05 part 4 (1.0). iron.int.pdf

151

Part IV

Interpretations of Eurasian ArchaeologyThe Iron Age

152

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

153

AbstractThe ever-growing interest in the history of the Eurasian popu-lations is due to the leading role that they played in the fate andevents of the European lands, particularly from the 3r centuryonward. Starting from that date, it became increasingly diffi-cult for Roman political authority to supervise and manage itsfrontier territories; this promoted new cultural contacts and re-lationships that were of basic importance to the historical andpolitical pattern of the infant Europe. The concept of limes it-self, was no longer interpreted as a barrier or an impassablefrontier, but as a permeable fabric which opened the way fornew populations to enter into the European ethnographic frame.The analysis of such channels of transmission and acquisitionis a still an unexplored field of research and study, and it islikely that it will reveal the level of amalgamation and inter-penetration that existed between the different cultures.

KeywordsMigrations, nomadic populations, Black Sea, Europe

IntroductionThis report provides a detailed and exhaustive outline of thepopulation movements that occurred in areas of southern andwestern Europe that were under the control of the Roman Em-pire. These population movements are particularly clearly il-lustrated in the region selected for this study. The historicaland archaeological sources will be examined as a componentof a multidisciplinary research system, thereby enabling themost exhaustive analysis. The first Germanic tribes appearedon the northern coast of the Black Sea during the first half ofthe 3rd century AD (Wolfram 1990 55-61). The quick succes-sion of events resulted in a dramatic change to the ethnic struc-ture of the peoples who had previously settled in the region.Jordanes has argued that the Germans initially settled on thenorthern banks of the Meotide in an area that was under thecontrol of the Bosphorus Cimmerian Kingdom (Jordanes 140-142). Here they partly coexisted with scattered groups of Alansand Sarmatians, who had established their own villages andlived in unfired clay houses with rock-cut floors. Archaeologi-cal surveys of these settlements have indicated that agricul-ture, cattle breeding, metalworking, and ceramic production

were well-developed activities. During the second half of the3rd century AD, Germanic and Alanic raids increased in fre-quency, partly as a consequence of their large scale develop-ments, thereby absorbing a range of objects that affected bothfemale and male clothing as well as their daily life (Ajbabin1995: 156–170). The Huns settled in the northern Caucasusregion after the second half of the 4th century AD, yet there isno agreement as to the nature of their origins and ethnic fea-tures. Ammianus Marcellinus stated that the Huns subjugatedthe Alans who were settled along the Don River, and the Gothsled by Ermenric during the reign of Emperor Valens (AD 364-378) (Ammiano Marcellino XXXI.3). Zosima (Zosimus IV.20)and Paolo Orosio (Paolo Orosio XXXIII.10) argued that dur-ing AD 376, they had forced a component of the Goths andtheir allies to cross the Danube and settle in the Roman prov-inces. Depopulation and repopulation processes in the areasinhabited by Hun ethnic groups brought about the birth of aHunnic reign that remained unchanged until the first half ofthe 5th century AD. In addition, these transitions led to the oc-currence of a number of major historical procedures. Indeed,the migrations of Vandals, Alans, Swabians, Gepids, Rugi, andLombards towards western regions resulted in the decline ofthe Roman Empire defenses, and the inception of Germanicrule in those areas that were already under the control of Ro-man political influence (Godlowski 1994: 1335–1337).

Geographical perceptions of EuropeThe study of the European division of territory should be con-sidered the first basic step towards an understanding of thesocio-political relations that existed within the various nomadicpopulations of the 1st to the 6th centuries AD (Godlowski 1994:1293–1298). In addition, is it also possible to gain an under-standing of the influences that they had on the exploitation ofthe lands, woods, and animals as well as their contacts with theRomans. Two different geographical perceptions of Europeexist; in the first, Europe is regarded as a peninsula and itsentire hill-covered western region is considered to be distinctfrom the western regions of Eurasia. Its coastal strip overlookstwo great bodies of water–the Mediterranean Sea and the At-lantic Ocean. During their various migrations westwards, Asi-

Paolo de VingoUniversity of Turin

Archaeology Specialization SchoolTorino

Historical and Archaeological Sources Relating to the Migration of Nomadic Peoples

Toward Central and Southern Europe During the Imperial Age

(1st - 5th centuries AD)

154


atic tribes would have had the choice of two major waterways.A western route existed that involved travelling through present-day Ukraine and Byelorussia, and through the woody planes ofWestern Europe. The other, less comfortable route ran alongthe lower Danube Valley and into the wide Hungarian plain.Following this perception Europe is considered to be a moun-tain peninsula, associated with proper circular passagewayssurrounded by the sea and the mountains, or solely by moun-tain ranges (Cunliffe 1994: 1257). The second, more conven-tional, but limited, perception envisages the European main-land as a sequence of wide lands running east to west and, start-ing from the Mediterranean basin, expanded backwards to thenorth. The front line is comprised of a mountain barrier formedby the Pyrenees, Cévenes, Alps, Dinaric Alps, and Balkan Moun-tains. Beyond these mountain ranges lay a mild Europe composedof hills, ridges and valleys, behind which is situated the forestedEuropean western plain that disappeared into a sea of islands andthe unknown (ibid.). This theory dictates that all northward com-munication routes crossing the various mountain ranges were ofmajor importance–the Pass of Carcassonne toward the west andthe Atlantic Ocean; the Rhône towards the confluence of the maincentral and western European rivers; the Alpine passes towardsthe Danube and the North; and finally the land stretching through-out Slovenia from the upper Adriatic Sea to the Trans-Danubianregion and the Hungarian plain.

Several populations lived and migrated within the Europeanconfiguration that stems from these two different geographicalperceptions. The western European regions were the target forsuccessive waves of peoples coming from the east and north–the Goths, Cimmerians, Alans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns,Avars, Bulgarians, Magyars and Mongols––who all played acrucial role in the history of Europe between the 8th centuryBC and AD 13th century (ibid. 1258–1259).1 This picture alsoincludes a population–the Goths–who would have at least ini-tially occupied the northern European plains from the Pannonianmoors and bogs to the wide Byelorussian plain (Vaccaro 1996:34). Their evolution is quite clear, and initially they would havelived in the north surrounded by the Baltic and North Seas, andby the steppe peoples of the east. At times of overpopulationtheir only expansion route would have been southwards throughthe hills and valleys to the plains of Moldavia, the Ukraine, thelower Danube, and the Crimea. As a result of pressure from theHuns, they were finally pushed towards the Carpathian regionand the heart of the western Roman Empire (Italy, Aquitania,the provinces of Narbonne, and Tarragona). Eventually, theycame to occupy the entire Iberian Peninsula that was undercontrol of Visigoth kings, headquartered in Toledo until theIslamic conquest in 719 AD (ibid.).

To summarise, during the first six centuries AD, three popula-tion groups originating in the Russian steppes, and the north-ern and southern European plains, came into contact. This re-sulted in the development of a politically unstable situation.The main area of contact for the three groups throughout themajority of time followed an east-west axis that coincided withthe Rhine and Danube valleys. Indeed, the Roman border de-veloped along this line, apart from a few local exceptions in

the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. At an advanced stage, the Romanfrontier was not the result of a precise political strategy formu-lated by the Romans, but rather as a temporary stabilization ofa zone of contact between two opposing elements. From themiddle of the 2nd century AD, changes in military equilibriumoccurred that were a detriment to Roman supremacy; the arti-ficial division had totally disappeared by the 5th century AD. Itis necessary to examine this issue with a perception of Europethat goes beyond the Roman frontiers. In addition, it is impor-tant to analyze the interactions that occurred between the Ro-mans and nomadic cultures, as these variables may prove cru-cial to understanding the nature and extent of cultural contri-bution originating from both groups. Indeed, the substantialquantity of durable goods provided by the Roman World inconjunction with the labor force (principally slaves) from amongthe nomadic populations, may have acted as a catalyst of di-versified needs, sharing a common denominator. It would be amistake, therefore, to regard the Roman frontier as simply asymbol of military defense and permanent conflict. Indeed, anexamination of other social activities may help us to under-stand how the different ethnic groups interacted with each otheruntil the collapse of this politically unstable situation. It waswithin this context of instability that a series of mass migra-tions occurred that would leave an indelible mark on the his-tory of infant Europe (Cunliffe 1994: 1259–1260).

Historical and ethnographic outlineOf the populations that played a leading role during the firstfive centuries of the Roman Empire, a major contribution wasmade by the ethnic groups living on the steppes along the BlackSea, and on the plains of northern and central Europe. Despitethe differences in lifestyle and cultural practices, two elementswere common to these groups; an economy based on cattlebreeding and constant migrations.2 In some cases, in certainregions the tribes adopted a semi-permanent lifestyle. Thesteppes not only represented an environment of relative isola-tion, but also an established route that enabled easy contactwith the nomadic populations that lived beyond the middle andlower Volga region and the Urals, to the Chinese border(Leciejewicz 1994: 73–74).

The Alans and the Sarmatians were part of the Indo-EuropeanIranian group (Ajbabin 1995: 156). It is recorded in the Chi-nese Annals that during the 1st century AD, these tribes ruled anomadic confederation based in the Asian steppes (Artamov1962: 43). They occupied the lands between the Don River andAral Sea and the region north of the Caucasus; it was fromhere that they set out on their migrations towards the southernregions (Erdélyi 1991: 283). It is possible to gain a partial con-firmation of the precise location of the Alans in the texts ofRoman chroniclers who date the first contacts with such peoplesto the first half of the 1st century AD. Lucanus stated that theywere located in the northern Caucasus (Kulakovsij 1899: 11–13), while Flavio Giuseppe recorded that they were along theTanais (Don) River, and around Lake Meotide (Flavio GiuseppeVII.7-4). The geographical distribution pattern, however, didnot imply that these peoples shared historical developments,but rather favored the possibility of diverse developments that

155

led to non-uniform results. In AD 135, as a consequence of theforays and sacks that were undertaken by these peoples, thepro-praetor of Cappadocia, Flavio Arriano, organized an expe-dition against them. A report written by one of the officers ofthis expedition–the Impresa contro gli Alani –records that theboundaries of the territory occupied by these populations werebetween the northern Caucasian spurs, the Meotide area andthe river Tanais (Arriano fr. 25). Excavations undertaken inthis region have produced a number of cemeteries containingkurgans that were considered to have belonged to the Alans.The kurgans are generally constructed over graves that have along entrance (dromos) and an inhumation room, and containartifacts dating to the 1st–2nd centuries AD (Kuznetsov 1984:20–22). It is thought that up until the second half of the 4th

century AD, the Alans who lived in the vicinity of the Sea ofAzov followed a generally nomadic lifestyle. This assertion isconfirmed in the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus who notesthat “The Alans…being a nomadic people,…wander throughextended regions…They build no huts, neither they grow thelands, and they live in bark-covered carts used to cross theboundless steppes… By driving their draught animals andflocks, they graze them; they have the utmost care towards theirhorses…” (Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI.2, 12-25).

From the first half of 3rd century AD (Wolfram 1990: 55–61),several groups of Germanic tribes appeared on the northerncoast of the Black Sea (Kazanski 1991: 28–39). Their appear-ance caused moves that greatly changed the ethnographic pro-file of this region (Ajbabin 1995: 156). Jordanes reports thatone of these migrations consisted of Gothic tribes that wouldthen come to occupy the entire area to the north and northwestof the Black Sea (Jordanes: 72). Here they created two sepa-rate cultures that developed as a consequence of the differencesexisting between the Greuthungi, or eastern Goths (Ostrogoths),and the Tervingi3 or western Goths (Visigoths). The two newcultures became known as the Cernjachov Culture and was lo-cated near Kiev, and the Sintana-de-Mures Culture, based inTransylvania.4 The Cernjachov Culture developed during thesecond half of the 4th century AD5: its formation was a com-plex phenomenon, strongly inspired by the Wielbark Culture.6

The impact of the Wielbark Culture can be clearly seen in hand-made pottery, the morphology of certain metalwork pieces and,above all, in the burial rites (Kazanski 1991: 18–28). Someimportant influences also came from the local Sarmatian andDacian substrata, as well as from the old centers of archaiccultures that had lived along the North Sea coast (Heather 1998:18-30). The Cernjachov Culture was characterized by largecemeteries with typical double burials. The settlements con-tain artifacts indicative of several forms of craftworking in-cluding ironwork, fine wheel-thrown pottery with a variety ofmorphologies, glass objects decorated with a checkered pat-tern,7 objects from everyday women’s costumes, and personalornaments including bone combs, necklaces with pendants in-dicating Eastern traditions, and amulets (Godlowski 1994:1324–1325). The typical characteristics of these settlementsare illustrated in the sites of Lepesovka in Volinia, and VelikajaSnitinka in the Ukraine. Clearly lacking in defenses, these sitesdisplayed a close relationship with the waterways, and con-

tained oblong huts arranged in parallel rows. Farming was welldeveloped; barley, millet, and oats appear to have been sownand then harvested during late summer (Vaccaro 1996: 35).Nomadic cattle breeding, however, also played a major role inthe economy. Seasonal moves in search of better climatic andgeographic conditions were necessary to obtain fodder for thelivestock. The communities were clearly aware of this needand used their knowledge of the land to mark the best routesfor their cattle moves and establish the most suitable sites fortheir various seasonal settlements (Fodor 1998: 43–44).

The appearance of a new ethnic group brought about the terri-torial and demographic fragmentation8 of the Alanic tribesthroughout different areas, thereby causing at least partial dis-ruption to the previous distribution pattern. Indeed, Germanicpopulations interrelated with isolated Alanic and Sarmatiangroups, resulting in the development of sedentary mixed vil-lages that were scattered along the northern shores of the BlackSea. Attacks originated from this sedentary base on the troopsgarrisoned to defend and supervise the fortifications locatedalong the Black Sea (Ajbabin 1995: 158). A second group ofAlanic tribes moved toward the southern Crimea, while a thirdnucleus maintained its semi-nomadic status and confined theroutes of its periodic moves to a narrow strip of land limited bythe Dniester River in the west and the Danube in the east(Ajbabin 1995: 156–157). The first of these demographic frag-mentations, which had parallels with the Gothic migration fromthe Baltic regions, resulted in the occurrence of the most sig-nificant events, both historically and culturally. Archaeologi-cal surveys have attested to the existence of a series of villagesthat are likely to stem from the Cernjachov Culture, while ex-cavations have identified the remains of subterranean dwell-ings with unfired clay roofs. On the basis of these archaeologi-cal remains, it has been suggested that the population followeda semi-nomadic lifestyle and devoted themselves to farming,cattle breeding, metalworking and pottery manufacture(Magomedov 1987: 62–75). Excavations in Koblevo,Furmanovka, and Bol’saja Korenicha have uncovered a num-ber of cemeteries with distinct graves–inhumation burials forthe Alanic and Sarmatian peoples, and cremation burials forthe Germanic peoples. These findings confirm that there was asubstantial coexistence of different funerary rites and customsat this time (Ajbabin 1995: 158). During the second half of the3rd century AD, a series of artifacts spread among the Alanictribes that inhabited the Crimea, and the mixed settlements scat-tered along the northern coasts of the Black Sea. These arti-facts may be considered an indicator of both a sedentarylifestyle, and the acquisition of manual skills that precipitatedan increase in the production of oval-shaped arched buckles,miniature bells, and harnesses for horses, knives, carneliannecklaces, amber, and polychromatic glass pots. The use ofdark clay vessels, double-cone ware of the Germanic tradition,various forms of Roman amphorae, or local imitations was alsocommon (Ajbabin 1995: 158).

The appearance of the Huns in the northern Caucasus (Heather1998: 97–108) at some time after the second half of the 4th

century AD, disrupted the earlier system of territorial organi-

Migration of Nomadic Peoples Toward Central and Southern Europe

156


zation.9 The precise origins of the Huns and their ethnic com-position have been the subject of numerous unresolved con-flicting opinions. The most reliable theory is that they had de-scended from the Turkic peoples and initially settled on theCilician frontier. There is no evidence, however, to suggest thestraightforward correlation between the Hunnish and Turkishlanguages (Derfer 1986: 72–116). Following this theory, it isassumed that they had moved from the Cilician frontier via thesteppes to the west at some time between AD 155 and 160(Gumilev 1960: 220). According to Ammianus Marcellinus,during the 4th century the Huns had subjugated the Alanic tribes,that were settled on the Don River, and the Goths, led byErmenric (Ammiano Marcellino XXXI.2,12; XXXI.3,1).Zosima (Zosimus IV.20) and Paolo Orosio (Paolo OrosioVII.33–10), however, recorded that in AD 376, the pressure onGothic and Alanic populations forced them to cross the Danubeand occupy Roman territory (Kazanski 1991: 66–87). TheHuns that were established within Roman territory contin-ued to practice a primitive form of nomadic cattle breeding(Randers-Pehrson 1983: 41–45). It is worth noting the co-existence of a double burial custom. The excavations ofNovogrigorovka uncovered the remains of a number ofgraves covered with stones of various sizes and earth, andthat contained the remains of human and animal cremations,in addition to armament, including swords, arrowheads, andhorse harnesses (Ambroz 1981: 19). A number of kurgansthat contained Eastern burials have been found in the Odessaregion where the deceased was associated with disarticu-lated animal bone and horse harnesses (Michajlov 1993:109–110). On the basis of the variety in burial rites, it isprobable that different ethnic groups coexisted within theHunnic population. By the early 5th century AD, the Hunsliving on the northern coast of the Black Sea began to exploitthe Crimean steppes for seasonal grazing10 (Ajbabin 1993: 209).Some burials have been found to contain personal objects as-cribed to these nomadic peoples. Indeed, excavations in thecemetery of Belajus produced a very rich burial dug into thefloor of an old funerary chamber and covered with stone slabs.The burial containing the remains of a nomadic adult male andhis equipment, and the skull, ribs and lower limbs of a horsewere recovered from immediately below the slab roof. It isprobable that the horse remains are associated with a ritual char-acteristic of Asiatic origin11 (Révséz and Nepper 1998: 55–56)and Baltic (Jaskanis 1991: 39–40) nomadic populations. Thehuman skeleton was positioned on the bottom of the grave inthe Mongolian-like north-south orientation. A gold earring wasfound near the skull, a silver buckle dated to the 5th centurywas recovered from near the pelvis, and a horse bit and harnesswere situated on the man’s knees (Ajbabin 1993: 160).

By the 5th century AD, the upper regions of Pannonia and theNoricum had become favorite migration routes for entire popu-lations, and they were crossed by the Vandals in AD 401, bythe Alaric and the Visigoths during the following year, and bythe Radagaisus in AD 405. In AD 408 the Huns and their allies,the Scythians, increased their attacks on the lower Danube; theywere eventually defeated and the captives were reduced to sla-very. The Hunnic pressure, however, did not show signs of

decreasing and by AD 420, large portions of Pannonian landswere under their control. A formal treaty that was signed in AD433, further strengthened the Hunnish control (Whittaker 1994:418–419). In AD 451, the defeat of Attila the Hun at CampusMauriacu was not only the most significant military event ofthe 5th century,12 but it also represented the end of Hunnish su-premacy. This process was accelerated in the succeeding fewyears as a consequence of the death of Attila (Kolendo 1994:435–436). Jordanes (Jordanes, 118–120) reports that follow-ing their defeat in the battle of the River Nedao, Pannonia, theHuns were forced to withdraw towards the northern regions ofthe Black Sea (Heather 1998: 109–129). Prisco di Panion re-fers to the Hunnic tribes that led a nomadic life in this regionduring the 5th century AD as the Akatziri (Prisco di Panion,tomo XI, 823), while Procopius of Caesarea designates the tribesthat abandoned the Danubian lands and returned to the Crimeaas the Utiguri (Procopio di Cesarea I.12, 7). The appearanceof Attila resulted in a reduction of their lands and a fragmenta-tion of the Huns into distinct groups. These processes finallyresulted in the emergence of a number of different tribes–theRugi in southern Austria, the Heruli in southern Moravia, theSwedish, Alans, and the Vandals in Pannonia (Whittaker 1994:420–421).

Military eventsBy the second half of the 4th century AD, the Huns advanceresulted in a wave of immigrations. The Cernjachov Cultureinhabitants of settlements in the Ukraine moved southwardsalong the shores of the Black Sea and westwards into Dacia.The Ostrogoths, who decided to keep their independence, inconjunction with the western Alans and some Visigoths, joinedthe flow of refugees that moved along the Mesian frontier.During the winter of AD 375-376 the Emperor Valens, in anattempt to settle the situation allowed them to cross the Danubeattempting to establish a portion of them in Thrace, and re-cruiting the remainder into the army. This type of solution hadproved successful in the past,13 but in this case it did not pro-vide the expected result as the influx of refugees substantiallyincreased during the following two years. In AD 378, when theEmperor Valens organized a military expedition to restore or-der, he was forced to fight against a combined army of Gothic,Alanic, and Hunnic warriors; he suffered a dramatic defeat atAdrianopolis14 (Cunliffe 1994: 1290–1291). The new EmperorTheodosius, attempted to settle the situation in a diplomaticmanner by lavishing privileges and generous gifts on the mainleaders of each tribe. The majority of the Goths settled in Thraceand Mesia in AD 382 (Whittaker 1994: 406–407), between theBalkans and the southern shore of the Danube, whereas thesmallest communities of Huns and Goths were given lands inPannonia. This agreement was beneficial for both parties asnew settlers acted as a potential barrier against further tribalmovements. In addition, the dramatic decimation of the Ro-man army was somewhat reversed by the introduction of newsoldiers15 (ibid., 1291–1292). The solution, however, provedto be successful for only a short period of time. As insurrec-tions and migrations of individual groups combined into a singleforce, the situation evolved into a veritable kaleidoscope ofdifferent tribes uniting according to their needs, and moved

157

into new lands. The existing unstable political situation wasslowly shattered as new population waves began movingthroughout central and Western Europe.

AcknowledgementsThe text was translated by Sonia Ligorati and I am gratefulfor hercareful and professional work.

Endnotes1. With regard to the said nomadic populations it is necessary to con-sider the questions concerning the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, andtheir different links with the Roman World.

2. Nomadic peoples began cattle breeding during the second half of the firstmillennium BC. This form of economy then spread throughout the Eurasiansteppes and forest steppes and, finally to the vast territory that lies betweenmodern China and the mouth of the Danube (Fodor 1995: 43).

3. Constantine paid great attention to the situation in Thrace and Mesiaand engaged himself in a number of battles against the Tervingi that,facing starvation and cold, were forced to sign a treaty in AD 332. Thetreaty enabled them to trade with the Romans and to receive financialaid and food in exchange for royal hostages and military service in theRoman army. This event, which the historical sources refer to as a Ro-man victory, marked the beginning of the Gothic integration into Ro-man culture (Whittaker 1994: 409).

4. These two cultural spheres cover a very wide region that comprisedthe entire forest-steppes and steppes of the Ukraine west of the Dnieper,the large territories located to the east of this river, Moldova, and partof Walachia and Transylvania.

5. The loss of the Dacian province and Aurelian’s decision to leaveTransylvania and the Carpathian Mountains, coincided with the appear-ance of these two cultures. Rome never intended, however, to relinquishcontrol of the fertile planes of Walachia and the Banat that stretchedbetween the Carpathian Mountains and the Danube. A substantial amountof evidence exists that pertains to the Roman presence and Diocletian’sbattles against the Goths and Sarmatians on the lower Danube. Severalhistorical accounts indicate that great attention was paid to Lower Mesiaand the limes Scythicus in Dobrudja (Whittaker 1994: 408).

6. The evidence obtained from archaeological surveys indicates that thephase of Gothic settlement identified in the vicinity of the Baltic coastsmay be recognized as the Wielbark Culture. This culture started its ex-pansion in the early Imperial Age in the region crossed by the lowerVistola. At the beginning of the 1st century AD, both the burial rites andthe material culture changed. The Wielbark Culture was characterizedby cemeteries that contained both inhumation and cremation burials,and weapons were lacking and tools are rare (Godlowski 1994: 1310).Personal ornaments recovered from female inhumations usually includedsnake-headed armbands, buckles, and Almgren-type fibulae that wereused to fasten clothing or cloaks (Vaccaro 1996: 34).

7. A glass-making workshop was recovered from a Cernjachov Culturesettlement in Komarov, along the middle Dniester River.

8. The spread of the Wielbark Culture, and the appearance of theCernjachov Culture, resulted in the collapse of the border that, beforethe Imperial Age, had separated central and Eastern Europe. Despitethe peculiarity of the Cernjachov Culture, its links with central Europewere so close as to suggest that it was a component of a single cultural

community generally extending as far as the Rhine and Scandinavia(Godlowski 1994: 1325).

9. During the late 4th century AD, the Huns moved towards the Danube,destroyed some Cernjachov Culture villages scattered on the steppesalong the north Black Sea coast. The Hunnic tribes that had settled inthis area made incursions into the Danubian provinces of the RomanEmpire (Ajbabin 1995: 159).

10. During the winter the cattle were bred in the sheltered valleys or atthe southern mouths of rivers where the snow was never deep enoughto prevent the animals from grazing. As soon as spring drew, near thecattle would have been moved to high pastures and forested plains (Fodor1995: 43).

11. Horse burial was typical of graves belonging to the middle classesand the Hungarian elite populations. One of the best horses would beselected, and then sacrificed and skinned. The skull, and bones of thelower limbs remained within the hide,which was then laid next to thedeceased. The horse’s tail was removed (Révséz and Nepper 1998: 55).

12. The major importance of the battle of Campi Catalaunici was that itenabled the examination of the Roman military organization. Romansoldiers were lower in number compared to the Visigothic foederati. Thevictory was not a Roman military success, despite the unquestioned stra-tegic genius of the magister militum Ezio I. The Visigoths’ victory shouldbe regarded as a defense of personal interests and retrieval of conqueredlands and rights from the Hun invasion (Kolendo 1994: 436).

13. The presence of foreign populations within the Roman Empire hada practical purpose that involved the defense of its frontiers against popu-lation movements. A secondary aim was to recover the lands destroyedby the numerous forays caused by garrisoning new troops. This planstemmed directly from the difficult task faced by Rome in its attempt topreserve and maintain control along the frontiers of an immense empire(Kolendo 1994: 436).

14. The defeat of Adrianopolis proved that the loss of frontier lands wasnot the result of exterior military pressures but rather of inner politicalinstability. Although this battle was one of the major military defeatssuffered by the Roman army, and despite the huge number of foreignsettlements in the Empire, none of these elements were responsible forthe deterioration of the frontier (Whittaker 1994: 407).

15. Note that the military recruitment was not generalized as the newlyacquired armies were put under the command of warriors of the sameethnic group and armed according to specific customs. This strategy madethe situation more complex and forced the Romans to adapt to completelynew fighting techniques. The gradual development of a military organiza-tion that counted a very small number of Romans became a major factorfrom the 4th century AD onwards (Kolendo 1994: 438–439).

ReferencesAmbroz, K. A. 1981. Vostonoevropejskie i sredneaziatskie stepi vpervoj polovine VIII v, pp. 19–30 in Ribakov B. A., ArcheologijaSSSR, Stepi Evrazii v epokchu srednevekovja, Moscow: Nauka (“Thesteppes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia in the first half of the8th century.” Archaeology USSR, the Eurasian steppes in theMiddle Ages).

Artamov, M. I. 1962. Istoriya Chazar. Leningrad: State Hermit-age (“The history of the Chazari”).


158


Ajbabin, A. 1995. Gli Alani, i Goti e gli Unni, pp. 165–70 in Dalmille al Mille. Tesori e popoli dal Mar Nero. Milano: Electa (“TheAlans, the Goths and the Huns.” From the year one thousand tothe year one thousand. Treasures and peoples of the Black Sea)

Cunliffe, B. 1994. L’organizzazione della frontiera come fattoredi destabilizzazione, pp. 1257–92, in Guilame, J. and Settis, S.(eds.), Storia d’Europa 2. Preistoria e antichità. Torino: EinaudiEditori (“The frontier organization as disrupting element.” Eu-ropean history 2. Prehistory and ancient times).

Derfer, G. 1986. O yazike gunnov, Zarubezhnaja tjurkologija,pp. 72–116 in Drevnie tjurkskie jazyki i literatury. Moscow (“Thelanguage of the Huns, foreign Turkology.” Turkish old languagesand literature).

Erdélyi, I. 1991. Alani, pp. 283–4 in Romanini, A. M. (ed.),Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale. Roma: Nuove Arti GraficheRicordi (“The Alans.” Encyclopedia of Medieval Art).

Fodor, I. 1998. Economia e Società, pp. 43–7 in Fodor, I., Révézs,L., Wolf, M., Nepper, I. M. and Govi, C. M. (eds.), Gli antichiUngari. Nascita di una Nazione. Ginevra-Milano: Skira (“Economyand Society.” The ancient Hungars. The birth of a nation).

Godlowski, K. 1994. I Barbari nell’età imperiale romana, pp. 1292–337 in Guilame, J. and Settis, S. (eds.), Storia d’Europa 2. Preistoriae antichità. Torino: Einaudi Editori (“The Barbarians in the RomanImperial age.” European History 2. Prehistory and ancient times).

Gumilev, L. N. 1960. Gunny. Moscow: Nauka (“The Huns”).

Heather, P. 1998. The Goths. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaskanis, D. 1991. Prima fase dell’AltoMedioevo (VI-VII), pp.39–49, in Jaskanis, D. and Kaczynéski, M. (eds.), I Balti. Alleorigini dei Prussiani, degli Iatvinghi, dei Lituani e dei Lettoni. DalV secolo al XIV secolo. Firenze: Cantini (“First stage of the earlyMiddle Ages.” The Balts. At the origins of the Prussians, theIatvinghs, the Lithuanians, the Latvians. The 5th–14th centuries).

Kazanski, M. 1991. Les Goths (Ier-VII après J.-C). Paris: EditionsArranchie (“The Goths”).

Kolendo, J. 1994. I barbari del Nord, pp. 425–41 in Carandini,A., Ruggini, L. C. and Giardina, A. (eds.), Storia di Roma. 3.L’età tardoantica. Crisi e trasformazioni. Torino: Einaudi Editori(“The Northern Barbarians.” The History of Rome 3. The lateRoman time. Crises and transformations).

Kulakovsij, J. A. 1899. Alany po svedenijam klassicheskikh ivizantijskikch pisatelej. Kiev (“The Alans according to the sourcesof Classical and Byzantine writers”).

Kuznetsov, V. A. 1984. Ocherki istorii alan. Ordzhonikidze (“Es-says on the history of the Alans”).

Leciejewicz, L. 1994. Il ‘Barbaricum’: Presupposti dell’evoluzionealtomedievale, pp. 41–83 in Ortalli, G. (ed.), Storia d’Europa,

Vol. III, Medioevo (secoli V-XV). Torino: Einaudi (“The‘Barbaricum’: Requirements of early Medieval evolution.” His-tory of Europe, Vol. III, The Middle Ages (5th–15th centuries)).

Magomedov, B. V. 1987. Chernjakhovskaja kultura Severo-Zapadnogo Prichernomorja, (La culture de Tchernjahov dans lesrégions du nord-ouest de la mer Noire). Kiev: Naukova Dumka (“TheCernjakhov Culture in the northern and western regions of theBlack Sea area”).

Melucco Vaccaro, A. 1996. Goti, pp. 34–40 in Romanini, A.M. (ed.), Enciclopedia dell’Arte Medievale, VII. Roma: NuoveArti Grafiche Ricordi (“The Goths.” Encyclopedia of Medi-eval Art, Vol. 7).

Michajlov, B. D. 1993. Pogrebenie gunnskogo vremeni vSevernoj Tavrii, pp. 109–10 in Materialy po archeologii, istoriii etnografii Tavrii, fasc. III. Simferopol (“The late Hun Em-pire in northern Tavria.” Tavrian archaeological, historical andethnological materials”).

Randers Pehrson, J. D. 1983. The Steppes of Asia, pp. 34–53 inRanders Pehrson, J. D. (ed.), Barbarians and Romans. The birthstruggle of Europe, A.D. 400-700. Oklahoma: University of Okla-homa Press.

Révséz, L. and Nepper, I. 1998. Il patrimonio archeologico degliUngari conquistatori, pp. 55–66 in Ambrosio, F. (ed.), Gli antichiUngari. Nascita di una nazione. Bologna: Skira, Ginevra-Milano(“The archaeological heritage of the Hungarian conquerors.” TheHungarians. Birth of a nation).

Whittaker, C. 1994. Le frontiere imperiali, pp. 369–424 inCarandini, A., Ruggini, L. C. and Giardina, A. (eds.), Storia diRoma. 3. L’età tardoantica. Crisi e trasformazioni. Torino: EinaudiEditori (“The Imperial frontiers.” The history of Rome 3. Thelate Roman time. Crises and transformations).

Wolfram, H. 1990. Histoire des Goths. Paris (“History of the Goths”).

Literary sourcesAmmianus Marcellinus – Le storie. Volume I (Libri XIV-XXII),pp. 57-591, Volume II (XXIII-XXXI), pp. 593–1101, trans-lation and commentary by A. Salem, Torino 1994: Tea (“TheHistories”).

Arriano – L’impresa contro gli Alani. Translation and commentaryby A. C. Ross and G. Wirrth, Leipzig 1968 (“The undertakingagainst the Alans”).

Flavio Giuseppe – La guerra giudaica. Volume I (Libri I–III), pp.5–661, Volume II (IV–VII), pp. 9–676, translation and com-mentary by G. Vitucci, Forlì 1974: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore(“The Judaic war”).

Jordanes – Storia dei Goti. Translation and commentary by E.Bartolini, pp. 15–168, Torino 1991: Tea (“History of the Goths”).

159

Prisco di Panion – Storia bizantina. Translation and commentaryby V. V. Latyev, pp. 823–27 San Pietroburgo 1900 (“ByzantineHistory”).

Paolus Orosius – Le Storie contro i Pagani. Volume I (Libri I-IV),pp. 6-452, Volume II (V-VII), pp. 8–536, translation and com-mentary by A. Lippold, Verona 1976: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore(“Histories against the Pagans”).

Procopio di Cesarea – De Bellis, Opera Omnia, Libri I–IV,Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana,volume I, II–3, 40, Lipsiae 1962 (“Wars”).

Vaccaro, Melucco A. Goti, pp.34–40, in Enciclopedia dell'ArteMedievale, VII, Roma 1996.

Zosimus – New History. Translation and commentary by R. T.Ridley, pp. 7–201, Camberra 1982.


160


Early Iron Age Pastoral Nomadism in the Great Hungarian Plain-

Migration or Assimilation?

The Thraco-Cimmerian Problem Revisited

Carola Metzner-NebelsickInstitut fuer Praehistorische Archaeologie

Frei;e Universita /tBerlin

AbstractPreliminarily, this article focuses on a crucial aspect of the EarlyIron Age material culture (9th to 7th centuries BC) in theCarpathian Basin and Central Europe, specifically Eastern in-spired horsegear types, harness equipment, and weapons tradi-tionally referred to as “Thraco-Cimmerian.” The supposedlynorthern Caucasian and Pontic origin of these items has tradi-tionally been connected with the idea of an aggressive inva-sion of Eastern mounted warriors. The article argues in favorof a far more complicated model of mutual cultural contacts,with regular patterns of exchange and communication, betweencommunities of sedentary stockbreeders in the northernCaucasus and Pannonia. The main part of the article examinesthe eastern area of the Carpathian Basin, i.e. the Great Hungar-ian Plain, which forms the most western part of the EurasianSteppe belt. It is proposed that the fundamental changes in thecultural appearance of this area in the 9th century BC–whichled to the formation of the so-called Mezo =csát Group–weremainly due to anthropogenic changes of the environment dur-ing the earlier Urnfield period (13th–11th centuries BC). Localpopulations adjusted to the new conditions by adopting a steppe-oriented lifestyle as mobile pastoralists as a result of intensivecontacts across the Carpathian Mountain range. The Mezo =csátGroup was the second important agent in transmitting Easterncultural concepts and aspects of material culture to the West.Presumably relations between the steppe oriented group andthe sedentary communities of the Late Urnfield and Hallstattperiods on the Eastern Alpine Fringe and in Transdanubia,tended to be antagonistic. Thus the interface between East andWest reveals a complex pattern of conflict, exchange, and fa-milial ties.

KeywordsEarly Iron Age, Thraco-Cimmerian-Problem, Hungarian Plain,migration, horsegear

IntroductionThe cultural transmission on the interface between the steppeand forest zone in Eurasia must be seen within the context of acomplex pattern of communication involving pastoral nomad-ism, migration, acculturation and conflict. In this paper I wouldlike to demonstrate this with a case study focusing on theCarpathian Basin, the lowland plain encircled by the mountain

ranges that lie within the heart of southeastern Europe. Its east-ern half that lies in Hungarian, Slovakian, and Rumanian terri-tory is the southwestern outlier of the Eurasian steppe belt (Breu1970-89; Horváth, Glavac and Ellenburg 1974).

Kristiansen’s (1989) examination of the late Neolithic SingleGrave and Corded Ware Cultures and Anthony’s (1990) article“Migration in archaeology: the baby and the bathwater“ havecalled the processual anti-migrationist approach towards phe-nomena of cultural change into question. This has led to a cli-mate in which scenarios where migration of social groups, beit in the form of a drawn out process of immigration or a moresudden event in the sense of invasion, are again being consid-ered as valid explanations in prehistory.1 In central and south-eastern European prehistoric research, the migrationist approachwas by and large never abandoned, and is still seen as a plau-sible model in very recent contributions (Falkenstein 1997).2

This is especially true if we look at this region during the EarlyIron Age in the first half of the first millennium BC, which isthe subject of this article.3

A summary of previous researchTraditionally, Central European research has seen the transition fromthe Bronze to the Iron Age connected with a migrationist theory origi-nally proposed by Paul Reinecke in 1925 and embellished by IonNestor (1934a; 1934b) Gallus and Horváth (1939), and Friedrich Holste(1940). They saw the presence of a series of equestrian bronzes andweapons in central and southeastern European graves and hoards thatshowed East European steppe bound analogies as a reflection of theinvasion of mounted warriors. These putative invaders were identi-fied with the historic Cimmerians, who were thought to have causedmajor disruptions in the cultural development of the Carpathian Ba-sin and beyond into Central Europe, despite the fact that there is nowritten evidence for such an incursion. Herodotus records that theCimmerians were expelled from their native lands by the Scythiansand decided to flee along the coasts of the Black Sea into the landof the Medes (Herodotus IV: 11). Accounts of their activi-ties in Anatolia and northern Assyria are abundant and re-ports of their attacks against Urartu and Assyria are to befound in Akkadian written sources (Ivantchik 1993), whichrecord events from the late 8th century to the middle of the7th century BC (Metzner-Nebelsick 2000a).

161

In contrast to the foreign so-called “Cimmerian” objects, thelocal element of the material culture of the Carpathian Basinwas attributed to the Thracians–first by Reinecke and moreexplicitly and with a wider range of artifacts in 1934 by Nestor.The link postulated between the horsegear dominated hoardsand grave inventories in the Carpathian Basin and Central Eu-rope and the Cimmerian expulsion allowed scholarship to datethe finds to the turn of the 8th –7th centuries BC and, hence-forth, referred to as Thraco-Cimmerian. Furthermore, the pro-posed short term invasive character of this event justified thepostulation of a short lived Thraco-Cimmerian horizon(Milojc¨ic;: 1959) that was used as an important chronologicalbenchmark in early Iron Age research.4 The term Thraco-Cimmerian is still in vogue, although many scholars now sim-ply use “Cimmerian” when referring to the eastern component.Thus, the word Cimmerian has become more or less a syn-onym for a model that assumed an invasion of nomadic ridersinto the Carpathian Basin and beyond. According to this model,the decline of the Urnfield Culture at the close of the LateBronze Age and the emergence of the Early Iron Age Hallstattculture of in the 8th century BC was at least partly caused bythese supposedly disastrous events. More differentiated ap-proaches have recently been put forward by Kossack (1980;1986; 1994; 1998), Patek (1989/1990; 1993) and the author(1994; 1996; 1998). The migrationist approach however, stillenjoys widespread currency (Chochorowski 1993; Kemenczei1984; Romsauer 1998; 1999).

A closer look at the material evidence as well as the overallarchaeological record shows, however, that the historical para-digm of a disastrous invasion of Easterners falls short of a con-vincing explanation for cultural change at the beginning of theIron Age in southeastern Europe.

The material evidenceAs I have shown on different occasions (1994; 1996; 1998),the new Carpathian horsegear types occurring at the end of theBronze Age are hardly ever real eastern imports. Similaritiesbetween Early Iron Age bridles and bits in southeastern Eu-rope and the Ukraine as well as Ciscaucasian contexts are ob-vious–most prominent is the uniplane system (i.e., the strapholes all face in the same direction) that represents a new wayto bridle a horse–but many other so-called Thraco-Cimmerianhorsegear types have specific features that do not occur east ofthe Carpathians (Fig. 1). These types are definitely modeled oneastern prototypes but were clearly changed into local vari-ants. Some are clearly confined to central and southeasternEurope, whereas others show a distribution both east and westof the Carpathians. The angled sidepieces (Fig. 2), originallyreferred to as type Kamyshevacha (after Terenozhkin 1976: 49,fig. 19),5 can also be found in a traditionally central Europeanconstruction with a biplane system for the application of thestraps. This clearly shows the ability of the local horse ridingelite to adopt new forms of horsegear while at the same timekeeping their traditional bridling technique.6 If we look at thehorsegear ornaments, such as reign knobs, a similar phenom-enon becomes apparent. In the west, eastern prototypes havebeen altered into local forms (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996: 297 f.,

fig. 8–9) mostly with a traditionally western ring base. There-fore, they prove to be mostly imitations of the eastern paral-lels, as reign knobs with ring bases had been produced in south-eastern and central Europe since the 13th century BC (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998: 388, fig. 25). These forms, thus, cannot beseen as evidence of an invasion of mounted warriors as the“Cimmerian Model” implies. The horsegear finds, moreover,are dated within a period of more than 150 years (Metzner-Nebelsick 1994; 2000a). This disqualifies them as an indicatorfor a single and sudden influx.7 It should be argued instead,that a local traditions of horse breeding and a local productionof horsegear types must have existed in the Carpathian basin(Hüttel 1981). It surely formed the basis for this almost imme-diate translation of new forms and construction principles, suchas the uniplane system for rein guidance, into a local aestheticconcept leading to the creation of something specificallyDanubian. This flexibility is a reflection of the mobility andintensive exchange pattern of the communities involved.

The contexts of the so called Thraco-Cimmerian finds withinhoards also demonstrate typically western characteristics. More-over recent research demonstrating complex and recurrent pat-terning in the composition of hoards have shown conclusively(Hansen 1994; Hänsel and Hänsel 1997; Metzner-Nebelsick1996: 291 f.; Nebelsick 1992: 414, fig. 3; Sommerfeld 1994)that we are dealing with the product of ritual deposition, that ismaterial sacrifice. The composition of hoards with Pontic-Cau-casian horsegear such as the 9th century deposit from Vetis % inTransilvania (Bader 1977), which contains Carpathian sock-eted axe types and horsegear, reflects traditional modes of sac-rifice already apparent in the same region in the 12th centuryBC (Metzner-Nebelsick and Nebelsick 1999). Other hoardsshow a different pattern involving an equestrian, a male and afemale component (Nebelsick 1992) like in S ¨rengrad near theDanube in eastern Croatia (Vinski-Gasparini 1973: 131,pl.130B), or is sometimes supplemented by tools—probablywith a sacrificial aspect—as in Haslau-Regelsbrunn in lowerAustria (Müller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A).

The Mezo =csát GroupLeaving the hoards aside, another cultural phenomenon, whichhas been and is most ardently identified with an eastern intru-sive population, was the so-called Mezo =csát Group. It was firstdescribed by the Hungarian archaeologist Patek (1974; 1989/1090; 1993). The Early Iron Age graves of the Mezo=csát Groupcan be dated from the 9th to the early 7th centuries BC (Patek1993; Metzner-Nebelsick 1998). They are located in the loessand forest steppe area of the Great Hungarian Plain (Fig. 3). Thisgroup, that scholarship also refers to as Pre-Scythian, has so farmainly been defined on the basis of a specific burial rite.

Mezo =csát graves are always inhumations, usually in supine,but also occasionally in crouched position. Their predominantorientation is west-east (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998). They arefound on slight elevations such as sand dunes or abandonedtell settlements and form little cemeteries, rarely having morethan 10 graves. Fairly often they are found alone. They hardlyever contain more than two vessels, usually a large pot, a cup,

Early Iron Age Pastoral Nomadismin the Great Hungarian Plain

162


or a bowl (Fig. 4). In many graves cattle or sheep bones indi-cate that large portions of meat were included. Stones or quernsnext to the deceased are also a typical grave good, i.e., inMezo =csát 27 (Fig. 5, Metzner-Nebelsick 1998: 378, fig. 14) aswell as richly ornamented bone plates associated with femalegraves (Fig. 6) (Patek 1989/90, pl. 28–29).

Before we go into a more detailed analysis of the Mezo =csátburials it should be emphasised again that this archaeologicalgroup has been traditionally seen as representing mounted war-riors and their hangers-on who invaded the areas beyond theCarpathian Mountains causing major disruptions in the cul-tural development of the Carpathian Basin (Kemenczei 1975:70; 1981: 41; 1984: 86, 95; Chochorowski 1993).

The material evidence of the Mezo =csát Group as well as theoverall archaeological record, however, reveals a much morecomplicated picture.

Indeed, it is clear that the rite of inhumation marks a substan-tial break with the funeral tradition of the Carpathian Basin.This was a key argument for the proposed population shift (seeabove, recently, Romsauer 1998; 1999; Romsauer and Veliac ¨ik1998). From the Middle Bronze Age until the 10th–9th centuriesBC, cemeteries with cremation burials and a distinctive pot-tery style have been in continual use in northeastern Hungaryand parts of Slovakia. Late Bronze Age so-called Kyjatice cem-eteries such as Szalja in Hungary (Kemenczei 1984: 135, pl.71) or Radzovce in Slovakia are typical examples (Furmánek1990).

Surely, such a change in funeral ritual primarily reflects newreligious concepts not necessarily linked to the influx of newgroups of people. Moreover, a comparison between theinhumations in the Carpathian basin and contemporaryinhumations in the various eastern regions postulated as thehomeland of the putative invaders shows obvious differencesin their grave good assemblages.

One of the most striking facts about the Mezo =csát Group is theabsence of weapons in the graves. The only exception is a min-iature bone axe from a grave from Mezo =csát itself (Fig. 7).This only serves to underline the taboo against sepulchral ar-mament that stands in strange contrast to the burial customs ofthe hypothetical homelands of the newcomers, where weaponsplay an important role in funerary status representation.

The North Pontic steppes and the Northern Caucasusin comparisonIn the northern Pontic steppe and forest steppe zone, weaponsin graves are an ubiquitous feature (Terenozhkin 1976;Dubovskaja 1998). This is also true in the northern Caucasus,especially in the area of Adygei in the Kuban region, in theKislovodsk area of Kabardino-Balkaria, and in northern Ossetiawhere weapons such as bimetallic daggers, iron and bronzespearheads, and different types of iron or bronze axes as wellas horsegear are regularly found in graves from inhumationcemeteries.8 Judging from the material evidence in these graves

a horse riding warrior elite emerges sometime around 900 BC.The ideological importance of the warrior and his horse is es-pecially evident in the cemeteries of Serzhen-Yurt in northernOssetia (Kozenkova 1992) and in Fars at Adygei (Leskov andErlich 1999), horses sometimes were buried next to their riders.Horse burials are not found in the Pre-Scythian graves of the north-ern Pontic steppe zone or in the Carpathian Basin at that time.

In Serzhen-Yurt, as in contemporary graves with different typesof bits and cheekpieces such as in the recently published Fars-Klady Cemetery in Adygei in the Kuban region (Leskov andErlich 1999) or Klin-Yar in Kabardino-Balkaria (Berezin andDudarev 1999), to name just a few, the horsegear belongs toriding equipment (i.e., a single bit and two cheekpieces). Sofar only one chariot grave drawn by two horses with Pre-Scythian horsegear of the Novocherkassk type has been discov-ered in a kurgan in Kabekhubl’ Uashkhitu (Erlich 1994). Thisextraordinary find might be seen as an reflection of Near Easternforms of warfare.9

Before we turn back to the Mezo=csát Group, it should also bementioned that the most prominent horsegear type for the Pre-Scythian era in the Ukrainian steppes as well as the northernCaucasus–the aforementioned Novocherkassk bridle10 of the9th and 8th centuries BC, does not occur west of the CarpathianMountains. Here, horsegear of that period reflects the Pontic-Caucasian role models mentioned before and can be attributedto wagon as well as riding sets.

If we try to envisage those mainly horse riding elites of thenorthern Caucasus regions in the Early Iron Age in their socialcontexts, a picture of sedentary stockbreeders and pastoralistsemerges. An aggressive warrior component is an integral partof their social system. The location of the cemeteries in thevicinity of the hilly slopes of the Caucasus promontories andthe existence of contemporary settlements like in Serzhen-Yurtor Bamut (Kozenkova 1977, pls. 2–7) in northern Ossetia or inKrasnogvardeyskoe II in the Kuban region (Sharafutdinova1989), make it difficult to see these groups as nomads. Thesituation in the open steppe area further north and east towardsthe Caspian Sea (Nogayskiye Steppe) or to the west in the north-ern Pontic steppe area and parts of Moldova is rather different.

Central Europe at the transition from the LateBronze Age to the Early Iron AgeWithin the central and southeastern European cultural framework, riding sets in graves and hoards, although rare, reflectsomething new in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. In thelocal tradition the use of bridled horses was connected withdraught animals used for war chariots or four-wheeled wagonsin ceremonial and funeral contexts (Pare 1992). There are onlya few graves of the Late Bronze Age, i. e. , in the Early Urnfieldperiod, containing horsegear that was composed of a singlebridle or cheek piece, making it likely that a rider’s horsegear,and not the harness for a wagon with two horses, was depos-ited in the grave.11 Therefore, it is not suprising that the major-ity of late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age horsegear and reignornaments of Pontic Caucasian influence found in graves sym-

163

bolizes the traditional Central European set for two horses (Pare1992).12 These graves containing horsegear, and dating to the9th and 8th centuries BC, belong the to cultural context of thenew Hallstatt elite ofthe eastern Alpine and Pannonian regionof modern Austria, western Slovakia, Hungary, and Croatia.Surprisingly, in the eastern Carpathian Basin, home of theMezo =csát Group, they are almost absent in graves (Fig.7).13

One of those rare examples, an iron bridle from Mezo =csát (Patek1993: 42, fig. 29) has direct parallels in Moldova (Lapushnyan1973: 108, fig. 6) but not in the northern Pontic or Ciscaucasianregion. Judging from the material evidence, the northern Ponticor Ciscaucasian cultural groups were not responsible for the drasticfunerary behaviour changes in the eastern Carpathian Basin.

The Mezo =csát Group: a pastoral society?If we look at the eastern Carpathian grave ensembles of the12th and 9th centuries associated with Kyjatice and Gáva ce-ramics,14 we find the same dislike of weapons in graves that ischaracteristic of the Mezo=csát burials. Thus, the Mezo =csát burialrite is best seen as a reflection of a long-standing local tradi-tion. Another traditional element is represented by occasionalpins as costume accessories in graves, for example, from theUrnfield cemetery of Szalja (Kemenczei 1984, pl. 71-87) andMezo =csát Group inventories (Patek 1980; 1989/1990; 1993:19ff). Although horsegear very rarely occurs in Mezo =csátgraves, it is a regular feature of the few contemporary hoardsof areas such as Prügy, Fügöd, Sarkad, Vetis %, or Szanda.15

The question remains. Which role did this group, and the neweastern and eastern inspired artifacts as horsegear types, playin the process of cultural change at the beginning of the IronAge? If we envisage eastern Hungary today, many of us mightimagine a rather romantic scenario of herding cattle and horsesthat roam the vast Puszta steppe country. Although most of thisland is now intensively farmed, this was not always the case.Before the great dike building programs at the end of last cen-tury, due to their low relief the steppes and meadows of theGreat Hungarian Plain were endangered by constant flooding(Breu 1970–1989, map 181; Hänsel and Medovic; 1991, pl. 1)a fact underscored by the disastrous spring floods of the TiszaRiver in eastern Hungary in the year 2000. This made largescale cultivation a rather daunting enterprise leading to the useof the land by partly mobile pastoralists and transhumance popu-lations. The predominant natural vegetation type of the GreatHungarian Plain are various kinds of forest steppes which dif-fer from the steppe formations of the northern Pontic region,but also from the neighbouring deciduous forest areas to the west(Breu 1970–89). These environmental conditions were the eco-logical as well as economical background for centuries of occu-pation of the plain by pastoralists either semi-nomadic or tran-shumant.

The Mezo=csát phenomenon, in my opinion, is the most convinc-ing explanation as the reflection of pastoral nomads and transhu-mant pastoralist who, through their mobile way of life, helped totransmit eastern ideas and cultural concepts from the Eurasiansteppe belt to the west. Besides the natural steppe vegetation, whichoffers best conditions for stock breeding by sedentary as well as

transhumance communities or semi-nomadic pastoralists, thereare a series of archaeological indications to support this model.

The spatial analysis of the small cemeteries and single gravesof the Mezo =csát Group seem to cover a chronological periodof at least 200 years. The burials also seem to suggest a pictureof rather small groups of people without a canonical funeralritual for all members of the population. They seem to havepracticed a mobile way of life, where regular cemeteries werenot always maintained in one particular place (Fig. 8). A fur-ther piece of evidence for a pastoral ideology of the Mezo =csátGroup may be the frequent presence of large cuts of muttonand beef that survive as animal bones in the graves. Direct evi-dence for settlement sites is still scarce. A very recent exampleof a well with Mezo =csát pottery from Kompolt in Eastern Hun-gary (Matuz et al. 1998) is the only known site to date; settle-ment structures are still not traced.

In my view the most convincing argument for the pastoral no-madic or semi-nomadic and transhumant character of theMezo =csát Group is supplied by its pottery. One of the maincharacteristics of this group is the typologically diverse char-acter of the vessels in the graves (Patek 1989/1990; 1993;Metzner-Nebelsick 1998). What we see instead is a collectionof pots whose forms are rooted in different ceramic traditions,among them many imports as shown in the diagram (Fig. 9).This probably reflects modes of exchange between Mezo =csátcommunities with other sedentary as well as mobile groups.

Longer distance contacts can be detected by the same type of vesselfound in an isolated inhumation grave of the Mezo=csát Group inZelizovce in Slovakia (Ozd‘áni and Nevizánsky 1996), with directparallels in a warrior grave in Carevbrod, found in the steppe environ-ment of the Bulgarian lower Danube (Hänsel 1974: 213, fig. 11). Theweapon assemblage and horsegear in this grave stands in contrast tothose of the Mezo=csát, yet shows close links with grave assemblagesof the Ukrainian steppes as well as the northern Caucasus.

Artifacts—pottery as well as jewelery—from Mezo =csátgraves also indicate contacts with the segmented societiesof southwestern Hungary and northeastern Croatia, as theDalj Group of the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996; 1997). The ceramic production of thesegroups shows a homogeneity, foreign to the diversity ofceramic production of the Mezo =csát Group. Despite the ty-pological diversity, it is possible to see undeniable simi-larities between Mezo =csát pottery and the ceramic styles ofthe preceding Late Bronze Age cultural groups of northernHungary and Slovakia as shown in Figure 10.

It would seem that the Mezo =csát population had strong ties to thepreceding Late Bronze Age groups of Gáva and Kyjatice; that iswhere their descendants who changed burial customs along withtheir way of life for reasons to be explained. It is also conceivablethat only a part of the sedentary Late Bronze Age society becametranshumant or adopted a mobile lifestyle, while maintaining closecontacts to sedentary farming communities, living in more moun-tainous regions on the slopes of the Carpathian Mountains.


164


On a small regional scale, this interaction model of close con-tacts between sedentary and mobile pastoral populations canso far only be convincingly applied in western Slovakia.16

Putting the puzzle together: man and the environmentin the Hungarian Plain: a modelI have argued that the ecological and environmental conditionsin the Great Hungarian Plain in the Early Iron Age were of apredominantly steppe character that favored a subsistence strat-egy based on the stock breeding of gregarious animals, such ascattle, sheep or horses. In view of the vast Neolithic as well asEarly and Middle Bronze Age tell settlements (Kovács 1988;Meier-Arendt 1992), or the aforementioned Late Bronze Agecremation cemeteries that had been used for many generations,this was not always the case. But when and why did these pro-posed fundamental changes happen?

As far as our period in question is concerned, recent pollenanalysis in the area of Lake Balaton in Transdanubia have shownthat there was a steady climatic deterioration after ca 1400 BCuntil 800 BC (Gyulai 1996). A worsening of the climatic con-ditions with lower average temperatures and a higher rainfalllevel could, however in my opinion, not be the sole cause forsuch unfavourable conditions that forced formerly sedentarygroups–dependent mainly on crop cultivation–to change theirsubsistence strategy and become transhumant, semi-nomadicpastoralists or pastoral nomads. The change of the subsistencestrategy and the appendant drastic change of the cultural iden-tity in the Great Hungarian Plain was certainly multifactorial.

One factor, or maybe the most important, will have been theradical change of the environment caused by massive erosiondue to deforestation and, as a consequence, sedimentation andintensified flooding after 1000 BC.

If we take into account the vast quantity of Early Urnfield bronzehoards of the BzD/HaA1 period in the eastern Carpathian Ba-sin (Hansen 1994), we might see them—apart from the reli-gious motivation of these finds—as a reflection of an enormouslabor input involved in their production. We have to imagine theimmense amount of wood needed, not only in the mines, but aboveall during the processes of metal production, before an unknownpercentage of this production went out of use for religious pur-poses in the form of ritual offerings in hoards.

Case studies in mountainous mining areas in Bulgaria andSerbia have shown (Horváth 1974: 58 f.; 229 f.; 589), thaterosion caused by intensive metal producing activities can bevery substantial. Looking at the archaeological record of theLate Bronze and Iron Age in the eastern Carpathian Basin, Ithink it is possible to sketch the following model of an artifi-cial change in the environmental conditions (Fig. 11).

As a result of over-exploitation of forest resources through de-forestation in the course of mining and metallurgic activity inthe Carpathian Mountains during the Early Urnfield period,land degradation and erosion began on the mountain slopes.This process might have been reinforced by intensive cattle

grazing that prevented reforestation in hilly locations by downtrodding young shoots. As a result of the erosion process, sedi-mentation in the plain was intensified, and because of the lowrelief of the region this led to recurrent flooding. A researchproject in the Kis-Mohós-Lake Basin north of Miskolc in north-eastern Hungary, recently published by Willis e. al. (1998), sup-ports this theory. Here pollen analyses show a remarkable deg-radation impact coinciding with the depletion of beech trees be-tween 1200–800 BC, which is the period of intensive metal pro-duction. There is also a drastic decrease of settlements after 800BC. Both the massive deforestation in the plain since the Neolithic,and intensive grazing turned larger parts of the eastern CarpathianBasin into the steppe environment, as it would be under naturalvegetation conditions even today.

Pastoral nomadism and transhumant pastoralism that were prac-ticed in the Transcarpathian steppe and mountain regions pro-vided, at least for parts of the overall population, a better wayof coping with this changing environment. Additionally, in partsof the eastern Carpathian Basin old power structures, presum-ably depending upon metal production and distribution, col-lapsed and this intensified a situation of crisis. Traditional reli-gious concepts concerning death were also no longer main-tained. Instead a new concept of the afterlife prevailed and, asa result of the political crisis, the formation of the Mezo=csátGroup with its pastoral ideology reflects the emergence of newpolitical power structures in the eastern Carpathian Basin. Atthis point, the undeniable eastern contacts most apparent in theexistence of prestigious artefacts, such as horsegear, probablyplayed a decisive role. A closer look at those contacts may helpus to understand the role of the Mezo =csát Group within thecultural network of the Early Iron Age in southeastern and cen-tral Europe, and place it into a wider European perspective.

ConclusionLooking back, since the 13th century BC there is a long tradi-tion of intensive contacts between the eastern Carpathian Ba-sin and the Ukrainian forest steppe (Klochko 1993; Sava 1998).This devalues the accepted traditional view of a sudden east-ern influx represented by eastern inspired horsegear and weap-ons referred to as Thraco-Cimmerian or Cimmerian. That thosecontacts were very intensive and formed a communication net-work between East and West can, among other things, be dem-onstrated by the distribution of clay figurines in settlementsdating from 1200–600 BC (Fig. 12). They symbolise the pas-toral ideology of their producers, but in their contextual mean-ing as part of rituals in connection with hearths within settle-ments, they also reflect the close intercultural contacts on aritual and ideological level between communities or tribal en-tities on both sides of the Carpathians.

Obviously these tribal entities or polities were part of a com-munication network. Between southeastern Pannonia and inthe Northern Caucasus this probably also involved intermar-riage. A special Carpathian earring type, which also occurs ingrave contexts of the Kuban region and the central NorthernCaucasus (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996; 2000b), serves to illus-trate this. Intensive communication including the domestic as

165

well as a ritual level is expressed by the same motifs on locallyproduced pottery deposited in the Dalj Group graves located inNortheast Croatia (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996: 290, fig. 6), or inFars in the Kuban region (Leskov and Erlich 1999: 142, fig. 50).17

The evidence also indicates that these polities were connected by in-stitutionalized modes of exchange involving gifts such as horses andtheir prestigious bronze gear, as well as the knowledge of how to useit. Examples of horses as prestigious gifts were recorded impressivelyin the Iliad. Agamemnon offers Achilles among other precious goods,12 horses as compensation for his theft of Achilles’ concubine (IliadXIX: 246 f.). Other examples of the high value of horses were re-corded in the Assyrian Annals (Starr 1990, Nrs. 65–66; Ivantchik 1993,Nr. 32, 9–11; 33, 3–4) or in several later sources that reached from theAlpine Celts (Dobesch 1980: 122 f., 141 f.)18 to Native Americans ofthe North American Plains (Hassrick 1989).

Among the innovations developed in the east, the military ad-vantage of a new way of riding cavalry horses with a new typeof horsegear was most important. As we have seen, despite theobvious scarcity of horsegear in Mezo=csát graves, its presencein contemporary hoards in the area, proves that horses had asignificant meaning within the social and religious cosmos ofthe Mezo=csát people. The mobility of this group probably helpedto convey eastern ideology and technical know-how to the west.The eastern horse riding elites within the social hierarchy ofmobile and sedentary stockbreeders in the northern Caucasus,as well as in the Upper Dnieper region, may also have func-tioned as a superstructure in transmitting new military ridingtechniques into the Carpathian Basin.

As mentioned above, eastern or eastern inspired horsegear types alsooccur in similarly structured hoards (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996: 292,fig. 7; Nebelsick and Metzner-Nebelsick 1999: 86) on the westernedge of their distribution in the East Alpine fringe (Müller-Karpe 1959:pl. 143A), Bohemia ky;tlicová 1991: pl: 55–58), Moravia (Podborsky197, pl. 35) and Silesia (Seger 1907; Müller-Karpe 1961: pl. 61).Furthermore, they represent an almost regular feature of the LateUrnfield and Early Iron Age in the male social elite graves. Thesenew, but locally rooted warrior elite, chose the eastern or eastern in-spired prestige goods, especially horsegear, probably in connectionwith eastern horses, to symbolize their power; rarely were easternweapons used as sepulchral status symbols although they were invogue at that time. Obviously different networks of communicationand mechanisms of exchange between polities of a similar social or-ganization can be observed (Fig. 13). Interestingly, it seems that thenorthern Caucasus and areas of northeastern Croatia in the MiddleDanube had especially close contacts with each other, whereas thePontic steppe area seems to have functioned as a corridor (Metzner-Nebelsick 2000b).

This is most impressively shown by the distribution of a typicalCarpathian horsegear ornaments with perforated cross-shapeddecor. A cluster of finds may be observed in southeastern Pannonia,another in the northern Caucasus, and especially in the Kubanregion. Astonishingly enough they are almost absent in the east-ern Carpathian Basin, home of the Mezo=csát Group (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996: 299, fig. 9).19

Perhaps the closest parallels in grave goods composition pat-terns between the assemblages in the northern Caucasus andthe west can be observed in southwestern Hungary at Pécs-Jakabhegy Tumulus 1 (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998: 392, fig. 26).These belong to the oldest graves within a large tumulus cem-etery in the forefield of a fortified hillfort settlement (Maráz1978; 1996). It contained a northern Caucasian dagger type—Kabardino Pyatigorsk (after Kozenkova 1975)—an iron spear-head and axe, again with North Caucasian parallels, locallymade horsegear of northern Caucasian/north Pontic inspiration,that functioned as tokens of wealth and status. The iron knifeand bronze pearl as part of the belt, can be regarded as typicalfor the Hallstatt Culture. Local components include the remainsof a set of locally made pottery, the cremation ritual, and theerection of a tumulus with a central grave, whereas in the north-ern Caucasus, inhumations in flat graves were the almost ex-clusive burial rite of that time (Kozenkova 1977; 1989; Berezinand Dudarev 1999).

The integration of eastern imports or eastern inspired artifacts ingraves of the early Hallstatt period in Central Europe were animportant facet of status representation during the 8th centuryBC.20 It was fashionable to portray oneself as an easterner or, let’ssay, in a “Cimmerian” or rather Pre-Scythian mode (Kaus 1988/1989). It was a period when the uniform expression of status thatbecame canonical in the late 8th and 7th centuries BC, had not yetbeen found. Another contemporary cremation grave in Pécs-Jakabhegy, Tumulus 75, shows this very clearly (Metzner-Nebelsick 1997). By contrast, the grave goods of this other chief-tain belong to a locally rooted eastern alpine weapon set.

These graves of the social elite can only highlight the remark-able contrast of the burial customs as well as the social struc-ture between the segmented societies in the western CarpathianBasin and eastern alpine fringe zone and the Mezo =csát Groupin the eastern Carpathian Basin, which I have tried to illustratehere in summary form.

In the west, eastern inspired artifacts and real imports are embed-ded into local patterns of status representation within graves. Bycontrast, in the eastern Carpathian Basin the assimilation pro-cesses of the local population groups towards a steppe orientatednew pastoral lifestyle could be shown. In this region, the trans-formation of formerly sedentary communities into a mobile, orpartly mobile pastoral society, may have led to a presumably an-tagonistic relationship between those communities and the adja-cent sedentary segmented polities of the Late Urnfield and Hallstattculture on the Alpine fringe and in Transdanubia.21

The immigration of foreign populations on a large scale could not berecognized in either of these differently organized western and east-ern cultural landscapes. Single contacts between people, or mobilegroups like pastoralists, or perhaps mobile warrior bands who mayhave had destabilizing effects on the social system of sedentary com-munities, must be seen within a structured mode of communicationnetworks. Even wars and aggression between different tribal or eth-nic groups–that are always present in history but rarely detectable inthe archaeological record of graves–form part of these structures.


166


AcknowledgementThis article is based on lectures held at the EAA meeting in Gothenburg,Sweden in 1998, and at the University of California at Berkeley, in1999. I would like to thank Dr. J. Davis-Kimball and Dr. P. Biehl fortheir kind invitation to hold the Berkeley talk. I would also like tothank my husband L. D. Nebelsick for support in editing this text.

Endnotes1. For a compilation of the recent discussion of the phenomenon ofmigration in prehistoric societies; see Chapman and Hamerow 1997 witholder literature.

2. For recent trends in German archaeology that stand in contrast to theprevailing Anglo-American approach, and place an emphasis on pro-cesses of acculturation and transmission as motor for cultural change,see Härke 1997 with further literature and special emphasis on the Mi-gration Period; also Symposium Schleswig 1995.

3. A more comprehensive version of this article is published in German(Metzner-Nebelsick 1998).

4. For the so-called “Cimmerian Problem” see, for instance, Sulimirski1959. Current Russian and Ukrainian research focuses on the evaluationof the historical as well as chronological meaning of Terenozhkin’s cul-tural phases, i. e., the older Chernogorovka and the youngerNovocherkassk (i. e., Leskov and Erlich 1999; Machortych 1994;Machortych and Ievlev 1992; Dubovskaja 1998), that are traditionallyidentified with the Cimmerians (Terenozhkin 1976). A critique ofTerenozhkin’s system has recently been put forward by Dubovskaja(1998), who sees Chernogorovka not only as an assemblage of typesand a chronological phase within the Pre-Scythian era, but also as a cul-tural group with a distinctive burial custom and ceramic style. Accordingto Dubovskaja, its character is nomadic. The North Caucasian KubanCulture has been dealt with in a variety of publications mainly byKozenkova (1977; 1989; 1998). For further references see alsoMachortych 1994; Beglova et al. 1997; Berezin and Dudarev 1999; Leskovand Erlich 1999.

5. Types VI and VII by Metzner-Nebelsick (1994: 387, fig. 1).

6. For details concerning typology and construction of horsegear seeHüttel 1981; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994; for a compilation of Russian andUkrainian horsegear, see Dietz 1998.

7. The protagonists of the migration model, Kemenczei andChochorowski, also recently argued for a chronologically differentiatedapproach (Kemenczei 1981; Chochorowski 1993). Nonetheless both holdon to the invasion model.

8. Beglova et al. 1999; Berezin and Dudarev 1999; Kozenkova 1992;Leskov and Erlich 1999; Lovpache 1985; Tov 1989.

9. Other contexts with double sets of bits and cheekpieces, exclusively ofthe classic Novocherkassk type, may indicate that horsegear for wagonsi.e., chariots, were deposited, e.g., in Fars/Klady, Kurgan 46 in the Kubanregion (Leskov and Erlich 1999, fig. 42), or Butenki and Nosachiv in theUkrainian forest steppe zone (Terenozhkin 1976, fig. 38; Kovpanenko 1966).

10. Triple looped sidepieces with splayed and flattened lower finals, bitswith double-ring ends.

11. Mikuéovce in Slovakia (Pivovarova 1965); Wörschach in Austria(Modrijan 1953), and Beftofte in Denmark (Thrane 1963).

12. This tradition reflects a funeral custom of status representation be-yond death. It does not mean that horses were not ridden in CentralEurope. The deceased male and rarely female of the social elite werehowever, portrayed as a wagon driver and not a horse rider.

13. Mezo=csát graves with horsegear: Füzesabony Öregdomb, Gr. 3(Metzner-Nebelsick 1998, fig. 5); Mezo=csát, Group 52 (Patek 1993, fig.29); Senica (Nevizansky; 1985, pl. 1); Posadka (Dus ëk 1961).

14. In Hungarian and Slovakian literature, these ceramic styles are re-ferred to as cultures (Kemenczei 1984), and are regarded as preceedingthe invasive Mezo=csát; see Gáva for new interpretation (Szabó 1996).

15. Kemenczei 1981; 1988; Gyucha 1996; Bader 1977; Metzner-Nebelsick1994, fig. 17a-b.

16. The Mezo =csát burials of Zuran (Poulík 1995) are located only a fewkilometers away from the typesite of the late Urnfield cemetery at Podoli.

17. Further examples include strap ornaments (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996:299, fig. 9); see also Metzner-Nebelsick 2000b.

18. Livius tells in his work about Roman history (“Ab urbe condita libri”)about Roman Senate gifts to the Celtic King Cincibilus, 170 BC. Amongthe gifts were horses including equipment and their agasones, i.e., groomsand trainers (Livius, 43; 5, 1–10).

19. Note the hoard of Sarkad in the Comitat of Békés as an exception(Gyucha 1996).

20. For further examples see Frög (Tomedi 1994); Pr ëdme ¨r ïce (Werner1961; Metzner-Nebelsick 1998, fig. 29); Stillfried (Kaus 1988-1989).

21. This contrast became increasingly apparent in the following laterHallstatt Period that involved the so-called Scythian/Vekerzug groupsof the late 7th and 6th century BC) (Chochorowski 1985; Terzan 1998).

ReferencesAnthony, D. 1990. Migration in archaeology: the baby and thebathwater. American Anthropologist 92/4: 895–914.

Bader, T. 1977. Bronzedepotfunde Kreismuseum Satu Mare. InventariaArchaeologica R70. Bucharest: Bucharest Academy of Science(“Bronze Hoards from the Regional Museum of Satu Mare”).

Beglova, E. A., Orlovskaya, and L. B., Sorokina, I. A. 1997.Protomeotskie drevnosti v Zakuban‘e. Pamyatniki predskifskogoi skifskogo vremeni na yuge vostochnoi Evropy. Materialy iissledovaniya po Arkheologii Rosii1(Moskva) 1: 71–80 (“Proto-Meotian antiquities in the Trans-Kuban Region” Material andXX in Russian Archaeology).

Berezin, J. B. and Dudarev, S. L. 1999. Neue präskythische Fundeaus der Umgebung von Pjatigorsk, Nordkaukasus. Eurasia Antiqua(Berlin) 5: 179–216 (“New Pre-Scythian Finds from the PyatigorskArea, Northern Caucasus” Eurasian Antiquities).

Breu, J. (ed.) 1970-1989. Atlas der Donauländer. Vienna:Österreichisches Ost- und Südosteuropa Institut (“Atlas of theDanube Countries”).

167

Gyulai, F. 1996. Umwelt und Pflanzenbau in Transdanubienwährend der Urnenfelder-, Hallstatt, und Latènekultur., pp. 27–136 in Jerem, E. and Lippert, A. (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur.Akten des internationalen Symposiums Sopron 1994 (Archaeo-lingua 7) Budapest (“Environment and Plant Cultivation inTransdanubia during the Urnfield-, Hallstatt-, and Latène Cul-ture.” The Eastern Hallstatt Culture. Proceedings of the Interna-tional Symposium in Sopron 1994).

Hänsel, A., Hänsel B. (ed.) 1997. Gaben an die Götter. Schätzeder Bronzezeit Europas. Ausstellungskatalog. Berlin 1997.Bestandskataloge, Berlin: Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 4(“Gifts to the Gods. Treasures of the European Bronze Age.” Ex-hibition Catalogue. Inventory Catalogues of the Berlin Museumfor Prehistoric Archaeology).

Hänsel, B. 1974. Zur Chronologie des 7. bis 5. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. im Hinterland von Odessos an der westlichen Schwarzmeerküste.Prähistorische Zeitschrift 49, 193–217 (“The Chronology of the7th to 5th Centuries BC in the Hinterland of Odessos on the West-ern Black Sea Coast”).

Hänsel, B. and Machnik, J. (ed.) 1998. Das Karpatenbeckenund die osteuropäische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kultur-austausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000-500 v. Chr.).Südosteuropa Studien 20/Prähistorische Archäologie inSüdosteuropa 12. München: VML Rahden/Westfalen. (“TheCarpathian Basin and the East European Steppe: NomadicMovements and Cultural Exchange in the Pre-Christian MetalAges [4000-500 BC]”).

Hänsel, B. and Medovic ; P. 1991. Vorbericht über diejugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung vonFeudvar bei Mo_orin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von 1986-1990.Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 72: 48-201.(Preliminary Report about the Yugoslav-German Excavationsof the Settlement of Feudvar near Mos ¨orin [Parish of Titel,Voyvodina] between 1986–1990”).

Härke, H. 1997. Wanderthematik, Archäologen und politischesUmfeld. Archäologische Informationen 20, 61–71 (“The Topicof Migration, Archaeologists and Political Milieu”).

Hansen, S. 1994. Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen der älterenUrnenfelderzeit zwischen Rho¥ ¥netal und Karpatenbecken. Uni-versitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 21 Bonn:Habelt. (“Studies about Metal Deposition in the Early UrnfieldPeriod between the Valley of the Rhône and the Carpathian Basin”.University Studies of Prehistoric Archaeology).

Hassrick, R. B. 1989. The Sioux. Life and Customs of a WarriorSociety. Norman: Oklahoma University Press/London.

Herodotus (Godley, A. D. translator) 1920. Herodotus: Vol. I:Books I. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress (1990 reprint).

Holste, F. 1940. Zur Bedeutung und Zeitstellung dersogenannten “thrako-kimmerischen” Pferdegeschirrbronzen. Ein

Chapman, J., and Hamerow, H. 1997. Migrations and Invasionsin Archaeological Explanation. (BAR International Series 664).Oxford: Archaeopress.

Cheben, J. 1997 (1999). Záchrannvy ; vy;skum v Pate. Rettungs-grabung in Pata. Archeologické vy;skumy a nálezy na Slovensku vroku 1997, (Nitra): 65–66.201. (“Rescue excavation in Pata”).

Chochorowski, J. 1985. Die Rolle der Vekerzug-Kultur (VK)im Rahmen der skythischen Einflüsse in Mitteleuropa.Prähistorische Zeitschrift (Berlin) 60, 204-–71. (“The role ofthe Vekerzug Culture within the Framework of Scythian in-fluences in Central Europe”).

Chochohorowski, J. 1993. Ekspancja kimmeryjska na tereny Europys;rodkowej. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagiellon;ski. (“The CimmerianExpansion into Central Europe”).

Dietz, U. L. 1998. Spätbronze- und früheisenzeitliche Trensen imSchwarzmeergebiet und im Nordkaukasus. Prähistorische BronzefundeXVI, 5. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (“Late Bronze Age and EarlyIron Age Horse Gear in the North Pontic Area and in the NorthernCaucasus.” Prehistoric Bronze Finds.).

Dobesch, G. 1980. Die Kelten in Österreich nach den ältesten Berichtender Antike. Das norische Königreich und seine Beziehungen zu Rom im2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. H. Wien, Köln, Graz: Böhlaus Verlag (“TheCelts in Austria in the oldest records of Antiquity. The Noric King-dom and its Relations to Rom in the 2nd Century BC”).

Dubovskaja, O. 1998. Zur ethnischen und kulturellen Einordnungder “Novocerkassk-Gruppe.Antiqua 3, 277–328 (“Concerning theEthnic and Cultural Classification of the Novocherkassk Group”).

Dusek, M. 1961. K otázkam pravekého vy;voja juhozápadého Slovenska.Studijné Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu Slovenskej Akadémie Vied6, 59–82. (“Questions concerning the Prehistoric Development ofSouthwestern Slovakia”).

Erlich, V. R. 1994. U istokov ranneskifskogo kompleksa. Moskva:Gosudarstvennyi muzei Vostoka. (“About the Origins of the EarlyScythian Complex”).

Falkenstein, F. 1997. Eine Katastrophentheorie zum Beginn derUrnenfelderzeit.pp. 549–61 in Becker, C. et al (eds.), Χρο;νοc%. Festschriftfür Bernhard Hänsel (Internationale Archäologie Studia honoraria 1).VML Espelkamp (“A Catastrophe Theory for the Beginning of theUrnfield Period.” Χρο;νοc%. Studies in Honour of Bernhard Hänsel).

Furmánek, V. 1990. Radzovce osada ludu popolnicovy ;ch polí.Bratislava. (“Radzovce a Site of the Urnfield People”).

Gallus, S. and Horváth, T. 1939. Un peuple cavalier préscythiqueen Hongrie. Budapest: Dissertationes Pannonicae II.9. (“A Pre-Scythian Equestrian People in Hungary”).

Gyucha, A. 1996. Kora vaskori leletek Sarkad határbán. BékésMegyei Múzeum Közlemény (Békéscsaba). 16: 67–127 (“EarlyIron Age Finds from the Site of Sarkad”).


168


Urnengrab aus Steinkirchen, Landkreis Deggendorf. PrähistorischeZeitschrift 27, 7–32 (“Concerning the Meaning and Dating ofthe So-Called “Thraco-Cimmerian” Horse Gear Bronzes.” AnUrngrave from Steinkirchen, District of Deggendorf ).

Horváth, I. and Glavac ¨, V., Ellenberg, H. 1974. VegetationSüdosteuropas. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag (“Vegetation ofSoutheast Europe”).

Hüttel, H. -G. 1981. Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- undOsteuropa. Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVI, 2. München: BeckVerlag (“Bronze Age Horse Gear in Central- and Eastern Europe.”“Prehistoric Bronze finds”).

Ivantchik, A. I. 1993. Les Cimmériens et le Proche Orient. Orbis Biblicuset Orientalis 127. Editions Unbiversitaires Fribourg, Suisse/Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht Göttingen (“The Cimmerians and the Near East”).

Kaus, M. 1988/1989. Kimmerischer Pferdeschmuck im Karpat-enbecken - das Stillfrieder Depot aus neuer Sicht. KimmerischerPferdeschmuck im Karpatenbecken - das Stillfrieder Depot ausneuer Sicht. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft118/119, 247–57 (“Cimmerian Horse Gear Ornaments in theCarpathian Basin – the Stillfried Hoard reconsidered”).

Kemenczei, T. 1975. Zur Verbreitung der spätbronzezeitlichenUrnenfelderkultur östlich der Donau. Folia Archeologica (Budapest)26: 45-70 (Concerning the Distribution of the Late Bronze AgeUrnfield Culture East of the Danube”).

Kemenczei, T. 1981. A Prügy koravaskori kincslelet. Com-municationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1, 29-41 (“The EarlyIron Age Hoard of Prügy”).

Kemenczei, T. 1984: Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns. ActaArchaeologica Hungarica 51. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. (TheLate Bronze Age of Northeast Hungary”).

Kemenczei, T. 1988. Der Pferdegeschirrfund von Fügöd. ActaArchaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariacae 40, 65–81.

Klochko, V. 1993. Weapons of the Tribes of the Northen Pontic Zone inthe 16th–10th Centuries BC. Poznan;: Baltic-Pontic Studies 1.

Kossack, G. 1980. “Kimmerische“ Bronzen. Bemerkungen zurZeitstellung in Ost- und Mitteleuropa. Situla (Ljubljana) 20/21:109–143. (“Cimmerian Bronzes.” Remarks on their Dating inEast and Central Europe”).

Kossack, G. 1986. Zaumzeug aus Kelermes. In: Hallstattkol-loquium Veszprém 1984. Mitteilungen Archäologischen InstitutesBudapest Beiheft 3, 125–39 (“Horse Gear from Kelermes”).

Kossack, G. 1994. Neufunde aus dem Novocerkassker Formenkreisund ihre Bedeutung für die Geschichte steppenbezogener Reitervölkerder späten Bronzezeit. Il Mare Nero 1, 19–54 (“Recent Discoveriesfrom the Novocherkassk Typological Group and Their Significancefor the History of the Steppe-Horsemen of the Late Bronze Age”).

Kossack, G. 1998. Towards Translating the Past. Harding, A. andHänsel, B. (eds.). Georg Kossack Selected Studies in Archaeol-ogy. Rahden/Westfalen: VML.

Kovács, T. 1988. Bronze Age Tell Settlements on the Great Hun-garian Plain 1 Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.

Kovpanenko, G. T. 1966. Nosachev’skii kurgan VIII-VII vv. do n. e.Archeologiya 20, 174–79 (“The Nosachevskii Kurgan of the 8th to7th Century BC”).

Kozenkova, V. I. 1975. K voprosu o rannei date nekotorykh kinzhalovtak nazyvaetogo Kabardino-Pyatigorskogo tipa. In: Frako-skifskiekul’turnye svyazi. Thracica1, 91–102 (“About the Question of theEarly Dating of Daggers of the so-called Kabardino-PyatigorskType.” Thrako-Scythian Cultural Contacts).

Kozenkova, V. I. 1977. Kobanskaya kultura. Zapadnyi variant.Archeologia SSSR Svod Archeologicheskikh istochnikov V 2–5.Moskva: Akademiya Nauk (“The Koban Culture. The WesternVariant”).

Kozenkova, V. I. 1989. Kobanskaya kultura. Vostochnyi variant. ArcheologiaSSSR Svod Archeologicheskikh istochnikov V 2–5. Moskva: AkademiyaNauk (“The Koban Culture. The Eastern Variant”).

Kozenkova, V. I. 1992. Serzen’-Jurt. Ein Friedhof der späten Bronze-und frühen Eisenzeit im Nordkaukasus. Materialien zur Allgemeinenund Vergleichenden Archäologie 48. Ph. v. Zabern: Mainz.(“Serzhen-Yurt. A Late Bronze Age Early Iron Age Cemetery inthe Northern Caucasus”).

Kozenkova, V. I. 1998. Materialnaya osnova byta kobanskichplemen. Zapadnyi variant. Svod Archeologicheskikh istochnikovRossii. V 2-5. Moskva: Akademiya Nauk. (“The Material Basis ofthe Way of Life of the Koban People. The Western Variant”).

Kristiansen, K. 1989. Prehistoric Migration – the Case of theSingle Grave and Corded Ware Cultures. Archaeology 8, 211–25.

Kytlicová, O. 1991. Die Bronzegefäße in Böhmen. PrähistorischeBronzefunde II,12. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (“Bronze Ves-sels in Bohemia. Prehistoric Bronze Finds”).

Lapushnyan, V. L. 1973. Issledovanie mogilnika u s. Selishte.Archeologicheskie Issledovaniya v Moldavii 1970-71 gg., 100–13 (“The Investigation of a Cemetery in the Village of Selishte”).

Leskov, A. M. and Erlich, V. R. 1999. Mogilnik Fars/Klady.Pamyatnik perekhoda ot epokhi pozdnei bronzy k rannemuzheleznomu veku na Severo-Zapadnom Kavkaze. Moskva:Gosudarstvennyi muzei Vostoka (“The Fars/Klady cemetery. Themonument of transition from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Agein the Northwest Caucasus”).

Lovpache, N. G. 1985. Mogilniki v uste reku Psekupsa. Voprosyarcheologii Adygei 16-53. Maikop (“Cemeteries at the Mouth ofthe River Psekups.” Questions in the Archaeology of Adygey”).

169

Machortych, S. V. 1994. Kimmeriitsy na severnom Kavkaze. Kiev:Akademiya Nauk (“Cimmerians in the Northern Caucasus”).

Machortych, S. V. 1998. Neues über die Beziehungen der Kimmerierzur Karpaten-Donau-Welt, pp. 437–49 in Hänsel, B. and MachnikJ. (eds.) (“New Aspects of the Cimmerian’s relation towards theCarpatho-Danubian World”).

Machortych, S. V. and Ievlev, M. M. 1992. Über dieAnfangsperiode der Geschichte der Kimmerier. Acta ArchaeologicaCarpathica 31. 108–21 (“About the Early History of theCimmerians”).

Maráz, B. 1978. Zur Frühhallstattzeit in Süd-Pannonien. ZurFrühhallstattzeit in Süd-Pannonien. Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve23, 145–64 (“The Early Hallstatt Period in South Pannonia”).

Maráz, B. 1996. Pécs-Jakabhegy - Ausgrabungsergebnisse unddie Fragen der Frühhallstattkultur in Südostpannonien, pp. 255–65 in Jerem, E. and Lippert, A. (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur.Akten des internationalen Symposiums, Sopron 1994. Budapest:Archaeolingua 7

Matuz, E. D., Szabó, J. J., and Vaday, A. 1998. Preszkíta kútKompolton. Communicationes Archaeologicae HungariaeHungariae, 41–64 (“A Pre-Scythian well in Kompolt”).

Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.) 1992. Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungenin Tellsiedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Ausstellungskatalog Frank-furt a. M. 1992. (“Bronze Age in Hungary. Research in Tell Settle-ments along the Rivers Danube and Tisza. Exhibition Catalogue”).

Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1994. Die früheisenzeitliche Trensenent-wicklung zwischen Kaukausus und Mitteleuropa. , pp. 383–447 inSchauer, P. (ed.), Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergangvon der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus.Kolloquium Regensburg 1992. Regensburger Beiträge zurPrähistorischen Archäologie 1. University Regensburg/HabeltBonn (“The Development of Early Iron Age Horse Gear betweenthe Caucasus and Central Europe.” Archaeological Research Con-cerning the Transition of the Bronze to the Iron Age betweenNorth Sea and Caucasus).

Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1996. Die Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit inSüdostpannonien, pp. 285–314 in Jerem, E. and Lippert, A. (eds.), DieOsthallstattkultur. Akten des internationalen Symposiums, Sopron 1994.Budapest: Archaeolingua 7 (“The Urnfield- and Hallstatt Period in South-east Pannonia.” The Eastern Hallstatt Culture).

Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1997. Vom Hort zum Heros., pp. 93–9 inHänsel, A. and Hänsel, J. (eds.), Gaben an die Götter. Schätzeder Bronzezeit Europas. Berlin: Ausstellungskatalog 1997.Bestandskataloge Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Berlin 4(“From Hoard to Hero.” Gifts to the Gods. Treasures of the Eu-ropean Bronze Age).

Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1998. Abschied von den “Thrako-Kimmeriern?” pp. 36–422 in Hänsel, B. and Machnik, J. (eds.),

Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpatenländischenKulturgruppen der späten Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit mit derosteuropäischen Steppenkoine (“Farewell to the “Thraco-Cimmerians?” New Aspects of the Interaction between CarpathianCultural Groups of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age and theEast European Steppe World).

Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 2000a. Kimmerier, in Beck, H., Steuer,H. and Timpe, D. (eds), Reallexikon der Germansichen Alter-tumkunde16 (“Cimmerians”).

Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 2000b. Wo sind die Frauen der Kimmerier?Ein Beitrag zum Kulturkontakt zwischen Kaukasus, nordpontischenSteppen und Karpatenbecken am Beispiel der Frauentrachten des 9.und 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr, in Chochorowski, J. (ed.),Gedenkschrift für Tadeusz Sulimirski. Kráków. (“Where are theCimmerian Women? – A Contribution to the Question of Cul-tural Contact between the Caucasus, the North Pontic Steppes,and the Carpathian Basin, Demonstrated by Female CostumeAccessories of the 9th to 8th Centuries BC.” Studies in Memoryof Tadeusz Sulimirski).

Metzner-Nebelsick, C. and Nebelsick, L. D. 1999. Frau und Pferd- Ein Topos am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit Europas.Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 129: 69–106. (“Woman and Horse – A Stereotype at the Transition of theBronze to the Iron Age in Europe”).

Milojc ¨ic ;, V. 1959. Zur Chronologie der jüngeren Stein- undBronzezeit Südost- und Mitteleuropas. Germania 37: 65–84 (“TheChronology of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Period in South-east and Central Europe”).

Modrijan, W. 1953. Der urnenfelderzeitliche Grabfund ausWörschach im Ennstal und die steierischen Schwerter der PeriodeHallstatt A. Festschrift W. Schmid. Schild von Steier 2, 24–48(“A Grave from the Urnfield Period from Wörschach in the Enns’Valley and the Styrian Swords of the Hallstatt A Period.” Studiesin Honour of W. Schmid).

Müller-Karpe, H. 1959. Beiträge zur Urnenfelderkultur nördlichund südlich der Alpen. Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 22.Berlin: W. de Gruyter. (“Contributions to the Urnfield Culture Northand South of the Alps”).

Müller-Karpe, H. 1961. Die Vollgriffschwerter der Urnenfelderzeit inBayern. Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 6. Munich(“The Metal-hilted Swords of the Urnfield Period in Bavaria”).

Nebelsick, L. D. 1992: Figürliche Kunst der Hallstattzeit amNordostalpenrand im Spannungsfeld zwischen alteuropäischer Tra-dition und italischem Lebensstil, pp. 401–32 in Spindler, K. andLippert, A. (eds.), Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen des Institutsfür Ur- u. Frühgeschichte der Leopold-Franzens-UniversitätInnsbruck. Universitätsforschungen zur Prä-historischenArchäologie 8. Habelt Bonn (“Figurative Art of the Hallstatt Pe-riod at the Northeast Alpine Fringe between Old European Tra-dition and Italic Lifestyle.” Studies in Honour of the Fiftieth


170


Anniversary of the Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology of theLeopold-Franzens-University Innsbruck).

Nestor, I. 1934a. Zu den Pferdegeschirrbronzen aus Stillfried a. d.March, N.-Ö. Wiener: Prähistorische Zeitschrift 21, 108–30(“About the Horse Gear Bronzes from Stillfried on the March,Lower Austria”).

Nestor, I. 1934b. Ein thrako-kimmerischer Goldfund aus Rumänien.Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 9, 175–86 (“ A Thrako-Cimmerian Gold Find from Romania”).

Nevizánsky, G. 1985. Bronzovy ; depot tvz. trácko-kimmerskéhohorizontu zo Santovky. Archeologické Rozhledy 37, 601–606. (“ABronze Hoard of the So-Called Thraco-Cimmerian Horizon fromSantovka”).

Oz ¨d&áni, O., Nevizánsky, G. 1996. Hrob mezo=csátskej kultúry zoZ ëliezoviec. Slovenská Archeológia 44, 253–64 (“A Grave of theMezo=cs ;at Culture from Z ëliezovce”).

Pare, C. F. E. 1992. Wagons and Wagon-Graves of the Early IronAge in Central Europe. Oxford Monographs 35. Oxford.

Patek, E. 1974. Präskythische Gräberfelder in Ostungarn. In: Sym-posium zu Problemen der jüngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropapp. 337–62 in Symposium zu Problemen der jüngerenHallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (Bratislava 1974). Veda Bratislava(“PreScythian Cemeteries in East Hungary.” Symposium aboutproblems of the later Hallstatt Period in Central Europe).

Patek, E. 1980: Einige Daten zu den Anfängen der Früheisenzeit inUngarn. Situla 20/21, 153–163. (“Some Dates Pertaining to theBeginning of the Early Iron Age in Hungary”).

Patek, E. 1989/1990: A Szabó Jánós Gyo=zo= által feltárt “preskita”síranyag. A Füzesabony-Mezo=csát típusú temetkezések újabb emlékeiHeves megyében. Agria 25/26, 61–118 (“The Pre-Scythian GravesDiscovered by Szabó Jánós Gyo =zo =. New Monuments of theFüzesabony-Mezo=csát Type in Heves County).

Patek, E. 1993. Westungarn in der Hallstattzeit. VCH Weinheim(“Western Hungary in the Hallstatt Period”).

Pivovarová, Z. 1965. K problematike mohy;l v luzïcej kultúre naSlovensku. Slovenská Archeólgia 13, 107–62 (“Problems concern-ing the Tumulus Graves of the Lusatian Culture in Slovakia”).

Podborsky;, V. 1970. Südmähren in der Spätbronzezeit und ander Schwelle zur Eisenzeit. University of Brno (“SouthernMoravia in the Late Bronze Age and at the Threshold of theIron Age”).

Poulík, J. 1995. Zurán ¨ in der Geschichte Mitteleuropas. SlovenskáArcheológia 43, 27–105 (Zurán in the History of Central Europe”).

Reinecke, P. 1925. Ein neuer Goldfund aus Bulgarien. Germania9, 50–4 (“A New Gold Find from Bulgaria”).

Romsauer, P. 1998. Veränderungen in den Siedlungsstrukturen undin der Besiedlungsstrategie während der ersten Hälfte des 1.Jahrtausends v. Chr. unter östlichen Einflüssen., pp. 631–6 in Pro-ceedings of the XIII Congress IUPPS Forlì, Italia 1996. Vol. 4.A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni (“Changes in Settlement Patterns and Settle-ment Strategies during the First Half of the First Millenium BCunder Eastern Influences”).

Romsauer, P. 1999. Zur Frage der Westgrenze der Mezo=csát-Gruppe,pp. 167–76 in Jerem, E. and Poroszlai, I. (eds.), Archaeology ofthe Bronze and Iron Age. Proceedings of the International Ar-chaeological Conference Százhalombatta, 3–7 October 1996.Archaeolingua: Budapest (“Concerning the Question of the West-ern Frontier of the Mezo =csát Group”).

Romsauer, P. and Veliac ïk, L. 1998. Der Umweltanteil an derSiedlungsstrukturgestaltung während der Urnenfelder- undHallstattzeit in der Westslowakei. Przegla $d Archeologiczny 46,59–72 (“The Contribution of Environmental Influences onSettlement Structure during the Urnfield and Hallstatt Peri-ods in Western Slovakia”).

Sava, E. 1998. Die Rolle der “östlichen” und “westlichen” Elementebei der Genese des Kulturkomplexes Noua-Sabatinovka (Nach denMaterialien des Prut-Dnestr-Zwischenstromlandes). In: Hänsel, B.,Machnik, J. (ed.), 1998: 267–312. (The Role of “Eastern” and“Western” Elements in the Genesis of the Noua-SabatinovkaCultural Complex. [Material from the Area between the Prutand Dniester Rivers]”).

Seger, H. 1907. Depotfunde aus der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit.Schlesiens Vorzeit Bild und Schrift (Breslau). 4: 9–43. (“HoardFinds from the Bronze and Iron Age”).

Sharafutdinova, E. S. 1989. Dvusloinoe poselenie Krasno-gvardeiskoe pamyatnik epokhi pozdnei bronzy nachalarannego zheleza na Kubani, pp. 46–73 in Meoty predky Adygov.Maikov (“The Two-Phase Settlement of Krasnogvardeiskoe, aMonument of the Late Bronze Age and the Beginning of the EarlyIron Age in the Kuban.” The Meotians, Ancestors of theAgygeyans).

Sommerfeld, C. 1994. Gerätegeld Sichel. Studien zur monetärenStruktur bronzezeitlicher Horte im nördlichen Mitteleuropa.Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 19. De Gruyter Berlin. (“TheSickle as Tool Money. Studies of the Pre-monetary Structure ofBronze Age Hoards in Northern Central Europe”).

Starr, I. (ed.). 1990. Queries to the Sungod. Helsinki: State Ar-chives of Assyria IV. Vol. 4.

Sulimirski, T. 1959. The Cimmerian Problem. London: Bulletinof the Institute of Archaeology 2, 45–64.

Symposium Schleswig 1995. 46. Internationales Sachsymposium.“Die Wanderung der Angeln nach England.” Studien zurSachsenforschung 11, 1998. Oldenburg: Issensee Verlag (“TheMigration of the Angles to England”).

171

Szabó, G. V. 1996. A Csorva-Csoport és a Gáva-kultúra kutatásánakproblémái néhány Csongrád megyei leletegyüttes alapján. A MóraFerenc Múzeum Évkönyve Studia Archaeologica 2, 9–109(The Csorva-Group and Research Problems of the Gáva Culturewith Reference to Recent Find from Csongrád County”).

Terenozhkin, A. I. 1976. Kimmeriitsy. Kiev: Akademiya Nauk(“Cimmerians”).

Terz än, B. 1998. Auswirkungen des skythisch geprägten Kulturkreisesauf die hallstattzeitlichen Kulturgruppen Pannoniens und desOstalpenraumes, pp. 511–60 in Hänsel, B. and Machnik, J. (eds.) (“Effects of the Scythian Influenced Cultural Region on the Cul-tural Groups of the Hallstatt Period in Pannonia and in the EastAlpine Region”).

Thrane, H. 1963. De første Broncebidsler i Mellem- og Nordeuropa.Aarbøger Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1963: 50–99. (“The FirstBronze Horse Gear inCentral and Northern Europe”).

Tomedi, G. 1994. Der Übergang von der Bronzezeit zur Eisenzeitam Beispiel von Frög, Tumulus “K,” pp. 365–82 in Schauer, P.(ed.), Archäologische Untersuchungen zum Übergang von derBronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus.Kolloquium Regensburg 1992. Regensburger Beiträge zurPrähistorischen Archäologie 1. University Regenburg/Habelt Bonn(“The Transition of the Bronze to the Iron Age by the Example ofTumulus “K” in Frög.” Archaeological Research Concerning theTransition of the Bronze to the Iron Age between the North Seaand the Caucasus).

Tov, A. A. 1989. Protomeotskii mogilnik Chishko bliz Tauikhabl‘v Teuchezhskom raione, 36–45. Maikop: Meoty predki Adygov.(“The Proto-Meotic Cemetery near Tauikhabl in the Region ofTeuchezhskoe.” The Meotians, Ancestors of the Adygeyans).

Trogmayer, O. 1983. A Szegedi nagytaj bronz- és koravaskorá naknékany kérdéséro=l. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica Supplement 5,4–11 (“Some Questions Concerning the Bronze and Iron Age inthe Szeged Region”).

Vinski-Gasparini, K. 1973. Kultura polja sa z ärama u sjevernojHrvatskoj. Zadar: Filozofski Fakultet. (“The Urnfield Culture inNorthern Croatia”).

Willis, K. J., Sümegi, P., Braun, M., Bennett, K. D. and Tóth,A. 1998. Prehistoric land degradation in Hungary: Who, Howand Why? Antiquity 72, 101–13.

Werner, J. 1961. Pferdekopfzepter der Hallstattzeit aus Pr ëdme ¨rïcebei Hradec Králové. Památky Archeologické 52, 384–89 (“A HorseHead Sceptre of the Hallstatt Period from Pr ëdmerïce near HradecKrálové”).


172


Fig. 1. Distribution of Type I cheekpieces. (after Metzner-Nebelsick 1994: 440 f.)

173

Fig.

2. D

istr

ibut

ion

of a

ngle

d ch

eekp

iece

s, T

ypes

VI

and

VII

. (af

ter

Met

zner

-Neb

elsi

ck; V

I =

Typ

e K

amys

heva

cha

(aft

er T

eren

ozhk

in 1

976;

Met

zner

-Neb

elsi

ck 1

994:

443

) f.;

upd

ated

)


174


Mez

o =csá

t

Fig. 3. Distribution of the E

arly Iron Age burials of the M

ezo=csát Type (arter Metzner-N

ebelsick 1998: fig 1; 411 with additions, after R

omsauer 1999: 168, fig. 1).

175

Fig. 4. Algyo=, Comitat Csongrád, southeastern Hungary: Grave 83 containing grinding stone with animalbones and pottery above the head of the deceased. (Trogmayer 1983, 96, fig. 17)


176


Fig. 5. Cemetery plan and selection of graves from the Mezo =cs ;at Cemetery, Comitat Borsod-Abauj-Zemplén, Northeast Hungary.(after Patek 1993)

177

Fig. 6. Bone plates from Mezo =cs ;at type graves from Füzesabony-Ketto =-shalom and Sirok,Akasztómály, Northeast Hungary. (after Patek 1989/90, pl. 28)


178


Fig. 7. Combination diagram of grave goods fromthe Mezo =cs;at cemetery. (after Patek 1993: fig. 10-11)

179

Fig. 8. Number of Mezo =cs;at burials per site.


180


Fig. 9. Pottery imports in graves of the Mezo =cs;at Group. The vessels symbolize the types pottery and the arrow denote thearea of origin to the destination in Mezo =cs ;at graves.

181

Fig. 10. Vessels from the cremation cemeteries of Szalja, northeastern Hungary, and Radzovce, Slovakia(left), and their equivalents from inhumation graves of the Mezo =csát group (right). (after Kemenczei 1984;

Furmánek 1990; Patek 1989/90)


182


Fig. 11. Model of commonly accepted ecological changes and their cause in the Carpathian Basin between 1200-1000 BC.

183

Fig.12. Distribution of clay figurines belonging to the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period from settlement con-texts. (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998, fig. 27; 413)


184


Fig. 13. Model of interaction between cultural groups of the northern Caucasus, the Ukrainian steppe zones and central andsoutheastern Europe between 1000–700 BC.

185

AbstractThe relationship between pastoral nomadism in Fennoscandiaand Siberia are discussed within a context of a large–scale di-vision of labor, economic specialization and interaction inEurasia. Nomadic communities became important componentsof extended systems of interrelated socio–cultural units in theEurasian territory. Long distance contacts were established andthe taming and training of domesticated reindeer became mean-ingful in an environment of newly established economic andsocial networks. Settlement patterns changed as a result of anew strategy for resource utilization and new modes of trans-portation. Reindeer exploitation for transport influenced thehuman settlement pattern because of the requirements for do-mesticated reindeer pasture. Studies of changes in settlementpatterns in Swedish Lapland, in conjunction with informationderived from pollen analysis, have indicated that this transi-tion took place during the first millennium AD. Archaeologi-cal finds have demonstrated that long distance contacts be-tween Fennoscandia and Siberia existed in the first millenniumBC; it is possible that elements of reindeer herding traditionscan be traced back to the time of these contacts. It also seemsobvious that some mythological motives of the pre–ChristianSaami society can be related to the belief systems of the no-madic horse breeders of the eastern steppes.

KeywordsPastoralism, nomadism, reindeer, settlement, interaction,Lapland

IntroductionThe introduction and spread of pastoral nomadism in Eurasiacan be analyzed within the context of large scale division oflabor, economic specialization, and interaction. Herding do-mesticated animals enabled new strategies for resource utili-zation, developing economic and social interactions, and no-madic communities to become an important component of ex-tended systems of intercultural relations. A further importantaspect of the transition from hunting to herding domesticatedanimals, was the strong influence that livestock requirementsfor pasture had on human settlement patterns. In the followingpaper the transition from an economy based on hunting andfishing to one that concentrated on pastoral nomadism is dis-cussed within the context of northern Fennoscandia. In addi-

tion, a brief review of the current academic debate concerningreindeer pastoral nomadism will also be provided.

Reindeer Pastoral NomadismTwo principal views are recognized in the debate on reindeerpastoral nomadism in Fennoscandia. A number of scholars areof the opinion that the transition from hunting and fishing topastoral nomadism was a relatively late phenomenon occur-ring during the last 400 years (Vorren 1980: 253 and 261;Lundmark 1982: 171, 1989: 37; Mulk 1988: 255, 264). Thetransition is considered to have arisen as a result of changes tothe prevailing hunting–fishing societies, influenced by the in-tervention of the Scandinavian states. The increase of reindeerherding is thought to have resulted from a scarcity of game,which may have been due to external factors including taxa-tion and trade. The second theory argues that the societies ofnorthern Fennoscandia cannot be analyzed as isolated units untilthe 1500s and 1600s (Baudou 1988a: 19–20). This latter view-point considers that relations with the outside world had al-ready resulted in an economic transition from hunting and fish-ing to reindeer pastoral nomadism by as early as the Iron Age(Aronsson 1991: 113).

Anthropologists have highlighted the similarities between thereindeer herding techniques of Scandinavia and western Sibe-ria (Vainshtein 1980: 130–144). It would appear that the in-habitants of these regions not only interacted with neighboringfarming communities but that they also had established longdistance east–west contacts. Archaeological artifacts retrievedfrom excavations in Scandinavia and western Siberia haveadded further support for the existence of these long distancecontacts. It is possible that reindeer herding may have beenone element of these long distance interrelations, but to dateno archaeological evidence has been discovered which provesthis assertion. Archaeologists working in the early 1900s werealready aware of these problematic issues (Tallgren 1937).

Reindeer herding equipment mainly consists of organic mate-rials including bone, wood, and leather, generally not preservedin the acidic podsol soils of northern Fennoscandia. Occasion-ally, certain organic materials are recovered under exceptionalpreservation conditions, such as permafrost and peat. The pau-

Kjell–Åke Aronsson

Sven–Donald HedmanMid Sweden University

Östersund, Sweden

Intercultural Relations among Eurasian Pastoral Nomads

The Case of Northern Fennoscandia

186


city of archaeological artifacts indicative of reindeer herdingmakes it necessary to turn to other potential indicators of thiseconomic practice; analyses of settlement pattern changes andpalaeoecological studies have been used for this purpose.

Some researchers class pastoral nomads, herders, herd follow-ing hunters, and similar groups into a single category in whichsome form of deliberate conservation of the particular animalspecies was practiced. The transition from hunting to pastoral-ism is explained as an internal social evolution that arose as aconsequence of the local scarcity of game. Researchers whosupport this theory regard the possibility of identifying the tran-sition from hunting to pastoralism in the archaeological recordto be extremely limited (Ingold 1980: 118, 128–133). It maybe argued, however, that a scarcity of game cannot entirely beused to explain this transition. Throughout the long history ofthe northern Eurasian hunters it is probable that scarcities ofgame would have frequently arisen, and it is notable that rein-deer hunters of North America never became reindeer herders.It would seem unlikely that a temporary scarcity of game wouldhave resulted in a large-scale adoption of reindeer pastoralism,and this traditional explanatory model has received criticism(Olsen 1987). It is necessary to examine other possibilities foran economic transition, and attention must be directed towardthe interaction of the Saami (Laplander) society with the out-side world. Khazanov (1984) discusses the economic relation-ships between nomadic societies and the outside world ingreat detail; his research is of major relevance in under-standing the economic transition processes within the con-text of Fennoscandia.

The reindeer hunters of Eurasia would have had frequent con-tacts with cattle breeders, agriculturists, and metallurgists. It isinteresting to note that this situation did not occur in NorthAmerica; the reindeer hunters were not exposed to other eco-nomic groups. In contrast to North America, different froms ofcontacts and interactions established between Eurasian societ-ies seem to have played an important role in influencing thetransition from hunting to pastoralism. Metallurgical centersin Siberia became a vehicle for long distance economic ex-change and socio–cultural interaction throughout northernEurasia; influence was not solely restricted to technology. So-cial organization and ideological belief systems were affectedover vast areas. The Saami pre–Christian beliefs, for example,included the “Ruto” motif, a mythological rider on horsebackrelating to the world of the dead. Obviously not a native motif,it may be traced to influences from belief systems of the no-madic horse breeders of the eastern steppes. A fuller discus-sion of the northern Eurasian background of the Saami “Ruto”cult is found in the works of Mebius (1968), Pettersson (1985),and Ränk (1985).

Eurasia at the end of the first millennium BC andthe beginning of the first millennium ADThe end of the first millennium BC was an era that saw anincreased influence of state societies and the rise of contactwith peripheral areas. At this time within Eurasia, large inter-

related socio–cultural units had their own centers and periph-eral areas. Koryakova (1997a: 156–157) referred to a numberof interrelated “cultural worlds” that provided the context forEurasian nomadism:

1. The Hellenistic and Roman World2. The world of the Celts3. The “Third World” of Europe (Proto–Germanicnorthern cultures of Europe)4. The Thracian–Dacian Carpathian World5. The world of Eastern Europe (Proto–Baltic andProto–Slavic) forest cultures6. The world of Finno–Permian cultures west of theUrals7. The nomadic Iranian World in the Eurasian steppes8. The world of the Ugrian and Iranian cultures inthe Trans–Ural and western Siberian forest–steppe9. The world of the Ugrian and Samodian forest cul-tures of western Siberia

Northern Fennoscandia can be regarded as the westernmostcomponent of the ”Finno–Permian World,” situated in closeproximity to the Proto-Germanic tribes. Not only related to theFinno–Permian cultures, the area was also inhabited by north-ern European cultures. In addition, long–distance contacts withSiberia would have existed. During the 8th and 7th centuries BCand onward, the economic and cultural changes that occurredin northern Fennoscandia were mainly related to links withAnanino Culture (800–200 BC) metallurgical centers to the east(Baudou 1988a: 15–16; 1988b: 234–236). The forms of eco-nomic specialization that would have existed in northernFennoscandia included metallurgy, cattle breeding, hunting, andfishing. Reindeer herding had probably been introduced to Si-beria during the first millennium BC, but true reindeer nomad-ism is considered to be a much later phenomenon (Vainshtein1980: 142–143). During the 1st century AD the Roman writer,Tacitus, describes northern hunting populations that he refersto as ”Fenni.” His description of the “Fenne” as hunters maybe considered evidence that reindeer nomadism had not yetbeen established in Fennoscandia (Aronsson 1991: 10, 102).

The end of the first millennium BC saw a decrease of southernUral settlement sites in the steppes, and a concomitant increasein the number of forest–steppe zone settlements. By the middleof the first millennium AD, the adoption of iron metallurgy inthe forest–steppe had been completed, and this technology waswidespread throughout the western Siberian forest zone(Koryakova 1997b: 171). Possibly a parallel development oc-curred in northern Fennoscandia. Hunting and fishing culturesettlement sites were concentrated along the coastline andaround inland rivers and lakes; animals of the areas were theprinciple natural resources exploited. At the beginning of thefirst millennium AD, the settlement patterns changed and anexpansion occurred into the forest zone and Scandinavian moun-tain ridge. Considerable debate pertaining to the settlement pat-tern change has occurred in Nordic archaeological research,and two main views are recognized. The first viewpoint con-siders the change to have arisen as a consequence of an inter-

187

nal development among hunting and fishing societies, leadingto an increase in reindeer hunting. In addition, climatic changesmay have contributed to the expansion of settlement (Mulk1988: 71). Other researchers have suggested that increased eco-nomic interaction with neighboring societies was a decisivefactor that contributed to the intensified exploitation of inlandresources (Baudou 1988a: 19).

East–west contactsIn Scandinavia during the latter part of the late Iron Age (500–1050 AD), an increased economic interaction took place thatstrongly influenced the northern cultures. Earlier, far–reachingcontacts with the outside world had been of importance. Bronzeproduction was introduced during the Ananino period, andknowledge of iron working spread westwards from the easterncultures. During the first centuries AD, iron replaced stone tech-nology in northern Fennoscandia. It is possible to identify aneastern origin for iron metallurgy that paralleled the spread ofthis technology in southern regions (Baudou 1988a: 15–16).The long distance contacts with the east later declined, andnew contacts were established to the south and southeast withpolitical and commercial centers in the Baltic region (Baudou1988b: 235). This change is particularly obvious during theViking period (800–1050 AD) (Fig. 1).

Developments in the North Sea and North Atlantic areas alsoinfluenced economic developments in Fennoscandia. AroundAD 892, the Norseman Ottar related to King Alfred of Englandthat the Saami possessed tame reindeer decoys and that he wasthe owner of 600 reindeer. From this evidence it must be con-cluded that reindeer herding was established at that time(Aronsson 1991: 10, 102). The recovery of reindeer sledgesfrom burial excavations supports the theory that the Saami wereusing reindeer not only as hunting decoys but also as draughtanimals (Schanche 1997: 179).

The theory that domesticated animals were first integrated intohunter–fisher societies for transport purposes is of importancewhen analyzing the early development of reindeer herding(Lundmark 1989: 31–32). Apparently, specific historical con-ditions of economic and social interaction made taming andtraining animals a meaningful social practice. The domesticatedreindeer was introduced into the new economic and social net-works that were established.

To summarize, during the first millennium BC long distanceeast–west contacts were of importance for the northernFennoscandia cultures. Bronze artifacts related to the AnaninoCulture, are the most obvious evidence of these relations; iron-working techniques also spread from east to west. It is pos-sible, but not proven, that some Siberian reindeer herding tech-niques also reached Fennoscandian cultures during the firstmillennium BC, and earlier researchers have observed com-mon traits between reindeer herding cultures. Fennoscandianreindeer herding seems to be related to reindeer herding of bothsouthern and western Siberia (Vainshtein 1980: 142–143). Thetransition from hunting and fishing to reindeer herding in

Fennoscandia may have been influenced at an early stage bySiberian reindeer herding, but the later stages are obviouslythe results of independent developments in Fennoscandia. Thisassumption is not contradicted by the archaeological finds, butit is not possible to find support in the contemporary historicalsources due to the paucity of materials.

Changes in settlement patterns in LaplandArchaeological investigations in the Arjeplog area of SwedishLapland have been undertaken over a number of years with theresults demonstrating that an obvious change in settlement pat-terns occurred during the first millennium AD. Until ca. AD400, the settlements were mainly located on the shores of riv-ers and lakes, the waterways were important for transport andcommunication, and fish was a significant source of food. Af-ter this date it appears that nearly all settlement sites disap-peared from the shores (Bergman 1995: 201), and a new settle-ment pattern was established. These newer settlements werelocated some distance from the river and lakes shores, and weresituated in forests, near mires and small fresh water streams(Fig. 2). The physical remains of the settlements consisted ofhearths, similar in morphology to those found in modern no-madic tents and huts of the area (Fig. 3). The preferred loca-tions also correspond to the historically attested settlement sitesof the reindeer herding Saami. A hypothesis is that the changewas related to a new system of resource utilization in whichreindeer pasture grounds had gained importance. The choiceof settlement locations also indicates that transport via water-ways was of less importance than during earlier periods. Thenew economic strategy included increased interaction withneighboring farming communities. Hunting of wild reindeeras well as small fur–bearing animals was important for exchangebetween the Saami society and the outside world (Aronsson1991: 113; Storli 1993: 16–19).

A parallel change has been observed in the mountain area wherea settlement expansion is recognized from approximatelyAD 500 and onward (Mulk 1988). Storli (1993) has arguedthat this expansion is related to the introduction of reindeerpastoralism. Those scholars who favor the theory that thetransition to reindeer pastoralism was a late phenomenonarising as a result of a scarcity of game during the 1600s donot agree, and argue that the expansion was related to in-tensified hunting (Mulk 1993). Storli’s theory that reindeerpastoralism was established during the Viking Age is muchstronger than the alternative theories. The dwelling sitesare located in the reindeer summer pasture grounds(Aronsson 1993). The main part of the settlements and thewild reindeer pit traps reveal different geographical distri-bution patterns (Storli 1993: 17–18). The pit trap systemsare usually situated in the valleys where reindeer migratebetween the summer and winter pasture grounds.

Radiocarbon dates obtained from pit traps in Lapland have in-dicated that most of the traps predate AD 500 (Forsberg 1989:7). To date, these hunting remains appear to belong to an ear-lier period than the settlement expansion into the forests andmountains under discussion occurred.


188


Results obtained from a survey of ancient remains in SwedishLapland further highlight this situation. Differences in the settle-ment sites distribution patterns from the Stone, Bronze and EarlyIron Ages (c. 5000 BC–AD 500), the pit systems and the no-madic style settlements with the remains of hearths indicativeof tent and hut sites, can be recognized (Figs. 4–6). The changein distribution pattern from the older settlements to the youngernomadic style settlements is obvious; it is probable that thischange occurred as a result of a new strategy for resource utili-zation in addition to a new mode of transportation. The exploi-tation of reindeer for transport probably also influenced thehuman settlement pattern because of the requirements of pas-ture for the tame reindeer.

Palaeoecological investigationsStudies of modern pollen deposits associated with semi–no-madic settlements and reindeer pens have demonstrated thateven small–scale changes in forest vegetation can be detectedthrough pollen analysis. Small–scale clearances at the settle-ment area, trampling and fertilization by reindeer, reindeer graz-ing, the collection of plants for fuel and food, and the occur-rence of waste from the dwellings are all factors that can causechanges to the local vegetation. Even on a small scale, thisform of human impact can result in the development of an herb–rich type of vegetation.

Pollen studies undertaken in the forest zone of northernmostSweden provide evidence for small–scale human interferencewith the forest, and the trampling and manuring of the soil bysmall herds of reindeer during the last 1500–2000 years. Theearly small–scale interference may be related to a combinationof reindeer herding with a food extracting economy specific tosemi–nomadism (Aronsson 1994). This form of semi–nomad-ism has been widespread throughout northern Eurasia(Khazanov 1984: 40-44). A more obvious cultural influenceon the forests of Lapland is related to the expansion of truereindeer nomadism occurring during the last 400 years. Itshould be noted that pastoralism comprises a number of dif-ferent forms of nomadism (Aronsson 1991: 6-7).

ConclusionIt can be concluded that the introduction of reindeer herd-ing to Lapland arose within a context of far–reaching eco-nomic and cultural changes throughout Fennoscandia andthe surrounding world. Technological innovations such asthe development of metallurgy, in addition to economic andsocial interaction brought about changes in the hunting cul-ture. Long–distance contacts between Fennoscandia andSiberia resulted in the spread of a number of cultural ele-ments. There is, however, nothing to indicate that theAnanino Culture in Fennoscandia was reindeer herding, butmetallurgy and other cultural traits, such as the productionof bronze items spread from the east. Long distance east–west contacts between Siberia and Fennoscandia continuedafter the end of the Ananino period, but came to an end inthe Late Iron Age. It is likely, however, that some of theeastern elements involved in the Fennoscandia reindeer

herding traditions can be traced back to the time of theselong–distance east–west contacts.

In comparison to Inner Asia, maritime adaptations, and river-ine and lake resources were of great importance in northernFennoscandia. The shift in settlement patterns that occurredafter AD 400, represented a break in a long tradition of re-source utilization and a new strategy was established. InFennoscandia, the scarcity of game probably resulted in inten-sified utilization of maritime resources and the development ofagriculture; it seems likely that east-west contacts also playeda role in the transition to reindeer pastoralism. Currently it ap-pears that the reindeer herding tradition was the result of east–west contacts rather than an independent western development.Archaeological finds indicate that these contacts may have beenof importance during the early stage of the transition from hunt-ing and fishing to reindeer pastoralism. The Late Iron Age andMedieval (500–1500 AD) developments in the Baltic and NorthSea area were, however, decisive for the later stages. This view-point corresponds with archaeological, palaeoecological, eth-nographical and historical data.

ReferencesAronsson, K-Å. 1991. Forest reindeer herding A.D. 1–1800. Anarchaeological and palaeoecological study in northern Sweden (Ar-chaeology and Environment 10). Umeå: University of Umeå.

Aronsson, K-Å. 1993. Comments on Sami Viking Age Pastoral-ism – or “The Fur Trade Paradigm” Reconsidered. Norwegian Ar-chaeological Review 26, 20–2.

Aronsson, K.Å. 1994. Pollen evidence of Saami settlement andreindeer herding in the boreal forest of northernmost Sweden –an example of modern pollen rain studies as an aid in the inter-pretation of marginal human interference from fossil pollen data.Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 82, 37–45.

Baudou, E. 1988a (published 1997). Samer och germaner i detförhistoriska Norrland. En kritisk översikt över 10 års forskning.Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 14, 9–23. (“Saamis and Germanicspeaking peoples in prehistoric Norrland. A critical review of tenyears of research.” Journal of Settlement History).

Baudou, E. 1988b. Norrlands förhistoria, pp. 228–49 inBurenhult, G., Baudou E. and Malmer M. (eds.), Länkar till vårforntid – en introduktion till Sveriges arkeologi. Stockholm: BokförlagetBra Böcker. (“The Prehistory of Northern Sweden.” Links to ourprehistory – An introduction in Swedish archaeology).

Bergman, I. 1995. Från Döudden till Varghalsen. En studie avkontinuitet och förändringar inom ett fångstsamhälle i övre norrlandsinland 5200 f. Kr – 400 e.Kr. (Studia Archaeologica UniversitatisUmensis 7). English Summary. Umeå: Umeå universitet,Arkeologiska institutionen. (“From Döudden to Varghalsen. Astudy of continuity and change in a hunting society in the inlandof northern Sweden 5200 BP – 400 AD”).

189

Forsberg, L. 1989. Economic and Social Change 6000 B.C. –1000 AD, pp. 1–29 in Broadbent, N. D. (ed.), Readings in SaamiHistory, Culture, and Language (Miscellaneous Publications 7).Umeå: Center for Arctic Cultural Research, Umeå University.

Ingold, T. 1980. Hunters pastoralists and ranchers. Reindeer econo-mies and their transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Khazanov, A. M. 1984. Nomads and the outside world (CambridgeStudies in Social Anthropology 44). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Koryakova, L. N. 1997a. Introduction, pp. 156–7 in Koryakova,L. N. and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.), The Culture of Trans-Uralian Cattleand Horse Breeders at the Turn of the Era. Ekaterinburg:Ekaterinburg Press.

Koryakova, L. N. 1997b. The Gaevo cemetery in the context ofthe evolution of the Sargat society, pp. 165–72 in Koryakova, L.N. and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.), The Culture of Trans-Uralian Cattleand Horse Breeders at the Turn of the Era. Ekaterinburg:Ekaterinburg Press.

Lundmark, L. 1982. Uppbörd, utarmning, utveckling. Det samiskafångstsamhällets övergång till rennomadism i Lule lappmark (Arkivavhandlingsserie 14). English Summary. Lund: Arkiv för studier iarbetarrörelsens historia. (“Collection, impoverishment, develop-ment. The transition of the Saami hunting society to reindeernomadism in the Lule lappmark area”).

Lundmark. L. 1989. The Rise of Reindeer Pastoralism, pp. 31–44 in Broadbent, N. D. (ed.), Readings in Saami History, Culture,and Language (Miscellaneous Publications 7). Umeå: Center forArctic Cultural Research, Umeå University.

Mebius, H. 1968. Värrö. Studier i samernas förkristna offerriter.English Summary. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell (“Studies inSaami Pre-Christian Sacrificial Rites”).

Mulk, I-M. 1988 (published 1997). Sirkas – ett fjällsamisktsamhälle i förändring 500–1500 e.Kr. Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift14, 61–74. (“Sirkas - a mountain Saamish hunting society in tran-sition 500-1500.” Journal of Settlement History).

Mulk, I-M. 1993. Comments on Sami Viking Age Pastoralism –or ‘The Fur Trade Paradigm´ Reconsidered. Norwegian Archaeo-logical Review 26, 28–34.

Olsen, B. 1987. Stability and Change in Saami Band Structurein the Varanger Area of Arctic Norway, AD 1300–1700. Norwe-gian Archaeological Review 20, 65–80.

Pettersson, O. 1985. The god Ruto, pp. 157–68 in Bäckman, L.and Hultkrantz, Å. (eds.), Saami Pre-Christian Religion. Studieson the oldest traces of religion among the Saamis. Stockholm:Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Ränk, G. 1985. The North-Eurasian background of the Ruto-cult. Some phenomenological reflections, pp. 169–78 in Bäckman,L. and Hultkrantz, Å. (eds) Saami Pre-Christian Religion. Studieson the oldest traces of religion among the Saamis. Stockholm:Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Schanche, A. 1997. Graver i ur og berg. Samisk gravskick og reli-gion 1000 f. Kr til 1700 e.Kr. Avhandling til graden Doctor artium.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap.Universitet i Tromsö. (“Graves in fields of rubble-stones andmountains. Saami burial traditions and religion 1000 B.P. to 1700A.D.”).

Storli, I. 1993. Sami Viking Age Pastoralism – or ‘The Fur TradeParadigm´ Reconsidered. Norwegian Archaeological Review 26, 1–20.

Tallgren. A. M. 1937. The Arctic Bronze Age in Europe. EurasiaSeptentrionalis Antiqua 11, 1– 46.

Vainshtein, S. 1980. Nomads of South Siberia. The pastoral econo-mies of Tuva (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 25).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vorren, Ö. 1980. Samisk bosetning på Nordkalotten, areal-disponering og resursutnytting i historisk – ökologisk belysning,pp. 235–62 in Baudou, E. and Dahlstedt, K. -H. (eds.), Nord-skandinaviens historia i tvärvetenskaplig belysning (Umeå Studiesin the Humanities 24). Umeå: Umeå universitet (”Lappish Settle-ment in the Arctic Region, the Use of Land and resources in His-toric Ecological Terms.” The history of Northern Scandinavia aninterdisciplinary Symposium. Acta Universitatis Umensis).


190


Fig. 1. East-west contacts: 1 - Late Neolithic; 2 - Bronze Age; 3 - Viking Age; 4 - a border-line between east and west can be recognized during the Early Iron Age in the mid-Sweden region. Swedith Lapland is situated north of this border-line. (after Baudou 1988b)

Fig. 2. Distribution of settlements from the hunting culture during the BronzeAge (black dots), and from nomadic settlements during the Late Iron Age (tri-angles). The city of Arjeplog in Swedish Lapland is marked on the map. (investi-

gations by Hedman)

191

Fig. 3 (left). An example of the remains of a hearth inside a nomadic tent.(investigation by Hedman)

Fig. 4 (below). Example of distribution and concentration of settlement sitesfrom hunting and fishing cultures during the Stone and Bronze Age in Swed-ish Lapland (black dots). (investigations by Aronsson in the Gellivare area, north of the

Arctic Circle in Swedish Lapland)

Intercultural Relations among Eurasian Pastoral Nomads: Northern Fennoscandia

192


Fig. 5. Example of distribution and concentration of pit traps (black dots). (investigations by Aronsson in the Gellivare area north

of the Arctic Circle in Swedish Lapland)

193

Fig. 6. Example of distribution and concentration of nomadic style settlements with remains of hearths inside tents (blackdots). (investigation by Aronsson in the Gellivare area north of the Arctic Circle in Swedish Lapland)

Intercultural Relations among Eurasian Pastoral Nomads: Northern Fennoscandia

194


AbstractThis paper summarizes the results of a complex study of theancient Greek sources concerning the Sauromatians, and morethan 500 Scythian period (6th–4th century BC) archaeologicalsites from the lower Volga and southern Ural regions were in-cluded in the analysis. The results of the study enabled the au-thor to criticize the ancient Greek sources which infer that theSauromatians were present in the lower Volga region. The an-cient authors stated that the Sauromatians had lived in the west,in the vicinity of the Black and Azov Seas in the lower DonRiver region. Conclusions reached in this paper indicate thatby placing the Sauromatians in the lower Don region, the factthat a genetic connection existed between the Sauromatiansand the Sarmatians is negated. This finding in turn indicatesthat there were fundamental socio-chronological divisionswithin the Sarmatian Culture. A comparative study of the ar-chaeological sites of the lower Volga and the southern Urals,which included funerary rituals and the principal artifacts ofthe mortuary inventory–ceramics, arrowheads, daggers, andswords–reveals that these sites cannot be considered to be asingle archaeological culture. In conclusion, the author reviewsthe findings of the present study in conjunction with data ob-tained from the research of other scholars which has been foundto confirm the results of the present investigation.

KeywordsEarly Iron Age, Sauromatians, Sarmatians, ceramics, weaponry

IntroductionRussian archaeologists, beginning in the late 1940s, have asso-ciated the Early Iron Age sites of the lower Volga and the south-ern Urals with the Sarmatian Culture (Fig. 1). At this time theleading Sarmatologists, B. N. Grakov and K. F. Smirnov, de-veloped the fundamental periodization for the Sarmatian cul-ture. It has been stated that the Sarmatians inhabited the south-ern Russia steppes for over a thousand years (Grakov I947:100-120; Smirnov 1961, 1964, 1964; Davis-Kimball et al.,1995). According to their periodization, the Sarmatian Culturehas four chronological stages that have been given variousnames as noted below. The evolution of the culture is charac-terized by the changes that appeared in the Sarmatian mortu-ary ritual and in the aggregation of grave goods. The culturesand chronologies are listed in Table 1.

The Sauromatian, the first stage of the Sarmatian Culture, isnamed after the tribe known to us from Herodotus and otherGreek authors. These tribes allegedly were the eastern neigh-bors of the Scythians. It is difficult to postulate particulars con-cerning Sauromatian-Sarmatian connections on the basis ofancient texts. According to the earlier manuscripts, theSarmatians were a new tribe coming from the east; later refer-ences indicate that “Sauromatian” is the earlier name for theSarmatians. M. I. Rostovtsev, an expert in ancient literature,postulated that none of the ancient authors who wrote aboutthe Sarmatians ever mentioned the role of females in the soci-ety. Their prominent role, according to the Greeks, was one ofthe basic features of the Sauromatians. In the written sources,the Sarmatians acquired the characteristic Sauromatians fea-tures only after the original documents had undergone literaryinterpretation (Rostovtsev 1925: 127). Because the transitionoccurred in the textual information, Rostovtsev considered theSauromatians to be a distinct tribe that had inhabited the AzovSea area and disappeared after the Sarmatian invasion.

Smirnov assumed that the Sauromatians were various ethnicgroups, descendants of Bronze Age steppe tribes that were es-sentially nomadic, and that they had developed in the easternDon steppes, along the left bank of the Volga River, and in thesouthern Urals during the 8th–7th centuries BC (Smirnov 1964:3).Smirnov justified this broad definition of Sauromatians by thefact that Classical sources had not given a general name to theScythians’ eastern neighbors until the 3rd–2nd centuries BC(Smirnov 1964: 194). Thus, the genetic link between theSauromatians and Sarmatians was made only on the basis ofarchaeological monuments and the Early Sarmatian Culture(Prokhorovskaya) that had developed in the southern Ural re-gion (Moshkova: 1974).

As all nomadic monuments from the Don to the Urals were knownas the Sauromatian Archaeological Culture, the Sarmatians wereassumed to have descended from the Sauromatians. Antiquitiesdated to 6th–4th centuries BC in the lower Volga and the southernUrals were considered to belong to the Sarmatian cultural period,and were distinct from the synchronous Scythian Culture in theEurasian steppes. The Eurasian steppes generally were dividedinto the eastern and western regions; the central section was al-

A Comparative Study of the Early Iron Age Cultures

in the Southern Volga and the Southern Urals Regions

Maria A. Otchir-GoriaevaKalmyk Institute

Elista, Russia

195

legedly a vast Sauromatian-Sarmatian area and, according to thenew conception supporters, was characterized by a specific unityand continuity of culture.

In spite of the fact that Greek authors never considered theSauromatians to have lived west of the southern Urals, the as-sumption of a Sauro-Sarmatian generic connections has twoprincipal propositions: (1) antiquities from the lower Volga re-gion and those from the southern Urals form a common ar-chaeological culture with only local variations and, (2) thisculture can be named Sauromatian due to the cultural unity ofmonuments.

Although these propositions appear to reveal a harmoniousconception of the Sarmatian Culture, their origins may be re-vised. A special study of Greek texts permits me to argue thatthe Sauromatians settled in the lower Don in the vicinity of theAzov and Black seas. The antiquities of the lower Volgaregion and the southern Urals bear no relation to those ofthe Sauromatians. These areas could have been inhabitedby tribes dating to the Scythian period in the 6th–4th centu-ries BC that were overlooked by Greek authors and, forthis reason, were not mentioned in their manuscripts. Thus,the thesis concerning Sauromatian-Sarmatian genetic link-age loses its archaeological foundation (Otchir-Goriaeva1988a: 95-99). This point of view seems current only to theyounger generation of Sarmatian investigators although M.I. Rostovtsev first argued the point at the beginning of the20th century. As noted above, it was subsequently challengedin the 1940s-1960s.

The next question concerns the cultural unity of the lowerVolga and the southern Urals antiquities and is importantas it is enfolded within the general problem discussed above.In 1929, Rau presented all the necessary arguments to re-solve this problem. He pointed out the sharp discrepanciesbetween the contents of quivers sets from the “Northern”group of monuments, as he referred to those from the south-ern Urals, and “Southern” group from the lower Volga. TheNorthern peoples manufactured only heavy quiver sets whilethe Southern sets are represented by light and elegant tri-lobed arrowheads. Typical of the former group are the dia-metrical heavy arrowheads with pins that are not known inthe lower Volga. The localization of portable stone sacrifi-cial tables resembling the massive arrowheads that, in Rau’sopinion, confirmed the existence of an autonomous Samara-Ural cultural region (Rau 1929).

Subsequent investigators in favor of the above-mentioned fun-damental conception ignored Rau’s conclusions. Decades later,as new information was accumulated, the problem arose againand some investigators began to assume that these cultures dif-fered from each other (Shilov 1966: 3–4; 1975: 124); othersstill believed that “local’’ distinctions were of minor impor-tance (Smirnov 1977: 124–139; 1979: 74–78; Zhelezchikov1980a: 15). In order to resolve these questions, it was neces-sary to conduct a scrupulous comparative study of the lowerVolga and southern Urals antiquities. In 1983, E. F. Chezhina

carried out an art critical analysis of the Animal Style artifacts(Chezhina 1983:16-30), and slightly later I performed a com-parative study of funeral rites and the principal grave invento-ries (Otchir-Goriaeva 1987: 35–53; 1988b; 1990: 81–92; 1996:41–45). In addition, members of the joint Soviet-Italian Com-puter Program (Zhelezchikov and Babarunova 1991: 127–151)whose results not only confirmed but also added to my previ-ous conclusions, conducted a second funerary ritual analysis.It should be noted that these results confirm Rau’s theories.The complex Soviet-Italian study serves as a model in the de-velopment of the archaeological cultural theory. Moreover, thecomparative methodology, separating specific features, will beuseful for future archaeological investigations in each region.

Following is a review and summary of the results obtainedduring the comparative analyses of the lower Volga and thesouthern Ural sites (Fig. 2) and their associated artifacts.

Funerary ritesOf the total number of burial complexes, 326 were used for themortuary ritual comparative analysis; 222 belonged to the lowerVolga region and 104 to the southern Urals (Otchir-Goriaeva1987: 35-53). The mortuary ritual includes a set of interrelatedfeatures characterized by (1) burial structures, (2) conditionand orientation of the deceased and, (3) grave inventory. Intotal, thirty features were noted, mapped, and calculated to de-termine the percentages for both the lower Volga and southernUrals (Fig. 2). This allowed me to determine the features thatwere common, as well as specific, to both regions. Thus, twotypes of burials were noted. Type II burials are found in boththe regions: these are single burials–very rarely are they col-lective and/or simultaneous burials–found in grave pits underearthen, stone or earth-stone mounds. Only very rarely did theyhave rectangular-shaped wooden burial structures within thepit. The fire ritual mortuary procedure is characteristic in bothregions. The prevalent orientation of the deceased in the gravewas supine with the head oriented to the west. Burials of TypeII are the only type found in the lower Volga region.

In the Southern Urals, Type II burials alternate with Type I.The burial structures of several mounds in the south are unique.They have chamber graves of Type I with wooden, round orrectangular structures beneath the mound that show traces of afuneral feast held on the ancient ground level or in the dromos.Sometimes a saddle horse or guard accompanied the deceasedin the burial. Burials of this type are collective and sometimesare reused. Earthen mounds are the most characteristic althoughsome are partially built from stone. Type I burials account for30.7% of the total sites in the southern Urals (Fig. 3).

Specific to the lower Volga burials is the paucity or complete absenceof mortuary gifts, and almost complete–except for one complex–ab-sence of the inventory associated with the priestess. The later burialsaccount for 14.5% of the total and can be considered specific to thesouthern Urals group (Fig. 4). Some significant differences are alsoobserved in the animal bones, some of which are remnants of funeralfeasts. In the southern Urals, burials containing animal bones are twicethat of the lower Volga. Moreover, the southern Ural’s burials contain

A Comparative Study of the Early Iron Age Cultures in the Southern Volga and the Southern Urals Regions

196


horse as well as sheep bones, whereas in the lower Volga sheep bonesare prevalent.

PotteryIt is important to study a large number of graves that provide avariety of artifact categories in order to compare the two sitegroups. Pottery is one such category, for it is believed that thehand-made pottery of a specific population group is one of themost reliable ethno-cultural criterions. The lower Volga pot-tery is categorized into fourteen types that differ from eachother in the following categories: (1) maximum diameter level,(2) body form and, (3) bottom shape. In this study, all the pot-tery types are flat-bottomed. The clay used in the lower Volgapots is coarse. Nearly all the pots are lopsided, frequently asym-metrical with uneven rims and bottoms; they characteristicallyhave thick walls and particularly heavy, massive bottoms.

Ornamented pottery from the lower Volga types comprises38.5% of the total pots. The seven principal ornamentation typesare (1) pearls, (2) pricked-pits, (3) finger-pinches, (4) nail im-pressions, (5) drawn ornamentation, (6) rim thread, and (7)hollow tube pricks. Combinations of different ornamentationon a single pot are very rare. The most popular designs arestick pricks, finger-pinches, and drawn designs.

From the southern Ural sites, 99 pots divided into two groupswere used for comparative analyses based upon the followingcriteria: (1) if the shape of the pot were different from thosefrom the Lower Volga and; (2) those which were of identicalshape (Fig. 5). Pots with round bottoms represent the first groupof 32 specimens. Until recently these were considered rare inthe Scythian period complexes (6th–4th centuries BC) becausea round-bottom vessel was assumed to be a sign of the subse-quent Prokhorovskaya (Early Sarmatian) ceramics in the south-ern Urals. However, research of the past few years indicatesthese were an integral part of the southern Urals material cul-ture during the Scythian epoch (Pshenichnyak 1983: 100-101;Zhelezchikov 1980b: 73-74).

In addition to the round bottom vessels, 46 different types offlat bottom vessels peculiar to the southern Urals region areknown. The 2nd 5th, and 10th types of lower Volga pottery be-long to an identical shape group. Quantitative analysis of thesouthern Urals ceramics reveals that the overwhelming major-ity, 78 vessels, belonging to the first group differ from the lowerVolga pottery, and only 21 vessels are included in the groupthat are similar.

However, the southern Urals pottery types have degrees of iden-tity. The lower Volga Type 10 and the southern Ural Type 2 areeach a local shape, popular along the border of the two regions.The lower Volga Type 5 and southern Urals Type 3 are notcommon for either region in spite of their similarity in shape.The ornament on the southern Urals type, moreover, is not foundin the lower Volga region and, consequently, the Urals ceramictype is unique. There is no doubt about the similarity betweenType 2 lower Volga vessels with the Type 1 vessels from thesouthern Urals (Fig. 5). Represented by ten vessels, they have

a very simple pot-shape that spread to all the Eurasian steppearchaeological cultures.

Several ornamental types found in the southern Ural region arenot represented in the lower Volga. B. F. Zhelezchikov con-ducted an analysis of 166 southern Ural’s vessels spanning theScythian epoch and identified 20 ornamental elements(Zhelezchikov 1980b: 75; table 54). In contrast, seven typesare known for lower Volga vessels. Thus, although there is acommon ceramics type in both the southern Urals and the lowerVolga, two unique traditions were present. Simple shapes, roughtexture, and plain–almost primitive–ornamentation character-ize the Volga ceramic complex. In contrast, the Urals potteryhas a more variegated shape and is elaborately ornamented(Otchir-Goriaeva 1990: 81–92).

ArrowheadsThe majority of the Scythian epoch burials contained arma-ment–bronze arrowheads, swords, daggers, and spears. Al-though some similar shapes are noted, armaments from differ-ent regions are quite original. Arrowheads (here identified asquiver sets) represent one of the most specific and reliablesources of information. Seventy-four lower Volga and 60 south-ern Urals quiver sets were analyzed in the comparative studyto determine types specific to each region. Eleven types identi-fied from the lower Volga burials are not found in the southernUrals; the most frequent types are both the bronze trilobed ar-rowhead with narrow arched head and the iron trilobed arrow-head. Sixteen arrowhead types were detected in the southernUrals that were not found in the Volga region (Fig. 6). Com-pared to the Volga types, more are found in the southern Urals,although several types are represented by only a few examples.The morphological categories are unique and include bilobedarrowheads with two cast holes in the haft (Fig. 6: 1). Massivearrowheads were cast with tracery ornamentation (Fig. 6: 9);in addition, three types of shafted arrowheads are noted (Fig.6: 10, 11, 15). Four so-called diverse types were found both inthe lower Volga and in the southern Urals. Originally they wereclassified as being the same type, but details, proportions, andquantity differentiate them from common types.

In order to investigate the uncharacteristic types of arrowheadsand their developmental trends, correlation tables were made.The southern Urals quivers were classified into three groups.The first group is the most numerous and comprises the major-ity of the quiver sets. A secondary set of nine types are distinctfrom the general arrowhead type; two main types are noted,Type II 2 and Type II 2-1. The first has a triangular head and ahollow shaft, while the second has a triangular head and a pinon the shaft. The third and most numerous group include twonew types, Type 3 and Type 4, that are similar in shape to thetwo main types of Group II. They have, however, a very sharppoint, and are larger and heavier; Types 3 and 4 can be tracedto a later date. They are the prevalent types in the classicalProkhorovskaya Culture quiver sets. The first group of southernUral arrowheads includes 17 diverse types. Four discrete typesmake up the second group; the third group includes three unusualtypes in addition to the common ones. These data indicate that

197

specific arrowhead types had always played an important role inthe development of southern Urals quiver sets (Fig. 7a).

In the lower Volga, two quiver set groups were noted. The cor-relation of arrowheads in every quiver set made it possible todetermine the types of arrowheads prevailing during differentperiods (Fig. 7b). Two distinct groups of arrowheads reflectthe development of quiver sets for different time periods. Thus,all types of bilobate arrowheads and massive trilobate arrow-heads have been placed in the first group. In the second group,although iron arrowheads were found, the small fine bronzearrowheads are still dominant. Eight types of uncharacteristicarrowheads represent the first chronological group from thesouthern Urals. The second chronological group is composedof common arrowheads belonging to the types of the first group,plus nine additional types including four that are uncharacter-istic for the southern Urals (Otchir-Goriaeva 1996: 51). Dur-ing all stages, the basic arrowhead has an arched head; the maintypes are the ones with a triangular or arched head and a pro-truding shaft. Arrowheads become smaller and more gracefulover time.

These analyses lead to the conclusion that each region had itsown pattern of quiver set development and dynamics. Whereasin the lower Volga nearly all types become less massive andmore intricate over time, the southern Ural arrowheads do notshow the same trend. An additional modification was imple-mented in which the arrowheads become narrower and longeralthough the weight was essentially the same. This modifica-tion seems to have been advantageous if the comparison is madebetween the southern Urals arrowheads and those from thelower Volga. This change may have been instrumental in themigrations of Prokhorovskaya tribes to the West. It must beemphasized that the difference in arrowheads within the tworegions, not only in the diversity of types but also the develop-mental trend, is of primary importance.

Swords and daggers The distinction between swords and daggers in the two re-gions is equally important. They are represented by two types:(1) swords with a bar pommel decorated by cast ornamenta-tion in which two opposed birds of prey with coiled beaks com-pose the haft and guard and; (2) swords with a zoomorphicpommel representing pairs of animal or bird heads (Fig. 8).The latter are analogous to numerous swords and daggers fromSiberia and Central Asia. Other types of swords from the south-ern Urals have features that are characteristic of regions to theeast and are not found in the lower Volga.

Especially important is a group of swords with zoomorphicpommels representing birds’ feet with claws. This group be-longs to a large series of swords used in the European ScythianCulture. Although quite popular in the southern Urals, they werenot widely found in the lower Volga. Spearheads are extremelyrare in the southern Urals as only four have been noted as com-pared to nineteen found in the lower Volga (Otchir-Goriaeva,1988b: 10-13).

Animal Style and decorationAnimal style decoration is noted in the data obtained by E. F.Chezhina who conducted an analysis of art objects of the LowerVolga and the southern Urals. Chezhina identified two discretestylistic and thematic groups. The most popular image, spe-cifically a local style in the lower Volga, was a short-nosedfabulous beast frequently appearing as an image carved onfangs. In addition, artifacts depicting camels and animals incombat were widespread, although they are never encounteredin the lower Volga region. Distinctive art features of the lowerVolga are richness of ornamentation and the use of intricategeometrical patterns in conjunction with zoomorphic elements.

The image of a wolf was most widespread in the southern Uralswhere the decorative art is characterized by simplicity of tech-nique, larger and less complicated designs, unity of surfacedesign, and expressiveness of contour. Whereas in the lowerVolga, preference was given to bone carving, in the southernUrals, art objects are characterized by the wide used of bronze(Chezhina 1983: 16–30).

Common comparisonsThe results of the comparative study of funerary rituals, ce-ramics, armament, animal style, and developmental trends hadlead to some general conclusions on culture and history of thetribes under consideration. I have attempted to group the ar-chaeological data into several groups that represent culturalorientation, social status indices, ideology, economy, and con-tacts with neighboring regions. The grouping is rather roughbut, nonetheless, effective and they have enabled me to deter-mine that the lower Volga and southern Urals sites were inde-pendent and unique.

There is no doubt that both groups belong to the vast culturaldomain of the Eurasian steppes during the Scythian epoch.This suggests the existence of common cultural features withinthe groups–although the sites under comparison manifest cer-tain distinctive traits within the nomadic tradition. These traitscan be observed in artifacts that reveal spiritual characteris-tics such as the Animal Style, ceramic ornamentation, and spe-cific funerary rituals.

In addition to the distinctive forms, ceramics ornamentationvaries considerably. In the lower Volga, vessels are decoratedwith nail imprints, finger nips, etc., all rather simple patterns.In contrast, the southern Ural vessels are much more varied.Here, patterns include stamped designs–herringbone, pressedU-shaped motifs, arches and triangles, and unevenly hatchedgeometric designs. The incised ornamentation in both regionshas its own peculiarities. In the lower Volga, the ornamenta-tion is an isolated motif while in the southern Urals, the designis represented in friezes of complex compositions.

Burials in the southern UralsCertain features discovered during the analysis of mortuary ritesmay represent religious and cultic belief systems. Characteris-tic in the southern Urals are single and collective cremations,


198


with varied mortuary offerings, performed on the ancient groundlevel. The varied burial structures within the mounds are note-worthy, including a stone ring surrounded by rocks and a mas-sive tombstone in the center of the mound. Radially placedlogs oriented to the center of the mound indicate the originalityof the burial ritual. Other complexes of special interest are thosewith the deceased placed in a diagonal position directly on theearth, and located next to priestess burials. These features, notfound in the lower Volga, identify the southern Urals burials.

Cultural orientation in the lower VolgaThe Eurasian steppe cultures have been divided into the east-ern and western complexes, each identified by its historicalmonuments. The lower Volga monuments are culturally ori-ented to the Scythians near the Black Sea and, in my opinion,were rather closely connected to the northern Caucasus. Quiversets in the lower Volga often have laurel-leaf or trapezium-shaped heads as well as being bilobed; these are also specificto Scythian quiver sets.

Analogous sets of bronze bridle decorations—zoomorphic andround plaques with a ribbed edges, and elongated rhomboid-shaped forehead plaques–are significant (Molchanovka, Kurgan2). Characteristic elements, such as zoomorphic cruciform plaques(Khoshaoutovo, Kurgan 1) representing a deer head withbranched-antlers and plaques in the form of a pair of fanged wildboar heads (Krivaya Luka VIII, Kurgan 5) have direct analogieswith those from the Scythian Black Sea region. Bronze-cast beastof prey (Three Brothers, Kurgan 25) are considered either Greekproducts from north of the Black Sea or locally made under Greek-Scythian artistic influence (Zasetskaya 1979: 42–44; Chezhina1984: 64). Typically Scythians had scale armor and bronze hel-mets. Nearly all-lower Volga mirrors belong to the types that werepopular among the Scythians.

Lower Volga contacts with neighboring regions From an archaeological point of view, contacts with the north-ern Caucasus appear to be rather close as exemplified by lowerVolga spearheads that certainly are of northern Caucasus ori-gin. Influence from the Caucasus is also noted in sword shapes.Finds from the right bank of the Volga and in the Kalmyk steppesinclude trilobed and quatralobed arrowheads carved from bone,typical of those from the Caucasus (Kozenkova 1982: 13–17).Polished vessels from lower Volga burials have analogous coun-terparts in the northern Caucasus. The contacts between thetwo regions are further emphasized by gold earrings in the richSazonkin Bougor burial that features images of two horsemenin chariots. Similar earrings or temporal bone pendants werefound in a female tomb in Akhalgory, East Georgia (Smirnov1934: 73). Other analogous earrings are from Tomb 6 on thelower terrace of Vany town in western Georgia (Lordkipanidze1977: 159–175).

Cultural orientation in the southern UralsTraits in the southern Urals monuments indicate a differentcultural orientation and certainly must have been influencedby eastern Siberian cultures. Chezhina noted a number of pe-

culiarities in the art such as images of a long-nosed beast withexposed fangs representing a wolf motif, reminiscent in its de-tailing as well as the treatment of the entire image of Asia-Siberian and Ananyin cultural motifs. Stone plaques are a dis-tinctive feature of the southern Urals culture; they measurethree–four feet in height and have zoomorphic ornamentation.Representations of wild mountain goats in the southern Uralsare similar to those from central Eurasian and the Minusinsksteppes (Chezhina 1983: 16–30).

Mortuary rituals specific to the southern Urals reveal influencefrom the East. Similar diagonal tombs and radially woodenstructures located in the mound were found in regions as di-verse as south of the Aral Sea to western Mongolia (Moshkova1972: 76–79; Vishnevskaya 1973: 68–69).

Worth mentioning among other southern Ural findings is a se-ries of pear-shaped vessels with a gently curved profile and arounded bottom that are analogous to objects from the Ouigaraktomb. Common traits are also observed in vessels with a cylin-drical spout. A. Kh. Pshenichnyuk, who conducted the excava-tion of the well-known Filippovka “Tsar” Kurgan in the south-ern Urals, noted that the grave inventory and funeral ritual re-sembled those features found in synchronous eastern and south-ern sites. i.e., the Issyk Kurgan in Kazakhstan and the Pazyrykkurgans in the Altai (Pshenichnyak 1989: 13)

Development and wide distribution of hafted and oversizedarrowheads with hooks at the base are characteristic of easterntribes; they are also typical of the Urals arrowheads cast inboth bronze and iron, and bone-hafted. Two types of arrow-heads–trilobed and quatralobed–have large shafts and hooks atthe base. Quiver set development in the southern Urals is es-sentially discrete from that of the lower Volga. At the sametime the former is parallel to that of Central Asia, as indicatedby two forms of arrowheads–one with long sockets and theother with internal sockets (Medvedskaya 1972: 75–87).

Kazakhstan, the Altai, and southern Siberia are the principalareas where the round groove buckles with a rectangular ortrapezium-shaped frame and a rigid hook-clasp predominated.Zoomorphic buckles with the same type of clasp are also char-acteristic in these regions. Among the southern Ural artifactsare a series of such clasps that have zoomorphic representa-tions: a standing camel, two fighting camels, a combat scene (abeast of prey tearing another animal apart), and two heraldicfloppy-eared griffins.

Southern Ural contacts with populations in neighbor-ing regionsEastern motifs are also found among the imported artifacts.According to data presented by T. V. Savelyeva and K. F.Smirnov, the southern Urals has about twenty kurgan tombscontaining goods imported from the Near East andAchaemenid Iran. They include a silver rhyton, a goldtorque, a chalcedony Achaemenid stamp seal in a goldframe, a bone comb engraved with a hoofed animal, sev-

199

eral kinds of beads, small “Phoenician” glass vessels, andNear Eastern type vessels made of red clay. One of the south-ern Ural kurgans contained an alabaster Egyptian vesselbearing Egyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform inscriptionsin four languages that translated “Artaxerxes the Great Pha-raoh” (465–424 BC) (Savelyeva and Smirnov 1972: 106–115). The gold jug, silver rhytons with handles represent-ing mountain goats, and the silver rhyton with a bovineprotome must have been brought from the Near East. Simi-lar items can be observed among art objects of AchaemenidIran.

Social and economic developmentThe existence of complex burial structures with various graveinventories, accompanied by saddle horses and guard warriorssuggest a greater degree of social stratification among the south-ern Ural tribes than is found in the lower Volga population. Inaddition, some investigators have assumed that, assisted by theclimatic and geographic environment, and as revealed bydromos tombs with subsequent burials, the southern Ural tribeshad become partially settled. This way of life is similar to thatfound in the Ural steppes further to the east and among theforest tribes (Moshkova 1974: 49).

ConclusionsThe data reviewed above demonstrate the originality of the sitesthat belong to each of the nomadic groups compared in thisstudy. As the specifics indicate, the lower Volga populationswere influenced by European Scythians while the southern Uralpeoples, being more numerous and with a richer and more var-ied material culture, had wider and more varied contacts. Be-ing the western-most outpost of the Asiatic sphere, the south-ern Ural cultures focused on the principal traditions of easternnomadic cultures.

Of paramount importance, in my opinion, is the fact that thesouthern Ural populations, being an autonomous and complexunion, became a melting pot in which the new ProkhorovskayaCulture was formed. The principal distinctions between thelower Volga and the southern Ural sites are in the main devel-opment trends. M. G. Moshkova and K. F. Smirnov carried outdetailed studies to prove that the Prokhorovskaya Culture de-veloped from sites in Samara-Ural regions during theScythian epoch in the late 5th century BC, and especially inthe 4th century BC (Moshkova 1974; Moshkova and Smirnov1977: 265–274).

Recent investigators have shown that the southern Urals re-gion had a number of 5th–4th century BC sites that combinetraits of both the Sauromatian and Prokhorovskaya cultures(Pshenichnyak 1983; Tairov 1988: 141–160). It is also note-worthy that in the lower Volga, Prokhorovskaya cultural fea-tures were identified dating to the 3rd century BC; this develop-ment occurred as the result of migrations into the region fromthe southern Urals. Moreover, tribes from the north could have

ReferencesChezhina, E. F. 1983. Khudozhestvenhye osobennosti zverinogostilya Nizhnego Povolzhya i Yuzhnogo Preeuralya v skifskuyuepochu. Archeologicheskii Sbornik Gosudarstvennyi Ermitage 23,16–30 (“Artistic pecularities of the Animal Style of the LowerVolga and Southern Urals.” Archaeological Collections of the StateHermitage).

Chezhina, E. F. 1983. Izobvazheniya svernouvshegosya v koltsikhishnika v iskusstve Nizhnego Povolzhya i Yuzhnogo Preeuralyav skifskuyu epokhu. Archeologicheskii Sbornik GosudarstvennyiErmitage 25, 61–4 (“Curled up predatory images in the art of theLower Volga and Southern Urals during the Scythian period.”Archaeological Collections of the State Hermitage).

Davis-Kimball, Jeannine, Bashilov, Vladimir A, and Yablonsky,Leonid T. 1995. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early IronAge. Berkeley, California: Zinat Press.

Grakov, B. N. 1947. Pereczhitki matriarhata u sarmatov. VestnikDrevnei Istorii 3, 100–20 (“Matriarchial survivals of theSarmatians.” Journal of Ancient History).

Kozenkova, V. I. 1982. Tipologia i khronologicheskaya klassifikatsiyapredmetov koubanskoi koultury - vostochnyi variant. Svodarcheologicheskih istochnikov B–2–5 (“Typological and chronologi-cal classification of the artefacts of the Coban Culture - the east-ern variant”. Collection of Archaeological Sources).

Lordkipanidze, O. 1977. Vanskoye gorodishe: raskopki, istoriya,problemy - statya vtoraya. Arkheologicheskiye raskopki T. III, 159–75 (“Vany settlement: excavations, history and problems - sec-ond paper.” Archaeological exavations).

Lukashev, S. A. 1986. K voprosu o migratsii prokhorovskikhplemyon Yuzhnogo Preeuralya v Nizhneye Povolzhye, pp. 66–82in Skripkin, A. S. (ed.), Drevnyaya i srednevkovaya istoriya NizhnegoPovolzhya. Saratov: Saratovskii gosudarstvennyi univesitet (“Onthe migration of the tribes of the Prochorov Culture of the South-ern Urals towards the Lower Volga region.” The Ancient andMedieval History of the Lower Volga region).

Medvedskaya, I. N. 1972. Nekotorye voprosy khronologiibronzovyh nakonechnikov strel Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana.Sovetskaya Archeologiya 3, 75–87 (“Some issues relating to the chro-nology of the Bronze Arrow Heads of Central Asia andKazakhstan.” Soviet Archaeology).

Moshkova, M. G. 1972. Savromatskiye pamyatniki severo-vostochnogo Orenbourzhya. Materialy i issledovaniya po archeologiiSSSR 153, 49–79 (“Sauromatian Archaeological sites of the North-eastern Orenburg Region.” Materials and Investigations of SovietUnion Archaeology).

Moshkova, M. G. 1974. Proiskhozhdenye rannesarmatskoiProkhorovskoi koulturya. Moscow: Nauka (“The Origins of theEarly Sarmatian Prochorov Culture”).


200


Moshkova, M. G. (ed.), 1994. Statisticheskaya obrabotkapogrebalnix pamyatnikov Aziatskoi Sarmatii. Vyp. 1 – Sauromatskayaepoha. Moskva: Nauka (“Statistic work on the burial customs ofthe Asian Sarmatians”).

Moshkova, M. G. and Smirnov, K. F. 1977. Retsenziya na knigu- V. P. Shilova Ocherki po istorii drevnikh plemyon NizhegoPovolzhya. Sovetskaya Archeologiya 2, 265–74 (“Book review - V.P. Shilov’s Essays on the Ancient History of the Lower VolgaTribes.” Soviet Archaeology).

Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1987. Pogrebalnyi obryad naseleniyaNizhnego Povolzhya I Yuzhnogo Preeuralya VI-IV vv do ne, pp.35-53 in Tsutskin E. V. (ed.), Arkheologicheskiye issledovaniyaKalmykii (“The Burial Rite of the Population of the Lower Volgaand Southern Urals during the VI-IV centuries BC.” Archaeo-logical investigations of Kalmykia Elista).

Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1988a. O rasseleniyi savromatov. VestnikLeningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta Ser. 2 (N16), 95–9(“On the localisation of the Sauromatians.” Leningrad StateUniversity Publications).

Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1988b. Savromatskaya koulturaNizhnego Povolzhya VI-IV vv do ne. Avtoreferat kandadtskoydissertacii. Leningrad (“The Sauromatian Culture of the LowerVolga during the VI-IV centuries BC.” Ph.D. Dissertation).

Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1990. Klassifikatsiya keramiki izpogrebenii skifskoi epochi Nizhnego Povolzhya, pp. 81–92 inMarkovin V. I. (ed.), Voprosy arkheologii yuga Vostochnoi Evropy.Elista: Kalmytskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (“Classification ofthe Ceramics from Scythian period Lower Volga Burials.” Prob-lems in the Archaeology of South-eastern Europe).

Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1992. Savromatskaya problema v skifo-sarmatskoi arkheologii. Rossiskaya Archeologia 2, 32–40(“Sauromatian problems relating to Scytho-Sarmatian Archaeol-ogy.” Russian Archaeology).

Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1993. Osobennosti kolchannych naborovKochevnikov Niznego Povolzya i Yuzhnogo Urala, pp. 72–8 inMarchenko I. I. (ed.), Kubanskaya arkheologicheskaya konferenziyaII. Krasnodar: Kubanskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (“Distinc-tive features of the quiver sets of the Nomads of the Lower Volgaand Southern Urals.” Kuban Archaeological Conference).

Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1996. Nakonechniki strel kochevnikovNiznego Povolzya. Rossiskaya Archeologia 6, 41–54 (“The arrow-heads of the Lower Volga Nomads.” Russian Archaeology).

Pshenichnyuk, A. Kh. 1983. Koultura rannikh kochevnikovYuzhnogo Urala. Moskva: Nauka (“The Early Nomadic Cultureof the Southern Urals”).

Pshenichnyuk, A. Kh. 1989. Raskopki ‘tsarskogo’ kourgana naYuzhnom Urale: Preprint doklada. Ufa: Bashkirskii nauchnyi tsentr

- Uralskogo otdeleniya (“Exavations of the ‘Tsar’s’ Barrow in theSouthern Urals”).

Rau, P. 1929. Die Graber der fruhen Eisenzeit im unterenVolgagebiet: Studien zur Chronologie der skythisen Pfeilspitze.Pokzovsk: Izvestiya Tsentralnogo Museya (“The Graves of the EarlyIron Age in the Lower Volga region. Chronological study ofScythian arrowheads”).

Rostovtsev, M. I. 1925. Skifiya i Bospor. Leningrad (“Scythiaand Bosporus”).

Savelyeva, T. N. and Smirnov, K. F. 1972. Blizhnevostochnyedrevnosti na Yuzhnom Urale. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 106–15(“Near-Eastern Antiquities from the Southern Urals.” Journal ofAncient History)

Shilov, V. P. 1966. Otchet o raskopkah Astrakhanskoi expeditsiiLeningradskoe otdelenie Instituta Archeologii AN SSSR v 1966.Arkhiv Institut Archeologii Akademii nauk SSSR R–I N 4625 a-b(“Field report of the exavations Astrachan Expedition of theLeningrad Institute of Archaeology for 1966.” Archives of theInstitute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences SSSR).

Shilov, V. P. 1975. Ocherki po istorii drevnikh piemen NizhnegoPovolzhya. Leningrad: Nauka (“Essays on the Ancient History ofthe tribes of the Lower Volga”).

Smirnov, K. F. 1979. Kochevniki Severnogo Prikaspiya i YuzhnogoPreeuralya skifskogo vremeni, pp. 74–8 in Etnographiya iarkheologiya Srednei Azii. Moskva: Nauka (“Scythian Period No-mads of the Northern Caspian and Southern Urals Regions.” Eth-nography and Archaeology of Central Asia).

Smirnov, K. F. 1977. Savromaty i sarmaty, pp. 124–39 inMuncheav, R. M. (ed.), Problemy arkheologii Evrazii i SevernoiAmeriki. Moskva: Nauka (“Sauromatians and Sarmatians.” Prob-lems of Eurasian and South American Archaeology).

Smirnov, K. F. 1964. Sauromaty - Rannya istoriya i koulturasarmatov. Moscow: Nauka (“Sauromatians - Early history andculture”).

Smirnov, K. F. 1961. Vooruzheniye sauromatov. Materialy iissledovaniya po archeologii SSSR 101 (“Sauromatian Armament.”Materials and Investigations of Soviet Union Archaeology).

Smirnov, K. F. and Petrenko, V. G. 1963. Savromaty Povolzhya iYuzhnogo Preeuralya. Svod archeologicheskih istochnikov D 1–9(“Sauromatians of the Lower Volga and Southern Urals.” Collec-tion of Archaeological Sources). Moskva: Nauka.

Smirnov, Ya. I. 1934. Akhalgoriiski klad. Tiflis (“The AchalgoryHoard”).

Tairov, A. D. and Gavrilyuk, A. G. 1988. K voprosu oformirovanii rannesarmatskoi - Prokhorovskoi koultury, pp. 141–

201

60 in Zdanovich, G. V. (ed.), Problemy arkheologii Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinskii gosudar-stvennyi universitet (“The Development of the Early SarmatianCulture - Prochorov Culture.” Problems of the Archaeology ofthe Ural-Kazakhstan Steppes).

Vasilyev, I. B. and Vybornov, A. A. 1986. Nizhneye Povolzhye vepokhu kamnya i bronzy, pp. 3–20 in Skripkin, A. S. (ed.),Drevnyaya i srednevekovaya istoriya Nizhnego Povolzhya. Saratov:Saratovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (“The Lower Volga Re-gion during the Stone and Bronze Ages.” Ancient and MedievalHistory of the Lower Volga).

Vishnevskaya, O. I. 1973. Koultura sakskih plemyon nizovyei Syr-Daryi v VII–V vv do ne po materialam Ouigaraka. Moscow: Nauka(“The Culture of the Saka tribes of the Low Syr-Daryi during theVII–V centuries BC”).

Zasetskaya, I. P. 1979. Bronzovye blyashki s izobrazheniyem sver-nouvshegosya v kroug khishnika iz savromatskogo pogrebeniya.Soobcheniya Gosudarstvennyi Ermitage 44, 42–4 (“Bronze plaquesdisplaying curled up, imaginary predators from a Sauromatianburial.” Reports of the State Hermitage).

Zhelezchikov, B. F. 1980a. Ranniye kochevniki YuzhnogoPreeuralya. Avtoreferat kandidatskoi dissertatsii. Moscow (“EarlyNomads of the Southern Urals.” Ph.D. Dissertation Abstract).

Zhelezchikov, B. F. 1980b. Ranniye kochevniki YuzhnogoPreeuralya. Dissertatsiya kandidata istoricheskih nauk. Moscow:Institut Archeologii Akademii nauk SSSR R–II N2261 (“EarlyNomads of the Southern Urals.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Institute ofArchaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union).

Zhelezchikov, B. F. and Barbarounova, Z. A. 1991. Pogrebalnyiobryad sauromatskoi koultury kak obyekt kompleksnogo issledovaniiyaformalizovanno-statisticheskimi metodami. Doklad, prochitannyina III seminare ‘Antichnaya tsivilizatsiya i varvarskii mir.’Gelendzhik (“Statistical Analysis of the Burial Rites of theSauromatian Culture.” Paper, presented at Seminar III of the ‘An-cient civilisation and the Barbarian World’ conference).

Table 1. Sauro-Sarmatian dating and cultural identification

Table


202


Fig. 1. Lower Volga and southern Urals archaeological sites.

Fig. 2. Comparative table of funeral rite features in the lower Volga and the southern Urals. 1- earthen mounds; 2- stone mounds; 3- under-mound rectangular-shaped wooden structures ; 4- burials on the ancient gound level; 5- fires in the mound, 6- traces of funerary feasting;7- secondary burials into Bronze Age kurgans; 8- secondary burials into Sauromatian period kurgans; 9- collective burials; 10 - single burials;11- mounds with rocks on the surface ; 12 - cenotaphs; 13 - stone structures in earthen mounds; 14 - earthen mounds built partially of stone;15 - under-mound round wooden structures; 16 - burials accompanied by saddle-horse burials ; 17 - burials accompanied by guard burials;18 - repeated burials; 19- chamber graves; 20 - Group I graves; 21 - Group II graves; 22 - head orientation of the dead to the west; 23 -diagonal position of the deceased; 24 - cremation burials; 25 - “priest” inventory burials; 26- burials with scarce or complete absence ofinventory; 27 - burials not containing animal bones; 28 - burials containing horse bones; 29 - burials containing sheep bones; 30 - burialscontaining ritual substances ( ochre, etc).

203

Fig. 3. Correlation of burial structure features in the lower Volga and southern Urals. 1 - repeated burials; 2- chamber graves; 3- graves ofType I; 4 - collective burials; 5 - under-mound round wooden structures; 6- burials accompanied by saddle-horse burials; 7 - burialsaccompanied by guard burials; 8 - traces of funerary feasting; 9 - rectangular-shaped wooden under-mound structures ; 10 - earthenmounds; 11 - earth and stone mounds; 12 - kurgans not containing wooden under-mound structures; 13 - stone mounds; 14 - simpleburials (as compared to repeated burials); 15 - graves of Type II; 16 - single burials.

Fig. 4 . Correlation of grave good categories in the lower Volga and southern Urals burials . 1 - daggers and swords; 2 - quivers; 3- bridle bitsand psalia; 4 - buckles and vorvorks; 5 - arrowheads; 6 - whetstones; 7- knives; 8 - vessels; 9- spearheads; 10 - horse bridle plaques; 11- bonespoons; 12- boar’s fang pendants decorated in Animal Style; 13 - bronze wheels as amulets; 14 - mirrors; 15 - sacrifical altars with three-fourfeet; 16 - “divining” stones; 17 - beads; 18 - small vessels; 19 - shells.


204


Fig. 6. Arrowhead types not found in the lower Volga region.

Fig. 5. Ceramic types in the lower Volga and southern Urals.

205

Fig. 7a. Correlation of arrowhead types in the southern Urals.

Fig. 7b. Correlation of arrowhead types in the lower Volga.


206


Fig. 8. Dagger and sword types decorated with Animal Style from the southern Urals.1 - Vinnovka; 2 - Bolshoy Tolkay; 3 - Verchny Avzyan; 4 - Mykachevo ; 5 - Petrovka; 6- Voskresenka; 7, 12 - Talachevo; 8 - Kunakbaevo; 9 - Orenburg; 10 - Bachmutino; 11- Belebey; 13 - Byasovka; 14 - Urshek. (drawings by R. Ismagilov)

207

AbstractA formal typological approach to the study of artifacts is a tra-ditional aspect of Russian archaeology. This methodology alsoprevails in the study of pottery where stylistic parameters arebased on the analyses of decoration and morphology. This pa-per attempts to apply the concept of style to materials recov-ered from Iron Age sites in the Transural region. The study isbased on a formal typological methodology that is supportedby statistics. A summarized description of the basic ceramictypes encountered in these sites and the results obtained fromthe current research are provided.

Key wordsTransural, Iron Age, ceramics, decoration, style

IntroductionPotsherds are one of the most numerous classes of artifacts tobe recovered from archaeological excavations. In some casesthe type of decoration apparent on pottery is the main criterionfor the identification of archaeological cultures. Therefore, thesubject of the paper will focus on a review of Iron Age ceram-ics from the Transural region. With regard to the geographicaldistribution of these ceramics, the primary zone of concentra-tion lies within the vast forest-steppe territory.1 The archaeo-logical dimension, which relates to Transuralian antiquities, ischaracterized by a great diversity of cultural traditions, reflectedin the ceramic artifacts. In addition, several lines of develop-ment are apparent in these artifacts.

Initially, the ceramics of the Transurals and western Siberiawere not a subject of special study, although they were groupedwithin the archaeological exploration of the regions’ antiqui-ties. Such explorations were initially undertaken by local ama-teurs at the end of the 19th century, and these individuals wereinterested in excavating kurgans as well as gathering informa-tion relating to finds, the location of settlements and the kurgansthemselves. Research was continued by archaeologists andsemi-professional specialists at a later date. This particularbranch of science was developed within the ArchaeologicalCommittee and was systemized by A. Spitsin. Material col-lated by V. Tolmatchev enabled the development of an archaeo-logical map of the eastern slope of the Ural mountains and theforest-steppe zone. As a rule this research was not systematicand it generally represented the collection of oral facts. Plannedinvestigations of the archaeological sites of the Transurals andwestern Siberian forest-steppe zone were undertaken by P.

Dmitriev, V. Tchernetsov, K. Salnikov and others during the1920s and 1930s. They described several aspects of the archaeo-logical material recovered from Iron Age kurgans and under-took extensive settlement and cemetery excavations. P. Dmitrievfirst proposed that the culture of the ancient population whichhad inhabited the area from the Transurals as far as the IrtyshRiver had developed in close association with Sarmatian tribes.V. Tchernetsov and K. Salnikov offered an alternative point ofview, and proposed an Ugrian origin for the Transuralian popu-lation (Mogilnikov 1992: 274).

In the period between the 1960s and 1980s some basic resultswere obtained through a series of broad field investigationsundertaken by V. Gening, V. Mogilnikov, V. Victorova, V.Stoyanov, L. Koryakova, N. Matveeva, and others. Subse-quently, the systematization and interpretation of the archaeo-logical materials was undertaken. Archaeological sites of theearly Iron Age are identified as Nosilovo, Baitovo, andVorobievo (Stoyanov 1969). The archaeological investigationof Iron Age ceramics had therefore been initiated. A series ofcommon features among the Transuralian Iron Age ceramicswas illuminated, including the technology associated with theirmanufacture, the shape and types of decoration. Ceramic ves-sels were vertical-ellipsoid, spherical (globular), or horizon-tal-ellipsoid in shape, with a round or slightly sharpened base.As a rule, the neck was well defined. The majority of vesselswere hand-made using the band-braid technique, and were firedin open fires. Usually the ornamentation covered the neck,throat, and shoulder of the vessel and is characterized by sev-eral consistent decorative techniques as well as a minimal setof decorative patterns and compositions.

The ceramics were analyzed following several approaches. Themost common approach involves a formal typological methodthat concentrates on the morphological features of the shape ofa vessel and its decoration (Gening 1973; 1992; Koryakova1988). Technological analyses and, by extension, experimen-tation identified that the manufacture of pottery had been spe-cific to different regions, and was discrete to the various cul-tures (Bobrinsky 1978; Gloushkov 1996). These approachescorresponded with ceramic types that had been identified by asubjective perception. Furthermore, the classification schemeof ceramics, which was based upon the concept of type andtypological method commonly used in Russian archaeology,has not seriously changed since the 1960s (Stoyanov 1969).

Iron Age Ceramics of the Transurals

Svetlana SharapovaInstitute of History and Archaeology

Urals Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

208


The classification of different types of ceramics to each timeperiod was based on the analysis of materials recovered from anumber of archaeological sites. To make the following discus-sion more precise and comprehensible a short description ofthe original ceramic types will now be provided.

Description of the original ceramic typesBy the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the IronAge, inhabitants of the settlements were making use of ceram-ics that were decorated with comb-stamps (Nosilovo Type) (Fig.1: 4–5, 8). These sites were located in the middle and lowerIset River basin and middle Tobol River region. Sites that con-tained ceramics which were decorated with pit-pricked orna-mentations (Baitovo Type) are partially synchronous; they dateto the 7th–4th centuries BC (Fig. 1: 3, 6, 7, 9) and have beenrecovered from the Ishym and Tobol regions. The majority ofvessels were constructed from a strong, sandy temper with amicroscopic sand admixture. Vessels of both the combed andpit-pricked decorated types have straight, broad necks, and flatrims. The ornamentation covers the neck and upper body ofthe pot. The so-called “pit and pearl” type of decoration is some-times found in combination with angular depressions that areconsidered a typical decoration of the Baitovo Type. The samedesign with an added horizontal band of sloping or verticallines, achieved by using a comb-stamping technique, is typicalof the Nosilovo Type. One of the most remarkable elements ofshoulder decoration is the so-called “rocking” design that wasundertaken using the same technique.

Two types of ceramic talcum temper and comb-stamped deco-ration (Itkul and Vorobievo) have been dated to the 6th–4th cen-turies BC (Fig. 2). These styles were concentrated in the upperand middle Iset and the middle Tobol River basins. In additionto the occurrence of talcum inclusions in the temper, a numberof vessels retrieved from the Tobol River basin contain a smallconcentration of talcum and sandy clay. Both vessel types arecharacterized by comb-stamped ornamentation. The majorityof the Itkul pots have straight, broad necks, and usually flatrims. The basic decorative patterns comprise bands of vertical,horizontal, and sloping comb-stamped lines, but the “rocking”ornamentation only occurs on rare occasions. The Vorobievopots have high and thick straight necks, and their flat rims aredecorated using a comb-stamped technique. Horizontal anglelines and a band of sloping lines, sloping columns, wave-shapes,and “rocking” designs are the basic decorative patterns identi-fied among this type of ceramics.

The Gorokhovo Type received its name from the archaeologi-cal culture that was identified after excavations of the epony-mous fortress (Fig. 3: 1–4). This culture covered various terri-tories that had previously been occupied by the populationsthat used the Itkul and Vorobievo types of ceramics during the5th - 2nd centuries BC. The Sargat Type of ceramics has beenextensively studied (Fig. 3: 5–7), and since the population ofthe Sargat Culture occupied the vast forest-steppe zone, ce-ramics of this type were recovered from throughout the region.Gorokhovo ceramics differ from the Sargat Type as they aremuch cruder and the use of talcum temper and decorative mo-

tifs are less varied. The basic decorative patterns include hori-zontal angular lines and zigzags, while belts of horizontal lines,finger pinches, and festoons cover the shoulders of the vessels.The ornamentation is generally made using an incised tech-nique, and in some cases by comb stamping. Sargat ceramicswere usually decorated with festoons, and vertical or horizon-tal angled lines that were either incised or made using a smoothstamp. In some cases finger pinches and pit-pricked elementsare also included. Non-decorated vessels are found among boththe Gorokhovo and Sargat ceramic types. Despite their differ-ences, the Sargat and Gorokhovo ceramics also display a num-ber of similarities; they share common morphological featuresincluding straight, broad necks, while curved necks are quiterare. In addition, the vessel rims have been found to be flat,sharp or round.

Sites with ceramics of the Kashino Type have been discoveredin the middle basin of the Tura and Iset Rivers (Fig. 4: 6-8). Inthe absence of an absolute chronology a relative scale has beendeveloped which dates this type of ceramic to the end of theIron Age. These vessels have spherical or horizontal-ellipsoidbodies; straight, broad necks, and flat rims. The temper con-tains mica, a mineral which has not been found in the analysisof vessels from the Tobol River basin. Ornamentation was pri-marily achieved using the comb-stamped technique althoughsome vessels were decorated with a smooth-stamped pattern.In general, the decoration comprises horizontal angular lines,zigzags, and columns of horizontal lines on the neck and upperbody, but in some cases the only decoration consisted of a hori-zontal line. In the relative chronology that has been constructedfor the pottery types, the Prygovo Type follows the Kashinoceramics, and dates to the latter half of the first millenniumAD. It has been found in the same geographical regions as theKashino Type ceramics (Fig. 4: 1–5). In the majority of cases,the vessels have straight necks with very large diameters andflat rims. The inclusions consist of sand, grog (crushed sherds)or mica. The ornamentation generally covers the neck of thepots, and the basic decorative patterns comprise one to threelines of horizontal zigzags and bands of sloping lines made bycomb stamping. In general, the top (more so than the base) ofthe decorative composition was restricted to one or more comb-stamped or incised lines. The external aspect of the rim maydisplay a simple ornamentation. In addition to the basic deco-rative motifs, smooth- and cord-stamped techniques createdparentheses, zigzags, or lines.

Objectives of the researchIn spite of the variations apparent among the Iron Age ceram-ics, many researches also noticed that a degree of similarityexisted between the different types of pottery, as well as the so-called “ornamental and morphological” continuity (Koryakova1993: 14). Ornamental diversity, however, is too complex tobe determined simply from a definition of type and the associ-ated archaeological culture. This paper attempts to offer a newapproach and add a different perspective to the previous tradi-tional methodologies used in the analysis of ceramics. By us-ing statistics, and formal typological and technological evalua-tions, stylistic analyses were undertaken (Sharapova 1998;

209

1999). This research encompasses all of the above-mentionedceramic types, their ornamentations, the techniques used in theirmanufacture as well as developmental characteristics. The twomain points of tradition and style are considered (Sharapova1998). Tradition includes a system of various components, i.e.technology, shape, and ornamentation (Koryakova 1988: 92),while style is a complex concept with many definitions. Theclassical definition connects style with information exchange,while anthropologists and archaeologists use the term style pri-marily within the context of decoration (Rice 1987: 245).

Three elements of pottery ornamentation, decoration, design,and style have been discerned which enable the informativerole of ceramics to be identified (Pavlu 1996: 95). He suggestedthat decorative style complements the preceding ones and re-sult in pottery ornamentation. These elements parallel the ma-terial, social, and psychological components of a culture. Withreferences to the Transuralian ceramics, we are dealing withthe style of a single group as opposed to an individual. There-fore, the definition for the style of ancient ceramics that we areusing is “style that is a form of non-verbal communication, acertain aggregate of specific features as a result of human ac-tivity.” It is possible to assume that there were two basic ce-ramic cores primarily associated with the geographical zonesof the Ural Mountains–the forest-mountains and the forest-steppe zones. These cores determined the ceramic traditions ofthe ancient populations. A variability of decoration and its clas-sification in time and space are the basic elements of stylisticdevelopment. A study of the Iron Age ceramics recovered froma number of different sites excavated by the Transuralian (Urals)archaeological expedition during the 1960s to the 1990s wasundertaken. Statistical data was obtained from eight archaeo-logical sites, although the majority came from the type-site.The overall sample comprised 1908 vessels of different types.

Comparison of the collection under study was undertaken us-ing a calculation of the factor of difference “r”:

ρ (Y

where r - factor of difference, i - # of signs, k, l - ## of collec-tions, Y

ki , Y

li – frequency of i in collections k,l, D

i – disper-

sion of distribution of i (Koryakova 1988: 109).

The factor of difference was computed according to the dif-ferences apparent in the pottery decoration and decorative pat-terns (Fig. 5), and was undertaken in two sections. The firstpart assumes the analysis of all types of ceramics within them-selves, while the second assumption is based on the analysisof the specific types of pottery that were recovered from dif-ferent archaeological sites. In addition, a relative frequency ofeach element of ornamentation and its combination was ana-lyzed, and all decorative patterns were combined into 20 groupsof relative elements. In total, 45 elements of decoration and81 combinations were processed within one system of analy-sis. This method enabled an objective characterization of thepottery to be undertaken (Fig. 6).

Results of the analysisSo that all types of Transuralian Iron Age pottery mentionedabove could be included in the analysis, a coefficient of corre-lation of two parameters–rxy–was calculated. A certain simi-larity in the basic decorative patterns of the ceramics understudy, including horizontal corner lines, sloping lines, and col-umns, various combination of the so-called “pit and pearl” deco-ration, angle impressions, and pricked ornamentation was iden-tified. The majority of these characteristics form the basis ofthe ornamentation apparent in all of the different pottery types.The conclusions indicate that ceramic types are more relatedthrough decorative techniques as opposed to decorative patterns.A number of decorative techniques may be indicative of style.

Taking into account strong decorative and technological tradi-tions, as well as the stratigraphic position of ceramic types, thefollowing basic decorative styles were noted–pit-pricked, comb/comb-cord-stamped, and incised. These styles predominantlydetermine the character of Transuralian Iron Age ceramics. Eachof the styles included different pottery types and lines of de-velopment that were apparent among the cultural groups, suchas the Nosilovo-Baitovo, Itkul-Kashino-Prygovo andGorokhovo-Sargat. Decorative style could not be isolated, buta deep intercommunication and certain constancy within thecultures has been inferred. Various traditions, which are re-flected in archaeological ceramic types, were integrated by style.Decorative style reflects the component of each culture’s cog-nitive symbolism, and is a source of information about theculture’s principal features. “Style, like types, are merely de-scriptive classification” (Washburn and Crowe 1988: 38) withinparticular cultures, such as among those of the Iron AgeTransuralian populations.

The results obtained from the technological analyses supported anumber of the previous findings. The chemical composition andtemper was found to be consistent for those ceramic types thathad a small amount of r. It is evident, therefore, that a single sourceof clay was used to make the pottery from a given culture.

Using the results obtained from the pottery analysis, in con-junction with information derived from radiocarbon dating, itis possible to discuss the relative chronology of the ceramictypes included in the study (Fig. 7). A number of specific localfeatures were included to support the findings. It is importantto remember, however, that this is not a strict evaluation basedonly upon the archaeological sites and their ceramic types, butalso their technical development as noted above.

Ceramic collections recovered from sites of the more westernareas are clearly characterized by the consistency of comb-stamped and predominantly incised decoration. Pottery asso-ciated with settlements from the eastern area differs to that ofthe western region since incised and pit-pricked ornamenta-tion prevails. This tendency for a predominance of pit-prickedornamentation was first noticed in Sargat ceramics byKoryakova (1988: 110), whereas comb-stamped decorationincreases in the Iset River basin as well as a predominance ofpit-pricked decoration in the Tobol River basin. The pit-pricked


210


decoration is considered to be the earliest form of decorationand descended from Bronze Age traditions. Pit ornamentationdisappeared and was replaced by predominantly incised deco-ration in both the Tobol and Iset River basins. At a later stageincised decoration combined with cord-stamped types becamethe basis for a new comb-cord-stamped group. Ornamentaldevelopment also occurred as a linear process, and this is re-vealed in the ceramics of the Kashino and Prygovo Types. TheSargat tradition of ornamentation coupled with the local stablecomb-stamped techniques (mainly of Itkul ceramics) becamea particular feature of the Kashino Type (Victorova 1967;Koryakova 1988). The Prygovo pottery, which has the samegenetic link, was the latest modification of these ceramics.

ConclusionsIn conclusion, it is necessary to note that we have only traced anumber of the tendencies found in stylistic development. Asmentioned above, various ornamental traditions apparent in theceramic types have been integrated into decorative styles, andthese styles then reflect the main components of each culture.Style does not negate type, but by tracing the development ofceramics through time and space and noting their principal lo-cal features it is possible to understand why and how they oc-curred, as well as the foundations for such occurrences.

Endnote1. See map in publication of Korakova et al. in this volume.

References

Bobrinsky, A. A. 1978. Goncharstvo Vostochnoj Evropy. Moskva:Nauka. (“Pottery-making in Eastern Europe”).

Gening, V. F. 1973. Programma statisticheskoj obrabotki keramikiiz arkheologicheskikh raskopok. Sovetskaja arkheologija 3, 114-36 (“Program for the statistical analysis of ceramics from archaeo-logical excavations.” Soviet Archaeology).

Gening, V. F. 1992. Drevnyaja keramika: metody i programmyissledovanija v arkheologii. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (“Ancient ce-ramics: methods and program for research in archaeology”).

Gloushkov, I. G. 1996. Keramika kak arkheologicheskij istochnik.Novosibirsk: Izdatelstvo Instituta Arkheologii i Etnographii SORAN (“Ceramics as an archaeological record”).

Koryakova, L. N. 1988. Rannii zhelezny vek Zauralya i Zapadnoi Sibiri(Sargatskaya kultura). Sverdlovsk: Uralsky Universitet (“The Early IronAge of the Transurals and Western Siberia (Sargat Culture)”).

Koryakova, L. N. 1993. Kulturno-istoricheskije obschnosti Urala iZapadnoj Sibiri: Tobolo-Irtyshskaja provintsija na rannej i srednejstadijakh zheleznogo veka. Novosibirsk: Institut Arkheolologii iEtnographii (“Cultural and Historical communities of the Uralsand Western Siberia: Tobol and Irtysh province on the Early andMiddle stages of the Iron Age”).

Mogilnikov, V. A. 1992. Lesostep Zauralja i Zapadnoj Sibiri, pp.274-312 in Rybakov, B. A., Stepnaja polosa aziatskoj chasti SSSR vskifo-sarmatskoe vremya. Arkheologija SSSR. Moscow: Nauka(“Transuralian and Western Siberian forest-steppe.” The Asiaticbelt of the steppe of the USSR in the Scytho-Sarmatian period).

Pavlu, I. 1997. Pottery Origins. Praha: Vydavatelstvi UniverzityKarlovy.

Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery analysis. A sourcebook. Chicago-Lon-don: The University of Chicago Press.

Sharapova, S. V. 1998. The Iron Age pottery decorative styles in theTransurals. 4th Annual Meeting of the European Association ofArchaeologists, Geteborg. pp. 146–7 in Abstracts book.

Sharapova, S. V. 1999. Keramika i osnovnyje ornamentalnyje stilirannego zheleznogo veka zauralskoj lesostepi, pp. 146–8 inGrigoriev, S. A., Botalov, S. G., Gutsalov, S. Yu. and Mosin, V. S.,XIV Uralkoje Arkheologicheskoje soveshchanie. Tezisy dokladov.Tchelyabinsk: Rifej (“Ceramics and the basic ornamental stylesof the Iron Age of the Transuralian forest-steppe.” 14th Urals Ar-chaeological Conference. Lecture reports).

Stoyanov, V. E. 1969. Panniij zheleznyj vek zapadnosibirskojlesostepi. Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences, UralsState University (“The Early Iron Age of the Western Siberianforest-steppe”).

Victorova, V. D. 1967. Arkheologicheskaja karta bassejnov rekTury i Tavdy. Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences,Urals State University (“Archaeological map of the Tura and Tavdarivers basins”).

Washburn, D. K. and Crowe, D. W. 1988. Symmetries of Cul-ture. Seattle-London.

¡

211

Fig. 1. Pottery types. Nosilovo (1, 4, 5, 8) and Baitovo (2, 3, 6, 7, 9). Fig. 2. Pottery types. Vorobievo (1–4) and Itkul‘ (5–11).

Fig. 4. Pottery types. Prygovo (1–5) and Kashino (6–8).Fig. 3. Pottery. Gorokhovo (1–4) and Sargat (5–7) types.


212


Fig. 5. Factors of differences according to technique of pottery decoration (A) and decorative patterns (B).

213

Fig. 6. Basic decorative patterns found on Transuralian ceramics.


214


Fig. 7. A relative chronology of ceramic types that were studied.

05 part 4 (1.0). iron.int.pdf

Documents

half of the3rd century

century ad wolfram

during ad

black sea

eurasian bronze

half ofthe

reign of emperor valens

paolo orosio paolo orosio