Part II Archaeological Excavations

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 4th–2nd

centuries 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 as“sacrificial 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 the“Great 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 empires–the 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 4th–2nd 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 Great’s 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 300–500 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 Regions

A 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 4th–2nd 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 1.5–2m 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 1–2 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 (approximately3–4 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. 3–6). 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 orappliqué, appears to have been an obligatory element of a warrior’soutfit (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 warrior’shand. 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-nomad’s 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 neighbors–the Scythiansfrom the northern Caucasus and the Black Sea maritime zone–created 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, termed“sacrificial 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 cultures–including the Sarmatians,Saka and Massagetae–during 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-ancestor’ssoul. 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 4th–2nd 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 4th–2nd 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 100–150 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, Alexander’s 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 50–150 years). A number of the artifactsappear to date to the time of the so called “passive existence”of 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 others–a

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 l’est de la Caspienne.Les dossiers d’archeologie 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. L’Orient Hellenise. L’art Grec et sesHeritiers dans l’Asie 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 (700–400 BC) and 18 burials of the Sarmatian Culture(200 BC–300 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(3000–2000 BC). Kurgans 6 and 8 were constructed during theMiddle Bronze period (2000–1500 BC). Kurgans 2 and 3 wereconstructed in the Early Iron Age (600–500 BC). The remain-ing, 1, 4, 5, and 7, were created during the final period of theEarly Iron Age (200–300 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 BC–400 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. Kubyshkin

Volgograd 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 (484–430/424 BC), Hippocrates (460–377 BC), Deodor the Sicilian(90–21 BC), and Strabo (64/63 BC–AD 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’ and‘Sarmatian 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 Culture–three burials; Early Sarmatian Culture–five burials; Middle Sarmatian Culture–four burials; and LateSarmatian Culture–six 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 1992:79–90). 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: 30–86).

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 (800–500 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: 38–40). Similar amphorae have been exca-vated in ancient Greek towns on the north coast of the BlackSea, dating to 700–600 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: 173–176, 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 600–500 BC.Sauromatian burials previously excavated in the Volga-Don Riverregion have not been dated earlier than 500 BC.

Herodotus recorded Darius the First’s 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 (200–100 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 200–100 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 BC–100 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 BC–150 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 4–5 and 7–8). 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: 5–6) 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 6th

century 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 Volga–Don Region.

49


Figure 2. Figures 1–9 - Contents of Late Sarmatian (150–400 AD) Burial 1, Kurgan 1: 1- Burial 1, female, age 18–20; 2- gray clayvessel; 3- bronze mirror; 4- gray clay pitcher found covered by bowl (no. 7); 5–6- 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 11–18- 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 (200–100 BC) Burial 2, Kurgan 2: 1- Burial 2, male age 35–40, 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(650–500 BC), male age 12–13, and looted Late Sarmatian burial 1, adult male; figures 4–7- 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 8–15 - artifacts from Burial 2: 8- gray clay incense cup; 9- single-edged knife blade; 10–11- 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 (650–500 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 22–25 and female age 40–50; 3- Middle Bronze Age Proto-Caucasian Catacomb burial 3, male, age 35–45.


54


Figure 7. Figures 1–12- 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 BC–150 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 14–16 - artifacts from looted (undatable) burial 1, kurgan 4 (female, age 12–14):14- dark brown glass beads (31 found) and white glass beads (10 found); 15- iron knife fragments; 16- lithic flake of gray flint; figures17–21 - 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 55–60, no artifacts; 3- Middle Bronze AgeTimber-Frame Burial 3 with 2 females, ages 55–65 and 45–50; 4- Burial 4, male, age 45–50, no artifacts, burial disturbed by animals;5- Burial 5, small child; 6- Burial 7, male, age 50–60; 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 3–5 - 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 14–16 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 1–8- Middle Sarmatian pit Burial 13, Kurgan 8: 1- Burial 13, Kurgan 8, female, age 50–60 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 9–15 - contents of looted (undatable) Burial 14, Kurgan 8 with scattered bonesof middle-age adult and child age 8–9; 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 50–60; 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 5–6 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 (3000–2000 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., 15–40 cm high by 60 cmwide. Center irregular contours (7 m long by 2 m wide max. width) with fragments from looted burials 10 (Sauromatian), 11–12 (bothundatable); 2- Burial 2, male, age 10–12, no artifacts; 3- Burial 3, female, age 45–55; 4- iron knife, Burial 3; 5- reconstructed gray clayvessel, Burial 3; 6- handmade gray clay vessel, Burial 1; 7- Burial 4, male, 45–55, 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: 1–8 bone rings (bracelet?), Bronze Age Early Pit Burial 9; 2- worked sheep bone fragment, Burial 9; 3- handmadegray clay vessel, Burial 6; 4–5- 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 (Unité Mixte de Recherche 6566, Rennes; andUnité 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 of

Patrice 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 rivers–the 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 vegetation–forestsmeadows, 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 breeding–the basis of subsistence forthe local populations–especially 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 orientation–these 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-cultures–the Gorokhovo, the Itkul, and the Baitovo–as well ascultural types–the 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) on the left bank of the Iset River inthe Shadrinsk district of the Kurgan region. The cemetery wasflanked on its north and west sides by an ancient stream.

Kurgan 2 was well covered with grass, round in form with adiameter of 24 m and a height of approximately 0.5 m. Thecentral part of the mound revealed traces of a robber’s testtrench. The stratigraphy of the barrow is as follows: Below theturf and humus (about 40-48 cm) was a layer of approximately40 cm in thickness which had been formed by soils of differentdark nuances. Several layers of human activity and natural pro-cesses were revealed that included small lenses of sand, clay,and charcoal. The ancient ground surface (paleosoil) was re-corded at a depth of 0.60-0.70 m from the top surface of themound. During the removal of the mound a large number offinds were recorded including human and animal bone, potterysherds, stone, six bronze arrowheads, one horse plaque accou-terment, a Medieval iron arrowhead, one sinker, and fragmentsof charcoal and clay.

The kurgan contained two graves: Number 1 (central) and Num-ber 2 (peripheral). Unfortunately, Grave Number 1 had beenrobbed; the surviving fragments of human skull were found nearthe center of the pit at a depth of –0.28 m. The tomb pit was filledwith very soft soil. It would appear that the originally grave pithad straight walls which measured 2.0 x 1.12 m, with a depth ofapproximately 20 cm below the sterile subsoil level.

Grave Number 2, which was located on the periphery of themound, comprised a concentration of human bone and gravegoods. It had been dug into the completed mound and the burialwas situated on the paleosoil. A portion of a human skull andlower human extremities were still in situ. Grave goods in-cluded a small ceramic vessel and lamp, sherds of pottery, abronze anthropomorphic plaque (Fig. 3), and ceramicspindlewhorls. The position of the skeleton indicated that thedeceased had been oriented south-west to north-east.

Bronze artifacts associated with Grave Number 1 display analo-gies with grave good collections found in the large Uigarakcemetery complex located in the Chorasmia area and with otherearly Saka sites of the Pamir Mountains and the Fergana Val-ley. Small bronze round plaques, measuring 3.8–4.0 cm in di-ameter, with a flat or convex surface and small loops on thereverse to contain leather straps recovered from the burial areanalogous to those from Saka sites in the lower Syr Darya (river)Region (Vishevskaya 1973). Two types of bronze arrowheadswere excavated; five of which were tanged and one was sock-eted. The heads of the trilobed tanged arrowheads measure 1.5–3.0 cm long with a total length of approximately 3.8–6.5 cm.Bilobed arrowheads have latent sockets; total lengths are ap-proximately 4.5 cm. During the 8th century BC, such arrow-heads–the so-called “pre-Scythian types”–were widespreadthroughout the Volga River region steppes, the lower Don River(Smirnov 1961), and western Central Asia, particularly aroundthe Aral Sea region (Vishevskaya 1973) where they were usedduring the 7th–6th centuries BC. According to Vishnevskaya(1973) tanged trilobed and socketed arrowheads which are datedto this time period were typical for Central Asian sites (Fig. 2).

Grave goods recovered from the secondary peripheral burialincluded two ceramic spindlewhorls, a small Sargat pot, a lampof the Gorokhovo type, a broken vessel of the Kashino type,and a small openwork anthropomorphic plaque. Small claylamps are quite typical for Iron Age cemeteries in the Transurals.The bronze rectangular anthropomorphic plaque (Fig. 3), hadbeen cast in a flat open mold, revealed two frontal human im-ages, and measured 5.1 x 5.5 cm. The figures wore helmetsand are enclosed in a rectangular frame of twisted cord. Eyesand mouths were formed with concentric grooves. The top sur-face of the plaque had been polished while the reverse, withloops for attachment, had not been worked after smelting. Mi-croscopic analysis indicated that the surface had also been in-cised. The plaque had been cast from bronze although a bronzecore was sometimes covered with copper. The iconography offrontal, standing human figurines is very typical for the Kulaibronze-smelting taiga (forest) culture of western Siberia wherea large Kulai population group was found. Within this area birdssometimes framed such images.

Two other kurgans were similar in construction and had paral-lel grave goods. This complex yielded a nice series of earlySaka arrowheads that represent the most northern boundary ofpenetration into the forest-steppes.

Prygovsky FortressThe Prygovsky fortress, which is surrounded by an area of oc-cupation, is located on an island in the Iset River. The islandwas formed by a meandering alluvial terrace within a smallforested landscape that adjoins the steppe area. It was strategi-cally favorable because this part of the river served as a fordconnecting the taiga with the open steppes. The ground surfaceis well turfed and covered by birch and pine trees. Encircled bya marsh-ridden valley and old river channels, the fortress liesat the edge of the promontory and was protected by two forti-fied, defensive lines, each of which comprised a rampart and a

Burials and Settlements at the Eurasian Crossroads

66


ditch. The exterior rampart is an irregular half-circle, approxi-mately 5-6 m in width and has a height from the inside depth ofapproximately 0.2-0.5 m. The exterior ditch is 5-6 m wide andits depth in certain locations reaches up to 80-90 cm. The groundwithin the fortress lies along the northern side; it is multi-ovalin shape and is also delimited by a rampart and ditch. The exte-rior rampart was 7-8 m in width and 0.2-1.0 m in height, andthe corresponding ditch had a width of 3-6 m.

In addition, on both grounds, low sloped banks with rising hillsare probably the remains of defensive constructions. The de-fensive system is more significant on the eastern side as a re-sult of the necessity to protect the fortress at its most vulner-able point. Numerous depressions–the remains of ancient dwell-ings–have been found near the fortress grounds covering anarea of approximately 25,000 sq. m. The Prygovsky fortressprovides evidence that livestock breeders occupied the Transuralenvironment between the 7th century BC and 13th century AD.Definitive stratigraphy has revealed several chronological ho-rizons represented by various structures, including houses, stor-age pits, fireplaces, and special pottery types. Three major chro-nological horizons were identified.

Third building horizonThe third building horizon is the latest and is dated to the 10th–13th centuries AD. A surface house (Number 1) and the re-mains of several hearths relating to the house, were found. Therectangular house, with a central hearth, measured 7–7.5 x 5.5–8 m. Remains of wooden constructions (roof and walls) wererecorded at the corners.

Second building horizonThe second building horizon was dated to the 2nd century BC–1st century AD. House Number 2 (Fig. 5) was situated beneathHouse Number 1 described above. Of rectangular shape, thishouse was constructed upon pillars which were indicated bydark stains on the floor. Traces of house repairs were notedand, according to the artifact distribution, it is apparent that allchanges took place during a single period of occupation. Thefireplace, located in the center of the house, was ring-shapedand measured 40 cm in diameter with a depth of 10 cm. Thisdwelling consisted of a living room and an antechamber linkedby long corridor.

Three concentrations of vessels were excavated on the floor ofthe house. Two of these were positioned adjacent to the fire-place; the other group of vessels had been placed in a pit in thesouthern corner of the central rectangular area. This houseyielded mostly ceramics of the Prygovsky type. A second rect-angular house (Number 4) with analogous construction andassociated with the second building horizon, was also partiallyinvestigated. Measuring 4–4.5 x 3.3 m, its foundation was cutinto the ground surface by not more than 30 cm. A fireplaceconnected with a small ditch has been placed in the center ofthe house.

The remains of another house, contemporary with this hori-zon, were excavated beyond the defensive line (Excavation Area

6). The main architectural feature of this house was the mainsquare chamber which measured approximately 23 sq m, andwas delimited by narrow trenches that served to hold horizon-tally placed wooden logs that, in turn, supported pillars. Tracesof the pillar were represented by postholes. A central hearth,also used for cooking, would have heated this chamber. Thesleeping areas were located along the north-eastern side of thehouse, and were defined by a special fence that was indicatedby a small trench. The entrance, which was placed in the south-western corner, was of antechamber construction. Adjacent tothe door, a large hole had been dug to hold wood. It is quiteprobable that this chamber would have had an extension thathad not been sunk into the soil. The stratigraphy indicated thatthe house was inhabited for only a single period.

The remains of House Numbers 2 and 4, and the house fromthe area outside the fortification were all associated with thesecond chronological horizon (Fig. 4). Sargat and Prygovskypottery types were associated with this stratum. Thus, their chro-nological position was determined by their intermediate posi-tion between the earliest and latest deposits.

First building horizonThe earliest horizon was represented by the remains of HouseNumber 3, which had been partly damaged by later structures,and Structure 6 which corresponded to a small household con-struction. This horizon included ceramics of Nosilovo, Baitovo,Gorokhovo, Vorobievo and Itkul types. Bronze arrowheads,characteristic of those used during the 7th–4th centuries BC,provide a preliminary chronology for this horizon. It is pos-sible that the earliest burials in the Prygovsky kurgans weresynchronous to some areas associated with the first buildinghorizon of the fortress.

The stratigraphy indicated that the internal ditch of the fortresshad been constructed during the Middle Ages and should beconnected with the third chronological horizon. In contrast, theexternal ditch is associated with the Iron Age.

The number of artifacts recovered from this excavation wasrather high–approximately 2000 finds, excluding bones. A to-tal of 90% of this material was represented by ceramics. Othertypes of artifacts included metal, bone, stone, and clay articles(Fig. 6). Bronze arrowheads are related to Sauromatian typesdated to the 5th–4th centuries BC. Small blue glass beads areanalogous to those produced in Egyptian workshops, that werein use during the 1st–2nd centuries AD. A bronze adz-shapedobject was dated to the Medieval period (Late Iron Age), aswas an iron awl, and three bone dart heads. Many remains areindicative of metallurgical working; among these were a con-centration of iron slag, pieces of malachite, sherds of techno-logical vessels, and cauldrons which were used for smelting.Of note is a two-sided talcum stone mold; one side was usedfor the production of an ax, while the other was used for thecreation of a bird similar to those of the Ural Style. Manyspindlewhorls that had been made from pottery sherds werealso excavated from all three horizons. Pottery debris also ap-pears to have been utilized as polishing tools.

67

Clay vessels from the excavations numbered 300 and repre-sented a general ceramic collection. They were classified us-ing the existing typology applied to pottery from the Transurals.Thus, nine cultural groups, corresponding to the knownTransural types, were identified.

The remains of large animals found in the archaeological sitescontributed to the identification of human diet and economy.The excavation at the Prygovsky fortress yielded many animalbones, and demonstrated the important role that meat played inthe diet of the local populations. Bone analyses identified ba-sic species characteristic for the site; these bones were dividedinto two groups - domesticated animals and hunted wild animals.Cattle and horse–the predominant animals, represent domesti-cates. Although few sheep bones were found, many dog bones,including complete skeletons and crania, were excavated. In ad-dition, camel bones were also recovered. Elk, roe deer, wild pig,bear, fox, and beaver appear to have been hunted for meat.

As a consequence of its very favorable geographic and strate-gic location–near a river crossing that allowed its inhabitantsto control a vast territory–and the extremely rich biologicalresources found in the Iset Valley, the Prygovsky site had along period of occupation.

Scientific resultsField excavations undertaken within the framework of theproject and the subsequent laboratory analyses, allowed somescientific conclusions to be made and presented the formula-tion of further hypotheses to be used in continuing research.Each is related to the different topical aspects under study.

Cultural and chronological aspectsSpecific attributes of the western variant of the Sargat culturalregion were determined by the broad contribution from thesemi-nomadic Gorokhovo Culture, the metallurgical techniquesfrom the Itkul Culture, as well as contributions from othersmaller regional groups. The variety of contributions explainthe exceptional cultural diversity that was characteristic for theterritory under discussion. The diversity is reflected in ethno-graphic amplification, such as the architecture, the funeral ritu-als, and most specifically the pottery. The latter displayed vari-ability in traditions of form and design as well as providingevidence for ornamental and morphological continuity. Thus,vessels from the site differed from each other only by one ortwo elements, as if forming a chain. The continuity is so markedthat, in fact, it is not possible to find completely identical, orcompletely different, ceramic collections from within the rela-tively homogeneous landscapes. This problem of morphologyand ornamentation is encountered at two levels. The first in-volves the formal classification of the pottery, and the secondthe historical and chronological content of the numerous ar-chaeological subdivisions.

As mentioned above, the Sargat area repeatedly received influ-ence from the south during the Iron Age, beginning at the timethe nomadic world was formed no later than the 7th centuryBC. This situation arose as a result of the direct penetration of

an undetermined Saka population (Koryakova 1988). This isapparent in the Prygovo burial ground where small kurganscontained central burials that were placed either on the ancientsurface–accompanied by traces of a fire–or in shallow pits.These burials have yielded socketed and typical tanged east-ern-type bronze arrowheads.

Nomadic influences were primarily expressed in funerary ritualpatterns that parallel those found among various groups inKazakhstan, the southern Urals, and eastern Europe. Sargatfunerary rituals were formed as the result of a cultural synthe-sis between nomadic and local sedentary populations, both ofwhom trace their origins to the Bronze Age (Koryakova andDaire 1997). These rituals have been identified in the Murzino,Bolshekazakhbayevo, Scaty, and Gayevo cemeteries.

Cultural and chronological generalizations are based upon thestratigraphy identified in the settlement sites that had been oc-cupied for a long period of time, primarily on the basis of analo-gies with grave goods excavated from the barrows. Radiocar-bon dates obtained from a number of sites were also useful(Table 2).

Environmental and economic aspectThe types of settlements which were investigated are notedbelow; they differed in size, form, and function.

• A small fortified but temporary camp, Malokazakhbayevo,was polygonal in form as indicted by the combination of a moatand ditch. A thin cultural deposit containing a limited numberof artifacts is usually characteristic. Such settlements functionedwithin a short time period and served as a frontier post.

• Large settlements comprised of a fortified area (citadel)and a vast open inhabited space in which numerous houses wereconstructed. The settlements at Prygovo, Baitovo, Pavlinovorepresent this type. Used over a long period of time, they playeda role in the regional (administrative?) centers. The fortifica-tion systems varied from a simple enclosure to a rather elabo-rate combination that could be comprised of two deep ditchesand two ramparts constructed from wood and clay.

• The subsistence economy of the Sargat population wasprimarily based upon stockbreeding and the seasonal exploita-tion of the rich biological resources found in the forest-steppes.All settlements were situated in close proximity to large rivervalleys or lakes. The populations raised an abundance of ani-mals, including horses, cattle, and sheep as well dogs. Bonesof all the domestic animals were recovered from both the habi-tation sites and the kurgans where they had been placed as sac-rifices and food offerings. On the basis of the investigated siteswe have hypothetically outlined the following forms ofstockbreeding that were developed by the local population.

1. Semi-nomadic pastoralism with relatively high mobility,more inherent in the southern areas (Gorokhovo Culture).

2. Semi-settled pastoralism with a high percentage of horses(Pavlinovo and Prygovo).

3. Settled pastoralism with a predominance of cattle (Baitovo).


68


Settlements and kurgans provide abundant materials for thereconstruction of the Sargat society architectural patterns. Arelatively high level of spatial organization, planning, houseand fortification construction corresponded to the specific en-vironmental conditions (Fig. 7). Wood was the basic materialfor funerary and residential construction. Types of houses var-ied between small and light dwellings, such as at Malo-kazakhbayevo, to large and multi-roomed houses with approxi-mately 100 sq m, and having several hearths and internal eco-nomic areas. Complex houses of this type are known at Prygovoand Pavlinovo.

Some aspects of mortuary practiceComparison of settlements and cemeteries reveals a discrep-ancy from the point of view of their demographic potential.The number of burials and the demographic composition ofburial grounds do not correspond to the probable number ofsettlement inhabitants. This observation provided a new hy-pothesis concerning the possibility of alternative funerary prac-tices that did not include a kurgan. Indirect arguments in favorof this hypothesis are represented by the occurrence of occa-sional flat burials located outside kurgan mounds. This hypoth-esis will be tested by further research.

Detailed analysis of funerary rituality revealed several patternsrelating to the different chronological time periods and differ-ent social gradations. Barrows covered the burials; this archi-tecture included a circular or polygonal ditched enclosure thatserved to delimit the mortuary area. Ditches usually correlatedwith the different phases of barrow construction. The size, con-struction, and number of burials varied between kurgans. Largemounds, approximately 100 m in diameter, usually dominatedthe high riverbanks, and towered over other kurgans. A goodexample of such a cemetery is the Scaty burial ground thatcontained kurgans that reveal it to have had an aristocratic char-acter. The funerary ceremony also included some actions con-nected with animal sacrifices and food offerings. Each kurgancontained several burials (Fig. 8). As a rule, the first and sec-ond central burials in a cemetery were primary, while later datedburials were arranged around the periphery.

Grave pits were of two types: (1) those with straight verticalwalls and (2) those with ledges cut into the walls. In some pitsthere was evidence of wooden pillars supporting an upper cov-ering, and the burial chambers reflected some of the elementsbelonging to a house. Special coffins or litters were employedin the burials. Accompanying grave goods reflected the socialand professional status of the deceased, who were buried in anextended position, and were generally oriented to the north.

An integral part of the mortuary assemblage was food offer-ings–pieces of horsemeat and vessels that contained milk orbroth. Horse, cattle, and sheep meat were consumed during thefuneral feast and their remains have been found outside thegrave pit. Male burials clearly expressed warrior characteris-tics. Weapons could accompany a 12–14 year old (Fig. 12),thereby shedding light on the age group system that existedwithin Sargat society. Females were buried with ornaments,

including beads and earrings, as well as tools associated withtextile production, and various vessels including bronze caul-drons (Fig. 9) and stone plates. Fire appears to have played animportant role in the funerary ceremonies.

The central burials invariably belonged to major personages.Their pits were much larger than those on the periphery andthey contained more imposing wooden constructions, in-cluding large upper roofed areas (Koryakova 1988;Koryakova and Daire 1997).

Anthropological analysisA component of the project focuses upon the examination ofhuman remains. Various methods of physical examination wereundertaken to enable the reconstruction of the age and sex pro-file of the population. Muscle markings were analyzed to as-sess the types of human activity which were undertaken by thedeceased during their everyday life. It is difficult to synthesizethe health of this population because the majority of burialshad been robbed, resulting in the disturbance of the skeletonsthat were frequently incomplete. Thus, our sample is not largeand does not include the entire population. Nevertheless, weobserved a significant prevalence of porotic hyperostosis, cribraorbitalia, or thickness of the diploe, lesions which are indica-tive of a high frequency of anemia. Enamel hypoplasia wasalso relatively frequent as was osteoarthritis that was especiallyobserved on the vertebral column (Fig. 10). Muscular activitywas relatively high, and the insertions of the main muscles arewell developed, a condition often associated with entheso-pathies. These were the main pathologies encountered. Veryfew traumatic lesions were observed, which would contradicta military characteristic for the Sargat society. The clearly ex-pressed marker of a horse rider’s pathological complex is indi-cated in some male burials (Fig. 11), but, it should be notedthat for the most part, the deceased could not be described asbeing involved in extreme nomadic activity, although they fre-quently rode horses (Courtaud and Rajev 1997).

The majority of the investigated burials were of adult person-ages. Males and females died at a relatively young age, notcorresponding to the expected normal mortality rate. The samplewas too small, however, to enable a proper demographic pro-file to be reconstructed for the population. Thirty-four subjectswere excavated - 5 children and 29 adults. We would expectfor this time period and the probable birth-life expectancy, thatwe would find approximately 50 percent adults and 50 percentimmature individuals. Thus, a large quantity of immature indi-viduals was not found–with one exception. Three children andan equal number of adults were excavated from the Skaty Cem-etery. Among the adult individuals, we encountered 14 males,5 females and 10 of indeterminable sex due to their incom-plete skeletons.

ConclusionsThe Sargat settlement sites provided abundant material culturewhich enabled the determination of the economic bases, envi-ronment, architecture, and the stylistic traditions used in pot-tery manufacture. These artifacts allowed the chronological and

69

cultural sequences that were brought about by changes result-ing from intercultural contacts to be defined. This study hasposed some important questions concerning the relationshipbetween the settlements and the cemeteries. The material alsoreveals a wide range of variability in burial practices–varioustype of cremation (Bronze Age) and classical inhumation un-der the mound–all of which are dependent upon chronological,cultural and social factors. Beginning in the Bronze Age, themost interactive contacts in the area under study took placedbetween the steppe and forest-steppe inhabitants. These rela-tionships became symbiotic during the Iron Age, leading to adirect nomadic impact upon the indigenous societies thatmarked the complimentary cultures along the northern marginof nomadic world. These cultures proved to be of great impor-tance through their establishment of long distance connectionsand divisions of labor within the north-central Eurasian popu-lations. Some specific aspects of this research, particularly thepaleoenvironmental and ceramic studies, are discussed in sepa-rate papers by other specialists who are members of the re-search teams involved in this program.

AcknowledgmentsThis work is supported by grant PICS 585/RFBR 98-06-22011 andFederal Program “Integratsiya.” The paper is also due to the manypeople who supported the project. The field work was made possibledue to the students of the Ural State University and other universitieswho have been faithful to our expedition over many years, and eachsummer shared all the adversities of camp life. We are very grateful toour driver, O. Kostuk, and camp keepers, V. Smirnov and E.Korockova. Our true assistants–former and current students–S.Panteleeva, O. Mikrukova, O. Kozeko, N. Berseneva and others de-serve our special gratitude. We are also appreciative of the Americanstudents, Ann Kroll and Bryan Hanks who have worked with us in thefield.

Endnotes1. Institute of History and Archaeology. Ural division of Russian Acad-

emy of Sciences, Ural State University.

2. UMR 6566 “Civilisations atlantiques et archeosciences.”

3. UMR 5809, Laboratoire d’Anthropologie, Universite de Bordeau.

ReferencesCourtaud, P. and Rajev, D. 1997. People, pp. 86-113 inKoryakova, L. and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.), The Culture of Trans-Uralian Cattle and Horse Breeders at the Turn of the Era.Ekaterinburg: Ekaterinburg publishers.

Gening, V. F. and Pozdnyakova, M. K. 1961. Prygovskoyegorodishche na r. Iseti, pp. 34-71 in Gening, V. (ed.), Voprosyarkheologii Urala, Vol. 6. Sverdlovsk: Uralsky Universitet(“Prygovsky fortress on the River Iset.” Questions on the archae-ology of the Urals).Koryakova, L. N. 1988. Rannii zheleznyi vek Zaurlaya i ZapadnoiSibiri. Sverdlovsk: Uralskii Universitet (“Early Iron Age of Trans-Urals and western Siberia”).


Koryakova, L. N. and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.) 1997. The Culture ofTrans-Uralian Cattle and Horse Breeders at the Turn of the Era.Ekaterinburg: Ekaterinburg Press.

Koryakova, L. N., Pautreau, J. -P. and Marguerie, D. 1993. Lekourgan 1 de la necropole I de Prygovsky (Shadrinsk, Siberieoccidentale): premiers resultats. Journe prehistorique etprotohistorique de Bretagne, 6 novembre, 31-4 (“Kurgan 1 in thePrygovsky cemetery (Shadrinsk, western Siberia): first results.”Journal of the prehistory and protohistory of Brittany).

Koryakova, L. N., and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.) forthcoming. Habi-tats et necropoles de l’Age du Fer au carrefour de l’Eurasie. Vol. 1.Rennes. (“Settlements and cemeteries in the Iron Age at the cross-roads of Eurasia”).

Koryakova, L. N. and Epimakhov, A. V. forthcoming. The Uralsand western Siberia in late prehistory.

Pautreau, J. -P., Koryakova, L. N., Marguerie, D., Buldashev,V., Sharapova, S. and Kovrigin, A. 1993. Necrople de Mourzinski,habitat et necropole de Prygovski. CNRS (France) Institute of His-tory and Archaeology RAS (Russia) (“The Mourzinski cemetery,the settlement and cemetery of Prygovski”).

Smirnov, K. F. 1961. Vooruzheniye savromatov (Materialy iissledovania po arkhrologii SSSR 101) Moskva: Nauka (“The armsof the Sauromatians.” Materials and research on the archaeologyof the USSR).

Vishevskaya, O. A. 1973. Kultura sakskikh plemen nizovyev Syr-Daryi v VII-V vv. do n.e. Vol. VIII. Trudy Khorezmskoi arkheologo-etnographicheskoi expeditsii. Moscow: Nauka (“The culture of theSaka population in the lower Syr-Darya region during the 7th to6th centuries BC. Research of the Chroasmian archaeological andethnographical expedition”).

70


Table 1 (right). General characteristics of the excavated sites.

Burial grounds Locality Square/

number of

kurgans

Excavated area/

number of

kurgans

Number of

burials/

houses,

structures

Prygovo 2nd Iset river >12 3 4

Murzino Iset river 25 9 19

B. Kazakhbayevo Karabolka r. >30 5 36

Skaty Tobol river >30 4 10

Gayevo 2 Iset river >9 5 20

Settlements

Baitovo Tobol river 10 000 m2 200 m2 3

Prygovo Iset river 25 000 m2 460 m2 8

Malokazakhbayevo Karabolka river 2 000 m2 260 m2 4

Pavlinovo Iset river 100000 m2 1200 m2 12

Table 2 (below). General chronology of the sites excavated by the Russian-French project.

SitesCenturiesAD/BC

Prygovob.g.

Murzino

Skaty B/kaz. Gayevo

Baitovos.

Prygovo s.

M/kazakb.

Pavlinovo

121110987654321123456789101112131415

71

Fig. 1. Location of the sites that were investigated.

Fig. 2. Bronze arrowheads from Prygovo kurgans.


72


Fig. 3. Bronze plaque from Prygovo Kurgan 2.

Fig. 4. The Prygovo fortified settlement. Plan:1- moat; 2- ditch; 3- house depressions). (after Gening and Pozdnyakova 1961, ris.1)

Fig. 5. Prygovo fortified settlement. Remainsof house 2 (second building horizon). (Drawn

by A.Kovrigin)

73

Fig. 6. Prygovo settlement.some artifacts. (drawn by A.Kovrigin)

Fig. 7. Pavlinovo fortified settlement; house [Structure 5].


Fig. 9. Bronze cauldron from Kurgan 2; BolshekazakbayevoCemetery. (drawn by A. Kovrigin)

74


Fig. 10. Femoral and pelvic bones withosteoarthrits markers. (photo by D. Razhev)

Fig. 11. Femoral bone with markers of rider.(photo by P. Courdaud)

Fig. 12. Gayovo–94, Kurgan 6, Burial 1; child, 10–12 years. (drawn by P. Courtaud)

Fig. 8. Gayevo Cemetery; Kurgan 3. (drawn by A. Kovrigin)

75

AbstractThe aim of this paleoenvironmental and paleoethnographicalstudy was to reconstruct the environment around six archeo-logical sites and to determine the nature of the link between thepopulations and the forests. Iron Age settlements and burialseast of the Ural Mountains in Russia were studied for this pur-pose. Charcoal and wood samples from six sites along two majorrivers were microscopically analyzed. These observations ledto species identification, in conjunction with tree ring widthmeasurements and tree ring curve observations. It appears thatpine and birch were the predominant species among the ar-chaeological structures taken into account. Pine trees show re-strictive growing conditions compared with today. The popu-lation appeared to have indiscriminately used trunks orbranches, with the exception of two sites where the major treeelements exploited comprised trunks.

Keywordspaleoenvironment, paleoethnobotany, anthropogenic fires, ar-chaeological structures, charcoal analysis, Russia

IntroductionThis paper presents the preliminary results of a paleo-environ-mental and paleoethnographical study based on charcoalsamples retrieved from combustion structures and occupationlevels in cemeteries and settlements in the Ural Mountains andTransural areas of Russia. The research is a component of theFranco-Russian Project entitled “Burials and Settlements at theEurasian Crossroads,” which began in 1993.

The aim of the research was to reconstruct the environmentaround Iron Age archaeological sites and, as far as possible, tohighlight the relationship which would have existed betweenthe populations and the vegetation. Throughout the ages inRussia, wood has been an important, or even the exclusive,raw material used for a variety of different purposes. Today,this is still true in the rural areas of the region under study. Weobserved, for example, that in the countryside birch branchesand trunks are currently used as fuel, while pine trunks are usu-ally used as timber. Was this also the case in the past?

Study area and archaeological sitesThe study area is located in western Siberia, approximately300 kilometers to the east of the Ural Mountains. Located inthe southern part of the wooded steppes, the area is a transi-tional zone between the taiga and the steppe lands and is char-acterized by a mixed forest with prairie and steppe areas (Fig.1). Birch and aspen in coppice formations are the predominantleafy arboreal species, while pines are the predominant conif-erous arboreal species. The study area is located on a sedimen-tary depression comprised of various fluvial and marsh depos-its. This assemblage, with the forest-steppes as described above,is a veritable patchwork of vegetation types. Lakes and rivervalleys are also important elements of the Transuralian relief.

The climate is continental and particularly unstable (varyingrapidly). During summer, the temperatures are high and theprecipitation is low, relative to predominant southern and east-ern air masses. The winter is cold, with the arctic air mass be-ing the primary influence at this time of the year.

Until now, the Franco-Russian project has focused on the SargatCulture which is composed of different cultural and sub-cul-tural types during the period between the 7th century BC andthe 3rd century AD (Koryakova et al. 1993; Koryakova andDaire 1997; Koryakova and Daire forthcoming). From an ar-chaeological point of view, this framework offers many forti-fied and open settlements and kurgans for study.

Six sites located along the Tobol and Iset Rivers were analyzedfor the charcoal palaeoenvironmental and palaeoethnographicalresearch (Fig. 2). Two of these sites comprised permanent andtemporary settlements–Baitovo and Malakazakhbaievo, respec-tively–while the others–Prygovsky, Gaiova, Skaty and B.Kazakhbaievo–are cemeteries which contained both aristocraticand ordinary burials. Today, the sites are surrounded by a mixedforest of birch and pine trees with some poplars and maplesincluded. Saline soils are predominant in the ancient terraces ofthe Tobol and Iset Rivers. Beyond, black soils are predominant,covered by meadows with a great variety of cereal and bean plants.

The Environment of Iron Age Burials and Settlements

at the Eurasian Crossroads (Urals, Russia)

Preliminary Results of the Charcoal Analysis of Anthropogenic Fires

Dominique Marguerie

Nancy MarcouxUMR 6566 “Civilisations atlantiques et archéosciences”

CNRS, UniversitédeRennes1

76


MethodologyIn the field, samples were taken from sediments that containedcharcoal fragments and pieces of wood. The charcoal and woodwere separated from the sediments in the laboratory by sieving(to 2 mm) and flotation. The woody material was then observedunder the microscope and identified on the basis of the woodstructure (Schweingruber 1990). The species and diversity re-vealed the types of wood chosen for use by the population, inaddition to the particular methods of exploitation for the dif-ferent types of wood.

When possible, the growth ring widths were systematicallymeasured. This data can provide information on the growingconditions of the trees, including climate, the type of soil, andthe density of the forest. Narrow rings correspond to restrictivegrowing conditions, while, in contrast, large rings reveal fa-vorable growing conditions.

In the field, cores were made in living birch, pine and poplartrees growing in different types of environment. The purposeof obtaining these samples was to enable a comparison to bemade between the ring widths of living trees with those ob-served in the subfossil samples. The relationship between mod-ern tree ring patterns and their environments can provide infor-mation on the origin of the wood charcoal recovered duringarchaeological excavations.

Finally, when possible, the tree ring curves of the charcoal pieceswere noted. This characteristic can enable the identification ofwhich part of a tree was used (Marguerie 1992). A smooth curvecorresponds to the tree trunk, while a marked curve correspondsto the branches.

ResultsThe results appeared to be very homogenous between thesamples from a given site regardless of the method of analysis(species diversity, tree growth, and tree element). For the firstapproach to the problem, the samples were grouped by site.Note that graphs for some sites are not presented, especiallyfor tree growth and tree elements, because there was no data ortoo little data for the results to be representative.

Species diversityNo major differences between the charcoal species identifiedfrom the settlements and the burials sites were noted (Fig. 3).Pine and birch were the most common species recovered fromall sites. These two species were found to occur exclusively atthe Prygovsky and Scaty sites. In addition to these two foresttrees, river bank taxa were also found to be present at the B.Kazakbaievo site and, to a lesser degree, at the Gaiova andBaitovo sites. At Malakazakbaievo, however, no pine sampleswere found, and because of its diverse species assemblage with-out pine, the Malakazakbaievo site appears to be unique.

Tree growthThe distribution of birch ring widths is wide, particularly at theSkaty and Baitovo sites, the two sites situated along the Tobol

River (Fig. 4a). This finding may indicate that the samples hadprobably originated from many forest types, which containeda variety of growing conditions. In contrast, the coarse rangeof the pine ring width distributions probably means that theIron Age populations only retrieved pines from one particularforest type characterized by specific growing conditions. Theonly possible exception to this situation is found at the Gaiovasite (Fig. 4b).

If the measurements made on living samples are compared withthe mean values per site of the subfossil material, more infor-mation can be gleaned concerning the nature of the environ-ment in which the trees were grown. In the case of birch (Fig.5a), the analysis of living trees would tend to indicate that nar-row rings are found in coppice formations, while large ringsare found in humid forests. Medium ring widths (values in be-tween the narrow and large rings observed in living trees) wereobserved on the birch charcoal (subfossil material), making itdifficult to draw conclusions concerning the nature of the envi-ronment from which the trees had originated.

The results appear to be clearer in the case of pine charcoal(Fig. 5b). Cores made in living pines show two patterns ofgrowth depending on the forest type - c. 0.5mm radial growthper year in an ancient forest, and 2–3 mm in exploited smallforests located near rivers. The rings of the pine charcoalsamples (subfossil material) have, in general, an average widthof approximately 1 mm. At Scaty, however, the pines were foundto have very narrow rings with a mean width of less than0.5mm. Therefore, it would appear that the Iron Age peopleprobably collected these trees from fully developed forests. Thistype of forest environment leads to restrictive growing condi-tions which are related to the competition which exists betweentrees for nutriments, light, water, etc.

Tree elementsAt the Prygovsky, Gaiova, and Malakazakhbaievo sites, resultsobtained from the tree ring curves indicate that the birch char-coals had originated equally from trunks and branches (Fig.6a). In the case of pine, all tree elements were also used at thePrygovsky and Gaiova sites (Fig. 6b). In contrast, at Baitovoand Scaty, in most cases, the pine and birch charcoals had origi-nated from tree trunks. This finding may indicate that the IronAge people had deliberately selected large pieces of wood atthese two sites located along the Tobol River.

Discussion and ConclusionsThe data obtained from charcoal analyses can provide perti-nent ecological information. In comparison to the actual livingregional vegetation, our results seem to show that, during theIron Age, the forests were composed of the same species astoday, namely pine and birch trees. In the samples obtainedfrom the Malakazakhbaievo site, however, pines was conspicu-ously absent. Following the hypothesis that the presence of atree species near a site (particularly at settlements such as thoseof the current study) results in its exploitation by the popula-tion, it is possible to infer that pines were not available at the

77

Malakazakhbaievo site during the Iron Age. The Mala-kazakhbaievo site has also been found to be different to theother sites of the current study since it contains a more diversi-fied species assemblage.

The tree rings of the pine charcoal appeared to be narrowerthan those obtained from living pines. This finding may be dueto a change in the density of the forest, which could be relatedto the existence of greater competition between the trees. Thissituation can also arise as a consequence of poor climatic con-ditions which may have led to less annual growth during theIron Age.

In addition, and in some cases above all, charcoal analyses canprovide palaeoethnographical information. In this study, theresult obtained from a number of the sites indicate that IronAge people deliberately selected particular wood species andtree elements for exploitation. This situation was apparent atthe Baitovo and Scaty sites where pine and birch trunks werepreferred to branches. This finding may be related to the loca-tion of the two sites in close proximity to the Tobol River.

The next step of the research will be to bring the analysis to amore precise level. By systematically understanding the pre-cise origin of the charcoal assemblages, it will be possible todetermine the relationship between the wood selections ob-served and their specific uses during the Iron Age in Russia.

Finally, these first six Russian sites show great promise forcharcoal analysis. Even with an averaged result per site, it hasalready been possible to make some observations on the natureof the environment and the types of wood which were deliber-ately selected by the local populations. In combination withthese results and the more precise charcoal analysis plannedfor future research, it will be interesting to undertake pollenanalyses to determine, for example, if pine, birch, or mixedforests did or did not exist in the vicinity of the sites. The studyarea is a perfect location for pollen analysis since peat bogs areabundant around the archaeological sites, particularly in thelarge Iset and Tobol river valleys.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors are grateful to Bernard Bigot, Esther Gonzales,Marie-Céline Ugé, and Rebecca Short for assistance with fieldwork, and to Yannick Garcia for laboratory analysis.

The Environment of Iron Age Burials and Settlements at the Eurasian Crossroads

ReferencesCherbakova, V.I. 1999. Geographia Russia Atlas (Forest resources24). Moscow: Cartography.

Koryakova, L. N. and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.) 1997. The Culture ofTrans-Uralian Cattle and Horse breeders at the turn of the era.Ekaterinburg: Ekaterinburg Press.

Koryakova, L. N., and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.) forthcoming. Habitats etnecropoles de l’Age du Fer au carrefour de l’Eurasie. Vol. 1. Rennes. (“Settle-ments and cemeteries in the Iron Age at the crossroads of Eurasia”).

Koryakova, L. N., Pautreau, J. -P. and Marguerie, D. 1993. Lekourgan 1 de la necropole I de Prygovsky (Shadrinsk, Siberieoccidentale): premiers resultats. Journee prehistorique etprotohistorique de Bretagne 6 novembre, 31-4 (“Kurgan 1 in thePrygovsky cemetery (Shadrinsk, western Siberia): first results.”Journal of the prehistory and protohistory of Brittany).

Marguerie, D. 1992. Evolution de la végétation sous l’impact humainen Armorique du Néolithique aux périodes historiques. TravauxLaboratoire Anthropologie, Université de Rennes I, n°40 (“Evo-lution of the vegetation under human impact in Armorica fromthe Neolithic period to the Middle Ages”).

Schweingruber, F. H. 1990. Anatomy of European woods. Haupt,Bern and Stuttgart:Eidenössische Forschungsanstalt für wald,Schnee und Landschaft, Birmensdorf (Hrsg).

78


Fig. 1. Wood resources map (%). (after Coll. 1999)

Fig. 2. Location of the study sites (S = settlements; B = burials).

79

Fig. 3. Graphs of taxa lists per site: A - Prygovsky;B - Scaty; C - Gaiova; D - B. Kazakbaivo; E - Baitova;F - Malakazakbaievo.


80


81

Fig. 5. Comparison between actual tree ring widths and average tree ring widths of subfossil material per site: a - Birch; b - Pine


Fig. 4 (left). Distributions of tree ring widths per site: A - Skaty; B - B. Kazakbaievo; C - Baitovo; D - Malakazakbaievo;E - Prygovsky; F - Gaiova. a. Birch; b. Pine.

82


Fig. 6. Trees element identified by the tree ring curves: A - Baitovo; B - Prygovsky; C - Skaty; D - Gaiova; E - Malakazakbaievo.a - Birch; b - Pine

83

AbstractMembers of the Kazak-American Talgar Project conducted ar-chaeological field surveys in the Talgar Fan, and the uplandvalleys of Turgen and Asi rivers. The Talgar Fan is an area ofintensive agricultural production where 287 transects, cover-ing 180 sq km, were walked in plowed fields. Artifacts werefound at 480 locations with 55 being Iron Age sites; 80% ofthe ceramics recovered belong to the Iron Age. The Turgen-Asi area is located in the high Tien Shan Mountains between2200 and 2890 meters in an area characterized as an alpineenvironment; here Kazak herders graze their animals from Juneto early September. In this region, archaeologist located 120burial complexes and six settlement sites belonging to both theBronze Age and Iron Age. Further work will be needed to de-termine how these sites fit into our agro-pastoralism settlementmodel. Currently we are testing several of the sites and build-ing a ceramic chronology.

KeywordsAgro-pastoralism, Eurasian steppes, Iron Age, archaeologicalsurvey

Introduction to the Talgar surveysIn 1994 we began our fieldwork in the Talgar area of south-eastern Kazakhstan (Fig. 1. Map) with excavations at the Me-dieval Talgar site, and the Saka Period site of Tuzusai. For threeseasons we focused our research on the Tuzusai excavations.As we worked at Tuzusai, we asked the obvious question:“Where are the other settlement sites?”

Field survey, especially field walking, is a distinctively West-ern methodology for locating ancient archaeological sites. Weimplemented our survey strategy of field walking on the Talgaralluvial fan (Fig. 2). This paper includes the preliminary re-sults of our survey work from 1997 through 1999. At this timewe still lack some important pieces of information that mustbe compiled, including (1) the ceramic inventory and typologyof the Bronze Age through Medieval period ceramics collectedfrom the survey; (2) an inventory of all artifacts and; (3) anestimation of the number of previously unrecorded kurgans inthe Talgar Region.

Soviet period archaeology, noted for its large excavationprojects, tended to overlook the importance of undertaking

archaeological surveys of bounded areas such as the Talgar al-luvial fan and the upland valleys of Turgen and Asi. In Westernarchaeology, survey or systematic investigation of landscapesurfaces in search of archaeological sites (e.g., graves, cem-eteries, burial mounds, camps, settlements, shrines, paths, roads,artifact scatters, and rock shelters) is often seen as the prereq-uisite for subsequent excavations or regional studies of archae-ology. The two reasons why archaeological survey has becomeso essential in the practice of Western archaeology are: (1) thenecessity to inventory and document all archaeological placeson maps for the protection and preservation of such sites and;(2) the importance of the geographical distribution of archaeo-logical places over local and regional landscapes.

The settingThe Talgar Fan is located 20 kilometers east of Alma Ata, theformer capital of Kazakhstan. The Talgar Fan Survey Area cov-ers approximately 180 sq km, and varies in elevation fromMedieval Talgar at 1100 meters in the south, sloping gentlydown to 680 meters at the designated northern boundary, themain road (A-351) that runs east to Chalk and onto China. TheTalgar Fan is watered by the Talgar River, which is fed by melt-water from the glaciers of the Tien Shan Mountains. Threesmaller streams all are seasonal with the exception of Talybulak.The rich agricultural land of the Talgar Fan is currently irri-gated by a series of Soviet period canals, some of which feedold stream channels.

Our specific reasons for conducting intensive, local surveys onthe Talgar landscape are: (1) to inventory and document therange of sites on the Talgar fan dating from the Bronze Agethrough the Medieval period and; (2) to understand the ancientpatterns of land use and settlements in terms of a model ofagro-pastoralism (mixed herding and farming).

This types of surveys are: (1) systematic archaeological fieldwalking in ploughed fields, and along rivers, canals, and an-cient stream profiles; (2) limited test trenching and; (3) detailedgeomorphological descriptions and analyses of the natural soilprofile cuts that contain archaeological materials. The analy-ses include dating of deposits with radiocarbon samples, pa-lynology, soils analyses, and spectral analyses of mineral traceelements. As we have yet to obtain the final results from our

The Kazakh-American TalgarProject Archaeological Field Surveys in the

Talgar and Turgen-Asi Areas of Southeastern Kazakhstan: 1997-1999

Claudia Chang

Perry A. TourtellotteSweet Briar, Virginia

84


geomorphological research, we will focus primarily upon thearchaeological findings, and how the discipline of geomorphol-ogy can contribute to a more accurate understanding of theancient land surfaces used by the populations for over fourmillennia.

The resurfacing and plowing of land surfaces in a heavily cul-tivated area such as in the Talgar alluvial fan, has radicallyinfluenced what exists on the modern surface and what is bur-ied deep below the water borne and wind blown deposits. Anarchaeological site on such surfaces may appear to be quiteobvious–such as the burial mounds or kurgans that stand fromone to five or six meters above the ground, appearing as quiteunnatural hillocks—or they can be barely visible. In fact thevery sites that we have always been most interested in locat-ing, specifically settlement sites where people lived or merelycamped for shorter periods of time, are in fact the most diffi-cult sites to find. In some areas they are buried beneath 30 cmto over 1.5 m of loess soils.

Fieldwork was aided by the fact that the Talgar alluvial fan has3–7 meters of loess deposits underlain by Pleistocene gravelsso that the undisturbed topsoil is relatively free of stones. Thus,the presence of stones usually indicates human activity.

A series of series of six topographic maps (1:50,000 scale) wereused as our base maps. Transects were walked by two archae-ologists, five meters apart. All finds were noted both by de-scription and GPS location. Once an artifact was located weradiated out and searched for other artifacts. All diagnosticssherds were collected, but only a sample of other sherds werekept. Grinding stones, often weighing 20-30 kilos, were drawnand photographed and left in the field. Kurgans were giventheir own designation and plotted. Intact kurgans were notedas to their diameter and height, and whether they had been plot-ted on our topographic maps. If plowing had destroyed a kurgan,we noted the estimated diameter, height of the stone cluster,and the size of the cobbles that varied from fist to watermelonin size.

Transect survey in heavily cultivated areas is dependent on theexistence of plowed fields. As a result, surveys had to be con-ducted after the harvest in late summer and fall, and beforeplanting in spring. The locations of transects was opportunisticbased on the availability of plowed fields. With the breakup ofsome of the collective farms, some fields that had not beenplowed in over 30 years, are now again under cultivation. Olddiseased apple orchards are being removed and truck gardensare taking their place. Thus, all of these added new areas forsurvey. Unplowed grazing areas were examined in the earlyspring after the snow had melted and before the agriculturalfields were plowed and dry enough to walk. As a result of thesesurveys an additional 30 kurgans were mapped and potentiallocations for sites were noted in the event that the land shouldbe later plowed.

Transect locations were carefully monitored to avoid re-sur-veying areas previously examined with the exception of a fewselected locations with the high probability of sites and poor

visibility during an earlier survey. Generally, transects werekept to a minimum of 250 meters apart.

The results of the autumn 1997 through Spring 1999 Talgar

surveyIn mid-May, at the end of the 1999 survey season, we had com-pleted 287 transects across the Talgar fan that varied in lengthfrom 180 m to 1.54 km, with the average length being about500 m. If we estimate our transects as being 10 m wide, we cancalculate that we had surveyed about 1 sq km of the fan, orabout 0.5% of the survey area. One hundred and fourteen oftransects (40%) were negative. We located over 480 waypointlocations in the 180 sq km survey. These locations include stringkurgans, destroyed kurgans in plowed fields, single artifact finds(e.g., pottery sherd, grinding stone), small scatters of animalbones, and pottery, and actual settlement sites.

The break down by categories is as follows (Table 1). (1) 55Iron Age settlements (10 ceramic pieces per 100 sq km.); 12probable settlements (more than 3 ceramics per 100 sq km.; 20places with only 2 ceramic pieces; 100 places with 1 sherd; 7places with 1 sherd and bones and; 16 places with only grind-ing stones. (2) 182 Iron Age kurgans.

We expect that the actual site density of Iron Age settlements isfar greater than 55 settlements per 180 sq km (a density of 0.3sites per sq km). It is very difficult to find the Talgar Iron Agesettlements because many of these sites are buried under 0.5–1.0 m or more of alluvial soil. Unless an agricultural field hasbeen deeply plowed, or the cultural level of a site appears on ariver bank, in an irrigation canal, or in an erosional channel,most archaeological sites of the Iron Age are not visible.Tseganka 8 is a case in point. This extremely important sitewith architectural remains of at least three pit houses was seenin the profile of a stream cut but not by sherds in the field above.The site would have been overlooked if it had not been for thestream cut. It may be that for the same reason, we have not yetfound Bronze Age sites that may be even more deeply buriedor are represented by small settlements scattered over a largeterritory. Therefore, using our survey methods such settlementsites would be very difficult to find.

As part of our survey, we also recorded the number of kurgansrecorded on two different series of Soviet period topographicmaps, a 1:50,000 and a 1:25,000 scale map. The different scalemaps show great differences in the number of kurgans (Table2). More than twice the numbers of kurgans were found on thelarger scale map. There may be several reasons for why this isso: (1) the 1:25,000 scale maps were more accurate in recordingarchaeological sites and/or; (2) the 1:25,000 scale maps were madein 1959 and 1960. while the 1:50,000 scale maps were made 20years later when many of the kurgans could have already beendestroyed by modern construction and agriculture.

During the early summer of 1999 aerial photographs (1:20,000scale) from the mid-1950s were made available to us. We wereable to examine a large section of our survey area, 8 km north-south and 10 km east-west. Preliminary examination of the

85

aerial photographs reveal that there had been considerable sur-face modification of the fan since the 1950s. It appears thatwhen the B.A.K. (Bolshoi Almatinski Kanal-Great AlmataCanal) was built, the adjacent fields were leveled for more ef-ficient irrigation. Field evidence indicates that prior to the in-troduction of cement lined canals, unlined canal channels wereused. Fast moving water flowing through these channels rap-idly eroded the channels to a depth of 2–3 meters. When a chan-nel became too deep to water the adjoining fields, another chan-nel was dug a few meters away. On the surface today we seethe evidence of many of these parallel channels as well as themore recently constructed cement lined channels. As a resultof 50 years of Soviet agriculture, the alluvial fan has numeroussmall artificial channels. Subsequently, many of these chan-nels were filled in so that large-scale agriculture could be prac-ticed with mechanized machinery although the low-tech methodof irrigation with unlined channels continues to be practiced.

Examination of the aerial photos (1:20,000 scale) revealed 309kurgans. This is almost twice as many as marked on the 19601:25,000 Soviet topographic map, in an area almost 30%smaller. An additional 109 anomalies in the fields suggest evenmore kurgans or settlement sites. One of the anomalies fallsexactly where Taldy Bulak 3, a Saka-Wu Sun period site, islocated, and where we have surface collected large amounts ofceramics, bones, grinding stones, and fragments of burnt clay.A test pit on the site, measuring 1 x 2 m, revealed a plasteredfloor and pits.

Preliminary results of laboratory analyses from survey

materialsPreliminary analysis of the ceramics collected at ourwaypoint locations was conducted in the fall of 1998. Di-agnostic sherds were designated as fragments of vessel rims,bases, handles, spouts, and spindlewhorls; some diagnosticsherds were vessel body parts with incised designs. Thislarge Talgar fan collection of survey ceramics will be usedto develop a typology of ceramic types from the BronzeAge through Medieval period. A rough estimate of the di-agnostic pottery counts (roughly 300 fragments) suggeststhat about 80% of the survey ceramics were from the IronAge while less than 20 % came from the Medieval andBronze periods. Preliminary analyses of the ceramics indi-cate the following trends: the Iron Age ceramics are wellfired, more typically in an oxidizing atmosphere. The ce-ramic paste has a high iron content. The inclusions consistprimarily of crushed granite with a small percentage of or-ganic materials such as plant and animal dung The major-ity is red ware while a few are red and cream slipped ware.The vessel forms indicate a much higher number of utilityceramics, such as storage vessels (humcha) as well as theusual jars, cooking containers, and bowls.

Conclusions reached on the Tagar surveyThe density of Iron Age kurgans and settlements on the Talgarfan is actually quite high, suggesting that the Talgar fan was adensely populated oasis during the first millennium BC, through

the middle of the second millennium BC. This high density ofsites may indicate a hierarchy of site types: villages, hamlets,and small seasonally used camps.

It is our intention to assemble all of the material in a GIS data-base in the upcoming year. We also hope to gather data fromthe Institute of Archaeology Archives on the kurgans in ourstudy area that have been excavated during the past 30 years.

It is our desire that the end results will not only be an inventoryof sites on the Talgar Fan, but also a cultural resource manage-ment tool used to document the destruction of cultural resourcesin the Talgar area. With the eventual privatization of the largecollective farms, many new landowners are reluctant to grantaccess to their property, thus inhibiting future surveys. Addi-tional work is needed to test a sample of each category of finds.Test excavations should take place on locations that have bothsherd scatters as well as those with single sherds. By testingthese locations we will be better able to evaluate the results ofour survey and the types of sites these artifacts represent.

Turgen-Asi Survey 1997-1998In July of 1997, we initiated our research in the area around theheadwaters of the Turgen River, 60 kilometers southeast of theTalgar Fan. The Turgen River, situated two drainage basins eastof Talgar, flows into the Ili River. The Asi is a tributary of theChilik River and flows east until it enters the Chilik, then flow-ing flow north, dumping into the Ili River. This upland areavaries in elevation from 2200 m in the valleys to 2890 m on theupland plateaus. A few of the high peaks to the south have pe-rennial snowfields that feed the Turgen River. The vegeta-tion is characterized by alpine grasses, wildflowers, and TienShan firs along with a few deciduous shrubs on the north slopesand in the smaller protected valleys. The area is currently sea-sonally occupied from early June until late August or earlySeptember by Kazak shepherds with their flocks of cattle, sheep,and horses. The economy consists of herding, some hunting,and also fishing; no agriculture is practiced at these elevations.

It was our intent to survey an area in the mountains as part oftesting our model of agro-pastoralism subsistence-settlementpatterns. In July and August temperatures in the mountains are20 degrees cooler than they are on the Talgar Fan, and summerrains in the mountains make the grazing lands lush while thepastures on the fans are dry.

Our initial survey concentrated on the terraces and valleyswithin a 3 km radius of our base at Camp Edelweiss, an aban-doned Pioneer Camp at 2240 m, and consisted of systemati-cally walking over all of the terraces along the upper forks ofthe Turgen River. The graves were generally easy to locate asthey were usually slightly elevated, 0.5–1.0 meter, above thesurrounding surface. Surface visibility was generally poor withthe exceptions of the overgrazed areas surrounding the Kazaksummer camps. Sixty-five locations were noted during this ini-tial 10-day survey and one terrace opposite our base was testedfor subsurface material. Five of these locations appear to beBronze Age and Iron Age settlement sites while the other 60

Field Surveys in the Talgar and Turgen-Asi Areas of Southeastern Kazakhstan

86


locations are graves from the Bronze Age through the Turkishperiod as well as a few modern Kazak burials. The settlementsites all appear to have a southeastern aspect; possibly to beexposed to the early morning sun. One of these sites, Oijailau1, is a complex of stone walls and depressions covering an areaof over 100 sq km. Numerous Saka period sherds were surfacecollected from this site. Testing revealed subsurface featuresas well as ceramics, grinding stones, and animal bones. Thegraves on the other hand were located on any semi flat dryground surfaces. Following the survey of the terraces adjacentto the streams, upland terraces, low ridges and saddles weresurveyed.

Two days of survey were spent in the headwaters of the AsiRiver drainage. The first day was a survey type we call “side-car.” It utilizes an Ural motorcycle with a sidecar to conduct apreliminary survey of the area prior to a more intensive survey.This five-hour survey, cut short by a thunderstorm, revealed awealth of cultural resources along a 7-km section of an elevatedterrace on the north bank of the Asi River. Numerous graveswere noted and a dirt trail passed directly over several BronzeAge graves. We took notes at eight locations, each having 3–8grave mounds. Unlike the lower constricted valleys of Turgen,the Asi River is characterized by a broad open valley severalkilometers wide, and narrow side valleys; it is enclosed byhigher mountains of approximately 3000 m altitude. Severallarge Saka type kurgans that are 3–5 m high were noted. Inaddition to the graves, we found several rectangular lines ofstone sticking up through the sod. These appear to be similar toWu Sun Period structures excavated in the early 90s by AlexiMariashev, 40 kilometers to the east on a high terrace over-looking the Chilik River.

An unusual grave shaped like a “donut” ring of rock rubble, 27meters in diameter was also located. In 1998, we discovered alevel of Saka Period ceramics eroding from the terrace 100meters from this stone monument.

We spent an additional day in the uplands following the upperreaches of the headwaters of the Turgen River. The local Kazakshepherds told us that there was a large stone sticking out ofthe ground on the high ridge. Subsequently, we located an up-right stone slab surrounded by a complex of eight earlier graves.From this high ridge we could see numerous graves 15-20meters in diameter in a small valley. We quickly examined andmapped several of these graves. Our time was limited since itwas an 8 km hike back to the motorcycle and another 6 km toour camp. The result of this two-day foray into the higher up-lands resulted in mapping 25 additional locations.

In 1998, we conducted another 10 days of survey in which anadditional 48 sites were recorded on the ridges and plateaus at2600 to 2890 meters to the east and south of our base. As notedin the previous year, many of these locations appear to be mul-tiple grave complexes. One additional Saka period site was lo-cated on a terrace above a seasonal stream; again it had a south-eastern aspect, and two lines of stones protruded from the sodto form a right-angled corner. Several Saka period sherds were

found in the back dirt of marmot burrows. It appears that themarmots also prefer the southeastern slopes.

Results from these two seasons of survey and test excavationsindicate that the uplands were utilized from the Bronze Age tothe present time. As time allows additional survey and excava-tions should continue in the Turgen-Asi area. Survey and exca-vations in the high mountains are always cut short by rain. In1998, it rained on 7 of the 12 days we were in the area.

AcknowledgementsFunding for this research came from a grant, National Science Foun-dation Archaeology Program SBR-9603361, “The Social Evolutionof Eurasian Steppe Communities in Southeastern Kazakhstan and theRise of Ancient Civilizations.” Since 1994 Dr. Karl M. Baipakov,Director of the Institute of Archaeology, The Kazakh Academy ofSciences, has been a generous collaborator and host of the Kazakh-American Talgar Project, and is responsible for providing us with of-ficial permission and protocol to carry out our scientific research.

Table 1. Counts of waypoint locations on theTalgar Fan.

Tables

87

Fig. 1. Map of the Talgar area in southeastern Kazakhstan.

Table 2. Counts of kurgan locations on the Soviet period map series in the Talgar Fan.

Field Surveys in the Talgar and Turgen-Asi Areas of Southeastern Kazakhstan

88


Fig. 2. Map illustrating areas surveyed in the Talgar and Turgen-Asi areas.

The Kazakh-American TalgarProject Archaeological Field Surveys

89

AbstractAn isolated stone covered mound located at the top of theBeiram mountain pass (ca. 9000 feet altitude) in Uvs aimag,western Mongolia, was surveyed in 1996 and again in 1999.The architectural configuration was similar to Saka burialmounds (ca. 450–400 BC) in southern and eastern Kazakhstanas well as in the Gorny Altai in southern Siberia. Although noarchaeological excavations had been previously undertaken inthe Mongolian Altai Mountains, it was assumed that the moundcontained a burial, possibly frozen as it lies well within theSiberian permafrost zone. Excavations by the Center for theStudy of Eurasian Nomads, and the Mongolian Institute of His-tory, Department of Archaeology, took place during summer1999. The excavation revealed no skeletons; however, the ar-chitecture of the mound and the more than 4000 artifacts ofvotive nature indicated that the Mound was specifically de-signed as a cultic or religious site, and that it had been usedcontinually from the time of its construction to the present-day, except for periods when nomadic populations did not pas-ture in the region.

KeywordsSaka, Mongolia, Manchu, Altai Mountains, cultic site, mound

A Note on TerminologyThe generic Mongol language term for several discrete typesof archaeological monuments, with or without artifacts, iskheregsur. Different archaeological names have been appliedto the ancient Siberian, Tuvinian, Mongolian, and Kazakhstanipopulations; Mongolian archaeology refers to the Altai Sakaas Chandman. In Soviet literature the ancient Siberian, Altaiand Tien Shan mountain cultures are referred to as Scythians,Scytho-Siberians, Altaic, and Tien Shan Mountain populations.Currently, the term Saka, derived from ancient historicalsources, is used for the major nomadic tribe that inhabited thearea from the Aral Sea steppes, east to include southern Sibe-ria, and the Tien Shan and Altai mountains (Yablonsky 1995).In this paper, the term Saka is used in reference to Iron Agenomads or their archaeological remains that previously werereferred to in the literature as Siberian, Scytho-Siberian, AltaicScythians, Uyuk Culture, Chandman Culture, or UlaangomCulture/people. A kurgan is defined here as a burial moundthat contains human remains; a cenotaph is a commemorativeburial without human remains; and a mound is a constructionwhich was not meant to be for a burial or cenotaph. In Mongolia,

an aimag, e.g. Uvs aimag, is a contemporary political divisionsimilar to a state in the United States; a sum, pronounced soom,is a division within the aimag, similar to a US county. In thispaper the following proper nouns have been used for areas inthe excavation to distinguish from generic terms: Mound, StoneRing, Central Mound, Path, Test Pit, and Central Pit.

A CaveatAlthough many archaeological monuments grace the Mongo-lian landscape, the archaeology is far from being understoodbecause of the paucity of excavations. The geography and cli-matic conditions vary dramatically from the Siberian north tothe dry southern Gobi; from the low grassy steppes in the eastto the high Altai glaciers in the west. Influences from, and in-teractions with, other cultures have been uneven and variedthroughout time and space. The minimal information presentedin the following Introduction is based upon currently publishedmaterials and archaeological and ethnographic surveys. Exca-vations and surveys currently in progress in north centralMongolia, for example in the Selenge Valley, will eventuallyprovide additional information and the character of the pre-vailing interpretations will undoubtedly be modified.

IntroductionTo place the Beiram Mound in context with the archaeologicalcultures in the region extending from east of the Altai, northinto Siberia, and to central Mongolia–the apparent easternboundary of the first and second millennium BC Caucasoidpopulations–the archaeological time frames and cultures arevery briefly reviewed.

Historically and culturally, the geography of northern and north-western Mongolia is similar to the adjacent Gorny Altai, Tuva,and Transbaikalia in present day Russian Siberia. Although ofhigh altitude and fluctuating temperatures, the endless pastures1

offered favorable conditions for the emergence and develop-ment of sedentary cattle breeding (Neolithic and Bronze Age),followed by nomadism (possibly beginning in the Late BronzeAge and Early Iron Age)2 that continued throughout the Medi-eval Period to modern times. Following a minimal attempt atcollective animal husbandry during the Soviet Period (1934-1990), nomadic animal herding and husbandry is today amongthe prominent industries in Mongolia and continues on the up-swing3 increasing by about 50% between 1991 and 1998 (Bank

The Beiram Mound

A Nomadic Cultic Site in the Altai Mountains (Western Mongolia)

Jeannine Davis-KimballCenter for the Study of Eurasian Nomads

Berkeley, California

90


of Mongolia 1998). Because of its long history of “pure” no-madism with little influence from sedentary societies over themillennia, and a paucity of industrialization in recent centu-ries, archaeological monuments are found in great numbersthroughout central and western Mongolia (Davis-Kimball sur-veys 1992, 1996, 1999; Mongolyn Khumuunligiin UkhaanyAkademi 1999).

Cattle breeding in Mongolia dates from the Neolithic andEneolithic and remains of domesticated sheep and cattle havebeen found in the Selenge River region in north centralMongolia. The Afanasievo cattle breeding economy (late third–early second millennium BC) was found in the Minusinsk Ba-sin and the Gorny Altai in Siberia, as well as on both the east-ern and western slopes of the Hangai Mountains in Mongolia(Novgorodova 1989: 81, 85). The Bronze Age economy wasbetter developed than was the case for the earlier periods, al-though it is represented primarily by chance finds includingaxes and celts of the mid-2nd century BC Seima-Turbino Type(Koryakova 1998). Other weaponry and decorative elementsare related to the Karasuk Culture of southern Siberia as wellas the Chou Dynasty in China.

A transition period from Bronze Age to Early Iron Age is notedin the olenniye kamni, monolithic stone stele incised with avariety of motifs,4 but frequently featuring stylized deer (dat-ing c. 1000-800 BC). These stones have not been connectedwith any particular culture, yet iconographic motifs are similarto those found in artifacts from the subsequent Early Iron Agenomadic societies (Volkov 1981). Olenniye kamni, with a widedistribution, are known from Chita (Russian Siberia, near theMongolian border, east of Baikal), Transbaikalia (found as cor-ner stones for slab graves), Tuva (located near Uyuk Culture[Saka] kurgans), the Gorny Altai, and western Mongolia(Volkov 1995, figs. 3–5; Jacobson 1993).

In Siberia, the Karasuk Culture (Late Bronze Age) preceded theSlab Grave Culture (Early Iron Age, c. 7th–3rd centuries BC)(Volkov 1995). Their traditions–such as some artifact types, or-namentation, and bronze casting techniques–survived into SlabGrave times. The Slab Graves belonged to an ethnos that occu-pied north central and northeastern Mongolia and their burialsare identical to those of the Transbaikalia Slab Grave Culture(Erdenebaatar 1997). In Western Mongolia, Slab Graves are notedin the Uvs aimag along the eastern edges of the Altai Mountain(Fig. 2). In the Bayan Ulgii aimag, the highest and westernmostregion of Mongolia, Slab Graves were found in the Tsengel andUlaanhus sums; south of Achet Nuur; and following a swath run-ning east/west, and slightly north of the Ulgii (Davis-Kimballsurvey 1996). None of these sites have been excavated. Interest-ingly, Slab Graves are not found in the Gorny Altai or Tuva butare known in Xinjiang, western China, and as far afield as Tibet.Skulls from the excavated burials are Europoid with traces ofMongoloidism; their closest parallels are crania from the Karasukand Okunevo Culture in southern Siberia, Tuva, and the Saka-Usun5 cemeteries in Kazakhstan and Kyrghyzstan (Alekseev andGokhman 1984; Volkov 1995) and in the Tien Shan in Xinjiang,China (Debaine-Francfort 1988).6

During this time when pastoral nomadism was coming to thefore, the burial rituals were uniform. The deceased of the SlabGrave Culture were placed in ground pits or stone boxes in thesupine position, and oriented to the east. Pottery, bronze knives,weaponry, bone- and horn-carved objects, and personal adorn-ments, such as turquoise and carnelian beads, were includedamong the funerary artifacts (Erdenebaatar 1992; Volkov 1995).Following burial, the site was marked with flat stones placedin an upright position and the surface was covered over withmore slabs (Fig. 2). From before the beginning of the first mil-lennium BC, a specific ethnocultural zone developed whichencompassed northern Mongolia and the region adjacent to theAltai and Sayan mountains in which the burials were similar tothose from Pazyryk I in the Gorny Altai (Rudenko 1970), theSiberian Ukok plateau (Polosmak 1994; 1996), and Tuva(Gryaznov and Mannai-Ool 1975).

The only cemetery of the Early Iron Age to be excavated inwestern Mongolia was in the Uvs aimag. In the drainage basinof the great Uvs Nuur (lake) the mounds, excavated in 1972–1974 by the Soviet Mongolian History and Culture team, werelocated in the small Chandman “mountain” some 10 km southof Ulaangom. Bone, bronze, iron artifacts, and a series of pot-tery types, some of which were decorated, accompanied well-preserved burials of one or two skeletons in stone boxes(Tseveendorj 1980; Novgorodova et al. 1982; Volkov 1995).Petroglyphs in the vicinity of the Chandman Mountain alsoreveal the presence of Iron Age nomads (pers. observ.). Theartifacts relate the Chandman burials to the Late Uyuk Culturefound in northwestern Mongolia and primarily in Tuva(Semenov and Chugunov 1995), yet they are radically differ-ent from Slab Grave artifacts (Tseveendorj 1980; Novgorodovaet al. 1982; Volkov 1995). Thus, two burial types with discreterituals as well as different anthropomorphic types were knownin western Mongolia during the first millennium BC. Thesepeople probably had contacts, but primarily because of similarnomadic lifestyles, they shared a few traits and cultural ele-ments including Scythian trilobed arrowheads, psalia, bridlebits, and some Animal Style motifs.

In the Siberian Altai (Fig. 1), the kurgan, Ak-Alakha I, andother kurgans are similar to the Beiram Mound in both size andarchitectural configuration, even to being outlined with a ringof stones (Polosmak 1994; 1996). Similar kurgans are alsoknown in the Issyk region (60 km NE of Almaty) in southernKazakhstan (pers. observ.). All of these sites are dated to theEarly Iron Age.

Turkic monuments dating to the 6th–8th/9th centuries AD aredominant in the Altai Mountains west of the Beiram Mound inthe Uvs aimag, and in the steppes west of the great Uvs Nuur.Since these sites represent a later cultural development theyare not discussed in the current paper.

Beiram Mound SurveyThe Beiram Mound (Fig. 3) is the largest and most prominentof three mounds located within a radius of approximately two

91

kilometers adjacent to the high road in the Altai Mountainsthat links Ulaangom (Uvs aimag) (97 km east) and Ulgii (BayanUlgii aimag (125 km southwest) (Fig. 1). At an altitude of ap-proximately 9000 feet, a boggy ground surface reveals the pres-ence of permafrost. In July 1996, we surveyed the BeiramMound and its Mongolian cultic monument–an oovo that hasbeen in continual construction only since the 1930s.7 TheMound is slightly elliptical, measuring 18.2 m (E-W) x 22.0 m(N-S). A Stone Ring encircles it at a distance varying from 17.0m and 17.70 m beyond the Mound. Paths of stones at the cardi-nal points connected the Mound to the Ring (Schematic, Fig.3). Because of its large size, its similar configuration to Sakakurgans, and its mountainous isolation,8 we assumed that theMound had special significance, although we had no excavatedcomparative parallels in Mongolia. In April of 1999 (Davis-Kimball 1999) we again surveyed the area and the kurgan. See-ing that the Mound itself was undisturbed, we returned toUlaangom, finalized excavation protocol with the MongolianInstitute of History and Department of Archaeology, and9 inJune 1999 the joint American-Mongolian expedition began theexcavations.

Excavation MethodologyThe Beiram Mound was divided into four quadrants (I throughIV) (Schematic, Fig. 4); detailed drawings and laser theodolitereadings were completed of the Mound, Rings, and Paths be-fore excavation commenced. These continued throughout theexcavation as other features were identified. The height of theMound varied from ca. 1.0 m to -40 cm; the negative depthwas the result of stones having been removed in Quadrant IIIto construct the oovo. The height of the Paths varied from 20–40 cm, depending upon the stone size and the humus that hadaccumulated. The Stone Ring was extremely well defined, gen-erally about 2.5–3.0 m in width and 1.0–1.5 m in height. ThePaths and Stone Ring were all constructed from rough fieldstones of the same type that had covered the Mound. After thefirst level of stones was removed from the Mound, a ditch ofca. 2 m in width was identified within the outer perimeter; thisarea was excavated independently of the layers on the Mound(Fig. 5) that revealed Levels 1–5, with varied thickness andcomposition as noted in Table 1.

Over the surface remnants of log had been placed, radiatingoutward from the center of the Mound, a construction similarto that found in the Arzhan kurgan (Bokovenko 1995: 266, fig.1; Moshkova 1992: tab. 71:7). Large quantities of wood shav-ings were found in the trench, particularly in Quadrants I andIV. After the massive stones of Level 1 were removed, a de-pression was visible in Quadrant I in the Central Mound.

Feature 1In Quadrant III, adjacent to the center of the Mound, the top ofa covered wooden box was encountered at a depth of c. 30cm. It had been placed on a massive flat stone that was sur-rounded by other stones, interspersed with a layer of blackhumus, indicative of a quantity of decomposed organicmaterial. The box, measuring c. 40 cm high and 25 x 25 cm(width and depth) was constructed from well preserved

wooden planks, ca. 1.5–2.0 cm thick (Fig. 6). Votive ob-jects found in the box are discussed below.

Test PitsUpon encountering smooth river stones, measuring 30–40 cmin length, at the juncture of Levels 5 and 6, seven test pits asnoted in Table 2, were opened on the Mound (Schematic, Fig.4). These were excavated to determine (a) the depth and extentof Level 6 and, (b) the configuration of subsequent layers. Themarked difference between Levels 5, (rough surface stones)and Level 6 (smooth river stones) is illustrated in Fig. 7.

Units 1–3Three trenches, Units 1-3 (Table 3, Schematic, Fig. 3), wereopened to determine if the soil had been disturbed below theRing or along the East Path where a depression was noted be-tween the two rows of stones that formed the path.

Central MoundFollowing the excavation of Test Pits 1–7 it was determinedthat the river stones of Level 6, visible in the foreground balkin Fig. 8, had covered the entire Mound to the edge of the ditch.Excavation began in the Central Mound (Schematic, Fig. 4,Fig. 8) by opening two squares as noted in Table 4.

Excavations continued in the Central Pit through Levels 7–12,the composition of which is noted in Table 5. Although occa-sionally ice was found in the stone interstices of Level 6, it wasnot until reaching Level 7–when humus and clay were encoun-tered as the main component of each of the subsequent six lev-els–was actual permafrost found. During the night the perma-frost in the walls melted and it was necessary to pump waterfrom the Central Pit and clean the loose rocks from the walls.This process enlarged the size of the pit as noted in the dimen-sion of Level 7 compared with Level 12 in Table 5.

Upon reaching the shale matrix at the bottom of Level 12, theexcavations were terminated. The walls and balks were cleanedand photographed. No evidence of a burial or human remainswas found in the Mound.

ArtifactsFeature 1 ArtifactsThe wooden box encountered in the center of the Central Moundcontained a white (tin?) glazed wheel-thrown vase filled withblack decomposed organic material and intact grain seed. Ad-ditional organic material was recovered from the box (Fig. 9).Within the box, but outside the vessel, other votive artifactsincluded one complete and one partial cowry shell fragment(Fig. 10: 2); a hollow silver bead covered with gold foil with arepoussé design (Fig. 10: 3); four seed pods of a type from theChina lowlands; a lead shot; five sheep astralagi; pieces of char-coal; and textile fragments. A bilobed iron arrowhead with holes(the “whistling” type), tanged, and hooked at the end (Fig. 10: 1)is a well-known Mongol type (Swietoslawski 1990: 62, 132,pl. XX: 10). It was possible to date the approximate time that thevotive box had been placed in the Mound as an inscription—written in black ink on a flat bamboo (Fig. 10: 4)— and mea-

The Beiram Mound: A Nomadic Cultic Site in the Altai Mountains

92


suring 1.5 x 8.0 cm, was also included within the box. Trans-lated from Old Mongolian the anthropomorphic sign means“Cool.” The specific type of inscription was developed andwritten from c. 1648 by Naikhaijamtsam, a Buddhist educatedlama born in 1599 in western Mongolia.10

Votive ArtifactsAstragali (Fig. 11), the ankle bones from various animals (sheep,mountain goat, antelope, and several bovine) used for divina-tions (Table 6), were the most dominant votive artifact amongthe more than 4000 votive-type artifacts excavated from Lev-els 1-5. No artifacts were recovered from below the bottom ofLevel 5.

At Level 2 in the Central Mound, a wood-carved animal pos-sible representing a deer (Fig. 12) was encountered. The con-figuration of an animal standing on a platform is similar toexcavated examples from the Sailyogema kurgans in southernSiberia, northwest of Beiram, that date to the Saka Period(Kubarev 1992). The head and right leg were lost on the Beiramexample

Fifty-nine sheep scapula, an equine mandible, hundreds ofequine teeth, and an ibex horn were other votive offerings de-rived from animals remains found throughout the mound, andin all layers. Several distinctive wood-carved finials with tangswere found generally in the area of the ditch; their function isunknown (Fig. 13: 1). The earliest dated votive objects werefourteen Neolithic red and gray flaked stones and a greenstonecore.11 Two wood-carved tanged trilobed (Early Nomadic type)arrowheads (for type see Davis-Kimball et al. 1995: fig. 18: 9),and a wood-carved psalia replica (Fig. 13: 2) had probably beencarved during the Saka Period. A wooden bowl (Fig 14: 1) anda wood-carved spoon, both incomplete, are not datable althoughsimilar items are known from Saka burials. A sheep astragalusincised with a swastika, a sign frequently found as a petroglyph,as well as another drilled, most probably for suspension, re-veal their amuletic functions. Several large iron bilobed arrow-heads date to the Mongol period (13th–17th century) (Fig. 14:3). A square carved bone drilled with a center hole may havebeen suspended from a saddle as an amulet (Fig. 14: 8). Tur-quoise glass, carnelian, and wooden beads (Fig. 15), and 40-45small white glass seed beads, as well as a modern Mongol but-ton indicate that women also made offerings from ancient torecent times. Hundreds of fragmentary sheep bones were alsofound, cracked open probably to release the marrow, were in-dicative of feasting at the site while the mound was under con-struction and possibly during the time of ritual ceremonies.12

Iron objects were more plentiful that bronze and included aniron knife (Fig. 14: 7); an iron hook (quiver hook?); two frag-ments of an iron cauldron without ornamentation (possibly fromthe bottom of the vessel); an iron horse shoe; and an iron buckle.The most unusual object was stone carved, possibly represent-ing a scrotum (Fig. 16).13 Nine rather large, hand-forged ironnails (ca. 8–10 cm in length and ca. 0.5 cm square) were offer-ings found in the mound. The nails were bent, which may beindicative that they had been used. These may have been manu-

factured locally as we located an iron smelter some 2-3 kmnortheast of the excavation site near a valley bottom. A smallarea of the iron smelter was excavated but did not reveal arti-facts, although large quantities of slag were present below thetop humus layers (Figs. 17 and 18).

Above Level 6 and throughout the excavation many smallwood-carved two dimensional animal representations werefound, particularly around the edge of the mound and in theditch (Fig. 14: 2). From the same general locale, a variety ofwood-carved finials (Fig. 13: 1) of unknown significance werefound along with many wood shaving deposits indicating theymay have been made on the spot. A wood-carved representa-tion of a spoked-wheel (Fig. 19: 5) was a replica of a petroglyphfound on a rock outcropping about 2 km east (directionUlangoom) from the Mound.

Other noteworthy artifacts which indicated that offerants, sub-scribing to a more urbanized society, had visited Beiram; theseincluded two brass (?) Chinese-style long-stemmed pipes (Fig.14: 6); a bronze bowl (Fig. 13: 5); five Manchu coins (Fig. 14:4);14 and several iron shots.

ConclusionsThe Beiram Mound, with an external architectural configura-tion similar to first millennium BC Saka kurgans (burialmounds), was constructed exclusively for ritual or religiouspurposes. The excavation revealed the method of construction.A ceremonial pit (?) was dug and some organic material wasdropped into it before filling. A ditch was excavated to definethe perimeter of the mound. River rocks were brought to thesite from as far away as 15 km and carefully laid over the en-tire surface within the area defined by the ditch. Logs werebrought from a lower altitude and placed over the river rocks.Because of the amount of humus at this point it appears thatsod could have been placed beneath the trees. Surface stoneswere gathered and layers of these were alternated with moresod. During this time, an extensive amount of woodcarvingthat left shavings was undertaken within the ditch. Small, wood-carved animals and other artifacts, astragali, and horse teethwere among the votive objects that were offered during thisearly period. It is not clear who may have been offering atBeiram during the ensuing centuries but it would appear, judg-ing by the quantities of astragali and other animal remains, thatthe Early Medieval nomads were far from wealthy. During the17th century AD, the Manchu–who must have been nomadizingalong the lower slopes and visited this high and isolated locale,but who also had some connections with a sedentary society aswitnessed by the wheel-thrown glazed vase that containedgrain–opened the Mound and placed their offerings (Feature1) before replacing the field stones.

A few of the more than 4000 votive artifacts offered by no-madic tribes that summer pastured in the region, have providedsome clues to dating. The wood-carved animal on a pedestal,the trilobed arrowheads, and cheekpiece are associated withSaka tribes. Artifacts, found in the votive box (Feature 1) anddated by inscription to ca. AD 1645, reveal a Manchu presence

93

in the region. The thousands of other offerings indicate themound had been held sacred over millennia; Mongols todaycontinue to offer at the adjacent oovo. Is it coincidental thatthese latter-day herders began their own sacred offering site atprecisely the time that Sovietization and collectivization werecoming to the fore?

The Beiram Mound is possibly the first site of a strictly culticnature–constructed by Saka nomads, and used by successivecultures–to be excavated and recognized as such. This labor-intensive religious monument constructed at a very high alti-tude under rigorous weather conditions, reveals the indisput-able spiritual intensity of ancient nomadic populations. Becauseof its architectural plan, the Mound securely binds the burialritual to the totality of the Early Nomadic religious belief sys-tem, thus adding an additional aspect to our understanding ofthese ancient populations.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Dr. Ochir, Institute of History; Dr. Tseveendorj,Department of Archaeology; Prof. Inkhtur, Institute of History, all inUlanbaatar; D. Bynbadorj, Ulangom Museum, and B. Lkhagvasuren,Minister of Culture, Uvs aimag, both of whom gave general time andprovided additional ethnographic and archaeological information onthis region; and William Honeychurch, University of Michigan andAlexander Lemeshko who have supplied me with obscure referencematerials.

The excavation was funded by a generous grant from The DiscoveryChannel, and American and Swedish volunteers.

Endnotes1. High altitude pastures are richer in nutrients than those in lower cli-

mates allowing for faster animal growth and regeneration following the

severe winters.

2. The definition of nomads used here is: Populations whose economic

basis was (or is) animal husbandry; principally sheep, goats and horses,

but who also may have had camels, and in the higher elevations yak, and

who, riding horseback, trail these animals to seasonal pastures. Under

normal stable conditions they grazed the same spring, summer, and fall

pastures on a yearly basis, moving as needed to provide feed for the

herds. They wintered at the same location–although the locales of herd-

ing and even the winter pasture may have changed if the situation war-

ranted. In small groups of three to seven yurts (felt tents) they lived in

portable housing, but their winter quarters located along a river valley,

may have been a more typical permanent habitation. Kazak and Oirad

Mongol tribes currently practice this type of nomadism in the Altai

Mountains.

Other studies on nomads can be found in Askarov et al. 1992; Barfield

1989; Bashilov 1989; Cribb 1991; Khazanov 1994.

3. Unseasonable snows in February 2000 killed about one million animals,

a tragic development that will undoubtedly further depress this economy.

4. Types are illustrated in Bokovenko 1995.

5. The Usun nomads follow the Saka in time. A close interaction is ap-

parent between the Saka and Usun in southern Kazakhstan and those in

the Xinjiang Tien Shan. (Davis-Kimball 1998).

6. The burials of the Usun elite are in the Tien Shan Mountains, many

of which are in Xinjiang, China (Dr. Lu Engou 1997 pers. comm.).

7. Information from a local Mongol official who met each autumn to

exchange strayed animals with Russian border patrols.

8. Kurgans generally are placed in groups along a low promontory adja-

cent to, or in the near vicinity of a river or a tributary.

9. The Mongolian Institute of History is headed by Dr. Ochir, the De-

partment of Archaeology by Dr. Tseveendorj.

10 Translated by D. Bynbadorj, Ulangom Historical Museum, who also

provided information on the life of Naikhaijamtsam.

11. Our group collected Neolithic period flaked stones from the gobi-

steppes in the vicinity of Achet Nuur, southwest of Beiram. A collec-

tion of Neolithic stones was also excavated from a Middle Sarmatian

period burial at Pokrovka (Yablonsky et al. 1996, Pokrovka 1: Kurgan 7:

Burial 1).

12. The author has observed Mongols, generally the women, who will

crack open and suck out the marrow in sheep bones.

13. Stones of this type (called a bolo by Alaskan Eskimos) are held to-

gether with sinew lines and thrown at birds to bring them down (Graburn

et al. 1996: 83, pl. 108).

14. The Manchu, who ruled China from 1644 to 1911, were descendants

of the Juchen tribes who ruled north China as the Chin Dynasty from

the 12th century

ReferencesAlekseev, V. P. and Gokhman, I. I. 1984. Paleoantropologiyaaziatskoi chasti S.S.S.R. Moscow: Nauka (“Paleoanthropology ofthe Asiatic Part of the U.S.S.R.”).

Askarov, A., Volkov, V. V. and Ser-Odjav, N. 1992. Pastoral andNomadic Tribes at the Beginning of the First Millennium B.C.,pp. 459–68 in Dani, A. H. and Masson, V. M. (eds.), History ofCivilization of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization to 700 B.C.Paris: UNESCO.

Bank of Mongolia 1998 Annual Report, pp. 16-18. Ulanbaatar:Interpress.

Barfield, T. J. 1989. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires andChina. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

Bashilov, V. (ed.) (Flemming Zirin, M. translator). 1989. No-mads of Eurasia. Seattle and London: Natural History of Mu-seum of Los Angeles County and University of Washington Press.

Bokenvenko, N. 1995. Scythian Culture in the Altai Mountains,pp. 285–95 in Davis-Kimball, J., Bashilov, V. A. and Yablonsky,L. T. (eds.), Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age.Berkeley: Zinat Press.

Bunker, E. C. 1981. Ancient Art of Central Asia, Mongolia, andSiberia, pp. 140–62 in Moorey, P. R. S, Bunker, E. C., Porada, E.


94


and Markoe, G. (eds.), Ancient Bronzes, Ceramics and Seals. LosAngeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

Bunker, E. C., Bruce, C. C. and Farkas, A. R. 1970. ‘AnimalStyle’ Art from East to West. New York: The Asia Society.

Cribb, R. 1991. Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Davis–Kimball, J. 1998. Tribal Interaction between the Early IronAge Nomads of the Southern Ural Steppes, Semirechiye, andXinjiang, pp. 238–63 in Mair, V. H. (ed.), The Bronze Age andEarly Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia. Washington DCand Philadelphia: Journal of Indo-European Studies and theUniversity of Pennsylvania, Monograph No. 26, vols. 1 and 2.

Davis-Kimball, J. 1999. The Journey to Set Up an ArchaeologicalExcavation at Beiram Kurgan, in CSEN Website:http://www.csen.org/Mongolian%20Journey%20April%201999/Mongolian.Journey.html

Davis-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.

Debaine-Francfort, D. 1988. Archéologie du Xinjiang des originesaux Han: Premiére partie. Paléorient 14, 5–55 (“The archaeologyof the Xinjiang at the origins of the Han: First part”).

Debaine-Francfort, D. 1989. Archéologie du Xinjiang des originesaux Han: IIème partie. Paléorient 15, 183–213 (“The archaeol-ogy of the Xinjiang at the origins of the Han: Second part”).

DiCosmo, N. 1994. Ancient Inner Asian Nomads: Their Eco-nomic Basis and Its Significance in Chinese History. Journal ofAsian Studies 53, 1092–126.

Erdenebaatar, D. 1992. Asgatyn dorvolzhiin bulsh (StudiaArcheolocica Tomus XIII, Fasc. 1-8). Ulaanbaatar: InstitutiHistoriae Academiae Scientarum Mongolici (“Slab Burials ofAsgat”).

Erdenebaatar, D. 1997. Selenge Mornii Sav dakh Khurel ba TomorZevsgiin Turuu Ueiin Dursgal. Unpublished dissertation presentedto the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Institute of History,Ulaanbaatar (“Monuments of the Initial Bronze and Iron Age ofthe Selenge River Basin”).

Fairservis, W. 1993. Archaeology of the Southern Gobi, Mongolia.Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

Graburn, H. H., Lee, M. and Rousselot, J. with the assistanceof Wright, R. K. and Duncan, K. C. (Davis-Kimball, J. Techni-cal and Design Editor) 1996. Catalogue Raisonne of the AlaskaCommercial Company Collection, Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museumof Anthropology. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University ofCalifornia Press.

Gryaznov, M. P. and Mannai-Ool, M. K. 1975. Kurgan Arzhanaccording to the Excavations of 1973–74. Scientific NoticeTuvNIYaLI 17.

Jacobson, E. 1993. The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia: A Studyin the Ecology of Belief. New York: E. J. Brill.

Khazanov, A. M. 1994. Nomads and the Outside World. Madison:University of Wisconsin.

Koryakova, L. 1998. The Rise of Metallurgy in Eurasia in CSENWebsite: http://www.csen.org/koryakova2/Korya.Bronze.html

Kubarev, V. D. 1992. Kurgans of Sailyogema. Novosibirsk: Nauka,Siberskoe Otdelenie.

Lattimore, O. 1992 [1940]. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Mongolyn Khumuunligiin Ukhaany Akademi. 1999. MongolNutag dakh Tuukh Soelyn Dursgal. Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Acad-emy of Humanities (“Mongolian Academy of Humanities. His-torical and Cultural Monuments on the Territory of Mongolia”).

Moshkova, M. G. 1992. Stepanaya polosa Aziatskoi chasti SSSR vSkifo-Sarmatskoe vremya. Archeologiya SSSR. Moscow: Nauka(“The steppe zone of the Asiatic part of the USSR in Scytho-Sarmatian times. Archaeology of the USSR”).

Novgorodova, E. A. 1989. Drevniaia Mongoliia. Moscow: Nauka(“Ancient Mongolia”).

Novgorodova, E. A., Volkov, V. V., Korenevskij, S. N. andMamonova, N. N. (Jettmar, K. foreword). 1982. Ulangom Einskythenzeitliches Gräberfeld in der Mongolei. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz (“Ulangom - A Scythian Period Cemetery inMongolia”).

Polosmak, N. 1994. Stereguschie zoloto grify. Novosibirsk: East-ern Department of Nauka (“Griffins watching over gold”).

Polosmak, N. B. 1996. La Prêtresse Altaïque in Tombs Gelles deSibérie. Les Dossiers d’Archéologie, 28-35 (“The Altai priestess inthe frozen tombs of Siberia.” Dossiers of Archaeology).

Rudenko, S. I. 1970. Frozen Tombs of Siberia: The Pazyryk Buri-als of Iron Age Horsemen. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Semenov, V. and Chugunov, K. 1995. Evidence of theScythian Type Culture in Tuva, pp. 311–34 in Bongard-Levin,G., Braund, D., Kochkov, I., Nikitin, A., Shkunaev, S.,Treister, M. and Vinogradov, Y. (eds.), From Scythia to Siberia,Vol. 2, No. 3. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Swietoslawski, W. 1999. Arms and Armour of the Nomads of theGreat Steppes in the Times of the Mongol Expansion (12th-14th cen-turies). Loedz: Oficyna Naukowa.

95

Tatar, M. 1992. Through the Sayan Mountains: Trade RoutesBetween Mongolia and Siberia. pp. 51-60, Haellquist, K. R. (ed.),Asian Trade Routes (Studies on Asia Topics 13). London: Scandi-navian Institute of Asian Studies.

Tseveendorj, D. 1980. Chandmany Soel (Arkheologiin Sudlal,Tomus IX). Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Insti-tute of History (“Chandman Culture.” Archaeological Research).

Volkov, V. V. 1967. Bronzovyi i rannii zheleznyi vek severnoi.Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Academy of Science Publications (“TheBronze and Early Iron Ages of Northern Mongolia”).

Volkov, V. V. 1981. Olennye Kamni Mongolii. Ulaanbaatar: Mon-golian Academy of Science Publications (“Deer Stone ofMongolia”).

Volkov, V. V. 1995. Early Nomads of Mongolia, pp. 319–33 in inDavis-Kimball, J., Bashilov, V. A. and Yablonsky, L. T. (eds.), No-mads of The Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age. Berkeley: ZinatPress.

Yablonsky, L. T. 1995. The Material Culture of the Saka andHistorical Reconstruction, pp. 201–35 in Davis-Kimball, J.,Bashilov, V. A. and Yablonsky, L. T. (eds.), Nomads of the EurasianSteppes in the Early Iron Age. Berkeley: Zinat Press.

Yablonsky, L. T., Davis-Kimball, J., Denidenko, Ya. V., Maleshev,V. Yo., Demkin, V. A., Ryskov, Ya. G., Lesochina, L. C., Zaitsev,S. V., Khokhlova, O. S. and Anikeeva, O. V. 1996. Kurganylevoberezhnogo Ileka. Vol. 4. Moscow: Institute of Archaeology,Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Department, Ameri-can-Kazak Archaeological Project (“Kurgans on the Left Bank ofthe Ilek”).


Table 1. Description of Levels 1 through 5.

96


Table 4. Squares 1 and 2 located in the Central Mound.

Table 2. Location of the Test Pits in the Mound, and the description of Level 6.

Table 3. Trenches, Units 1-3 and the findings.

97


Table 5. Central Pit, Levels 7 to 12.

Table 6. Astralagi recovered from the Beiram Mound, Level 1.

98


Fig. 1. Northwestern Mongolia in relation to southern Siberia, western China, and easternKazakstan illustrating the locations of the Beiram Mound and the aimag centers of Ulangomand Ulgii.

Fig. 2. Slab grave in the Gobi steppe near Ureg Nuur, eastern foothills of the Altai Mountains.

99

Fig. 3. Beiram Mound in the foreground and the Mongolian oovo behind, looking west toward Achet Nuur (lake).July 1996.

Fig. 4. Schematic of the Beiram Mound and areas of excavation: Mound, Oovo, Ring, Paths,Central Mound, Test Pits, Units 1–3, and Test Pits 1–7.


100


Fig. 5. Ditch around the Mound during excavations in Quadrant II; looking SSW, oovo in the background.

Fig. 6. Manchu wooden box in situ, partially excavated.

101

Fig. 7 (left). Level 5, on the left, composed of roughsurface stones, and Test Pit 6, to the right, reveal-ing the top of Level 6 composed of smooth riverstones. Quadrant III.

Fig. 8 (below). Opening the Central Mound. TestPit 6 is in the foreground; Square 2 of the CentralMound, opened over the Depression, is in front ofthe Mongolian student. Stones of Level 6 have beencleaned in the area that will be Square 1 on theCentral Mound (See Table 4). Test Pit 1 is on theright, partially filled with water from melted per-mafrost. Level 6 river stones are exposed in the balk.Looking SSW.


102


Fig. 9. In situ, the top and sides of the Manchu wooden box (Feature 1), at the center of the Mound have beenremoved revealing the interior contents. A white (tin?) glazed vase with a flat base, sharp shoulder, narrow neck,and everted rim held grain and organic material. The bamboo with inscription (inscription is face down in theillustration above) is center front.

103


Fig. 10 (opposite page). Artifacts from Feature 1 included:1 - an iron Mongol period arrowhead with hooked tangand holes in the blade; 2 - cowries; 3 - a repoussé hollowsilver-gilt disk; 4 - an inscription on a piece of bambooand. Found elsewhere on the Mound: 5 - a wood-carved“spoked-wheel,” a replica of a petroglyph on a nearbyrock outcropping.

Fig. 11 (left). Votive objects from Quadrant 4, Level.1. Astragali: 1 - sheep, 2 – bovine, 3 - argali (moun-tain sheep); 4 - equine teeth.

Fig. 12 (right). Wood-carved animal, possibly representinga deer (head and right leg lost). Based on excavated paral-lels, it dates to the Saka Period (ca. 450-400 BC).

104


Fig. 13. Votive objects from vari-ous locales in the Mound: 1 -wood-carved finial of unknownsignificance, one type of variousfound in the Mound; 2 - wood-carved replica of a psalia.

Fig. 14. Votive objects from various locales in the Mound: 1 - wood-carved bowl, partially lost; 2 -wood-carved animal figurines; 3 - iron arrowheads, Mongol period; 4 -Manchu (Chinese) coin; 5 -bronze (or brass) bowl; 6 - brass (?) Chinese-type pipes; 7 - iron knife; 8 - carved and drilled bone.

Fig. 15. Beads: 1, 3 - carnelian; 2 - turquoise-coloredglass; 4 - wood.

Fig. 16. Stone-carved votive object,possibly representing a scrotum.

105

Fig. 17. Two iron slag deposits were revealed when the humus covering dropped away. The perspective andangle of the slope in this illustration are deceiving flat; in reality, the hill is extremely steep. Above in theupper plane, a stand of Tien Shan fir are visible. These trees may have been a source of fuel for ironsmelting, although there are deposits of anthracite coal within 15 km of the Mound, direction BayanUlgii, that are still mined today. This site is, as a crow flies, within a kilometer of the Mound but by jeep,because of the steepness of the mountain, from 3-5 km.

Fig. 18. The balk of the slag excavation revealing the humus layer on top, the slag layer, and thesmall humus layer below. (all photos and illustrations Jeannine Davis-Kimball)


106


Documents

Part II Archaeological Excavations