study of early metallurgy in eurasian steppes

From Scale to Practice – a New ageNda For the Study oF

early metallurgy oN the euraSiaN StePPe

Bryan Hanks and Roger Doonan

Bryan Hanks, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology [[email protected]]Roger Doonan, University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology [[email protected]]

Abstract:This paper evaluates conventional scholarship surrounding early metallurgy in Central Asia with a particular focus on prehistoric developments in a region including northern Kazakhstan and the southern Urals, Russia. Traditionally, the emergence of metallurgy in this region has been viewed either as peripheral to core developments in Mesopotamia, Europe and the Near East or as part of a much larger zone of interaction and trade in metals and metal production technologies. Such views have deflected scholarship from pursuing questions concerning metallurgical production, consumption, trade and value, and their connection to local diachronic socio-economic change. This paper examines these key issues through recent research programs in the steppe region and in so doing offers an important comparative case study for early metallurgy. It is suggested that in order to develop a better understanding of early mining, metallurgy and socio-economic change in the central steppe region, new theoretical and methodological approaches are needed that highlight the unique characteristics of early mining communities and their relationships to micro-regional resources and concomitant local, in addition to, long-distance trade dynamics. These issues are discussed in light of some preliminary results from recent field research by the authors on the Middle Bronze Age Sintashta development (2100 – 1700 BC) in the southern Urals, Russia.

IntroductionThe emergence of early metal production, including mining, smelting and exchange, can be seen as one of the key elements in the development of more complex social and political orders in the ancient world (Yener 2000; Maddin 1988; Tylecote 1987; Levy 2003; Linduff 2004). Metal production marked an important transition towards increasing regional and interregional trade, the innovation and diffusion of new technologies, and routinely provided the material setting for wealth accumulation among emerging elite factions within early societies (Chapman 2003; Kristiansen 1998, 73). Such conditions have been seen as contributing to the development of early ranked societies in Eurasia (Kristiansen 1984; Koryakova 1996; 1998) and the rise and expansion of early states and empires from the 4th to early 2nd millennia BC in the Near East (Gilman 1981; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991).

Traditional interpretations of early copper mining and bronze metallurgical production in Eurasia have either emphasized the connection with the expanding influence of urban cores, and their exploitation of metal industries and other value laden commodities in peripheral regions, or the emergence of elites and their control over metal production and exchange within societies (Shennan 1982; 1986; Kristiansen 1984). Since the 1980s, studies of these developments have drawn intently on various theoretical elements of Wallerstein’s (1974) World Systems model, particularly its stress on core control and peripheral exploitation, as a way of modeling wide scale socio-political relationships and resource exploitation within prehistoric Eurasia (Christian

1

1998; Rowlands et al. 1987). Such studies also have characterized Central Asia and much of the vast Eurasian steppe region as either a semi-periphery or peripheral zone of exploitation by early states and empires situated to the south. Other scholars, however, have argued that greater emphasis must be placed on understanding how technological developments articulated with the emergence of complex social formations in the regions that have conventionally been viewed as peripheral (Linduff 2004; Kohl 1987; Yener 2000; Hanks 2003). For example, Kohl has argued that what has been seen as a Bronze Age ‘World System’ during the late third early second millennia BC was not comprised of a single core region exploiting peripheral zones. Rather, much of Central Asia at this time comprised a “patchwork of overlapping, geographically disparate core regions or foci of cultural development, each of which primarily exploited its own immediate hinterland” (1987, 16). As Kohl suggests, one of the key elements in this model is that of transferable technologies, such as the knowledge and expertise required for metal production, which could not be constrained by single socio-political entities (1987, 17). In this case, the appearance of widespread mining and metals production in the Eurasian steppe region should be viewed also in terms of localized social, technological and political formations based on the exploitation of regional resources and the development of networks of trade and interaction.

In recent years, several important research projects have focused on this very issue by examining in greater detail diachronic changes in settlement, subsistence and craft specialization in Central Asia and north central Eurasia. For example, the investigation of the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC), north of the Kopet Dag in Central Asia, has fueled great interest in the emergence of a unique civilization geographically situated between the northern boundary of the Near East and the Eurasian steppe region. Its relationship and possible influence on steppe social, cultural and technological developments in the third to second millennia BC has been actively discussed in recent years (Hiebert 1994; 2002; Anthony 2007). Frachetti and colleagues, through the Dzhungar Mountains Archaeology Project in southeastern Kazakhstan, have highlighted the role that Late Bronze Age mobile pastoralists may have played in controlling the movement and trade of metal commodities (2002; 2004). Anthony and colleagues, through a large multi-disciplinary project in the Samara Valley region, also have investigated key developments connected with Late Bronze Age metallurgy, settlement patterns, and social organization (Anthony 2006; Popova 2006). The work of Peterson and colleagues, in conjunction with the Samara Bronze Age Metals Project, has focused specifically on the importance of technological shifts regarding metal industries and the transformation of ‘value’ surrounding the manufacture and trade of metals and metal objects within the north central Eurasian steppe region (Peterson et al. 2006).

In addition to these recent projects, important research undertaken by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the Late Bronze Age mining and metal production center of Kargaly, situated in the south western Ural Mountains region (Chernykh et al. 2000; Chernykh 2002a; 2002b; 2004a; 2004b), has revealed the extensive exploitation of copper deposits that are distributed within an estimated 500 sq. km zone. This project has provided a valuable case study for examining mining activities from the Early Bronze Age (Yamanaya phase – 4th mil. BCE) until what appears to have been an abrupt collapse in the Late Bronze Age, dating to approximately 1,400 BC (Srubnaya phase). A number of detailed investigations of mining and quarrying, ore processing

2008 SAA Paper/ "From Scale to Practice"/ B. Hanks & Roger Doonan

1

and settlement/ mortuary patterns for this period have been published in recent years as a result of this project (see Chernykh and Chernykh et al. references cited above).

Interestingly, a more intensive approach to paleoenvironmental study at Kargaly has revealed the probable effects of over exploitation of local timber resources being connected with the ca. 1,400 BC collapse (Vicent et al. 2006). While the site of Kargaly is one of the most important for the north central Eurasian region, the apogee of activity at this site appears firmly connected with the Late Bronze Age Srubnaya culture. Since our main focus within this paper is on early developments connected with the Middle Bronze Age, our attention will now turn to the role of mining, metallurgy and social organization connected with the Sintashta development (Fig. 1).

The Sintashta pattern, also labelled as the “Sintashta-Petrovka”, “Sintashta-Arkaim” & “Country of Towns” by various authors, has been perceived internationally as one of the most complex and enigmatic prehistoric developments within the Central Eurasian steppe region (Boyle et al. 2002; Jones-Bley & Zdanovich 2002; Chernykh 1989; 1992; Kuz’mina 1994; 2000; 2002; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002; Levine et al. 2003; Mallory 1989). Unfortunately, even though a substantial amount of field research has been focused on this development, numerous questions still remain unanswered regarding social organization, metal production and scale of inter-regional and intra-regional trade.

grassland steppe.

Ural Mts.

Caspian Sea

To

bol R.

K.Ay

at R.

Ui R.

UralR.

21

4

3

5

15

Troitsk

Magnitogorsk8

67

14

1211

10 13

17 19 2018

2122

16

I.

II.

III.

9

0 50km

N

S

W E

IV.

V.

Figure 1. Map of southeastern Ural Mountains region indicating sites associated with Sintashta culture develop-ments: Settlements: 1- Stepnoe; 2 - Chernorech’ye III; 3 - Shikurtay; 4 - Bakhta; 5 - Parizh; 6 - Ust’ye; 7 - Rodniki; 8 - Chekatai; 9 - Kuisak; 10 - Sarym-Sakly; 11 - Konoplyanka; 12 - Zhurumbai; 13 - Ol’gino; 14 - Isiney; 15 - Ka-mysty; 16 - Kizilskoe; 17 - Arkaim; 18 - Sintashta; 19 - Sintashta 2; 20 - Andreyevka; 21 - Alandskoye; 22 - Bersuat. Triangles represent investigated cemeteries. Ancient Mines: I - Vorovskaya Yama; II - Bakr-Uzyak; III - Sokolki; IV - Ishkino; V - Ivanovka Dergamysh.


2

Middle Bronze Age Developments (ca. 2100 to 1700 BC)The Sintashta pattern, because it reflects a distinct transition in social, economic, and political organization connected with the perceived development of more intensive copper mining and bronze metal production, has greatly intrigued scholars since its early identification in the 1970s and subsequent research in the 1980s. Completely new forms of nucleated, fortified settlements appear at this time in conjunction with increasingly elaborate cemeteries that have yielded early chariot technology, large-scale animal sacrifice, and complex tomb construction (Anthony & Vinogradov 1995; Gening et. al 1992; see Kohl 2007 and Koryakova & Epimakhov 2006 for good recent overviews). Based on these factors, scholars have suggested that the Sintashta pattern must represent the emergence of complex hierarchical societies indicative of ‘chiefly’ leadership and territorial control (Anthony 2007; Koryakova 1996; 2002; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Zdanovich & Zdanovich 2002). Moreover, because of the unique nature of the Sintashta pattern, it has also been fervently discussed in relation to early Indo-Iranian language (Grigor’yev 1999; 2000; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002; Renfrew 1987) and the territorial expansion of steppe pastoralist groups (Di Cosmo 2002, 29).

As a result of these important developments, most scholars agree that the Sintashta cultural developments provided the foundation for the later emergence of the so-called Andronovo ‘cultural horizon’. The Late Bronze Age Andronovo horizon comprises a number of quite characteristic regional archaeological patterns including the Late Petrovka, Fyodorovka, Alakul’, and Sargary-Alexeyevka (Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007, 126). Unfortunately, the nature of the Andronovo development has too often been connected with theories of migration and this has overshadowed important social, economic and technological developments – including transitions in metallurgical technology, mining and the exploitation of new sources of copper ores, and growth in regional trade and exchange relationships between communities. More specifically, the chronological and spatial transitions connected with the Sintashta, Petrovka and Alakul’-Fyodorovka patterns in the southern Urals and northwestern Kazakhstan, which date from approximately 2100 – 1500 cal. BC, represent a particularly important developmental stage. For example, based on recent radiocarbon dating (Hanks, Epimakhov & Renfrew 2007), the Petrovka archaeological pattern would seem to represent a crucial chronological and spatial ‘bridge’ between the early Sintashta development and later Andronovo subcultures in the southern Urals region and Kazakhstan.

While Petrovka sites share a number of similar archaeological patterns with Sintashta cemeteries and settlements they nevertheless contain a number of important new characteristics. These include linear rather than circular settlement planning, the presence of child burials within house floors, general decline in the richness of grave construction and furnishing, and the production of bronze objects with different elemental compositions. Overall, the chemical composition of the Petrovka metal objects, which are frequently made of pure copper, some with tin bronze and a few with tin-arsenic alloys, is different from that of Sintashta artifacts and is more closely related to later Alakul’ metal production (Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007, 83).

Degtyareva et al. 2001 have suggested that the new forms of metallurgy connected with Petrovka sites were strongly linked to the exploitation of ores from the Mugodzhary Mountains of north central Kazakhstan and that for this reason the expansion of the archaeological pattern extended


3

eastwards across present day northern Kazakhstan. It is has been estimated that the Kenkazgan mines of north central Kazakhstan produced 30-50,000 metric tons of smelted copper in the Bronze Age (Chernykh 1992, 212). Such production would clearly have had an important impact on stimulating regional socio-economic developments and the emergence of new trade networks within the territory of present-day northern Kazakhstan during the Late Bronze Age. Nevertheless, these developments appear to have post-dated the initial emergence of the Sintashta pattern in the Middle Bronze Age.

Sintashta Settlement PatterningThe relative chronology established for Sintashta settlement sites is based on previous excavations at Sintashta, Arkaim, Kuisak and Ustye, core sampling at the sites of Bersuat, Isinei, Alandskoe and Stepnoe and the analysis of data from aerial photographs (Zdanovich 1988; 1997; Zdanovich & Zdanovich 2002). Unfortunately, even though a great deal of archaeological excavation has been undertaken at sites such as Arkaim and Ustye, the only rather complete publication to date is the work at Sintashta (Gening et al. 1992).

Based on initial studies, and relying heavily on air photo interpretation, three general categories of settlement planning have been ranked chronologically with oval shaped settlements (Alandskoe, Bersaut, Isinei – I, Kizilskoye, Rodniki & Stepnoye) being the earliest and rounded (Arkaim, Sintashta, Sarym-Sakly, Kuisak, Kamennyi Ambar (Olgino) & Zhurumbai) and rectangular shaped settlements (Chekatai, Konoplyanka, Andreevskoe, Chernorechnye, Sintashta II, Ustye, Bakhta & Karnysty) representing the final phases of Middle Bronze Age fortification construction (Zdanovich & Batanina 2002). Many Sintashta settlements indicate from one to four construction horizons (Fig. 2) with some of the excavated sites yielding evidence of reconstruction after phases of fire and/or destruction (e.g. Kamennyi Ambar, Alandskoe, Sintashta & Bersaut) (Zdanovich & Batanina 2002, 123). Therefore, the relationship between circular and rectangular construction features at these may have more to do with the growth and expansion of specific settlements rather than chronological patterning. This has been supported by a recent geophysics study of the Ol’gino settlement, which revealed that rather than being a ‘rounded’ settlement plan it comprised two distinct phases of construction that included a smaller oval settlement with a secondary extension that was more rectangular in shape (discussed further below).

The regional distribution of Sintashta settlements in the southeastern Urals varies but many are spaced at a distance of 40 to 60 kilometers (Fig. 1). As a result, several Russian scholars have suggested that the territorial zone of the settlements is limited to a radius of approximately 20-30 kilometers (Epimakhov 2002a; 2002b; 2005; Zdanovich & Batanina 2002). It also has

0 50 m

N

S

W E

0 50 m

N

S

W E

Figures 2. Air photo interpretations of two Sintashta fortified settlements: left – Sarym-Sakly; right – Andreevskoe. Shaded areas represent banks and small oval depressions are house units (redrawn and adapted from Zdanovich and Batanina 2002).


4

been suggested that fortified and non-fortified settlement hierarchies may exist in these zones (G. Zdanovich 1989), although in recent years archaeological evidence has not been published to support this hypothesis. Currently, the most widely accepted model suggests that Sintashta settlements functioned as independent socio-economic and political entities with shared cultural customs and technologies (Epimakhov 2002a, 142-143). Nevertheless, this view may be challenged in coming years as there are several Sintashta settlements that are grouped closer together than 40 to 60 kilometers and little discussion has surfaced relating to this. For example, in the Karagaily Ayat River valley, the Sintashta settlements of Konoplyanka, Zhurumbai and Ol’gino are situated approximately 8 km from each along the river. In the far north of the settlement distribution pattern, the sites of Stepnoye and Chernorech’ye are approximately 12 km apart. The proximity of such patterning, and its connection to localized resources has not been investigated systematically and future field research must seek to explain such relationships.

Sintashta CemeteriesExcavations of Sintashta cemeteries have produced substantial evidence of complex ritual patterns; including animal sacrifice, spoke wheeled chariots, and weaponry (stone and bronze arrowheads & bronze spear heads). Many scholars have used the unique Sintashta mortuary patterns to argue for hierarchical ranking within Sintashta societies (e.g. Koryakova 2002; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Zdanovich & Zdanovich 2002). However, other scholars have suggested that social stratification is not so clearly patterned when considering all factors such as spatial layout, tomb elaboration, and grave goods (Vinogradov 2003; Epimakhov 1998; 2002b). For example, the inclusion of items in graves relating to a metallurgical occupation (e.g. form molds, hammer stones, etc.) is often widely distributed across age and sex categories in Sintashta cemeteries (Epimakhov 2002a, 144). Chariot burials, which are typically interpreted as high status warriors or chieftains, are often found as peripheral burials within mortuary complexes (grouped inhumation burials). And, the distinct lack of external goods in burials suggests that unequal access to foreign ‘prestige’ items cannot be easily linked to the emergence and solidification of social authority within these communities. Unfortunately, detailed bioarchaeological analyses of Sintashta human remains, including physical and chemical methods, have not been undertaken in order to obtain more specific data on differences in health, diet, and division of labor by sex and age in recovered mortuary samples. The total numbers of recovered human remains from Sintashta sites also have been quite low when compared with the demographic estimates of the settlements (discussed below), as only 200 to 250 known Sintashta skeletons have been recovered (Epimakhov, forthcoming).

Sintashta DemographyDemographic reconstructions of Sintashta settlements have proven to be problematic, as they have been based on the available mortuary data, noted above, combined with estimates of the number of households situated within the fortified area of the settlements. Epimakhov (2002a, 141) has estimated that approximately 640 people could have inhabited the fortified area of a settlement with perhaps no more than 1,000 being supported by the calculated subsistence value of the surrounding territory of a 20-30 kilometer radius (Masson 1980, 180). However, such estimates have not been based on reliable paleoenvironmental data or systematic site catchment analyses.


5

As the inhabitable area of the fortified settlements is rather small, with most having diameters of 120 to 150 meters, it seems highly probable that additional domestic structures would be situated outside the fortified zones. This is particularly the case for the management of livestock, as there appears to be no evidence for animal enclosures or stalls within the fortified settlements. Unfortunately, little systematic investigation of the areas external to the fortifications has been undertaken – even in cases where a large portion of the fortified area of the settlement has been excavated (e.g. Arkaim and Ust’ye). In fact, much of the investigation of settlement patterning has been based on aerial photo analysis and the partial excavation of the fortified areas of the settlements. Test pitting or auguring in areas external to the fortifications has not been routinely undertaken. The use of other non-invasive survey techniques, such as geophysics, has been confined primarily to electrical resistance in the non-excavated portion of the fortified areas and a recent large-scale fluxgate magnetometer survey undertaken at the Kamennyi Ambar (Ol’gino) settlement in 2005 by Hanks & Merrony (Hanks, Merrony & Epimakhov forthcoming). Without additional data on settlement activities, or domestic structure distribution in the immediate area around the fortified settlements, the relationship between demographic estimates based on household size and number and the total number of human remains recovered from cemeteries is completely indeterminable at this time.

Sintashta SubsistenceThe socio-economic pattern of the Sintashta settlement sites has been viewed as a stockbreeding subsistence pattern with main domesticates of horse, cattle, sheep/goat and the addition of either domesticated or feral pigs (Zdanovich & Zdanovich 2002, 254). However, during previous excavations of these settlements, little or no soil screening and/or hydro-flotation of soils has been implemented. Therefore, the recovery of faunal and floral evidence has been strongly biased. This is particularly important when one considers that Panicum miliaceum (sowing millet) and Hordeum vulgare (Turkestan barley) were recovered at the Sintashta settlement of Arkaim, and charred millet husks from a domestic floor context at the settlement of Alandskoe (Zdanovich & Zdanovich 2002, 255). Additionally, the probable contribution of fish, small mammals, and domesticated and/or wild plant species in the Sintashta subsistence pattern has been well established recently by Gayduchenko (2002). Nevertheless, because of a lack of consistency in soil screening and flotation methods in previous excavations the exact character of the Sintashta subsistence pattern (and its variability between sites) is at present a completely open question.

Sintashta MetallurgyAs outlined above, there are a number of important questions surrounding the settlement patterning, demography and subsistence/productive economy theorized for Sintashta communities. However, the issue of metallurgy is one that has greatly influenced most interpretations of both the emergence of the Sintashta pattern as well as variously proposed models for its social complexity and organization. Archaeological research has revealed that each of the Sintashta house structures within the fortified zones of the settlements contain one or more wells (or cistern features) and cupola shaped furnaces, which are believed to be principally connected with smelting activities (Gening et al. 1992; Zdanovich & Zdanovich 2002; Zdanovich 1997). Other objects connected with metallurgy, such as pestles, slag and metal droplets, are also routinely recovered from household contexts. The rather ubiquitous nature of these finds within the settlements, and between


6

different settlement sites, suggests that metallurgy was not a specialized activity undertaken by different individuals or groups within communities or by extension specific settlements and their communities in the larger region (Epimakhov 2002a, 143).

Nevertheless, while there is ample evidence for metallurgical activities within the household contexts, there has been general debate over the actual scale of production at Sintashta sites. Some scholars have suggested a rather high level of specialized community production (Vinogradov 2005; Zdanovich 2002) while others have argued for a much lower level that is more representative of household production for local utilitarian items and weaponry (Grigor’yev 2000; Chernykh 2004). What is so clearly lacking at this stage in Sintashta scholarship is a detailed comparison of variation in ore processing, smelting and refining practices between Sintashta settlements. The recovery of metallurgical processing materials (slags, droplets, hammer stones, tuyures, crucibles, etc.) is known, but the actual statistical variation in the total number and density of such items within settlements has not been published and much of this information remains unavailable for study. For example, Vinogradov has discussed (personal communication) the ‘significant’ amount of such materials from Ust’ye, a settlement with Sintashta, Petrovka and Srubnaya period activities (Middle to Late Bronze Age). Such materials appear to be much more substantial than what has been recovered from sites such as Arkaim (e.g. comparison of Karagly and Arkaim by Chernykh 2004) and recent excavations at Ol’gino, which have produced very little evidence of slag and other processing debris. Unfortunately, at this time, it is impossible to better substantiate any model without the availability (publication) of such data for comparison.

Sintashta MiningOne of the most important questions surrounding Sintashta metal production is the lack of evidence for mining or quarrying near the settlements. This has lead to great speculation over whether Sintashta societies were exploiting localized ore resources for their needs or were trading for unprocessed ore and/or partially processed metals (ingots) for on-site refining. Unfortunately, systematic full coverage surface surveys and site catchment studies have not been previously undertaken within the micro-regional zones surrounding the settlements. This is not to say that geological surveys and spectral analyses of slags and ores have not been done and recent publications have focused on these issues (Grigor’yev 2000; Zaikov et al. 2002).

Nevertheless, the key problem is that most of the identified mines are situated either in the far eastern, northern or southern zones of the Sintashta settlements distribution (see distribution in Fig. 1). Most of these mines reveal substantial Late Bronze Age activities, which may have obliterated the evidence for exploitation of ore material during the previous Middle Bronze Age phase. For example, it has been estimated that nearly 6,000 tons of ore, bearing approximately 2-3% copper, was mined from the site of Vorovskaya Yama – one of the nearest confirmed Bronze Age mines to the Sintashta settlements (Grigoriev 2002:84; Zaikov, Zdanovich, and Yuminov 1995). However, differentiating between Middle and Late Bronze exploitation of sites such as these is extremely problematic. Moreover, spectral analyses of metals from Sintashta sites have not provided conclusive evidence of specific zones (ores) of exploitation. In general, objects made of pure copper, arsenical copper and arsenifferous bronze have been recovered from Sintashta sites. Objects comprising stanniferrous bronze are relatively rare (ornaments, primarily) and believed to have been imported into the region (Zaikov et al. 2002). This, combined with the


7

now well recognized problems of regional ore sourcing and recycling for prehistoric and early historic metallurgical production in Eurasia in general (e.g. Cernych 2003, 53-55; Kohl 2007, 167), suggest that scholarship has only just begun to scratch the surface of the problems surrounding ore exploitation and exchange between Sintashta populations.

Further to this, Grigor’yev’s research has indicated something quite interesting. He states that, “the smelting of ores from ultra basic ore-bearing rocks and serpentine, that contain insignificant levels of copper is a curious paradox of Sintashta metallurgy. A great number of ore deposits of other types that are rich in copper are present in the Urals, but no evidence has surfaced for the use of such pure ores by the Sintashta metallurgists” (2000, 143). This information is important for several reasons. First, it suggests that sites of regional ore exploitation identified by geologists as highly ‘probable’ for early mining, based on higher levels of copper within ore-bearing strata, may not have been those principally exploited by Sintashta miners. Second, it is possible that Sintashta communities exploited near-surface exposed ore-bearing rocks that provided only ephemeral deposits of copper. Such a pattern would suggest a lower level of production in some areas, and by certain communities, and that the recognition of such quarrying, or mining, would be difficult without better-localized surveys. This would certainly seem to correlate with Grigor’yev’s findings noted above. Third, it is obvious that ore resources were highly variable within the Sintashta region and that the distribution of settlements would need to be linked with specific ore deposits or to develop trading networks and strategies for obtaining ores or partially processed metals for their needs. In any case, much more emphasis needs to be placed on understanding the relationship of settlements to their local catchement zones.

Integrating Practice, Scale & CommunityWe suggest that the problems outlined above for Sintashta metallurgy require not only new methods of field research but also new conceptual approaches. For example, recent trends in the study of mining communities have emphasized a number of important characteristics associated with this form of industry and craft specialization (Knapp et al. 1998; Levy 2003; Linduff 2004; Topping & Lynott 2005; Yener 2000). As Knapp has suggested, the investigation of mining activities must include not only technological aspects but also the socio-economic, spatial and ideological dimensions of groups or communities engaged in this activity (1998, 2). In fact, scholars have advocated moving beyond a focus on settlement sites to the more conceptual model of community as the primary unit of investigation for material evidence relating to mining activities (Hardesty 1988, 101; Knapp et al. 1998, 13). This approach correlates well with recent theoretical trends in archaeology, which favor the community as a mid-level unit of analysis for the investigation of socio-spatial settings. In this way, the concept of community organization extends beyond traditional perceptions of settlement sites as mere aggregations of households and as the primary loci for societal organization and activity (Kolb & Snead 1997; Canuto & Yaeger 2000; Anderson 1991; Cohen 1985). Such a perspective provides a crucial theoretical framework for investigating variation in socio-spatial settings at the local, or micro-regional level, which can be defined as a spatial sphere of human activity existing between the immediate site level and larger regional settlement patterns (e.g. Kolb & Snead 1997; Gaffney & Gaffney 1988). This provides a more coherent and effective model for investigating the unique spatial, temporal and social conditions of mining and metallurgical production activities and how they intersect with local landscapes and environmental resources (Kassianidou & Knapp 2005, 235).


8

Research focused on the specific technological aspects of metal production, such as ore processing, roasting and smelting, and metal alloying are vital components in the investigation of early metallurgy. However, when attempting to expand beyond the specific chaînes opératoires of local technological knowledge, in order to evaluate the broader social and economic forces that structure mining communities, it is necessary to evaluate several other lines of material evidence (Knapp et al. 1998, 9). Such evidence should include a stronger focus on human-environment relationships, subsistence and socio-economic orientations and social organization.

Human-environment relationships relate to the very practical concern of community access to and utilization of ore, water, clay, and timber resources. These materials are absolutely necessary even at the basic level of metallurgical production and with the exception of water may be finite locally or regionally. The durability, and suitability, of ore, clay and timber resources therefore may act as significant limiting agents in the longer-term growth of productive economies and/or territorial expansion. For example, while the discovery and analysis of regional ore resources has been of paramount concern to archaeometallurgy research, the production of charcoal is often completely overlooked in studies of early metalworking (Horne 1982). It has been estimated that to produce 5 kilograms of copper metal at least 100 kilograms of charcoal is required (Harding 2000, 217). To produce 100 kilograms of charcoal 700 kilograms of timber is necessary. This statistic is startling in terms of the sheer quantity of wood resources that would be required for intensive mining and smelting processes. Moreover, the human and animal power required for the extraction and transport of wood resources, especially over long distances, is an important factor to consider when estimating metallurgical production activities and site catchment limitations.

Defining the resource potential of a particular region, and how communities spatially organize themselves in response to the exploitation of such resources, are common goals in most regional or micro-regional surveys. However, with respect to mining communities, settlement and other human activities may be quite distinctive. For example, residency patterns may be variable with larger year round settlements existing in addition to camps or smaller settlements situated closer to ore and timber resources. Processing and production activities at these sites may also leave material evidence in the form of open pit and/or shaft mining, large pits for the preparation of charcoal and roasting of ore material, ore processing debris, and furnaces for smelting (Craddock 1995, 190). Fortunately, activities such as these, depending upon scale and longevity, can leave visible archaeological traces that may be located through full coverage surface survey and/or aerial-satellite imagery.

The spatial aspects of mining and processing activities also connect with the second factor noted above, subsistence and socio-economic orientations, as these are also important considerations when investigating the relationship between mining communities and their local environment. One of the most important questions to be asked of such specialized community organization is how basic subsistence needs are met. Highly specialized mining groups, perhaps somewhat ephemeral to other local or regional communities because of their habitation near ore bearing locations, may be involved in such activities full time and year round. In this case, their general subsistence needs are provided for through contact and exchange with other local groups (Green


9

1995; Shennan 1998, 197). Another possible orientation would be communities that engage in mining and metallurgy only seasonally, perhaps in the winter, when they would not be engaged in time constraining subsistence activities such as agriculture or pastoralism (Bellamy 1904; Given & Knapp 2000; Herbert 1984; 1998). In both hypothetical situations, the total level of metal production need not be exceedingly high and may relate to a broader regional or inter-regional trade and exchange orientation between intermediate level societies. In this case, relationships between mining communities and groups with other socio-economic orientations exist at a level of autonomy with little or no centralized political control. However, this model stands in stark contrast to much of the literature on the emergence of elite factions linked with the production and circulation of metal commodities in later prehistory in Europe and Asia (Gilman 1981; Kristiansen 1984; Kristiansen 1998; Kristiansen & Larsson 2005; Maddin 1988; Sherratt & Sherratt 1991). This is where the third issue noted above, social organization, becomes a crucial element in the investigation of local community patterns and their relationship to broader regional social and political dynamics.

Some scholars have argued that too great an emphasis has been placed on theorizing the forces of elite control which can exist over metal production and trade (Shennan 1998; Yenner 2000). However, the potential wealth, prestige, symbolism, and ideological factors surrounding metals and metalworking can provide the material foundation for emergent inequality and tension between social groups and can significantly impact the nature of social organization and task specialization. Such change has been illustrated through numerous historic, ethnographic and archaeological case studies (Knapp et al. 1998; Godoy 1985; Chapman 2003; Levy 1993; Kassianidou & Knapp 2005). For example, at the larger scale these may represent full-time specialists that are part of, and supported by, a much broader multi-component society. At a smaller scale, communities may be made up of men, women and children who either specialize in metallurgy and obtain subsistence through trade with other groups or undertake mining and metallurgy only seasonally for local production purposes. Numerous ethno-historical accounts have shown that men, women, and children as young as five to six years of age take active roles in providing the necessary labor for ore extraction and processing (Herbert 1998; 1984; Bellamy 1904). The social organization required for such labor-intensive activities can have a profound impact on the demographic patterns of communities in terms of higher fertility and mortality profiles and debilitation linked to work or trauma related injuries and pathologies (Knapp 1998, 11). While the ethnographic present or recent historical past cannot be directly mapped onto our interpretations of prehistory, such studies nevertheless suggest that there are a number of social dimensions, vertical and horizontal, that archaeologists must keep in mind when investigating the material correlates of metal producing groups and the patterns of social organization of their members.

The archaeological investigation of such issues, as discussed above, may be undertaken through multi-scalar research ranging from household organization and production to broader regional settlement patterning (Shennan 1998; Kassianidou & Knapp 2005). However, the investigation of mortuary evidence, when available, also offers excellent potential for examining social structure based on cemetery spatial organization, differential energy expenditure in tomb construction, and in grave goods provisioning. Furthermore, by undertaking biological analyses of human skeletal remains another line of evidence can be used to comparatively examine social patterns of


10

health, diet and inequality (Larsen 1997; Robb et al. 2001; Pechenkina et al. 2006; Powel 1988; 1991). For example, when viewed within the context of mining and metallurgical production, bioarchaeological research may yield important data relating to repetitive activities that lead to osteoarthritis and activity induced skeletal stress markers, elevated levels of trace elements in bones connected with toxic smoke inhalation from metals processing (e.g. arsenic – see Lindh et al. 1980; Tsiashala et al. 1990; Oakberg et al. 2000), and dietary-nutrition variations in the types of foods consumed that may be associated with social organization and/or inequality among community members. While these physical and chemical indicators can be an effective way of gaining primary data for inequality and ranking among members of a society, they also may provide an important perspective on sex, gender, and age patterns and therefore offer another dimension in the study of mining community health, structure, and social organization with regard to production and subsistence practices.

With regard to these important considerations, we now would like to briefly discuss some preliminary data from recent fieldwork in the southern Urals at the Sintashta sites of Ol’gino and Stepnoye. This research, planned for 2007 - 2010 is funded by the National Science Foundation and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, has been structured according to the theoretical and methodological issues outlined above. Much of the data below is very preliminary in nature, however, it does suggest some new points of view for Sintashta metallurgy and socio-economic organization.

Recent Collaborative Field Research 2007Recent collaborative works by the authors with British and Russian teams at Ol’gino and Stepnoye have provided opportunities to examine a number of important problems surrounding the Sintashta development. The first site is the settlement of Ol’gino, which is situated with two other Sintashta period settlements (Konoplyanka and Zhurumbai) in the Karagaily Ayat River valley (Fig. 3). The main focus of collaborative work in this area (2005-2007), in conjunction with A. Epimakhov and L. Koryakova (Russian Academy of Sciences, Urals Branch), has been the settlement of Ol’gino and its immediate locale, including the Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery. A more detailed discussion of this project work is forthcoming in two publications (Hanks,

3

12

0 2 km

N

S

W E

Figure 3. Map of Kargaily-Ayat River Valley indicating location of archaeological sites and geophysics surveys (1 – Varshavka Village; 2 – Sintashta settlement Zhurumbai; 3 – Area of Sintashta settlement Ol’gino and Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery).


11

Epimakhov and Merrony, forthcoming; Hanks et al., forthcoming), which include the results of topographic survey, geophysics and stratigraphic excavation (Fig. 4). However, in this paper, we would like to focus specifically on recent work by Doonan during the 2007 season north of the Ol’gino settlement as this relates to a broader area survey of the settlement locale. This work comprised a pedestrian survey over an area of 50 hectares (1km x 0.5km) and involved the characterization of pit and trench features, which had been tentatively identified as being associated with some form of quarrying and or mining. The survey was undertaken with the aim of identifying candidate features for excavation so as to further our understanding of the processes associated with their formation, aspects of resource perception and to elucidate the geological context.

Ol’ginoThe Karagaily Ayat valley is well watered and apparently provided crucial natural resources for three Sintashta settlement communities. Settlement and mortuary activities in the valley are well documented for the Middle and Late Bronze Age phases and a number of Iron Age and medieval mortuary sites have been investigated as well. The appearance of three Sintashta settlements in such close proximity to each other immediately raises questions about their relationship.

0 250 m

Kargaily-Ayat River

K-2

K-3

K-4

K-7

arable land

arable land

tree linetree line

tree line

tree line

dirt roadm

oder

n ea

rth d

am

upper terrace of river

N

S

W E

1

2

3

4

Figure 4. Plan of investigated archaeological features and geophysics survey blocks: 1 – Ol’gino fortified settle-ment; 2 – area of unexcavated kurgan 7 feature; 3 & 4 – survey blocks between previously excavated kurgan com-plexes.


12

For example, were these settlements occupied contemporaneously and autonomous or were they somehow connected in terms of socio-economic organization and production? Or, do they perhaps represent three separate relocations of a single smaller community after the degradation of resources in an immediate site catchment area (approximately 4-5 km radius)? Questions such as these can only be answered through more intensive investigations of the settlements and their relationships with their local environments. However, such settlement distributions appear to contradict the model of larger catchement zones between Sintashta settlements or that such communities were strikingly autonomous (as discussed above)

With these questions in mind, Roger Doonan undertook a survey of a widespread pattern of what appeared to be prehistoric surface pitting and trenching near the Ol’gino settlement – features that had been dismissed by local archaeologists as indicative of modern or early historic period activities. Nevertheless, a survey of the area revealed a number of important characteristics. Pit and trench features were not a ubiquitous feature of the environment around the settlement at Ol’gino. Prior to the systematic transect survey a casual pedestrian survey of the area identified a region where such features were concentrated. This concentration of features begins approximately 250m north of the site and fans out to a width of a kilometer and extends approximately 1 km north from the site (Fig. 5). It was observed that the underlying geology changes from metamorphic schists about 1.25km west of the settlement to a fine-grained intermediate metamorphic quartzite. The results of transect survey revealed most features located on the tops of low ridges which ran N-S from the settlement. This was unsurprising as it was at such locations where the topsoil was thinnest and allowed the underlying geology to outcrop.

Figure 5. Map of pit and quarry features surveyed north of Ol’gino settlement.


13

In light of the emphasis given to metallurgical production at Sintashta sites (see above), the potential for these sites to be associated with copper mining was assessed. The archaeology of copper mining has undergone significant developments in recent decades not only in the Steppe region (Chernykh 2002a; 2002b; 2004) but also on a more international level with important discoveries made in NW and central Europe (Timberlake 2003; Pickin 1990; Höppner 2005), the Mediterranean (Bassiakos Philaniotou 2007, Rothenberg 1990), South America (Merkel et al. 1994) and the Middle East (Pigott 1999). From these diverse studies it is possible to envisage the characteristics of a prehistoric copper mine. A majority of excavations have revealed simple stone hammers, and spoil heaps often containing residual mineral. Early mines are usually associated with the near surface outcrops of mineral and may be in contact with gossan bodies or heavy quartz veining. Fire setting seems to be the most usual technique for loosening the mineral at the working face (Lewis 1990, Craddock 1995:58) and when worked with stone hammers and wedges leaves a characteristic smooth ‘fire set’ profile.

Many of the pit and trench features examined at Ol’gino were associated with spoil heaps which suggested that their formation was associated with extraction. Systematic investigation of many spoil heaps failed to detect the presence of either secondary oxide or primary sulphide copper minerals. Whilst the presence of quartz veining, and its association with small areas of gossans, suggested the possibility of mineralization, the absence of any surface tools or ‘fire set’ profiles on the trenches and pits mitigated against their identification as the remnants of copper mining.

The excavation of one trench feature and its associated spoil heap (OLG07RD21) (Fig. 6) found no evidence of copper mineral residues in the spoil heap nor were any copper minerals associated with a prominent quartz vein at the southern end of the trench. The spoil heap

comprised of small shattered fragments of quartz and metamorphic quartzite (3-20cm across maximum axis). Nevertheless, it is important to note that no fragments of modern material culture were identified in the spoilheap, the trench fill, or in the vicinity of the trench. This absence of modern material culture was also noted around all other trench and pit features with the exception of OLG07RD13, which was in close association with a building and located at some distance from the main concentration of pits and trenches (Fig. 5).

Excavation of OLG07RD21 exposed a working surface of what resembled a small-scale quarry. The total absence of copper mineralization coupled with evidence of the quartzite beds being worked (Fig. 7) suggests that these pits and trenches were associated with the exploitation of coherent

Figure 6. Photo of excavation of ancient (?) trench feature (OLG07RD21).


14

blocks of quartzite. It was apparent that the surface outcrop of quartzite was heavily shattered and badly weathered making it impossible to extract sizable blocks. Excavation of the pits to a depth of approximately 1m to remove the surface weathered material seemingly revealed bodies of coherent quartzite. Excavation of trenches in and around quartz veins appears to have been undertaken so as to take advantage of the natural plane of weakness associated at the contact between Quartzite and Quartz. Whilst such evidence is forthcoming from trench OLF07RD21evidence for the mode of working and the kinds of blocks extracted from these pits are clearly evident at features OLG07RD30, 36 and 38 (Fig.8). Feature OLG07RD38 clearly shows the step profile associated with the removal of blocks presumably with the use of wedges (Fig. 9).

Although we cannot be certain to what use these extracted blocks were put it seems most likely that they fulfilled some architectural function at the nearby Sintashta settlement. For example, excavations at Ol’gino have revealed sections of the enclosure bank that are reinforced with blocks of the same type of stone (Fig. 10). A relationship between the settlement and quarry pits is further supported by the wider geological context. As stated above, not only is the greatest concentration of quarry pits in the vicinity of the settlement but also the settlement itself is sited on intermediate metamorphics barely a kilometer from the contact with schists. The location of the settlement therefore suggests that it was purposefully situated at a strategic location to access appropriate materials to use in settlement architecture.

Figures 7 & 8. Figure 7 (left) shows spoil material from quartzite bed quarry and Figure 8 (right) details large rectangular stone block.


15

StepnoyeIn addition to work at Ol’gino in 2007, the authors began a new collaborative project with Dmitri Zdanovich and Southern Ural State University in the summer of 2007 at the settlement and cemetery site of Stepnoye. This site is one of the most unique of the Sintashta settlements as it contains the largest Middle Bronze cemetery in the southern Urals region, which consists of at least 45 kurgan structures dating from the Middle to Late Bronze Age (i.e. Sintashta, Petrovka, Alakul’ and Srubnaya cultural materials). Moreover, another paired Sintashta settlement (Chernorechye) and cemetery (Krivoe Ozero) is situated 15 kilometers to the south east of Stepnoye. No open plan large-scale excavation of either settlement has been undertaken in the past, although the Krivoe Ozero (Anthony and Vinogradov 1995; Vinogradov 2003) and Stepnoye cemetery have been partially excavated. It must be noted that only a cursory examination of the Stepnoye site and its local environment were undertaken in 2007, however, the analysis of slags recovered from the surface of the settlement area along with an example from a stratified deposit have revealed some important characteristics.

All slag samples recovered were fractured and ranged in size from 1-4 cm (major axis). All conformed to a single type, a grey-black plate slag (Fig. 11) that was approximately 7-12mm thick. Although fractured, several pieces of slag preserved an original outer edge that enabled the complete form to be reconstructed. The fragments suggest that they derive from a circular plate slag of approximately 25cm diameter. The texture on the upper surface indicates that the slag has cooled quickly, possibly having been quenched with water. The lower surface appears to have solidified whilst floating on a liquid, presumably molten metal. A smooth continuous indentation on the underside edge of some samples was reminiscent of the meniscus of a molten pool of metal confirming that these slags had solidified whilst in contact with molten metal. All slag fragments examined were uniformly grey-black and had no visible inclusions of mineral, gangue or charcoal. The overall appearance was of a homogenous, fine-grained crystalline material. Localized spots of copper corrosion products suggested that these slags were associated with some aspect of copper metallurgy.

Figures 9 & 10. Figure 9 (left) is a photo of quarry area for block material and Figure 10 is a photo of the removal of flanking stones from fortification ditch at the Ol’gino settlement (photo courtesy of S. Senekosov).


16

Preliminary microstructural analysis of the slags identified the presence of numerous metallic inclusions. The most common metallic inclusions were copper prills surrounded by a sulphide phase. Whilst multiphase sulphide inclusions were common (Fig. 12), copper prills did not occur without direct association with sulphide. Detailed examination of 14 samples failed to identify a single ore mineral or gangue inclusion. The absence of any such inclusions suggests that these slags were not derived from a primary production step involving the conversion of ore to metal but instead represent a subsequent refining or secondary processing step. All slags were predominantly iron silicate with a fine-grained lath structure. Most examples had free iron oxides in the form of magnetite spinels. The presence of trivalent iron minerals indicates that the slags formed in oxidizing conditions.

The presence of copper sulphides in a slag, which appears to have been formed in mildly reducing to oxidizing conditions, suggests that it is a matte conversion slag. Unlike the production of copper from weathered oxide ores, copper is rarely produced in a single step from sulphide ores. From a chemo-technical perspective there are several pathways by which sulphide minerals can be transformed into copper metal.

The most straightforward method involves roasting the ore until all the sulphur is removed and then smelting the ore in a reducing environment (pathway one).

CuFeS2 +3O

2 CuO +FeO +2SO

2

C+O2 CO

2 CO

2+C 2CO

(furnace operates with excess C-reducing environment)

CuO +CO Cu(m) + CO2

The second method involves a partial roast followed by a co-smelt (pathway two).

2CuFeS2 + 3O2 CuO +FeO(slag) + CuS+ FeS + 2SO2

Figures 11 & 12. Figure 11 (left) is a photo of grey-black plate slags from Stepnoye settlement and Figure 12 (right) is a photo of slag material from Stepnoye settlement with multiphase sulphide inclusions


17

The products of a partial roast may then be co-smelted in a mildly oxidizing smelt.

2CuO+CuS 3Cu(metal) + SO2

FeS+CuO CuS +FeO(slag)

The third method involves an initial step of smelting the sulphide ores to produce an enriched copper matte (a metalloid substance comprising copper, iron and sulphur) and then the conversion of the matte to copper in an oxidizing environment.

2CuFeS2 + heat CuFeS+S

CuFeS+heat CuS+FeS+FeO(slag)

The matte (CuS+FeS) is then either dead roasted and reduction smelted, partially roasted and resmelted or ‘converted’.

Matte conversion follows the following pathway.

CuS +3FeS +5O2 CuS +Fe

3O

4(slag) +3SO

2

Since copper has a higher affinity for sulphur than iron, the copper will remain sulphidized until all the FeS is oxidized and slagged off. When all Fe is removed CuS is converted to copper

according to the following equation.

CuS+O2 Cu

(metal) + SO

2

These differing pathways are important to acknowledge since they provide an insight into the practicalities of technological organization. Preliminary analysis suggests that the slags from Stepnoye are derived from the final step in Pathway three. Unless other classes of slag are forthcoming from the settlement then it seems that the Sintashta metallurgical tradition was a segmented process with only the latter steps of production been undertaken at the settlement site. The immediate implication of this is that future surveys in the vicinity of Sintashta sites must anticipate other types of metallurgical sites which, to date, have not been recognized. Furthermore, if the copper production process is a ‘segmented’ process then there are issues of control and access that need to be considered. More specifically, one can ask the important question – what is the relationship between the control of mineral deposits and the primary production sites, so far unidentified, and how do these articulate with the settlement sites?

The Stepnoye region is an ideal study area to answer these questions since it is amongst the most mineral rich areas of Western Siberia with this mineral wealth coinciding with a density and intensity of Sintashta activity (Fig. 13). Preliminary reconnaissance in the area around Stepnoye has idenitifed six potential early mining sites all with surface outcrops of ore (see Fig. 14). Casual sampling of the spoil heaps associated with these mines identified azurite and malachite (secondary weathered ores) and sulphide ores specifically chalcopyrite. Whilst initial survey


18

Figure 13. Plan of Middle to Late Bronze Age Stepnoye settlement and cemetery: 1 – edge of arable land; 2 – dirt road; 3 – pit features; 4 – kurgan mound; 5 – oval depression (house or domestic feature); 6 – settlement fortifi-cation features; 7 – settlement ‘zone’; 8 – excavated kurgan; 9 – partially excavated kurgan (plan courtesy of D. Zdanovich).

Figure 14. General map of Stepnoye settlement area and local geological resources.


19

has not yet identified evidence for prehistoric mining, i.e. hammerstones or fire setting, the surface outcropping of the ores and the apparently rich mineralization all offer good potential for these deposits to have been exploited in prehistory. It is also significant that the rich yet limited size of many deposits has meant that they were unattractive prospects for later industrial scale exploitation, this means that the potential for early evidence to still exist is high.

Bioarchaeology Study – Kamennyi Ambar 5 CemeteryIn addition to the recent preliminary archaeometallurgical research at the settlements of Ol’gino and Stepnoye presented above, a Wenner-Gren funded project has been operating since the summer of 2007 and is focused on the bioarchaeological anlaysis of human remains (n = 82) previously recovered from the cemetery of (KA 5) Kamennyi Ambar 5 (Epimakhov 2005), which is associated with the Ol’gino settlement (Fig. 4). This project includes both a detailed chemical (i.e. stable isotopes and trace elements) and physical analysis of the skeletal remains and seeks to investigate evidence of status and health differentiation between individuals (e.g. muscle activity markers, osteoarthritis, respiratory infections from toxic smoke inhalation, etc.). This includes variation connected with activities that may be associated with mining, quarrying, metal smithing, archery, horseback riding, conflict/warfare, etc.

The chemical studies are currently ongoing, however, preliminary information from the physical analysis (Kovacik and Judd 2008) has indicated very little evidence of activity related variation between individuals or in fact any poor health/diet indicators. The paleodemography of the KA 5 cemetery presents a high frequency of children and adolescents, with few older adults recovered. Nevertheless, both the metrical and paleopathological analyses do not support the hypothesis of a population with high levels of disease processes, heavy manual labor or conflict and warfare. The KA 5 data was compared with the remains of 31 individuals analyzed from the excavation of the Bolshekaragansky cemetery, believed to be associated with the Arkaim settlement (Lindstrom 2002). Similar observations in terms of overall health and trauma were found at this Sintashta cemetery as well. A full publication of the KA 5 bioarchaeological study is planned once the chemical analyses are completed this year, however, the results thus far have not indicated that the individuals buried within the 3 excavated kurgans were impacted by heavy workloads and stresses or unhealthy living conditions. Additional studies stemming from this project will include the results of geophysics surveys in the cemetery area, which have indicated another likely kurgan structure and other possible burial pit features (Hanks, Merrony & Epimakhov, forthcoming), and a multi-variant statistical analysis of the grave goods and spatial organization of the previously excavated kurgans. Data stemming from projects such as this provide an important complementary line of evidence for comparison with settlement and micro-regional studies. It is hoped that a broader comparative study of other recovered Sintashta human remains will be possible in the near future in order to extend on the KA 5 project results.

ConclusionIn this paper we have attempted to outline some of the most problematic aspects of the study of early metallurgy in the Central Asia region, with a particular focus on the enigmatic Sintashta development. Recent field work at the sites of Ol’gino and Stepnoye have revealed several important problems with the way in which conventional research has been undertaken at these sites. First, excavation of the fortified zones of Sintashta settlements has been routinely given


20

the highest priority and more detailed, systematic surveys of local catchement zones have not been stressed. Second, the lack of geophysics and test pitting or auguring around the immediate vicinity of the fortified areas has left these areas of the settlements completely untouched. As such, the broader organization and use of the settlements is unknown. Third, and perhaps most importantly, a more nuanced theoretical structure for interpreting Sintashta societies has not been developed – with the result being that emphasis continues to be placed on hierarchical societies that can be compared with ‘chiefdom’, or intermediate level, societies. Such an orientation deflects critical questions about the nature of ore exploitation, trade and exchange and the possibility of metal production being a segmented practice in the Sintashta area. As outlined in this paper, we suggest that most of these problems can be overcome through the utilization of more recent anthropological and archaeological approaches to early mining. Such research favors the ‘community’ concept and draws on comparative ethno-historical case studies of metal producing societies to better theorize the practice of metallurgical production and the socio-economic characteristics of such societies. While the data presented in this paper is preliminary at this stage, we have tried to provide an overview of the questions driving our research as well as the multi-disciplinary nature of our methods and field strategies. The Sintashta case study strongly reflects some of the key problems currently confronting the broader study of early metallurgical production and trade and their relationship to local forms of social organization and human-environment orientations. To overcome these challenges, new conceptual models and field strategies must be employed in future research.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the session organizers, Ben Roberts and Chris Thornton, for their invitation to contribute this paper and their patience during its preparation. We also would like to thank the following individuals and institutions for their generous support of our collaborative field research in the southern Urals, from which this paper originates: A. Epimakhov, L. Koryakova, D. Zdanovich, E. Zdanovich, C. Merrony, E. Efimova and students of Ural State University, Southern Ural State University and Chelyabinsk State University. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National Science Foundation and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. Any mistakes within the article are the sole responsibility of the authors.


21

References Cited Anderson, B., 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd Ed. London: Verso. Anthony, D.W., 1991. The Archaeology of Indo-European Origins. Journal of Indo-European Studies 19: 193-222. Anthony D. W. & N.B. Vinogradov. 1995. Birth of the chariot. Archaeology 48(2): 36–41. Anthony, D.W., 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the

Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bassiakos, Y. and Philaniotou, O. 2007 Early copper production on Kythnos: Archaeological

Evidence and Analytical Approaches to the Reconstruction of Metallurgical Process. in Day P.M. and Doonan, R.C.P. (eds) Metallurgy in the Early Bronze Age Aegean. SSAA7. Oxbow. Oxford. 19-56.

Bellamy, C.V., 1904. A West African smelting house. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute 56: 99-126. Beryozkin, Yu. E., 1995. Arkaim kak tseremonialny tsentr: vzglyad americanista. In V.S.

Bochkaryov (ed.), Konvergentsiya I Vostochnoi Evropy. Saratov: Saratovskiy Universitet, pp. 29-39.

Boyle, K., A.C. Renfrew & M. Levine (eds.), 2002. Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. Bronson, B. 1992. Patterns in the Early Southeast Asian Metals Trade. In I. Glover, P. Suchitta and J. Villiers (eds), Early Metallurgy, Trade and Urban Centers in Thailand and Southeast Asia. Bangkok: White Lotus, pp. 63-114. Brumfield, E. & T. Earle (eds), 1987. Specialization, exchange and complex societies.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canuto, M.A. & J. Yeager (eds.), 2000. The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. London: Routledge. Cavanagh, W.G., 1988. Soil Phosphate, Site Boundaries, and Change Point Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 67-83. Cernych, E.N., 2003. Spektralanalyse und Mtallverarbeitung in den fruh- und mittle- bronzezeitlichen Kulturen der ukrainischen Steppe als Foschungsproblem. Eurasia

Antiqua 9: 27-62. Chapman, R., 2003. Archaeologies of Complexity. London: Routledge.


22

Chernykh, E.N. & S.V. Kuz’minykh, 1989. Drevnyaya metallurgiya Severnoi Evrazii (seiminsko-turbinskii fenomen). Moskva: Nauka. Chernykh, E.N., 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Chernykh, E.N, L.N. Avilova, L.B. Orlovskaya, 2000. Metallurgicheskiye provintzii i radiouglerodnaya khronologiya. Moskva: Institut Arkheologii RAN. Chernykh, E.N. (ed.), 2002a. Kargaly Volume I. Moscow: Nauka. Chernykh, E.N., (ed.), 2002b. Kargaly Volume II: Moscow: Nauka. Chernykh, E.N., (ed.), 2004a. Kargaly Volume III. Moscow: Nauka. Chernykh, E.N., 2004. Kargaly: The Largest and Most Ancient Metallurgical Complex on the Border of Europe and Asia. In K. Linduff (ed.), Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Eurasia

from the Urals to the Yellow River, edited by K. Linduff. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 223-237.

Christian, David, 1998. A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia. Volume I: Inner

Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. Oxford: Blackwell. Cohen, A.P., 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock Publications. Craddock, P.T., 1995. Early Metal Mining and Production. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Davidson, D.A., S.P. Carter & T.A Quine, 1992. An evaluation of micromorphology as an aid to archaeological interpretation. Geoarchaeology 7: 55-65. Degtyareva, A. D., S. V. Kuzminykh, & L.B. Orlovskaya. 2001. Metalloproizvodstvo petrovskikh plemen (po materialam poseleniya Kulevchi III). Vprosy arkheologiyi, antropologiyi, i etnografiyi 3: 25-34. Drennan, R. & C. Peterson, 2004. Comparing Archaeological Settlement Systems with Rank-

Size Graphs: A Measure of Shape and Statistical Confidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 533-549.

Epimakhov, A.V., 1998. Pogrebalnaya obryadnost naseleniya Uzhnogo Zauralya epokhi srednei bronzy. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Southern Ural State University, Russia. Epimakhov, A.V., 1999. Vozmozhnosti urbanisticheskogo razvitiya v stepnoi srede epokhi

bronzy (po materialam pamyatnikov sintashtinskogo tipa. In N.P. Matveeva (ed.), Ekologiya drevnikh i sovremennykh obshchestv. Tyumen: Institute Problemi Osvoyeniya Severa SO RAN, pp. 119-122.


23

Epimakhov, A., 2002a. Complex Societies and the Possibilities to Diagnose them on he Basis of

Archaeological Data: Sintashta Type Sites of the Middle Bronze Age of the Trans-Urals. In K. Jones-Bley and D. Zdanovich (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the Third to the First Millennia BC: Regional Specifics in the light of global models, Vol. 1. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 139-147

Epimakhov, A.V., 2002b. Yuzhnoe Zaural’ye v period srednei bronzi. Chelyabinsk: Izd-vo Yuzhno-Ural’skovo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Epimakhov, A., 2005, Ranniye Kompleksniye Obshyestva Severa Tzentral’noi Evrazii (po materialam mogil’nika Kamennyi Ambar-5), K. 1. Chelyabinsk: Nauka. Epimakhov, A. V., B. Hanks B. and C. Renfrew, 2005. Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya

pamyatnikov bronzovogo veka Zauralya. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 4: 92-102. Epimakhov, A.V., n.d. Settlements and Cemeteries of the Bronze of the Urals: The Potential for

Reconstructing Early Social Dynamics. In B. Hanks and K. Linduff (eds.) Monuments, Metals and Mobility: Trajectories of Social Complexity in the Late Prehistoric Eurasian Steppe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frachetti, M., 2002. Bronze Age Exploitation and Political Dynamics of the Eastern Eurasian Steppe Zone. In K. Boyle, C. Renfrew & M. Levine (eds), Ancient Interaction: East and

West in Eurasia, edited by K. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 161-170.

Frachetti, M., 2004. Bronze Age Pastoral Landscapes of Eurasia and the Nature of Social Interaction in the Mountain Steppe Zone of Eastern Kazakhstan. University of Pennsylvania. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. French, C., 2003. Geoarchaeology in Action: studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. London: Routledge. Gaffney, C.F. & V.L. Gaffney, 1988. Some Quantitative Approaches to Site Territory and Land

Use from the Surface Record. In J.L. Bintliff, D.A. Davidson and E.G. Grant (eds), Conceptual Issues in Environmental Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press, pp. 82-90. Gayduchenko, L.L., 2002. Organic Remains from Fortified Settlements and Necropoli of the

“Country of Towns”. In K. Jones-Bley and G.B. Zdanovich (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the Third to the First Millennia BC: Regional Specifics in the light of global models, Vol. II. Washington: Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 400-416.

Gening, V.F., G.B. Zdanovich, V.V. Gening, 1992. Sintasthta. Archeologicheskii pamyatnik Ariiskikh plemen Uralo-Kazakhstanckikh stepei. T. 1. Chelyabinsk: Uzhno-Ural’skoe knizhnoe Izd-vo.


24

Gilman, A., 1981. The Development of Social Stratification in Bronze Age Europe. Current Anthropology 22: 1-23. Godoy, R., 1985. Mining: anthropological perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 14: 199-217. Green, F., 1995. The plant remains from the Klinglberg, in S. Shennan (ed.), Bronze Age Copper

Producers of the Eastern Alps. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 27: 223-231. Bonn: Habelt.

Grigor’yev, S.A., 1999. Drevniye indoevropeitzi. Opit istoricheskoi rekonstruktzii. Chelyabinsk: Institut istorii i arkheologii UrO RAN. Grigor’yev, S.A., 2000. Bronzovii vek Drevnyaya istoriya Uzhnovo Zaural’ya. T.I. Chelyabinsk: Izd-vo Yuzhno-Ural’skovo gosudarstvennogo universiteta: 241-242. Grigor’yev, S. A., 2002. Ancient Indo-Europeans. Chelyabinsk: RIFEI. Hanks, B.K., 2002. The Eurasian Steppe ‘Nomadic World’ of the First Millennium BC: Inherent

Problems within the study of Iron Age Nomadic Groups, in K. Boyle, C. Renfrew & M. Levine (eds), Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs, pp. 183-197.

Hanks, B.K., 2003. Human-Animal Relationships in the Eurasian Steppe Iron Age: An

Exploration into Social, Economic and Ideological Change. University of Cambridge, Unpublished PhD Dissertation.

Hanks, B., A. Epimakhov & C. Renfrew. 2007. Towards a Refined Chronology for the Bronze

Age of the Southern Urals, Russia. Antiquity 81:333-367. Hanks, B., C. Merrony & A. Epimakhov, n.d. A Geophysical Prospection of Middle Bronze Age

Settlement and Cemetery Organization in the Southeastern Urals, Russian Federation. [under review] Archaeological Prospection.

Hanks, B., A. Epimakhov, L. Koryakova & S. Sharapova, n.d. Recent Multidisciplinary Field

Research at the Middle Bronze Age Sintashta site of Ol’gino. Journal of Field Archaeology (currently being prepared).

Hardesty, D.L., 1988. The Archaeology of mining and Miners: A view from the Silver State. Society for Historical Archaeology, Special Publication Series no. 6. Pleasant Hill: SHA. Harding, A.F., 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


25

Herbert, E., 1984. Red Gold of Africa: Copper in Precolonial History and Culture. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Herbert, E., 1998. Mining as Microcosm in Precolonial sub-Saharan Africa: An Overview. In A.

Knapp, V. Pigott & E. Herbert (eds.), Social Approaches to an Industrial Past: The Archaeology and Anthropology of Mining. London: Routledge, pp. 138-154.

Hiebert, F.T., 1994. Origins of the Bronze Age Oasis Civilization in Central Asia. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Hiebert, F.T., 2002. Bronze Age Interaction between the Eurasian Steppe and Central Asia. In K. Boyle, C. Renfrew & M. Levine (eds), Ancient Interaction: East and West in Eurasia.

Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 237-248.

Höppner, B., Bartelheim, M., Huijsmans, M., Krauss, R.,Martinek, K-P., Pernicka, E., Schwab, R. 2005 Prehistoric copper production in the Inn valley (Austria), and the earliest copper in central Europe. Archaeometry 47(2): 293-315.

Horne, L., 1992. Fuel for the metal worker. The role of charcoal and charcoal production in ancient metallurgy. Expedition 25(1): 6-13. Jones-Bley, K. & D.G. Zdanovich (eds.). 2002. Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC – Regional Specifics in Light of Global Models. Volumes I & II (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 45). Washington: Institute for the Study of Man. Kassianidou, V. & A.B. Knapp, 2005. Archaeometallurgy in the Mediterranean: The Social Context of Mining, Technology and Trade. In E. Blake and A. Bernard Knapp (eds), The

Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 213-251. Knapp, A.B., V.C. Pigott & E.W. Herbert. 1998. Social Approaches to an Industrial Past: The Archaeology and Anthropology of Mining. London: Routledge. Kolb, M.J. & J.E. Snead, 1997. It’s a Small World After All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology. American Antiquity 62, 4: 609-628. Kohl, P., 1987. The Ancient Economy, Transferable Technologies and the Bronze Age World-

system: A View from the Northeastern Frontier of the Ancient Near East. In M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-24.

Kohl, P., 2007. The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koryakova, L. N., 1996. Social Trends in Temperate Eurasia during the Second and First Millennia BC. Journal of European Archaeology 4: 243-280.


26

Koryakova, L. N., 1998. Cultural Relationships in North-Central Eurasia. In R. Blench and M. Spriggs (eds), Archaeology and Language II: Correlating archaeological and linguistic Hypotheses. London: Routledge, pp. 209-219.

Koryakova, L.N., 2002. The Social Landscape of Central Eurasia in the Bronze and Iron Ages:

Tendencies, Factors, and Limits of Transformation. In K. Jones-Bley and G. B. Zdanovich (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the Third to the First Millennia BC: Regional specifics in the light of global models, edited by. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation/Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 97-117.

Koryakova, L.N. & A. V. Epimakhov, 2007. The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and

Iron Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kostyukov, B.P., 1999. Noviye materiali k probleme mirovozzreniya naseleniya final’noi

bronzi Yuzhnogo Zaural’ya. Kompleksniye obshestva Tzentral’noi Evrazii v III-I tis. do n.e. regional’niye osobennosti v svete universal’nikh mdelei. Materiali konferentzii. Chelyabinsk, pp. 258-262.

Kostyukov, V.P., A.V. Epimakov, D.V. Nelin, 1995a. K voprosu o pamyatnikakh Yuzhnogo Zaural’ya epokhi final’noi bronzi. Novoe v arkheologii Yuzhnogo Urala. Chelyabinsk: Rifei, pp. 151-163. Kostyukov, B.P., A.V. Epimakov, D.V. Nelin, 1995b. Novii pamyatnik srednei bronzi v Yuzhnom Zaural’ye. In Drevniye indoeranskie kul’turi Volgo-Ural’ya (II tis. do n.e.). Samara: Samarskii gosudarstvennii pedagogicheskii universitet, pp.156-207. Kovacik, M.E. & M. Judd, 2008. Health at Kamennyi Ambar 5. Unpublished Report, University

of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology. Kristiansen, K., 1984. Ideology and Material Culture: an archaeological perspective. In M.

Spriggs (ed.), Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by M. Spriggs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 72-100.

Kristiansen, K., 1998. Europe before History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kristiansen, K. & T. Larsson, 2005. The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuz’mina, E.E., 1994. Otkuda prishli indoarii. Material’naya kul’tura plemen andronovskoi obshnosti i proiskhozhdeniye indoirantsev. Moskva: Vostochnaya Literatura. Kuz’mina, E.E., 2002. On the Origins of Indo-Iranians. Current Anthropology 43(2): 303-304. Kuz’mina, O.V., 2000. Metallicheskiye isdeliya i voprosi otnositel’ noi khronologii abashevoskoi kul’turi. Drevniye obshestva uga Vostochnoi Evropi v epodku


27

paleometalla (rannie kompleksnie obshestva i voprosi kul’turnoi transformatzii). Arkheologicheskie eziskaniya. Vip. 63. SPB: Evropeiskii dom, pp. 65-134. Kuznetzov, P.F., 2001. Territorial’niye osobennosti i vremenniye ramki perekhodnogo

perioda k epokhe pozdnei bronzi Vostochnoi Evropi. Bronzovii vek Vostochnoi Evropi: Kharakteristika kul’tur, khronologiya i periodizatziya: Materiali mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentzii “K stoletiyu periodizatzii V.A. Gorodtzova bronzovogo veka uzhnoi polovini Vostochnoi Evropi”. Samara: “NTTZ”, pp. 178-182. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C., 2002. Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians. Current

Anthropology 43(1): 63-88. Lechtman, H., 1991. The Production of Copper-Arsenic Alloys in the Central Andes: Highland Ores and Coastal Smelters? Journal of Field Archaeology, 18(1): 34-76. Levine, M., A.C. Renfrew & K. Boyle (eds.), 2003. Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the

Horse. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. Levy, T.E., 1993. Production, Space and Social Change in Protohistoric Palestine. In A. Holl

and T. Levy (eds), Spatial Boundaries and Social Dynamics. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, pp. 63-81.

Lewis, A. 1990. Fire setting experiments on the Great Orme. In P. Crew & S. Crew (eds.), Early

Mining in the British Isles: proceedings of the Early Mining Workshop at Plas Tan y Bwlch, Snowdonia National Park Study Centre, Plas Tan y Bwlch Occasional Paper 1:55-56.

Lillios, K.T., 1992. Phosphate Fractionation of Soils at Agroal, Portugal. American Antiquity, 57(3): 495-506. Lindh, U., D. Brune, G. Nordberg & P-O Wester, 1980. Levels of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, tin and zinc in bone tissue of industrially exposed workers. The Science of the Total Environment 16, 109-116. Linduff, K. (ed.), 2004. Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River. New York: Edwin Mellon Press. Lindstrum, R., 2002. Anthropological characteristics of the Population of the Bolshekaragansky

cemetery, Kurgan 25. In D. Zdanovich (ed.), Arkaim: Nekropol’, Kn. 1. Chelyabinsk: Uzhno-Ural’skoe knishnoe izd-vo.

Maddin, R. (ed.), 1988. The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys. Cambridge: MIT Press. Mallory, J.P., 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. New York: Thames and Hudson.


28

Masson, V.M., 1980. Rannezemledelcheskie obshchestva i formirovanie poseleniy gorodskogo Tipa. In N. Butinov and A.M. Reshetov (eds), Rannie Zemledelstsy: Etnograficheskie

Ocherki. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 178-185. Matthews, W., 1995. Micromorphological characterization and interpretation of occupation deposits and microstratigraphic sequences at Abu Salabikh, Iraq. In A.J. Barham and R.I. Macphail (eds), Archaeological Sediments and Soils: Analysis Interpretation and Management. London: Achetype Books, pp. 41-76. Matveev, A.V., 1998. Pervie andronovtzi v lesakh Zaural’ya. Novosibirsk: Sibirskoe predpriyatiye RAN. Matveeva, N.P., E.N. Volkov & N.E. Ryabogina, 2003. Novie pamyatniki bronzovogo i rannego zheleznogo vekov. Novosibirsk: Nauka. McHugh, F., 1999. Theoretical and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Mortuary Practice. BAR International Series 785. Oxford: Archaeopress. Merkel, J, 1990. A reconstruction of copper smelting at Timna. In B Rothenberg (ed), The

Ancient Metallurgy of Copper, Researches in the Arabah, 1959-1984, 2. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, pp. 78-122.

Merkel, J., I. Shimada, C.P. Swann, and R. Doonan, 1994. Pre-Hispanic Copper Alloy

Production at Batan Grande, Peru: Interpretation of the Analytical Data for Ore Samples. In D.A. Scott and P. Meyers (eds.), Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 199-277.

Murdock, G.P., 1949. Social Structure. New York: MacMilan. Oakberg, K., 2000. A Method for Skeletal Arsenic Analysis, Applied to the Chalcolithic Copper Smelting Site of Shiqmim, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27, 895-901. O’Shea, J., 1984. Mortuary Variability. New York: Academic Press. Pader, E., 1982. Symbolism, Social Relations and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, Int. Series 110. Peterson, D., P. Kuznetsov & O. Mochalov, 2006. The Samara Bronze Age Metals Project:

Investigating Changing Technologies and Transformations of Value in the Western Eurasian Steppes. In D. Peterson, L. Popova and A. Smith (eds), Beyond the Steppe and the Sown:Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology. Leiden: Brill, pp. 322-342.

Peterson, C. & R. Drennan, 2005. Communities, Settlements, Sites, and Surveys: Regional-Scale Analysis of Prehistoric Human Interaction. American Antiquity, 70(1): 5-30.


29

Pickin, (?), 1990. Stone tools and early metal mining in England and Wales. In P. Crew & S. Crew (eds.), Early Mining in the British Isles: proceedings of the Early Mining Workshop at Plas Tan y Bwlch, Snowdonia National Park Study Centre. Plas Tan y Bwlch Occasional Paper 1:39-42.

Piggott, V. (ed.), 1999. The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World. MASCA Research

Papers in Science and Archaeology. Philadelphia: Museum University of Pennsylvania. Popova, L., 2006. Pastoralism during the Late Bronze Age in Russia: Past Interpretations and New Goals for Future Research. In D. Peterson, L. Popova and A. Smith (eds), Beyond

the Steppe and the Sown: Proceedings of the 2002 University of Chicago Conference on Eurasian Archaeology. Leiden: Brill, pp. 459-468. Rajev, D. & A.V. Epimakhov, 2004. Fenomen Mnogochislennocti Detskikh Pogrebenyi v Mogil’nikakh Epokhi Bronzi. Vestnik Arkheologii, Anthropologii i Etnografii, Vol. 5, 107-113. Renfrew, C., 1987. Archaeology and Language: the puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge: University Press. Rothenberg, B. 1990. The Ancient Metallurgy of Copper. London: IAMS. Shennan, S., 1986. Central Europe in the third millennium BC: an evolutionary trajectory for the beginning of the Bronze Age. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 115-146. Shennan, S., 1993. Commodities, transactions, and growth in the Central European Early

Bronze Age. Journal of European Archaeology 1(2): 59-72. Shennan, S., 1998. Producing copper in the eastern Alps during the second millennium BC. In

A.B. Knapp, V.C. Pigott and E.W. Herbert (eds), Social Approaches to an Industrial Past: The Archaeology and Anthropology of Mining. London: Routledge, pp. 191-204.

Sherratt, A. & S. Sherratt, 1991. From Luxuries to Commodities: the nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems,. In N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the

Mediterranean. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. xc. Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Shimada, I., and J. Merkel, 1991. Copper alloy metallurgy in ancient Peru. Scientific American

265(1): 80-86. Shnirelman, V.A., 1996. The faces of nationalist archaeology in Russia. In M. Diaz-Andreu and

T. Champion (eds), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: UCL Press, pp. 218-242.

Shnirelman, V.A., 1999. New Ideologies – Passions about Arkaim: Russian Nationalism, the

Aryans and the Politics of Archaeology. Inner Asia 1 (2): 267-282.


30

Thurston, T.L., 2001. Landscapes of Power, Landscapes of Conflict: State Formation in the South Scandinavian Iron Age. New York: Kluwer Academic. Timberlake, S., 2003. Excavations on Copa Hill, Cwmystwyth (1986-1999); An Early Bronze

Age copper mine within the uplands of Central Wales. BAR British Series 348 Oxford: Archaeopress.

Topping, P. & M. Lynott (eds.), 2005. The Cultural Landscapes of Prehistoric Mines. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Trifonov, V.A., 1996. K absolutnomu daterovaniu “mikenskogo” ornamenta epokhi rasvitoi Bronzi. Radiouglerod i arkheologiya. Vip. 1. SPB, pp. 60-64. Vicent, J. S. Ormeno, MaIsabel Martinez-Navarrete & J. Delgado, 2006. The Kargaly Project:

modeling Bronze Age landscapes in the steppe. In S. Campana & M. Forte (eds.), From Space to Place: 2nd International conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series 1568, pp. 279-284.

Vinogradov N. B. & A.V. Epimakhov, 2000. From a Settled Way of Life to Nomadism. Variants

in Models of Transition. In J. Davis-Kimball, E. Murphy, L. Koryakova and L. Yablonsky (eds), Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age. BAR International Series 890, pp. 41-45.

Vinogradov, N.B., 1995. Chronologia, soderzhaniye i kul’turnaya prinadlezhnost’ pamyatnikov Sintashtinskogo tipa Bronzovogo veka v Yuzhnom Zaural’ye. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta. Istoricheskiye nauki. No. 1. Chelyabinsk, pp. 16-26. Vinogradov, N.B., 2003. Mogil’nik bronzovogo veka Krivoe Ozero v Yuzhnom Zaural’ye.

Chelyabinsk: Yuzhno-Ural’skoe knizhnoe izd-vo. Yener, K.A., 2000. The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia. Boston: Brill. Zaikov, V.V., G.B. Zdanovich, and A.M. Yuminov, 1995. Mednyi rudnik Bronzogo veka

‘Vorovskaya Yama’. In Rossiya i Vostok: Problemy Vzaimodeistviya, Chast V, Kniga 1: Kul’tury Eneolita-Bronzy Stepnoi Evrazii. Chelyabinsk: 3-ya ezdunarodnaya Nauchnaya Konferentsiya, pp. 157-162

Zaikov, V.V., A.M. Yuminov, A.Ph. Bushmakin, E.V. Zaikova, A.D. Tairov, and G.B.

Zdanovich, 2002. Ancient Copper Mines and Products from Base and Noble Metals in the Southern Urals. In In K. Jones-Bley and G. B. Zdanovich (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the Third to the First Millennia BC: Regional specifics in the light of global models, edited by. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation/Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series. Washington D.C.:


31

Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 417-442. Zdanovich, G.B., 1988. Bronzovii vek Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei (osnovi periodizatzii). Sverdlovsk: Izd-vo Ural’skogo universiteta. Zdanovich, G.B., 1989. Phenomen protogorodskoi tsivilizatsii bronzovogo veka Uralo- kazakhstanskikh stepei. Kulturnaya I sotsialnaya obuslovlennost, in Vzaimodeistvie kochevykh kultur I drevnikh tsivilizatsiy, edited by V.M. Masson. Alma-Ata: Nauka, pp. 179-189. Zdanovich, G.B., 1995. Arkaim: Arii na Urale ili nesostoyavshayasya tsivilizatsiya. In G.B.

Zdanovich (ed.), Arkaim: Islledovaniya. Poiski. Otkrytiya, edited by Chelyabinsk: Kamenny Poya, pp. 21-42. Zdanovich, G.B., 1997. Arkaim – kur’turnii kompleks epokhi srednei bronzi Yuzhnogo Zaural’ya. Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya. 2: 47-62. Zdanovich, D.G., 1997. Sintashtinskoye obshchestvo: sotzialnye osnovy (kvazigorodskoi) kultury Uzhnogo Zauralya epokhi srednei bronzy. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinskiy Gosudarstvenny Universitet. Zdanovich, D.G. (ed.), 2002. Arkaim: Nekropol’, Kn. 1. Chelyabinsk: Uzhno-Ural’skoe

knishnoe izd-vo. Zdanovich, G.B. & I.M. Batanina, 2002. Planography of the Fortified Centers of the Middle Bronze Age in the Southern Trans-Urals According to Aerial Photography Data. In K.

Jones-Bley & G. B. Zdanovich (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the Third to the First Millennia BC: Regional specifics in the light of global models. Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation/Journal of Indo- European Studies Monograph Series. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 121-147.

Zdanovich, G.B. & D.G. Zdanovich, 2002. The “Country of Towns” of Southern Trans-Urals and Some Aspects of Steppe Assimilation in the Bronze Age. In K. Boyle, A.C. Renfrew

and M. Levine (eds), Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Mongraphs, pp. 249-263.


32

study of early metallurgy in eurasian steppes

Documents