelstvo Kuybyshevskogopedagogicheskogo instituta (Periodization of Srubnaya monumentsof the Lower Volga. Srubnaya Cultural History).

Kaposhina, S. I. 1956. O skifskikh elementakh v kulture Olvii, pp.154-89 in Gaidukevich, V. F. (ed.), Materialy i issledovanlya poarkheologii SSSR 50 (On the Scythian elements of the Olvia Cul-ture. Materials and Investigation of the Archaeology of the USSR).

Kastanyan, E. G. and Arsenyeva, T. M. 1984. Keramika, pp.229-31 in G. A. Koshelenko, G. A., Kruglikova, I. T. andDolgorukov, V. S. (eds.), Antichnye gosudarstva SevernogoPrichenomorya (Arkheologia SSSR). Moscow: Nauka Publishers(Ceramics. The Ancient State of the North Black Sea area (Ar-chaeology of the USSR).

Klepikov, V. M. and Shinkar, O. A. 1997. Pozdnesarmatskiimogilnik Abganerovo-II, pp. 81-100 in Zhelezchikov, B. F. (ed.),Istoriko-arkheologicheskie issledovania v Nizhnem Povolzhie.Volgograd: Volgograd State University (The Later Sarmatianburial at Abganerovo II. Historical-archaeological research in theLower Volga area).

Kopeikina, L. V. 1986. Raspisnaya keramika arkhaicheskogovremeni iz antichnykh poselenii Nizhnego Povolzhia i Podneproviakak istochnik dlya izuchenia torgovykh i kulturnnykh sviazei, pp.27-87 in Piotovskii, B. B. (ed.), Arkheologicheskie soobschenia 27(The Painted Pottery of Archaic Times from the ancient sites ofLower Volga and Don Area as a source for the study of Trade andCultural connections. Archaeological reports).

Kopylov, V. P. 1992. Novye dannye o svyazakh naselenia delty Donav V veke do n.a., pp. 78-87 in Kiyashko, V. Ya. and Maksimenko, V.E. (eds.), Donskie drevnosti Vyp. 1. Azov: State Historical Museum(New Data on the connections of the population of Don riverdelta in the 5th century BC. Don Antiquities).

Kiyashko, A. V. 1998. Poltavkinskie podboinye pogrebenia nizoviyVolgi i Dona, pp. 17-28 in Skripkin, A. S. (ed.), Nizhnevolzhskiyarkheologicheskiy vestnik Vyp. 1. Volgograd: Volgograd State Uni-versity (The Poltavka undercut burials in the Lower part of Volgaand Don Rivers. The Lower Volga Archaeological Review).

Markovin, V. I. 1960. Kultura plemen Severnogo Kavkaza v epokhubronzy (II tys. do n.e.) (Series Materialy i issledovaniya poarkheologii SSSR 93). Moscow Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR (Cul-ture of the tribes of North Caucasus in the Bronze age).

Merpert, N. Y. 1974. Drevneishie skotovody Volzhsko-Uralskogomezhdurechya. Moscow: Nauka (Ancient Herdsmen between theVolga and Ural Rivers).

Shilov, V. P. 1985. Kurgannyi mogilnik u sela Tsatsa, pp 94-57 inMaksimov, K. N. (ed.). Drevnosti Kalmykii. Elista: Kalmytskiinauchno-issledovatelskii institut istorii, filologii, ekonomiki(Kurgan grave-field near Tsatsa Village. Kalmyk Antiquities).

Sinitsyn I. V. and Erdniev, U. E. 1987. Drevnosti VostochnogoManycha. Elista: Kalmytskii nauchno-issledovatelskii institutistorii, filologii, ekonomiki (Antiquities of the Eastern Manych).

Skripkin, A. S. 1977. Fibuly Nizhnego Povolzhia (po materialamsarmatskikh pogrebeniy). Sovetskaya Arkheologia 2, 100-20 (Fibu-las of the Lower Volga Area based on the materials of Sarmatianburials. Soviet Archaeology).

Skripkin, A. S. 1996. Kitaiskie vpechatlenia rossiyskogoarkheologa. Vestnik VolGU. Seria 4: Istoria, filosofia Vyp. 1 (Chi-nese reflections of Russian Archaeologist. The Bulletin ofVolgograd State University: History and Philosophy).

48


Figure 1. Location of the Aksai excavations in the VolgaDon Region.

49


Figure 2. Figures 19 - Contents of Late Sarmatian (150400 AD) Burial 1, Kurgan 1: 1- Burial 1, female, age 1820; 2- gray clayvessel; 3- bronze mirror; 4- gray clay pitcher found covered by bowl (no. 7); 56- Late Sarmatian bronze fibulae; 7- gray clay bowlfound inverted covering vessel (no. 4); 8- coralline bead; 9- dark gray, red, and white beads (24 found); 10- plan of Kurgan 2 containing3 burials; figures 1118- artifacts from burial 2, kurgan 2; 11-gray clay pitcher; 12- dark gray whetstone; 13- gray-brown whetstone,polished surface, sharp bevel on one side; 14- light brown whetstone; 15- lithic fragment (argillite?), unworked; 16- bronze disk mirrorfound with fragments of a cover or case; 17- bushed iron arrowheads; 18- Early Sarmatian iron girdle clasp.

50


Figure 3. Early Sarmatian (200100 BC) Burial 2, Kurgan 2: 1- Burial 2, male age 3540, skull rolled backwards off of a soil mound;a pillow; funeral feast bones of sheep; cattle and horse bone found in kurgan; 2- iron long sword (ca 150 BC) with fragments of woodscabbard; 3- Early Sarmatian short iron sword; 4- corroded iron rod, unknown function; 5- bronze rivets (10 found); 6- iron knife,concave blade.

51


Figure 4. Kurgan 3: 1- Plan of Kurgan 3 with 3 burials; 2- Middle Sarmatian pit burial 2, female of old age; 3- Sarmatian pit Burial 3(650500 BC), male age 1213, and looted Late Sarmatian burial 1, adult male; figures 47- artifacts from Burial 1: 4- reconstructedgray clay cup, bottom had 10 repaired holes; 5- bronze fibula fragments; 6- argillite whetstone fragment; 7- black, violet, blue, andwhite beads (6 found); figures 815 - artifacts from Burial 2: 8- gray clay incense cup; 9- single-edged knife blade; 1011- sherds ofsecond incense cup; 12- tear-drop shaped jet bead and cornelian barrel-shaped bead; 13- 2 stylized blue glass scarabs; 14- 3 pyritebeads; 15- yellow bead and blue glass beads (32 found).

52


Figure 5. Sauromatian pit Burial 3, Kurgan 3: 1- Greek Rhodos-Ionian style amphora (ca 650 BC), red clay with yellow slip, lotusflower and meander in red; 2- bronze clasp with gryphon motif, unidentified zoomorph in center (650500 BC); 3- 2 corroded bronzebeads; 4- bushed bronze fragment, unknown function; 5- handmade gray clay vessel; 6- corroded iron dagger; 7- argillite whetstone; 8-wolf canine tooth; 9- polished bone pipe stem fragment; 10- arrowheads with archaic features: 3 bushed bi-lobed iron arrowheads, 1iron tri-lobed arrowhead, 1 bushed bronze fragment; 11- 3 bi-lobed bronze and iron arrowheads; 12- 4 tri-lobed bronze arrowheads, 2with spines; 13- 7 tri-lobed bronze arrowheads, 4 with spines, 1 bushed.

53

Figure 6. Kurgan 6 with 3 burials: 1- plan of Kurgan 6; 2- burials 1 and 2: Middle Sarmatian (50 BC-150 AD) rectangular pit burialwith niche, male, age 2225 and female age 4050; 3- Middle Bronze Age Proto-Caucasian Catacomb burial 3, male, age 3545.


54


Figure 7. Figures 112- Artifacts from Middle Sarmatian Burial 1, Kurgan 6: 1- handmade gray clay pitcher; 2- gray clay pitcher; 3-bronze disk-shaped mirror; 4- bronze militar fibula (150 BC150 AD); 5- iron buckle; 6- blue glass bead with black spots; 7- whitepaste beads (8 found) and blue glass beads (10 found); 8- iron knife fragments; 9- Middle Sarmatian short iron sword; 10- 3 ironarrowheads; 11- flint core with flake and blade scars; 12- Early Sarmatian bronze long sword, Oriental design; 13- handmade gray clayvessel, Middle Sarmatian Burial 3, Kurgan 6; figures 1416 - artifacts from looted (undatable) burial 1, kurgan 4 (female, age 1214):14- dark brown glass beads (31 found) and white glass beads (10 found); 15- iron knife fragments; 16- lithic flake of gray flint; figures1721 - artifacts from looted (undatable) burial 1, kurgan 7 with bone scatter of female of old age; 17- handmade gray clay vesselsherd; 18- sherds of small gray clay vessel; 19- handmade gray clay incense cup; 20- sherds of second incense cup; 21- glass silver-colored beads (6 found).

55

Figure 8. Kurgan 8: 1- Plan of Kurgan 8 containing 16 burials; 2- Burial 1, male, age 5560, no artifacts; 3- Middle Bronze AgeTimber-Frame Burial 3 with 2 females, ages 5565 and 4550; 4- Burial 4, male, age 4550, no artifacts, burial disturbed by animals;5- Burial 5, small child; 6- Burial 7, male, age 5060; 7- Burial 9, male, age undetermined, no artifacts and no skull.


56


Figure 9. Kurgan 8: 1- handmade gray clay vessel from looted Late Sarmatian burial 2; 2- handmade vessel, Burial 5 (small child);figures 35 - artifacts from Middle Bronze Age Timber-Frame Burial 3, Kurgan 8; 3- handmade gray clay vessel; 4- oval bronzependant; 5- yellow glass, green Egyptian faience, and mineral beads; 6- handmade gray clay vessel, Burial 7; 7- white paste beads, Burial7; 8- 2 fragments of clay bi-conical spindlewhorl from looted (undatable) Burial 8; 9- small gray handmade vessel (incense cup?), Burial8; 10- wheelmade vessel from looted (undatable) Burial 10; 11- Burial 11, Early-Middle Bronze Age Early Catacomb burial, female,age 1416 and male (Burial 12), age unknown, ochre on female skeleton and on floor of pit, ochre at feet of male, no artifacts. 12-beads made from soft yellow mineral (limonite?)

57

Figure 10. Figures 18- Middle Sarmatian pit Burial 13, Kurgan 8: 1- Burial 13, Kurgan 8, female, age 5060 and infant; 2- small grayclay handmade vessel, found inverted; 3- red clay sherd of wheelmade vessel of ancient production covered with brown lacquer; 4-fragment of bronze disk-shaped mirror; 5- bronze horse bridle decoration; 6- bi-conical clay spindlewhorl; 7- iron fragments of awl andknife; 8- sliver and blue glass beads (49 found); figures 915 - contents of looted (undatable) Burial 14, Kurgan 8 with scattered bonesof middle-age adult and child age 89; 9- handmade gray vessel; 10- gray clay incense cup; 11- small handmade clay vessel; 12- smallhandmade gray clay plate; 13- sherds of handmade clay incense cup; 14- 2 green glass beads; 15- 2 yellow glass beads, 2 blue glass beads,2 Egyptian faience beads.


58


Figure 11. Middle Sarmatian pit Burial 15, Kurgan 8: 1- Burial 15, Kurgan 8, female, age 5060; 2- red clay wheelmade pitcher; 3-Mesopotamian faience green alabaster vessel (ca 50 BC); 4- bronze mirror; 5- clear glass beads (83 found); 6- white mineral spindlewhorlor white stone beads; 7- white paste bead (1 found) and blue glass beads (3 found); 8- clear, blue, green, and yellow glass beads (54found); 9- Early-Middle Bronze Age Early Catacomb Burial 16, Kurgan 8 with dromos stairs containing child, age 56 and middle-aged female covered in ochre, sheep bones found on stair.

59

Figure 12. Early Catacomb Burial 16, Kurgan 8: 1- body sherd of Poltavkinsk ceramic (30002000 BC), gray clay vessel, puntates; 2-wheelmade brazier; 3- bronze pendant and ring of gray metal (silver?); 4- white paste and clear yellow mineral beads; 5- mushroom-shaped pendants and buttons made from dark gray metal (silver?); 6- beads from 2 necklaces made from gray-brown mineral (opal?),(67 found); 7- amber beads; 8- disk-shaped beads (stone?) (8 found); 9- white glass paste beads (13 found); 10- 2 yellow translucentmineral beads (cornelian?); 11- drilled white paste bead; 12- white and green paste beads (75 found); 13- necklace of bronze beads withfragments of pendants.


60


Figure 13. Kurgan 9: 1- Plan of Kurgan 9 containing 12 burials surrounded by stone wall, 16 m diameter., 1540 cm high by 60 cmwide. Center irregular contours (7 m long by 2 m wide max. width) with fragments from looted burials 10 (Sauromatian), 1112 (bothundatable); 2- Burial 2, male, age 1012, no artifacts; 3- Burial 3, female, age 4555; 4- iron knife, Burial 3; 5- reconstructed gray clayvessel, Burial 3; 6- handmade gray clay vessel, Burial 1; 7- Burial 4, male, 4555, no artifacts.

61

Figure 14. Kurgan 9: 1- burial 5 (undatable), man of old age, worked horn from large animal near the body; 2- burial 6, female, age 22-25; 3- Late Bronze Age Timber-Framed burial 7 (early Pokrovsk-type), female, age 20-22, lying face down, hand bones of infant nearbody; 4- Early- Middle Bronze Age Early Catacomb burial 8 (main burial of kurgan 9), incomplete skeleton of male, age 50-60; 5-Early-Middle Bronze Age Early Catacomb burial 9, female, age 14-16, lower skeleton & pit bottom covered in ochre.


62


Figure 15. Kurgan 9: 18 bone rings (bracelet?), Bronze Age Early Pit Burial 9; 2- worked sheep bone fragment, Burial 9; 3- handmadegray clay vessel, Burial 6; 45- large handmade gray clay vessels from Late Bronze Age Timber-Frame Burial 7; 6- small broken cupfrom Bronze Age Early Pit Burial 8; 7- dark gray shingle, Burial 8; 8- gray clay handmade vessel, Burial 11; 9- single-edged iron knife,Burial 11; 10- 2 bronze arrowheads, Burial 12; 11- fragments of bronze ring, Burial 12.

63

AbstractThis paper presents a general outline of the Russian-Frenchcollaborative project undertaken in the Ural and Transural re-gion. The objects of the research comprised the local culturesof nomads, semi-nomadic herders, and metallurgical special-ists in the steppes, forest-steppes, and foothill landscapes.Throughout a period of six years, joint excavations and multi-disciplinary investigations were accomplished in three settle-ments and five cemeteries which contained the remains of botharistocratic and ordinary burials. Chronologically, the monu-ments covered the continuous time frame from the 7th centuryBC to the 3rd century AD. The sites provided abundant mate-rials which were characteristic of the economic bases, envi-ronments, mortuary practices, architecture, and stylistic tradi-tions of pottery making used by these populations. In the areaunder study, the interactive contacts were primarily betweensteppe and forest-steppe inhabitants from the Bronze Age pe-riod; the contacts continued and became symbiotic during thesucceeding Iron Age.

KeywordsUrals, western Siberia, settlements, kurgans, Sargat Culture,Gorokhovo Culture, Iron Age

IntroductionThis paper aims to briefly present some general outlines andresults of the Russian-French collaborative project, which wasundertaken in the Ural and Transural regions by the Frenchteams of CNRS (Unit Mixte de Recherche 6566, Rennes; andUnit Mixte de Recherche 5809, Bordeaux) and the RussianAcademy of Science (Institute of History and Archaeology, andthe Ural State University - Ekaterinburg). This collaborativeeffort has been in progress since 1993 when it was first di-rected by Dr. Jean-Pierre Pautreau and Dr. Ludmila Koryakova,and subsequently since 1995, with the French direction of Dr.Marie-Yvane Daire. The project comprises (1) common field-work in Russia, (2) analytical work in Russia and France and,(3) collaborative publications.

Throughout the process of data accumulation and achieving abetter understanding of our material, the general interpretationof cultural development has gradually changed. We have noted

Burials and Settlements at the Eurasian Crossroads: Joint Franco-Russian Project

Ludmila Koryakova (Russia)1, Marie-Yvane Daire (France)2

With assistance ofPatrice Courtaud3, Esther Gonzalez2, Andrew Kovrigin1,

Luic Languet2, Dominique Marguerie2, Dmitry Razhev2,Svetlana Sharapova,2 and Marie-Celine Uge2

the evolution of these societies from initially being primitive andpoor to an advanced phase, quite in keeping with the conditionsthat were characteristic for the beginning of the Iron Age.

Basic objectives and area of researchThe project pursues several objectives, of which the primaryone is to explore the cultural systems of the Ural and Transuralregion within the context of internal and external relationshipsand connections. The secondary purpose is to study the formsof adaptation to marginal lands, and cultural contacts and geo-graphic environments that were open to various influences. Theobjects of study are the indigenous populations that includenomads, semi-nomadic herders, and specialized metallurgistsconnected with steppes, forest-steppes, and foothill landscapes,specifically in the Kurgan and Chelyabinsk districts (Fig. 1).The Ural-Siberian forest-steppe landscapes are characterizedby geographic zonality. Western Siberian is an almost flat plainwith a small northward incline and it maintains a smooth tran-sition to other geographic zones. The river network is not ofgreat density, and the large transit riversthe Ob, Irtysh, Ishim,and Tobol are of the Kazakhstan type.

The climate is continental, and during the warm season the aircurrents come to the forest-steppe chiefly from Kazakhstan andCentral Asia, with resulting droughts and arid conditions. Coldair which comes from the Arctic during the winter, and in somecases during the summer, creates a very unstable and severeclimate. Additionally, the Ural Mountains retain moisture whichoriginates from the Atlantic. As it passes through Europe thewarm Atlantic air mass loses some of its moisture, causing cool-ing during winter and warming during the summer, resultingin some of the characteristics of a continental climate. The lowUral Mountains do not stop the western air streams, and onlyweaken them to a certain extent. The eastern slopes of the UralMountains drop towards the Transural Plateau. The generalcharacteristics of Transural climate comprise rather limitedwinter precipitation, very cold winters, a quick transition tospring, hot summers, constant winds both summer and winter,and reoccurring droughts every 8-12 years.

The Trans-Ural steppes lie further to the north than the Euro-pean steppes. In the former zone, the forest-steppe extends

64


northwards to the small-leafed forests, and is represented bymulti-grass meadows and birch-aspen coppices. To the southof the forest-steppes, the steppes are composed of multi-grassand feather-grass vegetation that until recently has been thepredominant ground cover. As a whole, the landscape of theUral-Siberian forest-steppe is characterized by alternating geo-graphic zones and a mosaic distribution of vegetationforestsmeadows, swamps, and steppes.

The largest part of the area under study geographically belongsto the Tobol province, and is characterized by a slightly el-evated, undulating surface which has many lakes. A very im-portant factor of the Transural relief is the riverine valleys, prin-cipally the Tobol, Iset, Miass; all of which have rich soils. Inthe Tobol valleys, rich vegetation is associated with alluvialsoils. The ancient Tobol terraces are characterized by a pre-dominance of saline soils with their corresponding types of flora.On the high terraces the sandy soils are covered by coniferousand birch trees. Aspen groves and small birch forests consumeover 60% of the surface in the northern forest-steppe and notmore than 5% in the south. In the drained areas, hawthorn isprofuse, and several kinds of cherry trees, wild roses, honey-suckle, rowan trees, and currants grow. In the hills, where someof the initial steppe land is preserved, the black soils are cov-ered with meadows, an abundance of bean plants, meadowsweetgrass, different varieties of cereals, wormwood, and tarragon.The fauna is mixed and both forest and steppe species of ani-mals are found, including elk and bear and, until recently, largenumbers of beavers, wolves, steppe antelopes, roe deer, wildpigs, foxes, and other animals.

The environments described above and the botanical areascurrently found in the region had already formed by thebeginning of the Iron Age. These areas were especially fa-vorable for livestock breedingthe basis of subsistence forthe local populationsespecially during the Iron Age. Thebones of these livestock animals are well represented in allof the excavated sites.

According to some Russian specialists, the climatic and land-scape conditions of the Holocene changed several times. It isconsidered that at least three climatic fluctuations occurred fromthe third to the first millennia BC. During the second half ofthe third millennium BC, and at the turn of the second and thefirst millennia BC, periods of high precipitation dominated.Low precipitation apparently occurred from the middle of thesecond millennium BC onwards.

During the late prehistoric period, the above-described land-scapes were occupied by cultures of different social levelsand economic orientationthese consisted of nomads, semi-nomads, settled pastoralists, specialists in metallurgy, andhunters and fishers. Their linguistic attributions were dis-tinct, and they are assumed to have been proto-Iranian andproto-Ugrian speakers. Compared with the populations thatoccupied the core Eurasian steppes, the tribes that occu-pied the areas of marginal contact with the forest-steppepeoples are much less understood.

Chronological frames and cultural contextThe temporal sequence we are dealing with extends throughthe first millennium BC through to the beginning of the firstmillennium AD. The project is focused mainly on the SargatCulture which occupies the area between the Ural Mountainsand the Baraba lowlands. The project also includes several sub-culturesthe Gorokhovo, the Itkul, and the Baitovoas well ascultural typesthe Kashino and the Prygovo. These culturesand sub-cultures are archaeologically represented by variousfortified and open settlements as well as by numerous kurgans(barrows).

The end of the Bronze Age during the 8th century BC wit-nessed the formation of metallurgical centers in the Urals, withthe Ananyino center in the west and the Itkul center in the east.These two centers were rather closely connected and had a com-mon foundation, but their spheres of influence differed. TheAnanyino center lay mostly within the Scythian cultural zone,while the Itkul center was more closely connected to the Saka,the Sauromatian, and the Sargat zones.

Despite influence from the north, the Tobol-Irtysh forest-stepperegion became one of the principal components of the culturaland economic system which extended to Middle Asia and theKazakhstan steppes. This predetermined the future contacts thatlocal chiefdoms made with the Middle Asian states, and withthe Eurasian steppe nomadic confederations. A very unique flex-ible mechanism of cultural genesis had been determined. Inno-vations were synthesized without prejudice to local culturaloriginality (Koryakova and Epimakhov forthcoming).

Research strategyThe research strategy used in this study was based upon thecombination of multidisciplinary investigations that includedthe excavation of basic settlements and cemeteries, and thesubsequent analyses of the excavations. The research team con-sisted of specialists in archaeology, topography, and aerial pho-tographic analysis, paleoanthropology, environmental sciences(paleozoology and sedimentology), and the study of pottery.The excavations included intensive site evaluations throughnon-destructive methods that included aerial photography andtopographic surveys, and trenching, in addition to large-scaleexcavations that were as extensive as possible depending upontime and financial resources.

Practical resultsThe joint excavation and multidisciplinary analysis of five cem-eteries (which contained aristocratic and ordinary burials) andfour settlements (including both permanent and temporary sites)was partly accomplished over a period of six years (Table 1).Chronologically, the sites covered the continuous time periodfrom the 7th century BC to the 3rd century AD. Some LateBronze Age and Medieval structures were also included in theresearch programme (Koryakova and Daire forthcoming).Space does not permit the presentation of the complete sitedata, but particular structures encountered at two of the exca-vated sites are discussed below.

65

Prygovsky Archaeological ComplexThe Prygovsky complex is located 50 km east of the town ofShadrinsk in the Kurgan district of the Transurals (Fig. 1). It issituated on the left bank of the Iset river, 3 km north-east of theKalganovo (Prygovo) village. This complex, which occupiesan island that is a part of the ancient Iset river terrace, and isactually located on a floodplain, comprises more than ten ar-chaeological sites - two fortresses, three kurgan cemeteries, oneflat ground cemetery, and several settlements. These archaeo-logical monuments cover the extensive time frame from theNeolithic period up to the Late Iron Age. First discovered inthe 1960s by a student group from the Ural State University,the complex was examined by V. F. Gening who subsequentlyexcavated a limited area of the fortress and several barrows inthe Prygovsky 1 and 2 cemeteries (Gening and Pozdnyakova1961). In 1993, the Russian-French expedition excavated threesmall kurgans (Koryakova et al 1993) and surveyed part of thefortress (Pautreau et al 1993).

Prygovsky Kurgan CemeteryThe Prygovsky Cemetery 2 is situated on the northern part ofthe floodplain dune (island

Documents

03 Part 2. Excavations.pdf