Türkic Nomads and Chorasmia L.T. Yablonsky Stock-Breeders of the Ancient Khоrezm (Archaeology and phisical anthropology of the cemeteries) Russian Academy Of Sciensis Institute

7/29/2019 Türkic Nomads and Chorasmia L.T. Yablonsky Stock-Breeders of the Ancient Khоrezm (Archaeology and phisical an…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/turkic-nomads-and-chorasmia-lt-yablonsky-stock-breeders-of-the-ancient 1/23

Türkic Nomads and Chorasmia L . T. Ya b l o n s k y

Stock-Breeders of the Ancient Khоrezm

(Archaeology and phisical anthropology of the cemeteries)Russian Academy Of Sciensis Institute Of Archaeology

Bulletin of Russian Humanities Foundation, 1999, Issues 1-2, Page 198

Links

http://www.worldcat.org

Foreword

Extensive studies of archeological and anthropological remains, performed in the

1940's-1980's around Aral Sea area and along the Amudarya, demonstrated that the oases of the Middle Asia were populated by the Türkic pastoralists for nearly as far back as the

pastoral economy existed. Moreover, in the Khоrezm area, the sedentary agricultural people

were the same people that came to Khоrezm as nomadic pastoralists in search for good

pastures and water. The archeological discoveries completely dispel the notion conjured up

sometime in the 20th c. about the Middle Asia being a second home of the Indo-Iranians, in

their trek from the N.Pontic to Persia and India. The faulty paradigm must be reconstituted to

address a question of when and how the Indo-Iranians reached Middle Asia, and established

their own agricultural colonies among the pastoral and settled people that had their origin in

the eastern part of the steppe belt, and who carried from their previous homeland their mixed

Caucasoid-Mongoloid morphology notable for its robust character, way different from their

B;8<=3>A0=80=2>D=C4A?0ACBB02><820;B834;8=40=>=6>8=634L=8C8>=8=C74propaganda of some Middle Eastern scholars is that "Turanoid race, or Turko-Tatar race, is a

sub-species of the Caucasoid race, it is the only Caucasoid sub-species that is partially

8=C4A1A43F8C7C74#>=6>;>83A024??;H8=6C70C34L=8C8>=C>C74!7оrezmian physical

anthropology, the mainstream Khоrezmians, with all the changes they experienced over 3

millennia, were always Turanoids. Etymological studies of Sh.Kamoliddin in Ancient Türkic

toponymy are very helpful in elucidating and visualizing the numerous different people that

lived in the Chorasmia through the millennia.

%=4>5C748=C4A4BC8=6<><4=CBC70C0A4=>CB?428L20;;H033A4BB438=C74F>A:8BC74

emigration of the Tochars, Herodotus' Dahae, Caucasian Digors, from the Caspian/Aral

<4B>?>C0<80LABCC>C74A0=80=&;0C40D0=3C74=C>C74$40A0BC#4B>?>C0<80C>4BC01;8B7

the Parthian Empire. These Tochars appear to be independent of the As tribes, and their

emigration in the 3rd c. BC preceded the Yuezhi Tochars arrival in the Aral area by about a

century. The Eastern Tochars must have differed from their western kinfolk, because of their

exposure to the cultures of the Central Asia, their local conjugal partners in the Central Asia,

their implements of the Central Asian manufacture. Somewhere, among the monuments

analyzed by L.T. Yablonsky, are lurking kurgans and settlements left by that famous nomadic

tribe.

L . T. Ya b l o n s k y

Stock-Breeders of the Ancient Khоrezm(Archaeology and physical anthropology of the cemeteries)

Page 1/23



Introduction

New era in the study of the Southern Aral Sea archeology, ethnogenesis, and ethnic history of

ancient and modern peoples of that region is associated with the name of S.P.Tolstov. He has

accomplished exceptionally much in order to transfer the archeology and anthropology of

#833;4B800=3!0I0:7BC0=5A><0;4E4;>5;>20;BCD384BC>C74E0BCL4;3B>56;>10;ethnohistorical and ethnogenetical processes that once affected the Northern Eurasia. Having

organized and led a comprehensive Khorezm archaeological-ethnographic expedition, he

1420<405>D=34AC74B284=C8L20A274>;>6H8=C78B0B8CCDA=43>DC20A38=0;5>AC74

understanding of the global historical processes, historical and cultural region. With the name

>5)&*>;BC>E0A42>==42C43C74LABC0=3<>BC8<?>AC0=C38B2>E4A84B8=C74L4;3>5C74)0:0

Kangar, Yuezhi-Kushan, Chionite-Ephtalite thought. One of the central themes in his works

were questions related to the history of relations between the population of the settled,

agricultural areas and their cattle periphery (Tolstoy, 1948a, b) .

That line of work of the outstanding scientist was continued by a splendid cohort of his

BCD34=CB0=35>;;>F4ABC74LABC>5F7><1420<4*4A4=>9:8=.0D;H0<>E

S.A.Ershov (more about that see: Itina, 1997).

*74B<0H142>=38C8>=0;;H34L=430B05>A<8=6?4A8>3>5C74!7>A4I<B284=C8L2

school of archeology. That period was noted by formulation and execution of the now

extensive and intensive research on a number of sites of different periods, which become a

foundation for the development of the main historical perspective of the region. The main

outcome of that phase was summed by S.P.Tolstov in his regular retrospect monograph

(1962).

The 1960's-1970's were marked by major archaeological discoveries that brought the

expedition a deserved world fame. These were the mausoleums in the Northern Tagisken andSaka burials in the Southern Tagisken and Uigarak in the Lower Syr Darya, a discovery of

C7478A8:(010C2D;CDA4<>=D<4=CBC74LABC4G20E0C8>=B>594CH0B0ACH?40=284=C

fortresses.

*74B?428L2B>5C7478BC>AH>5C740=284=C8=7018C0=CB>5C74)>DC74A=A0;)40A468>=8BC70C

even conditionally it can not be divided into archeology of farming and archeology of

nomadic pastoralists. The historical fates of the pastoralists and farmers were always

intimately intertwined there. The new archeological discoveries of the palaces, settlements,

20BC;4BC4<?;4B0=35>ACA4BB4B0;F0HB;43C>0=4FD=34ABC0=38=6>502D;CDA0;B?428L28CH0=3

chronological attribution of the different pastoral groups in the Khorezm territory.

Such are the fundamental development of the chronological scale for the Khorezmmonuments performed on the foundation of rich ceramic material (Vorobiev,

1955,1958,1959; Nerazik, 1959, 1966, 1981), the excavations of Kuyusai culture settlements

(Weinberg, 1979a), Kyuzel-gyr (Vishnevskaya, Rapoport, 1997), Dingildje (Vorobiev, 1973),

Koy-Krylgan-Kala (Koy-Krylgan. .., 1967), fortresses Kalala-gyr1 (Lapirov-Skoblo,

Rapoport, 1963), Kalala-gyr-2 (Weinberg, 1996), Kunya-Uaz, and Kang-kala (Nerazik,

1958), asynchronous left-bank Khorezm settlements (Weinberg, 1979a, b; Weinberg, 1981,

1991 a, b; Kolyako, 1983.1984).

In turn, the new excavation and discoveries in the studies of kurgan burials and ossuary

necropolises helped to address the issues primarily related to the ethnogenesis of the ancient

Khorezm people, their spiritual culture (Weinberg, 1979a, b, 1991 a, b, 1992;. Lapirov-Skoblo, Rapoport, 1963; Rapoport, 1971, Lohovits, 1979; Lohovits, Khazanov, 1979;

Page 2/23



Trudnovskaya, 1979, 1996; Yablonsky, 1986a, b, 1987b, 1989, 1991a, b, c, 1992b, 1996). The

results of the Khorezm nomadic periphery studies were summed up in a special collection

(Nomads..., 1979), which included materials from the excavation of the 1960's-1970's.

During the 1980's in the territory of the ancient Sarykamysh delta of the Amu Darya

worked a Left-Bank Archaeological and Anthropological crew of the Khorezm expedition,7403431HC740DC7>A*74F>A:>5C74C40<F4A4B?428L20;;H5>2DB43>=0A2704>;>6820;

research of the necropolises and assembly of paleoanthropological collections. The results of

that work formed the basis of this book.

The traditional for the Russian humanities science idea of integrated approach to solving

the problems of ethnogenetic thematics (more about that see: Alekseev, 1986, 1989) was

practically implemented in the works of the Khorezm expedition. The most important role in

that respect was rightfully assigned to the paleoanthropological research in the South Aral

Sea area. The series of paleoanthropological studies on the left bank Khorezm ancient

?>?D;0C8>=BC70CF0B146D=1H**A>L<>E00128=I1DA6

*A>L<>E0F0B2>=C8=D431H>C74AA4B40A274AB!8H0C:8=0>390H>E1980; Yagodin , Hodjayov, 1970; Yablonsky, 1986b, 1991b, c; 1992b Yablonsky, Bolelov,

1991; Yablonsky, Kolyako, 1992, Maslov, Yablonsky, 1996). The present monograph is a

latest attempt i realization of that idea.

One of the S.P.Tolstov's achievements in the integrated study of the ancient monuments

8=C748=C4AMDE80;14CF44=<D0AH00=3)HA0AH08BC70C?0A0;;4;C>C740A2704>;>6820;

and paleoanthropological investigations, was conducted work with participation of

geomorphology specialists, to reconstruct the paleo-ecological situation in the region during

the immense period of its human population (Tolstoy, Kes, 1954; Kes, 1958). A main result of

the archaeological and palaeogeographical investigations of the 1950's became a monumental

work "Lower Amu Darya. Sarikamish. Uzboi. History of formation and human

B4CC;4<4=C=C70C438C8>=F4A45>AC74LABCC8<4?D1;8B74364><>A?7>;>6820;<0?B>5

the Aral Sea region with marked monuments of differring times that were dating the

numerous changeable beds of the Amu Darya.

The data accumulated in that study became a basis for a series of new archaeological and

?0;4>42>;>6820;BCD384BA4;0C8=6C>C74?A>1;4<B>5<DCD0;8=MD4=2414CF44=<4=0=3

environment in the Aral Sea area(see, for example: Andrianov, 1969; Andrianov et al, 1975;

Weinberg, 1988, 1991a, b , 1997; Yusupov, H., 1986a; Sorokina, Yagodin, 1980; Kes, 1987;

;DB7:>C8=0.01;>=B:H4B?8C4C74502CC70C0=D<14A>58BBD4BA4;0C43C>C74

subject remain debatable (Weinberg, 1991a, 1997; H. Yusupov, 1986), these studies revealedC74<>BC8<?>AC0=C0786734?4=34=24>5C74B?428L20=CA>?>64>24=>B4B0=32D;CDA0;

formations in the Aral Sea area from the diverse landscape and historically changing

environmental situation in the region.

The south and south-eastern Aral Sea region was settled by men still in the Middle

Paleolithic Era (Vinogradov, 1981, p.10) (Middle Paleolithic ended 40 to 50 KY ago). Since

C74=C7434E4;>?<4=C>5C78B0A401HC74<0=383=>CBC>?34B?8C4C74385L2D;C0=3

B><4C8<4B4GCA4<47018C0C2>=38C8>=B*74B?428L28CH>5C74A0;0=CA>?>64>C24=>B4B

34L=8C8>=0=32>=C4=C>5C742>=24?C;4:B44EC74A470B0;F0HB144=2>=38C8>=0;3D4

C>C74BC0C40=338A42C8>=>5C7434;C0M>F270==4;B>5CF>#833;4B80=6A40CA8E4AB<D

Darya and Syr Darya, since they provide a permanent source of drinking water. The coastalareas of these rivers always served as a corridor linking ancient population of predominantly

Page 3/23



agricultural south with the pastoral ( "barbarous") populations of the Northern Middle Asia

and Kazakhstan (Yablonsky, 1984b; Vinogradov et al, 1986).

A periodical joining of the delta channels of both rivers provided an existence of

latitudinal cultural and genetic ties, which was in particular typical for the Early Saka Era

(Itin, Yablonsky, 1997).

At the same time, the Southern Aral Sea region and especially, the Amu Darya

Sarykamysh delta is a relatively isolated area. From the south it is bounded by the impassable

sands of the massive Karakum desert; from the northwest by rocky, covered with salt marshes

and almost always waterless Usturt channel; from the west by the Sarykamysh lake and

Uzboi plateau, the density of anthropogenic cover of which was entirely dependent on

B?>A0382M>F>5F0C4AC7A>D67C74+I1>81435DAC74AC>C74F4BC;0HB0E8ACD0;;HF0C4A;4BB

E.Caspian lowland, in the north lays the mirror of the saltine Aral Sea and periodically dry or

waterlogged Northern and Akchadarya deltas of the Amu Darya. Apparently not by chance

the Sarykamysh settlements of the Early Saka time were completely void of any kind of

defences (Weinberg, 1979a, b). The boundaries delineated above were a kind of a geneticbarrier, providing generally independent focus for race- and ethnogenesis.

At the same time, these boundaries were never completely impassable for heterogeneous

and differently cultured nomadic unions. The northern-eastern Aral Sea region is yet

8=BD5L284=C;HBCD38438=C740A2704>;>6820;C4A<BDCC744C7=>6A0?78230C0>=C74A>DC4B>5

late Middle Asia and Kazakhstan nomads' movement to the Urals steppe and back can

retrospectively suggest that this type of migrations could have taken place in antiquity. The

studies have established episodic residence in the Usturt Plateau of the nomads belonging to

the Savromat (Sauromat) (Yagodin, 1987.1988) and Sarmat cultural type (Yagodin, 1978a, b;

%;7>EB:8HA><C74<833;4>5C74BC<8;;4==8D<05C4A0M>FC7>D67C74

Uzboi channel has resumed, appeared a unique culture of the Uzboi pastoralists, with many

parallels in the monuments of the left bank Khorezm (Yusupov H., 1986; Weinberg, Yusupov,

1992).

Ever since the Bronze Age (recall the remarkable syncretism of the Tazabagyab culture) the

southern Aral Sea region served as an arena of continuous cultural and genetic interaction of

the steppe populations (Itina, 1977; Vinogradov et al, 1986). In that sense, the Iron Age also

was not different. That the course of the ethogenetical processes in the region was repeatedly

interrupted as a result of large-scale environmental disturbances is a different matter.

The disappearance from the Sarykamysh map of such a powerful entity as was the

Neolithic Kelteminar culture (Vinogradov, 1981) was connected with environmentaldisturbance (Based on archeological typology, Kelteminars are classed as Finno-Ugrians,

extending from Aral to Zeravshan and Northern Kazakhstan, and contiguous with Shigir

Finno-Ugrians in the Urals. The Aral Kelteminar population was just a small speck that

emigrated at a bad time. Kelteminar people melted away at about 2,000 BC. But in reality,

since the distribution of the Türkic people at about 2,000 BC is disputed, and the linguistic

belonging of the components is as vague as at could be, short of direct DNA measurements

there is no reason to deny a possibility that Kelteminars may became a component of the

Türkic people).

Over many centuries during the Bronze Age that area was not inhabited, because the

<08=3A08=064>5C74<D30AH0F0C4ABC74=M>F43C7A>D67C74=>AC74A=A8E4A270==4;B*74;854C74A4A4BD<43>=;H0CC74L=0;BC064B>5C74A>=I4641DC8C8BA4?A4B4=C431H>=;H

Page 4/23



archaeologically few (often dispersed) and not too long in terms of duration habitation sites

of the Kang-kala 2 type (Durdyev, 1984). The culture of these sites has no further

34E4;>?<4=C8=C74)0AH:0<HB70=3F420=2>=L34=C;HBC0C4C70CC74=4F?70B4>5C74

ethnogenetical process began there only in the era of the early Saka type culture, when the

Sarykamysh delta territory was simultaneously populated again by heterogeneous groups of

pastoralists who left numerous settlements and various types of the burials structures(Weinberg, 1975, 1979a; Yablonsky, 1991a).

22>A38=6C>C7401B>;DC427A>=>;>6HC741468==8=6>5C748=C4=B4F0C4AM>FC7A>D67C74

Amudarya Sarykamysh delta did not occur earlier than the 8th c. BC, probably toward its end

(Weinberg, 1997, p. 25). At the turn of the 7th-6th cc. BC sprang up an early Kyuzeligyr state

2D;CDA4>5C74;45C10=:!7>A4I<F8C78CBBCA>=65>AC8L20C8>=B0=3D=5>AC8L43B4CC;4<4=CB

(Vishnevskaya, Rapoport, 1997, p.150). Thus, we must recognize that the carriers of the

Sarykamysh Kyuzeligyr and Early Saka cultures in a relatively short chronological period co-

4G8BC438=0;8<8C4364>6A0?7820;0A40*78B2>=2;DB8>=8B2>=LA<431HL=3B>5!HDI4;86HA

type ceramics in the Early Saka Sakar-chaga burials (Yablonsky, 1996) (Herodotus stated that

"-?3A@?"-??-31@?4-0/5@51?-:02;>@5I/-@5;:?;C1B1>A:01>"-?3A@?"-??-31@?

Herodotus understood the pastoral riders that resisted Persians and headed the country, not

the settled agriculturists within the country. Apparently, the somewhat Mongoloid Saka

pastoralists took over the leadership upon arrival from the Eastern Steppes, and had under

their control the former nomadic sedentary settlers). According to B.I.Weinberg (1997, pp.

0;A403H0CC74CDA=>5C74C7C722BC0AC43C74L;;8=6>5C74+I1>8270==4;A><

that time until the period preceding the Middle Ages, the runoff of the Amudarya waters

through the channels of the Sarykamysh delta did not cease. In addition, no later than from

the 4th c. BC there begins a construction of a powerful and fairly complex irrigation system

(Kunyauaz channel) and the local irrigation systems associated with the agricultural

settlements located in the western part of the delta.Nevertheless, archaeological data indicate that not later than from the mid 6th c. BC (at

about 550 BC), despite the quite favorable for intensive animal husbandry and subsistence

farming conditions, the culture of classical Saka type in the left bank Khorezm suddenly

disappeared (Masguts/Massagets evacuated from the indefensible territory, moving to the

right bank Khorezm and leaving Amudarya as a barrir for the Persian army, as relayed

Herodotus). Moreover, in the post-Saka time the oldest nomadic-type burial structures known

today in the Sarykamysh area can not be dated earlier time than the end of 5th in. BC (about

500 BC). The only pastoralists' cemetery discovered in the territory of the right bank

!7>A4I<D3:>E#0=H;>E0;B>0;A403H14;>=6BC>C74!0=60A (Kangyui) era. Thus,

based on the complex of modern archaeological knowledge must be recognized the existence

>50B86=8L20=C27A>=>;>6820;60?8=C74F7>;4!7>A4I<C4AA8C>AH14CF44=C745D=4A0AHmonuments of the Early Saka and Kangar (Kangyui) eras (i.e between 500 BC and 400 or

350 BC, or between 7th-5th cc. BC of Early Saka Era and between 400 or 350 and 100 BC of Kangar/Kangyui Era)*744G8BC4=24>5C78B60?20=>52>DAB4144G?;08=431HC74385L2D;C84B

of the archaeological dating. However, the materials from the nearby and ecologically similar

Lower Syrdarya region obstruct such attempts. There, in the 2nd half of the 6th c. BC also

70??4=B86=8L20=C2D;CDA0;8==>E0C8>=A4M42C438=C74CH?>;>6820;270=64>5C740A<0<4=CB

and "animal style" art, but the course of the ethnogenetic process was not interrupted (Itina,

Yablonsky, 1997) (That historical layer belongs to pre-historical period, as far as the Saka

and Kangar tribes are concerned. We can only speculate that the Khorezm Masguts were

assisted by forces sent from the central or allied union, of the Sakas or Kangars, and these

forces were drafted from the subject of the union that were different from the Khorezm Sakas).

Page 5/23



2><?0A8B>=>5B?428L24C7=>78BC>A820;?A>24BB4B>5C740A;H)0:0C8<48=C74)>DC7

and South-Eastern Aral Sea region (Yablonsky, 1991c, 1992c, 1993) shows that the cultural

crisis of the Sarykamysh early pastoralists occured not as a result of environmental events,

but this time was created by the political circumstances that can not be unrealated with the

military-political and economic expansion of the Ahaemenids, and the development and groth

of the local state system that existed in the archaic Kyuzeligyr culture. Before the turn of the5th-4th cc. BC (ca 400 BC), Khorezm was a part of the Achaemenid kingdom 16th satrapy

,8B7=4EB:0H0(0?>?>ACF7827>52>DAB4F0BA4M42C43>=C74>E4A0;;?>;8C820;

B8CD0C8>=8=C74B>DC74A=A0;)40A468>=0=38=?0AC82D;0A>=C74B?428L2B>5C74

relationships with the nomads (In other words, the sedentary population had to accept the

Ahaemenid yoke, but not the mobile herders).

This example already shows that the ethnogenesis of the Aral pastoral population not

only was not straightforward, but was distinctly discontinuous and multi-dimentional,

impacted by various combination of the factors, from environmental to foreign and domestic.

E4=C74LABC4G20E0C8>=>5C740=284=C1DA80;B8=C74)0AH:0<HB70A4034<>=BCA0C43C70Cthe nomads who for a millennium (during the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BC and the 1st

half of the 1st millennium AD)(i.e. from ca 500 BC to the ca 500 AD) were settling in the

periphery of Khorezm were themselves culturally and genetically heterogeneous, and

behaved differently in terms of relationships with the local population. Some groups

0BB8<8;0C43@D82:;HC7A>D670?A>24BB>52D;CDA0;0=364=4C828=L;CA0C8>=C74>C74ABA4<08=43

2><<8CC43C>C748ACA038C8>=0;F0H>5;854>C7>5C74B4?74=><4=05>D=30A4M42C8>=8=C74

funeral ceremony and in the composition of the accompanying inventory.

Therefore, a substantial part of this book is devoted to a detailed study of the particulars

of the funeral ritual. The main purpose of this study is to identify patterns in the distribution

of particulars of the burials that could help answer questions related to the economic and

social peculiarities of the population in the cattle breeding periphery of Khorezm at different

chronological stages. The chronology of individual necropolises is remaining a subject of

debate. It is therefore natural that the particulars of the burials which are especially important

in the chronological attribution of the necropolises are addressed in detail.

*74:4H?A>E8B8>=B>5C7438B2DBB8>=0A4A4M42C438=B?4280;?0ACB>5C741>>:#HLABC

teacher in the area of the kurgan archaeology of the Sarykamysh, and my chief and eternal

B284=C8L2>??>=4=C-48=14A60CC74C8<40=>C43C70CC7434E4;>?<4=C>5C74

3410C48=<0=HF0HB8B385L2D;C1420DB4>5C748=2><?;4C4?D1;820C8>=>5C74A4BD;CB5>AC74

"45C0=:A4F;0BC4G20E0C8>=BF4A42>=3D2C438==?0ACC78B60?8B0;A403HL;;43by individual publications. Now, when the complexes I excavated are consolidated under one

2>E4A8=0BD5L284=C;H2><?;4C45>A< this debate will be more fruitful.

In any event, the wide chronological range of the attracted materials is designed to

examine the process of ethnic and cultural development in the the region not in static, but in

dynamic condition, to trace the various factors affecting the process in relatively short

segments, focusing on key factors (and the importance of the factors varied depending on the

particular historical situation).

The noted diversity of the Aral ethnogenesis requires a special re-thinking of the

methodological problems associated with the relationship of the notions "archaeologicalculture", "physical type", "linguistic attribution", "ethnos and ethnicity". In the previously

Page 6/23



published monograph on the early Saka phase of the Sarykamysh ethnic history (Yablonsky,

34L=43C74?>B8C8>=8=A4B?42CC>C748==4A<40=8=6>5C74B40=3>C74A10B82

concepts. This monograph ius in essence a natural continuation of the previous one, because

my concept since the release of the "Saka" part has not changed. Therefore it obviously

makes no sense to repeat them again. The practical transition from theoretical modeling to a

?0AC82D;0A4C7=>64=4C82A42>=BCAD2C8>=0A4A4M42C438=C74A4;4E0=C270?C4AB>5C78B1>>:

Ethnogenesis of the population in the pastoral periphery of the ancient Khorezm

The ethnogenesis of the pastoral population of Khorezm can't be presented as a direct and

unbroken line extending from the populations of Early Saka type to modernity. Trying to

graphically represent the ethnogenetical processes occurring over the 1st millennium BC - 1st

half of the 1st millennium AD, the graph on the chart would take a reticular shape, without a

single original thread. Throughout that period in the Khorezm territory coexisted historically

different types and forms of ethnic processes, some characteristics of which are observed in

the archaeological materials. Thus, the continuous ceramic tradition and construction of the

burial chamber for community repeated burials illustrate some local ethnic evolutionary

processes. However, the phenomena such as a complete and sudden disappearance of archaeologically Saka-type burial customs, a disappearance in the kurgan burials of the

armaments typical for the steppes pastoralists, a change (though not universal) of inhumation

with a custom of prior cleansing the bones of deceased, all this points to a discontinuity of the

cultural development ( and ethnogenesis?) at certain chronological periods, a presence of

ethno-transformational processes that complemented ethno-evolutionary processes in

Khorezm.

*74L=38=6B>5C740A274>;>6H0A4F4;;BD??>AC435A><C74?0;4>0=C7A>?>;>6H

standpoint: the relatively numerous craniological materials from different historical epochs,

obtained from the Khorezm

territory, give an impression of the original(i.e. beginning of the

1st millennium BC) anthropological heterogeneity of the local pastoral population, of a

continuing and close interaction in the territory of the left bank Khorezm of the inherently

heterogeneous populations that had their own paths of development in different regions of the

steppe and semi-desert zones. The biological interactions between different groups had a

multidirectional nature, on the one hand is well traced a formation of relatively homogeneous

complex of craniological indicators typical for the present-day population phenotype in the

#833;4B80=8=C4AMDE80;0=>AC74A=CH?4>5C70C20C46>AH0=3>=C74>C74A70=3C74

existence at each stage not only cultural, but also physically distinct groups that did not

become the constituent elements of this ethnogenetical process.

In many respects, the complexity of the Khorezm pastoralists' cultural development canbe explained in terms of the "ideas diffusion" model, that is a borrowing of cultural

innovations from outside, in our case from the farming communities of the Southern Aral

Sea. But as in my opinion convincingly showed V.A.Shnirelman (1991, p.17-18), a

1>AA>F8=68=8CB4;58B=>CH4CBD5L284=C8=24=C8E45>A0BD224BB5D;34E4;>?<4=C0=32><?;4C8>=

of an innovation process. Thus, the transition from one economic system to another,

according to the ethnographic materials, was prodded above all by a crisis of the old system.

=C74B0<4F>A:,)7=8A4;<0=?A>?>B4302;0BB8L20C8>=>5BD272A8B4B*74C0G0>5C74

2;0BB8L20C8>=0A434?4=34=C>=C74=0CDA4>5C744GC4A=0;502C>AB20DB8=6C74BHBC4<2A8B8B

Among them are environmental crises (natural and anthropogenic), demographic,

technological, economic (disruption of traditional exchange structures), epizootic, socially

forced (potestar) (development of a prestige economic system for collection of tribute andtaxes, rise of some groups at the expense of others), and military crises. By the duration of

Page 7/23



the effect on the society, the crises are short-term and prolonged, and by the degree of

8=MD4=24C74H0A4C4<?>A0AH0=3A4E4AB81;4)7=8A4;<0=?

Our materials show that at different intervals, the population of the left-bank Khorezm

experienced not only the different types of crises, but sometimes several different types of

crises acted simultaneously, which led to irreversible cultural and genetic changes in thestructure of local economically-diverse populations. This thesis is illustrated with the

materials of particular historical periods of the Khorezm state.

Early Saka Era and the formation epoch of the archaic Khorasmian statehood

The very possibility for the beginning the ethnogenetical processes in the territory of

Southern Aral Sea was totally dependent on environmental factors. With the exceptional

inconstancy of natural conditions in the region that was always dependent on the quirks in the

status of the Amu Darya delta, one powerful environmental factor was active there

continuously from the Mesolith, and is active today, that is an extremity of living in the area

bordering the inherent sands of the Karakum desert in the south, and Kyzylkum to the east,waterless stony expanses of the Uzboi's plateau and Ustyurt to the west and north-west, the

saline Aral Sea and sands of the Northern Aral Sea to the north. Amu Darya has always been

the only permanent source of drinking water there.

Archaeological and paleogeographic studies, main results of which were summarized by

B.I.Weinberg in a special article (1997), showed that in the Neolithic period and before the

end of the 3rd millennium BC the Amu Darya's Akchadarya and Sarykamysh deltas

functioned simultaneously. Precisely to that time belong numerous monuments of the

Kelteminar Neolithic culture, located both on the right and on the left bank in the lower

course of the river (Vinogradov, 1981).

In the Bronze Age, when Akchadarya delta (into Aral Sea) continued to be active, the

M>F8=C74)0AH:0<HB734;C00=3+I1>8(into Caspian Sea) stopped. If in the Akchadarya

territory appear and spread numerous monuments of Tazabagiyab culture (Itina, 1977), in the

Sarykamysh life stops for a long time. These were the consequences of local environmental

crisis caused by the behavior of the Amu Darya. From a historical perspective, this crisis was

prolonged and irreversible, it lasted for nearly two millennia, and led to the irreversible break

in the genesis of the Kelteminar population (Based on archeological typology, Kelteminars

are classed as Finno-Ugrians, extending from Aral to Zeravshan and Northern Kazakhstan,

and contiguous with Shigir Finno-Ugrians in the Urals. The Aral Kelteminar population was

just a small speck that emigrated at a bad time. Kelteminar people left Middle Asia at about

(41?<>1-0;218@195:->?5:@41"50081?5-/;:J5/@?C5@4@414E<;@41?5?;2@41

Middle Asian homeland for Indo-Iranians. Kelteminar people bear some Mongoloid

admixture, which also excludes Indo-Iranians, unless, of course, they adopt a position of

being partly Mongoloids, a long shot so far.).

At the end of the 8th - beginning of the 7th c. BC starts a new, abundant watering of the

)0AH:0<HB734;C0270==4;B0=306A03D0;L;;8=6>5C74)0AH:0<HB734?A4BB8>=F7827>=24

again turns into a lake. A settlement Kang 1 (Durdyyew, 1984) is dated by the end of the 8th

28C8BCH?>;>6820;;HA4;0C43C>C74L=0;2D;CDA4B>5C74#833;4B80=BC4??4B5A><C74

Bronze Age (The same Karasuk Amirabads, spoiled by the abundance of the delta horse

husbandry).

Page 8/23



At the same time, with a change in the irrigation scheme in the Amu Darya delta, the Late

Bronze Age Amirabad type settlements on the right bank decline and its line of cultural-

genetic development in the region is discontinued (Itina, 1977) (Amirabad culture existed

between 10th and 8th c. BC. Based on archeological typology of their ceramics, the

Amirabads are linked with ethnologically Türkic Karasuk steppe cattle-breeders, Amirabads

C1>1@41I>?@@;.A580-:1@C;>7;25>>53-@5;:/4-::18?-:0@41E050:;@.A580?@-@5;:->Eadobe housing. After the Akchadarya delta dried up, they moved to Sarykamysh delta).

The settlement Kang 1 in the Sarykamysh apparently did not exist for long. Thus, as a

result of environmental factors, in the Southern Aral Sea continued the irreversible crisis of

the Bronze Age cultures.

At the end of the 2nd - beginning of the 1st millennium BC in the Volga-Ural and

northern Kazahstan and Mongolian steppes occurred a global climate change. In the paleo-

ecological aspect they were marked by shifting of climatic zones, changes in the composition

of soil, degree of atmospheric moisture. The historical aspect of these changes led to a

widespread crisis of the Late Bronze Age cultures, intensive and multi-directional movementof the steppe and forest-steppe groups, activization of the cultural and genetic diffusional

processes, which ultimately led to the formation of the Saka-type cultures in the eastern areal

of the steppes (The term "Saka-type cultures" apparently apply to the Scythians of the Middle

Asia steppes, as opposed to the European Scythians).

Apparently, with this crisis must be connected the almost total absence of the 8th - 7th cc.

BC archaeological monuments in the considerable territories from the Danube to the

Southern Urals (Jelezchikov et al, 1995). At the same time starts a sharp increase in aridity

and continental climate in the Central Mongolia regions, accompanied by turning of the

mountain valleys meadow-chestnut soils into the steppe-type soils. The similar processes

occurred in the Baraba forest-steppe (summary data: Demkin, 1997, Table 11). At the same

time, exactly in that period in the northern Kazakhstan is noted a beginning of the steppe

7D<838L20C8>=F7827;438=?0AC82D;0AC>0?4=4CA0C8>=C>C74B>DC7>5?>?D;0C8>=BF7>B4

cultural and economic type formed in a stable zone of forest-steppe and southern fringe of the

forest. Along with that is observed an expansion of the areal of the of the steppe cultures to

the north, to the territory east of Urals, Southern Urals and Bashkortostan (Habdulina,

Zdanowicz, 1984, p.153-154) >505F-@5;:;2@411:@>-8?5-:?@1<<1-:04A9505I/-@5;:;2

the Middle Asian steppes creates a drift of the Central Asian pastoralists into the middle Asia,

accompanied by a drift of the Central Asian pastoralists to Far Eastern southern and

northern Siberian niches, and a drift of the Middle Asian pastoralists to the Middle Asian and

Ural-Western Siberian niches).

The start of the Early Iron Age Aral ethnogenesis was directly connected with these

changes. At the end of the 8th or in the beginning of the 7th BC in the Lower Syrdarya appear

the bearers of the Saka type culture, the origin of the physical type of which must be

unquestionably connected with the eastern ranges of the steppe, and presumably the

Mongolian steppe (Yablonsky, 1996v, Itina, Yablonsky, 1997) (The movement of the Central

Asian pastoralists is a pendant movement, it reverses the predominant eastward movement of

the Andronovo-Afanasievo Kurgan Cultures into a predominant westward movement of the Scythian-Saka Kurgan Cultures).

At the same time (7th c. BC) there was a new re-population of the Sarykamysh delta, thearea that is to become a part of the archaic (Kuzeligyr) ancient and medieval Khorezm.

Page 9/23



According to archeology and anthropology (Yablonsky, 1996a), this peopling was done by a

heterogeneous pastoralist populations. The ancestral home of one of them was located in the

,>;60+A0;BC4??4B8=C7438BCA81DC8>=I>=4>5C74<>=D<4=CB>5C74L=0;BC064>5C74*8<14A

A0E4D;CDA4=>C74A6A>D?F0B2>==42C43F8C7C7440BC4A=)0:0BC4??40A40;=C74

relatively isolated and wetland area of their migration, both groups switched to semi- or even

sedentary lifestyle, as evidenced by the settlements of the Kuyusai Culture and relativeabundance of burials in several cemeteries of that period (only in the Sakar-Chaga 6 cemetery

were excavated 44 burials of the Early Saka time, which is about as many as the synchronous

burials found so far in the steppes from Dnieper to the Urals). The transition of the

Sarykamysh herders from a mobile way of life (which actually brought them to the territory

of the Sarykamysh) consequently happened as a result of the crisis, the external cause of

which was, again, the environmental factor.

The funeral tradition of the Early Saka (communal and individual burials on the surface

horizon and in diverse pits) with inhumation or cremation continued by some data to the turn

of the 7th-6th c. BC (Yablonsky, 1996a), and by other (Weinberg, 1991a) to the middle of the

6th c. BC. Be as it may, it can be safely stated that not later than the middle of the 6th c. BC0AA8E430=4F2A8B8B>5C74)0:02D;CDA48=C74)0AH:0<HB7F78275>D=3A4M42C8>==>C>=;H8=

the funeral tradition, but also in the paleoanthropological materials. Our data suggest that

E4AHB?428L22A0=8>;>6820;2><?;4G4B8=74A4=CC>C740A;H)0:0?>?D;0C8>=0A4=>CA42>A343

any more in a "pure" form in the Sarykamysh burials of the 2nd half of the 1st millennium

BC. And this time there's absolutely no reason to suppose that the cause of the crisis of the

classical Saka type culture was a change in the environment. For that exists direct and

circumstantial evidence.

8A42C?A>>58BC70C05C4AC74)0AH:0<HB734;C0F0BM>>3438=C7440A;HBC<8;;4==8D<

BC, that regime remained stable at least for a millennium (Weinberg, 1997, p.25). Thecircumstantial evidence provides the historical ethno-cultural situation in the Lower Syrdarya

during the Early Saka time. The -1st half of the 6th c. BC Saka burial ritual has numerous

parallels with the Sarykamysh ritual. These parallels are found not only in the design of the

burial chamber, but also in the typological composition of the accompanying inventory

(Yablonsky, 1996a).In the Lower Syrdarya Darya in the middle of the 6th c. BC changed the

typological composition of the inventory, which could be caused by re-orientation of the

Sakas to different metallurgical and cultural centers that were their sources for acquiring

armaments and a change of tactics. However, no doubts are raised of the fact that the Saka

culture, albeit in a transformed form, survived till the 5th c. BC in environmental conditions

close to those in the Amu Darya area (Itina, Yablonsky, 1997) (The name of this 7th-5th cc.

BC Saka tribe is well known from the historical sources, these are Masguts, the Herodotus' Massagetae, led in the 6th c. BC by a queen Tamiris, in Tr. Iron Queen).

Consequently, the crisis of the Sarykamysh Saka culture happened as a result of

circumstances not present (further north) in the Syr Darya. This circumstance could be a

conquest of Khorezm by the Achaemenides during their raids to the Middle Asia in the last

C78A3>5C74C72*74=F4F>D;35024C742;0BB820;A4M42C8>=>50<8;8C0AH2A8B8B;8:4;H

accompanied by the loss of the livestock, which led to a death of the classical Saka culture.

However, the archaeological evidence testify that the crisis of the Sarykamysh Saka

culture apparently occurred still in the pre-Achaemenid time, and was connected with the

emergence of the ancient state archaic (Kuzeligyr) culture. About the early (no later than thebeginning 6th c. BC) interaction of (pastoral) Sakas and the carriers of the Kuzeligyr culture

Page 10/23



C4BC8L43C74?A4E8>DB;HA4;0C8E4;HA0A4 L=3B>52;40A;H!DI4;86HACH?4?>CC4AH8=C74)0:0A

Chaga 6 burials. However, a series of recent publications related to the excavations of the

Kuzeli-gyr site explicitly state that the emergence of the Khorezm Kuzeligyr culture should

be attributed to the pre-Achaemenid time, it emerged as a cultural-historical phenomenon no

later than the turn the 7th-6th c. BC, and not in the 2nd half of the 6th c. BC, as was thought

previously (Rapoport, 1996, pp. 56; Itina et al, 1996, p.24; Vishnevskaya, Rapoport, 1997, p.150). The interesting hypothesis of A. Rapoport (1996, p.56) that the Sarykamysh Sakas were

the creators of the Khorezm state and Kuzeligyr culture may gain divergent opinions in

A4B?42CC>C74346A44>54E834=24*74L=0;0224?C0=24>5C78B7H?>C74B8B8B70<?4A431H0

lack of the Kuzeligyr culture burials, and consequently a lackof the craniological materials.

But the fact of the coexistence of "Sakas" and "Kuzeligyrs" for centuries, in the limited space

in the Amu Darya delta, already does not raise any doubts. Archaeologically, how that

coexistence has ended is known, with the development of Kuzeligyr culture during the whole

Achaemenid period in the history of Khorezm, and with its evolutionary transformation into a

culture of Khorezm of the Antiquity Epoch, on the one hand, and a complete disappearance in

the territory of the Saka type culture, on the other hand (In spite of conditions extremely

favorable for pastoral husbandry, the pastoral Sakas in the Sarykamysh delta melt away by

dissolving, by their own volition, in the linguistically identical sedentary Kuzeligyr culture of

the agricultural Khorezm. Since no pastoralist would trade his leisure and freedom for a fate

of a tiller, this scenario can't be real without a forced intervention, like a complete loss,

beyond a point of recovery, of all their herds stolen by the Ahaemenids. No army could ever

safeguard their whole livestock booty. It should be remembered that in favorable conditions

the herd restoration can be very quick, hundreds times increase within a life of one

generation).

If, according to Rapoport's hypothesis, the Sakas proper founded the Kuzeli-gyr fortress

and numerous culturally identical settlements on the right bank and left banks of the AmuDarya, we are dealing with a classic display of the "diffusion of ideas" which Sakas received

during their presumed (by an analogy with the Scythians) raids to the areas of the Asia Minor

and Middle East. A demonstration model of this "diffusion" for the Aral population of the

Late Bronze Epoch is clearly seen in the mausoleums of the Northern Tagisken (Itina, 1992)

which A. Rapoport (1996, p.70) for some reason (without any arguments) calls belonging to

Saka. The real fact is that in the Lower Syrdarya the appearance of the brick mausoleums

coincided with an irreversible crisis of the Late Bronze Age local culture (what type of

culture?), and in the Sarykamysh area (the appearance of the brick mausoleums, or the

melting away of the Sakas?) coincided with a crisis, possibly prolonged, but also irreversible,

of the Saka culture.

The historical consequences of this crisis for the local populations such as Sarykamysh

)0:0B0A4385L2D;CC>0BB4BB0A;84AF0BBD664BC43C70CC74;>20;)0:0B#0BB064CB>AB><4

part of them) could constitute one of the ethnic components of the Kuzeligyr culture, and that

some Saka (Masgut) populations could have left the Southern Aral Sea region, not consenting

to accept the new socio-political conditions of their existence (Yablonsky, 1996a). Some

archaeologists even attempted to trace the routes the Sakas used to leave the Khorezm

territory (Yagodin, 1978a; Kuznetsova, 1988).

In that case, we would have a sign of forced social (potestar) crisis, which presupposes,

among others, a displacement and migration of those who are disaffected with the policies,

including economic policies, proposed by the groups that seized social leadership in theterritory (Shnirelman, 1991, p.19 ).

Page 11/23



*>C742;0BB8L20C8>=>5C742A8B4BBD664BC431H,)7=8A4;<0=2>D;30;B>1403343C74

crises related to a religious pressure from the same social leaders. In our case, a manifestation

of such religion became a ritual of exposing the corpses. A. Rapoport (1996, p.75) does not

4G2;D34C70C/>A>0BC4A;8E438=C74!7>A4I<0=3B?428L20;;H8=C74C7C722*74

absence of Kuzeligyr culture burials he logically linked with a spread, already at that time, of

the ritual exposing. In his discussion the researcher goes further, and with a reference toHerodotus he claims that Massagets (Masguts) knew the exposition ritual. It is clear that this

statement is intended to reconcile his two hypotheses, about the Sakas (Massaget /Masgut )

nature of the Kuzeligyr culture, and the early formation of the Middle Asian version of the

Zoroastrianism in the Khorezm territory. However, it should be noted, that the citation from

Herodotus quoted by A. Rapoport reads as follows: "... but when a person becomes very old,

0;;C74A4;0C8E4B64CC>64C74AC>B02A8L2478<0=3B<0;;;8E4BC>2:C>64C74AF8C778<C74H2>>:

meat, and arrange a feast. Such death is deemed the happiest among them. But who died of a

disease is not eaten, but buried in the ground, considering that to be a misfortune that he did

=>C;8E4C>14B02A8L243'D>C435A><>E0CDA4C0;?CB44<BC70C4E4=85H>D

always believe in many respects mythological texts of Herodotus, this passage has no hint of

the exposure ritual. Most likely, as suggested by the authors of comments (Dovatur et al,

1982, p.190) the report in this case is about documented among different peoples of the world

custom of cannibalism related to the idea about a way to acquire power and strength of the

deceased. If this assumption is correct, then the exposure ritual in its classical form could

disgust the Sarykamysh pastoralists, and this was another reason (religious) for the crisis of

their local culture (4-@"-?3A@?050:;@4-B1-:E/;:J5/@?C5@4@41(1:3>5-:.18512?5?

demonstrated by their merger with the N.Caucasus Huns in the 3rd-5th cc. AD. In the

N.Caucasus state, Masguts and Huns shared the same religious leaders and rituals, had

similar burial practices, and identical etiology. In Tengriism, a human has two souls, and the

indestructible soul must be provided means to reach the other world, otherwise it lingers

among leaving, and is frightening and may be retaliatory. It can't be eaten. The Herodotus'story is correct in the description of the funeral feast, but erroneous and derogatory in

respect to cannibalism. An absolutely major part of the Tengriism beliefs is a respect of the

-:/1?@;>?-:0-3>1-@/->15:1=A5<<5:3@4192;>-052I/A8@-:0<1>58;A?@>5<@;@41;@41>

C;>80?53:5I10.E5::A91>-.817A>3-:?.A58@C5@4A:/;A:@-.81122;>@?-/>;??@41C4;81

Euroasia, those in the Bronze Epoch Middle Asia built by the tribes called Saka in the

sources).

*7DBC74B?428L2B>5C744C7=>64=4C820;?A>24BB4BC70C8=<0=HF0HB?A4?0A43C74

further development of ethno-historical situation in left bank Khorezm was determined not

only by the internal factors of socio-economic development of local pastoralists, but also by

4GC4A=0;8=MD4=24BC70C;43C>B4@D4=C80;>AB8<D;C0=4>DB8<?02CB>538554A4=CCH?4B>52A8B4Bwhich, in addition to environmental, had also a forced social(potestar) and probably religious

nature.

"Kangar" (Kangyuy/Kanju/Koykrylgan) stage

At the turn of the 5th-4th cc. BC Khorezm actually achieved a political independence of

the Achaemenid empire, and that time becomes a beginning of a new, "Kangar" stage of the

Khorasmian statehood development. Apparently, trying to emphasize the cultural and

typological differentiation between Khorezm and the Kangar kingdom of the chronicles, a

group of researchers (Itina et al, 1996) proposed to replace the traditional reference to that

era, the term "Kangar" (Kangyuy) to "Koykrylgan" phase (reference to the etalon monumentof the Khorasmian archeology, Koi-Krylgan-Kale). The dating of the lower chronological

Page 12/23



date of that era is challenged only by B.I.Weinberg (1981, pp. 84), which sets it in the middle

of the 4th c. BC. The upper time horizon is also not very clear determined archaeologically.

&A4E8>DB;H8CF0B2>=L34=C;H34<0A:0C431HC74=32=>F8C3>4B=>C4G2;D34C74

possibility to bring it up to the1st c. BC. Such approach is appropriate because just the turn of

the 2nd-1st c. BC is marked by the destruction and subsequent desolation of many fortresses

and settlements in the Khorezm ancient period. Experts have different reasons for thedevastation. Some (Itina et al, 1996, p.25) link it with the onslaught of the nomadic tribes that

?0AC828?0C438=C7434BCAD2C8>=>5C74A42>02CA80(Tochars, Ases, Sabirs), others (Weinberg,

0?F8C7A4;868>DBA45>A<F78278=?0AC82D;0A;43C>L=0;34BCAD2C8>=>5C742D;C

1D8;38=6BF8C728A2D;0A;0H>DC>5C74!>8!AH;60=:0;0!0;0;06HA0=3H0DACH?4

It is important that the minting of the ancient Khorezm coins and establishing their own

chronology happened at that time, which scientists believe (Itina et al, 1996, p.25) was a

result of their economic independence from the "Kangar" ("Kangüy") , which was

accompanied by the establishing a new dynasty in Khorezm.

It was the beginning of this era, at the turn of the 5th-4th cc. BC, that in the territory of the Khorezm left bank, after a long break, appear new burial kurgans. This archaeologically

determined fact can't not to be justaposed against a common historical canvas of the political

situation in the region. B.I.Weinberg (1991a, p.46, 1991b, p.136) believes that in the post-

Achaemenid period, the Khorezm State took a protectionist stance towards the pastoralists

who settled in the territory of the Khorezm left bank.

It is possible that the emergence of the new pastoral groups on the Khorezm periphery

was caused by external (environmental) factor. The fact is that the 4th-2nd cc. BC fall into a

period of sharp aridization of the landscapes in the Ural steppes (Demkin, Ryskov, 1996a;

Demkin, 1997, p.158), which became a cause of a massive outpouring of nomadic

populations, in particular from the Southern Eastern Urals (Tairov, 1995). However, the

?A>24BB>5C74BC4??43AH8=60=334B4AC8L20C8>=383=>C70E406;>10;270A02C4A22>A38=6C>

.(HB:>E00=3,4<:8=0?C744=E8A>=<4=C0;3H=0<82BF8C78=C74

Southern Urals did not go beyond the steppe/dry-steppe conditions, and remained favorable

for life. That was one reason for the concentration in the Southern Urals of the Sarmatian

cultural and economic type populations in the initial stage of the formation of that culture.

That concentration apparently has led to a demographic crisis, which was a driving cause for

cyclical and multidirectional migration of the Sarmatians during the 3rd-2nd cc. BC not only

to the west (Jelezchikov, 1983; Skripkin, 1990), but also to the south, to the oases of Middle

Asia (Skripkin, 1984, 1990).

Notable parallels in some of the classic attributes of the Sarmatian and Khorezmian

herders' funeral traditions suggest that the Sarykamysh delta territory of the Amu Darya in

that period was open to migrants from the Ural steppes. However, the southern Aral Sea

region has no necropolises with a complex of traits that can be attributed to the ethnic

Sarmatians. The exceptional instability of the orientation of the deceased, the absence of an

inventory complex accompanying the burial typical for the nomadic burial rituals of that era,

and in particular of the armaments, all that suggests gradual and sporadic waves of migration

that led to a certain syncretism of the funeral rituals. This syncretism emerged on the basis of

the migrant heterogeneity, that in addition superimposed on the local cultural and ideological

traditions.

Page 13/23



It is different with the anthropological evidence. They clearly demonstrate a sharp change

in the physical type of the Aral pastoralists, compared with previous, Early Saka era. They do

not allow to completely exclude the involvement of the "Kuyusai" population (a blend of

western Timber Grave nomads with eastern "Saka" nomads) in the formation of the

anthropological type of the Khorezm pastoralists in the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BC,

but clearly show a common (at a high taxonomic level) (i.e. Negroid vs. Caucasoid vs. Mongoloid) origin of the Sarmatian and Sarykamysh populations during the Kangar era. The

geographical homeland of the common craniological complex lies outside of the South Aral

Sea and probably lays in the Ural steppes of the Savromat time (Sauromat time 6th-4th cc.

BC; the Saka Masguts mostly left the Aral area, to re-appear in the Caucasian steppes on the

;@41>?501;2@41-?<5-:'1--:0@41(59.1>>-B1'->9-@?@;;7@415><8-/1?53:5I/-:@8E

changing the demographical picture. The cause of the Sarmat migration is confusing,

aridization is a bad catalyst for a demographic explosion of the pastoralists).

)D<<8=6D?C74LABC<0BB8E40A2704>;>6820;BCD3H>5C74!7>A4I<?0BC>A0;6A>D?B

B.I.Weinberg developed a thorough concept, according to her understanding then of the

historical situation in the Khorezm left bank. The schematical presentation of that concept isas follows (Weinberg, 1979a, p.52, 1979b, p.171-176):

1. At the turn of the 5th-4th cc. BC Kuyusai (Sarmat) population solidly joined the

cultural and ideological sphere of the Khorezm state; not later than the turn of the 5th-4th cc.

BC occurs a transition of the Kuyusais (Sarmats) burial ritual to burials of pre-cleansed bones

in the ceramic vessels; a synchronous phenomena is observed in the tombs of the Uzboi

?;0C40D?0BC>A0;8BCBC74B4?A>24BB4B0A44G?;08=431H0=8=MD4=24>5C74A4;868>DB?>;82H>5

the later Achaemenids (with that dating of the earliest Sarykamysh ossuaries agreed

#,>A>184E0?014BC2>==>8BB4DA>5C74!7>A4B<80=24A0<82B0=3

Rapoport, 1996, p.58, a leading expert on the history of religion in Khorezm);

2. In place of the burial kurgans of the Kuyusai culture (a blend of western Timber Grave

nomads with eastern "Saka" nomads) came kurgans with side chamber burials with northern

orientation of the deceased, dated to 4th c. BC The disappearance of the Kuyusai culture

monuments is not related with environmental shocks, the Kuyusais were displaced from the

western part of the Sarykamysh delta by nomadic migrants;

3. By the 2nd-1st c. BC belong the burials in the side chamber under the western wall of

the burial pit, and the catacombs with a southern orientation of the deceased. These burials

are accompanied by the alien for the Khorezm ceramics, yet in the 2nd c. BC - 1st centuries

AD the newcomers came into a close contact with the local populations, which is determinedfrom the materials of the Khorezm settlements, and from the burial rituals. By that same time

belong the Tumek-Kichidzhik repeated communal burials in the pits with dromoi.

In her later works, B.I.Weinberg decisively changed almost all the basic tenets of that

concept, and came to the following conclusions (Weinberg, 1991a, p.51 et seq., 1991b, pp.

136 et seq.):

1. The Achaemenid period in the history of Khorezm ends in the middle of the 4th c. BC;

2. In the post-Achaemenid period (4th-2nd cc. BC) in the Khorezm left bank appears a

new group of cattlemen, who left there their burials in the pits, pits with side chamber, andcatacombs.

Page 14/23



3. Kurgans with side chamber and catacomb burials, ceramics alien to Khorezm, and a

complex of weapons that includes swords, daggers, bows, and arrows appear in the Khorezm

not later then the 3rd c. BC and mark the appearance there of the earliest groups of nomadic

populations.

4. Community burials in pits with dromoi and side chamber of the Sakar-Chaga 1 burials(without armaments, with various head orientations of the deceased) belong to the time not

earlier than the1st c. BC, and demonstrate the results of adoption by the earlier (3rd c. BC)

nomadic groups of local burial traditions. Community and side chamber-catacomb burials of

the Tumek-Kichidzhik cemetery (contrary to the conclusions of V.A.Lohovits, 1979) are not

synchronous and do not represent a monocultural group.

5. The earliest Horezmian ossuaries are dated at approximately a middle of the 4th c. BC

(Weinberg, 1991b, p.129).

It appears that the new archaeological and paleoanthropological materials included in this

book support (in terms of ethnogenetical reasoning) the earlier concept of B.I.Weinberg.

Indeed, the community burial in crypts and side chambers of the Sakar-Chaga 1 burials,

34B?8C40;;C74385L2D;C84B>530C8=62>=C08=02><?;4G>5C74!7>A0B<80=24A0<82B>5C74;0C4

Kuzeligyr or early "Kangar" type. This fact, even with the rejuvenation by half a century of

the beginning of the "Kangar" phase, as suggested by B.I.Weinberg, leaves as probable a

suggestion of the earlier (4th-2nd cc. BC) dating of the burials, in respect to the side chamber

- catacomb complex, which Weinberg dates by "not later than the 3rd c. BC. In a separate

0AC82;4#0B;>E.01;>=B:HF7827<08=?A>E8B8>=B0A4A4M42C438=C78B1>>:F4

1A>D67CB44<8=6;HF4867CH0A6D<4=CB8=50E>A>50L=38=6C70CB834270<14A20C02><1

burials with imported pottery and a complex of armaments can not be dated before the end of

C74=320=3C74D??4A;8<8C>5C744G8BC4=24>5BD271DA80;B8BC74LABC24=CDAH

So it turns out that at least from the relative chronology point of view, the Sakarchagin

complex represents the earliest wave of migrants from the Ural steppes and forest-steppe that

settled in the territory of the Khorezm left bank.

In their funeral ritual especially clear are displayed some archaic features which have

parallels in the tombs of the Southern Aral Early Saka time, a presence of the corridor-type

entries into the burial chamber, a custom that allows a partial or even complete destruction of

A4;0C8E4;H>;34A6A0E4B8=0AA0=68=6C74=4F6A0E4B0DB4>5LA48=C745D=4A0;2DBC><0

presence of sand padding at the bottom of the burial chamber. These and other local customs

greatly facilitated a transition of local herdsmen to the Zoroastrian funeral tradition in its

Khorezm version, which at one time B.I.Weinberg rightly emphasized (1979a, p.52). None of

these features can be traced in the graves of just thye very group of nomads who the

researcher assigned a role of Sarykamysh pioneers. The layout of the Sakar-chaga dromos

graves, surprisingly reminiscent of the residential structures' layout among the Sauromat

population during the early Sarmat time in the E.Urals (see: Habdulina, 1994, p.32;

#>68;=8:>E?4CB4@C74L=3B>5C74A>D=31>CC><24A0<825>A<BF78270;B>14

connected with the Ural regions, all these features are indirect indications in favor of

relatively early dating of these complexes. The anthropological data, in turn, indicate a more

than likely belonging of the Sakarchagins to the population of the "eastern" Ural type in the

Sauromat-Sarmatian time. The appearance of the funerary structures of this type in the AralSea region should not be examined out of context of almost analogous in design crypts of the

Page 15/23



Southern Urals and Eastern Urals, which after the 4th c. BC were no longer found there

(Moshkova, 1963, p.18).

However, the existence in Khorezm of community burials in various stages of historical

development in pits with dromoi, which are usually accompanied by culturally the same type

1DA80;B>5>C74ACH?4BB7>FBC70CC74?0A0<4C4A>52>;;42C8E8CH8=8CB4;58B=>CBD5L284=C;Hweighty argument for this territory in favor of the chronological attribution of such structures.

This observation requires another explanation. So far one fact is clear: the conclusion of

researchers in the archeology of the Sarmatian time Urals, that the community burials with

dromoi are the evidence of high social status of the buried people (Smirnov, 1984, p.42;

*08A>E0EA8;HD:??8B2><?;4C4;H=>C0??;8201;4C>>A4I<80=2AH?CB>F4E4A

the fact, that in this case the social factors were a key formative element in the funeral

tradition, stands without doubts. The Khorezmian written sources dated by the 4th-2nd cc.

BC recorded a fact of collaborative effort between the free and the slaves (Itina et al, 1996, p.

15). But the hypothesis that allows to link this fact with different ways of burial (communally

or individually) is feasible, but at the same time too bold.

The discussion on the arrival chronology of various of cattle breeder groups to the

Khorezm territory does not deny a similarity of the general ethnogenetic plan positions: in the

2nd half of the 1st millennium BC to the Sarykamysh territory migrated heterogeneous

groups of nomads, some of which transitioned to the sedentary or semi-sedentary lifestyle

within a limited territorial area.

In terms of the model constructed by V.A.Shnirelman, this transition means for them a

crisis of the traditional husbandry system. The paleodemographic picture assembled from the

analysis of major indicators for the population that left Sakar-Chaga 1 cemetery, points to a

brevity of this crisis the average age of death in that population is characterized by relatively

high numbers, even on modern scale, the skeletons have no pathological changes that would

indicate a massive spread of diseases, the sex ratio in the population was normal, and the

infant mortality was low. All this is an indirect proof of a short duration of the crisis

experienced by this group. We can further assume that this group still at the place of former

location had a tendency to semi-sedentary life, and this trend is most pronounced in the early

Sarmatian time at the population of the Eastern Urals forest-steppe, whose economy was

based on a complex farming. (Culture of E.Urals pastoralists ..., 1997; Mogilnikov, 1997).

Equally important for the process of cultural adaptation of the newcomers was a fact that the

Eastern Urals forest-steppe people had a long tradition of close relations with the populations

of the Saka cultural circle (Tairov, 1993, p.201; Mogilnikov, 1997, p. 103 et seq.).

In general historical perspective, the peopling of the Sarykamysh by culturally diverse

groups of pastoralists from the eastern areal of the steppe and forest-steppe was a result of

general relocations, precipitated by the political-military (Dandamaev, 1963) and

environmental (Ryskov, Demkin, 1997) events. In the course of these events, in the Southern

Urals steppes formed an early Sarmat (Prokhorov) culture, anthropological heterogeneity of

which is beyond any doubts (Yablonsky, 1997) @45?>1-85@E/;:J5/@?C5@4@41@4/1:@A>E

tenet about linguistical homogeneity of the Sarmats, Scythians, Alans, and Ossetians).

In parallel, on a close cultural and anthropological base in the Southern Aral Sea region

went on the formation of a culturally discrete ethnos of the Khorezmian pastoralists. The

B?428L28CH>5C78B?A>24BB8B5DAC74A4<?70B8I431HC742DBC><>50AC8L280;;H345>A<437403For the population of the Sarmatian cultural circle this custom is not known yet.

Page 16/23



A notable syncretism of the funeral traditions of the Middle Asian pastoralists (in the

archaeological literature it received a strange name "Sarmatoid") is due to its multicomponent

base, which initially had common traits in the burial traditions with the populations that

formed the Sarmatian ethnos.

However, no later than the mid of the 4th c. BC, in the funeral tradition of theSarykamysh clearly transpired the trends that decisively indicated the irreversible process of

cultural and ethnic divergence of the Aral and Ural pastoralists. First of all, we are talking

about a mass transition of the Khorezmians to a ritual of burial pre-cleansed human bones in

the ossuary vessels. In a "pure form", the earliest manifestations of this custom were

0A2704>;>6820;;HA42>A3438=:DA60=6A0E4B>5C74*0AN<:0824<4C4AH-48=14A60

To the period around that same time belong the rare cases of the reburial of the skeleton

bones in humcha-like vessels (not a large vessel with handles) (side chamber burials in

)0:0A7060=42A>?>;8BC70C<0A:C74LABCBC4?B>5CA0=B8C8>=5A><8=7D<0C8>=C>>BBD0AH

burial. However. it must be admitted that a group of eight ossuaries of early Kangar time

5>D=31H-48=14A6D=34A0<>D=3>5>=4>5:DA60=B>=C74*0AN<:0878;;8=B?8C4>5

good archaeological investigation of that district, remains the only one dated by such earlytime9-6;>5:/1:@5B1@;I:0-:1C2;>92;>@41<1>1::5-8@>-05@5;:9-E.1@4-@@41A>3-:

tradition evolved in the northern areas with extended winter season, which allowed to

preserve the body of the deceased for extremely long periods. In the northern latitudes or in

the mountains, people who died in the autumn, winter, and spring were buried in the early

summer, when the ground thawed off. People who died in the summer, were buried the same

summer, except for celebrities that had to go through a last round ritual. For those vary rare

;//-?5;:?18-.;>-@1<>1<->-@5;:?5:/8A05:39A995I/-@5;:-:0<>1?1>B-@5;:5:-/-?71@

I8810C5@44;:1EC1>19-01(41?1>5@A-8?/;A80:;@.1;.?1>B105:@4101?1>@-:0;-?1?

conditions, and correspondingly a new form of the body preservation was found within the

traditional nomadic concept and etiology of the Kurgan tradition. At the same time,conformance to the burial tradition was supremely important for the living, because their

wellbeing crucially depended on the deceased successfully reaching his designation. The

commonality of the Tengrian beliefs is demonstrated by the spread of kurgans in the Eurasian

steppes from one end to another starting a millennium before the Western Cimmerians and

Scythians, and by the 6th c. BC Onogur Bulgars on the western end of the steppes sharing

their beliefs with their nomadic contemporaries in present Mongolia. The ossuary method

may be one of a raster of different approaches that were employed simultaneously, as an

adjustment to new climate, and in search of the best solution, and it should take generations

to coalesce on a uniform new tradition).

A really massive transition to that ritual, according to the archaeological evidence that wehave today, happened not earlier then the 1st c.BC, perhaps in the middle of the the 2nd c.

BC, in the Late Kangar time, the onset of which was marked by the previously discussed

global changes in the overall process of historical development in the Khorezm.

In the periodization system of the archaeological monuments in Khorezm this new stage

received a name "Late Kangar". The duration of that period in the absolute chronology is

determined within the mid 2nd c. BC - 1st c. AD (Nerazik, 1974, p.43).

In that period (ca 150 BC), in the territory of the Khorezm left bank appeared burials

with classical nomadic inventory, a rich complex of armaments which included, in particular,

composite bows of the "Hun" type. These nomads also brought with them different types of the ceramic vessels, which nevertheless are combined into one group - alien for the Khorezm.

Page 17/23



The burial chambers are also heterogeneous, among them are pits without additional

structures, pits with side chambers, pits with catacombs, pits with longitudinal shelves and

wooden ceiling. The diverse nature of the burial chambers and ceramics most likely indicates

a cultural heterogeneity of these nomadic groups. In turn, the paleoanthropological data

8=3820C4>=>=4B834C748A74C4A>64=48CH0=3>=C74>C74A0=0=C7A>?>;>6820;B?428L28CH8=

relation to those populations that are recognized as actually Khorezmian. Those cemeteriesC70CF42>=B834A43C>14C7440A;84BC8=C70CB4A84BH0DAB><41DA80;B>5*D<4:!8278398:

0=3*0AN<:08H84;343=>C=D<4A>DB0=32><?02C6A>D?8=C4A<4=CB*742A0=8>;>6820;

<0C4A80;B5A><C74H0DA1DA80;BB7>F?7HB820;38BC8=2C8>=14CF44=?>?D;0C8>=C70C;45CC70C

cemetery from the previous Khorezmian population. The burials of that type apparently

14;>=6C>C74LABC6A>D?>5=><03BF7>A4CA40C43C>C74=>AC705C4A<8;8C0AH?>;8C820;4E4=CB

2>==42C43F8C7C7450;;>5C74A42>02CA80=:8=63><*741DA80;2><?;4G4BF8C7

typologically similar lineup of the weapons, and also few in number, also appear at that time

around Uzboi (Yusupov, 1986) (The timing and typology favors the arrival of the Tochars/

Yuezhi, who were displaced from the Jeti-su in ca 160 BC, remained in Fergana for ca 30

years, and moved to the Aral area at about 130 BC, before assaulting the Greco-Bactrian

kingdom. Not all Tochars left from the Aral area, some stayed behind and were noted in the

area between Aral and Caspian seas by the Islamic writers. In the Caucasus, Tochars became

known under a name Digors. of The Tochars departure from the Aral area coincided with the

raids by the Eastern Huns, and the extension of the Eastern Hun state control into the Middle

Asia.).

Culturally of same type, but relatively more recent (1st-3rd cc. AD.) burials on the Tuz-

gyr upland (and probably Mangyr and Shahsenem) comprise dozens or even hundreds of

kurgans containing side chamber and catacomb burials (Lohovits, Khazanov, 1979, p.111).

So representative necropolices of that time exist neither around Uzboi nor on Usturt plateau.

This may indicate that Uzboi and Usturt plateaus in the end of the 1st millennium BC - early1st millennium AD became an arena of nomadic groups' movement from the south, but their

gradual concentration occurred in the territory of the Khorezm left bank. And apparently that

is not accidental.

Investigating the ethno-cultural identity of this type monuments, researchers noted their

extraordinary resemblance with the burials of the Bukhara oasis and Fergana (Lohovits, 1968,

pp. 156-167), and thought that these Sarykamysh cemeteries were left by the newcomer

groups that included "some Sarmatian or Sarmatoid element" (Lohovits, Khazanov, 1979, p.

129). B.I.Weinberg (1979b, p.175), emphasized the cultural (in relation to the synchronous

>A4I<80=B4CC;4<4=CBB?428L28CH>5C74*DI6HA1DA80;B0=30;B>=>C43BCA>=642>=><82

relations of the people that left them with the population of neighboring agricultural oases.

**A>L<>E01F7>LABC?D1;8B7430B:D;;5A><C74B>DC7F4BC4A=6A>D?8=C74

*DI6HA24<4C4A84B=>C43LABC;HC748AB8<8;0A8CHF8C7C74)0A<0C80=B:D;;B0=3B42>=3;HF8C7

C74B:D;;B>5C74BH=27A>=>DB>BBD0AH6A0E4B8=C74!0;0;06HA5>ACA4BB*74B4L=38=6B8=

?A8=28?;406A44F4;;F8C7>DA30C0>F4E4A8CB7>D;3142;0A8L43C70C022>A38=6C>>DA

calculation it appeared that the Tuzgyr male craniological series combination of the indexes

displays a greatest similarity with the skulls from the communal and side chamber graves of

the Sakar-Chaga 1 burials, which is a funerary complex belonging by all accounts to the

Khorezm aborigines. In the same cluster fall the skulls of relatively earlier ossuary graves of

C74*0AN<20;1DA80;BF7>B4!7>A4B<80=14;>=68=68B14H>=33>D1CB=C74B0<40AC82;4

**A>L<>E0<0:4B0=8<?>AC0=C0=3?A>?4A;H9DBC8L432>=2;DB8>=C70C34B?8C4C74>E4A0;;similarity, the skulls of the Middle Asia side chamber catacomb burials show signs of some

Page 18/23



heterogeneity of the population that left these graves. From that perspective, the exceptional

similarity of the Tuzgyr series with the series of a known Khorezm origin provides an

opportunity to express an important premise. It is that the south-western group of kurgans on

the Tuz-gyr upland was left by a Khorezm pastoralist population which took part in the

A42>02CA80=4E4=CB0=3C74=A4CDA=43C>C74C4AA8C>AH>58CB0=24BCA0;7><4;0=3*70C8BC74

reason which gave them an opportunity of not only unimpeded resettlement in Khorezm, butalso a smooth entry into a variety of contacts with local authorities and local farmers of the

Sarykamysh oases. Nevertheless, for some time (the duration can not be determined by the

archeological dating methods) they retained a funeral tradition which they acquired during

their stay outside of the Khorezm territory (In this line of logics, the "actual Khorezmians"

are genetical descendents of a blend of the western Timber Grave nomads with somewhat

Mongoloid eastern "Saka" nomads. Another nomadic group, physically undistinguishable

from the "actual Khorezmian" nomads, appeared in a compact area west of the Aral Sea

roughly synchronously with the Greco-Bactrian conquest. They are the same people that

populated Khorezm, are taken by the locals as their kinfolks, but unlike the Khorezmians, they

<>1?1>B10@415>;80.A>5-8@>-05@5;:?(413>;A<@4-@I@[email protected]?:;9-05/(;/4->?+A1F45

and the statement that the timing "can not be determined by the archeological dating

methods" is precisely the archeological determination of the timing, since the returning

conquerors, even if they were badly beaten, would have brought with them a mass of the

Greco-Bactrian artifacts, making the burials quite datable. The absence of these artifacts

points to a period prior to the Greco-Bactrian invasion. These communal burials are the

consequences of the Tochars' unpleasant experience in being pursued by the heterogeneous

Hun troops. The Huns made a deal with the Khorezmian chieftains, accepted their peaceful

submission, and drove their old Tochar adversaries loyal to their Tele As leaders out of their

domains, and drove them out for good. In the historical records, the sedentary Khorezmians

are called Sogdians, and the nomadic Khorezmians are called Saka, Massagets, and Dahae

for Tochars. In later sources, they are called Masguts and Digors. The Hun-Masgut symbiosis is recorded in the sources, and equally is recorded the absence of the Hun-Digor

symbiosis).

The Sarykamysh necropoleis of the late Kangar time (150 BC-100 AD) allow us to also

trace another parallel ethnogenetical line, associated with continuous cultural and historical

development pastoral population in the Khorezm periphery. That line archaeologically and

anthropologically clearly transpires in the materials of the ossuary cemeteries.

The massive shift to ossuary ritual (and, consequently, rejection of the previous burial

traditions), occurred in the Khorezm left bank not before the end of the 2nd c. BC; however,

the very possibility of such transition was prepared well in advance of its implementation,because few signs of the Mazdeist beliefs can be traced in the steppe funeral ceremony,

including Saka-Massagetan cultural circle, from the ancient times. At the same time, these

signs were in a dispersed, "suspended" state, and have not acquired yet a form of a strict

canonical structure of the funeral ritual.

Speaking about reasons for a swift transition of large groups of the Khorezm people to

the ossuary ritual, should be recalled a brilliant hunch of A.Rapoport, who in his 1971

monograph substantiated the dating of thr Khorezmian ancient ossuaries, 2nd c. BC. At that

time the researcher did not yet know about the upcoming discoveries made during

4G20E0C8>=B>=C74*0AN<:080=3)0:0A7060D?;0=3B0=3<0342>=2;DB8>=B>50

chronological plan based on the study of the written sources. In particular, he referred to the1st fargard of Videvdat, written exactly in the 2nd c. BC. This passage, according to A.

Page 19/23



(0?>?>ACA4M42CB2;08<B>5C74AB70:83A0=B(i.e. Parthia, or at the most Persia) to a

political and ideological hegemony, expressed in a desire to eliminate "sinful" funeral

traditions in some countries, one of which (Chagra) could be Khorezm. A.Rapoport further

suggests that it is in the the 2nd-1st c. BC in Khorezm entirely prevailed different forms of

expository funeral ritual, for a long familiar to the Khwarezmians, and it turned out to be the

only acceptable ritual for the Zoroastrian theorists (Rapoport, 1971, p.57-58). In the samecontext is apparently necessary to recall the B.I.Weinberg hypothesis about destruction of the

Khorezm ancient religious structures as a result of a religious reform, and that the destruction

date recorded archaeologically belongs to that time.

When external canonization of the Khorezm burials ossuary ritual in the late Kangar

C8<48=C74A8CD0;0A4>1B4AE43=D<4A>DBA4<8=8B24=C8=3820C>ABC70CC4BC85HLABC;H01>DCC74

recent canonization, and secondly, about a persistence of the ancient burial customs. First and

foremost, we are talking about the construction of kurgan mounds over the ossuaries, about

DB4>5C74LA48=C745D=4A0;24A4<>=HC7401>DCC74L=3B8=C74>BBD0A84B>5C74

accompanying inventory, the about the plans of the kurgans mirroring the concentric ring

arrangement of the graves in the kurgans of the early Sarmatian time.

In ethnogenetical aspect, the conclusion based on data from paleoanthropology appear

B86=8L20=CC8BC70CC>C74>BBD0AH24A4<>=H8=C74!7>A4I< territory transitioned not only

the groups of aboriginal people, but also other nomadic populations, who were sporadically

settling in the territory subject to the State. However, the same data indicate that along with

the processes of economic integration, and the cultural and ideological consolidation of the

?0BC>A0;8BC?4A8?74AH>5!7>A4I<8=C74BC0C4F0B02C8E4;H34E4;>?8=60=31HC74LABC

centuries AD was mostly completed, the formation of relatively homogeneous

anthropological type, which in its basic characteristics is similar to the one that is inherent in

C74<>34A=A4?A4B4=C0C8E4B>5C74=>AC74A=?>?D;0C8>=B6A>D?B>5C74#833;4B80=8=C4AMDE4race (Is not this something, the modern morphology of the Middle Asian population was

relatively homogeneous by the beginning of our era, and did not change much over the next 2

millennia, even though it experienced multiple massive intakes of the Türkic populations. To

name a few, these are various Huns of the Antique and Late Antique times, Karluks, Uigurs,

Ogusez, Late Middle Age Kimaks and Kipchaks, Uzbeks, and Nogais. On top of it, there were

5:JAD1?;2";:3;85-:?@;/7;:8E@41+/4>;9;?;91;2-?5:3815:05B50A-845:35F4-:

resides in the 10% of the Middle Asia male populace. And there were other Mongols too. The

9-??>18;/-@5;:?01<5/@109;>18571-J;;05:@4145?@;>5/-885@1>-@A>1?A<<;?108E/-A?10-

:1->8E/;9<81@185:3A5?@5/(A>75I/-@5;:;2@411:;>9;A?5:?5F1"50081?5-.A@

osteologically-wise they had a nearly zero effect. Anybody in a sober state can see the

absurdity of the scenario. Something must be wrong, either the modern physical anthropologyis completely out of whack, unable to discern between the true Iranians and the Türks even

on a high taxonomical level, or the Iranian paradigm is totally out of whack, conjured by

over-enthusiastic 20th c. nationalistic or racistic sciences).

Kushan and Early Athrikh periods

The Kushan period in the history of Khorezm usually is dated within the 2nd-3rd cc. AD.

The ceramic complexes of that period in the Khorezm settlements are already dated with the

L=3B>52>8=B,>A>184E&)><4A4B40A274AB3>=>C4G2;D340?>BB818;8CH>5C74

Khwarizmian recognition of the Kushan power, but apparently that period was short-lived, as

already in the 3rd c. AD Khorezm resumed minting of its own coins, and its sovereignty atthat time is beyond doubt (Nerazik, 1974, p.43).

Page 20/23



According to our data, the ossuary funeral tradition at that time was undergoing

B86=8L20=C270=64BHC74A324=CDAH38B0??40A<0BB8E42>=BCAD2C8>=>5 kurgans with

circular arrangement of ossuaries. Judging by the materials of the Sakar-Chaga 6 necropolis,

ossuaries continued to be buried in the ground, but under very small and often

indistinguishable from the surface mounds often were one, less frequently two or three

ossuary vessels installed in the burial chambers that modeled side chambers or catacombs inminiature. Along with them is also known an ossuary communal burial in a large pit with

dromos and wooden ceiling, which was supported by a complex system of columns, set on

stone slabs that mimic bases.

The prevailing forms of ossuaries also change, are arriving new forms. In the late Kangar

period, among the Khorezm ossuary necropolises predominated pot-like ossuaries, which

coexisted with quite rare elongated box- and sarcophagus-like ossuaries, rarer with a statue.

Now the picture is changing, the pot-like ossuaries are found only rarely, the statues

disappear altogether, but sarcophagus-like forms become predominant. The covers of some

ossuaries are decorated with sculptural images of the head of a horse, or birds (dove) with

5>;343F8=6B??40A43C74LABC10B8=B70?43>BBD0A84B<0345A><A0F2;0H0=3B<40A43on the outside with white alabaster solution. However, in the cemeteries of that period we do

not yet meet any yurt-like ossuaries or ossuary with square base, which are widely spred

somwhat later. Some ossuaries were installed on the tops of the Early Saka time largest

kurgans. These cases indicate a beginning in the formation of the ideas associated with

exposing the ossuaries on the open, but high places. In later times, this idea is embodied in

the construction of the nauses known, in particular, from the excavations in the vicinity of the

Kang-kala fortress.

Along with that, in the materials of the Sakar-Chaga 6 ossuary necropolis can be traced

that at that time the funeral traditions still carries many reminiscent signs from the previouseras. Among the ossuary graves are found not only synchronous burials with inhumation in

the catacomb chambers, but also group split burials in paired side chamber niches, and in two

cases the ossuaries were accompanied by incense burners, in the same category can be

included a custom of installing the ossuaries in not large pits with side chamber niches, an

entrance to which was traditionally blocked with slabs of limestone.

The opinion of A. Rapoport (1996, p.73-74) that in the Kushan period, in Khorezm is

ongoing a search for new forms of ossuaries, better conforming with the canons of orthodox

Zoroastrianism, can be supported. The ossuaries gradually cease to be fetishes, the religious

objects, and they more and more gain a single meaning, a container for bones, in a form of a

house (yurt) or a parallelepiped sarcophagus on legs.

Considering the new materials and the dating of ossuaries cross-referenced with the

BCA0C8L4330C8=6>5C74!7>A4I<<>=D<4=CBC74=42A>?>;8B8=C74!0;0;H6HA5>ACA4BB<DBC

be "rejuvenated". The early period of its formation can be attributed to the time not earlier

than the 3rd c. AD, and apparently the main period of functioning within the 4th c. AD.

A><C70CC8<48=!7>A4I<5>A<B0=4F1DA80;CA038C8>=F74A4LABCC74>BBD0A84B0=3

then also incomplete complement of human bones, sometimes only a skull, were exposed in

the abandoned fortresses, or stacked in the crenels of the walls and towers.

A special place among the monuments of the Kushano-Athrikh (Afrosiab/Athrosiab ?) period in the left bank Khorezm occupy the burials containing pre-cleansed bones of people

Page 21/23



F8C70AC8L280;;H345>A<43A8=6CH?4345>A<0C8>=7403B14=27<0A:<>=D<4=C8=C78B

sense is a cemetery Yasa gyr-4. The materials of that cemetery, together with numerous other

data from the settlements and fortresses are directly related to the global changes in the

ethno-political map of Kazakhstan, Middle Asia and N.Pontic steppes which followed the

Hun invasion.

The archaeological, anthropological, numismatic and other data testify in favor of Syr

Darya, and possibly a more eastern (down to the Northern Mongolia) origin of the

newcomers (Nerazik, 1974, p.51-52; Weinberg, 1979b, p.177; Yablonsky, Bolelov, 1991, p.

32-33).

E.E.Nerazik (1974, p.51 et seq.) cites a whole complex of archaeological evidence on the

profound changes in the lives of the Khorezm people, which in the 4th-5th c. AD led to form

a culture very different from the culture of that state in the Antiquity Period and Hellenism.

In the territory of the Amu Darya Sarykamysh delta, that period (2nd-3rd cc. AD) belongs

C>C74L=0;BC064B8=C744C7=>64=4B8B>5C7440A;H?0BC>A0;?>?D;0C8>=8=C74!7>A0B<80=periphery. At that time a deep and protracted crisis of the region pastoralist culture was again

caused by purely environmental change, at that time occurred a new drying of the Amu Darya

Sarykamysh delta, Sarykamysh Lake, and Uzboi channel. This process was traced by

B.I.Weinberg (1991b, 1997). As a result, until the 10th century, on the abandoned lands of the

ancient irrigation were developing aftermath landscapes. A new stage in the ethnogenesis was

developing there from the 10th c. to the 16th century. But in the the 17th century, because of

the environmental crisis, the local population once again was forced to leave the territory. A

short-term development of irrigated landscape in the 19th c.- beg. of the 20th c. again ended

F8C70=4=E8A>=<4=C0;2A8B8B;DB7:>?F782734B?8C40;;C74502C>AB>57D<0=

8=MD4=240=3;0A64;H3D4C>C74B4502C>AB2>=C8=D4BC>6A>F

Thus, the objective process leading to creation of preconditions for the formation of a

single ethnic group in Khorezm was never straightforward and ascending. It was periodically

interrupted by external factors: environmental, military, political, forced social (potestar), and

religious, which could act together or separately. Periodically, this process was realigned by

the appearance in the territory of Southern Aral Sea region of new and new nomadic groups.

A part of them, at each chronological period settling in the Khorezm periphery, accorded their

cultural and genetic contributions to the development of the ethno-historical and

anthropological situation in the region.

*74<08=;8=4B>5C744C7=>64=4B8B8=C74?0BC>A0;?4A8?74AH>5!7>A4I<M>F438=C74

general pattern of the human society development known from ethnology. Consequently,

they, in turn, can serve as models for solving ethno genetic problems in other regions,

4B?4280;;H8=C74>0B4B>5#833;4B800=3!0I0:7BC0=$0CDA0;;HC74H<DBC14<>38L438=

A4B?42CC>B?428L24C7=>64=4B4B8=C74;>20;0A40B

A systematic approach to the study of materials of different periods cemeteries allowed to

solve several ethnogenetic problems. The quality and reliability of conclusions made are

contingent on the degree of modern archaeological and paleoanthropological knowledge of

the region. So, The issues related to the absolute chronological attributes of individual

funerary complexes remain contentious.

Page 22/23



*74F4867C>50;A403H022D<D;0C43B284=C8L230C08BB>;0A64C70C0=D<14A>5@D4BC8>=B

including important ones in terms of general historical outline remained unaddressed in this

study. They need special and more in-depth exploration. From that perspective, the author

24AC08=;H3>4B=>C2>=B834AC78BBCD3H0B0L=0;F>A3$4E4AC74;4BB8C24AC08=;H20?B0BC0648=

the ethnogenetic study of of the Southern Aral burial sites in the middle of 1st millennium BC

- middle of 1st millennium AD.

Documents

Türkic Nomads and Chorasmia L.T. Yablonsky Stock-Breeders of the Ancient Khоrezm (Archaeology and phisical anthropology of the cemeteries) Russian Academy Of Sciensis Institute