Ancient Indo-Europeans.

Stanislav A. Grigoriev Ancient Indo-Europeans Chelyabinsk Scientific Centre The Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences ANCIENT INDO-EUROPEANS Author: Dr. S. A. Grigoriev Editor: Dr. J.F. Hargrave Reviewers: Prof. V.V. Ivanov (Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles), member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Prof. V.I. Sarianidi (Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow). Prof. M.F. Kosarev (Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow). Technical editor: N.A. Ivanova (Chelyabinsk State University). Graphical works: N. N. Boiko, O. I. Orlova (Chelyabinsk State University). The book is distributed by RIFEI. For more information, please, contact us: [email protected] or 454000 Kommuni, 68, Chelyabinsk, Russia The WEB page of the series www.eah.uu.ru © Stanislav A. Grigoriev - RIFEI Rifei, Chelyabinsk 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without a written permission of RIFEI. Printed in Ekaterinburg by CHAROID. ISBN 5-88521-151-5 Contents Part I. Sintashta culture....................................................................................................7 Introduction............................................................................................................................9 Chapter 1. Architecture......................................................................................................... 20 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5. 1.6. 1.7. Sintashta architecture.......................................................................................................... 20 Architecture of the Transurals............................................................................................. 27 The Abashevo architectural complex.....................................................................................29 Eastern European architecture of the Bronze Age..................................................................29 Architecture of the Near East...............................................................................................31 Architecture of the Caucasus...............................................................................................39 Architecture of the Balkan-Carpathian region........................................................................39 Chapter 2. Burial rites............................................................................................................43 2.1. Sintashta burial rites ............................................................................................................43 2.2. Burial rites of the cultures of Eastern Europe and Northern Kazakhstan .................................50 2.3. Burial rites of the Near East and the Caucasus......................................................................55 Chapter 3. Material culture....................................................................................................59 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. Stone artefacts....................................................................................................................59 Metal artefacts....................................................................................................................65 Chemical composition of metal..............................................................................................76 Technology of metal production.............................................................................................82 Ceramics............................................................................................................................85 Clay and bone artefacts.......................................................................................................99 Chapter 4. Bone remains........................................................................................................101 4.1. Anthropology.......................................................................................................................101 4.2. Structure of the herd............................................................................................................102 Chapter 5. Sintashta culture and Abashevo cultures.............................................................106 5.1. Relative chronology.............................................................................................................106 5.2. Formation of Sintashta and Abashevo cultures.......................................................................109 5.3. The Abashevo family of cultures..........................................................................................115 Chapter 6. Social relations......................................................................................................118 6.1. ‘Standing on chariots’..........................................................................................................118 6.2. The structure of Sintashta society.........................................................................................121 Chapter 7. Economy................................................................................................................126 7.1. Metallurgy..........................................................................................................................126 7.2. Agriculture.........................................................................................................................128 7.3. Cattle breeding....................................................................................................................129 Chapter 8. Periodisation and chronology of the Sintashta culture.........................................130 Chapter 9. Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in steppe Eurasia..........................................138 Part II. The origins of southern Indo-Iranian cultures, and cultural processes in Northern Eurasia in the Late Bronze Age ...............................149 Introduction............................................................................................................................151 Chapter 1. Indo-Iranians in Central Asia, India and Iran.......................................................161 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. Central Asia.......................................................................................................................161 Hindustan...........................................................................................................................169 Bactria and Margiana..........................................................................................................171 Iran...................................................................................................................................177 Chapter 2. The Seima-Turbino phenomenon and cultural genesis in the Northern Eurasian Late Bronze Age........................................................186 2.1. The problem of the formation of Seima-Turbino metalworking and previous cultures of the Sayan-Altai region....................................................................186 2.2. Seima-Turbino bronzes and contemporary cultures of the Western Urals and Siberia....................192 2.3. The problem of cultural genesis in Northern Eurasia at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age...206 2.4. The ethnic content of cultural transformations in Northern Eurasia..........................................222 Chapter 3. Fyodorovka culture and its offspring....................................................................235 3.1. The origin and nature of Fyodorovka culture..........................................................................235 3.2. Cultural genesis in the forest and forest-steppe zones of the Urals and Eastern Europe.............248 3.3. Ethno-historical reconstruction..............................................................................................267 Chapter 4. Ethno-cultural processes in Northern Eurasia in the Final Bronze Age..............274 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. Urnfield culture...................................................................................................................274 Italy...................................................................................................................................278 Steppe Eurasia and the problem of the Cordoned Ware cultures..............................................281 The Karasuk-Irmen cultural bloc..........................................................................................287 The Scytho-Cimmerian problem...........................................................................................294 The ethnic identity of Sintashta culture..................................................................................303 Chapter 5. Indo-Europeans in China......................................................................................305 Part III. Origins and migrations of the Indo-Europeans .............................................311 Introduction............................................................................................................................313 Chapter 1. Expansions of the Nostratic languages and the first Indo-Europeans.................314 1.1. Formation of the Ural-Altaic languages.................................................................................314 1.2. Formation and expansion of Elamo-Dravidian languages.........................................................317 1.3. Proto-Indo-Europeans in Northern Mesopotamia....................................................................320 Chapter 2. Migrations of Indo-Europeans within the Circumpontic zone..............................326 2.1. Infiltration of the Near Eastern cultural complex into Europe...................................................326 2.2. Indo-Europeans and the Caucasus........................................................................................332 2.3. Early Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe..............................................................................338 2.4. Cultural transformations in South-eastern and Central Europe in the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age...........................................................................345 2.5. The formation of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age cultures.....................................................352 Chapter 3. Cultural transformations in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe in the Early and Middle Bronze Age....................................................................358 3.1. The Northern Caucasus in the Early Bronze Age...................................................................358 3.2. The Kura-Araxian culture of Transcaucasia..........................................................................363 3.3. Eastern Europe in the Early Bronze Age...............................................................................365 3.4. Formation of the Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware cultures.............................................369 3.5. Bell Beaker Culture ............................................................................................................371 3.6. Anthropomorphic stelae.......................................................................................................372 3.7. Problem of the archaeological identification of the North Caucasian peoples............................373 3.8. The Caucasus in the Middle Bronze Age...............................................................................376 3.9. Eastern Europe in the Middle Bronze Age.............................................................................380 3.10. Multi-Cordoned Ware culture and the question of Greek origins.............................................386 Chapter 4. Indo-Europeans in the Near East.........................................................................403 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. Indo-Europeans in Near Eastern written sources....................................................................403 Indo-Europeans and the Old Testament.................................................................................408 Zoroastrianism and Judaism..................................................................................................408 External stimulants to Indo-European migrations from the Near East.......................................410 Chapter 5. Origins and migrations of Indo-European peoples. An overview........................411 Chapter 6. Causes of migrations, their geographic conditionality and forms.........................420 6.1. Causes of Indo-European migrations and their geographical conditionality................................420 6.2. Migratory models................................................................................................................421 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................423 References..............................................................................................................................425 List of illustrations..................................................................................................................478 Index.......................................................................................................................................485 Part I Sintashta culture Introduction During the last quarter of the 20th century there were noticeable changes in the archaeology of the Southern Urals. The sites of Sintashta culture, represented by fortified settlements and cemeteries with magnificent burial monuments, were discovered and widely studied. However, despite numerous excavations and the rich materials obtained, our understanding of these complexes has lagged behind somewhat. There is no special reason to criticise the set of exotic, unreasonable interpretations of Sintashta fortified settlements, which has arisen in recent years in the pseudo-scientific literature. In different publications these settlements have been called temples, observatories, places of energy sources, etc. The views on the origin of Sintashta culture are more pertinent to our discussion. K.F. Smirnov and E.E. Kuzmina suspected that its formation had taken place as a result of migration of people from Eastern Europe, first of all the bearers of the Multi-Cordoned Ware and Abashevo cultures [Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1997]. In contrast, G.B. Zdanovich considered that it was formed on the local Eneolithic basis, although he presents no arguments in favour of this point of view. At the same time, he does not deny an effect from the west on this area [Zdanovich, 1997]. A number of Samara archaeologists defend the view that the Sintashta culture and sites of Potapovka type (its Volga region variant) originated through the interplay between the Poltavka and Abashevo tribes of the Volga-Ural region [Vasiliev et al., 1995; Vasiliev et al., 1995a; Vasiliev, 1999c]. In addition, in the formation of Sintashta the participation of the Eneolithic Botai-Surtandi tribes, who lived in the Urals and Kazakhstan, is assumed [Kuznetsov, 1999]. N.B. Vinogradov denies any great significance to Poltavka culture in the formation of Sintashta, conjecturing that the culture had arisen on a rather small local Eneolithic substratum, but under the potent effect of two western cultural waves: Abashevo (but not from the Middle Volga) and proto-Srubnaya (understood as indeterminate steppe tribes) [Vinogradov, 1999]. Thus, a majority of archaeologists supposes that Sintashta culture was formed on a local base under the effect of Eastern European cultural formations of the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The relative importance of these components varies, but nobody doubts the Indo-Iranian connections of Sintashta culture, although the archaeological reasons presented to support it are not at all convincing. Another point of view concerning the Near Eastern origin of Sintashta1 is that of L.Ya. Krizhevskaya and the present writer [Krizhevskaya, 1993; Grigoriev, 1996a]. This is not a local archaeological problem but one directly connected with the question of the Indo-Iranian origin and localisation of the Aryan homeland. In Russian scholarship the dominant view places the homeland in the steppes of Eastern Europe. However, the connection of the Aryan ethnos with concrete cultures can vary a little, as in the cases of the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) [Safronov, 1989, pp. 204, 205] and Abashevo cultures [Agapov et al., 1983, pp. 134137], for examle. The appropriateness of similar connections is not disputed because of the complexity of proving or disproving them. The conviction that the Timber-Grave (Srubnaya) and Andronovo tribes had an Aryan identity, as did the Ivanovskoe and Sargari tribes formed on their basis, is more widespread [Kuzmina, 1994; Abaev, 1965; Grantovskii, 1970]. This hypothesis was formulated long ago, but it has obtained great significance as a result of the discovery of Sintashta sites and subsequent substantiation of their Indo-Iranian identity. E.E. Kuzmina, K.F. Smirnov and V.F. Gening have made important contributions to this [Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1997; Gening, 1977], culminating in the latest book by Kuzmina [Kuzmina, 1994]. The main arguments on which the steppe localisation of the Aryan homeland is based and continues to be based, are the following: connection of the Bronze Age steppe cultures with the Scytho-Sarmatian world; migration of the bearers of these cultures into Cen- 1 In this book, alongside the terms ‘Sintashta culture’, ‘Petrovka culture’ or ‘Krotovo culture’, the shorthand forms ‘Sintashta’, ‘Petrovka’ or ‘Krotovo’ are used. 10 tral Asia;1 conformity of the Bronze Age cultural features to the realities described in ‘Rig Veda’ and ‘Avesta’; considerable inclusions of pre-Scythian, common Aryan and Iranian word forms in the FinnoUgrian languages. It is necessary to note that in India and in NorthEastern Iran, whence Western Iranians subsequently diffused, there are no archaeological complexes comparable to the steppe sites of the Late Bronze Age. We may presume an ability to assimilate the incomers culturally, but the preservation and subsequent dominance of their language, although this may be a very brave assumption. However, this hypothesis has also a linguistic basis, put forward by V.I. Abaev, who revealed a series of Scytho-European isoglosses [Abaev, 1965]. As these are diffused through all European languages, including Italic and Celtic, he is drawn to conclude that Early Scythian contacts took place as far back as the period of Pan-European dialectal group within one area (Central and Eastern Europe have been suggested) before the mid-2nd millennium BC. An archaeological explanation of this situation may be suggested in the contact of Srubnaya culture with Sabatinovka culture in the west and with Sosnicja culture in the north-west. But this hardly explains the appearance of these isoglosses in the whole European area. Other inconsistencies may be reduced to the following: the Timber-Grave (Srubnaya) culture of Eastern Europe and the Alakul culture of the Transurals and Kazakhstan were formed in close relationship to each other. Subsequently, descendants of the bearers of Alakul culture moved south: that is usually seen as the Aryan migration to India. Such an approach is irreconcilable with the scheme of dialectal partitioning of the Indo-Iranian languages: in this case, the formation of Indo-Aryan dialects should be contemporary to that of the Scythian dialect. But the earlier partitioning of Indo-Aryan dialects relative to Iranian (to which Scythian also relates) is today generally accepted. It is also not clear how to estimate the presence of people speaking the Mitannian Aryan language in Northern Mesopotamia already in the 17th century BC. We could make more one assumption: that the Iranian tongues had started to be formed in Eastern Europe earlier, at the time of the Catacomb culture, and that their bearers were subsequently subjected to Timber-Grave cultural assimilation, which was purely cultural, not linguistic. This causes a new batch of inconsistencies, linked with the linguistic fixation of Indo-Aryan place-names in the North Pontic area and the possibilities of comparing Catacomb burials with those in the cultures of North-Eastern Iran. New speculations formulated to remove this problem in turn bring yet further inconsistencies, and so on ad infinitum. In the end, the whole construction is extremely shaky, and its basic defect is that it completely contradicts the basis on which it was constructed. Archaeologists V.I. Sarianidi and A. Askarov, working in Central Asia and excavating such complexes as Dashli and Sapalli, adhere to another point of view [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 158, 159; 1981, pp. 189, 190; Askarov, 1981, p. 178]. The formation of these complexes was not connected with the steppe cultures of the Bronze Age and they existed without noticeable transformations up to the time when this territory was included in the Achaemenid Empire. The Iranian identity of the population living here is beyond doubt. The third point of view was formulated by T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov: grounded on the inclusions of Semitic, proto-Northcaucasian and Kartvelian borrowings in Indo-European languages, they have localised the Indo-European homeland in the region of the Armenian Plateau [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1981; 1984]. Indo-Iranians, separating from Indo-European peoples, settled in the northern part of Iran, whence the subsequent migrations into the steppe zone, India and Northern Mesopotamia were realised. Subsequently, Sarianidi has taken up this position, showing the Near Eastern connection of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex [Sarianidi, 1993]. Whilst, not discussing these concepts in details, we may speak about two alternative hypotheses of the origins of the Indo-Iranians: northern and southern. As a rule, the supporters of the former ignore the early presence of Indo-Iranians in Iran. Apart from what Sarianidi has shown to the scientific community, there is the connection of Mitannian Aryans with the Gorgan valley in North-Eastern Iran stated by R. Girshman. He has attributed as Indo-Aryan sites such as Shah-Tepe, Tureng-Tepe, Hissar III, and the Astrabad hoard. However, he supposed that Indo-Aryans penetrated into the South-Eastern Caspian area from Eastern Europe and thence into India and Northern Mesopotamia [Girshman, 1977]. But this can be 1 As a rule, the term ‘Central Asia’ is applied here to describe the territories of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc. In some cases it is applied to Mongolia, Southern Siberia and North China. Where there is risk of confusion I apply the term ‘south of Central Asia’ to the former. 11 not related chronologically to the classical position of the Russian archaeological school, postulating considerably later Timber-Grave and Alakul southerly migrations. An attempt to reconcile these positions was made by A. Parpola. Subscribing on a whole to the theory of the northern parentage of the Indo-Iranians, he has explained the appearance of Indo-Aryans in the South-Eastern Caspian by migration from the steppe zone of Eastern Europe, and the appearance of Iranians by a movement from the Asian steppes. In outcome the newcomers assimilated the bearers of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex, subjecting themselves to cultural assimilation, which explains the absence of archaeological evidence to verify this theory [Parpola, 1988]. Thus, the predominant concepts about the origins of the Indo-Iranians are not particularly convincing. Their only slight support is the idea, widespread in modern archaeology, about the localisation of the Indo-European homeland in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe. Therefore, these problems cannot be considered outside the general Indo-European context. Consequently, this has also influenced the contents and framework of this volume. In Part I an analysis is made of Sintashta culture, a conclusion drawn about its origin, and its place in the cultural system of Northern Eurasia at the end of the Middle – beginning of the Late Bronze Age1 determined. A brief recon- struction of its economy and social systems is given and the cultural transformations of the Late Bronze Age, in which the Sintashta ethnic component took part, are described. In Part II the migrations of some Indo-Iranian and Indo-European populations who have exerted influence on ethno-cultural processes in India, Iran and Northern Eurasia are described. Finally, Part III contains the scheme of ethnocultural processes on the Eurasian continent and a brief history of the origins and migrations of the IndoEuropean peoples. Originally, successive parts of the book were conceived as building on the one before, but as the process has continued each has come to have an independent value. It is necessary to say that the appearance of this book is a play of chance. Studying ancient slag, I had never thought to solve the problems of the origin of Sintashta culture or that of the Indo-Europeans origins. When it was suggested I write a chapter on the Bronze Age of the Southern Transurals for a collective monograph dedicated to archaeology of this area, I accepted with great reluctance: the concepts in place had not satisfied me for a long time, but it was absolutely unclear to me how it was possible to change them. Therefore I gave myself the task of describing materials correctly, showing the corresponding analogies in neighbouring cultures – nothing more. This attempt resulted in the present work. Very unexpectedly, I realised that it is possible to undertake ethnic reconstructions based on archaeological material: until recently I was a consistent opponent of similar attempts. Nevertheless, the research offered below is, on the one hand, an historical reconstruction of archaeological material; on the other, it is an attempt to solve problems of Indo-European ethnogenesis. Therefore, we cannot ignore the problem of the capability of making similar knowledge constructions. Some years ago these problems were rather briskly discussed in Russian scholarship within the framework of a controversy about levels of archaeological research, and about the relationship between the empirical, the reconstructive and the theoretical [Gening, 1982; Bashilov, Loone, 1986; Klein, 1986; Gening, 1989]. In the present book, I work on the basis of the unity of archaeology, although each particular area of it, thanks to its particular focus and methods, has a place in the overall cognitive scheme. The connection between levels requires implemen- 1 At present, there are various practices in the use of terminology by archaeologists to identify and label the different periods of the Bronze Age. Here I shall use the most widely recognised triform division of the Bronze Age: Early Bronze Age (EBA), Middle Bronze Age (MBA) and Late Bronze Age (LBA). For the last, as well as for the MBA, it is quite permissible to subdivide into two – LBA I and LBA II, corresponding to the Srubnaya-Alakul and Ivanovskoe-Sargari times. However, here for LBA II we have limited ourselves to the use of a conventional, but not quite successful term ‘Final Bronze Age’. Some disharmonies are present also in the definition of the period prior to the EBA. In a number of cases EBA cultures replace directly those with Neolithic properties. But often cultural formations with rather undeveloped metallurgy, a poor typological set of metal objects and a much greater use of stone and flint precede them. For this period the terms ‘Eneolithic’, less often ‘Chalcolithic’ are in use. In this work the more conventional term is used. ‘Copper Age’ as a label for the first phase of the Eurasian cultures of the early metal epoch [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 34] is appropriate only for the Balkan-Carpathian area. Even in Anatolia and Transcaucasia the stone industry was obviously dominated at this time. In addition, the predominant use of alloys makes the term ‘Copper Age’ inappropriate from an historicotechnological point of view as well. For these reasons the conventional description, Eneolithic, is the most satisfactory. 12 tation of special procedures, therefore it is impossible to carry knowledge directly from the empirical level to that of historical reconstruction. Any archaeological research starts with the primary description and systematisation of material obtained from a certain area. Within this stage the definition of the chronological position of material and its relation to that of other areas is outlined. The next stage consists of constructing of a clear model, into which the material is fitted. But the problem is that in archaeology such models are more often created proceeding from the category of ‘System’ to ‘Structure’ (in Shchedrovitsky’s scheme), where we determine the elements and the connections between them. We obtain a static picture, but the historical processes remain outside our consideration. Analysis of material from any complex allows conclusions to be drawn about the economy, burial rites, architecture, and social, sex and age structures etc. In other words, we are in a position to reconstruct a system, but we have no basis for reconstructing processes, only what could be called history. Let me give a simple example. On the basis of some differences we may divide a particular culture into two local variants. We can consider them as contemporary developments and speak about the formation of the culture in broad territorial terms. On the other hand, they could be non-contemporary developments whose occurrence is connected with migratory processes. Therefore, without analysis of the processes, the problem is simply irresolvable. In discussing Sintashta-Abashevo, there is a similar situation around relations to Potapovka sites or to the correlation of Abashevo and Sintashta. The structural research itself, within whose framework the resemblance of artefacts may act as a basis for integration, can be too poor, and the construction of dynamic models is necessary; in this it is not the material but the processes that are compared. Naturally, such an approach influences fundamentally all our constructions, including chronological ones. In these terms the presence of any type of artefact in complexes of different cultures does not by itself give grounds for synchronising these cultures until these cultures are presented as processes (although this sounds discordant); this means that until a reconstruction of historical processes is conducted, ‘archaeological facts’ cannot be transferred into the category of ‘historical event’. As a result, we have a rather paradoxical situation, when without the outcomes of the reconstruction stage we are not able even to describe material correctly, because we always approach it from our former perspective. This causes us to keep returning to the material to study it anew. Old knowledge and the empirical concepts of a scholar will inevitably be used in new research. This creates a new problem. How can an investigator obtain new knowledge when he always approaches material from pre-existing positions? This problem was first formulated by Socrates, and has been subsequently discussed by many scholars, including Yu.M. Lotman [Mamardashvili, 1997; Lotman, 1977, p. 6]. Is Heidegger’s “durchgang”, the in many respects inexplicable breakthrough from contemplation of phenomena to substance, the only path to pursue in this situation? What I have said is not a statement about the necessity of intuitive comprehension of reality at all, although an element of intuition is present in any research. Therefore we turn to how to solve the problems presented in this present work. Any exploratory process always develops within a field of knowledge charged with certain contents. The framework that circumscribes it is a severe hindrance to the development of new knowledge; attempts do so usually do no more than reinforce what is already available. New ideas cannot break forth from it because everything done within it is confined within the existing framework, modes of thought and terms of reference. As a result of such attempts, what J.P. Mallory terms “conventional wisdom” is formed. Usually it is reduced to the inclusive formula ‘all reckon it so’, which is in science occasionally a basis for this or that position. But it is necessary to point out that this formula, fixing the cultural norm, is deeply alien to the spirit of science, directing the development of new knowledge. This economises on time and resources and preserves scientific research against wasted efforts, but it promotes a situation where researchers often ignore inconsistencies inside conventional systems, because their consideration and solution would require the abandonment of the constraints of such systems. So we come to the mechanics of formulating new knowledge. In general, it is possible to say that included in its structure are, except for purposes of research, identification of all inconsistencies and problems, and the establishment of new exploratory frameworks for their solution. Of great help in such an activity is the interdisciplinary approach, which obliges us to analyse subject in a variety of ways. 13 One area that has been examined is the ethnic processes in antiquity. It is, therefore, of great interest to us, who are seeking to implement an ethno-historical reconstruction based on archaeological material and to explore the limits of correlating the concepts of ‘culture’ and ‘ethnos’. In archaeology there exists a rather fixed and unreflective idea that an archaeological culture can label any concrete ethnos. Accordingly, in attempting to work at reconstructing ethnic processes, we try to observe any process of cultural development or of physical movement. Thus, Indo-Iranian migrations are closely linked to definite archaeological complexes, for example Timber-Grave or Andronovo. In my opinion, this is insecure: it contradicts the substance of the concepts of ‘ethnos’ and ‘culture’. Allowing that the term ‘culture’ traditionally identifies the different contents, in this present work we first try to identify the values to which this term implies. In archaeology the term ‘archaeological culture’ usually identifies a group of sites placed within a certain area and distinguished from others by a distinctive set of features [Gryaznov, 1969, pp. 20, 21; Kameneckii, 1970, pp. 27-29; Klein, 1970a, p. 51; Fyodorov-Davidov, 1970, p. 267]. This definition is quite appropriate at the stage of empirical research. To put it simply, ‘archaeological culture’ is in this context almost a synonym for the term ‘material culture’. Overall this concept may be used in the construction of archaeological theory, in its epistemological section. In this work this is reflected in a part of the introduction devoted to ways of analysing material. Another approach bases the concept of ‘culture’ on the theory of activity. This allows us to regard it as a specific way for a society to reproduce its vital functions [Markaryan, 1969, p. 7; Shedrovitskii, 1975; Genisaretskiy, 1975]. In such a sense this concept may be used, predominantly, in ontological sections of archaeological theory. Here a similar approach to the concept ‘culture’ is present only in the introduction, in the description of the mechanism of cultural transformations. When attempting reconstruction, it is possible to use a somewhat different concept of ‘archaeological culture’ to describe how a society reproduces and incarnates itself in its artefacts. As opposed to this, the concept ‘ethnos’ carries the understanding of some ‘commonality’, carried, as a rule, by means of language. A similar dif- ferentiation is now made by many scholars [Karacharov, 1993]. Of course, we always have the ability to establish a framework in which the concepts of ‘ethnos’ and ‘culture’ are merged. It is especially easy to achieve this at the stage of reconstruction. But it will not happen if we adopt a functional approach. A function of ethnos is, first of all, to promote selfidentification of a person, collective or group. A function of culture is the establishment and transfer through time of fixed norms of society, allowing each new generation function according to given stereotypes. This makes a society integrated and stable, and provides for the most effective activity within a particular framework. This distinction is more firmly expressed when we examine and contrast the determining features of these concepts, especially those significant for our research. In the concept of ‘ethnos’, language is most important and its main function is communication. In the concept of ‘archaeological culture’ the main role belong to artefacts, which although they may be interpreted as a special sign system, nevertheless, have no communicative function and consequently cannot influence ethnic distinctions. There may be a rather different situation, and history demonstrates that similarities or differences of language can affect how aspects of material culture are carried from one group of people to another. Thus, here are two completely different concepts, and there is little chance of directly identifying ethnoses and archaeological cultures with even a small degree of accuracy. Ethnography knows a vast number of examples of different material culture existing within a single ethnos – and there are also the contrary examples. These examples are more common than unusual and can transform us into confirmed agnostics, who would deny absolutely the possibility of effecting ethnic reconstructions based on archaeological evidence. In some cases it is nevertheless possible to correlate archaeological culture with ethnographic or historical materials, but this is generally so only for Medieval cultures [Tomilov, 1986]: for antiquity this method is almost completely inapplicable. Therefore L.T. Yablonskii is right, when discussing Scythian problems, to state that the terms ‘Scythian culture’, ‘Scytho-Siberian world’ and the like are unacceptable, as they bear an ethnic, not a cultural sense [Yablonskii, 1999b]. Scythian sites could have been left by completely 14 different ethnoses; however, it is undoubtedly the case that the dissemination of Scythian culture reflects a process of Scythian diffusion. Nevertheless, there are some means of paleoethnic modelling. First of all, there is the construction of large archaeological models and comparison with corresponding linguistic models. Certainly, the results obtained will never completely correspond. However, even a resemblance will be a quite good basis of verification. Such a method is used in this work. Joint archaeological and linguistic research of any relevant changes in economy or material culture may also be very informative. Use of this method requires co-ordination of efforts of specialists in both fields [Shnirelman, 1996]. Another line of research is that it is in the nature of culture to be incapable of endogenous development; cultural transformations occur only under external stimulants. In antiquity migrations usually provided the stimulus [Grigoriev, 1990]. In their absence a culture was capable of only gradual evolution with predetermined limits. Environmental shocks themselves were capable only of pushing a population into migration or cultural contact, but they appear to have been a key factor in cultural transformations. Taking into account the inability of traditional cultures to react adequately to unexpected large shocks, it is necessary also to accept the possibility of essential cultural transformation without migration. However, in this case we shall deal with local processes. An aspect considered by this book is the instance of large cultural transformations in which similar stereotypes of material culture were diffused over vast spaces at great speed. In antiquity there was only one way of transmitting information: direct contact. In examining the migrations of different ethnoses and their contacts, we have no right to anticipate that we will discover certain unified ethnic attributes, peculiar to a certain ethnos in a particular area and which distinguish it from other ethnic groups. The essence of the mechanism of cultural transformation may be reduced to following. In cases of migration, a collision of two or more cultures takes place, resulting in the destruction of former stereotypes. The consequence is that a pattern of activity conditioned by cultural norms is replaced by one constructed in response to the problems arising from this collision. Therefore, the new cultural formation may not be the sum of the component parts; during the cultural transformation new stereotypes will have arisen. And these are not exclusively elements of the two participant cultures, but rather the nature of the process and channels through which it is compelled to go in new conditions. This relationship causes the transformation of elements, structures and processes, and channels their course. This can be observed in a most pronounced fashion in analysis of the concept ‘historico-cultural area’ (HCA) – this is necessary scientific terminology, which reflects most clearly one of the characteristics of ethnohistorical events on the Eurasian continent. Under HCA it is necessary to understand an area held (usually but not always) by a related population, occupying a relatively unified geographical niche that caused the preservation of a number of traditions for a long time. In the case of any migration of a population from one HCA to another, the migrants are compelled to transform the culture owing to new geographical and cultural factors, borrowing many cultural stereotypes from the natives. The HCA factor has an especial effect when it is accompanied by the processes of mutual assimilation of newcomers and indigenous population. Thus, the HCA factor can promote a rapid change of the introduced norms and creates an illusion of the immanent development of culture and a stability of ethnic characteristics in the area studied. By virtue of what we have stated above, we must accept that the bearers of single archaeological culture could have spoken a variety of languages, although in the most instances they belonged to quite closely related ethnoses. This is even more significant when discussing the ethnic identification of such formations, as families of cultures or cultural blocs. As a rule, they incorporate different ethnic groups. The resemblance of the separate cultures within a family is caused by their common origins and the unified mechanism of subsequent development. However, the concrete forms taken by these mechanisms are quite individual in each instance. Now we turn to the problem of identifying cultural transformations archaeologically. Let us imagine a situation in which culture A is replaced by culture B. In culture A the late phase is named A1; in culture B the early stage B0. Cultures A and B, although they have some common features, are nevertheless clearly different, but phases A1 and B0 have an enormous number of common features (Fig. 1b). There are cases of the clear stratigraphy (a 15 Fig. 1. Reflection of cultural transformations in archaeological evidence: a – actual situation; b – archaeological fixation. scarcity in Northern Eurasia!), showing the steady gradual change of these cultural complexes. From this situation it is possible to draw a conclusion about a single-component autochthonous development and genetic succession of cultures A and B, and such a conclusion is very typical in this situation. But a similar archaeological situation can result from the contact of an autochthonous complex A with a complex-migrant B0 (Fig. 1a). This results in the transformation of culture A into complexes A1 (which is really a late phase of that culture). But complexes B0, incorporating local features, form complexes B1 and often become barely distinguished from them. Thus, phases A1 and B1 were synchronous and as a result of the subsequent increase of the migrant component, in other words, as a result of the cultural assimilation, we obtain a complex B. But this in no way means that in this region language A has been replaced by language B. On the other hand, the migrants could be assimilated in cultural sense, but it was their language that became predominant. Thus, in this example the archaeological data would be powerless to effect an ethnic reconstruction. In connection with the problem of cultural transformations and possibilities of ethnic reconstruction based on archaeological material, it is necessary to point to several particular moments, which are very important for our further discussion of problems linked with the formation of Sintashta culture and with Indo-European migrations in the Bronze Age as a whole. The problems concern various myths that crowded in on archaeology. As a matter of fact, their existence is quite usual and to some extent necessary. All research needs to start from some long-established fixed points or foundation. And it is quite normal that these fixtures were formed as a result of exploratory procedures. However, in a number of cases that is not so, and they have their origin in human psychology. For example, let us imagine that a culture is discovered in area A. It is studied and included in a system of academic knowl- edge; investigators get used to it. Time passes and sites of this culture are found in area B. A conclusion about the distribution of this culture from area A would be natural, especially if the underlying cultural layer does not provide the means of forming any definite opinions on this subject. And there are many such cases, or similar. Another set of historiographical problems falls outside the causal. The most complicated situation is formed in the correlation of regional schemes and global processes. Underlying it are quite objective reasons: inability to date separate objects precisely; actual presence of ceramic prototypes in material of a previous chronological layer; the specificity of archaeological collections, in which ceramic material is predominant. All of this taken together resulted in the formation of regional schemes, in which any new archaeological culture was usually perceived as an outgrowth of a previous one. The culture is divided into phases, each of which and the culture itself are linked and compared with parallels in adjacent territories. The basis for identifying the cultures and phases within them is usually ceramics, despite possible variability in burial rites. Metal was generally used as a trans-cultural chronological indicator. In outcome, cermaics emphasise the autochthonous development of cultures. Cultural transformations are viewed as the outcome of the influence of diverse, usually adjacent cultures. Distant migrations are accepted only when they are visible to the naked eye. However, neither metal nor ceramics can bear in full the semantic load usually placed on them. There was a division of labours between the sexes in any society. Usually (but not always and, with the development of crafts, more rarely) ceramic production was a female activity, whereas manufacturing of metal and stone objects was a male activity under all circumstances. Therefore at the patrilocal settling (and we have no ground to doubt that it was otherwise in the Bronze Age) the characteristic of 16 any ethnos is reflected, first of all, in metal and stone artefacts. Metal can also be used to establish chronology, reflecting developments of new types on the basis of former standards, and the appearance of a new ethnic group as well. Ceramic complexes exhibit numerous variations reflecting the diverse forms of contacts in either a mono-ethnic or multi-ethnic social medium. In the case of contact between two different ethnic groups they are one of the first things to change. A mechanical mixing of two traditions, although it can take place, is not observed as frequently as mutual borrowing and the development of new forms. We can discover everything from wares reflecting earlier features to those in which such features may hardly be distinguished. When the system stabilises, its canon can be worked out, and we perceive a culture having allegedly local roots (the ceramics show this), but with different burial customs and metal complexes for reason which are not understood but whose borrowing we accept more readily. There is a set of variants of the appearance of a ceramic complex in another ethnic medium, frequently in a pure state without any transformations. Similar cases are described in the literature [Shnirelman, 1980]. This puts in doubt the validity of the approved practice of distinguishing a culture by ceramics, and furthermore using them as a basis for ethnic reconstruction. This does not mean that we should decline to analyse ceramics when researching processes of cultural transformation. They can provide indispensable details for historical reconstruction, but ceramics cannot always act as an ethnic indicator. Similar problems, which I shall not discuss, can also be connected with burial rites and metal production. Therefore the determination of migrations is a multi-faceted problem. In initial and final points the material culture of migrants will hardly differ. What has been discussed above shows the methodical complexity of the study of ethno-cultural history and forces us permanently to have in mind at least three schedules of research. The first concerns analysis of the most general ethnic and historical processes: without this it is impossible to locate actual material examples in a general system; therefore, understanding of such material is impossible. Analysis of the material follows. It is then necessary to take into account that the formation, development and distribution of each separate aspect of archaeological culture (i.e. metal, ceramics, stone artefacts etc.) are subjects to their own intrinsic regularities. Thus, the formation of the metal complex can be influenced by many factors: population movements, the presence of rich mining-metallurgical centres from which metal was imported, even the activity of separate groups of the craftsmen [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 160-162]. This kind of activity was a male preserve. A completely different situation may be observed in ceramic production – a specifically female activity. Therefore in actual historical situations (regular intermarriage between different nationalities or any taboo, for example) the metamorphoses can be most unpredictable. In my opinion, what most determines here the form of ware is directly connected with the technology of its manufacture [Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1990]. Decoration is a secondary feature. It could quite easily be borrowed or peter out from ceramics, being preserved on some archaeologically less durable material, only to show itself again after a lapse of some centuries. An example of this is the disappearance of Cherkaskul ornamentation in the Transural forest in the Late Bronze Age. It reappears in the Middle Ages on birch bark objects found in the Saygatinskiy III cemetery (13th-14th centuries AD) [Zikov et al., 1994, pp. 76]. Thus, each aspect of archaeological culture has its own specifics and consequently requires separate analysis. The third schedule is the absorption of these aspects into the frameworks of separate cultures and comparative analysis of the modus operandi of these developments. This allows us to undertake concrete historical reconstruction. In constructing a general scheme of archaeological knowledge we are able to build a hierarchy of the schedules described above and to talk about them as about three different levels. However, in reality, this activity is carried out at the same time and requires the schedules be placed in a fixed relationship one to another. The failure to observe this principle frequently results in logical stalemates. It is possible and desirable to talk about methodological purity and the necessity for unbiased study of materials. However, in the selection of methods or determination of background materials we nevertheless start from previously adopted concepts. Therefore ‘methodological purity’ (in the depicted framework) is possible only in a case of a complete 17 absence of experience that is simply impossible. As a matter of fact, a solution of problems based on material and method has been discussed in philosophy within the framework of positivism. The fruitlessness of similar attempts is now obvious to the majority of scientists, but in archaeology positivism has an unusually strong hold. Common theories are very seldom subjected to criticism, whilst material is often studied without linking it to any general scheme at all. Moreover, within a single section I have met references to writers adopting contrary positions, which reflects the indifference of the author to an integrated picture of archaeological knowledge. This approach frequently involves a random selection of background material during the statistical processing of their own data. On this account, schemes of cultural genesis, within the framework of which the material could be studied, are indispensable. One of the aims of the present work is to create such a scheme. Therefore, it does not get into the study of materials, which distinguishes individual research on particular problems. To do so would involve the work of many specialists in a variety of disciplines. All this excludes today the possibility of constructing coherent pictures of cultural and ethnic genesis and forces us back, to rest on more or less immutable facts. When the foundation is too shaky, I shall conduct the arguments at a level of hypotheses. An hypothesis, being just that offers fine opportunities for examining problems: in my opinion this is no less significant for science than allegedly established views. It is in this framework that I would appeal to the reader to regard the proffered text. The weakest point in the construction of schemes of ethnogenesis encompassing a large terrain within great time spans is connected with problems of chronology. Any archaeologist knows how difficult it may be to compare material even from one local area. It is especially problematic to compare archaeological dates with those used by linguists. Whilst not wishing to offend these scholars, I am compelled to remark that their approach is far from perfect and that their dates are even more conditional than those of archaeologists. The most widespread method of linguistic dating is that of glottochronology. It is very doubtful that there is some constant velocity of language transformation, which can be calculated and then used to determine the time at which a language appears. It is clear that this method presupposes a constant correlation of the whole system. Therefore, it gives particular evaluation results, without which any attempts to discuss processes of languages formation would be groundless. However, language cannot change at a constant pace. Change depends on conditions and environment. But this does not take into consideration the influence on the velocity of language transformation of contacts with other languages, borrowings, especially from unknown languages, etc. [Napolskikh, 1997, p. 120]. Although it is necessary to rely on evidence obtained by this method, we must keep in mind that it is rather relative, and that the dates it gives are conditional. The conventional archaeological and historical chronology is not entirely reliable either. Dates based on written sources occur only from the 3 rd millennium BC. For earlier times conventional chronology is often that provided by non-calibrated radiocarbon dates, which have started to be used earlier and which to a great extent correspond to dating obtained from written sources. More reliable dates start after 1500 BC. For earlier times there is an as yet unresolved problem: how great is a gap in the list of kings between 1450 BC and the end of the First dynasty of Babylon – 80, 144 or 200 years. On this basis the short, middle and long chronologies of the Near East have been constructed, but the latter is not likely to be very accurate [Parzinger, 1993, p. 283]. Considerable inaccuracies can also arise from use of Egyptian materials. For the New Kingdom the error could be 20-50 years when checked by the radiocarbon method and by means of dendrochronology as well. Therefore for the Middle Kingdom it could reach 50-100 years or more. The situation is aggravated by the use of these dates to construct chronological schemes for other areas: we do not know for how long particular types of artefact were either produced or used. In addition, in Greece, for example, Near Eastern imports were usually prestige objects and could therefore have been transmitted from one generation to another [Manning, 1996, pp. 26, 27]. However, many archaeologists, working in the Near East, use this system of dates. This is quite understandable because of the necessity to link material to written sources. European archaeologists, for whom written sources arrive too late, use a system of calibrated radiocarbon dates (frequently erroneously called the ‘calendar system’), which is accepted as reliable enough – it is verified by the dendrochronology of some territories. The calibration of data obtained by the ra- 18 diocarbon method is carried out because the quantity of radiocarbon in the atmosphere is not permanent. This is reflected in the outcome of the analyses. Variations of radiocarbon in the atmosphere are conditioned by a number of causes: intensity of ultraviolet rays, solar activity, strength of magnetic field, and climate change. Thus, the concentration of radiocarbon permanently changes, but it is now considered that these variations have a planetary nature and are well known. Although many old analyses are inexact, they are often used to construct chronological schemes, including for obtaining calibrated dates [Marsadolov, Zaytseva, 1999, p. 113; Manning, 1996, p. 29]. However, modern analytical methods cannot be regarded as a panacea in this situation either. The application of calibrated radiocarbon dates has not been successful everywhere. In Bulgaria in the system of conventional chronology the Early Bronze Age is dated to the period 3200/3000 – 2000/1900 BC, the Middle Bronze Age to 2000/1900 – 1600/ 1500 BC, and the Late Bronze Age to 1600/1500 – 1200/1100 BC. The absolute dates place the start of the Early Bronze Age at about 3200/3150 BC, as a result there is a gap with the Transitional Period of about 400 years. The Middle Bronze Age is dated 2570/2530 – 2200/2100 BC, and the Late Bronze Age corresponds to conventional dates. Overall the chronological gap with the previous epoch is about 500-600 years [Boyadziev, 1995, pp. 177, 178]. J. Mellaart wrote about an inapplicability of radiocarbon dates for Anatolia [Mellaart, 1971, pp. 403405]. Comparison of radiocarbon dates obtained from different areas of South-Eastern Europe demonstrates that there is no harmony, although many problems have been solved by this method [Makkay, 1996, p. 225]. It is difficult to say with what the difficulties in using the radiocarbon method are connected, either with analytical problems or with the variation of carbon in the atmosphere, which could have clearly expressed regional peculiarities. However, this method is even more conventional than chronology constructed on written sources. The defect of the latter is, however, the absence of sources in times and places. Therefore, outside regions covered by written sources, radiocarbon dating remains the only possibility. There are other means of dating, for example, the thermoluminescent dating method. However, it is very time consuming, and it has an error of 5- 10%, which is unacceptable for Bronze Age problems [Mommsen, 1986, pp. 254, 255]. Practically the only method of absolute dating today is dendrochronology, but those ancient sites dated by it are a very small number and within very small areas. In regions such as Greece and Mesopotamia, which are very important for solving problems of chronology, its use has barely begun [Kuniholm, 1996]. In essence it is possible to speak about two chronological systems – conventional and radiocarbon. However, it is not now a problem of choice based on preference. Until the problem of the superiority of one system over the other has finally been solved, they should exist together [Kuzmina, 1998]. As this work deals with the many and various materials and cultures of Eurasia, where little use has been made of radiocarbon dating, I have preferred the conventional systems of dates. The problem is complicated further by the traditions of Russian archaeology. Through the activities of P. Reinecke and O. Montelius, in Europe a system of relative chronology has existed for quite a long time, permitting the correlation of materials within the framework of definite chronological phases. In Russian archaeology concrete dates were always used to correlate materials. Naturally, such dates had a constant tendency to change, which necessitated consequent changes to many other schemes. Nevertheless, in this work I shall make use of this tradition. Indeed, the necessity to do so is conditioned also by continuous connections with Near Eastern chronology. As far as possible I shall show dates in the calibrated radiocarbon scale, and in the description of European material I shall use it more often. One more feature of this book is the absence of historical and ethnographic parallels in the reconstruction of Aryan society and the system that was formed in Eastern Europe at the Sintashta-Abashevo time. It is connected with a deep belief that history is concrete enough. The appearance of new ethnic group in any zone could result in very great changes, and searching for parallels can distort the situation. Even evidence of such sources as ‘Rig Veda’ or ‘Avesta’, formed in another cultural and landscape situation, is dangerous for reconstructing the Aryan society of the Eurasian steppe. Therefore similar evidence has a purely illustrative role. The basis for reconstruction has to be archaeological material alone. The trouble is that they do not allow us yet to build detailed mod- 19 els. It is a temporary exploratory handicap, which can be solved step-by-step. Certainly, for the problems discussed, the base used is rather limited, although much wider than that used in the preliminary publications [Grigoriev, 1996; 1996a; 1996b; 1998; 1998a]. Therefore, this work should be viewed rather as a statement of a problem, instead of completed research. With these final reservations let me turn to my presentation. But before proceeding to the consideration of Sintashta cultural material, I would like to express my gratitude to a number of explorers, who in one way or another have promoted my work on this book. First of all, I am very grateful to my teachers, Professor E.N. Chernikh and Dr G.B. Zdanovich. They do not share the interpretation stated below, but nevertheless it was previous work under their supervision that allowed me to reach these conclusions. I would like to express special thanks to Academi- cian V.V. Ivanov, and Professors M.F. Kosarev and V.I. Sarianidi, for taking the trouble to review the manuscript and make a series of invaluable remarks. They have given me huge moral support, which, due to the extraordinary controversial character of the main conclusions of this work, was especially important for me. Separately I would like to thank F. Petrov. A large part of this book was written during continuous illness, and he took the trouble to supply indispensable literature. Furthermore, in many cases, he was the first interlocutor with whom many of the propositions were discussed. Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to Professors R. Heimann and E. Pernicka, who gave me the possibility to work with the literature and prepare the English edition of this book. I am very grateful to the following people who have worked on this book: N. Ivanova (technical editor), Dr. J.F. Hargrave (editor), O. Orlova and N. Boiko (graphic works). 20 Chapter 1. Architecture 1.1. Sintashta architecture Rebuilding is also well attested at the settlement of Arkaim by traces of re-planning (displacement in the plan) of some dwellings and plenty of postholes in dwellings of the inner circle. Dwellings of the outer circle contain holes just caused by construction. Similarly, in dwellings of the outer circle, one well and one nearby oven have been found. In the inner circle the number of wells and ovens may be greater, evidence that they were built at different times. But Arkaim initially had a circular plan and only new sectors were attached to the wall. The absence of a second internal defensive wall on Sintashta allows us to suspect that the presence of two walls was not indispensable, and was formed at Arkaim by historical accident. There was no need to replan the settlement completely and thereby destroy the early wall. Considerable rebuilding with a change of plan has also been identified in the settlement of Kuysak [Malyutina, Zdanovich, 1995]. Thus, it is necessary to give the detected trend of oval – circle – rectangle further consideration, but only the later date of the rectangular fortifications is beyond dispute. Rectangular fortified settlements already existed in Petrovka culture. They were situated on tributaries of the Tobol, in the eastern zone of distribution of such settlements. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age this area was the western flank of Petrovka culture. In the western zone, on tributaries of the Ural as well as in Volga region, Sintashta culture was transformed into Early Srubnaya (Pokrovsk type) culture with plenty of Alakul features. The contact nature of this area also continues into the Late Bronze Age. Rectangular fortified settlements are unknown there. Apparently, such a contrast with subsequent development of this region, rather small in a Eurasian content, is explained by the absence of populations on the watersheds. Undefended settlements, occupied long-term, have been not found in this territory. To all appearances, the tradition of such settlements All Sintashta fortified settlements are situated in the Southern Transural forest-steppe. The area of distribution is bounded on the north by the Uy river, and on the south by the southern tributaries of the Tobol. They are situated on tributaries of the Ural and the Tobol. In this area are known 17 points with 21 fortified sites, dated to the Middle Bronze Age and the transitional period to the Late Bronze Age [Zdanovich, 1997, p. 59; Zdanovich, Batanina, 1995, p. 56] (Fig. 2). The distance between the fortified settlements is about 40-70 km, and radius of the developed territory of each centre is 25-30 km. Three different types of fortification are recorded – oval, circular and rectangular. On the basis of some cases of the covering of one type of fortified settlement by others, it was concluded that the oval settlements appeared first, then the circular ones, and finally the rectangular [Zdanovich, 1997, p. 59; Zdanovich, Zdanovich D., 1995, pp. 49, 50]. It is possible to agree with this thesis only in part. Rectangular fortified settlements had arisen already at the Petrovka stage of southern Transural history and that corresponds perfectly to the cultural and historical situation in the Ural-Irtish region. Oval fortified settlements could as a whole be contemporary with circular ones, and the difference is not grounds for distinguishing different phases. The stratigraphic situation in individual settlements could indicate the progression of building in that place alone and have no wider application. In my opinion the settlement of Sintashta is one of the earliest, looking at the features of the material, although it has a circular plan. It is necessary to take into account that two building horizons, preserved fragmentarily, were found in with different plans. The early ditch excavated there did not form a regular perimeter, and turned rather sharply into the centre of the settlement. Subsequently, the constructions of the first period were destroyed, and in their place others based on a circular layout appeared. 21 Fig. 2. Sintashta fortified settlements: 1 – Stepnoe; 2 – Chernoryechye III; 3 – Chekotai; 4 – Ustye; 5 – Rodniki; 6 – Sarim-Sakla; 7 – Kuysak; 8 – Olgino; 9 – Iseney; 10 – Zhurumbay; 11 – Kizilskoye; 12 – Arkaim; 13 – Sintashta; 14 – Sintashta II; 15 – Andreevskoye; 16 – Bersuat; 17 – Alandskoye. did not originally exist, as Sintashta house-building techniques did not permit individual constructions. In the Early Srubnaya (Timber-Grave) and Petrovka phases such settlements arose, but they are not comparable in scale with the subsequent Alakul settlements. A discovery of separate pieces of ceramics on small sites [Zdanovich, 1997, p. 58; Zdanovich, Batanina, 1995, p. 59] can either be dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and not relate to the ‘high’ period of the culture, or fix the sites of cattle-breeders’ encampments. The excavated settlements give us a clear idea of Sintashta architecture [Zdanovich, 1995; 1997; Gening et al., 1992]. The most fully investigated Sintashta fortified settlements (Sintashta and Arkaim) are worthy of comment for their round plan and diameter about 140-180 m. (Fig. 3.1,2; 4) The area of the fortified settlements can reach 25,000 sq m. The fortified settlement of Sakrim-Sakla, having only one line of dwellings, is smaller: the wall there encloses an area of about 6,500 sq m. Fortifications are the basis of the whole construction. First of all, they consist of an encircling ditch, 2.5-4 m in width and about 1.5 m in depth. The sides of the ditch slope – the inner side has projections on which the buttresses of the wall rested. Near the buttresses the ditch usually narrows – this was to save labour (the buttresses blocked the ditch at these points). At the bottom of the ditch wells were dug to remove rain- and floodwater into the water-bearing horizon so that it could not erode the foundation of the walls (Fig. 5). The base of the walls was made of sand or clay, spoil taken from digging the ditch. It was used to fill a framework of turf or some other material, very 22 2 1 3 4 Fig. 3. Sintashta architecture. 1 – Arkaim; 2 – Sintashta; 3 – gates of the Sintashta settlement; 4 – house of the Sintashta settlement. I should like to emphasise the unity of building traditions in the diverse fortified settlements. Both in building defensive walls and in dwellings, the uniform practice was to fill up a framework with soil. The situation on the Sintashta settlement, where adobe has occasionally been found, is not an exception. It could have been formed during some subsequent conflagration by the caked soil of the wall. In principle, it was wood-soil rather than pise architecture. However, in the case of Sintashta, the use of adobe bricks is quite possible; the quantity of postholes identified in dwellings of this settlement was likely wood. On this foundation a superstructure of wooden cells filled with soil was erected (Fig. 6). The height of the walls reached 5 m. The research conducted on soil at Arkaim indicates the use of special cementing components, although the natural subsoil layer has itself similar properties [Zdanovich, 1997, p. 51]. At Ustye settlement, in the Sintashta phase, the framework of the wall was made of logs set into the foundation at certain intervals. In the Petrovka phases, timber framing filled with soil appeared [Vinogradov, 1995, p. 17]. 23 Fig. 4. Fortified settlement. its defence. However, this was not the initial purpose of these radial walls. As the population increased, external sectors were attached to the inner ring, subsequently forming a similar structure. Entrances to settlements were placed at four points in the enclosure wall, roughly at the four points of the compass. In the settlement of Sintashta, two gates, northern and southern, have been investigated. However, it is possible that a western gate also existed (in a part of the settlement washed away by the river), as well as an eastern one, placed opposite a street between dwellings 9 and 10. Otherwise it is rather difficult to explain the need for a street terminating at the defensive wall. Most likely, this was not a principal entrance, as the ditch at this place is not broken. The southern passage demonstrates to us a quite comprehensive defensive system (Fig. 3.3). On both sides of it are the remains of small less than at Arkaim. It is necessary to mention here an essential difference in the location of these settlements: Arkaim stood on sandy soil; Sintashta on heavy solid loamy soil with a very slight turf layer. This could cause certain distinctions in building methods. There are very impressive defensive walls, faced by stone slabs. At Alandskoye stone was quarried at a distance of 1 km from the settlement [Zaykov et al., 1999, p. 316]. The second line of defensive walls had a smaller diameter, about 90 m. One fortified settlement (Sakrim-Sakla) had only this line of fortification. The main parameters of the inner ring of fortifications are close to those of the external one, but are slightly smaller. Sometimes they were connected with the external fortifications by radial walls (Arkaim), dividing the settlement into sections, which facilitated 24 Fig. 5. Gate. towers, with additional fortifications in front of the gate in the form of small palisades, diverging from the ditch and extending parallel to it at a distance of 3 m from one another. The layout is such that it was impossible to enter directly, and it was necessary to turn and be exposed to fire from different directions. The northern entrance was probably arranged in a similar way, but there the upper part of the cultural layer has been washed away by floodwater, erasing all details of fortifications except for the bottom of the ditch. The entrances to Arkaim are arranged similarly. Two gates (northern and western) have been investigated here. However, the surface topography of the settlement leads us to suspect the existence of southern and eastern entrances. In principle, both the gates are very similar except in size. The western gate is very representative for the reconstruction of fortifications. The wall and ditch here turn abruptly to the east, in a trapezoid formation. However, there is no passage through the eastern part of the gate. That is found at the junction of the northern and eastern walls, placing assailants in an unfavourable position, as they were exposed to the arrows of the fortress’s defenders from the right and the back. The arrangement of the passage on the left side of this defensive system allows us to guess at the availability of shields at this time. In addition to the main fortifications, there was a third (external) defensive line around the Arkaim settlement. It had no ditch and it is possible that there were no walls such as those within the fortified settlements: taking into consideration the tradition of solid foundation building at Arkaim, more remains of those walls should have survived. It was most likely a small bank, within which there were also no dwellings, and, it was more easily destroyed by time. The most probable interpretation of these walls is as stock enclosures. Dwellings within settlements were placed behind each line of fortifications, and were joined to the defensive wall at the end (Fig. 3.4). Each longitudinal wall was common to two adjacent dwellings. When building a wall between dwellings, several posts were dug in, to which horizontal wooden planks were fastened. The framework formed in this way was filled by soil from the digging of the enclosure ditch and the dwellings. Two longitudinal rows of posts were fixed in the mid-part of a dwelling to support the roof (Fig. 7). The interior of a dwelling was subdivided into a household part (one third of dwellings in front of the defensive wall) and a living 25 Fig. 6. Fortified wall. about 1,000 – 1,800 inhabitants,1 Sakrim-Sakla about 500-700. space. In addition there were small rooms situated near the entrance. In them either hearths or fireplaces might be positioned – in a number of cases they have been detected. This considerably reduced the living space. The general area of dwellings was from 100 to 140 sq m, of which the living space was some 35 to 65 sq m and could accommodate no more than 20-30 persons. Usually, each settlement had 1 There are also different calculations estimating the population of the Arkaim settlement at 700-800 inhabitants [Epimakhov, 1996a, p. 59] or 2,000 – 3,000 inhabitants [Zdanovich D., p. 5]. In his latest article G.B. Zdanovich has found it possible to estimate the population of each Sintashta settlement as up to 2,500-4,000, but he did not support this with any evidence or reasoning [Zdanovich, 1999]. 26 Fig. 7. Sintashta house. the bottom of some ovens had been set tuyeres, which is evidence of the use of bellows in metallurgical activities. The entrance to a dwelling was arranged as follows. In front of the two rooms, internal rows of post-holes were placed close to each other, forming a corridor about 1 m in width, which led to a porch adjoining the front of the house and overlooking the inner part of the settlement. It is very similar to the megarons of Balkan-Anatolian type. At the centre of the settlements was a ‘square’, actually circular or oval and about 30-40 m in diam- In the domestic part of a dwelling a well, oven and, in some cases, small storage pits have been found. In addition to supplying water, the well served as storage of food and supplied air to the oven. The well shafts were lined by a protective covering of wattle. Wells had cupola-shaped superstructures. Small domed ovens, sometimes having horizontal flues, were attached to wells. Our experiments have shown that air from the well circulated around the sides of the oven, warming it up uniformly [Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1995]. The ovens were multifunctional. Metallurgical slag has been found near them. Into 27 eter. Usually no large constructions were erected there, but in two settlements (Sakrim-Sakla and Kuysak) the surface of the square has depressions from three constructions. It is very doubtful that they were habitations. The technique used by Sintashta builders did not enable them to erect free-standing houses with good heat-insulation. Very likely, these were light constructions. Unfortunately, it is impossible to say anything certain about the plan of the central part of the Sintashta settlement because the river has washed it away. To understand the origins of the Sintashta architectural complex it is necessary to turn to a broad range of analogies to reveal the initial impulses that formed its components. holes are marked. Apparently, we are dealing here with constructions completely identical to Sintashta ones. Two walls, assembled of horizontal beams and held together by separate vertical posts dug into their base, were erected on soil banks. The space between the logs was filled with soil [Zdanovich, 1988, pp. 132, 133]. Such a double-wall construction reflects, no doubt, the former Sintashta tradition. At Petrovka II settlement a gateway into the fortified settlement is revealed. The ditch at this place is broken. The bones of sacrificial animals and ceramics have been found in small pits in front of the gateway. Inside the enclosure walls the dwellings were situated in compact lines. In some cases small side streets have been traced. In contrast to Sintashta settlements, the plan was already linear. The dwellings were rectangular and their area varied between 25 and 100 sq m. The entrance was at the end. The absence of clearly identifiable rows of post-holes leads us to guess about availability of timber frames. As a rule, these were surface dwellings. The depth of foundation pits, as on the Sintashta settlements, does not exceed 15-20 cm. The floors of dwellings were plastered with clay. In the rooms domed, frequently stone-lined ovens have been investigated. It is possible to speak about timber framing only in cases of small habitable constructions. Nevertheless, it is most likely that the framework was supported by posts, but there is no clear evidence because of later rebuilding. In any case, post-holes were not clearly visible in the underlying subsoil. The architecture of undefended settlements differs in some features, which are typical of the early phase of Petrovka culture [Evdokimov, 1983, p. 35]. The habitation complexes consist of rather large, rectangular semi-dugout dwellings with an area of about 95-114 sq m. Some dwellings have two sections. Storage pits and domed and figure-of-eight metallurgical furnaces were found in them. In some cases clay plaster was discovered on the floor. In the Tobol forest-steppe region dwellings relating to Petrovka culture have not been detected. This indicates the nature of Petrovka and Sintashta infiltrations into this area [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 327]. In the north, in the Tyumen region, settlements of the Tashkovo culture were situated [Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 30-35]. Only one has been excavated completely: Tashkovo II. More limited work has been carried out at the settlements of Iska III and X YuAO [Rizhkova, 1996; 1999; Yurovskaya, 1973, pp. 7-12]. 1.2. Architecture of the Transurals During the preceding period, the habitations of the Eurasian steppe and forest-steppe constructions showed no features comparable with Sintashta architecture. In the Eneolithic cultures of the Transurals and Kazakhstan (Kisikul, Ayat, Surtandi and Botai), and in the previous layer of the Early and Middle Bronze Age cultures of the Western Urals, components similar to the Sintashta complex were absent. However, we have found a number of parallels in cultures of contiguous territories. First of all let us look at settlements of the Petrovka culture situated to east, in the south of Western Siberia and in Northern Kazakhstan. The fortified settlements of this culture are situated on the western tributaries of the Tobol and on the Ishim. Ceramics of Petrovka type are diffused much more widely and are present on many multi-layer settlements of the Ural-Irtish region. Petrovka fortified settlements have a rectangular plan and occupy an area of 5,700-8,500 sq m – that is considerably less than Sintashta (Fig. 49.1). The settlements are encircled by ditches 1.5-2.5 m in depth and up to 3.5 m in width. Along the ditches, banks formed of clay extracted whilst digging them have been found; they formed the base of defensive walls. On the surface of some of the banks post- 28 Fig. 8. The fortified settlement of Shilovskoye in the Don area. Tashkovo is impossible because of the chronological position. Subsequently a similar type of settlement became strongly characteristic of Ugrian populations and can be found, even to the smallest details (as, for example, one dwelling arranged inside a ring of others and displaced from the centre), in materials of the Potchevash culture in the forest Irtish region [Finno-Ugri …, 1987, p. 324]. The form of dwellings and the arrangement with the hearth in the centre was widespread in Finno-Ugrian cultures everywhere, being one of the basic ethno-cultural characteristics. Therefore, attempts to identify the Tashkovo culture with Indo-Iranians based on architecture [Kovalyova, 1995] seem unsuccessful at first sight. Subsequently this thesis has been softened a little, although an Indo-Iranian impulse is postulated [Kovalyova, Prokhodchenko, 1996]. Nevertheless, whilst disagreeing with the Indo-Iranian identity of Tashkovo, it is necessary to mark that these complexes have, nevertheless, some typological features akin to Sintashta traditions. Each of the complexes encloses an area of about 1,000 sq m. The dwellings were square log houses, set slightly into the ground, with an area of about 30-40 sq m. They almost adjoined each other, forming an oval ring around a closed space. The small gaps between the walls of dwellings could be partitioned further by logs or beams for purposes of defence. In the centre of each dwelling was an open hearth (Fig. 71). The principle of such a defensive system is close to that of Sintashta, although small sanctuaries of circular plan had already been constructed in the southern part of the Transural forest zone in the Eneolithic [Potyomkina, 1995, pp. 144-154]. However, attempts to connect this with the origin of Sintashta architectural traditions [Potyomkina, 1999] are utterly unconvincing. It would be more logical to discuss the formation of the Tashkovo settlements on this basis. Nevertheless, there are also other possible origins for the circular settlements in Tashkovo communities. These will be touched upon below. In my opinion, the reverse borrowing of Sintashta from 29 shown that the walls were double and filled with soil. The dwellings are sizeable and comparable in this with those of Sintashta. Two- and three-sectioned constructions have been found. The dwellings had an entrance and round hearths – probably the bases of domed ovens of about 1 m diameter. In some cases wells have been identified. The construction inside the walled area investigated in the Shilovskoye settlement is worthy of comment. The plenitude of storage pits, hearths and manufacturing waste allows us to identify it with confidence as a construction of economic function. Apparently, similar activity bred central constructions on the Sakrim-Sakla and Kuysak settlements, but they have not been investigated yet. Thus, we see that the main architectural parameters of the fortified settlements on the Don and in the western Urals are comparable with Sintashta settlements. Furthermore, these regions exhibited a tendency to build free-standing large dwellings set slightly into the ground, and to form rather large settlements. Subsequently, dwellings of the Early Timber-Grave (Srubnaya) time inherited many features of Abashevo architecture [Gorbunov, 1989, pp. 6467]. 1.3. The Abashevo architectural complex Abashevo settlements are very numerous [Gorbunov, 1986; 1990; 1992; Pryakhin, 1976]: currently they number more than 200. They do not always possess well-fixed cultural layers, and it is probable that many were only short-lived or temporary. They are situated in the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe, from the Don up to the Ural river. This region has a denser and better-formed river-system than the Transurals, permitting the more active exploitation of the territory. The distribution of settlements is concentrated in the Don and Volga regions (in the Samara area), and in the Western Urals. These are zones of distribution of the Don-Volga and Volga-Ural Abashevo cultures. On the Middle Volga, Abashevo settlements are not present. Only some potsherds have been found in contemporary settlements of diverse cultures. So far, only two fortified settlements are known: Shilovskoye in the Don area and Tyubyak in the Western Urals. The siting of some of the settlements on promontories (for example, Beregovskoye I) suggests that further fortified settlements may be found in these zones. Ditches surrounded settlements. It is very difficult to determine the shape of ditch on the Tyubyak settlement, but it was probably oval, like the investigated part of the inner early ditch on the Sintashta settlement. On the Shilovskoye settlement, judged from the excavated areas and the plan of the inhabited zone, the ditch forms an oval (Fig. 8). In its eastern part it is broken by a passage about 4 m in width. It is likely that there would have been such crossings in other parts of the settlement. Within the ditch there is a pit that probably acted to remove rainwater, as in Transural settlements. Beyond the ditch a wall over 2 m in depth is identified by means of holes for hefty posts to support a double-walled log construction. Thus, the defensive wall was filled like the Sintashta walls. A row of dwellings adjoined the wall in both the Shilovskoye and Tyubyak settlements. Unfortunately, they are not always exactly determined. They had a post construction and were, to all appearances, rectangular. On the Tyubyak settlement it has been 1.4. Eastern European architecture of the Bronze Age In connection with the idea about the formation of the Abashevo cultures on the basis of the Corded Ware and post-Corded Ware cultures of the forest zone of Eastern Europe (Fatyanovo, Balanovo), we should consider their architectural traditions. No settlements of Fatyanovo culture have been found. There are only individual small-scale inclusions of Fatyanovo remains on Late Eneolithic sites. However, in the Middle Dnieper culture, which was one of components in the formation of Fatyanovo, settlements containing traces of dwellings are known. These settlements were composed of rectangular dwellings without a foundation pit and with an area of about 30 sq m. Similar dwellings have been traced also in the excavation of settlements of the Gorodok-Zdolbitsa culture. In settlements of Balanovo culture, in the region between the Volga and 30 the Oka, pit-dwellings are known, and subsequently also timber houses. Fortifications in the form of a ditch and a bank with either a palisade or a wicker fence crossing a promontory had already sprung up as a result of interactions with the Abashevo population [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, pp. 38, 47, 76, 78]. Nothing comparable with Sintashta or Abashevo of the Don and the Western Urals has been discovered here. In the Middle Volga Abashevo culture settlements are also absent. On this basis it is quite comparable with Fatyanovo culture, and I find this worth attention. Multi-Cordoned Ware (Mnogovalikovaya) culture (KMK) 1 in the Ukraine is characterised by building traditions essentially different from Abashevo. The constructions are represented usually by dwellings set up to 1 m into the ground (occasionally foundation pits 25 cm in depth occur), with rectangular form and areas from 30 to 50 sq m [Berezanskaya et. al., 1986, pp. 15, 24, 30]. Nevertheless, in the second horizon of the settlement Babino III (eastern variant of KMK), a roughly rectangular surface dwelling, covering a deepened pit-dwelling, has been investigated. The rectangular dwelling had a post construction on the perimeter and an area of about 36 sq m. In the construction of the walls clay blocks were used. Fortifications are unknown. In the literature a wall and a trench on the settlement of Kremenchug are sometimes discussed (south-western variant of KMK), but their connection with KMK is doubtful [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 9]. The site contains very sparse materials of all periods from the Neolithic to the Medieval, lying in a thin cultural layer. It is situated on the rather small summit of a high rock, to which a narrow path leads, partitioned off by a small stone abatis. As a matter of fact, this was a place where people overwhelmed by incursions at all times. Even if the connection of these ‘fortifications’ with KMK is ever established, it will place a severe strain on the interpretation to speak about traditions of fortified settlements when these are grounded on a trench and an abatis across a path. The Kamenka-Liventsovka group of KMK shows different features in building traditions. These are represented by such sites as the Kamenka settlement in the Crimea and the Liventsovka fortress on the Lower Don [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 458-462]. The topography of the sites is subordinate to the necessities of defence. The areas of fortified settlements amount to 20,000 sq m. On the well-studied Liventsovka fortress, a semicircular ditch protected a promontory. Its width varied from 2 to 6 m. The places where there were crossings over the ditch have been fixed. The enclosure walls were of stone. They are shown in the plan as a polygonal path. The stone foundations of rectangular dwelling, 75-80 sq m in area, adjoined the defensive walls. The dwellings had common longitudinal walls, massive and filled with stone. On the Kamenka settlement some dwellings of smaller size (32-56 sq m) have been investigated, with hearths and masonry in the bases of walls. It is difficult to judge the construction of fortifications, but their presence is known [Ribalova, 1974]. Similar architectural techniques have also been revealed in the Planerskoye settlement in South-Eastern Crimea [Kolotukhin, 1983]. Probably, we may speak of them as typical of this variant of KMK. These architectural traditions are very close to those of Sintashta and are apparently kindred. However, they differ in many details, first of all in the high level of masonry technique, which was absent in Sintashta culture. No wells have been found in dwellings, and the dwellings themselves are smaller. Post constructions have not been identified. The origins of Liventsovka architectural tradition are also unclear: there was nothing similar in the preceding period in this region. On the adjacent territory of the Dnieper steppe the fortification of the Mikhailovka settlement is known. This settlement is dated to the time of the Late Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) culture and covered an area of about 15,000 sq m. Its central part was enclosed by ditches and ramparts on a stone base [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 340-342, 351]. The walls were not closed. They defended the most vulnerable parts of the hill. In some places the ditch was broken, forming passageways. The dwellings were either oval semi-dugouts – a prolongation of earlier local tradition – or rectangular, with a high stone socle and a superstructure of pise. The dwellings were divided into separate rooms, one to three in number. In some the post-holes supporting the roof have been found. Thus, we identify features rather similar to those of the fortifications of the Liventsovka fortress, but more archaic. It would be rather tempting to draw a conclusion about their genetic connection and, the- 1 Hereafter this will be named ‘Multi-Cordoned Ware culture’ or ‘KMK’. 31 reby, to close a problem. However, nothing similar is known in the northern bloc of Circumpontic zone cultures for almost the whole Middle Bronze Age (the Catacomb cultures). This circumstance forces us to search elsewhere for sources of the Late Mikhailovka, Kamenka-Liventsovka and SintashtaAbashevo architectural traditions. The further development of defensive construction in Mesopotamia continues into the subsequent period. Ancient civilisations arose there, whose fortifications are complicated and constructions are fundamental [see e.g. Heinrich, 1975; 1975a], but these are of no relevance to our concerns. However, in Anatolia we find rather close parallels. It is possible that areas of South-Eastern Anatolia felt Mesopotamian influences [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, p. 31]. At any rate, in Anatolia there are settlements surrounded by walls of either clay or stone, 1.5-3 m wide. These settlements have a circular plan. In the Haçilar settlement, in level IIA (ca. 5400 BC), rectangular houses are attached to each other and to the defensive wall. They are grouped around three courts. The exits from the houses lead into the central court. But in plan this settlement was still rectangular. However, already in the Haçilar level I (ca. 5250 BC) the area of settlement was extended and took on a circular plan. This shift in architectural tradition was accompanied by other changes in material culture, particularly of ceramics [Mellaart, 1975, fig. 66; 1982, pp. 104, 105; Hrouda, 1971, pp. 59, 60] (Fig. 9.3). It is necessary to note that this tradition is alien for Anatolia. Excavations in Chattal Höyük have revealed completely different constructions, with a dense pattern of interlinked houses arbitrarily divided into sections and without fortifications (Fig. 10). The next step in the development of features fully exhibited in Sintashta architecture is the settlement of Mersin (level XVI) in South-Eastern Anatolia. This level is dated by different writers either to 4500-4300/4200 or 4000 BC [Mellaart, 1975, p. 126, fig. 73; Burney, 1977, p. 120, fig. 96]. It has a circular plan and a diameter of about 60 m (as far as it is possible to judge this from the excavated area) (Fig. 9.4). A defensive wall encloses the settlement. A line of interlinked houses, with common longitudinal walls, is attached to the fortifications by the end walls. The houses have two sections: initially the first section of all houses was added to the defensive wall; the second was attached at the following stage. As a result of this way of building, longitudinal walls of different sections in one dwelling might not coincide with one another. The settlement of Tüllintepe is dated later (Fig. 11.1). The foundations of a circular defensive wall encompassing rectangular dwellings have been investigated here [Esin, 1976]. 1.5. Architecture of the Near East The earliest fortified constructions in the Near East were the stone walls of Jericho in the Jordan valley of Palestine, dated to Preceramic Neolithic A (8th millennium BC). They enclosed for that time a vast area and were constructed using a ‘sandwich technique’: the space between two mighty stone walls was filled with smaller stones [Mattiae, 1985, p. 10]. The tradition of building stone fortifications was not interrupted in the Near Eastern Neolithic. The excavations of the 7th millennium BC settlement of Tell Maghzalya in Northern Mesopotamia have already revealed some features which we have identified subsequently in Sintashta complexes [Bader, 1989, pp. 42-44]. The fortified wall was erected of two lines of large stones, the space between filled by small-sized stones (Fig. 9.1). During excavation a small bastion looking over the surrounding area was investigated. There was a passage 2 m wide paved with small rocks. Houses, attached to each other in a random fashion, adjoined the wall. Subsequently rectangular dwellings with separate habitation and household areas were developed in this region [Bader, 1989, pp. 161, 190]. This architectural tradition finds its prolongation in Umm Dabaghiyah, in the proto-Hassuna stage, as well as in Hassuna itself [Mellaart, 1975, fig. 46]. Worthy of comment in this period is the appearance of courts around which the houses were grouped (Fig. 9.2). Thus, in Northern Mesopotamia this tradition develops in the 7th – 6th millennia BC, giving way in the 5th millennium BC to the Halaf tradition, which is totally different from it. 32 1 2 4 3 Fig. 9. Neolithic and Eneolithic architecture of the Near East. 1 – Tell Maghzalya; 2 – Hassuna; 3 – Haçilar; 4 – Mersin. It is extremely probable that similar architecture was widespread in Anatolia. It is possible to consider dwellings of Beyçesultan levels XVII-IX (relating to the Early Bronze Age) as a full analogy to the Sintashta dwellings. The excavation of this settlement has revealed one more architectural detail, also typical of Sintashta construction. The walls of dwellings were built on the soil, instead of a stone foundation. Furthermore, although the walls consisted of clay blocks, these were erected within a framework of planks, which were supported inside the dwellings by vertical posts. Inside the foundations of the large building lines of logs have been identified, inserted between clay blocks as partitions [Burney, 1977, fig. 99; Lloyd, Mellaart, 1962, pp. 60, 61, figs. 8-10, 13, 17]. Basically, a similar construction of foundation has been detected during the excavation of the defensive wall in Arkaim. However, there the partitions were identified as turf. Anatolian parallels allow us to assume that these partitions were made of logs too. But in the Sintashta settlements wood is preserved only in wells. Wooden partitions would decay, and humus could insinuate itself into the void, creating an impression of turf partitions. The dwellings of the Arslantepe settlement of the Early Bronze Age I period are interlinked, like the Sintashta ones, but the partitioning of rooms is slightly different. However, round hearths and fire- 33 places near walls are found inside them, as in Sintashta. One more parallel with the settlement of Sintashta is the presence of a street between two blocks of dwellings. Its width is 2 m. In addition, drainage gutters have been located in this settlement [Palmieri, 1981, fig. 1.6, p. 110]. The settlement of Demircihöyük in North-Western Anatolia is most wonderful. It was surrounded by a defensive wall with four gates at the points of the compass [Korfmann, 1983; Merpert, 1988a; 1995]. The gates had been made as passages between two blocks of dwellings (Fig. 11.3). This tradition subsequently became rather characteristic of Anatolia and Greece. A line of rectangular dwellings, having common longitudinal walls, was attached to the internal part of the defensive wall. The houses were smaller than those at Sintashta. They consisted usually of two rooms, and their area seldom exceeded 50 sq m. Their walls, made of clay, were constructed on stone foundations and secured inside each separate dwelling by a row of posts. The posts directly abut upon the socles of houses, which is identical to the Sintashta situation, and the roof rested on them [Korfmann, 1983, p. 192]. Adobe blocks measuring 60407-8 cm were revealed during investigation of the walls; they find parallels at Sintashta. In the central area small separate economic buildings, as at Shilovskoye and, probably, Kuysak and SakrimSakla, have been identified. In such a state the settlement existed from the late 4th millennium BC through a large part of the 3rd millennium BC. A significant number of hearths and fireplaces have been excavated in the settlement. As a rule, the fireplaces are dome-shaped and are placed in the corners of dwelling; hearths are in the centre. In five cases fireplaces have been found to the left of the entrances. It is possible that there were more such fireplaces, but on the Sintashta settlements similar fireplaces were not always located or identified clearly enough [Korfmann, 1983, pp. 192, 193, 206]. Wells have not been detected. It is supposed that inhabitants brought water from a nearby stream. But pits for collecting rainwater have been found [Korfmann, 1983, p. 216]. The construction of the defensive wall is interesting. The base is built of rock, and the superstructure of clay and wood – probably a wooden double wall filled with either clay or clay blocks. The outside of the wall is strengthened along the perimeter by stone slabs, similar to the fortifications of the Alandskoye settlement. Fig. 10. Chattal Höyük. A similar method of construction is named the “Anatolian settlement scheme”. Its miscellaneous developments are known on a lot of settlements: Haçilar, Mersin, Pulur, Karatas-Semayük, Aphrodisias, Heraion, Alişar, Troy, Tarsus, etc. [Korfmann, 1983, pp. 222-237] (Figs. 11, 12). In the settlement of Heraion on Samos (Troy II period) a circular defensive wall with stone foundation and clay superstructure has been investigated (Fig. 11.2). The rectangular houses are attached at the end to the defensive wall. In some cases they are divided by means of transverse walls into 2-3 sections with passages between. Hearths are positioned in the centre of rooms and sometimes in corners, as in Sintashta dwellings [Milojcic, 1961]. A technique close in principle to that of Sintashta has been identified in the construction of a defensive wall during the excavation of Emporio on Chios. The wall here consists of two lines of rocks with an internal filling of rock and earth [Hood, 1981]. In Eastern Anatolia the most interesting similar settlement is Pulur (Sakyol), where the circular plan with a defensive wall and one line of dwellings has been found (Fig. 11.4). In the Early Bronze Age levels the settlement has a diameter of 60-70 m. It is enclosed by a defensive wall, whose base is 2.5 m thick and was constructed of two lines of large rocks in-filled with smaller rocks. As in Sintashta, the dwellings have common longitudinal walls, and end walls attached to the fortifications. Their length amounts to 15 m, and transverse partitions and large 34 2 1 3 4 Fig. 11. Anatolian analogies to the Sintashta architecture: 1 – Tüllintepe; 2 – Heraion; 3 – Demircihöyük; 4 – Pulur. pits have been found inside. In such manner the settlement existed during the whole Early Bronze Age (levels X – XII). The ceramic complex indicates that it belonged to the Anatolian variant of the KuraAraxian culture. Radiocarbon dates obtained from the settlement are various: 3000, 2470 and 2350 BC [Kasay, 1971; Keban Project, 1976]. In the Koruçu Tepe settlement the construction of a wall of the early 2nd millennium BC has been investigated. It was a double wall, with partitions analogous to those in Sintashta defensive wall constructions. By ca. 1650 BC this wall has been destroyed [Yosef, 1992, pp. 62, 63]. Interlocked houses, divided into rooms by transverse partitions are also detected in the excavation of the Early Bronze Age II level in Gözlü Kule in South-Eastern Anatolia (Fig. 12.4,5). A defensive wall enclosed this settlement, and the way through 35 2 4 1 3 5 Fig. 12. Anatolian analogies to the Sintashta architecture: 1 – Alişarhüyük; 2, 3 – Aphrodisias; 4, 5 – Gözlü Kale. Sintashta dwellings; and child burials under the floor, as at the Petrovka settlements [Akurgal, 1990, pp. 48, 49]. Such burials are known also in Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age (Kuşura and a number of other settlements) [Kull, 1988, pp. 65, 91-94]. In Troy IIc, III (3rd millennium BC) a row of large rectangular buildings attached to each other and with areas of 150-200 sq m has been discovered (Fig. 131.1). This principle obviously differs from what we have observed in Demircihöyük and is already evidence of the next stage of development of social relations. However, as a result of recent studies, it was ascertained that our notions of Troy are based on excavation of a citadel, and that the new habitation site detected will show a great variety of constructions. The parallels in construction of gateways are indicative too. If in Troy I and II gates are made out like propylei, in Troy VI the direction of an entrance is parallel to the fortified walls, then it turns inwards to the fortress [Müller, 1972, fig. 23]. However, as a whole, it is possible to regard the levels since Troy IIc as a distinct break with the principles of the ‘Anatolian settlement scheme’. Similar processes have also been identified in the architecture of South-Western Anatolia, where citadel was detected during the excavation of the Karatas- the wall took a line parallel to it, similar to the construction of the Arkaim gateway [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Tab. 289]. From the 6th millennium BC (Haçilar) a similar type of construction diffused throughout Anatolia, existing without any detailed change up to the Hittite period. The appearance of the ‘megaron’ may be traced back, probably, to the mid-4th millennium BC (Tepe Gawra), maybe somewhat earlier. At any rate, constructions close to the megaron have already been identified in Jericho in Aceramic Neolithic layers [Mellaart, 1982, pp. 43, 44; Yosef, 1992, fig. 2.5, p. 24], and very early megaron-like constructions are known in Fessalia (Otzaki-Mogula) from the Sesklo time [Parzinger, 1993, p. 295]. Some settlements with a circular system of fortifications do not duplicate it by a similar system of organising internal space [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, pp. 32, 34, 44, 45]. In Troy I (the first half of the 3rd millennium BC) a large rectangular building with portico, most likely the residence of a ruler, has been excavated in the centre. In addition to this general similarity of the architectural features of houses, there are some details comparable with Transural architecture: the presence of two hearths, in the centre and close to the wall, exactly as in some 36 1 2 3 4 Fig. 13. Transformation of architectural traditions in Central and Eastern Anatolia: 1, 2, 4 – Beyçesultan; 3 – Alişarhüyük. Semayük settlement [Korfmann, 1983, pp. 225, 236237]. Thus, in western Anatolia already in the Early Bronze Age the transformation of architectural traditions can be emphasised. This was connected with the formation of socially stratified societies. The areas of settlements do not usually exceed 10,000-20,000 sq m1 (with the exception of Beyçesultan, whose area is 24 ha). The width of stone wall-foundations was 5 m. However, in spite of the presence in Beyçesultan of interlocked houses, the housing blocks had not been arranged in a circle since the Middle Bronze Age. They formed quarters, often clearly specialised (Fig. 13.1,2,4). A similar transformation of this scheme has been revealed by the excavation of Kuşura. The towns of Central and Western Anatolia of the Middle Bronze Age are distinguished by rather clear partitioning into ordinary quarters and the acropolis. In many cases there are house constructions similar to those of Sintashta and transverse partitioning of houses into three sections, but other constructions were already more wide- 1 The diameter of Troy I is about 90 m, Troy II - 110 m. Only Troy VI is comparable in size with Arkaim (about 200 m) [Akurgal, 1990, pp. 48, 49, 54]. But it is necessary to mean that it was, apparently, a citadel of a larger settlement. 37 spread. [Korfmann, 1983, p. 129; Kull, 1988, pp. 4490; Lloyd, Mellaart, 1965; 1972]. Therefore, it is hardly possible to connect the origin of Sintashta architecture with these areas. Similar features are certainly preserved. These are shown in the blocking of houses inside separate quarters, the combination of round and rectangular hearths, the presence of a small room before an entrance, but most of all in the construction of defensive walls. In Alişar, as well as Arkaim, the base of the wall was divided into separate sections. A superstructure, consisting of clay with wooden strengthening, was erected upon it. A similar method of construction of walls has also been detected in the palace of Beyçesultan [Kull, 1988, pp. 58, 61, 62, 83]. However, the Middle Bronze Age architecture of Central and Western Anatolia no longer shows a fundamental conformity to Sintashta architecture. From this period towns became widespread throughout Anatolia, which indicates the development of statehood there. Similar significant towns are characteristic of Hittite times, but here we will touch upon only those features in Hittite defensive architecture comparable with Sintashta [Herney, 1987, pp. 100-103; Schirmer, 1975, pp. 409-414]. The basis of Hittite fortifications consists of two walls, the space between which was filled with rock. On this foundation the superstructure of the wall was constructed of lighter materials. The approach to the gate was a ramp swinging in front of the gate to the right. In Bogazköy, for example, the approach to the gate was made in such a way. The ramps were arranged so that the unshielded side of an enemy would be under prolonged fire from the defenders. The gateway was made out as propylei (as in the second city of Troy). As a whole, together with the development of statehood, building principles changed. Acropoleis, palaces and the quarters of ordinary inhabitants arose, as in the Hittite capital Hatuša [Aksit, 1987, pp. 54-59; Hrouda, 1971, pp. 197-204]. Thus, in Anatolia we discover complexes comparable to Sintashta-Abashevo architecture not only in general plan but also in the main building principles. An especially striking parallel can be drawn between the settlements of Demircihöyük and Sakrim-Sakla. Both are made out as a circle with one line of dwellings and are of similar size. In contrast to the Transurals and Eastern Europe, in Northern Mesopotamia and Eastern Anatolia we can observe a gradual development of this architectural tradition from the 7th to the 3rd millen- Fig. 14. Rogem Hiri. nium BC. Therefore, the suggestions of the independent appearance of similar architecture in the Transurals are not obvious. Surprising comparisons can also be made with Syro-Palestinian materials, where fortifications had had a circular plan since the Early Bronze Age [Kink, 1970, pp. 71-86; Alj-Najar, 1981, pp. 25-30; Vaux, 1971, p. 215; Kempinski, 1992]. In the early 3rd millennium BC (or ca. 2850 BC) the nature of building here changed. There appeared fortified settlements with substantial walls, rectangular houses and paved streets. The defensive walls were sometimes constructed of clay on a stone base. In many cases dwellings had double walls, filled by rock or clay and strengthened inside the houses by posts. The occurrence of houses typologically very close to Sintashta ones is also worthy of comment. In Arada, Beth Shan and Ai rectangular dwellings have been discovered with exits in the middle of the end wall, divided by transverse partitions into three sections [Ben-Tor, 1992, p. 65]. Outside and inside houses wells, or water tanks have occasionally been located. It is difficult to define this more precisely, as it is not known what the ground-water level was at that time. It is much more likely that it was an old Syro-Palestinian tradition. It is worthy of comment that some wells, like those in Sintashta, had small storage niches. Most interesting for our subject is the fortified settlement of Rogem Hiri on the Golan Heights [Miz- 38 sources. It was established in the 3rd millennium BC [Mattiae, 1985, pp. 6, 9-14]. Originally the fortification system consisted of a clay bank lined on the both sides with stone slabs. The clay for the bank was extracted from a ditch surrounding it. The bank was 4 m wide and 2 m high. On this basis we can guess that the wall was made of materials that have not survived. In the early fortification the gateway is made out like propylei, but it was impossible to get through it into the city directly, only through small lateral rooms. A ring of walls made of clay blocks encircles the fortified settlement of Tell Hazna in Northern Syria. There is an analogous wall in the Hurrian Mitannian level of the settlement of Tell Bderi. Similar construction was typical in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, but continued into the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC [Munchaev et al., 1990. pp. 7, 8, 10; Merpert, Munchaev, 1984, p. 313]. It is necessary to note that stone foundations are less characteristic of the Syro-Palestinian tradition than of the Anatolian. Walls were more often made of clay and soil. Only some settlements (Shehem, Tell Beit Mirsim and Rogem Hiri described above) have foundations consisting of two lines of large rocks, filled with small-sized rock. There is in Syria one further relevant similar feature. At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age additional fortifications appeared in Syria-Palestine, encircling fortified settlements. In front of a wall an earthen bank was made, whose width sometimes amounted to 10 m. Similar banks are found in a number of settlements: Jericho, Shehem, Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell ed-Duweir, Tell el-Ajjul [Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 395, 396]. In Megiddo houses are attached to each other and to a defensive wall. They are rather similar to Sintashta houses: the only difference is that the Megiddo houses are attached to the defensive wall by longitudinal rather than end walls. Accordingly, a small court is placed close to the longitudinal wall and not that looking onto the centre of the settlement. Therefore, in plan this court is elongated [BenDov, 1992, p. 101]. As a whole the development of defence constructions of this type in Western Asia may be traced back from the Neolithic complexes of Northern Mesopotamia to Anatolian ones and from the latter to Syro-Palestinian fortifications. Side by side with the Anatolian tradition, Mesopotamian elements were present in Northern Syria, as excavation at Ebla has rachi, 1992, pp. 46-57]. The fortifications surrounded an area with a diameter of about 150 m and consisted of several stone defensive walls preserved to the height of 2.5 m and more (Fig. 14). During excavation only separate sections on the settlement have been made, and a tomb of the Late Bronze Age, placed on the voided earlier area, has been investigated. Therefore, we can only guess many details based on the preserved segments of the ruined walls. It is probable that the area excavated has been too small to enable the excavator to interpret the complex as a habitation settlement; as a result, it has been interpreted as single-phase religious-cosmological construction. In my opinion, it was not erected all at once. An indication is the rebuilding clearly visible in the centre. At its greatest extent, probably only three outer circles of walls functioned, and fragments of the fourth were used as walls of houses looking towards the central area. The foundations of the defensive walls are massive. The same masonry technique is revealed as in the more northerly territories: two lines of massive rocks with an infilling of smaller rocks fill space between these lines. The wall foundations varied in width from 2 to 4 m. Apparently, a superstructure of lighter materials had been erected on this base, as in Anatolia. The gateways have been clearly located in two directions – north-west and south-west. It is possible that in other directions there were small gates. Near the gates the first line of wall turned sharply to the centre, closing up with the second line. Towers defended the entrance to the fortress. Closer to the centre it was possible to advance only by passing through something reminiscent of propylei. Near the gate complementary fortifications have been located. Between the ring-type walls, radial ones have been traced. The most massive of them served to divide the settlement into separate sectors, and the lesser ones were, very likely, the common longitudinal walls of dwellings. This allows us to assume that the houses had rectangular, somewhat trapezoidal form. Their length did not exceed 10-12 m. The settlement is dated to the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. As we have seen, this complex, reflecting all previous Anatolian traditions, is identical in all respects to Sintashta settlements. Further development of this architectural tradition may be traced through the excavation on Tell Mardikh, which has been identified with Ebla, the capital of the eponymous state known from written 39 revealed [Drevnyaya Ebla]. However, they show completely different features, which are related to those of the Mesopotamian civilisations [see e.g. Oppenheim, 1990, pp. 92-94; Diakonov, 1990, pp. 56-62; Lloyd, 1984]. The coexistence of these traditions in Syria is a subject for special discussion. However, together with the alien traditions, local ones also developed in Northern Syria, especially in its western part [Wulley, 1986]. Some conclusions can be drawn from these parallels. Sintashta architecture is typologically close to that of the Mikhailovka settlement of the Pit-Grave culture, to the Kamenka-Liventsovka group of KMK, but especially to Caucasian and Near Eastern practice. We should look for the roots of all these architectural traditions in the Near East. However, in Central and Western Anatolia directly prior to the period of Sintashta, similar fortified settlements underwent transformation. So we should not direct our attention to these areas when searching for sources of Sintashta architecture. 1.6. Architecture of the Caucasus There are grounds to suppose that the formation of a number of Caucasian architectural traditions was connected with the Near East. Defensive walls occurred here from the Early Bronze Age in settlements of the Kura-Araxian and Maikop cultures. Unfortunately, they have not yet been sufficiently excavated. We shall return to them later. Here I should like to cite only one instance. In the Maikop settlements of Meshoko and Yasenovaya Polyana circular defensive walls have been excavated, to which surface dwellings with post-constructions were attached – the same type of construction as Sintashta [Munchaev, 1994a, p. 176]. Taking into account a connection (although not a genetic one) between the Pit-Grave and Maikop cultures, we can suspect that the fortifications excavated in the Mikhailovka settlement had southern roots too. Transcaucasian materials of the Middle Bronze Age are more relevant to our problem. Fortifications with cyclopean walls have been identified at the Arich settlement of the Karmirberd culture [Kushnaryova, 1994b, p. 112]. At the Uzerliktepe settlement architecture identical to Sintashta’s has been investigated. This settlement was enclosed by a circular clay wall, to whose inner side post-constructions were attached (Fig. 144.4). The gateway into the settlement had a counterfort and had been formed as a narrow passage with two turns. Stone defensive walls and stone foundations of houses with partitions were also found in the settlement of Lori Berd [Kushnaryova, 1959; 1965; 1994d, pp. 119-122]. Thus, differences are connected not with cultural stereotypes, but with the nature of the surroundings and the availability of suitable raw materials – which is identical to the Sintashta tradition. 1.7. Architecture of the BalkanCarpathian region We shall discuss the architecture of the Balkan-Carpathian region further. There is sufficient resemblance to lead us to consider that Sintashta architecture borrowed various ideas from this region. In the Aegean there are architectural trends and developments, which we may label as Minoan [Andreev, 1989]: this designation is largely conditional, as the Minoan language was distributed, predominantly, on Crete. For the Aegean Islands, “Aegean” languages have been reconstructed from separate evidence. These are still little studied. Even the language of the Cretan population identified by Linear A has not been studied, as it does not yield to decryption. Nevertheless, we may speak about a nonIndo-European language stratum [Molchanov, 1987, p. 80]. In the eastern zone (Lemnos, Lesbos and Chios) the origins of large settlements lie in the late 4 th – early 3rd millennium BC. At the early stages (Thermi I, II) there were settlements with a ‘radial’ structure, where houses were grouped not in rings but like rays stretching from a nucleus, with small streets between them. Subsequently there occurs a transition to rectangular structures, but arbitrary and not subordinated to a definite scheme (Thermi IV, V). For the most part buildings reflected the character of the locality. It seems that the construction of defensive walls, which were made from rock with an infilling of soil, was subject also to the same principle. Houses were large and rectangular. They were 40 2 1 4 3 Fig. 15. Analogies to the Sintashta fortified settlements in the Balkan Peninsula and Greece. 1 – Lerna, 2 – Yunacite, 3 - Kastri; 4 - Panorm. BC. When the gradual revival began, a transition to the insula-type building that we have observed in the eastern Aegean had already occurred. In mainland Greece the first fortified settlements appeared in the second half of the 4 th millennium BC [Istoria Drevney Grecii, 1991, pp. 48-54; Bartonek, 1991, pp. 226-239; Whitlle, 1985, pp. 145-150].1 The richest site of this era is the settlement of Dimini in Fessalia (Fig. 131.2), enclosed by several lines of strong stone walls, whose superstructure was made of clay blocks (based on excavations of the similar settlement at Lerna). In the centre of Dimini stood the citadel with a central square and a large rectangular megaron. The megaron in Dimini consisted of two parts; in one of them the round hearth was positioned. The other houses at Dimini were rectangular too. A larger central megaron was excavated in Argolid (Lerna) (Fig. 15.1). The similar construction of the acropolis is known in Sesklo in Northern attached to each other, having common longitudinal walls. In the following phase (second half of the 3rd millennium BC) additional rooms began to be attached to them; the complex assembled an ‘insula’ (Poliohni) that became the basis for subsequent town planning. However, Manfred Korfmann is inclined to interpret the previous architectural tradition within the framework of the ‘Anatolian settlement scheme’ [Korfmann, 1983, pp. 229, 232]. In the Western Aegean, on the Cyclades, other traditions show themselves. They had started to appear in the second third of the 3rd millennium BC and flourished in full measure in the middle of it (Fig. 15.3,4). The settlements occupy natural heights and are encircled with defensive walls strengthened by ‘bastions’ (Kastri, Panorm). Some sides have no walls, the natural steepness of the site providing sufficient protection. The houses were extremely small and in shape rectangular. They were attached to the defensive wall and to each other, but nothing similar to a megaron can be observed here until the early 2nd millennium BC, after an overwhelming collapse enveloped the Cyclades in the late 3rd millennium 1 It is now suggested that Dimini be dated earlier than the developed Gumelnitsa culture. Therefore, in the framework of modern Balkan chronology, it will be dated to much earlier than the 4th millennium BC [Parzinger, 1993, pp. 298, 299]. 41 Greece. This tradition arose in the Eneolithic and continued through the Early Bronze Age. Thus, in this period we are observing features that are typical of later cultures in Western Anatolia (Troy I, II) and different from the ‘democratic’ Aegean culture. In the late 3rd millennium BC the local culture felt into decay, facilitating the invasion of the country by the Achaean Greeks. In Achaean times the majority of settlements were not fortified. But fortified settlements were surrounded by rings of walls with several entries (Malthi). The central area of the fortified settlements had not changed; they preserved a square and a large megaron (up to 130 sq m). The houses were constructed in lines arranged along the defensive wall (Fig. 150.1). This reflects Anatolian architectural tradition. In addition, a type of apsidal buildings with one semicircular end wall spread.1 Similar architectural principles have been found in Aigina (Fig. 150.8) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 398, 400]. The further development of Greek architecture is set against a background of quite intensive contacts with the Minoan world and resulted in the formation of the Crete-Mycenaean architectural complex, represented by such masterpieces as the palaces in Tiryns, Mycenae and Knossos. In the Northern Balkans the appearance of fortifications is connected with the Vinča culture, in traditional chronology dated to the mid-5th — mid4th millennia BC [Safronov, 1989, pp. 74-76, 117, 118; Merpert, 1995, pp. 118, 119]. The fortifications occur on sites of the latest phase of this culture and chronologically they are somewhat later than the Anatolian ones. Fortifications of the late phase are represented by round ditches, behind which wooden walls were placed. The base of the walls was a bank, constructed of soil extracted from the ditch. Developments also took place in habitation architecture. There are rather large houses such as megarons (up to 200 sq m). Alongside these are small houses. It is possible that here the megarons were constructions with a social significance. Houses with an apse represented a new tradition. They also differed from ordinary houses by their large size. In Bulgaria study of the Polyanica Tell has revealed another architectural principle (Fig. 124.1): dense lines of houses attached to each other and surrounded by a rectangular ditch and three lines of palisades generally typical of European Eneolithic architecture [Whitlle, 1985, pp. 145-147; Todorova, 1979, pp. 48-52]. The early 4th millennium BC saw the formation in the Danube and Carpathian regions and Central Europe of first the Lengyel culture, and then the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB culture).2 Their system of fortifications is quite comparable with those we have traced in Vinča: ditches and banks with palisades of different forms (circle, square, trapezoid). The ditches were deep, from 3 m (Gluboke Mashuvke) to 5 m (Svodin); in front of them 2-3 lines of palisades were placed, which is identical to the tradition of the Northern Balkans (Fig. 124.1,2). But the circular plans of the Lengyel fortifications should not be regarded as a parallel to Sintashta: as a rule the area within them was not built up, whilst the habitation sites lay close by. In some cases (Tešetiče-Kžieviče) a lot of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines have been found inside fortifications. This has prompted discussion of the ceremonial functions of such constructions [Whitlle, 1985, pp. 191, 192]. Houses are rectangular and of wattle-and-daub construction. There are, as in Vinča, both apsidal and large rectangular buildings. These latter differ from those in the Near East and Sintashta by their elongated proportions: at a length 20 m their width can vary between 4 and 7.5 m. This tradition, apparently, was inherited by people of the Funnel Beaker culture, where similar forms of fortifications spread (Fig. 130.1) [Midgley, 1992, pp. 341-354]. The constructions of Late Neolithic complexes in Northern France (Berry-au-Bac, etc.) are absolutely identical to these houses. They consist of ditches and palisades of different forms and occasionally surrounding vast areas. But the habitation constructions – long trapezoidal houses – are always placed outside these fortifications. Research into the ditches has concluded that they played a sacral role [Dubouloz, 1991; Bertemes, 1991]. In the North-West Pontic region architectural traditions similar to those in the Balkans may be observed. From the late 5th to the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC the Tripolie-Cucuteni culture was distributed here. Its houses have wattle walls cov- 1 Constructions with an apse became very typical of many settlements of Southern Greece at this time [Parzinger, 1993, p. 308]. 2 Here the conventional dates of the cultures are used. In Part III of this work modern dating will be adduced. 42 ered with clay. They are rectangular and always constructed separately, and their positioning may be at random, in concentric circles, grouped in separate assemblages, etc. (Fig. 124.11). The habitation complexes of the Tripolie-Cucuteni fortified settlements share similar plans. They are situated in defensible locations such as promontories, which were partitioned by ditches, banks and palisades [Eneolit SSSR, pp. 178, 181, 186, 196, 206, 216, 217, 273, 300]. A rather interesting fact is the appearance in the Balkans (Southern Bulgaria) in the Early Bronze Age of settlements whose planning reflects Anatolian tradition [Merpert, 1995a; Parzinger, 1993, p. 303]. One such is Ezero. It had two rings of defensive walls with a stone base, and gateways constructed like elongated corridors. In the inhabited zone blocks of adjoining dwellings of up to 45 sq m have been identified. The centre was not built up. The settlement of Yunacite is typologically the same (Fig. 15.2). There, the blocks of rectangular dwellings were attached to the bank. The walls of dwellings were quite conventional, made of wattle covered with clay and strengthened at the bottom with rocks and horizontal beams. The dwellings were each 70-80 sq m. It is worthy of comment that the walls were double. The appearance of such constructions in the Balkan region is dated to the period Troy I or even earlier [Merpert, 1995a, p. 45]. M. Korfmann supposes the appearance in the Balkans of architecture such as that at Ezero is a synthesis of local and Western Anatolian traditions [Korfmann, 1983, p. 240]. Concluding the description of architectural features of the Balkan-Carpathian region, we can distinguish some typologically distinct traditions. In the eastern Aegean we see the development of the Minoan tradition. It is quite possible that it was formed originally under Anatolian influence, and on that account ‘radial’ plans of habitation appeared here at an early stage. Subsequently, planning was subordinated to topographical conditions, and the insula building principle prevailed. In Northern Greece as far back as the Eneolithic fortified settlements arose with a circular plan, containing a central area and megaron, rectangular houses, and defensive walls with stone foundations and a superstructure made of clay (probably accompanied by wood). This architecture is closely comparable with that of Anatolia. Therefore, it is possible that the initial impulse to its formation in Greece came from there. But this tradition did not remain here up to the Middle Bronze Age. It is, moreover, sufficiently different from Sintashta architecture. Probably the appearance on the Cyclades of fortifications with bastions was connected with an Anatolian impulse too, but H. Parzinger considers that the fortifications here are within a tradition traced back to the local Middle Neolithic [Parzinger, 1993, p. 306]. In any case, we cannot find the roots of Sintashta architecture in this. Subsequently, the transition to insula building is to be observed on the Cyclades as well. Closest to Sintashta is the architecture of Greece in the late Early Bronze Age, together with that of the Achaean Greeks. However, its roots are in Anatolia. Nevertheless, the typological resemblance allows us to assume the possibility that this tradition was introduced to the Urals from here, although other materials do not confirm this. On the Danube, in the North-West Pontic area and Central Europe, an absolutely different tradition had already shown. Despite separate typological similarities with Anatolia, another line of development had been pursued here – defensive walls made of wood on earthen banks, sometimes with palisades, according to varying plans. The development of a similar defensive technique is quite logical for this natural zone. Houses are placed on the surface, and made of wattle covered with clay. Megarons occur as an occasional component and are present on settlements as socially or ritually significant buildings. They are dated, as are the fortifications, somewhat later than in Anatolia. These circumstances allow us to assume a certain Anatolian impulse, albeit, rather insignificant. In Southern Bulgaria in the Early Bronze Age we have observed the mixing of European and Anatolian traditions; other material confirms this [Merpert, 1995a, p. 45]. The North Balkan region exerted influence on the formation of architectural complexes in Greece only in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC, but it was not all embracing. Returning to Sintashta-Abashevo architecture, I should like to emphasise that all its components find parallels in Transcaucasian, Anatolian and Syrian complexes. By that I do not mean separate parallels and comparisons between particular sites. In this case we have the right to speak about the detailed resemblance of complexes. The possibility of 43 such a connection has already been discussed in the literature, and was extended also to include Tashkovo II [Krizhevskaya, 1993]. What has been said applies equally to the architecture of the late level of Mikhailovka and the Kamenka-Liventsovka group of KMK too. Their main features are not comparable with the BalkanCarpathian tradition but find numerous parallels in Anatolia. Chapter 2. Burial rites of Eurasian cultures, on the other hand we can seek to reveal correlations between separate groups of Sintashta sites. The Sintashta burial complex, under which the whole space beneath a burial mound is comprehended, is rather varied [Epimakhov, 1995] (Fig. 16). There are grounds to assert that initially the mound was not unified but consisted of separate constructions over each grave pit [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 243-252]. The tradition of repeated burials dug into the mound, which was typical of Eastern European cultures, is virtually absent. There are a few exceptions, for example, a small group of burials in the Aktyubinsk area, where Sintashta graves are dug into mounds of the Poltavka culture [Tkachov, 1996]. For the Transurals it is quite uncharacteristic; there are very few cases of grave pits cutting into another. They are especially important for us, because on this basis we are able to observe the dynamics of development of burial rites and material culture. As a matter of fact, we may often regard these not as separate but as multiple burials – the temporal range between them was, probably, not too great [Tkachov, 1997]. In a number of cases it has been identified that the construction above the graves had the form of a truncated pyramid surrounded by a clay bank. Cases of a clay platform sunk into the grave pit are noted too. Probably, similar platforms covered the grave pits from above. Such an interpretation is more likely 2.1. Sintashta burial rites Sintashta burial complexes are no less vivid than their fortified settlements. Considerable excavation of cemeteries near the settlements of Sintashta (the cemetery of the same name) and Arkaim (Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery) is underway. Other sites in the Transurals (Solnce, Kamenniy Ambar, Krivoye Ozero, Stepnoe) have been studied too [Zdanovich, Zdanovich D., 1995; Zdanovich, Batanina, 1995; Malyutina, Zdanovich, 1995; Zdanovich, 1995; Gening et al., 1992; Zdanovich D., 1995; 1995a; Kostyukov et al., 1995; Epimakhov, 1996; Botalov et al., 1996]. Cemeteries of a similar type, comparable in varying degree with Sintashta ones, were excavated from the Don to Northern Kazakhstan [Zdanovich, 1988; Potyomkina, 1985; Vasiliev et al., 1994; 1995; 1995a; Sinyuk, Pogorelov, 1993; Gorbunov et al., 1990; Moiseev, Efimov, 1995; Gorbunov, 1990]. Burials of this type are detected in the Tobol area [Potyomkina, 1985; 1994]. The discovery of a great number of these cemeteries in the Aktyubinsk area in Western Kazakhstan seems very significant [Tkachov, 1995]. Based on such a breadth of sources, on the one hand we can undertake comparative analysis of Sintashta burial rites with those 44 1 2 3 4 Fig. 16. Sintashta burial rite. 1, 4 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 2 – Sintashta; 3 – Kamenniy Ambar. than a cupola, as sometimes clay had sunk into a grave, forming uniform layer. The grounds of burial complexes usually have a barrier in the form of ditch and small bank of turf or clay. Often, we have been able to find only one of these features; in some instances, none. On the eastern side of the ditches are the abutments of small bridges crossing into the burial complex [Zdanovich D., 1995a, p. 45]. Very likely, something similar also took place in earthen banks, but it has not been possible to ascertain this. Thus it is necessary to note that on early Sintashta sites ditches were probably absent (Fig. 18). In the fill of the mounds ashes mixed with humus are often present. Probably, these are the remains of a burned construction, made of wood and earth, set above the individual grave pits. Burnt areas on the natural soil near graves and burnt clay from the constructions above the graves on the Sintashta cemetery tend to corroborate this. Above the tombs at the centre of the burial, one large overall construction was erected. The arrangement of burials within the burial grounds follows a single pattern. At the centre are from one to three large burials. Where two tombs are located in the middle of a burial ground, the cen- 45 1 2 4a 3 5 4 Fig. 17. Sintashta burial rite. 1, 3-5 – Sintashta; 2 – Bolshekaraganskiy. 46 Fig. 18. Barrow. posed that they had a shape of a spherical cupola [Gening et al., 1992, p. 276], but it is more likely that these constructions were rectangular. This is indicated in those cases where the construction has been well fixed [Gening et al., 1992, p. 245]. Grave pits differ considerably in size (Fig. 17). Under the mounds of the early and high phases there are always several burials. Subsequently, single burials appear. The central burial tombs are the largest. Their sizes vary, usually in the range of 3.5-4.5  23.5 m. The circumferential graves are occasionally of comparable size to those at the centre, but in the overwhelming majority of cases they are smaller. Again, they vary greatly in size, sometimes being very small. There are various types of burial pit: 1. rectangular pits, often with small ledges in the upper part of the side along the whole perimeter; 2. pits with small recesses; 3. catacomb (one case). In the early phase all types occur. In the high and late phases we have only simple pits and pits with ledges. Graves with recesses disappear. In pits the remains of burial chambers constructed of wooden planks or beams have been found (Fig. 19). Traces have not survived in grave pits of small size. In large burial tombs there are corner posts, which served as support for the wooden walls of the chamber. The space between the wooden chamber and the side of the pit was filled with natu- tre point of the whole ground was between them. Other burials were disposed around them in a ring. The orientation of these grave pits is not linked to the compass; they are always placed with their long sides or ends along the radial axis of the burial ground (Fig. 16.1-3). Such construction of burial grounds is characteristic of complexes of the early and high phases of the culture. Sometimes, circumferential graves started to be constructed in the southern part of the ground. These are especially good at some complexes in revealing the nature of grave goods and burial rites (Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery, mound 24; Kamenniy Ambar) (Fig. 16.1). There is also another practice, in which circumferential burials, placed in a ring, have a particular orientation. Such an arrangement appears in the high phase and is accompanied by materials bearing features of Poltavka culture (mound 11 of the Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery). The grave pits, including the central one, are oriented NE-SW, although it is not impossible that other schemes of arrangement will be detected (Fig. 16.4). Orientation in a defined direction continues into the Petrovka-Pokrovsk phase, when it is the only practice used. The NE-SW orientation keeps its importance, but N-S and W-E orientations occur too. Above the grave pits, clay or wooden-andearthen constructions were erected. It has been sup- 47 Fig. 19. Grave chamber. one more burial to this type – where there is a large deep recess in an end side. Structurally this is somewhere between a catacomb and a rectangular pit. We can guess that in some other pits there were similar recesses, but clear outlines have not been identified from the top level of the natural soil. Nevertheless, this type of the construction was hardly widespread. Therefore, it is possible to say that the commonest type was the rectangular burial pit – the existence of burials in recesses is rather controversial – and the only Sintashta catacomb is something obviously introduced to this culture from outside. The pits contain a varying number of bodies, usually from one to five. In one case (Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery, mound 25) the remains of fourteen people have been revealed in the two central burial tombs [Zdanovich D., 1997, p. 41]. Overall, collective burials are more common for the early phase and decrease subsequently. We know of two types of burial: contracted burial on the left side (occasionally on the right), arms bent and hands in front of the face, and secondary or disarticulated burials (Figs. 17, 19). In one case (central tomb of mound 11, Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery), we have identified a contracted burial on the back, but features of ral soil (sandy soil or clay loam) and, in some cases, with other material, which we guess was a special loam. The upper beams of wooden chambers probably did not reach the rim of the burial pit. On these beams reposed a cover made of wooden planks. There were, as a rule, two covers, the second on the rims of the pit, where for this purpose special ledges were arranged. Therefore, pits with a ledge and those without are typologically unified. It was frequently impossible to identify the contours of grave pits on their upper level. Of interest is the discovery of a construction with three wooden covers [Zdanovich D., 1995a]. Overall, this was untypical of Sintashta cemeteries. In large burial tombs the cover was sometimes supported by extra posts arranged in the centre or in the middle of the end walls (Fig. 17.3,4). Burials with recesses have been discovered only in the Sintashta cemetery. Recesses are shallow and may undercut one or, less often, two longitudinal sides. However, it is not absolutely certain that the recesses in pits were there initially and they may be a consequence of the destruction of the sides. Only one catacomb burial has been found, also in the Sintashta cemetery. Provisionally, I will add 48 (Fig. 20). After the decomposition of soft tissue and the wooden construction, the bones of the corpse sank into the grave pit separately. Nevertheless, we must talk about a large part of such burials as secondary, where the bones were placed in a pit, often on a cover, after the soft tissues had been allowed to decay outside. This is because the skeletons are usually incomplete. Probably, this continued to be the principal funeral rite. Indeed, there are some burials arranged on the cover. These may be identified by the barely violated skeletons with jointed bones. Theories about chariot burials find no archaeological endorsement: the remains of skeletons never lie in a compact group between holes for wheels. There were also different treatments of the body. In particular, cases are known of decapitated bodies [Tkachov, 1997, p. 86]. The activities of animals living in burrows may have caused those burials to be identified as disarticulated or secondary. However, this does not explain all instances. It is unclear why there are never complete skeletons in the central tombs – where complete horse skeletons have survived – but there are in graves around the circumference. Therefore, it is very difficult to determine an actual ratio of contracted and secondary (disarticulated) burials. The problem is complicated by the absence in reports of any mention of traces of animal activity on the sides and bottom of burial pits. Contracted burials, almost always on the left side, occur in graves of all phases of Sintashta (Fig. 17.2,4,5). As a rule, bodies are only slightly contracted. But this may not be a burial characteristic: in the volume of hollow space in Sintashta graves the swelling of the body during decomposition will invariably reduce the degree of contraction [Ivanov A., 1992]. Only for some skeletons can preliminary binding be assumed. Thus, we see a gradual transformation of funeral rites: from secondary burials of bones in a pit or on a cover to burials of bodies on a cover, and further to burials of bodies in the bottom of a grave pit. However, inhumations on the side were characteristic of Sintashta culture from the start, and to no smaller degree than secondary burials. But over time their ratio increases. In a number of burial tombs (not only in central ones) the remains of chariots have been found (Figs. 17.3,4; 21). They were identified by the small holes dug for wheels, and sometimes it was possible to Fig. 20. Secondary burial. Poltavka culture characterise the mound. Based on stratigraphy (Sintashta, SM, burial 10, 16, Solnce II, mound 4, grave 1), as well as on the nature of accompanying grave goods, we may assert that burials with disarticulated skeletons fall into the early phase. In the high and late phases, this rite is characterised by large central tombs. It is present on all Sintashta sites, showing up subsequently in Petrovka culture, and in single cases even in Alakul culture [Tkachov, 1997]. Two types of secondary burial are known. In the first, the bones are stacked in a small compact pile (Sintashta, SM, burial 30). In this case it is quite clear that the body had originally been placed outside the burial pit; only later, after it had decomposed, were the bones placed in a tomb (Fig. 17.3). More common are burials where the bones of skeletons are scattered in a grave pit, not always only at the bottom. The skeletons may be incomplete. There are three possible explanations. The first is robbery. However, I concede such a situation only for isolated instances. The presence of rich grave goods in these burials generally undermines this idea. Furthermore, well-preserved covers, with undamaged skeletons of sacrificial animals, are very often found above such burials. The second variant is a burial either on the first wooden cover or on a special dais 49 Fig. 21. Chariot burial. and in isolated instances the bones of a camel and a boar. Both the whole skeletons and sets of skulls and limbs may be regarded not as food for the deceased but as accompanying animated grave goods (Fig. 17.1,3,5). Certain tendencies may be traced within the different phases. The burials of the early phase furnished the greatest number of whole animal bodies; during the high and late phases their number decreases. And most sacrifices were placed in large burials tombs. A pattern emerges from correlating animal species in graves with ceramic groups. In burials accompanied by classic Sintashta pottery all species are present, often in one grave. At the PetrovkaPokrovsk stage the structure of species is basically the same, but they are frequently not present in graves in full volume. In separate burials the number of species and individuals is much less than in true Sintashta mounds. In complexes bearing features of Poltavka culture, the set of sacrificial animals is severely impoverished, and sheep predominate. Sacrificial sites on the burial ground outside pits are represented by animal bones and ceramics, placed either directly on the surface or in special small holes. Carrying out a comparative analysis is outside the framework of this work, as the connec- observe the impress of spokes. In one tomb (Kamenniy Ambar) a chariot has been identified by the wooden remains of the basket and shaft. We can also admit that chariots had also been placed in pits where parts of the harnessing (bone cheek-pieces) (Fig. 43.3,7) have been found, but no traces remain. The rite of putting chariots into a burial pit is more characteristic of the early phase. In the high and late phases it is present only in central tombs. The burial pits were provided with rich grave goods. These are described in the appropriate Chapters. Here I would like to note only that in grave pits with disarticulated skeletons the grave goods might occur not just at the bottom but also in the fill. This testifies that part of them was placed together with the buried body on the first cover. In the central tombs accumulations of bronze objects have sometimes been found in special niches. To conclude this description of Sintashta burial rites let us view the sacrificial complexes. They may be divided into two types: sacrificial complexes in grave pits, placed there during a funeral, and funeral sacrificial complexes on the burial ground. These in pits were placed at the bottom or on the cover. These complexes consist of the whole skeletons or parts of horses, skulls and limbs of cattle, whole skeletons or parts of sheep, bones of dogs, 50 tion of separate sacrificial places with actual burials is somewhat unclear. Now the pattern observed should only be seen as indicative, based on analysing the materials and faunal remains of the Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery, and on several publications. Detailed analysis is a work in prospect for competent specialists. Grounded upon ideas about the evolution of the Sintashta burial rite, it is possible to suggest a division of the main complexes into phases. It is necessary to take into account that the boundaries between the phases are inexact, and complexes of one phase may contain burials exhibiting features of the preceding and subsequent phases. Making allowance for these reservations, I am inclined to assign the majority of complexes of the Sintashta cemetery to the early phase, complex S I of Sintashta and mounds 11 and 24 of Bolshekaraganskiy to the high, and mounds 20 and 22 of Bolshekaraganskiy to the late phase. The Kamenniy Ambar cemetery bears features of the early and high phases and a transition to the late. Such an ordering does not address the chronology of the settlement. Settlements near to cemeteries could exist at all periods (although not always). Other burials fall into groups. Burials of charioteer-warriors form the first. There is always one grave pit under the mound, with skeletons of horses lying near it. In pits the remains of chariots and of the clay covering of both the sides and floor have been identified. On the cover there was most likely a turf construction also covered by clay. The pits are oriented W-E and have ledges on which the logs or beams of the cover rested. Another cover was placed below, on a timber-framed construction. The remains of bodies are very fragmentary and scattered in the fill of pits. They were interpreted as usual inhumation burials [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 135], but field observations point convincingly to another interpretation. In particular, in the Berlik cemetery the undisturbed fill of grave pits has been found, revealing, in one instance, even the un-dug clay covering, sunk into the pit [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 72]. As traces of looting are absent, we may speak with confidence about secondary disarticulated burials. It is very important that such mounds are, as a rule, insulated from others. Other cemeteries contain one central grave pit, which is inferior to the Sintashta central tombs in size, and circumferential pits arranged in a ring around it. The central pit is usually oriented W-E, and the circumferential pits NW-SE. The skeletons lie in a contracted position on their side, with knees bent and hands in front of the face. The features I have described draw together Petrovka burials with those of the late phase in the Transurals. Thus, this rite derives from that of Sintashta, and it is necessary to look for its formative influences west of the Urals. First of all, we shall examine the funeral rites of the Abashevo tribes, who lived in the forest-steppe of Eastern Europe contemporaneously with the people of Sintashta culture. All Abashevo burials are under mounds, where round enclosures consisting of ditches or vertical posts have been located [Gorbunov, 1986, pp. 35, 36, 38; Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 128; Bolshov, Kuzmina, 1995]. Circular staked enclosures are most typical of Abashevo culture on the Middle Volga, but are also known in the Western Urals. They enclose separate grave pits [Smirnov, 1961, p. 18; Evtyukhova, 1961, p. 34; Merpert, 1961, pp. 144, 145]. In the Western Urals stone settings of spherical or sub-rectangular shape occur too [Vasyutkin et al., 1985, p. 68; Gorbunov, Morozov, 1991, pp. 117-120]. Single graves under a mound prevail, but two or four graves occur too. Most common is a 2.2. Burial rites of the cultures of Eastern Europe and Northern Kazakhstan On the whole, the burial rites of the Petrovka culture in Northern Kazakhstan are very similar to those described above [Zdanovich, 1988, pp. 60-86, 133-137]. One difference is the presence of child burials under the floor of dwellings, a rite typical rather of the Near East, where it was used from the Neolithic [Mellaart, 1967, pp. 242-244]. However, this has also been found in Transcaucasia, in the Kura-Araxian settlement of Amiranis-Gora [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 66]. Furthermore, flat child burials are known also in Kazakhstan. The bestknown site is the burial ground at Petrovka, but the similar Alexeevka burial ground on the Tobol, interpreted as a sacrificial place, was investigated even earlier [Krivtsova-Grakova, 1947a, pp. 71-73]. 51 linear arrangement of graves, most clearly represented in cemeteries of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture. In this case grave pits are disposed along a line under the mound [Bolshov, Kuzmina, 1995; Kuzmina O., 1992, p. 5]. The pits are rectangular, and their sides may have been covered with wood or (in the Western Urals) rock [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 40]. On the Don there are often large pits with a massive wooden cover [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 128; Sinyuk, 1996, p. 194]. On the Middle Volga oval pits have been found as well as rectangular, frequently with a covering of ochre and chalk on the floor [Merpert, 1961, p. 146; Bolshov, 1994, pp. 10, 11; Efimenko, 1961, p. 54]. Wooden chambers and covers are known too. Interesting here is the presence of clay linings of pit sides and clay platforms covering burial pits and extending their borders. These find parallels in Sintashta culture [Merpert, 1961, pp. 145, 146; Khalikov et al., 1966, p. 7, fig. 1; Khalikov, 1961, figs. 11, 15, 18, 20, 36, 38, 41, 44; Krivtsova-Grakova, 1947, p. 93]. On the Middle Volga bodies are buried on their back, with legs bent at the knee, [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 42; 1992, p. 152; Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 129; Bolshov, Kuzmina, 1995, pp. 81-92; Smirnov, 1961, p. 75; Evtyukhova, 1961, p. 27; Kuzmina O., 1992, p. 6; Bolshov, 1994, p. 11; Efimenko, 1961, p. 49; Khalikov, 1961, p. 211], whilst on the Don it is more common to find extended skeletons lying on their back [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 128]. The situation in the Western Urals is more varied [Gorbunov, 1986, pp. 42-45; 1992, p. 152; Gorbunov, Morozov, 1991]. There is a rite of contracted inhumations on the back, like the Middle Volga, but more often of secondary disarticulated burials similar to those of Sintashta. The dominant orientation on the Middle Volga is SE and E; on the Don, SE and NE [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 128; Bolshov, Kuzmina, 1995; Smirnov, 1961, p. 15; Evtyukhova, 1961, p. 30; Merpert, 1961, p. 151; Kuzmina O., 1992, p. 6; Khalikov, 1961, p. 211]. Orientations in the Western Urals vary widely [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 43]. It is necessary to take into account a considerable number of disarticulated skeletons. Thus, the Sintashta burial rite is quite distinct from that of Abashevo on the Middle Volga and has some common features with the rites of the DonVolga and Volga-Ural Abashevo cultures. It is possible to compare Sintashta burials with those on the Middle Volga in the following respects: clay platforms above grave pits, clay linings of pit sides, pres- ence of wooden chambers and covers. However, it is necessary to point out that on the Middle Volga these features were not too widespread. The common feature of Sintashta and Don-Volga Abashevo cultures is putting the skulls and limbs of cattle in graves, whereas in the sacrificial complexes of the Middle Volga sheep predominate and the bones of cattle hold a secondary position [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 120, 121; Sinyuk, 1996, p. 194]. In the Western Urals cattle and sheep predominate too [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 44]. But the typical Sintashta set of sacrificial animals is not characteristic of any of the Abashevo cultures. Thus, despite a number of similar features, Sintashta burial rites do not derive from those of Abashevo, but nor do the latter from the rites of the Corded Ware cultures of Central Europe, where funeral traditions developed in another direction. We shall briefly dwell on this problem, for, as was mentioned above, there is a view in the literature that the Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultures were a basis for the formation of Abashevo culture. In the Lengyel and Funnel Beaker cultures (TRB), which may be considered as pre-Corded Ware cultures, cemeteries usually had no mounds, although mounds covered with stone started to appear in TRB [Safronov, 1989, p. 122]. Bodies lie in a contracted position on their left (less often on the right). Subsequently, the same features characterise all Corded Ware cultures, including the Middle Dnieper and Carpathian cultures [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, pp. 35, 39, 44; Whitlle, 1985, pp. 255-257]. In the Fatyanovo culture (the Middle Dnieper culture was one of its predecessors) mounds are absent. There are flat burials with contracted skeletons lying on their side [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, pp. 42, 64]. In the Balanovo culture skeletons lie in the same position [Khalikov, 1961, p. 220]. Also very interesting are distinctions in sacrificial complexes. In Fatyanovo, for example, there are only pigs or sheep in the grave pits [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 65]; this, as we see, is absolutely uncharacteristic of any of the Abashevo groups. Certain comparisons may be made only through the rite of cremation, which is present sometimes in the Abashevo culture of the Western Urals and on burial sites of the Middle Dnieper and Carpathian cultures [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 43; Epokha bronzi …, 1987, pp. 39, 44; Kuzmina O., 1992, p. 7]. However, as a whole, such ritual features of the Abashevo tribes on the Middle Volga as burial on the back with legs bent at the knee, the 52 covering of pit bottoms with chalk and occasionally ochre, and the occasional presence of ledges in grave pits are more comparable with the burial rites of the Pit-Grave and Poltavka cultures. In the Western Urals, the strong effect of early Sintashta is felt in the presence of a significant number of graves with secondary disarticulated burials. At the same time, the chronological correlation of contracted and disarticulated burials in the Western Urals is not quite clear. As a separate point we shall consider such sites as mound 16 of the Vlasovo cemetery, and the cemeteries of Vetlyanka and Potapovka. We shall start with the Potapovka complexes, which excite the most animated discussions [Kuzmina O., Sharafutdinova, 1995]. In the opinion of the excavators, the Potapovka type and Sintashta formed synchronously in the Volga area and in the Transurals on the basis of a mixing of Poltavka and Abashevo tribes, which were already present in the Volga-Ural region [Vasiliev et al., 1994, pp. 92, 93]. The excavators perceive the Poltavka component in the cemetery as its organic part, which is one of the reasons to distinguish the Potapovka type. However, closer analysis demonstrates another picture. The basic features of the Sintashta complex of the Potapovka cemetery are identical to those in the Transurals. Grave pits are arranged around a large central tomb. In some mounds there are ditches. The construction of pits is similar to that of Sintashta burials in the Transurals. The skeletons are contracted and lie on their left (less often right), although there are also some secondary disarticulated burials [Vasiliev et al., 1995a, pp. 5, 9]. All of this draws together these burials with those of the high Sintashta phase. The earlier Poltavka component is furnished with typical, chronologically earlier materials, which correlate with a completely different burial rite. The skeletons are coloured with ochre and lie in a contracted position on their back. In mound 1, where is the only Sintashta burial, grave pits are arranged not in a circle but in a line. In most cases the arrangement of the early burials under other mounds does not correspond to the ‘ring-type’ layout of Sintashta burials (mound 3, graves 1, 5, 9; mound 5, grave1). Two cases are known where Sintashta grave pits cut the early ones (mound 3, grave 1; mound 5, grave 6). A similar line of argument has been pursued already with even more detail [Otroshenko, 1996]. Therefore, it is difficult to see what kind of further evidence it is necessary to adduce to underline the diversity of these two complexes in the cemetery – although I am ready to accept the partial synchronisation of the Sintashta and Poltavka cultures. In the material from the cemetery similarities can be observed [Kuznetsov, 1996]; this may testify to contact, but does not confirm a genetic connection between these two cultures. For this reason and examining this case, I feel that there is no basis to mark out the Potapovka type, nor for such a model of the cultural genesis of the Volga-Ural region. Let us return to the cemetery’s Sintashta complex. I would like to point to those features which connect it with the Transurals: first of all, pottery vessels, containing a high proportion of talcum in the clay, an admixture completely alien to the Volga region but very typical in the Transurals. Here we may relate the forming of vessels using a vessel-form wrapped round with textile [Salugina, 1994, p. 178]. Many stone objects are made of Ural rocks [Civinskaya, Penin, 1994, p. 207]. Slag found in the Utyovka VI cemetery was obtained from the smelting of Transural ore from ultrabasic ore-bearing rock (serpentines). These facts, making allowance for the by no means early Sintashta burial rite, indicate that most of the Sintashta complexes in Potapovka had a Transural origin. The later date of Potapovka may also be indicated by the wider distribution in this zone of cheek-pieces with plug-in spikes relative to solid cheek-pieces, the converse of the situation in the Transurals [Vasiliev et al., 1995a, p. 11]. It is possible to justify the later nature of the Potapovka site also by the wide distribution of decorated cheekpieces, absent in the Transurals, whose decoration is executed in the Mycenaean style. This is further reason to speak of the later chronology of the Potapovka and Utyovka cemeteries relative to Sintashta: to all appearances, decoration of this type marks a rather narrow chronological horizon in the steppe and forest-steppe of Eurasia, corresponding to late Abashevo-Sintashta antiquities and the Early Timber-Grave and Early Alakul cultures. The arrangement of sacrifices in burial pits of the Potapovka type testifies to a certain simplification of burial rites too. Whereas in Sintashta burials the bones of sacrificial animals were placed at two levels (level with the corpse and on the cover), in Potapovka burials they are at one level, that of the deceased [Litvinenko, 1999a, pp. 329, 330]. Thus, the Potapovka type is mostly a derivative of Sintashta. In addition, I must allude to the exist- 53 ence of early complexes of this type on the Don, and possibly also in the Volga region, but they have to be placed in another scheme of cultural genesis, to be discussed below. It is possible that the Sintashta sites in the Aktyubinsk area are later than those in the Transurals, but it is too soon to say, as the materials are practically unpublished [Tkachov, 1995, pp. 168, 169]. Undoubtedly, such sites as Vetlyanka in the southern part of the Western Urals are late [Gorbunov et al., 1990]. Although there are burials arranged in a circle (but on the linear principle too), and even one catacomb, the ceramic complex already has early Alakul features with touches of Sintashta and Early Timber-Grave features too; and metal is represented only by infrequent ornaments, which is rather characteristic of Alakul culture but is absolutely untypical of Sintashta. More intricate is an interpretation of similar complexes on the Don [Sinyuk, Pogorelov, 1993; Sinyuk, Kozmirchuk, 1995]. Prominent burials of this time have been found in the Vlasovo, Filatovka and Pichaevo cemeteries. They are secondary, contracted on the side or extended on the back. The complexes are supplied with Abashevo, Catacomb or MultiCordoned Ware pottery, alongside which there is the so-called ‘proto-Fyodorovka’ ware, also found in the Transural ceramic complex of Sintashta culture. Nevertheless, the basis of these complexes was the local Abashevo component, but the not inconsiderable features of Volga-Ural Abashevo culture suggest some impulse from the east [Sinyuk, Pogorelov, 1993, pp. 22-29]. In comparing the antiquities of the Vlasovo cemetery on the Don with those in the Transurals, it is necessary to mention one extremely pertinent point: where there is a common set of similar features in the burial rite their intensity and richness decrease from east to west. The rite becomes simpler [Vasiliev et al., 1996, p. 37]. Thus, Don-Volga complexes such as Vetlyanka and Potapovka cannot be regarded as components in the formation of Sintashta. It is quite possible that they formed synchronously, feeling an eastern influence, more particularly that of Sintashta. Therefore, we turn to the earlier materials of the Volga-Ural region, to burials of the Pit-Grave, Catacomb and Poltavka cultures. Apropos of the latter, there are heated debates [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, pp. 7886; Kuznetsov, 1991; Turetskiy, 1992; Kachalova, Vasiliev, 1989]. In this book I consider this culture to be a transformation of Pit-Grave culture under outside influence. First of all, it is necessary to discuss the burials of Pit-Grave culture. Chronologically they are the earliest, however, it is assumed that Pit-Grave people lived in the Orenburg area for rather long time, up to the 18th century BC – this is probably confirmed also by some metal objects [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, pp. 78, 79]. However, the deep affinity of the Pit-Grave and Poltavka rites allows them to be described together. All Pit-Grave and Poltavka burials were performed under a mound. But mounds of the Poltavka and late Pit-Grave cultures are larger and are furnished with small ditches and banks of clay or ashes [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, pp. 61, 62; Vasiliev, 1979, pp. 27, 32; Lyakhov, Matyukhin, 1992, p. 109]; these features bring together Pit-Grave and Poltavka rites with those of Sintashta. Sometimes passages have been traced at the east or west side of ditches [Lyakhov, Matyukhin, 1992, p. 109]. However, the arrangement of the burials is in essence different. As a rule, there is only one burial under each mound [Vasiliev, 1979, pp. 25, 29; Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, pp. 60, 61]. Pits are rectangular, but in the late phases they are larger and have ledges on the upper part [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, pp. 57-64; Vasiliev, 1979, pp. 27-32] (Fig. 137.10). The ledges in burial pits of the Orenburg area had already appeared at an early stage and are explained by the influence of the Maikop culture in forming this area of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province, but were widely diffused in the late phase (this is usually connected with Caucasian influence too) [Vasiliev, 1979, p. 41; Kravtsov, 1992, pp. 32, 33]. It is interesting to consider pits with ledges and wooden construction as a modification in steppe conditions of stone boxes, and the connections with the dolmens of the Kuban region [Vasiliev, 1979, p. 44; Kiyashko, 1978, p. 57]. However, this seems to me to be too speculative. The ledges were most likely to be rests for a cover. As a whole, the phenomenon was widely distributed in this period. For example, similar grave pits are known in Kalmykia in burials of the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age [Shilov, 1985, p. 31]. As a typological analogy to the Sintashta burial rite one burial of the Pit-Grave culture in the Shiryaevo cemetery on the Middle Don may be considered [Pogorelov, 1985, pp. 151-153]. The post-holes there were at the corners of the pit and in the middle of each side, with one in the centre to support the cover. 54 The burials were inhumations, on the back with the legs bent at the knee. At a late stage there are burials contracted on the side, with hands near knees. Secondary, headless and disarticulated burials occur too [Lyakhov, Matyukhin, 1992, p. 111; Morgunova, 1992, p. 9; Sinyuk, 1992, p. 47; Bogdanov et al., 1992, p. 82]. The skeletons are, as a rule, coloured with ochre [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, pp. 57, 84; Vasiliev, 1979, pp. 27-34]. The early features (contracted, on the back, coloured with ochre) were characteristic of the Khvalinsk – Sredniy Stog II stage [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, p. 41; Agapov et al., 1990, pp. 57, 58]. It is worthy of comment that this rite is not typical of the Don area. In the Repino cemeteries and cemeteries of the Ivan Bugor type concentrated in this area, occur burials extended on the back with no use of ochre [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, p. 53; Sinyuk, 1996, p. 65]. Such a tradition was very steady and is represented even in the Vlasovo cemetery. The orientation of the bodies was constant too. From the Khvalinsk – Sredniy Stog II stage the dominant orientations were north-eastward or eastward [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, p. 57; Vasiliev, 1979, pp. 27, 29, 33, 36; Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 41, 53; Agapov et al., 1990, pp. 10-57]. The sacrificial animals were predominantly sheep, less often cattle [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, p. 91]. Thus, we see that such features as ditches and banks around the burial ground, north-eastern orientation, position of skeletons, and varieties of sacrificial animals are comparable with those in the Sintashta cemeteries. However, they had been included in the high Sintashta complexes, and were dominant in the late phase of the culture. The only feature present in the early Sintashta phase, ledges, may also have had its roots in more distant areas. Features of burial rites similar to Sintashta are also revealed by cultures adjoining the Volga-Ural region on the west. Barrows, usually with only one grave pit, are present in burial sites of the Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. When there are several pits under one barrow, arranged in a line [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 10, 17; Kovalyova I., 1981, p. 39]. Sometimes later burials have been dug into an existing barrow, to which commensurate additions were made [Archeologia UkSSR, p. 453]. The form of grave pits is very varied [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 11, 14, 24, 31; Kovalyova I., 1981]. There are several types of grave: simple rectangular and oval pits, pits with recesses, and large pits with ledges. There are many beam-lined pits in the eastern variant of KMK; on the Lower Dnieper stone boxes (Fig. 147.1) have been excavated. Very distinct burials existed in the south-western variant of the culture – clay boxes in a pit or catacomb. The bodies were laid in a contracted position, most commonly on the left side. In the East contracted burials on the back or partial cremations occur [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 11, 19, 32; Kovalyova I., 1981, p. 42]. Orientation of skeletons is quite varied. As a rule, there are no accompanying grave goods (with the exception of the prevailing bone buckles). In sacrificial complexes cattle and sheep are present, rarely horses and dogs; in the East occasionally a pig [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 13, 25, 26]. The catacombs and recesses bring together the KMK burials with those of Catacomb culture. There are some features that are close to Sintashta burial rites: grave pits with ledges, wooden chambers and a set of the sacrificial animals. But these features were widespread at this time, and may be considered as transcultural. It is impossible to compare Sintashta burials with those of the Kamenka-Liventsovka group of KMK; none of the latter is known. In recent years a number of KMK burial complexes have been found in the Kuban area, but they are rather late and were left, apparently, by bearers of this culture who had been displaced from the north by the Pokrovsk population [Sharafutdinova, 1996, pp. 49, 50]. On a number of parameters Sintashta monuments are comparable with the burial sites of Catacomb culture. Above all, there is the arrangement of the burial ground. Catacomb burials are arranged in a circle too, and catacombs are oriented in line with the circumference [Archeologia UkSSR, pp. 405-413; Andreeva, 1989, fig. 2.21; Derzhavin, 1989, fig. 23]. In the northern foothills of the Caucasus ditches and clay banks enclosing burial grounds are known [Andreeva, 1989, fig. 21, IV; Derzhavin, 1989, fig. 10, 15, 21, 31; Korenevskii, Petrenko, 1989, fig. 11]. The earliest ‘T-shaped’ catacombs are characteristic, predominantly, of the Don and DnieperAzov Catacomb cultures, but occur also in Ingulec culture. In addition to catacombs, pits with ‘shoulders’ (or ledges) are known in materials of the eastern Catacomb groups. Bodies contracted on their side (frequently the right), although other variants of inhumation also occur. Burials on the right were present in the early stages of Middle Don Catacomb culture, but they become dominant only in its final 55 period [Matveev Yu., 1998, p. 12]. Their increase was connected, apparently, with Sintashta-Potapovka or Abashevo influence, and has no relation to the search for the roots of the Sintashta rites. The skeletons were often coloured with ochre. An interesting feature of the rite of Ingulec Catacomb culture is a discovery of burial masks on skulls [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 416; Novikova, Shilov, 1989]. In addition, some skulls were detached. Some secondary disarticulated burials were revealed too [Rassamakin, 1991, pp. 46, 47; Boltrik et al., 1991, pp. 71, 79; Trifonov, 1991, p. 101]. Catacomb burials with carts have been found, and cases are known of wheels dug into the bottom of graves [Derzhavin, 1989, p. 128; Novozhenov, 1994, p. 133-140]. In PitGrave culture, complexes with carts occur too, but much less often. The grave goods of Catacomb time are richer than those of the Pit-Grave period. Extremely peculiar complexes in catacombs have been uncovered in the Saratov area on the east bank of the Volga [Lopatin, Malov, 1988]. The burial ground under the mound was surrounded by a ditch, broken on the eastern side. Contracted skeletons lying on their left were accompanied by ware of Early Timber-Grave culture, which is identical to some pots of the late phase of Sintashta culture found in the Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery. A combination of catacombs and rectangular pits is characteristic of Predkavkazskaya culture. In addition, there are occasionally pits with ‘shoulders’ and double wooden covers [Gennadiev et al., 1987; Sinitsin, Erdniev, 1982; Shilov, 1982]. Across the Eastern European steppe the general trend is quite clear: the number of catacombs decreases west-to-east. In the Volga-Don interfluve burials in pits predominate; pits with recesses are in second place and catacombs only third [Gurenko, 1996, p. 24, 25]. In the North Caucasian culture we find burials in stone boxes arranged in a circle around a central burial and oriented along the arc of the circle. Such an arrangement is typologically close to those of the Sintashta and Catacomb cultures. Secondary disarticulated burials are known here too [Markovin, 1994b, tab. 74, 82]. Consideration of the burial rituals of the steppe and forest-steppe zones of Eurasia makes it increasingly clear that the appearance of any new features does not derive from previous cultures. It is impossible to imagine a transformation of a rectangular pit into a catacomb. When we see a certain symbio- sis of two types of construction, it is possible to explain this only by contact between bearers of these two traditions, as the evolution of catacombs is towards simplification of construction. The same applies also to Sintashta burial rites. The very original early complexes had no exact analogies in previous cultures, being linked with them only through individual specific features. Moreover, the new features faded away, to be replaced by those already existing in contiguous territories. To explain these problems we shall turn to areas of Transcaucasia and the Near East, where many of the features of burial rites appearing in the Eurasian steppe had been present since the Mesolithic, and remained significant through the Bronze Age. 2.3. Burial rites of the Near East and the Caucasus A number of features of Sintashta burial ritualism, as well as that of some Eastern European cultures of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, have parallels in the Caucasus and the Near East. In many cultures of the Near East there are burials under the floor of dwellings. In Northern Mesopotamia it was common in the Halaf period [Hrouda, 1971, pp. 51, 52]. In the Bronze Age it was widespread from Ur and Palestine to Troy [Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 702, 703]. In Northern Eurasia it has been identified in Petrovka culture, replacing Sintashta practice. The rite of secondary disarticulated burials is also visible in the Near East at rather early stages. Its first occurrence is in the Natufian culture of Palestine (9th – 8th millennia BC). Scholars explain its origins in seasonal migration [Antonova, 1990, p. 42]. Skeletons in the secondary burials are incomplete. This tradition was present also in the Preceramic Neolithic of this area, but already extended more widely [Antonova, 1990, pp. 43-48]. Subsequently in Syria-Palestine this rite was widespread in the ceramic Neolithic and Eneolithic [Antonova, 1990, pp. 49, 53, 55]. Alongside this rite, decapitated burial has been practised in Palestine since Neolithic times [Neolithic Cultures, 1974, p. 44]. 56 1 2 3 4 Fig. 22. Transcaucasian and Near Eastern parallels to the Sintashta burial rite. 1 – Alaca Höyük; 2 – Khanlar; 3 – Ur; 4 – Lchashen. 57 At Chattal Höyük in Anatolia burials were made in the contracted on the side position, but the flesh had been removed from the bodies before burial [Antonova, 1990, p. 60]. It should be remarked that on this settlement the remains of a sanctuary have been identified, and in it there are images of vultures picking the flesh from bodies on an elevated dais [Antonova, 1990, pp. 63, 64; Mellaart, 1967, p. 241]. A similar ritual may be traced in South-Eastern Anatolia – at the settlement of Nevali Chori on the Euphrates [Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998, pp. 43, 44]; similar burials are known in the Samarra (6th – early 5th millennium BC) and Halaf cultures (mid5th millennium BC) of Northern Mesopotamia, but in these cases the bones were often simply stacked in small compact piles [Antonova, 1990, pp. 73, 75, 82]. Another way of removing flesh has been identified in Haçilar and the Halaf culture in partial cremation, evidenced by burnt bones [Antonova, 1990, pp. 67, 79, 80]. Hittites also practised the same custom [Herney, 1987, pp. 146, 147]. Thus, we see an extraordinary prevalence of this rite in the Near East. The further handling of the bones was very variable. They might be placed in a ceramic vessel, ossuary, catacomb or grotto. However, the predominant rite was burial, contracted on the side. In the Early Bronze Age (the 3rd millennium BC) the cemetery of Alaca Höyük in Central Anatolia began to be used (Fig. 22.1). Such features as stonelined sides of large grave-chambers with clay mortar, wooden covers or daises, and sacrifices of bulls are characteristic of its early complexes. Within the second half of the 3rd millennium BC shaft tombs with stone-lined sides appeared, not just in Central Anatolia (Alaca Höyük, Horoz Tepe) but in Southern Anatolia (Gedikli) and Northern Syria (Til Barsip). They have a wooden or stone cover, on which have been stacked the limbs and heads of cattle, and they were covered above with earth, and lined with adobe. The deceased lie on a bed or with a canopy and are supplied with rich grave goods [Alyokshin, 1986, p. 85, 86, 137-146; Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 693]. Undoubtedly, these are the tombs of nobles; but not of kings, like those investigated in Ur (Early Dynastic II, III period). They have similar features but differ in scale [Alyokshin, 1986, pp. 137144]. Funeral complexes like Alaca Höyük are dated to the Akkadian time in Mesopotamia [Alyokshin, 1986, p. 146], which corresponds to the 24 th-22nd centuries BC [Bickermann, 1975, p. 181]; the Early Dynastic III period of Mesopotamia is dated somewhat earlier (2500 – 2315 BC) [Bickermann, 1975, p. 180]. The same types of object appear in Maikop culture (Fig. 134.3). Thus, the connection of the latter with the Near East is indisputable. It is reflected in grave goods, and by the set of trace elements in metal similar to that of Syria and Sumer [Chernikh, 1966, p. 45]. The earliest wagons and chariots were revealed in the royal tombs of Ur (Fig. 22.3), which also contained numerous skeletons of cattle [Wooley, Moorey, 1982, pp. 51, 68, 73; Burney, 1977, pp. 72-75, fig. 57].1 It is possible that the custom of burial with a chariot also had deeper roots in Mesopotamia: a chariot has been found in tomb 529 of cemetery Y in Kish, relating to Early Dynastic II [Alyokshin, 1986, p. 144]. Burials accompanied by horses occur in Egypt in the Middle Bronze Age II level of the settlements of Tell el-Ajjul and Tell ed-Dab’a. They belong to the Hyksos. Earlier burials with equids have been revealed in Jericho. The appearance in Egypt and Jericho of similar burials is interpreted as an indication of chariot distribution [Kempinski, 1992a, pp. 191, 192; Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 88, 697, Taf. 161]. In addition, it is necessary to note one feature, very characteristic of Sintashta but above all of Petrovka culture. In the Near East draught animals were placed sometimes not inside but above the burial chamber [Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 698]. The closest analogies to Sintashta funeral rites are burials excavated south-west of Khanlar in Western Azerbaijan [Gummel, 1992; Piotrovskii, 1992]. They have large burial tombs with walls lined by beams and clay (Fig. 22.2). On the wooden cover a strong platform of clay and gravel was erected. The barrow was not filled. In one of the grave pits the remains of a chariot (in the publication “sledge”) with harnessed deer have been excavated. Skeletons of horses, bulls, sheep, dogs, and snakes represent the sacrificial animals. Bodies lie contracted on their side. One cremation has been identified. The burial rites of the Trialeti culture are typologically very close to those of Sintashta. Already known in early complexes going back to Kura1 It is necessary to emphasise that, judging from the sizes of the baskets, we may speak about both wagons and chariots (Fig. 22.3). 58 Araxian culture, such as Bedeni, are wooden walls of burial chambers (made however of both horizontal and vertical beams), wagons and chariots in grave pits, and bodies on their left in a contracted posture. In barrow 4 at Martkopi a large burial chamber (1011 m) under a big mound (diameter of 100 m, height of 12 m) has been investigated. It has double walls of horizontal logs, and finds direct parallels in Sintashta tombs (Fig. 143.2) [Dzhaparidze, 1993, Abb. 3]. Very interesting is the presence of such characteristic Sintashta rites as supplying tombs with the skulls and limbs of cattle [Dzhaparidze, 1994, pp. 75, 77, 81, 89]. The set of sacrificial animals in the Lchashen cemetery, related to the Sevan-Uzerlik cultural group (Fig. 22.4), is especially interesting in this respect. At the corners of a large burial tomb just those parts of bulls have been found that have exact parallels in the Potapovka cemetery [Kushnaryova, 1994d, p. 122]. Finally, for the Great Sintashta mound a comparison is possible with the famous ‘royal’ burials of Transcaucasia, excavated at Uchtepe, Bedeni, Cnori, Trialeti [Kushnaryova, 1994a, pp. 142-145; Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, pp. 83-85]. In Central Anatolia burial constructions of the type described continued for an extremely long time. In Gordion the so-called ‘Tomb of Midas’ has been excavated. It has a large grave pit under the barrow: inside the pit was a wooden chamber with double walls of logs. There is an earth-filled space between the wooden chamber and the sides of the pit, rather reminiscent of the central Sintashta burial tombs. It is very interesting that the Gordion chamber had a ridged roof [Akurgal, 1990, p. 277]. The presence in Sintashta tombs of central posts or posts in the middle of end walls suggests that they were roofed in a similar way. As the filled walls of grave chambers were obviously borrowed from settlement architecture, we may assume that Sintashta dwellings were equipped with ridge roofs too. Finally, a very important distinctive feature of Sintashta burial custom is the great number of weapons accompanying male burials. In the previous period, as well as in the contemporary cultures of Northern Eurasia, this was not so common. However, to the south it is a feature of the funeral rites of Bronze Age Palestine, Syria, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia [Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 697]. Thus, we see that features typical of the funeral ritualism of steppe Eurasia in the Sintashta period find direct parallels in the Near East, where they have very deep roots. Returning to Sintashta, I should like to discuss one further basic point. As a rule, on the basis of the kurgan burial rite, Sintashta culture is included in the circle of ‘kurgan cultures’ of Eastern Europe, as opposed to the cultures of the Balkan-Anatolian region. However, as we have seen, Sintashta burial constructions are not classic kurgans. Every archaeologist who has excavated Bronze Age mounds in the Ukraine knows how clearly there additional fillings of barrows after repeated burials can be seen. This feature was characteristic of Pit-Grave and Catacomb cultures and was then inherited by the bearers of Timber-Grave culture [Archeologia Uk SSR, pp. 345, 407, 465]. In the latter deformed barrows occur frequently, extended as a result of repeated fillings, whereas in the Transurals similar repeated fillings have not been identified. The Sintashta constructions above the grave pit are probably truncated pyramids of turf or earth, reposing on a wooden cover and lined with clay. The kurgans that have been investigated are in diverse cases either the result of the destruction of several such constructions, or of the covering of the whole burial ground by a mound after all burial in it had ceased. Sintashta barrows are more comparable with the burial constructions of the Near East. Above tombs in Alaca Höyük the wooden chamber was covered by soil on which a layer of adobe bricks was stacked [Alyokshin, 1986, p. 145]. Meanwhile, the clay layers often overlap the Sintashta and Petrovka grave pits. Similar features distinguish also a pyramid prototype, the Egyptian mastaba-tombs [Zamarovsky, 1986, pp. 192-194]. Therefore we can consider Sintashta burial rites as a break in continuity with the former kurgan tradition and see their roots in the Near East. Subsequently, the kurgan tradition was restored, but it is probable that these kurgans had the form of truncated pyramids too. This especially concerns mounds with rectangular stone fences, identified in Alakul culture and typical of Fyodorovka culture. I do not eliminate the possibility that these pyramids had not one but at least two steps. In the Sintashta cemetery a second construction on the lower platform has been identified [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 277, 339]. It is possible that re-examination of the Late Bronze Age materials of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes will produce a definition of such constructions. Their indicator may well be the stone ‘fences’, more cor- 59 rectly slab facings, which were not dug into the original land surface but laid out on the upper part of the mound. Such stone constructions have been investigated during excavation of Agapovka cemetery near Magnitogorsk. They are oval-shaped sets of rocks. The rocks were lying not on the periphery of the mound but on its upper part, above the level of the original land surface. Some sides were straight; the corners have sometimes been identified. Rocks arranged further from the centre sloped to the periphery of the mound and were placed somewhat lower. A similar picture is probable in the case of a pyramid with two not very wide steps, where the rocks were stacked at the foot of the second step. Thus, new traditions in burial ritual continued to exist in a barely transformed manner through the Late Bronze Age. It is possible that even for the VolgaUral region the kurgan burial rite was not universal. It may be remarked that on the Lower Volga flat burials have been investigated, dated within the Middle Bronze Age and at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age [Tikhonov, 1996; 1997a; Dryomov I., 1996]. Chapter 3. Material culture but for manufacturing tanged arrowheads the ‘fluid’ retouch was employed, which makes this type of artefact more refined. The second distinction is size. Those with a straight base are rather small and have a very narrow cross-section; tanged arrowheads are much larger, partly due to their length, but to a greater degree because of their section, close to an oval with sharp edges. This allows us to suspect that these were used to pierce armour made of bone plates, known for this time in the Seima-Turbino and Sintashta cemeteries [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 246; Kostyukov et al., 1995, p. 199; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 11, 12, 48-53] (Fig. 43.2). It is very likely true that the use of similar arrowheads was possible only in case of the availability of composite bows, reinforced by bone plates, the suspected parts of which have been found on archaeological sites in the Transurals [Nelin, 1996, p. 61] (Fig. 43.5). Further evidence of the existence of such a bow is the discovery of its parts in a burial of the Pokrovsk type at Berezovka in the Volga re- 3.1. Stone artefacts Arrowheads Two categories of object form important components of the Sintashta complex: flint arrowheads and stone maceheads. The arrowheads fall into two main types: twowinged, sub-triangular or leaf-shaped (with swelling edges), with a straight base, elaborated by a short perpendicular retouch (Fig. 23.3); and leaf-shaped, with a short sub-triangular tang and often with small barbs on the base of the blade (so-called ‘Seima’ type). They were made on flakes and have bilateral surfacing (Fig. 23.1,2). In single instances arrowheads with a straight base have a small hollow on the base, and may partly be considered as hollowbased arrowheads. The technique of surfacing differs. In both cases the pressure retouch was used, 60 gion. As the Pokrovsk type originated on a Sintashta base, this analogy seems to be valid. Bone plates and bone nozzles on a rod for an archer’s bow have been found in the Berezovka barrow. Their relative arrangement has allowed the length of the bow to be calculated at 140-150 cm, which is in line with the sizes of composite bows with bone plates [Dryomov I., 1997]. For the preceding period composite bows have been identified in the Near East, where the earliest depiction of such a bow, found in Mari, is dated to the mid-3rd millennium BC, although one is shown on the ‘Stele of hunting’ from Uruk of the late fourth – early 3rd millennium BC [Gorelik, 1993, pp. 67, 68]. Arrowheads of the types indicated occur in almost all Sintashta burial complexes [see Gening et al., 1992; Kostyukov et al., 1995]. In the preceding Eneolithic cultures of the Transurals (Kisi-Kul, Surtandi, Botai) similar arrowheads are unknown [Krizhevskaya, 1977; Matyushin, 1982, p. 129, 144, 162, 183; Zeibert, 1993, p. 59-61]. Arrowheads with a straight base or a small hollow on the base occur occasionally to the north, in the Ayat culture complexes [Kosarev, 1981, pp. 30, 31], but the types of Ayat arrowheads are rather varied. As a whole, the set of arrowheads is completely different. As well as in the Sintashta complexes, the two types of arrowhead discussed occur in contemporary and chronologically later Petrovka, SeimaTurbino and Potapovka sites [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 233, 234; Zdanovich, 1988, p. 75, 138; Gorbunov et al., 1990, p. 10; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 83]. Tanged arrowheads are less characteristic of the Petrovka and Potapovka complexes, but are widespread in Seima-Turbino ones in the European zone and in the western part of the Asian zone (cemeteries Rostovka and Sopka 2) (Fig. 66.16,17). It is impossible to link the appearance of these arrowheads in Sintashta culture with the bearers of the Seima-Turbino tradition: the Sintashta settlements were already in existence when the latter began their infiltration of Western Siberia. The presence in the Rostovka and Sopka 2 cemeteries of artefacts of Sintashta type such as a knife, spearhead [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 65, 101] and macehead [Molodin, 1985, p. 45] should be noted. The knife in Rostovka was found in the same complex as an arrowhead with a straight base, and the macehead (a type of artefact not characteristic of Western Siberia) under one barrow with a similar arrowhead – in the burial of a metalcaster, furnished with typical Seima-Turbino grave goods [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 26; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 83; Molodin, 1985, p. 40, 41, 45]. On sites of this type further east similar arrowheads are unknown. On the Krotovo sites in the Middle Irtish basin arrowheads of ‘Seima’ type are well enough represented [Stefanova, 1988, pp. 64, 65], which is no wonder, as this region had been developed by SeimaTurbino populations (Fig. 70.2,3). The appearance of arrowheads with a straight base in Seima-Turbino communities is connected usually with the Neolithic and Bronze Age of the Baikal region [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 234]. What are really triangular arrowheads with a straight base appear in the Glazkovskaya culture of this region [Khlobistin, 1987, pp. 405, 407], but their edges are frequently straight, instead of swollen, which is typical of all Sintashta and some part of Seima-Turbino arrowheads. Furthermore, in Eastern Siberia the second component of the Rostovka complex, tanged arrowheads of ‘Seima’ type, are absent. However, the Glazkovskaya arrowheads are quite comparable with many of those with a straight base from the SeimaTurbino site [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 234]. In the Seima-Turbino complexes arrowheads with straight edges are more numerous than those with swelling edges. This distinguishes Seima from Sintashta examples. It would be much more logical to link the appearance of arrowheads with a straight base and swollen edges amongst the Seima-Turbino populations with the Altai, where similar arrowheads were widespread. Tanged arrows occur there too, but their surfaces and face are completely different [Kiriushin, Klyukin, 1985, pp. 83, 85, 90, 92, 97, 103, 111, 112; Kungurov, Kadikov, 1985, p. 37]. A set of arrowheads close to Sintashta is present in the Samus culture of the Upper Ob basin [Molodin, Glushkov, 1989, p. 38]. However, what has been said concerning Seima-Turbino parallels is even truer in this case. The Samus arrowheads could not precede the Sintashta ones, as Samus metalworking is a derivative of Seima-Turbino traditions and so is of later date [Kuzminikh, Chernikh, 1988a]. A full set of such arrows has been revealed in the Tyumen area of the Ob basin, on the Tashkovo II settlement [Kovalyova, 1988, p. 40] (Fig. 71.2,4,7). However, it is impossible to link its appearance in Sintashta communities with Tashkovo culture. Tashkovo II is contemporary with the Sintashta and Sei- 61 3 6 2 1 5 4 8 10 7 9 12 15 11 17 13 16 14 18 Fig. 23. Stone artefacts of Sintashta culture and their analogies in the Caucasus and the Near East. 1-5, 8, 10 – Sintashta cemetery; 6 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 7 – Sintashta settlement; 9 – Arkaim; Caucasian and Near Eastern parallels: 11 – Nahal Mishmar; 12 – Tell Abu Mattar; 13, 14, 17, 18 – Demircihöyük; 15 – Susa; 16 – Chegem I. 62 ma-Turbino complexes, and early Sintashta is of even earlier date (see Chapter 8 of this Part below). These circumstances urge us to turn to material from Eastern Europe. Within this territory arrowheads with a small tang obviously gravitated to the forest zone, where they occur in complexes of the Chirkovskaya, Fatyanovo, Balanovo and Abashevo cultures, including a site of Ural Abashevo culture [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 234; Gorbunov, 1986, p. 49; Epokha bronzi…, 1987, p. 183, 196; Kuzmina O., Sharafutdinova, 1995, p. 223; Kraynov, Gadziackaya, 1987, p. 32]. Nevertheless, it does not seem well grounded to link the genesis of arrows of ‘Seima’ type with Corded Ware and post-Corded Ware cultures [Kuzmina O., 1992, p. 72], as may be confirmed by the presence of the tang alone. Unlike ‘Seima’ arrowheads, these were made, as a rule, on a flint plate or plate-shaped flake; the barbs are absent, they are much smaller, the surface is incomplete and was made by an absolutely different technique. In the Don-Volga Abashevo culture similar arrowheads occur, but they are rather rare and less elaborate than Sintashta and Seima specimens [Pryakhin, Matveev, 1988, p. 25]. Arrowheads similar to Sintashta ones are found in a number of complexes of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture. To tell the truth, it is not always possible to link them with this culture: as a rule, they were embedded in buried bodies or found in graves without skeletons [Merpert, 1961, p. 129; Khalikov et al., 1966, pp. 22, 23]. Therefore, these arrows could quite well belong to Sintashta or Seima-Turbino peoples. Their stable relationship with a newly arrived component is worthy of comment as such arrows are absent from the preceding local cultures (Volosovo, Novoilyinskaya, Garino, Yurtik). Tanged arrowheads occur also in materials of the Middle Dnieper variant of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture, but in the south-western and eastern areas of distribution of this culture they are not present [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 16, 21]. Arrowheads of ‘Seima’ type find a full analogy on Dashli 3 in Northern Bactria [Sarianidi, 1977, p. 103] (Fig. 56.8,9). I do not believe this is fortuitous; I shall discuss it below. Tanged arrowheads are also found in Transcaucasia, in the dolmens of Abkhazia (3rd – early 2nd millennium BC) and in Kul-Tepe (3rd millennium BC) [Gorelik, 1993, p. 302, tab. XLIII, 187, 225]. Similar arrowheads are known earlier on the Kura-Araxian sites of Transcaucasia and East- ern Anatolia [Munchaev, 1981, p. 38]. On the Pulur settlement (Sakyol), of the Anatolian variant of the Kura-Araxian culture, some tanged arrowheads have the prominent barbs that occur on Sintashta and Seima arrows [Keban Project, 1976, tab. 567, 568, 711]. In the Near East flint tanged arrowheads appeared in Palestine and Northern Mesopotamia from the 7th – 6th millennia BC (Jericho, Aceramic Neolithic B; Yarim-Tepe I; Tell Maghzalya) [Bader, 1989, p. 91; Mellaart, 1982, p. 48; Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 121] (Fig. 122.4). In fact, the early Near Eastern examples were manufactured not on a flake but on a plate; however, in my opinion, the further development of this type of arrowhead is connected with these early examples. Arrowheads with a straight base gravitate to the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Eastern Europe. As a whole, they are not characteristic of Corded Ware cultures, but they are in the Funnel Beaker (TRB) culture [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 275]; basically, they are characteristic of the cultures of the steppe zone. From the Eneolithic they occur in such cultures as Khvalinsk – Sredniy Stog II [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 308; Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 41, 104], are rather typical of sites of the Novodanilovka type [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 314], and are present in the Kemi-Oba complexes [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, 332] (Figs. 127.3; 128.6). The Pit-Grave culture burials of the Ukraine contain such arrowheads too, but with a small hollow in the base [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 339, 348]. In KMK arrows of this type are present predominantly in the eastern variant of the culture [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 25, 35]. Finally, they are distributed in the Don Abashevo culture complexes [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 42, 78; Pryakhin, Matveev, 1988, pp. 25, 26, 38, 114]. I must mention the presence of similar arrowheads in the Lopatinskiy II cemetery in the Volga region, which I am not inclined to relate to SintashtaPotapovka antiquities [Vasiliev et al., 1994, pp. 159, 160]. The presence of a similar type of arrowhead in barrow 16 of the Vlasovo cemetery has also been noted [Sinyuk, Pogorelov, 1993, p. 18]. In Transcaucasia similar arrowheads are known in Kul-Tepe and Trialeti [Gorelik, 1993, p. 302, tab. XLIII, 188, 191]. Arrowheads of the Catacomb type, with a deep hollow in the base, are found in the Ural Abashevo culture [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 49; Vasyutkin et al., 1985, p. 74], but are absent from Sintashta. 63 However, they are known to the east in complexes of the Petrovka period in the Tobol basin [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 265]. Let me close with some preliminary conclusions. Sintashta arrowheads have no prototypes in the preceding Middle Bronze Age cultures of Eastern Europe. Some arrowheads of Catacomb type, originating from Abashevo and Petrovka sites, indicate a rather limited participation of the Catacomb and KMK populations in the cultural genesis of this zone. Arrows with a straight base occur in the Early Bronze Age cultures of the steppe zone, but the chronology does not permit a direct genetic connection. This allows us to draw a conclusion about the strange nature of the quiver set. However, we cannot link its appearance to the SeimaTurbino populations, where there is an identical set, because the Sintashta and Abashevo cultures already existed before these peoples made their appearance in Western Siberia. To speak about the transfer of this set from Sintashta to Seima-Turbino is possible only by making very large assumptions. Arrowheads with a straight base are widespread in the Altai. There is also the tanged type, but much less elaborated. The prevalence of the latter in the Seima and Krotovo sites of the Middle Irtish area, and further in Seima complexes of Eastern Europe, testifies to their Seima-Turbino identification. We may not admit a strong influence of Sintashta upon the Middle Irtish, although slight contacts between Seima and Sintashta may be traced from this stage of the Seima-Turbino migration. Thus, we have to state the independent existence of an identical quiver set for these different cultures and the absence of a connection with previous cultural developments. The explanation of this phenomenon will be given below. In the Eastern European steppe maceheads are found in settlements and cemeteries of the Neolithic and Eneolithic eras. Maceheads of the second phase of the Dnieper-Donets culture (in terms of another sequence, the Azov-Dnieper culture) (Fig. 127.4) and a ball-shaped macehead from the Tenteksor site in the Northern Caspian [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 162, 163; Vasiliev et al., 1986, p. 23] are close to Sintashta types. Subsequently, until the Middle Bronze Age, maceheads are little known here. In cultures of the Khvalinsk – Sredniy Stog II type stone maceheads are absent, as they are from Pit-Grave culture complexes of the time in the middle level of the Mikhailovka settlement. They start to become common in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe in the period corresponding to the late level of the Mikhailovka settlement, which closes the Early Bronze Age [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 343]. During the Middle Bronze Age maceheads of these types are widespread in materials of the Catacomb cultures [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 406, 411, 412, 415, 417; Andreeva, 1989, figs. 20, 26; Gorelik, 1993, tab. XXXII, 3-6] (Fig. 146.2). A half-finished crossshaped macehead has been found on the Lbishe settlement in the Volga region [Vasiliev et al., 1987, p. 48]. Maceheads of the Borodino hoard, on the basis of the Seima-type spearheads found with them and the latter’s Mycenaean decoration, are dated later (16th century BC). Consideration of this hoard within the framework of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture (KMK) [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 12] does not provide the possibility of an earlier date: it is a quite late complex for KMK. In Southern Siberia maceheads occur in the preceding period only in burials, or as images on stelae of the Okunev culture [Kubarev, 1987, pp. 157-161]. In the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age ballshaped maceheads are known in the Caucasus in complexes of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe and KuraAraxian cultures, and in late Eneolithic complexes such as Kul-Tepe I [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 145, 154; Tekhov, 1977, p. 27; Abibulaev, 1959, p. 448; Narimanov, 1987, fig. 16.8] (Fig. 126.5). Spherical maceheads and maceheads with four and five knobs are found in the late Eneolithic level of the TilkiTepe settlement in Eastern Anatolia [Korfmann, 1982, Abb. 19.1-3]. In the Near East, to all appearances, maceheads spread very early. In any case, they are known on sites of the Hassuna culture (6 th millennium BC) [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 125]. In Anatolia and Mesopotamia they are present in Maceheads Stone maceheads revealed in Sintashta complexes fall into two main groups: spherical (with expressed or unexpressed bush) and with four knobs (Fig. 23.6,8) [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 139, 148, 232, 320, 336; Kostyukov et al., 1995, p. 199; Nelin, 1995, p. 132]. In Petrovka, post-Petrovka and Krotovo sites they are known in the Transural, Tobol, Ishim and Irtish regions [Zdanovich, 1988, pp. 75, 168; Potyomkina, 1985; p. 268; Molodin, 1985, p. 45]. These are single finds and, in my opinion, except for the examples from Irtish, derive from Sintashta. 64 burial complexes of all periods from the Neolithic [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, p. 35; Alyokshin, 1986, pp. 57-64, 87, 90-92, 97, 100, 109, 113, 115; Gorelik, 1993, pp. 57-61]. As a rule, the burials were those of individuals of high social status. In Asia Minor maceheads played predominantly a sacral role; in Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Caucasus their fighting usage was retained for rather longer [Gorelik, 1993, pp. 58, 59]. Subsequently, ball-shaped maceheads and maceheads with four round knobs were widely distributed in the Northern Caucasus and Transcaucasia in materials of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages [Munchaev, 1981, p. 37; Tekhov, 1977, pp. 5, 26-30, 36; Krupnov, 1951, p. 44; Picchelauri, 1997, Taf. 87-91]. Interesting parallels to Sintashta maceheads may be found in Syria-Palestine, where similar types had been widespread from the Neolithic (Fig. 23.11, 12,15). Many examples have a biconical hole, as do many of those from Sintashta. As far as it is possible to judge from Egyptian depictions, this feature arose from a desire for a more flexible connection between the macehead and the handle. So that the head did not come off, it was connected by a strap attached to the handle [Kink, 1970, pp. 89, 99, 115, 116]. Another probable cause for the appearance of biconical holes was the technique of two-sided drilling. The narrow holes of many maceheads, as well as their frequent manufacture from fragile materials such as chalk, cast doubt on their military use. This may be confirmed by a discovery in the royal palace at Ebla (Northern Syria) of a ball-shaped macehead made of chalkstone, its handle decorated with gold, silver and ivory [Mattiae, 1985a, p. 51]. Maceheads are represented on bas-reliefs amongst the arms of Assyrian and Hittite kings and Egyptian pharaohs [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, pp. 113, 163, 305, 407]. A macehead was included in a complete set of weaponry of the Aryan god Mitra [Boyce, 1994, p. 20]. Nevertheless, it is not possible to perceive a macehead as a symbol of regal authority. In the Near East maceheads occur not only in royal burials but practically always in those of persons of high social status. Probably, we should divide maceheads into the symbolic (sceptres) and functional. However, the latter indicate high social status too. The detection of maceheads in only the outlying graves of the Sintashta cemetery [Nelin, 1995, p. 135] does not contradict this, taking into account the general military nature of the cemetery. Thus, it is possible to search for the roots of Sintashta maceheads in materials of the Catacomb cultures, and also in the Caucasian and Near Eastern Bronze Age. Their appearance in the steppes of Eastern Europe is connected with Transcaucasia and the Near East. It is dated to the last phase of the Early Bronze Age, but it is possible that there could be further impulses later, accompanied by the introduction of similar artefacts. Stone axes and hammers A rather uncommon find for a Sintashta site is a fragment of a stone polished axe found on the Arkaim settlement [Zdanovich, 1995, fig. 6.11] (Fig. 23.9). Typologically this axe is close to those of the Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultures. At the same time, a number of axes of the Kabarda-Pyatigorsk type are known in the Southern Urals. They relate to the Sintashta period and to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. A fragment of one such axe has been recovered from the Sintashta level at the settlement of Olgino [Nelin, 1996a]. This type had been elaborated in the Caucasus, although it is difficult to determine precisely the place of its development [see Markovin, 1994b, tab. 80, 83, 85, 86; Nelin, 1996a, p. 92] (Fig. 23.16). Very common on Sintashta sites are stone hammers and pestles linked to metallurgical production (Fig. 23.4,5,10). Typologically similar pestles have been discovered in the excavation of the Early Bronze Age settlement of Emporio on Samos [Hood, 1981, pl. 134, 25,26]. On the settlement of Demircihöyük stone grinders with a hole in the end and of oval, rectangular or square cross-section have been found. They are typologically close to those on Sintashta sites (Fig. 23.13,14,18) [Kull, 1988, pp. 181, 182]. 65 a massive back in Anatolia. However, their bush is round. They appeared at the end of the Early Bronze Age, but existed also at a later time [Stronach, 1957, p. 120, fig. 11.3]. A mould for casting an axe with massive back has been found on the settlement of Kültepe in Anatolia [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, Taf. 41]. Axes with massive backs are known also in Egypt. They differ from the Sintashta examples, but only in the form of the back [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 161.4]. There is a spherical knob on the back of one of the Caucasian axes [Krupnov, 1951, p. 45] (Fig. 25.3,4). We should note that Caucasian axes were formed under influences from the Near East [Gorelik, 1993, p. 44]. It is much more likely that axes with massive backs are a development of the shafttube axes widespread in the Near East. In connection with the already indicated Caucasian and Anatolian parallels, a chance find from the Western Urals is of great interest to us. It is a shaft-hole axe with a massive ridge [Chernikh, 1970, p. 60]. Anatolian types of the Middle Bronze Age provide the closest parallels to it [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 49]. Axes from the Malokizilskoye settlement are similar in all respects to such axes of the Abashevo culture (Fig. 45.1). They occur also in the Turbino cemetery and in the Gorbunovskiy peat bog. There are also two undocumented finds from the Transurals [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 125, 127; Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 129-132; Chernikh, 1970, p. 59]. Apparently, all of them are connected with the activities of metallurgists of the Ural Abashevo culture. Axes of this type were formed as a further development of Catacomb axes and inherit the Catacomb technique of casting into the back of the axe [Korenevskii, 1983, p. 99]. A casting mould for an axe with a narrow back and a round hole in the bush was found in one of the Caucasian dolmens, which may indicate southern roots for this type [Markovin, 1997, fig. 109.7]. The type of Sintashta axe with a ridge could not have developed from Abashevo axes, as the transformation was from a round to an oval hole in the bush. Subsequently, all Timber-Grave and Andronovo axes are distinguished by this feature [Chernikh, 1970, p. 60; Korenevskii, 1983, p. 99]. The ovalness of the bush in Sintashta examples is considerably less than in Abashevo ones. The presence in the Don-Volga Abashevo culture of axes with a round hole in the bush [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 130] is based on only one axe. Others are 3.2. Metal artefacts The metal complex of the Sintashta culture is very much standardised, wholly corresponding to stereotypes of metalworking of the early phase of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province and includes some of the principal types of artefact. Shaft-bushed axes. They have been found in the Sintashta cemetery (2 examples) and on the Malokizilskoye settlement (2 examples) [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 122, 232; Pryakhin, 1976, p. 131]. In truth, it is probably necessary to attribute the Malokizilskoye settlement to the Ural Abashevo culture; positioned in a border zone on a western tributary of the River Ural, it combines features of both cultures. The examples from Sintashta itself have a massive back, short tube, rectangular ridge and narrow elongated wedge. The bush is well developed; the hole through it is round with a certain ovality; the wedge is lenticular in cross-section (Fig. 24.1). Axes from the Malokizilskoye settlement have a narrow back, an oval hole in the bush, and a lenticular cross-section to the wedge. Closest to the Sintashta axes is one from the Malinovka II cemetery of the Prikazanskaya culture, cast of copper, distinguished by a more oval hole in the bush and dated later [Chernikh, 1970, p. 58]. This object is probably derived from the Sintashta prototypes. Similar axes, but without ridge or knob, are known in the Ukraine from the time of MultiCordoned Ware culture [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 456; Kovalyova I., 1981, p. 27] (Fig. 147.8,14,15). Some axes of this time fall into the ‘Kostromskaya’ type of the Catacomb period [Korenevskii, 1983, pp. 97, 98], which indicates Caucasian influence and a date in the second quarter of the 2nd millennium BC [Kovalyova I., 1981, p. 27]. These axes differ in the prominence of the bush and curvature of the wedge. It is worthy of comment that in the Ukraine axes of ‘Kostromskaya’ type are found together with bracelets of Ginchi type, another reflection of Caucasian connections [Trifonov, 1991, p. 111]. Axes with a prominent bush and slightly bent wedge are known in the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Caucasus [Chernikh, 1966, p. 104; Tekhov, 1977, p. 5] and Anatolia [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 49]. It is necessary to pay attention to the presence of axes with 66 2 3 1 4 5 6 11 10 7 9 8 12 15 14 13 16 17 18 19 20 Fig. 24. Metal artefacts of Sintashta culture. 1, 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16 – Sintashta cemetery; 5, 18 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 4, 6, 10, 13, 19, 20 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 17 – Arkaim. 67 chance finds, and the axe from the Tsarev Kurgan was determined as belonging to Poltavka culture [Chernikh, Korenevskii, 1976, p. 207]. In addition, all the axes mentioned have a narrow back. However, the availability of similar axes on Abashevo sites may reflect a development of Abashevo-type axes on the basis of Catacomb standards. The probable connection of Abashevo axes with Fatyanovo metalworking will not be discussed here: there are forms with a round hole in the bush in the Fatyanovo culture [Kraynov, Gadziackaya, 1987, p. 35]. But they have no relation to the Sintashta axes. It is much more likely that Sintashta axes were connected with the Catacomb and Multi-Cordoned Ware cultures. The appearance in the steppe of axes with a distinct bush is dated to the Late Catacomb period [Chernikh, 1966, p. 62], i.e. contemporary to the beginnings of Sintashta. Therefore it is impossible to eliminate their connection with the Caucasus and more southerly areas. In any case, Caucasian forms of the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC are close to those of Sintashta in many respects. Such a feature as a knob on the back is common both in the Caucasus and the Near East. As a rule, Caucasian axes have a massive back, like Sintashta axes but unlike Abashevo [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XIX, 77,92,96, tab. XX, 3-8, 11-13, 20, 21, 26, 27, 51]. Very original are the bronze arrowheads found only in the Sintashta cemetery in the Transurals and in some cemeteries of the Aktyubinsk area (Fig. 24.2,3) [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 302, 321]. These have a short, sub-rectangular tang and an elongated, leaf-shaped blade. Along the rod there is a herringbone pattern. Similar arrowheads are almost unknown on other sites of Northern Eurasia. They are absent from previous cultures. The exception is an arrowhead found in a barrow near the Liventsovka fortress on the Lower Don [Rogudeev, 1997, fig. 1.5]. Two tanged, two-winged arrowheads are known among materials of the Abashevo culture [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 152]. But these have a simpler shape and a triangular or sub-rhombic blade. Arrowheads from Alaca Höyük, which have slots appropriate to Sintashta examples, may be considered as prototypes for them [Arheologia Asii, fig. 17] (Fig. 25.9). In Anatolia metal arrowheads occur occasionally on sites of the 3rd millennium BC and are widely distributed in the 17th century BC. From the very beginning these were only tanged twowinged arrowheads [Medvedskaya, 1980]. In Mesopotamia and the Eastern Mediterranean the types of metal arrowhead are rather varied. They are also tanged, and in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC diffused somewhat more widely than Anatolia [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XLIII, 29-33, 43-45, 56-105; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 167]. The low incidence of metal arrowheads in Sintashta complexes indicates that their borrowing by the Sintashta population had taken place prior to the beginning of their broad use. Nevertheless, an elaboration and standardisation of shapes confirms a steady tradition of manufacturing. Spearheads with a rather short disconnected (open) socket and an elongated leaf-shaped blade are found in Sintashta cemeteries [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 176, 212, 320; Kostyukov et al., 1995, p. 197; Botalov et al., 1996, fig. 17.2] (Fig. 24.4,5). They have also been discovered in the Rostovka, Seima and Ust-Gayva burial grounds, and in the Pokrovsk cemetery. All are cast of arsenic bronze [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 65, 66]. In contrast, spearheads of the Abashevo culture have an elongated socket and a short blade, although there are also some with a shortened socket [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 135-137] (Fig. 45.5,7). Spearheads comparable with those in Abashevo culture have been found on Pit-Grave and Balanovo sites [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, p. 79; Orlovskaya, 1994, p. 112]. Analogies to the Sintashta-type spearheads are known in the Caucasus and Anatolia, although the form of their blades does not always correspond precisely to the Sintashta examples – usually they are narrower, but some differ in having a close form of blade [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 504; Chernikh, 1966, p. 104; Dzhaparidze, 1994, tab. 25; Tekhov, 1977, p. 34; Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 15, 16; Picchelauri, 1997, p. 24, Taf. 70-73; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 297.43,45] (Fig. 25.1,2). Two very interesting spearheads with disconnected socket and elongated narrow blade were found at the villages of Bakhmutino and Krasniy Yar. They belong to the Ural Abashevo culture [Salnikov, 1962, p. 70], differing from other Abashevo articles by their very long blades, and from Sintashta examples by the blades being narrower. They are similar to Caucasian and Middle Eastern types. The spearhead from Krasniy Yar is especially indicative because it has a characteristic curve and concavity to the edges of the top part of the blade [see Gorelik, 1993, tab. XXXIII, XXXIV]. Priority in development of socketed spearheads belongs to the Near East, where they appeared in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC; they dis- 68 3 5 6 4 2 1 9 12 10 7 14 8 13 11 Fig. 25. Parallels to metal artefacts of Sintashta culture in the Caucasian and Near Eastern cultures. 1 – Esheri; 2 – Kul-Tepe; 3 – Chmi; 4 – Kumbulta; 5 – Ur; 6, 8 – Gaza; 7 – Grozniy; 9 – Alaca Höyük; 10 – Tell ed-Dab’a; 11 – Kirovakan, 12 – Tell Asmar, 13, 14 – Kish. 69 placed tanged ones only in the mid-2 nd millennium BC [Gorelik, 1993, p. 62]. Thus, it is very likely that their appearance in Eastern Europe is connected with this area. Knives are the commonest category of Sintashta artefact. The most widespread type is a doubleedged knife with a waist, small stop and a rhombic or pointed heel to the tang (Fig. 24.8,9). Its forms are extremely variable. Knives of this type occur in all Sintashta and Potapovka complexes. In contemporary cultures knives of this type are known in the Petrovka sites on the Ishim and Tobol [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 75; Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 264, 265], and are rather characteristic of Abashevo culture [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 146; Chernikh, 1970, p. 66] (Figs. 45.6; 49.7). They have also been detected in SeimaTurbino cemeteries, where they are interpreted as typical Abashevo artefacts [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 101, 102]. Some scholars connect the appearance of this type of knife with the further development of Catacomb-type knives by Abashevo craftsmen [Korenevskii, 1983, p. 102] (Figs. 146.8; 147.7). The derivation of waisted knives from Catacomb culture knives with a pentagonal blade may be illustrated by an example from the Kamenniy Ambar cemetery [Kostyukov et al., 1995, p. 201]. Therefore, it is impossible to eliminate the alien character of this type in the Transurals. A similar hypothesis is indicated by discoveries of waisted knives in Karabakh. They are dated to the late 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC [Gorelik, 1993, p. 222, tab. III, 54, 55]. A dagger with a rhombic tang and waist has been found in a grave at Bayindirköy (Yortan culture) in North-Western Anatolia. However, the tang is broader, and also has a rivet arrangement [Stronach, 1957, p. 92, fig. 1.17]. A knife with a rhombic-heeled tang has been found at Tell el-Ajjul, on the border of Egypt and Palestine. However, construction of its blade is different from that of the Sintashta knives (Fig. 25.6) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 167. 20]. The example from Ur (18-17th centuries BC), whose tang has a pointed heel, is very similar to the Sintashta knives (Fig. 25.5), as is one Catacomb culture knife from Novokamenskoye, dated to the same time [Gorelik, 1993, p. 224, tab. IV, 13, 46]. A knife from a burial of the Bakhmutino variant of Catacomb culture, which has been found at Verkhne-Yanchenko, is of the same type. Compared with Sintashta knives, its tang has a blunted heel [Bratchenko, 1976, fig. 46.5]. Knives of the MultiCordoned Ware culture are different, although some similar features (slightly sharpened edges at the transition from the blade to the tang) are visible [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 456]. In complexes of this culture only single finds of Sintashta-Abashevo-type knives are known. Nevertheless they permit us to speak about contacts between KMK and Abashevo [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 147]. Very rarely, there are knives of Eastern European types in Sintashta complexes. These have a straight tang, and a semi-triangular, leaf-shaped or pentagonal blade. [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 122, 124, 302, 307]. They are more common on Abashevo sites [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 141-144]. However, in the Middle Volga Abashevo culture the incidence of these objects and other tools (except awls) is very low, and in the north of the Middle Volga area they are completely unknown [Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 110]. In the Potapovka complexes one knife with a tang and a leaf-shaped blade has been found [Vasiliev et al., 1994, p. 142]. The time span for the existence of similar knives is rather wide, but predominantly they occur in Pit-Grave, Poltavka, Catacomb and North Caucasian culture complexes, less often in KMK [Korenevskii, 1978]. Other knives of Eastern European shapes revealed in the Potapovka cemetery already belong to the Poltavka cultural complex. Finally, rather district knife/sickles occur in some cases in materials of the Don Abashevo culture, Potapovka type and Sintashta culture [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 144; Kostyukov et al., 1995, p. 199; Vasiliev et al., 1994, p. 134]. These knives with a long straight metal handle, arranged in one line with an edge, are uncharacteristic of the north as well. There are only three similar knives in Sintashta collections, all of them different from each other. That from the Potapovka cemetery has on the blade only one edge along the whole side. The second edge is sharpened only up to the middle of the blade. The knife from the Kamenniy Ambar cemetery has two sharpened edges; that from Sintashta itself only one. I do not know of analogies to this type. It is much more likely to be a stage in the development of the slightly bent sickle, appropriate to Abashevo and Sintashta. Some knives have amorphous shape and do not yield to typological classification. Axe-adzes found on Sintashta sites have, as a rule, straight lines, in the most cases with a slightly enlarged cutting edge. Their sides often narrow slightly towards the heel. Many adzes have a semicircular heel [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 61, 232, 255, 265, 268, 272, 307, 320; Kostyukov et al., 1995, pp. 70 196, 197; Botalov et al., 1996, fig. 2. 17, 18] (Fig. 24.7). These adzes could have been used for chopping wood. A number have retained the remains of the belting braid of the handle. However, some of them could quite well have been used as battle-axes, if a perpendicular handle were attached to them. There are also three adzes of elongated trapezoidal form constricted at the heel and with an extended edge (Kamenniy Ambar, Potapovka). They are distinguished by their considerably smaller size. It is necessary to note that in the Kamenniy Ambar cemetery adzes of the standard type are smaller [Kostyukov et al., 1995, pp. 196, 201; Vasiliev et al., 1994, p. 134]. One adze with a narrowed heel has been revealed in the Petrovka culture of Northern Kazakhstan [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 168]. In one complex of Petrovka culture in the Tobol river area an adze has been found which has almost parallel sides, only slightly constricted at the heel, and a forged enlarged cutting edge [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 192] (Fig. 49.10). Adzes are present in Abashevo sites (Fig. 45.4). In Seima-Turbino cemeteries they are known only in the western zone (Eastern Europe). Typologically they are identical to the group of Sintashta adzes first described, and are manufactured of arsenic bronze, which allows them to be linked with Abashevo (Balanbash) metallurgical production [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 134]. As a rule, the heel of an Abashevo adze is slightly extended, although there are some examples with a slightly narrowed heel. The original adze from Russkoye Tangirovo, with a forged extended cutting edge, is outside this series because of its slightly extended midsection and two spiral-shaped folds on the heel [Pryakhin, 1976, fig. 23.6]. In Multi-Cordoned Ware culture adzes differ by their elongated proportions, very narrow heel and wide arched forged edge (Fig. 147.6) [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 456, 459]. Analogies to them are present in materials of North Caucasian culture [Chernikh, 1966, p. 104]. In the opinion of some scholars, Sintashta and Abashevo adzes can be traced back to Catacomb period, Privolnaya-type adzes with extended edges [Korenevskii, 1983, pp. 97, 103]. Adzes of this type have been found in the Northern Caucasus (Fig. 25.7). All the types discussed, including KMK adzes, are present in Anatolia [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 54]. These objects were extremely widespread in the Circumpontic zone, and down as far as Palestine and Egypt (Fig. 25.8) [Miron, 1992; Müller- Karpe, 1974, Taf. 167]. It is possible that the Russkoye Tangirovo adze (with the slightly extended middle) had as its prototype adzes with expanded side stops distributed in Anatolia and Transcaucasia [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 54; Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 1-4; Picchelauri, 1997, Taf. 31-32]. The spiral-shaped folds may indirectly indicate connections with Transcaucasia, because such a detail is very typical of Caucasian and Anatolian pins with spiral-folded tops [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 62; Tekhov, 1977, pp. 35-37]. Thus, Abashevo and Sintashta adzes have prototypes in the Catacomb period as well as in Transcaucasia. It is possible to assess Caucasian influence on the adzes from Russkoye Tangirovo and Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. In the North Pontic area the first adzes with a forged cutting edge appeared at the end of the Early Bronze Age in the late level of the Mikhailovka settlement [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 342]. This also testifies to influence from Transcaucasia. Chisels with a forged open socket are rather rare on Sintashta and Abashevo sites. [Botalov et al., 1996, fig. 17.6; Chernikh, 1970, p. 61] (Figs. 24.20; 26.9). Probably, they go back to production of the Catacomb time [Korenevskii, 1983, p. 105], but are widespread in more southerly areas of the Circumpontic zone too [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 54]. In particular, a number of similar chisels are known on Anatolian settlements and in North-Western Syria. They are dated to the late 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC (Fig. 27.3) [Müller-Karpe A., 1994, pp. 170-173, Taf. 74, 75]. A special group of artefacts comprises stemmed chisels and drifts (Fig. 26.5-8,10-12). The former have a flat sharp working edge and a rectangular cross-section. Some of them have a pointed heel, which was, apparently, on a wooden handle. The heels of others have a rounded or straight end, sometimes slightly deformed. It is possible that these instruments were without handles. The drifts have a pointed working end. Similar tools might have been used as battle-picks. Analogies to them are known on Anatolian settlements (Fig. 27.4,5,8-12) [Müller-Karpe A., 1994, pp. 159174, Taf. 65-72]. Very infrequent in Sintashta culture are socketed hooks (Fig. 24.17). One such has been found in the Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery. In addition, one socketed hook came from the Tyubyak settlement, related to the Ural Abashevo culture. Similar hooks were 71 widespread throughout the Circumpontic zone, however, they were never characteristic of the Urals (Fig. 25.11). Far widespread are sickles. These are platetype, slightly bent. The degree of curvature hardly varies [Gening et al., 1992, pp. 109, 158, 268, 285; Pryakhin, 1976, p. 139, fig. 25.1-7] (Fig. 24.18). Similar types occur on Sintashta, Abashevo and Petrovka sites [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 168; Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 264, 265; Pryakhin, 1976, p. 139, fig. 25.8-9] (Fig. 49.9). On the Catacomb culture sites sickles are unknown [Korenevskii, 1983, p. 105]. They cannot derive from Transcaucasian prototypes either; the sickles used there were more advanced [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, pp. 53]. The sickles of North Caucasian culture had much greater curvature [Chernikh, 1966, pp. 104], which eliminates them as the origin of this type of tool amongst the Abashevo tribes. Probably, such sickles were developed directly in the Volga-Ural region and the knife/sickles described above represented an intermediate stage of development. Slightly bent sickles are known in Mesopotamia, in Kish (Fig. 25.13,14) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Tab. 199]. They are very similar in form, but they are dated to very early times, which precludes a direct connection with Sintashta sickles. However, the preservation of this form in the Near East cannot be ruled out. Two finds of bronze harpoons are known on Sintashta sites (Fig. 24.19). There are no other similar finds in Northern Eurasia. Their analogies are in the south. For example, a bronze harpoon has been found in Egypt (Tell ed-Dab’a) (Fig. 25.10) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 161.9]. Diverse Sintashta sites have yielded 15 fishhooks of different sizes but rather standard form (Fig. 24.16). The top is usually curled, forming a closed loop for the attachment of the fishing-line. Only one is somewhat different: it has a forged end. In other cultures of Northern Eurasia such or similar finds are unknown earlier. In the south, fishhooks of similar types have been found in Syria (Tell Asmar) (Fig. 25.12) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 206]. Awls are extremely common on Sintashta and Abashevo sites (Fig. 24.10). These have different sizes and a square cross-section. Needles, distinguished by usually round cross-section, are less common. It is necessary to note the absence on Sintashta and Abashevo sites of awls with a stop, which were typical of different regions of the Circumpontic zone in the Middle Bronze Age. A very peculiar find is a small bronze wheel with one central and eight peripheral holes (Fig. 24.6). Very likely, it is a model of a chariot wheel. This find was made outside the cultural level, on the surface near the settlement of Arkaim. Because it is the only such find it was not identified with the Sintashta period. However, close analogies are known in Eastern Anatolia. At the excavation of Karum on Kültepe, two moulds for casting identical objects were revealed (Fig. 27.2), one of them in the house of the Assyrian merchant, Adad-Sululi [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, pp. 215-217, Taf. 54.2; 55.2]. On the settlement of Arkaim casting moulds for small thin copper bars and larger ingots were found (Fig. 26.1,2). Similar moulds and bars occasionally occur on other contemporary or later sites of Northern Eurasia. Their purpose is not quite clear, as their use as bars in further manufacturing (for example, of knives) would demand continuous forge operations. A mould for casting similar objects has been found in Hissar III [Yule, 1982, Abb. 22.11]. Similar casting moulds and bars are to be found everywhere on Anatolian settlements (Fig. 27.1). Their sizes vary, but, as a whole, they fall into some compact groups. The comparison of these groups with the Mesopotamian system of weights has shown that they correspond to weights of 1, 2 and 5 siqels, 1/3, 1/2, 1 and 1.5 mines. Thus, they might have served as a peculiar barter equivalent [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, Taf. 15. 21-23, pp. 137-141]. This does not preclude the use by Sintashta people of the Mesopotamian weight system. Ornaments occur on Sintashta sites less frequently than on Abashevo ones, and the range is rather poor. Grooved bracelets are the most widespread (Fig. 24.12). Usually they have round or slightly pointed ends; less often occur antithetic spiral-terminal bracelets. But the cross-section of a Sintashta bracelet is always a groove. In this they differ from bracelets of the Abashevo culture, whose sections are much more varied. Grooved pendants are widespread (Fig. 24.14). These could be made of bronze or silver. The latter is more typical in Abashevo culture. In the Potapovka cemetery a fragment of so-called glass-shaped pendant and a knife-shaped pendant have been found as well. Typical ornaments are temporal ring-shaped pendants and rings (Fig. 24.11,13,15). The latter can be of one and a half revolutions or with spiral-shaped ends. 72 2 1 3 4 5 6 10 8 12 9 7 11 Fig. 26. Metal artefacts, casting moulds and tuyeres of Sintashta culture. 1-4 – Arkaim; 5, 9 – Tyubyak; 6, 11 – Kamenniy Ambar; 7, 8, 10, 12 – Sintashta. 73 2 3 1 5 4 6 10 9 7 11 8 12 Fig. 27. Metal artefacts, casting moulds and tuyeres from Anatolia. 1 – Malatya-Arslantepe; 2 – Kültepe (Karum); 4, 3, 8, 9 – Alaca Höyük; 5 – Ikiztepe; 6, 10 – Bogazköy; 7 – Hanyeri; 11 – Calicaköyü; 12 – Kaş. Sintashta beads are generally made of paste and faience. Copper beads occur only in the Potapovka and Sintashta cemeteries. In the cemeteries of Kamenniy Ambar and Potapovka two small bronze tubes have been found. In Abashevo culture a similar situation is observed only in the Don-Volga area. In the VolgaUral area, and especially on the Middle Volga, alongside the ornaments listed above there are bracelets with various cross-sections and pointed ends, platelet-rosettes, tubes, so-called glass-shaped pendants, and hemispherical platelets [Bolshov, Kuzmina, 1995, pp. 110, 111; Kuzmina O., 1992, pp. 49-58; Efimenko, 1961, pp. 56-67; Khalikov, 1961, pp. 215-218; Cher- nikh, 1970, pp. 71, 72; Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 113] (Fig. 45. 2,3). In this connection, there is a problem with the origin of Sintashta and Abashevo ornaments. The possible connection of some Abashevo ornaments with the Corded Ware cultures has already been discussed by others [Gorbunov, 1990, p. 9, 10; Kuzmina O., 1992, p. 58]. Glass-shaped pendants occur in the Garino [Chernikh, 1970, p. 97], but they are most likely to derive from Abashevo ornaments. In Corded Ware cultures (Middle Dnieper, Pochapi, GorodokZdolbitsa, Fatyanovo) there were glass-shaped pendants too. Apart from these, the Fatyanovo culture contained pendants with one and a half revolutions 74 comb cultures of Eastern Europe during the whole Middle Bronze Age [Tekhov, 1977, p. 56; Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 67; Gadzhiev, 1987, pp. 10, 11]. Tubes are known on sites in Anatolia and the Caucasus [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 65; Gadzhiev, 1987, p. 10], but this is not yet a basis for concluding that they were borrowed from this area. Other Abashevo ornaments were probably developed in the Volga-Ural region, first of all by tribes of the Middle Volga and Ural Abashevo cultures. The most distinct are platelet-rosettes (Fig. 45.3), for which full analogies are unknown anywhere. Rosette-headed pins were present in the Northern Caucasus at the end of the Middle Bronze Age [Korenevskii, 1984, pp. 9, 13]. However, it is impossible now to find direct parallels. The search for initial types has resulted in the following conclusions. Some types of ornament have a broad ‘Circumpontic’ background. Abashevo metallurgists of the Volga-Ural region developed the majority of ornaments. The inspirations for the tools lay either in Catacomb and Transcaucasian-Near Eastern prototypes, or they were developed in the Volga-Ural region. Some simple categories (for example, awls) had a widespread occurrence in the Circumpontic zone; therefore their appearance in the Sintashta-Abashevo communities cannot be connected with a particular area. Only certain types of article, which could have been used as weapons, (axe-adzes of the Multi-Cordoned Ware culture and the adze from Russkoye Tangirovo) find Transcaucasian and Anatolian parallels. The types of weapon were inspired by the production of the Catacomb culture, but above all by that of the Middle Bronze Age cultures of the Caucasus and Anatolia. Abashevo metalworking inherits to a greater extent Eastern European than Sintashta traditions. The latter had parallels in Eastern Europe, mainly in the contemporary complexes (KMK, Late Catacomb cultures), but a southern influence cannot be eliminated from the initial stage of these cultures either. Summing up consideration of metal in Sintashta, it is possible to distinguish some patterns. As in Abashevo cultures [Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 113] there is a sharp predominance of metal in burials over metal in settlements. As a whole, this picture is characteristic of the Circumpontic zone in the Middle Bronze Age [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, pp. 76, 77; Teneyshvili, 1993, p. 12] (Fig. 28). Petrovka culture presents something of a contrast. Alongside metal in cemeteries, there is already much metal on settlements. Fig. 28. Connections of metal artefacts of Sintashta culture and metal of different areas of the Circumpontic zone with types of archaeological sites. [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, pp. 39, 173, 174, 192; Kraynov, Gadziackaya, 1987, pp. 35, 36]. In the Near East some early examples of glass-shaped pendants are known [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 64; Arheologia Asii, 1986, p. 116]. Already in the Early Bronze Age they were present in Dagestan [Gadzhiev, 1987, p. 7]. They spread more widely through the Northern Caucasus in the Middle Bronze Age. The small hooks with spiral-shaped ends derive from them [Tekhov, 1977, pp. 58, 59; Gadzhiev, 1987, p. 10]. Thus, the region whence they could appear in the Abashevo culture is unclear. Nevertheless, there is no basis to doubt that the initial region, from which glass-shaped pendants diffused, including into Corded Ware cultures, is the Northern Caucasus and Transcaucasia [Egoreychenko, 1991]. In contrast, temple pendants with 1.5 revolutions were typical in the Caucasus and in the Cata- 75 A comparison of the ratio of tools and weapons to ornaments shows the clear dominance of the first two categories (Fig. 29) in Sintashta. On the Middle Volga tools are almost never present, and ornaments predominate. In the Volga-Vyatka interfluve tools (except for some awls) are absent as a whole [Bolshov, 1994; Efimenko, 1961, p. 79; Khalikov, 1961, p. 218; Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 113]. In the Western Urals ornaments prevail too, but to a lesser degree than on the Middle Volga [Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 113]. On Sintashta sites weapons and tools form 54%, ornaments 25.5%, and other objects 20.5%. The three regions of the Circumpontic zone where weapons and tools predominated considerably in the Middle Bronze Age – Asia Minor, Transcaucasia and the Balkan-Carpathian area – are closest to Sintashta culture in the ratio between the different morphological classes of objects. However, if in Asia Minor and Transcaucasia the situation is practically identical to that of Sintashta, in the Balkan-Carpathian area the proportion of weapons and tools is notably higher. In the Northern Caucasus the ratio of ornaments is higher, and in the south of Eastern Europe it is practically identical with weapons and tools [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 73; Chernikh et al., 1991, p. 604]. Therefore, on a merely theoretical level, Asia Minor and Transcaucasia may be considered as the initiating regions of Sintashta metallurgy. However, a comparison of information about the connection of metal with types of site gives a much more varied picture. In this culture metal has been found mainly in cemeteries. The situation in the south of Eastern Europe, in the Northern Caucasus and in Transcaucasia corresponds to this. In the Balkan-Carpathian area metal comes predominantly from hoards and as chance finds, and in Asia Minor most of it has been obtained from settlements [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 73; Chernikh et al., 1991, p. 616] (Fig. 28). Thus, the only region comparable with Sintashta in both respects is Transcaucasia. However, it is necessary to note that according to other data the quantity of ornaments in Transcaucasia is, nevertheless, higher [Teneyshvili, 1993, p. 9] and the structure of the Sintashta metal has no exact analogy. Very likely, it may be explained by the clearly expressed military nature of Sintashta cemeteries. But even when allowance is made for this, it is possible to note, on the basis of the features considered, a typological alliance of Sintashta culture with the Transcaucasian-Near Eastern region. Sintashta Asia Minor Transcaucasia Northern Caucasus South of Eastern Europe BalkanCarpathians Abashevo of the Middle Volga Abashevo of the Urals Fig. 29. Correlations of different types of artefact of the Sintashta culture and those of different areas of the Circumpontic zone. 76 3.3. Chemical composition of metal A characteristic of Sintashta and Abashevo metal is its chemical composition. The investigation of artefacts by means of emission spectral analysis has shown a presence of two chemical-metallurgical groups: pure copper of the group MP and arsenic copper of the group TK. Accordingly, they were linked to the copper-containing sandstones of the Western Urals and to the ore mine of TashKazgan in the Transurals – the last distinguished by high concentrations of arsenic in the ore. A very important pattern emerges of the sharp predominance of objects made of pure copper in the Abashevo culture of the Volga area and a comparable predominance of arsenic copper in the Urals [Chernikh, 1970, pp. 27, 28]. In the Don-Volga Abashevo culture metal of the TK group dominates, but there are also later chemical-metallurgical groups: EU, VK and VU [Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 114]. In the Sintashta settlement and cemetery arsenic copper provides the absolute majority of metal. On the settlement there are some examples of artefacts of pure copper and tin bronze [Zaykova, 1995, p. 153]. In the cemetery arsenic copper is sharply dominant too [Agapov, Kuzminikh, 1994, p. 168]. However, judging from the preliminary publications of analyses of metal from the settlement of Arkaim, the proportion of pure copper is higher there, but a precise ratio of the different types of alloy has not been given [Zaykov et al., 1999a, p. 194]. Furthermore, the quantity of metal on this settlement is insignificant. Thus, arsenic copper, dominant in Sintashta metal, has a somewhat reduced position in the DonVolga and Volga-Ural Abashevo and is much diminished on the Middle Volga (Fig. 30). This allowed a conclusion to be drawn about the earlier dating of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture, but this was soon refuted [Chernikh, 1970, pp. 96, 97; Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 115]. Actually, the small quantity of arsenic bronze on the Middle Volga can be explained by an absence of metal in this area through its remoteness from the main production centres. This picture becomes even clearer if we recollect almost no tools and weapons have been found on the Middle Volga (Fig. 29). And all Abashevo cultures are characterised by a clear pattern: tools and weapons are cast of arsenic copper, ornaments of pure copper [Kuznetsov, 1983, p. 110]. Fig. 30. Correlations of different types of alloys of the Sintashta culture and those of various areas of the Circumpontic zone. A mapping of slag found on the settlements of the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures showed that it was present in only two areas: the Western Urals (on the middle part of the River Belaya) and the Southern Transurals, where the Sintashta tribes settled (Fig. 31). From this two zones have been defined: the metal consuming (Don and Volga regions 77 Fig. 31. Locations of slag found in the Volga-Ural region. morphological and chemical characteristics with the metallurgical traditions of the Late Pit-Grave and Poltavka cultures. The discovery in Potapovka of two bayonet-shaped spearheads, not appropriate to the northern areas of the Circumpontic zone, but very typical in the south, is curious [Agapov, Kuzminikh, 1994, pp. 167-170; Stronach, 1957, pp. 113-117]. With some reservations, we can say that the Potapovka metal complex was alien to the Volga region [Agapov, Kuzminikh, 1994, p. 170]. Apart from at Sintashta, Potapovka and Abashevo sites, arsenic copper of the group TK is present in Seima-Turbino cemeteries (Fig. 32), predominantly in the European zone: in the Asian zone only the two artefacts already mentioned from the Rostovka cemetery, which are comparable morphologically and chemically with Sintashta metal, are known [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 187]. In the European zone this copper is present in rather appreciable quantities and is uniquely considered by archaeologists as the production of Abashevo metallurgists of the Ural metallurgical centres. Further- and a large part of the Western Urals) and the metal producing (a part of the South-Western Urals and the Southern Transurals). In the last zone two metallurgical areas has been identified: Balanbash and Sintashta; and the existence of other Abashevo cultures would have been impossible without metallurgical activity within those areas. This circumstance poses a problem about the synchronous origin and existence of all Abashevo cultures [Grigoriev, 1995]. Taking into account what has been stated, it is necessary to remember that, despite the existence of only two areas where ore smelting took place, metalworking centres operated within the framework of each culture, as is indicated by their specific set of metal artefacts and the discovery of casting moulds. In the Potapovka cemetery the ratio of arsenic copper to other metals is akin to that of Sintashta culture. However, alongside arsenic copper, there are somewhat later chemical-metallurgical groups (EU, VU), including tin bronzes, as well as an earlier complex of metal, which is comparable by its 78 Fig. 32. Locations of metal of the TK group. The materials of the Petrovka culture demonstrate a situation sharply distinct from that of Abashevo. Arsenic copper has been found here in rare cases. But there is metal of the later chemical groups, with tin bronze predominant [Agapov, Kuzminikh, 1994, p. 169; Kuzminikh, Chernikh, 1985, pp. 350, 365, 366]. This allows us to talk about infiltrations of the Sintashta population to the east and north-east and the rather later date of Petrovka. A strange situation has been revealed by the metalworking complex of Tashkovo in the Tyumen area [Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 39, 40]. Arsenic copper is here absent, but analyses (these are single samples) of small copper drops have shown the presence of tin. These probes fall into the group VK, which is typical of Seima-Turbino metal. In Multi-Cordoned Ware culture, metal is represented by Caucasian arsenic bronzes. The reinterpretation of the hoards of Skakun and Kolontaevka, understood previously to belong to Catacomb cul- more, not only specific Abashevo articles were moulded of copper TK, as in Rostovka, but also articles of Seima-Turbino types [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 171-176]. From this we can construct the following model of contacts between the Abashevo and Seima-Turbino populations. In the process of their movement west the Seima-Turbino people met the Sintashta people in Western Siberia, where a small number of Sintashta had been incorporated into Seima-Turbino communities, but regular contacts with the main massif of Abashevo and Sintashta tribes did not exist. This is indicated by the scarcity of finds of Abashevo and Sintashta objects, as well as by the absence of metal import from the Urals. The situation changed after the infiltration of Seima-Turbino tribes into the western foothills of the Urals, where the Abashevo tribes lived. At the same time the importation of metal from the Ural metallurgical centres commenced [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 272-275]. 79 ture, permits such a conclusion [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 454; Chernikh, 1966, p. 129]. Analysis of the remains of metallurgical operations (slag and ores) of the Balanbash and Sintashta centres allow us to interpret the chemical-metallurgical group TK not as natural arsenic copper but as artificial bronze alloyed with arsenic [Grigoriev, 1995, pp. 123-125]. Analyses have shown that arsenic is absent from the ore (Fig. 33). Taking into account that it would decrease in slag as a result of the smelting process, it is present there in concentrations comparable with metal of the group TK, which allows us to speak of this group’s having not so much a chemical as a metallurgical character. The latest investigations of Sintashta slag by electron microscope have shown that arsenic is always accompanied by nickel. This means that for alloying, any mineral containing arsenic and nickel could have been used. This confirms an old conclusion of Marechal, determined experimentally, that ancient metallurgists obtained arsenic bronzes by smelting ore with additions of arsenic-containing minerals [Marechal, 1965]. A supplementary argument is that Sintashta metallurgy was based on ores in serpentinous ultrabasic rocks – on the Tash-Kazgan deposit it was quartz – as did early Petrovka culture. The chemical analysis of ore and slag indicates that there were several ore sources in Abashevo-Sintashta metallurgy. Only one ore mine (Vorovskaya Yama) is known and has been investigated. From it 10 tons of metal had been obtained1 [Zaykov et al., 1995, pp. 158-161], which is a great deal, taking into account the character of such deposits, and this explains the great number of metal artefacts in Sintashta sites. Fig. 33. Correlations of arsenic-contains in ores and slag of Sintashta culture. Developed Petrovka culture, both in Kazakhstan and the Urals, changed the ore base. There is a transition to smelting ores from quartz veins and to the use of tin alloys. Thus, from their similar ore base, we are able to synchronise Sintashta with early Petrovka and to speak about the import of ore at the early Petrovka stage from the Transurals to Kazakhstan. However, the use of similar local ore sources is also possible. Sintashta metallurgists used a rather peculiar, very archaic method of alloying. Arsenic was added not to the metal but to the ore during the preparation of the charge. It is probably for this reason that we cannot observed in these bronzes the clear relationship between arsenic concentration and type of object [Zaykova, 1995, pp. 153-155], which may usually be found in those objects produced by a more satisfactory alloying technique. Furthermore, it is necessary to take into account the probable re-melt- 1 I believe that the quantity is too high for this mine – its size is rather insignificant – but I shall use it as a base, as my investigations of ore and slag have revealed the presence of several ore sources for this period. The calculation itself leaves large doubts, because it is rather difficult to determine volumes of ore extracted, based on volumes of extracted ore-bearing rock in porphyry fields. It is supposed that this mine yielded six thousand tons of rock with 2-3% copper content (i.e. 100-150 tons copper). Further (referring to my article!), this is accentuated due to the primitiveness of ancient technologies: there was considerable loss of metal in the smelting process, and as a result the above-stated figure is suggested [Zaykov et al., 1999a, p. 193]. However, I have never written anything similar about Sintashta metallurgy. The loss of metal in slag after Sintashta smelting operations varied within the limits of 2-3%, sometimes even less. I have written about high metal loss in some other Late Bronze Age metallurgical centres, for example up to 2040%, but losses of about 90% of metal seem to me fanciful. Therefore the actual volumes of copper mined here are not at all clear. 80 ing of metal scrap. To an even greater extent this would cloud the picture. The conclusion about the artificial nature of arsenic bronzes in the Transurals allows us to formulate a theory as to the initial impulse that resulted in the formation of Abashevo and Sintashta metallurgy. In previous periods metallurgical technology in the Transurals was virtually nonexistent. Amorphous things were very occasionally found in the Eneolithic layers of the Surtandi and Kisikul cultures. They were distinguished by their high chemical purity and were probably made of native copper [Matyushin, 1982, pp. 292, 293]. Neither Tashkovo metallurgy in Western Siberia, where traces of metalworking have been found, nor Vishnyovka metallurgy in Northern Kazakhstan could precede Sintashta production, as both would have to import metal from some oresmelting centre. Furthermore, the discovery in Tashkovo II of crucibles made by sticking a clay skirting onto a fragment of a ceramic vessel, pulls together the Tashkovo metal casting with that of the Early Bronze Age in the Konda basin in Western Siberia, where casting moulds or crucibles, similar in principle, have been found on settlements with comb-and-impressed ceramics [Vizgalov, 1988, pp. 50, 51]. The presence on Tashkovo II of small drops of tin bronze of the VK group puts Tashkovo metalworking chronologically later than Sintashta. The powerful metallurgical locus of the Pit-Grave and Poltavka cultures, being the north-eastern flank of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province, knew nothing of arsenic bronzes. Arsenic bronzes of Caucasian origin are present only in Pit-Grave burials of the North Pontic area [Chernikh, 1966, pp. 63, 126]. Single objects made of it found in the Western Urals are also apparently Caucasian imports [Orlovskaya, 1994, p. 112]. The metallurgy of the Volosovo and Garino cultures also differs by the absence of any ligatures, and it is characterised by its very poor range of objects and primitive technology [Kuzminikh, 1977, p. 34]. Only the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province, where arsenic alloys were dominant throughout the Middle Bronze Age, is probable as a zone whence the initial impulse for the development of this technology penetrated the Urals [Chernikh, 1988, p. 46]. More complex is the problem of precise localisation. Certain conclusions can be drawn from comparing the characteristics of metal from different zones of this province [Cernikh et al., 1991, p. 601] (Fig. 30). The Balkan-Carpathian region should be eliminated as a probable source for developments in the Urals: in this period pure copper prevailed there. Tin bronze occurs less frequently than pure copper, with arsenic bronze in a third position – although its quantity is comparable with tin bronzes. In Asia Minor there is a sharp predominance of arsenic bronzes, the proportion of tin bronze is rather high, which does not correspond to the parameters of Sintashta metallurgy. However, it must be noted that the figure for Asia Minor include a great number of artefacts from Troy [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 68], where the proportion of tin bronze is an unprecedented 62% [Treister, 1996, p. 206]. The data on Troy II shows an even higher percent of tin bronzes: 67%; and on the Troad: 75% [Yakar, 1985, pp. 27, 28]. From these numbers it would seem that outside the Troad tin bronzes were not so extensively distributed. In fact, they were diffused more widely in the period directly preceding Sintashta. However, we cannot discern a pattern of tin being more widespread in the west than in the east of Anatolia, where alloys with arsenic were more conventional. A similar situation is also to be observed in Mesopotamia, although the proportion of pure copper there is a little higher. It is much more likely that this region was a part of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province too, but a rather distinct part [Avilova, 1996, pp. 78, 80, 81]. The structure of metal in the south of Eastern Europe (Catacomb culture) is closest to Sintashta and Abashevo. Arsenic bronze was heavily dominant there, although there was a certain quantity of objects made of pure copper. However, smelting operations are absent from this region. Only the remelting of imported Caucasian metal took place, which is indicated by the composition of the metal and by burials accompanied by casting moulds. The situation is similar in North Caucasian culture, where it is based on metal brought from the Armenian Plateau [Chernikh, 1966, pp. 45-47, 87; Kubishev, 1991]. Mindful of the Sintashta-Abashevo tradition of alloying into ore not into metal, we are compelled to search for centres involved in the full range of metallurgical activity, not those which were just casting used metal. The only evidence of probable metallurgical activity in the North Pontic area is the discovery of numerous mortars for crushing ore in the latest level of the Mikhailovka settlement [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 343]. The metal from this level is alloyed with arsenic and finds typological parallels in the Caucasus [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, 81 p. 351; Chernikh, 1966, pp. 124-126]. As the sampling of Pit-Grave culture metal was treated together, and in the western area of distribution Caucasian arsenic bronzes have been identified, we can admit that all similar bronzes there are dated to this time. Very likely, it is necessary to think again about the chronology and distribution of metal at this time. Nevertheless, we should allow a considerable chronological gap between the Late Mikhailovka and Abashevo-Sintashta complexes, and turn our attention to other directions. It is also possible to search for the roots of Sintashta metallurgy in the Caucasus region, where arsenic bronze comprises most of the metal. A considerable proportion of tin bronze in the Transcaucasian series is connected with the large number of finds in Trialeti barrows, which relates to a later part of this period [Teneyshvili, 1993, pp. 6, 7; Gevorkyan, 1972]. Therefore, Transcaucasia is now the more likely option, because on slopes of the Great Caucasus range ore mining in the Middle Bronze Age has not yet been detected. It is only from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and the formation of the ‘Caucasian Metallurgical Province’ that mining appeared everywhere hereabouts and did so in prolific volumes [Bzhaniya, 1988; Chartolani, 1988; Abramishvili, 1988; Ismailov, Bakhshaliev, 1988; Gobedzhiashvili et al., 1988]. As with the initial area of Sintashta metallurgy, the origin might also lie in some region in or adjoining Anatolia (except for the Troad). We may also raise the thought that this impulse started from an area where tin bronze was used, but with a scarcity of tin alloy in the Urals, this technology could not be developed. In this case, the chemical composition of the Anatolian metal complex may be quite comparable with Sintashta. Two finds indicate possible Near Eastern parallels: a nickel bronze item found on Arkaim (1.1% Ni), and a lead wire from the settlement of Kuysak [Zaykov et al., 1999a, pp. 194, 195]. It is supposed that the earliest lead artefacts in the Near East are beads from Chattal Höyük and a bracelet from Yarim Tepe I [Müller-Karpe, 1990, p. 107]. However, there is information that the lead articles from Chattal Höyük were made of galena [Muhly, 1987], and it is possible, therefore, that the bracelet from Yarim Tepe was too. But no great confidence should be placed in this as the determination was conducted by emission spectral analysis. Nevertheless, from the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age it is possible to discuss quite confidently lead metallurgy in the Near East. Thus lead was frequently used as an alloy with copper: the famous Lion figurine from Uruk of the Jemdet Nasr period contains 9% lead. A similar alloy was often used in the 4th – 3rd millennia BC. [Müller-Karpe, 1990, p. 109]. A heightened lead content is present in copper objects from Kuşura B and Troy II in Anatolia [Yener et al., 1994, p. 378]. In other cases the rate of alloying with lead was also very high: a cylinder seal from the Early Bronze II complex of the Anatolian cemetery of Hassek Höyük contained 27.5% [Schmitt-Strecker et al., 1991]. In Mesopotamian sources it is often mentioned as an alloy [Riederer, 1991, p. 88]. At the same time, lead artefacts are known in the Near East. Three lead articles have been found in the Hassek Höyük cemetery [Schmitt-Strecker et al., 1991]. Copper artefacts with a high nickel content occur frequently in the Near East. The best known is the collection of copper artefacts from the Amuq F level, containing from 0.39 to 2.73%, and in exceptional cases up to 10% nickel. High nickel contents have been discovered by analysis of metal from such Anatolian sites as Hassek Höyük and Tepechik: in one ornament from Ikiztepe there was even 22.7%. Outside Anatolia similar objects are present in Susa, Habuba, Egypt, Luristan, Mohenjo Daro, and in the famous hoards of Kfar Monash and Nahal Mishmar in Israel [Tylecote, 1981, pp. 45, 50; Yener et al., 1994, p. 378; Schmitt-Strecker et al., 1991; Riederer, 1991, p. 89]. Such a broad distribution of metal enriched with nickel requires us to search for sources of similar copper, as there are no such deposits in Turkey or on Cyprus. It had been considered that high concentrations of nickel were a reliable sign of copper originating from Oman [Tylecote, 1981, p. 45]. However, the latest investigations have shown that in Oman similar ores were absent too [MüllerKarpe, 1990, pp. 107, 108]. It is probably more fruitful to discuss not copper ores containing nickel, but special alloys. Statistical examination of the results of chemical analysis of copper artefacts demonstrates that a nickel content of about 0.3% is the limit above which we may speak of artificial additions. In 15% of artefacts from Ur nickel exceeds 2%. In copper, nickel is always accompanied by increased concentrations of arsenic. Thus it is quite possible that alloys of minerals containing arsenic and nickel were used [Avilova et al., 1999, pp. 55, 56]. Investigation of metal from the Hassek Höyük settlement in Eastern Anatolia, where arsenic bronze 82 comprised 80% of metals, has shown a direct correlation between the nickel and arsenic contents. However, on copper ore fields minerals containing these elements occur frequently together [SchmittStrecker et al., 1992, pp. 110, 111]. Although the source of this copper is not clear, its parentage was southern or from somewhere with a similar way of alloying. The latter interpretation is to be preferred: if there are really no copper deposits with such a mixture of impurities in Anatolia, it is necessary to search for arsenic deposits containing nickel, because an Eastern Anatolian origin for these raw materials remains the most probable. The cultural situation in Northern Syria reinforces this theory. After the infiltration of Eastern Anatolian cultural components close to Maikop into this area (Amuq F), similar metal was found, and let us remember that it was typical also of Maikop itself. However, from the following phase (Amuq G), when a significant change of population took place there, it peters out [Yakar, 1984, p. 69]. Thus, because of the wide distribution of deposits containing nickel in the south, the presence of such impurities in our case indicates East Anatolian connections to a greater degree. Scholars suppose that arsenic bronze with a heightened nickel content was extracted from ore, but no source for this ore is known. The mapping of these finds has shown that they are located, above all, in the highlands of South-Eastern Anatolia, and in Oman, the Levant and Mesopotamia. The presence of this metal in the two last is explained by the pattern of trade, and in first two by the abundance of ore in ultrabasic rocks, where copper ore fields containing high admixtures of arsenic and nickel could also occur. Occasionally, a similar ore composition was determined by analyses from ancient Anatolian settlements [Alcin, 2000, p. 23; Hauptmann, Palmieri, 2000, pp. 76, 79, 80]. However, scanning Sintashta slag under an electron microscope has shown that in most cases a heightened arsenic content is accompanied by the presence of nickel, whilst in ore-bearing rock and ore these elements are missing. This unconditionally indicates the alloying of copper ore with a mineral containing arsenic and nickel. Sometimes copper ore with similar admixtures could have been used as a ligature too. Localisation of the majority of similar finds in the Near East within distribution zones of ultrabasic rock (also an identical situation to Sintashta), indicates rather a combination in both areas of two technological principles, smelting ores from ultrabasic rock and alloying them with minerals containing arsenic and nickel. Two small pieces of slag with high concentrations of tin from the Uzerliktepe settlement in Transcaucasia arouse a certain interest [Kushnaryova, 1965, p. 79]. Analysis of considerable collections of Late Bronze Age slag from the Eurasian Metallurgical Province has not yet had to deal with a similar phenomenon; it seems that alloying with tin was undertaken directly into the metal. Tin was obtained as a result of smelting tinstone at tin ore mines. Traces of similar smelting have been identified in the valley of River Kargi in Tuva [Popov, 1999, pp. 344, 345]. The case under consideration is an apparent archaism, testifying to the existence in Transcaucasia in a previous time of the tradition of arsenic alloying at the stage of ore smelting, which is identical to Sintashta technology. 3.4. Technology of metal production The characteristics of Abashevo and Sintashta smelting production are identical. Smelting took place on settlements. For Anatolia and the Levant this was characteristic up to the Late Bronze Age, which is identical to the Sintashta situation [Müller-Karpe A, 1994; Hauptmann, Palmieri, 2000, p. 76]. Ore was smelted in small domed furnaces 0.7-1 m in diameter (Fig. 34.2). An analogy to these furnaces is known on the Kura-Araxian settlement of BabaDervish [Makhmudov et al., 1968, pp. 17, 18]. Simple domed metallurgical furnaces have been investigated in the Early Bronze Age level of the settlement of Norşun-tepe. Furnaces of the late Uruk time on the settlement of Tüllintepe are dome-shaped too. A furnace of the 2nd millennium BC, excavated on the settlement of Tepechik, measured size 1.50.8 m, which is close to the largest furnaces of Sintashta time [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, pp. 23, 25, 90, 91]. On Sintashta fortified settlements these furnaces are often attached to wells covered by domes, connected with the furnaces by small channels (Figs. 34.4; 35). The difference in temperature between the well and furnace produced a natural draught, which was supplemented by the use of bellows. Thus, a tuyere was inserted at the level of the hearth 83 2 1 3 4 Fig. 34. Types of furnaces found in Sintashta settlements. 1, 3, 4 – Arkaim; 2 – Sintashta. bottom opposite the well. The further development of this type of furnace involved horizontal flues. This arose from the exploitation of secondary sulphide, whose use required the venting of gases (Fig. 34.1,4). These furnaces were multifunctional and were used both for metallurgy and other economic needs. However, specialised metal furnaces are also found on Sintashta settlements, apparently dating to the last phase of the culture (Fig. 34.3). They are more wide represented in Petrovka culture [Grigoriev, 1994, p. 18]. The furnaces found on the Anatolian Eneolithic settlement of Degirmentepe (5th – 4th millennia BC) were usually about 60 cm in diameter, although sometimes their length reached 1 m. A very interesting feature is the presence of channels joined to furnaces (Fig. 36). Their length could reach 1.2 m, with a width of 25 cm near the furnace and 10 cm at the other end, and a depth of 12 cm. It is supposed that these furnaces were used for metallurgical operations, but the purpose of the channels is not quite clear. They might have served to tap the slag or to blast air into the furnace. [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, pp. 17-19, Abb. 5, 6]. However, investigation of Anatolian slag of this time has revealed microstructures which show that the slag cooled down directly in the furnace [Lutz et al., 1991, pp. 64, 65]. By this parameter early Anatolian slag is similar to Sintashta slag. Furthermore, tapped slag cools quickly and would solidify immediately, blocking the beginning of this channel. Its use for blowing air into the furnace is not very likely either: it would be difficult to build up enough pressure to force air into the middle of the furnace in view the length of the channel and the greater size of the outlet than the inlet. Therefore it is more probable that these chan- 84 technique. From this it is easy to calculate that, on the basis of the ore mine of Vorovskaya Yama alone, about 100,000 smeltings were conducted! This, of course, destroyed the forests in areas of metallurgical operation. Subsequently, Petrovka metallurgy achieved higher temperatures by introducing the more productive two-sectioned bellows to obtain a constant blast. This was done with figure-of-eight furnaces, where one part was a furnace hearth and the second depression was used to house the bellows. Sintashta and Abashevo metalworking was based on casting into open moulds, with subsequent elaboration by forging. In contrast, axes were cast into bi-fold moulds, which, as already indicated, is comparable with the Caucasian and Eastern European production traditions of the Middle Bronze Age [Korenevskii, 1983, pp. 99, 100]. Archaeo-metallurgical investigations of Sintashta spearheads have been not carried out, but analysis of a similar spearhead from the somewhat later Kondrashkinskiy barrow in the Don area has revealed the great complexity behind the manufacture of similar articles [Degtyaryova et al., 1998, pp. 86, 88]. They were made from a previously cast plate of sub-triangular form, with the socket subsequently rolled up, the two edges of the plate welded, the edge parts mashed on an anvil, grooved to obtain a reinforcing rib by constant annealing, the temperature varied dependent on the particular operation. On Anatolian settlements closed casting technologies were used. As a rule, simple articles (bars, knives, adzes, simple spearheads) were cast in open moulds, and axes and some ornaments in closed moulds [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, pp. 140, 143-146]. Thus, the Sintashta-Abashevo technology of both metallurgy and metalworking has parallels in the traditions of the Middle Bronze Age. In the Petrovka culture completely different practices had already appeared, which permit us to attribute it, as well as the Seima-Turbino sites, to the Late Bronze Age. It is possible that the tradition of using ore from ultrabasic rocks indicates a southern origin to the Sintashta group too. The exploitation of similar ores is infrequent: in Northern Eurasia it is known, with rare exceptions, only on Sintashta settlements. However, in Eastern Anatolia, where such ores are very characteristic, it was common enough [Seeliger et al., 1985, pp. 629-631; Tylecote, 1981, p. 41; Palmieri, 1993, 1993, p. 586]. Fig. 35. Furnace. nels served as horizontal flues. A further possible indication of this is that they terminated near the walls of dwellings. Probably, the hot gases passing through the flue heated the dwelling, as at Arkaim. However, analysis of slag from the settlement of Degirmentepe shows that it was very likely to be ceramic slag and that the furnaces were not connected with metal production [Yalcin, 2000, p. 22]. This is not of particular importance for us: Sintashta ovens were not specialised metal furnaces. It is simply an important typological resemblance; in Northern Eurasia similar constructions were unknown. Among finds connected with Sintashta metallurgical production, cylindrical, frequently conical ceramic tuyeres are quite common (Fig. 26.3,4). Analogies to them are known on Anatolian settlements (Fig. 27.6,7) [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, Taf. 3]. Sintashta metallurgists used malachite and subsequently also secondary sulphides mined from serpentinous ultrabasic rocks. The ore, 0.5-1 kg in bulk, was crushed into small pieces, filled into a birch bark vessel (Sintashta) [Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1995, p. 153] or a smelting cup (Balanbash) [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 85], and used together with charcoal to charge the furnace. There is a very interesting resemblance between Balanbash smelting cups and ritual cups of Catacomb culture, although the latter had no relationship to metallurgical production. Smelting was conducted in reducing conditions, and then the furnace was slowly cooled down. The ingot obtained weighed 50-130 g, which was more than enough for manufacturing articles by the lamellar 85 Fig. 36. Metallurgical furnaces of the Anatolian settlement of Degirmentepe: 1 – furnaces 1, 2 (a – plan, b – cross section); 2 – furnace 4 (a – plan, b – cross section). the ceramic complexes here contained an admixture of talcum, typical of the Transurals, but more often crushed shells were used, more typical of the Volga area [Salugina, 1994]. Analysis of the Sintashta ceramic complex is, of course, a subject for special research. However, already at this stage it is possible to describe its main components. 1. One of the most widespread forms is vaseshaped vessels with a rather broad bottom, smoothly profiled body and pronounced swollen shoulder. Within this are variations in the height of the shoulders, the ratio between their diameter and the height of the vessel (i.e. the rate of bulge), and the curvature of rim; also the presence or absence of an internal rib on the inner side of the rim. Some vessels 3.5. Ceramics Sintashta ceramics are clearly distinguished from other Bronze Age types. Despite external variations, they fall within a definite framework, uniform and constant for all areas. The separate sites in the Transurals and the Volga region differ only by the ratio of types or by the inclusions of different alien components. Most significant and constant is the form of the ware, which is directly connected with the technology of manufacture [Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1990, pp. 140-143]. The ornamentation and the composition of the clay show greater variation. The latter was caused mainly by the location of a particular site. In some areas, for example the Volga region, this is negligible [Mochalov, 1996]. Clay from 86 seem to be somewhat angular because of an applied cordon on the smooth profile at its broadest part. This is not just ornamental detail, but also technological. A groove, a result of compacting the clay to create binding bands during the fabrication of the vessel, is sometimes placed under the cordon. This points to the initial technological nature of grooves (Fig. 37.6-8,14,17). We should note that this technique has also been identified in the ceramics of the Transural Neolithic Boborikino culture, separated from Sintashta by a huge time interval [Kerner, 1999, p. 25].1 Similar ware is very representative of Sintashta sites, and I consider it as a basis or prototype for some other forms development. 2. Another type, probably a little later in date, is represented by pots with a smooth profile and more elongated proportions. It approximates to a closed jar, but has a very short neck and a rim curving slightly, sometimes with an internal rib (Fig. 37.11). 3. Rather widespread are angular pots with an elevated rib on the body or expressed ledge (Fig. 37.4). 4. A relatively late form is the angular pot with a three-fold profile and biconical body. Basically, a similar form of ware could have appeared at the early phase of the culture, but it was widely diffused, especially later (Fig. 37.2,9). 5. A special type is the smoothly profiled pot with narrowed bottom and raised ring base. Some examples have a small rib-ledge at the transition from the shoulder to the neck. The neck is either broad or narrowed. These pots are very peculiar and have decoration of a type rare on other ware: treble vertical zigzags or swastikas on the body (Fig. 37.15, 16,18,19-21). An unornamented band on the neck becomes subsequently a standard feature of western Alakul culture [Rudkovskii, 1989, pp. 47-53]. A number of similar vessels is found in the Sintashta cemetery. Their diversity with more rich ornamentation, including oblique-hatched triangles, and their form, places them with later Fyodorovka culture ceramics. Apart from the Sintashta cemetery they occur in the Bolshekaraganskiy (near Arkaim) and Vlasovo cemeteries as well. Nevertheless, this ware is very rare and occurs only in socially significant or sacrificial complexes. It should be remarked that it is present in the Large Sintashta barrow. But this conclusion needs to be treated cautiously as there are facts which contradict it. In the cemetery at Nikiforovskoye Lestnichestvo in the Western Urals a vessel of this type has been found in a child burial [Vasiliev, Pryakhin, 1979, p. 150]. To the west, examples of this type are known among the early materials of the Razdorskoye settlement on the Lower Don [Rogudeev, 1997, fig. 1.2]. 6. Very small low angular cups with a rim curving sharply outwards, and an internal rib. Their body is short, biconical, with an arc-like lower part, tapering to a narrow, sometimes rounded bottom (Fig. 37.5,22). As a rule, they are very richly decorated and occur with relative infrequency in Sintashta complexes, but are rather typical of Abashevo of the Middle Volga, Don and Western Urals [Pryakhin, Besedin, 1998a]. 7. Very characteristic, especially of early and high complexes, are large storage jars with a narrowed bottom, broad, slightly closed neck, flat rim and smoothly curved profile (Fig. 38.1-7,9). 8. More characteristic of the late phase are Early Timber-Grave culture jars with a rib or rounded shoulder in the upper half of the vessel. 9. There are also small jars of different shapes, but these are not so characteristic (Fig. 37.10,12). I would like to emphasise that there are single cases of other types. Frequently these have not been technologically and typologically elaborated, so it is impossible to be certain whether they were developed here or were the result of borrowing. All forms vary somewhat. In particular, some types of jar, with all the details, form and ornament of a particular type, may additionally have a small rim. From a formal standpoint we cannot attribute them to the particular class of ware. Such circumstances can complicate analysis of Sintashta ware and require the development of special methods for studying it. Some of these forms are typically Sintashta, but in others features of the Multi-Cordoned Ware and Catacomb cultures (first of all from the Middle Don) are inferred. However, these are seldom distinct, and these objects have been included en bloc in the Sintashta ceramic complex. In addition to what we may designate as Sintashta ceramics, there are groups of pottery obviously alien. Often, especially in complexes of the high phase, there is Poltavka ware (Fig. 37.1,3), both ‘pure’ and transformed. The situation in barrow 24 of the Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery is a good illus- 1 The similarity is probably caused by the common southern origins of the cultures. 87 1 2 3 4 6 8 7 5 9 10 13 14 11 12 15 19 16 17 20 21 18 22 Fig. 37. Ceramics of Sintashta culture. 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 5, 6, 8, 9, 16-19, 21, 22 – Sintashta cemetery; 12 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 14 – Arkaim. 88 tration: in the southern part Poltavka ceramic complexes are very typical; to the north they start to be enriched by Sintashta features. Furthermore, burials with such ceramics encircle a central burial pit, furnished with typical Sintashta ceramics. This reinforces our view that Poltavka ware was not the genetic ancestor of Sintashta forms. Strong differences are also found between Poltavka and Potapovka ceramics, the latter very close to Sintashta ware [Mochalov, 1996a]. In the early and high phases there is also Catacomb culture ware and ceramics comparable with those of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. However, somewhat later these differences diminish in the process of formation of the Petrovka and Early Timber-Grave ceramic complexes, which are derivative of Sintashta. The ornamentation is standard enough: decoration was by incision and comb-stamping; less common (in Poltavka-like series) are cord impressions or shell-stamping. Channelled ornamentation, applied cordons and knobs are very typical; sometimes channels are present on the interior of the rim. The most widespread decoration is a horizontal herringbone design, disjointed sometimes by vertical lines and always executed on the body of the vessel. Zigzags, made occasionally as zigzag-shaped bands, and isosceles triangles are rather characteristic. The equilateral zigzag was the basis of modular ornamental compositions [Rudkovskii, 1987, pp. 49-52]. Other types of module occur infrequently, and oblique triangles (with an angle of more than 90°) are present rarely on ware of the proto-Fyodorovka type. The triangles were made using the same modules by hatching from either above or below, by a principle of positive – negative conversion [Rudkovskii, 1987, p. 55]. Straight lines or grooves were used for separation. There are wavy lines and semicircles, meanders, pyramids and lozenges. Short oblique or straight lines made on the borders of decorations, often forming regularly alternating groups, are used too. Small triangular or semicircular impressions are present. Occasionally at the bottom of vessels frets, swastikas, less-often concentric circles have been found. The three-fold zoning of decoration is predominant, although there are also other variants. This fairly standard set of motifs and the rather steady canon produce an impression of the integrity of the ceramic complex. Nevertheless, technological investigation demonstrates otherwise. Both in the Transurals and on the Volga there is much variation in the composition of the loam, how vessels were formed, different types of smoothing (treatment to form a smooth surface), etc. to testify to the different traditions of ceramic production by the populations who left the Sintashta ceramic complex [Salugina, 1994, pp. 175-179; Gutkov, 1995, pp. 137146; 1995a, pp. 132-134]. Besides, the evidence of technological change shown in different areas is very important for us. The varied composition of the loam is very indicative. In so-called Potapovka (or Sintashta) ware of the Volga area a very composite loam is formed by mixing clay with talcum and organic materials, which was typical enough for Sintashta in the Transurals, with the compound of clay plus crushed shells, chamotte and organic materials, which was characteristic of Poltavka ceramics. The high proportion of talcum in clay in the Sintashta mixture is peculiar to the Transurals, but has no roots in the Volga area, where talcum is absent. On this basis it has been concluded that the local population and newcomers from the East participated in the formation of the Potapovka type. Thereafter in ware with features of Early Timber-Grave culture local traditions of forming loam prevail [Salugina, 1994, pp. 177, 178]. In the Transurals the mixture of clay and talcum was originally dominant, but alongside it there was a quantity clay plus talcum and chamotte or clay plus chamotte [Gutkov, 1995a, p. 132]. This indicates that the population of the Transurals was not originally homogeneous. Subsequently the balance changes, with evidence of the clay – talcum combination falling and that of the other two increasing: this confirms the mixing of different populations. In Petrovka ceramics a greater mixing of different traditions can be observed, including those of forming loam compounds, which is explained by its later date. This allows us to regard Petrovka ceramics as derivative from those of Sintashta [Gutkov, 1995a, p. 133, 134]. From this description we can draw a conclusion that the formation of Potapovka-type sites in the Volga area proceeded from the participation of the Sintashta population from the Transurals, at a sufficiently early phase of Sintashta for the predominant tradition to be the clay plus talcum compound. Petrovka pottery tradition arose from the contact of Sintashta traditions with some non-Sintashta component in the high period of Sintashta culture. It is possible to explain this by the formation of Sintashta in the Transurals as being based on the interplay of 89 2 1 4 6 3 5 7 9 8 Fig. 38. Ceramics from the cemetery and settlement of Sintashta. 90 Fig. 39. Scheme of vessel making. tures of the Transurals, which allows us to interpret it as alien there too. This technological tradition is directly connected with conical-shaped bodies of Sintashta ware. Experimental investigations have shown that, with a less conical body, the vessel’s bottom curved and burst when it was removed from the base [Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1990, p. 141]. This connection refutes statements that Sintashta and Petrovka ceramic complexes arose on an existing local base [Logvin, 1995; Logvin, Kalieva, 1986, pp. 75, 76]; as we can see the technology and forms of Sintashta pottery were introduced together. The same conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the textiles that were wrapped around these bases, and whose impress is sometimes preserved on the internal surface of the vessel. Study of these impressions shows that the textiles were made of vegetable threads [Kuznetsova, 1997]. The replacement of non-woven textiles by part-woven textiles occurs suddenly, without any transitional stages of technological development. In the previous period similar textiles were unknown in the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eurasia. This has allowed the conclusion that this technology was linked with some far distant southern centre. It is worthy of comment that in the middle of the 17th century BC the same processes also took place in Hungary [Chernai, 1985, pp. 104-109]. T.N. Glushkova indicates that textiles from the Transurals have analogies in Central Asia Poltavka and Abashevo populations. Then a part of this new formation breaks away and returns, leaving such sites as the Utyovka VI cemetery [Kuznetsov, 1996c, p. 43]. But Sintashta loam compounds cannot be traced in the ceramic traditions of the Volga area at all. It is much more likely that the reverse process took place – whereby Potapovka pottery production was formed under the influence of Sintashta. Moreover, the situation with the loam compounds is duplicated by careful statistical comparison of the forms and decorations of Sintashta and Potapovka ware, carried out by O.D. Mochalov [Mochalov, 1999]. This has shown such a high degree of similarity between Potapovka and Sintashta ceramics that it is possible to regard them as monocultural. Moreover, there is sometimes a greater resemblance between the ceramics of particular Sintashta and Potapovka sites than between those of different sites within each of these groups. One important Sintashta feature, subsequently a feature of Petrovka ware, is the forming of a hollow body on a solid base (Fig. 39). It was long thought, and subsequently revealed to be so, that other pottery vessels were used as such a base. In Potapovka ceramics this practice has been identified too and is taken as evidence of an alien Eastern component because it had no roots in this area [Krivtsova-Grakova, 1947a, p. 143; Salugina, 1994, p. 178; Gutkov, 1995a, p. 133; Vinogradov, Mukhina, 1985, pp. 8084]. However, it is also unknown in previous cul- 91 and the Caucasus, where they left impressions on ceramic materials too [Glushkova, 1999, p. 67]. For Transcaucasia the tradition of forming pottery on a textile-covered base was well established: it has been identified on the Eneolithic settlement of Tekhut [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 41]. However, in the Early and Middle Bronze Age steppe cultures of Eastern Europe and the Northern Caucasus textile articles are known well enough. They were made, like the textiles of Sintashta and Petrovka cultures, on a loom whose type cannot be authenticated [Orfinskaya et al., 1999, pp. 90-93]. It is possible to guess that the Sintashta people used a horizontal loom, because no loom weights (necessary for pulling threads in vertical looms) have been found on Sintashta sites. The same conclusion had already been made for the Bronze Age cultures of Eastern Europe, where vertical looms appeared only in Late Scythian times [Polidovich, Polidovich, 1999, p. 219]. In contrast, vertical looms were apparently used in the Near East, where finds of loom weights are common. In the Middle Bronze Age levels of the settlement of Demircihöyük in North-Western Anatolia, alongside stone and ceramic spindle-whorls, numerous loom weights have been found, enabling us to reconstruct the use of vertical looms [Kull, 1988, pp. 197, 198, 200-203]. Similar weights have been found in Mersin (levels XI-IX) in the south of Central Anatolia, where Western Anatolian influences spread [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 292.12.13]. Taking into account the number of Near Eastern parallels in Sintashta culture, there are two possible explanations for the absence of looms of this type: that men were the predominant participants in this migration; and that weaving technology was already known in Transcaucasia or Eastern Europe. We should eliminate Central and Western Anatolia from the regions whence the people who formed Sintashta culture could have migrated, and concentrate on Eastern Anatolia. However, in the Kura-Araxian settlement of Mingechaur stone weights have been found too [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 78]. It is most probable that they were used not in fishery but to tension threads in a loom, although it is not possible to confirm this. Therefore, the problem of parallels to Sintashta weaving technology requires additional research and can be solved only on a very broad background. Petrovka ceramics was formed on a Sintashta base. There is already no basis for Zdanovich’s suggestion about the participation of a Vishnyovka com- ponent in the formation of Petrovka [Zdanovich, 1973, p. 40]. Compared with Sintashta, the Petrovka ceramic tradition has a smaller number of forms and patterns (Fig. 49.8-10). The predominant forms are the angular pot with biconical body and outcurved rim without internal rib, as well as the jar-like pot with small ledge and simple jars. Decoration comprises horizontal lines, zigzags, triangles and tip impressions. The ‘stepping’ combed impressions are widespread; occasionally there are wavy lines. Other motifs are rather rare [Zdanovich, 1973, pp. 26-28; 1988, pp. 160, 161]. The presence of ledges and ‘stepping’ combed impressions testifies to the influence of Poltavka culture ceramics. This may be confirmed also by the presence of crushed shells in the clay, which was not typical of Sintashta and Vishnyovka in the period prior to Petrovka culture in Northern Kazakhstan [Zdanovich, 1973, pp. 25, 26]. The situation regarding the formation of the Sintashta ceramic complex itself is a little more complicated. I basically agree with the idea that Sintashta and Abashevo pottery traditions have no prototypes in the Volga-Ural region [Mochalov, 1995, pp. 130, 131]. However, separate Don-Volga components, especially in the high phase, have been included in Sintashta pottery. This circumstance, as well as the need to understand the ethno-cultural situation within the framework of a much broader area, forces us to turn to contemporary material from neighbouring regions. The characteristics of the ceramics of the DonVolga Abashevo culture do not differ greatly from those in Sintashta (Fig. 45.15,16,18). The main forms of ware here are smoothly profiled pots with outcurved rim, jars and also small biconical angular cups with a sharply outcurved rim, and an internal rib, typical of all Abashevo complexes. Decoration of the Don-Volga Abashevo is not so expressed as in Sintashta. Among the ceramics of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture there are only two types of ware comparable with Sintashta vessels: small angular cups, which occur here much more often (Fig. 45.8), and smoothly profiled pots with outcurved rim, represented on the Middle Volga by single finds. Other types of Middle Volga ware (bell-like pots with outcurved rim and swollen body, bell-like bowls, cylindrical jars) are sharply distinct from Don Abashevo and Sintashta ceramics (Fig. 45.8-11). Despite these types having been well described long ago, different 92 writers either accept or reject their connection with Fatyanovo and the Balanovo ceramic complex [Smirnov, 1961, p. 16; Merpert, 1961, pp. 152 153; Kuzmina O., 1992, pp. 11-15, 48; Efimenko, 1961, pp. 67, 70-79, 85-87; Khalikov, 1961, pp. 213-215, 220]. Abashevo in the Western Urals demonstrates the greatest diversity of forms (Fig. 45.12-14,17). These include all types intrinsic to Abashevo sites of other areas and the types most characteristic of Sintashta culture in the Transurals. Pit-Grave and Poltavka cemeteries in the VolgaUral region show very few similarities with Sintashta and Abashevo ware (Fig. 137.15,16,18). In the burial complexes of the Transurals, ware with Poltavka culture features is rather rapidly suppressed by the proper Sintashta tradition, and by the time that Poltavka and transformed Poltavka ware appeared here, the Sintashta type was already in existence. I am inclined to regard pots with a rib-ledge, typical of Poltavka and Late Catacomb ceramic complexes of the Volga and Don areas, as a steady and widespread Eastern European inclusion in Sintashta ceramics. The synthesis of this form and Sintashta ware results in the appearance of angular pots with a threefold profile and biconical body, as well as pots with a ledge, typical of the area at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. It is possible, however, that the source for Late Bronze Age ware with a ledged shoulder was not Poltavka ceramics but those inclusions in the Sintashta ceramic complex which I have designated as proto-Fyodorovka. Some types of jar also originated from the Volga-Ural region. Thus occurred a mutual intertwining of Sintashta and Eastern European ceramic traditions and the transformation of Sintashta culture into Early TimberGrave and Petrovka, the border between them being the interfluve of the Ural and Tobol rivers. However, returning to comparability of Sintashta and Eastern European ware, it should be noted that there is no complete identity of separate Sintashta vessels with Poltavka or Middle Don Catacomb ware, and the ware with rib-ledges is obviously different. It is necessary to distinguish in this ware very important but single examples, represented by vessels with zigzag or horizontal herringbone design, executed by small-sized comb-stamping, which is characteristic for the Pavlovsk phase of Catacomb culture on the Middle Don [Botalov et al., 1996, fig. 2.12; Gening et al., 1992, fig. 103.5; Sinyuk, 1996, figs. 23.5, 26.6]. This ware did not influence the nature of Sintashta ceramics, but it provides a chronological benchmark. However, Sintashta ceramics finds its greatest parallels in the second phase of the Middle Don Catacomb culture, where applied cordons and knobs are characteristic [Sinyuk, 1996, pp. 93, 129]. Sintashta ware shows a considerable resemblance to that of the Multi-Cordoned Ware culture (KMK). In KMK the vessels with a three-fold profile, swollen shoulder and funnel-like neck are widespread. The general proportions differ from those in Sintashta because, in KMK vessels, the greatest widening of the body is in the middle of the vessel. The main types of ornament are similar too, but their combination is somewhat different. The difference is reinforced by cordoned decoration, which is very typical to KMK. Sintashta pottery vessels show the greatest resemblance to the eastern variant of KMK on the Severskiy Donets and Middle Dnieper. Further limited parallels can also be found with the Kamenka-Liventsovka group. Further to the west the resemblance decreases, as vessel profiles become smoother, but that is probably because of the later date of these sites [Sharafutdinova, 1995]. The similarity of the eastern ceramic complex may be explained only by its related base and a similar mechanism of formation. The distinctions between them are nevertheless appreciable enough. Furthermore, many types of ware and the general ornamental scheme differ. For these reasons, allowing for the participation of small KMK groups in the formation of the Sintashta-Abashevo phenomenon, we cannot connect the origins of Sintashta wholly with KMK. The signs of limited participation are presence in Sintashta ware of vertical herringbone patterns, separated by vertical incised lines, the earlier stratigraphic position of KMK in the Don region than that of Abashevo antiquities, occurrence of KMK ceramics on floors of quite early Abashevo dwellings and in complexes with Sintashta features in the Don basin, the presence of bone buckles up to the forest-steppe part of the Volga regions, and the presence of one KMK burial in the Potapovka cemetery [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 14-28; Vasiliev et al., 1994, pp. 28, 148; Sinyuk, Kozmirchuk, 1995, pp. 47, 62; Petrov, 1983, pp. 118-122]. But I should like to re-emphasise that any such influence, if it occurred, was very limited and left Sintashta culture in the Transurals almost untouched. Some alien inclusions in Sintashta ceramic complexes have analogies in the transitional Pit-GraveCatacomb and Catacomb cemeteries of the Middle 93 Don, Azov and Volga areas [Pogorelov, 1989, pp. 113, 117, 120; Lopatin, Malov, 1988, p. 132; Ozerov, Bespaliy, 1987, p. 162; Pryakhin, Zibin, 1986, p. 59]; on the Middle Don this material is dated to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC [Pogorelov, 1989, p. 123]. These inclusions testify to the participation of some Catacomb groups in migrations to the Southern Urals, but do not bring us near to the solution of how the main types comprising the Abashevo-Sintashta ceramic complex appeared. Unexpectedly, we discover prototypes of Sintashta ware in Northern Syria, at Halava and other settlements, in Middle Bronze Age levels, where the principal forms are small pots with expressed shoulders and outcurved rim (Fig. 40.5,6,8), and large pots with smoothly profiled swollen body and outcurved rim (Fig. 40.15-20). In levels of this time in Hama, Tell Mardikh (Ebla) and other fortified settlements of Northern Syria similar ware occurs quite frequently [Ortmann, 1985, pp. 69, 80, 81; Suleyman, 1983, p. 119; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 248 B 15, C 16, 249 A 16, 250.12]. Comb-stamped decorations, grooves (including on the rim), and wavy lines are characteristic of this ware. Similar ceramics were distributed beyond in Syria. They were found at Tell Nagila in Southern Palestine, and it is possible to see similar ware with channelled decoration (including channels on the interior of the rim) in the Museum of Israel and in the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. They differ sharply enough from other collections of material from this time. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age paintings appear alongside channels on ware of this type. In addition, ceramics of this type occur in layers of Tell Nagila, formed on the ruins of a Middle Bronze Age settlement. Abashevo jars with vertical sides arouse a certain interest (Fig. 45.11). Basically similar forms occur in various Near Eastern ceramic complexes, although jars with concave internal sides are more characteristic of the Near East (Fig. 40.12). In particular, they are found in the Early Bronze Age level of the Eastern Anatolian settlement of Arslantepe [Conti, Persiani, 1993, fig 7.1,2,3; Palmieri, 1981, fig. 7.6,8]. The form is not generally characteristic of Abashevo, but a vessel whose sides are concave inside has been found on the cemetery of Algashi (Fig. 45.12) [Kuzmina O., 1999, fig. 11.2]. Bowls, which could serve as prototypes to some Abashevo cups (Fig. 45.9), are extremely widespread in the Near East and Anatolia. Sometimes similar ware has a handle. Such forms are found in Emporio on Chios in levels relating to periods IX-II (which correspond to Kum-Tepe, Troy I – early Troy II) [Hood, 1981, figs. 170, 171, 222]. Similar ware occurs also in Amuq E [Parzinger, 1993, Taf. 187]. In Syria, alongside ware close to the small low angular cups of Abashevo and Sintashta cultures, objects of similar form but larger size are known. The presence on the bottom of this ware of concentric circles is worthy of comment, because this is also found in Abashevo ceramics [Feyter, 1989, fig. 3.6]. This ceramic tradition in Syria may be traced back to the period Early Bronze II, when there were pedestalled cups with a vertical rim (Tell Mardikh II B 1) [Loon, 1985, p. 55]. Starting from Early Bronze IV in Palestine and Anatolian Early Bronze IIIA (Troy II, Akkadian period of Mesopotamia), grooved ware is represented here by different forms: pedestalled cups with a vertical rim, bellied pots with outcurved rim, and jars [Ortmann, 1985; Suleyman, 1983; Loon, 1985]. From the same time it has combstamped decoration. As a rule, Syrian ceramics are less richly ornamented than Sintashta; wavy lines, present on Sintashta vessels, are rather typical of it [Mattiae, 1977, fig. 37]. In the levels of fortified settlements ceramics with comb-stamped ornamentation tend to increase from 4% in Hama J5 (period Troy II) to 8% in the level J4 (period Troy III) and to 13% in level J3 (period Troy IV) [Loon, 1985, p. 56]. Later its quantity increases even more. The ceramic complexes of Tell Umm Hamad Esh Sherki in the Jordan valley are less close to Sintashta materials. Among them there is ware with cordons and impressions on cordons, as well as pots with outcurved rim and internal rib. More interesting for us is the presence of large closed jars whose rims curve slightly inwards [The Jordan Valley, 1992, pl. 25-30]. These differ from those in Sintashta and are rather closer to some Caucasian types. However, in Northern Syria there are forms quite comparable with large Sintashta storage jars [Dornemann, 1992, fig. 16.6] (Fig. 40.1,2,4). As a matter of fact, a tradition of cordoned ornament was widespread in the Transcaucasian – Near Eastern region. In particular, cordons are present on ware from the dolmens of the Western Caucasus. But in this case southern parentage is more than probable because the dolmen tradition had Mediterranean roots [Markovin, 1997, figs. 25.5, 26.36, 94 2 1 5 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 Fig. 40. Analogies to the Sintashta ceramics in the Caucasian and Near Eastern cultures. 1-4 – Tell Hadidi-Azu; 5, 6, 15, 17, 18 – Tell Mardikh; 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 – Uzerliktepe; 8, 16, 19, 20 – Hama; 11, 12 – Yanik Tepe. 95 41.9.10, 108.12, pp. 335-337]. The cordons below the rim and on the shoulder of vessels are rather characteristic also of the Early Bronze Age ceramic complex of the Velikent settlement in Dagestan [Gadzhiev, 1991, figs. 23, 24]. Ceramics with a cordon on the rim, found in Transcaucasia on the ToyreTepe settlement of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture and on the Neolithic Choh settlement in Dagestan, are dated much earlier [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, pp. 34, 36; Gadzhiev, 1991, fig. 19.4]. Ware with cordon decoration is known also in North-Western Anatolia, in the Early Bronze II level of the Demircihöyük settlement [Efe, 1988, Taf. 52. 4-6]. In Eastern Anatolia cordoned ware with notches and impressions was detected in the Eneolithic level of the Tüllintepe settlement and in the Late Eneolithic level of the Çayboyu settlement [Esin, 1993; Aksay, Diamant, 1973, fig. 4.11-21]. However, despite the number of parallels which Sintashta ceramics have in Anatolia, the general nature of the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age ceramic complex is different. On archaeological sites in Western and Eastern Anatolia dated to this period, completely different ceramic forms occur [see Di Nocera, 1993; Kull, 1988, pp. 134-179]. The forms of ware in Northern Syria conform more. Thus, the most obvious prototypes to the Sintashta-Abashevo ceramic tradition are the forms of ware widespread in Syria in the Early and Middle Bronze Age. It is necessary to note, however, that Syrian forms comparable with Sintashta ware are frequently represented by wheel-made examples, although in the Museum of Israel there is also similar hand-made ware. There are two possible explanations for this: pottery manufactured in Syria-Palestine was inspired by hand-made ware from some neighbouring area, or the degradation of the wheelmade pottery tradition in Northern Eurasia. In Russian archaeology it is a widespread opinion that all Near Eastern pottery was formed on a potter’s wheel, which sharply distinguishes it from the ceramics of the Eurasian steppe zone. This opinion is without foundation. In Anatolia, for example, traditions of manufacturing on a wheel were most widespread in the west and south-west. However, in this area pottery traditions were not very well developed in the Middle Bronze Age. Analysis of ceramics on the Demircihöyük settlement has shown that potters made wide use of clay compounds, typical of the hand-made process: different types of crushed stone, sand, chamotte, lime, mica and chopped straw. Ware was formed on a slowly rotated wheel, followed by smoothing and slipping [Kull, 1988, pp. 104109, 120-124]. In Early Bronze II wheel-made pottery was produced only in Cilicia and Troy II; in other areas it was hand-made [Mellaart, 1971, p. 395]. In Transcaucasia ware was hand-made throughout the Middle Bronze Age. In Eastern Anatolia examination of levels of the late 3rd millennium BC on the Aşvan Kale settlement has detected entirely handmade ware [French, Helms, 1973, p. 158]; also in levels XV-XIII in Beyçesultan [Lloyd, Mellaart, 1957, p. 33]. More hypothetical are Syrian parallels for very unusual Sintashta jars, represented in Sintashta complexes by single finds and having no analogies in steppe Eurasia [Kostyukov et al., 1995, fig. 29.12; Botalov et al., 1996, fig. 19.7]. They have a beakerlike form, narrow bottom, raised ring base and rather thin sides (Fig. 37.12), and seem to be a foreign inclusion in the ceramic complex. In North-Western Syria in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC there was a culture characterised by jar-like beakers on a ring base. Usually these have thin sides, are channelled, and wheel-made; they have more elongated proportions than the ceramics described above. The ethnic identity of these beaker manufacturers is clear from the archives of Ebla: they were western Semites. However, with the appearance of a new population in about 2000 BC, the beaker culture vanished, and beakers were fundamentally transformed [Suleyman, 1982]. A unique design for steppe Eurasia – the lower part of one vessel from the fortified settlement of Arkaim, executed with clearly expressed slanting sides – has southern parallels too [Zdanovich, 1995, fig. 6.22] (Fig. 37.14). A similar design is typical enough for many Iranian cultures of the Bronze Age, in particular, for the Sumbar culture, the BactroMargianan archaeological complex, etc. [see Sarianidi, 1977; Khlopin, 1983]. In the Caucasus similar forms are unknown. The earliest examples with such a design are present in ceramic complexes of the Yarim Tepe I settlement in Northern Mesopotamia, in levels of the Hassuna time. This material is accompanied by ware with a more rounded body – consequently rather close to the early Maikop ceramics of the Northern Caucasus [see Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, figs. 19, 30, 32]. This indicates only the great antiquity of such ceramics in Northern Mesopotamia, because the enormous chronological gap with Maikop and (even more) Sintashta means 96 that this example cannot be used as a direct analogy. However, parallels with ceramics of the BactroMargianan archaeological complex, taking into account the theory of its Syro-Anatolian roots (see Section 3 of Chapter 1 in Part II below), are quite correct. On the Malokizilskoye settlement of the Abashevo culture, but directly adjoining a zone over which Sintashta fortified settlements were distributed, a tulip-shaped vessel was found. Close forms are known on sites of North-Eastern Iran of the Middle Bronze Age [Stankevich, 1978, fig. 26.76A; Salnikov, 1967, fig. 3.5]. Some proximity to the forms of Sintashta ceramics is shown by a ceramic complex of the ProtoColchian culture in Western Georgia (Fig. 145.7) [Mikeladze, 1994, tab. 16.40-44], but the origins of Sintashta ware cannot be directly connected with these forms. I should like to point out again that direct analogies for the main types of Sintashta and Abashevo ware are known in Syria-Palestine. Nevertheless, the ornamentation allows us to use Transcaucasian materials. There have already been attempts in the literature to consider some Sintashta patterns as derivative of handles which occur, in particular, on the ceramics of Trialeti culture, as well as to compare the vertical treble zigzags of Sintashta beakers to the Cypriot ceramics from Vounous [Mochalov, 1996b, pp. 82-86]. The last parallel may be extended to a number of Transcaucasian items. Similar decoration, but made by painting, is present on ceramics from Kul-Tepe II levels of the second quarter of the 2 nd millennium BC [Aliev, 1972, fig. 2]. Beside common ornamental motifs (triangles, herringbone, zigzags, horizontal lines), Sintashta ornamentation shows a considerable convergence with Transcaucasian decoration of the Middle Bronze Age with respect to some specific motifs, which were not typical of the steppe and forest-steppe zones in the previous period: pendant multi-row semi-circles, made by the grooved technique and often filled with notches; channels with impressions; wavy lines, horizontal and vertical bands of lozenges, zigzag-shaped hatched bands, swastikas; an extremely infrequent zigzag executed on an oblique grid; chevrons; bands of groups of short vertical lines; nipple-shaped knobs. Special attention is to be paid to such a motif as the bisection of an empty field between zigzags and triangles, either by groups of vertical lines or by a short applied cordon. Its variations (vertical lines can be replaced by tri- angles of smaller sizes) are widespread on Transcaucasian Middle Bronze Age ware. It is possible that this motif may be traced to Kura-Araxian applied anthropomorphic images on ceramics and that its last, transformed descendant is the vertical herringbone pattern, split by a line, which is very typical of Sintashta and KMK vessels (Fig. 41). However, identical decoration is known on ware in levels XXIII-XXII of the settlement of Mersin in SouthEastern Anatolia, dated to the early Eneolithic [Yakar, 1991, fig. 62]. Thus, the source of this decoration is not entirely clear, but southern parentage of all these motifs is beyond doubt. In the Middle Bronze Age this ornamentation is represented to the greatest degree on ware of such Transcaucasian cultures as Proto-Colchian, Trialeti and Sevan-Uzerlik. Less frequently it occurs in the Karmirberd culture, although a comparison of separate motifs is, nevertheless, possible [see Gening et al., 1992; Kushnaryova, 1994; 1994b; 1994d; Dzhaparidze, 1994; Mikeladze, 1994; Munchaev, 1994]. It is necessary to connect the applied cordons on Sintashta ceramics to the Near East and Transcaucasia. In these areas different relief decoration has an old and widespread tradition, and horizontal cordons on the top of a vessel occur since at least the late Eneolithic [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. XLIII; Narimanov, 1987, fig. 35.5]. Pots with a cordon below the rim are found also in Eastern Anatolian late Eneolithic (Tilki-Tepe), which was one cultural circle contemporary to cultures in Transcaucasia [Korfmann, 1982, Abb. 8.5,6]. Bowls with a cordon are found on the BurhanHöyök settlement of this area’s Early Bronze Age [Karg, 1984, Abb. 31.13,14]. Cordons below the rim and channels on its inner side are present too on ware from the Munhaqua settlement in Syria and at other Syrian sites [Feyter, 1989, fig. 4, p. 254; Mattiae, 1977, fig. 40]. Another type of Sintashta relief decoration is represented by paired ‘bosses’ or nipple-shaped knobs, having parallels in Anatolia and neighbouring areas from the very early sites of the Early Bronze Age, in particular on ware from Emporio on Samos [see Hood, 1981]. Probably, they were diffused subsequently into Transcaucasia from Anatolia. At the excavations in Tepe Farukhabad, situated on the Dekh Luran plane in Western Iran, ware with cordons below the rim (moreover, often decorated with notches and impressions) was detected in all phases: Uruk, Jemdet Nasr, Early Dynastic [An 97 Fig. 41. Probable origin of the Sintashta herringbone decoration from the Transcaucasian anthropomorphic ornaments. 98 2 3 1 5 I 4 6 8 9 7 II 11 12 10 14 15 13 16 III Fig. 42. Different components of the Sintashta ceramic complex. I – Near Eastern forms; II – Transcaucasian forms; III – East European forms. 99 early town …, 1981, figs. 40 a, d; 41; 49, b; 52 a; 63, d, h, i, j; 86]. Transcaucasian parallels (middle and late levels of the Uzerliktepe settlement) are known also for the type of Sintashta ceramics that I have designated proto-Fyodorovka. It is the second ceramic group, represented by black-slipped pots with raised ring bases, narrow bottoms, and smooth profiling, although there are also small ledges. Decoration is made by comb-stamping. The basic elements are semi-circles, the single-row herringbone design, and vertical and horizontal zigzags [Kushnaryova, 1959, figs. 12, 13] (Figs. 40.7,9,10,13,14; 85.6,7). When analysing Sintashta ceramics white matter has been found in some cases, either filling impressions of comb stamping or on the surface of a vessel. I am inclined to consider this to be organic decay, although other ideas are probable too. Filling (or encrusting) comb impressions with white paste occurs in the Globular Amphorae culture, but this is separated from Sintashta by a considerable period of time [Sveshnikov, 1983, pp. 13, 15]. The parallels with Transcaucasia are more reasonable, where a similar way of encrusting ceramics has been found in the Khanlar complex, as well as on ware of the Sevan-Uzerlik group [Kushnaryova, 1994d, p. 122; Gummel, 1992]. Thus, Sintashta ornamentation, doubtless showing similarities with the ornamentation of KMK and the Catacomb culture of the Middle Don, has rather early analogies in Transcaucasia, in complexes of the Sevan-Uzerlik, Proto-Colchian and Trialeti cultures. To sum up, let us return to the forms of Sintashta ware. In my opinion, we may consider some as initially Near Eastern: types 1, 6 and 7. Types 3 and 9 are borrowings from Eastern Europe. It is necessary to search for sources of type 5 in some part of Eastern Transcaucasia. Types 2, 4 and 8 had already developed in the Volga-Ural region, being derivative from types described above (Fig. 42). 3.6. Clay and bone artefacts There are also diverse parallels obviously connecting Sintashta culture with the Circumpontic zone, in particular with its southern part, among them bone spindle-whorls in the form of a truncated cone with a central hole [Vasiliev et al., 1994, fig. 32; Gening et al., 1992, figs. 40, 57, 96; Botalov et al., 1996, fig. 9; Kostyukov et al., 1995, figs. 20, 22] (Fig. 43.9). For Northern Eurasia, where spindle-whorls made of potsherds dominated, such spindle-whorls are atypical. They are known, however, on later sites of Timber-Grave culture [Shendakov, 1969, pp. 238, 239]. Analogies have been found in Transcaucasia – in the cemetery of Arich of the Sevan-Uzerlik group of sites [Kushnaryova, 1994d, tab. 41] (Fig. 43.10). Earlier bone spindle-whorls of hemispherical shape are known in materials of the KuraAraxian culture [Munchaev, 1981, p. 38]. It is necessary to remark that the finds of spindle-whorls on Sintashta sites are single. In general, a similar situation is characteristic of sites of the Bronze Age of Northern Eurasia, apparently indicating the meagre development of weaving. Spindle-whorls become common on settlements of Scythian times in Eastern Europe [Polidovich, Polidovich, 1999, pp. 217, 218]. Spindle-whorls made from pieces of ceramics, infrequent on Sintashta sites, have parallels on the settlement of Demircihöyük, in North-Western Anastolia (Fig. 43.11,12) [Kull, 1988, pp. 208-210], however, the broad abundance of similar artefacts does not permit us to rest on this parallel. Another possible parallel is that of clay models of chariot wheels with an outside hub [Gening et al., 1992, fig. 41] (Fig. 43.6). Similar objects have been found in the Balanovo cemetery [Bader, Khalikov, 1987, fig. 40]. Models of carts occur in a number of cultures of the Circumpontic zone, but in Eastern Europe four-wheeled carts were widespread. In Balanovo these wheels lay in pairs, which has caused them to be viewed as evidence of a southern (steppe or Caucasian) influence on the Fatyanovo population [Kozhin, 1966]. Such an assumption is confirmed by the numerous finds of models of wheels with an outside hub on the settlement of Tell Hazna I in North-Eastern Syria [Munchaev, Merpert, 1997, p. 22]. Plenty of such finds have been obtained from another Syrian settlement, Hama, in levels H and J (Fig. 43.15,16) 100 3 4 5 6 2 1 10 14 9 7 8 11 12 16 15 13 17 Fig. 43. Bone and clay artefacts of Sintashta culture: 1, 2, 5 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 3 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 4, 6-9 – Sintashta. Analogies to bone and clay artefacts in the Caucasus and Near East: 10 – Arich; 11-13, 17 – Demircihöyük; 14 – Djemikent; 15, 16 – Hama. [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 247, 248]. They were diffused in the Northern Caucasus and Transcaucasia, starting with such Eneolithic sites as Kul-Tepe I, the Kura-Araxian culture of the Early Bronze Age, and the Sevan-Uzerlik group of sites of the Middle Bronze Age (Fig. 43.14) [Kushnaryova, 1959, fig. 20.6,7; Munchaev, 1981, p. 46; Abibulaev, 1959, fig. 14.10]. In Dagestan, clay models of wheels have been found on the settlement of Gemetyube II [Gadzhiev, 1991, fig. 60. 1,2]. In Anatolia a similar find was obtained in the late Eneolithic layer at Beyçesultan [Lloyd, Mellaart, 1962, fig. F.2.16]. Similar clay wheels with a hub have been discovered during excavation at Havtavan in North-Western Iran in levels VI C, B, which are dated to 2200- 1450 BC [Edwards, 1983, ix, fig. 17.3, 151.16]. Finally, there are the rather original bone spatulas found on Sintashta sites in the Transurals and Abashevo sites on the Don and in the Western Urals [Gening et al., 1992, p. 151; Gorbunov, 1986, p. 92; Kostyukov et al., 1995, p. 202; Moiseev, Efimov, 1995, p. 79; Sinyuk, Kozmirchuk, 1995, pp. 45, 57, 59] (Fig. 43.1). The most recent research has determined that they had a ceremonial nature, linked with cults of Agni, Indra or Haoma (Soma). Objects of a similar kind were used by the SavromatoSarmatian populations and had the same function [Kostyukov et al., 1995, p. 176; Fyodorov, 1992, pp. 80-113]. I do not know of early analogies to them. Probably, these objects are an ethnic indicator. 101 Chapter 4. Bone remains 4.1. Anthropology Anthropological data are very important for comprehending the processes underway at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Eurasian forest-steppe zone. Unfortunately, only a small series of material from the Volga area (Potapovka and Lopatinskiy cemeteries) has been published [Yablonskii, Khohlov, 1994], plus abstracts of the materials of Sintashta and Petrovka sites from the Aktyubinsk area in the western part of the Southern Urals [Khohlov, 1996]. With due regard for these deficiencies, it is possible, nevertheless, to speak tentatively about some trends. There are two initial components to the population whose remains lie in the Potapovka cemetery, but a large number of the skulls represent mixed anthropological types. A resemblance to some steppe series can be observed: the Pit-Grave and Catacomb people of the Ukraine, the Catacomb people of Kalmykia, as well as to the later Tazabagyab series from the Southern Aral area and the Timber-Grave series from the Volga forest-steppe region. Skulls of forest cultures (Shagarskaya, Fatyanovo, Abashevo) are wholly different from those in Potapovka. The connection of the Potapovka people with the Eneolithic Khvalinsk population is doubtful. The skulls from the Lopatinskiy cemetery are not yet comparable with any others, but I am not inclined to regard it as a cemetery of the Sintashta-Potapovka type. This evidence requires certain explanations. Skulls of Pit-Grave and Poltavka people from the Volga-Ural region were used in the compared series too. As there is nothing in the publication about their resemblance to the Potapovka collection, they were probably dissimilar, although not to such a degree as skulls from the cemeteries of the forest cultures. The lack of comparability of the Potapovka and Abashevo series is amazing, because the archaeological material is very similar. One explanation lies in the use for this comparison of a series of skulls from the Pepkino barrow, which have very specific features and are unlike other Abashevo materials [Shevchenko, 1986, p. 195]. In some respects these skulls are close to Fatyanovo and Balanovo materials, but nevertheless are distinct from them too. Analogies to the Pepkino series may be traced in western Corded Ware cultures [Antropologicheskiye tipi …, 1988, pp. 120-124]. Other Abashevo materials have close parallels in the PitGrave, Poltavka, Andronovo, Catacomb and North Caucasian series. So far, a scarcity of these materials has not allowed more concrete conclusions to be drawn [Shevchenko, 1986, p. 196]. Taking into account these limitations, let us note that the conclusion about the incomparability of the Potapovka and Abashevo series is real, at least for the Middle Volga Abashevo culture. No less complicated is the comparison with the Pit-Grave people of the Ukraine. The skulls of PitGrave culture within different areas are characterised by considerable variation [Shevchenko, 1986, pp. 145-161; Yablonskii, Khohlov, 1994a, pp. 145151]. Most investigators suppose a relationship of the Pit-Grave people with the Neolithic inhabitants of the Ukraine, as well as with the Eneolithic population of such sites as Khvalinsk – Sredniy Stog II. However, it is impossible to eliminate certain additional components, in particular the so-called ‘Mediterranean’. It is necessary also to take into account that even in the Lower Dnieper area of the Ukraine PitGrave people were very heterogeneous. From the publications it is difficult to understand the reason – perhaps the different dates of the material investigated within Pit-Grave culture, or some other cause. Similar problems arise also in the study of the Catacomb series. Despite these difficulties, A. Khohlov has concluded that the Potapovka craniological series gravitates more towards the steppe series of the VolgaUral region, and that there are some southern, ‘Mediterranean’ features in synchronic material from the Aktyubinsk area, which is comparable to the Caucasian series from the cemeteries of Ginchi, Samtauro, etc. In addition, skulls, usually female, are present in the Volga region and in the Western Urals – connected with ancient Ural populations [Khohlov, 1996, p. 117]. Southern Mediterranean features in Eastern Europe remain into the time of Timber-Grave culture [Khohlov, 1999, p. 229]. Perhaps, all of this testifies to the high level of mixing of populations in the course of cultural transformations. In such periods a local substratum could mix with neighbouring populations as well as with those from afar, resulting in local variations even within the frameworks of one culture. Unfortunately, 102 it is still rather difficult to work out how to solve this problem. We must apply anthropological evidence rather warily, and when there are firm foundations or some non-biological corroboration – for example the occurrence of deformed skulls in Catacomb culture, which is a custom with its roots in the Near East, Eastern Anatolia and on Kura-Araxian sites [Shevchenko, 1986, pp. 182-185]. 4.2. Structure of the herd Analysis of the structure of the Sintashta herd and its comparison with that of the bearers of other cultures has sometimes been hindered by the inequality of materials. In a number of cultures bone remains are known only in burial complexes. This does not provide the means to judge accurately the quantitative structure of the herd, although it does permit conclusions about its qualitative characteristic. On the other hand, the percentage of equine bones in the osteological materials of a settlement reflects the place of the horse in the herd, but not for all cultures, and only indicates the structure of food of any settlement inhabitants. As a matter of fact, all depends on the cultural model. By virtue of these causes, qualitative characteristics should be of interest to us too. So far, osteological evidence has been published from only two Transural sites: Sintashta and Arkaim (Fig. 44). Here cattle and sheep dominate; horses accounting for about 10% on Sintashta and 15.4% on Arkaim, with pigs absent [Zdanovich, 1997, p. 56; Pryakhin, 1976, p. 122]. However, analysis of aerial photographs and identification of enclosures for the different species of stock confirms the dominance of horses in the herd. This has led some to draw conclusions about the export of horses [Gayduchenko, 1995, pp. 110, 111]; in my opinion, it may testify also to the broader use of horses for other purposes. Besides, in burial sites pig bones were detected, but swine were not numerically significant. It is supposed that they were bred for cult purposes [Kosintsev, 1999, p. 330; 1999a, p. 258]. The bones found on Abashevo sites of the Don and the Western Urals show a similar proportion of horses, but many more cattle, very many fewer sheep and a greater number of pigs. The distinction between the Don and Western Ural branches of this culture is essentially the greater proportion of pigs in animal remains on the Don [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 56; 1989, pp. 97, 98; Pryakhin, 1976, p. 118]. On the Middle Volga osteological material is present only in cemeteries. Judging from the rather poor evidence, the only animals herded were cattle and, predominantly, sheep [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 121]. These parameters pull together the structure of faunal remains of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture with those in the Pit-Grave culture of the Volga region [Shilov, 1975, p. 14]. Fatyanovo cemeteries contain another set of bones: cattle and pigs. Sheep occur only in sites of the eastern Fatyanovo distribution area; and in the later Volosovo-Danilovo cemetery horse remains have been found [Antropologicheskiye tipi…, 1988, p. 116], most likely the result of borrowing from one of the Abashevo economics. The Multi-Cordoned Ware culture (Babino III) demonstrates a structure of osteological remains akin to the Don Abashevo culture, but with a lower proportion of cattle and a higher of sheep. It differs from Sintashta by the significant presence of pigs in the herd [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 39]. The bone remains of the Mikhailovka settlement, which belongs to the Pit-Grave culture of the Lower Dnieper, are very close to those in Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. On the other hand, the Mikhailovka set is distinct from the traditional Pit-Grave herd of more eastern areas [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 350]. The structure of finds in Catacomb culture is very similar to Sintashta. On the late Catacomb settlement of Matveevka I on the Southern Bug, 61.29% of animal remains were cattle; sheep much less (28.32%); horses an insignificant 6.45%; pigs only 1.29%. A similar structure was detected in osteological collections from the Crimea (Kirovo) and the Lower Don (Liventsovka) [Nikitin, 1989, p. 148]. What has been said above allows us to distinguish some types of herd structure in Eastern Europe and the Transurals. Those of the Don and Ural Abashevo, Multi-Cordoned Ware culture and the Mikhailovka settlement are very similar. A comparable situation persists in the southern zone of Eastern Europe throughout the Bronze Age and divergences from it occur mainly to the east of the Urals [Antipina, 1996; Varov, Kosintsev, 1996]. Another group includes the eastern Pit-Grave and Middle Volga Abashevo cultures. The Fatyanovo herd is quite distinct. The Sintashta herd is similar to those 103 Fig. 44. Structures of the herd of Sintashta culture and its comparison with herds of Eastern Europe and Transcaucasia. of the Don and Ural Abashevo, Multi-Cordoned Ware and Mikhailovka, differing only in the smaller quantity of pig. Closest to Sintashta is the structure of the Late Catacomb herd, as well as that of the Kamenka-Liventsovka KMK group, which were its contemporaries. All of the above have nothing in common with the previous economies of the Eneolithic time, where the horse sharply predominated [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, p. 57; Zeibert, 1993, p. 198; Makarova, Nurumov, 1989; Mesheryakov, Morgunova, 1996, p. 47], but it is most probable that the horse of the Eneolithic period was wild [Levine, 1999, pp. 36, 4043]. Against a background of ideas about Tashkovo culture influencing the formation of Sintashta, the faunal remains on Tashkovo settlements are very interesting: bones properly identified belong to wild species [Kosintsev, 1999b]. We have even fewer grounds for connecting the development of cattle breeding in the Transurals and Kazakhstan with the Botai culture. On its settlements only equine bones are represented. Many osteologists not directly familiar with this material, write of the Botai horse that it was a domestic animal [Bökönyi, 1991, p. 550]. However, there is no proof for this – actually, it was wild. First of all, any pastoral economy is complex and does not depend on one species. Examples to the contrary are simply unknown. Secondly, on Botai sites the articulated parts of horse skeletons have been found. This corresponds more to hunting by the battue method [Kuzmina, 1996, p. 83, 84], leading some writers to the view that a small number of the horses were domesticated but most of the bones belonged to wild horses [Sherratt, 1997, p. 213-215]. However, evidence is required of the domestic horses, especially when set against a typical set of Botai hunting implements. Furthermore, the structure of the Botai herd corresponds to that of a wild herd [Levine, 1999, pp. 40-43]. There is reason to suspect that in the north of the Turgai area, the Tersek population, closely related to the Botai, had domesticated animals. But the morphological parameters of cattle and horse bones found here vitiate any such conclusion. The only, albeit rather weighty, criterion for this is the rather small number of horns in osteological collections, which indicates indirectly the existence of domesticated hornless cattle [Kalieva, Logvin, 1997, pp. 100-111]. At the same time, it is rather difficulty to compare Tersek materials and Sintashta, not just because of the absence of sheep in the Tersek herd. Judging from the set of implements, hunting played a great role in the Tersek economy. Therefore, even were we to accept the presence of domesticated animals in this case, there is no possibility of distin- 104 guishing their bones from those of hunted animals. This may also be indicated by the unstable ratio of horse and cattle bones: on different sites the former varied from 15.5% to 96.9% [Kalieva, Logvin, 1997, p. 110]. In Transcaucasia I know no precise analogies to the Sintashta herd. However, on the Uzerliktepe settlement there was a herd similar to those in Mikhailovka, Multi-Cordoned Ware culture, and the Abashevo cultures of the Don and Urals (cattle – 52.3%, sheep – 31.4%, pigs – 11.5%, horses – 4.2%, dogs – 0.6%), but the proportion of pigs is notably higher. The dominance of cattle is characteristic also for the Trialeti barrows [Kushnaryova, 1994a, pp. 134, 135]. It is necessary to mark one more circumstance. The presence of pigs in a herd is not necessarily to be connected with the influence of forest populations. Such an assumption is rather typical of Russian archaeology. However, in South-Eastern Anatolia, for example (Hassek Höyök, Kurban Höyök), pigs accounted for half the herd, sharply prevailing over other species. Their significance in the economy is accentuated by the discovery of pig burials on the settlement [Boessneck, 1992, pp. 6264]. The earliest herd structure resembling those in Catacomb, Late Pit-Grave and Multi-Cordoned Ware cultures, has been found on the Alikemektepesi settlement in South-Eastern Transcaucasia, which is dated to the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC. There, cattle account for 43%, sheep for 36.2%, horses for 7.5%, pigs for 6.1%, and dogs for 2.6% [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 134, 135]. As a whole, this type of herd may be designated as Indo-European. In the herds of many peoples, in particular those of Semites, pigs were absent; they vanished also from herds of some Indo-Iranian groups. This has been explained either by movements into more southerly areas, or by contacts with populations in whose herds pigs were absent [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 595, 596]. Thus, the absence of pigs in the Sintashta herd corresponds rather well to the presence of ware with analogies in Syria-Palestine in the Sintashta ceramic complex. It is also possible that the absence of pigs was linked to long-distance migration: the species is ill-adapted to roaming from place to place. It was unreal to fill a herd with pigs at the expense of the neighbours, as the pigs would have to be obtained from the Western Urals. Therefore, pigs were probably used only in burial rituals. Scholars have already remarked the fact that the stock of different cultures of the Eastern European steppe zone was typologically unified. The only exceptions are the Maikop herd, because of the very high proportion of pigs, and that of Usatovo (and also, as mentioned above, the Pit-Grave herd of the eastern zone), because of the high percentage of sheep. A general tendency to be observed is that the numbers of cattle and horses increase from the Early to the Late Bronze Age [Antipina, 1997]. In this book it will be shown that, apart from the Sintashta migration from the Near East, there was a series of others too. Therefore, the affinity of the Sintashta herd to that of Eastern European can be conditioned either by those of their Transcaucasian and Near Eastern ancestors, or by adaptation of the newcomers to the local environment; probably a combination of both. *** Summing up the description of the Sintashta archaeological complex and its comparison with those of neighbouring and more distant areas, I would like to draw some preliminary conclusions. The nature of Sintashta material culture shows considerable family links with the Abashevo cultures, first of all of the Don-Volga and then of the VolgaUrals, Multi-Cordoned Ware and Catacomb cultures, as well as with Late Pit-Grave and Poltavka. However, to the previous period only the Catacomb, Late Pit-Grave (in the southern part of the Western Urals) and Poltavka cultures belong. These we may regard as formative components. The features they have in common with Sintashta features are orientation of burials along the line of the circumference of a mound (Catacomb culture), large pits with shoulders (Late Pit-Grave and Catacomb cultures), typologically close artefacts (adzes, axes, a small part of knives, awls, socketed hooks, maceheads), type of herd (Catacomb culture), arsenic ligatures, pots with a rib-ledge and, in part, the forms of jars (Catacomb and Poltavka cultures). However, only for ceramics it is possible to speak of undoubted Sintashta borrowing from Eastern European cultures. The other parallels were distributed also in the Caucasus and further south. 105 The majority of features of Sintashta material culture have prototypes in the Near East and the Caucasus. Transcaucasian and Near Eastern parallels are extensive and exact, comprising the architectural complex, large burial tombs with sacrificial animals on the cover, the main type of knife, shaftbushed axes with ridge, adzes, awls, socketed hooks, fishing hooks, chisels, spearheads, and maceheads, the alloying of metal with arsenic, a tradition of alloying at the smelting stage, bone spindle-whorls, forms and decoration of vessels, level of textile production, chariot wheels, clay models of wheels, type of herd. So the broad circle of analogies, the basic features of cultural formation, as well as the absence of actual prototypes in Northern Eurasia, allow us to be confident about the foreigner nature of this culture, which was formed as a result of a migration. And, it was foreign not only for the Southern Transurals but also for Northern Eurasia as a whole. The initial area of this migration was the territory of Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia. The regions of Asia Minor were already settled by Hattians, Hittites and Luwians, and there were already different architectural traditions in Central and Western Anatolia. Localisation is indicated, above all, by the parallels to the main Sintashta ceramic forms in Syria. At the same time, ornamentation of ceramics is closer to the Transcaucasian tradition, and one ceramic type has analogies in the Sevan-Uzerlik group of sites. This indicates that the migration was carried out through the region located between lakes Van, Sevan and Urmia. A number of similar artefacts can be found also in the Northern Caucasus, further along this migratory path. Temporary pauses by the whole migrating body when passing through Transcaucasia and the Northern Caucasus cannot be excluded; if so, they were very likely short. Nevertheless, part of the population apparently remained in these regions. All this allows us to return again to the problem of the Indo-Iranian homeland. There have been many works affirming the Indo-Iranian identity of Sintashta sites [Gening, 1977; Kuzmina, 1981; Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1997]. The IndoIranian attribution of Catacomb antiquities has become rather common too. In the light of this, there is nothing strange in the suggested primary localisation of this population. The presence of an Indo-Iranian component in Northern Syria in the Mitannian period is an apparent fact. However, throughout the Middle Bronze Age, not just at its end, we can observe no infiltrations to the south from Eastern Europe. There was another situation. During the whole Early and Middle Bronze Age all cultures of this zone were undoubtedly subjected to influences from the Caucasus and Transcaucasia. All of this testifies to the long residency of IndoIranian populations in the area, we have every right to speak of this period as that in which the Iranising tendency in Northern Eurasia began. 106 Chapter 5. Sintashta culture and Abashevo cultures 5.1. Relative chronology Further reconstruction of historical processes in the Eastern European forest-steppe zone is impossible without a solution to the problems of the relative chronology of the Sintashta and Abashevo complexes. There are two main points of view on this. The first is based on the idea of the formation of an Abashevo family of cultures on the Don and its subsequent distribution into the Volga region and the Urals [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 60, 66; Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 130]. Its main basis is the discovery of a small and unconvincing series of ‘proto-Abashevo’ ceramics on the Sokolskoye settlement, as well as a ‘post-Repino’ background of Abashevo ware itself. Hence, Don Abashevo culture is to be the earliest, all the others secondary developments. The second is constructed on the supposed formation of Abashevo culture on the Middle Volga on the basis of ‘post-Corded Ware’ developments. Of recent years its most consistent supporter has been O.V. Kuzmina, with whom V.S. Gorbunov agrees [Kuzmina O., 1992; Gorbunov, 1990, pp. 15, 16; 1992, p. 152]. Recently, this idea has undergone a further development: Abashevo culture formed on the Middle Volga, diffused to the Southern Urals, vanishing from its initial terrain. The Abashevo culture of the Middle Volga is contemporary in its final phase with the early phase of Ural Abashevo culture; then Sintashta and Don Abashevo cultures were formed, and, based on them, Early Timber-Grave. Ural Abashevo culture is synchronous with the Turbino cemetery; Sintashta, Don Abashevo and Early Timber-Grave with the Seima cemetery [Kuzmina O., 1992, pp. 74-76]. In her recent article Kuzmina has gone into even greater detail, dividing all Abashevo complexes into nine chronological phases, with the earliest sites being those situated on the western bank of the Middle Volga, and Sintashta culture taken as before to be a later phenomenon formed on the basis of the Ural Abashevo [Kuzmina O., 1999]. However, such a minute division of an archaeological culture seems to be unprecedented in itself. Furthermore, this con- struction is based neither on stratigraphic observations nor on analysis of the whole corpus of sources. It is rooted in the analysis of ceramics, which are susceptible to this nine-part division. Chronological sense has been attached to these groups by Kuzmina’s strong belief that Abashevo culture was formed on the basis of Fatyanovo-Balanovo. Consequently, complexes with Fatyanovo-Balanovo features are the earliest. These, naturally, are the sites of the Middle Volga. This is a circular argument. In an article by A.D. Pryakhin and V.I. Besedin, dedicated to the analysis of small angular vessels with a rim, it is emphasised that even such a culture-determining Abashevo type as small angular vessels had no prototypes in Fatyanovo-Balanovo ceramics. Furthermore, in the manufacture of Fatyanovo-Balanovo ware, potters added small-sized crushed rocks and chamotte to clay, which is not typical of Abashevo pottery making, where, basically, crushed shells were used [Pryakhin, Besedin, 1998a, pp. 65, 69]. Statistical examination of Ural Abashevo ceramics and comparison with Vetlyanka, Potapovka and Sintashta types has shown that the rate of resemblance is much lower than is permissible for generically linked groups [Mochalov, 1999a]. In this work I base myself upon the idea of the contemporary formation of all Abashevo cultures: the alternative view stated above does not stand up to criticism. Analysis of the separate divisions of the culture has shown the impossibility of Abashevo’s formation on the basis of post-Corded Ware, and the presence of a post-Corded Ware background on the Middle Volga is connected rather with the peculiarities of cultural genesis in this area. Only two metallurgical areas have been located within the entire area of distribution of Abashevo and Sintashta sites; they are connected with Sintashta culture and with a group of the Ural Abashevo culture (Balanbash) on the middle Belaya river. Without their operation, the formation of Abashevo on the Don and in the Volga region would seem to have been impossible. The metal complex of all the Abashevo cultures is largely uniform and reflects distinctions that are territorial not temporal. Any attributes indicating an early date for the Abashevo culture on the Middle Volga are absent. The ‘archaic’ features of this culture are a consequence of its isolation from the central core. The most glaring inconsistencies in this concept may be shown by comparison of Abashevo with Seima-Turbino material. Analysis of the 107 latter has shown that burials in the Seima and Turbino cemeteries are basically synchronous, although there are also later inclusions in Seima, and that the corresponding cemeteries in the Asian zone (Rostovka) are relatively somewhat earlier [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 272-275]. In the scheme suggested by Kuzmina, Turbino is an earlier complex than Sintashta. By the same logic Rostovka should be dated earlier than not only Sintashta but also Abashevo in the Western Urals. However, there are two Sintashta objects in Rostovka, which are not comparable with those of Abashevo, especially from the Middle Volga. Thus, we have no strict basis for supposing that one Abashevo culture was formed before the others. Synchronisation of Sintashta with Rostovka, and of Ural Abashevo with Turbino, the presence of TK arsenic bronzes smelted in Ural centres in material of the Don and Middle Volga Abashevo, and the absence of their own ore smelting, enables us to speak about the synchronic formation of all Abashevo cultures as far back as pre-Seima times. The conclusion that the Pepkino barrow and, accordingly, Middle Volga Abashevo were contemporary with Don and Ural Abashevo and with Sintashta had already been made, based on the occurrence in all these complexes of bone socketed spatulas [Besedin, 1995]. It may well be possible to agree with the view that Middle Volga Abashevo culture came to an end earlier, but there is no precise evidence for this. Certain problems arise from the date of Abashevo antiquities on the Don, where Abashevo complexes have been positioned quite reliably between late Catacomb and Early Timber-Grave. The appearance of Abashevo populations in this zone is to be dated to the end of the developed phase of Catacomb culture, and their broad distribution was contemporary with its final phase [Matveev Yu., 1998]. A number of arguments in favour of a late date for Don-Volga Abashevo have been adduced by V.V. Otroshenko [Otroshenko, 1998]. One seems to me the most essential. Bone buckles of the Don-Volga culture can be traced back to buckles of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture (KMK). They have two holes; thus, it is possible to compare them with late KMK buckles. However, this thesis cannot be extended to the Ural Abashevo and Sintashta cultures. Nor is it beyond dispute relative to the Don-Volga sites: a bone ring with two side holes has been revealed in dolmen 37 at Dakhovskaya, and the Dolmen culture of the Eastern Pontus has an earlier position [Markovin, 1997, fig. 96.7]. At the same time, there are also other arguments concerning the rather late position of Abashevo culture in the Don region. The first is the presence in its complexes of late material, which never occurs in Sintashta or Middle Volga sites. This thesis is contrary to the statement of Pryakhin and Besedin about the presence of identical categories of objects and chronological correspondence between sites on the Don and in the Southern Urals [Pryakhin, 1999]. The complex of mound 1 in the cemetery Selezni-2, which is interpreted as relating to the developed and (partly) late phases of Don Abashevo culture, is rather representative [Pryakhin et al., 1998, p. 30]. In it a spearhead with a cast socket, a loop for attachment and a cast cuff on the socket has been found [Pryakhin et al., 1998, fig. 9.1]. In the classification of E.N. Chernikh and S.V. Kuzminikh such spearheads fall into category KD30 and are dated to the time of the Pokrovsk (Early Timber-Grave) complexes [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 79]. Cheek-pieces from this mound are decorated with a pattern elaborated in Mycenaean style. This too indicates a rather late date. It is necessary to note that similar ornamentation is, in general, characteristic of cheek-pieces in this area, but is unknown in Sintashta. In addition, Pokrovsk cheekpieces are almost always decorated, as are those of the Don Abashevo culture [Malov, 1999, p. 248]. Analysis of all cheek-pieces found from the Don region to the Southern Urals has allowed Pryakhin and Besedin to conclude that to divide this series into different subtypes, arranged in genetic series, is completely wrong. All variations occur within the same complexes and, in essence, it is possible to speak about only two types: Staroyuryevo, including cheek-pieces of the Don area, and Sintashta or Southern Ural. To the last belong all Sintashta cheekpieces (Fig. 43.3,7), examples from the Potapovka cemeteries Utyovka VI and Potapovka (except for one with Mycenaean ornament) and some from the Don area (Trakhtemirov, Kamenka) [Pryakhin, Besedin, 1998, pp. 30-33]. Detailed investigation by A.N. Usachuk of cheek-pieces from the Don area has shown that the technology of their manufacture was rather similar. Moreover, many were made by a single craftsman [Usachuk, 1998, p. 79]. This conclusion might narrow the time at which similar complexes existed on the Don. It is necessary also to note a technological difference in the manufacture 108 of Don cheek-pieces (Staroyuryevo type) and those from the Middle Volga and the Urals (Utyovka and Sintashta types) [Usachuk, 1999, p. 158]. It is not yet quite clear what was the reason, but it could be chronological: on the Don they occur in complexes alongside obviously later things than in the Urals. The judgment of A.T. Sinyuk is that Abashevo complexes with cheek-pieces in the Don area are chronologically unified, and there is no basis to separate cheek-pieces with plug-in spikes from those with monolithic spikes. Their time frame is the period directly preceding the Timber-Grave period, and their appearance in the region was connected with eastern impulses. Furthermore, Sinyuk regards the rich ornamentation of the Don cheek-pieces as a late feature, indicating the decline of the use of chariots and the reduction of objects of this type to the largely ceremonial [Sinyuk, 1996, p. 204]. E. Kaiser adjudges the cheek-piece from Trakhtemirov close to those found in shaft tomb IV in Mycenae [Kaiser, 1997, p. 33]. This fixes the Don cheek-pieces chronologically within the Mycenaean period in Greece. This is, most likely, the upper boundary for the existence of Sintashta cheek-pieces. Archaeometallurgical investigation of metal artefacts from the Kondrashkinskiy mound, where there is a cheek-piece of the Staroyuryevo type, has shown that they are very representative too [Degtyaryova et al., 1998]. As a matter of fact, the set of objects itself reflects a rather late date. Despite the presence in the complex of a spearhead with a disconnected forged socket, which is characteristic of earlier traditions of metalworking, there is a shaftbushed axe with a massive back of the Srubnaya (Timber-Grave) type. Furthermore, the metal itself contains inclusions of sulphides and considerable (up to 1%) traces of iron, together testifying to the smelting of sulphide ores such as bornite and chalcopyrite. Similar ore was not very characteristic of SintashtaAbashevo metallurgy, but evidence of its use has been found in much Late Bronze Age slag. Similarly, the comparatively late chronology of Abashevo sites on the Severskiy Donets, which are contemporary to late Multi-Cordoned Ware sites and not much before Early Pokrovsk (often it is difficult to distinguish them), cannot determine the relative chronology of the Abashevo culture as a whole. These are very late sites even compared with the Don area [Litvinenko, 1998, pp. 92-97], but this is an additional argument against the synchronisation of Sintashta with Pokrovsk sites. Very representative is the analysis of the Don Abashevo antiquities conducted by Sinyuk. Overall, he adheres to the very early formation of the Abashevo culture on the Don, and the majority of scholars of this region agreed. However, he supposes that Abashevo culture was formed on a post-Repino basis, which may be confirmed by materials from the Sokolskoye settlement, some other dune settlements and a post-Repino flat burial in the Vvedenka barrow, above which a mound was erected in Abashevo times. However, the latter indicates only the clear chronological priority of the post-Repino materials. Other arguments are more legitimate: the technological comparability of post-Repino and early Abashevo ceramics, and post-Repino traditions in Abashevo burial rites on the Don (burials extended on their back) [Sinyuk, 1996, p. 69]. The last feature is generic also to late Abashevo complexes and should not be considered an innovation introduced into this region by more easterly Abashevo populations, as it is characteristic (except for single cases) only for the Don area. However, it is necessary to note that the quantity of material used by Sinyuk to characterise the Abashevo culture of the pre-Pokrovsk time on the Don is extremely limited. There are seven sites, but the amount of Abashevo ware on them is rather insignificant, even on the bestknown settlement, Sokolskoye. It would be extremely interesting to learn the number of such sherds there; fifty or a hundred. It is difficult to judge the date of these finds too. Therefore, we may guess that small populations with post-Repino and Early Abashevo features lived in the Don basin. It may be possible to synchronise them with Abashevo cultures of other regions, but it is impossible to imagine the formation of Abashevo cultures on this poor basis. It is rather telling that the whole main massif of Abashevo material in the Don area was assigned by Sinyuk to the Pokrovsk-Abashevo culture [Sinyuk, 1996, pp. 190210]. Some scholars have suggested that this culture precedes the Pokrovsk material here, but in my opinion, its synchronisation partly with late Sintashta complexes, with which it shares a great number of features, and partly with early Pokrovsk ones of areas further east cannot be eliminated. The formation of the culture under eastern impulses is more than probable, as there are within this area socially significant burials (Vlasovo and Filatovka cemeteries) in which those impulses are expressed clearly enough, and their formation was connected with Sintashta influence [Sinyuk, 1996, pp. 198-203]. 109 One of most complicated of Abashevo-Sintashta problems is the genesis of the Abashevo family of cultures. Almost always the process of cultural genesis is determined by the interaction of different cultural formations with a subsequent transformation of aspects of material culture, which makes it very difficult to discern the primary components and impulses. In the case of the Abashevo family of cultures, spread widely across the vast terrain of the Don-Ural forest-steppe, different factors acted in different areas. Alongside this, similar features could be formed only by unified generating processes, which caused the separate Abashevo cultures to communicate. As mentioned above, in the whole territory of the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures only two metallurgical areas have been revealed: Balanbash (on the middle reaches of the Belaya river) and Sintashta [Grigoriev, 1994, p. 18; 1995, p. 126]. Therefore what generated the unity of the Abashevo family were the beginnings of the formation of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province. This sets a rather abstract framework, directed first of all at historico-metallurgical problems. For this reason it cannot claim to solve the concrete historical problems of cultural genesis, except for those parts connected with the activities of metallurgical and metalworking centres, metal import, etc. It is necessary also to point out that metallurgical communications were secondary to ethnocultural ones. An example of this is the situation in the North Pontic area in the Late Bronze Age, where the activity of the Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical centres was not diffused beyond the west bank of the Dnieper, and fine quality Koban-Colchian objects are present only in single cases [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 196, 197]. The Timber-Grave population preferred to obtain metal not from its more developed neighbours, but from far distant eastern centres with which it was integrated. Therefore identifying metallurgical connections only indicates an actual historical situation; it does not cause it. An understanding of the above leads us to make due allowance for the actual situation in each terrain and for general processes in the Eastern European forest-steppe zone. 5.2. Formation of Sintashta and Abashevo cultures In the Don forest-steppe area a rather complicated ethno-cultural situation is observed pre-Abashevo. In the south lived the Catacomb tribes. Generally, they settled the steppe zone, although some remains have been found in the forest-steppe. Indeed, the Middle Don Catacomb culture is later than the Donets and Dnieper-Azov cultures. The discovery in this region of mixed Pit-Grave – Catacomb sites dated to the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC testifies to the existence of certain Pit-Grave groups here up to pre-Abashevo times [Pogorelov, 1989]. On the River Voronezh are the sites of the socalled Voronezh culture, which was formed through contacts between the bearers of the Catacomb and Middle Dnieper cultures [Besedin, 1984; 1986]. Compared with Catacomb culture, it has a poor range of metal artefacts and a greater occurrence of flint. Alongside these cultures, the Don region has yielded materials of the Ivan Bugor type (left-over Eneolithic), affiliated with developments further north, and the post-Repino type, here a very old tradition [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 68-70; Sinyuk, 1996, pp. 64-68]. It is with this last that the formation of Abashevo culture in the Don region is connected. A number of sites containing materials with post-Repino or pre-Abashevo features are known already [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 130; Khalikov, 1961, pp. 224, 225]. This is a low ware with a sharply everted rim, slightly bell-shaped and with coarse rustication of the sides. The continuous existence in this area of extended burials on the back is interesting too. On the Donets a similar rite occurs in early Pit-Grave cemeteries. In the Don forest-steppe it is characteristic of the Repino and Ivan Bugor populations. This feature was subsequently typical of the Abashevo culture of the Don [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 128; Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 348; Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 53, 54] and may be traced back, apparently, to Mariupol times. The preservation of ceramic and burial traditions suggests that the local population was the basis on which Abashevo culture was formed here. Alongside this material there is pottery, which can only be described as proto-Abashevo, from the Sokolskoye settlements. It shares only some of the 110 2 4 3 5 1 6 8 7 11 9 12 10 14 13 15 16 19 18 17 21 20 22 Fig. 45. Abashevo metal artefacts and ceramic forms of the Middle Volga (8-12); Volga-Ural (13-18, 21) and Don-Volga (19, 20, 22) Abashevo cultures. 111 Abashevo conventions and characteristics but there are no other components to fix this as an Abashevo complex. The metal artefacts of Abashevo culture inherit the stereotypes of the Circumpontic province and are partly the development of Catacomb culture forms, partly the consequence of more southerly influences. In Don-Volga Abashevo unique transitional forms from Catacomb axes of Kolontaevka type to Abashevo types have been identified [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 130; Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 130]. At the same time, we have features that cannot be connected with Catacomb traditions. In Don Abashevo, settlements have been revealed with a round plan and dwellings similar to those in Sintashta, enjoying parallels only in the Near East. There are also two new ceramic forms, common to all Abashevo cultures and to Sintashta, which have parallels to those found in Syria-Palestine: the first is represented by small angular vessels with an outcurved rim; the second by profiled pots with an internal rib on the rim. The first form did not become very widespread, but it is found mainly in socially significant complexes [Pryakhin, Besedin, 1998a, p. 63]. All further developments were carried out on the basis of postRepino forms and Near Eastern profiled pots. The foreign population played a certain role in cultural genesis. I accept that part of a migrating population settled here, otherwise it is difficult to explain the appearance on the Don of such settlements as Shilovskoye. Nevertheless, the main component was probably the local population. Some part was also played by the Multi-Cordoned Ware and Catacomb tribes. At any rate, the corresponding ceramics are sometimes present on the floors of Abashevo dwellings [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 16, 19, 20]. But it is necessary to point out once more that before the appearance here of the Abashevo-Sintashta groups from the east, the number of remains is insignificant. Therefore, in the process of cultural genesis in this area, the most important features were the formation of what has been labelled the ‘Abashevo family’ in the east, the migration of the bearers of these cultures into the Don region, and active communications with the Ural metallurgical centres. Rather difficult and complex is the formation of Abashevo culture on the Middle Volga. When analysing its burial rites above, I spoke about their comparability with the Pit-Grave and Poltavka burials. There are common features: burials under mounds, presence of small ditches or wooden fences, con- tracted on the back inhumations with eastward orientation, lineal arrangement of burial graves (where there are several burials under a mound), presence of ‘shoulders’ in graves and sometimes the covering of the bottom with chalk or ochre. As with the Pit-Grave-Poltavka peoples, there are no settlements. Nevertheless, metal artefacts correspond, as a whole, to Abashevo stereotypes; however, in Middle Volga Abashevo, arsenic bronze, tools and weapons occur in the burials with relative infrequency, and most of the ornaments are very specific – many with prototypes in the Circumpontic zone, but many others were developed on the Middle Volga. These features reflect the high degree of isolation of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture from the rest of the Abashevo core. The basic ceramic forms repeat common Abashevo standards and may be traced back to Near Eastern and post-Repino prototypes, but pots are somewhat bell-shaped – shorter proportions and narrow, often spherical bottoms. Similar proportions are more characteristic of Fatyanovo and Balanovo ware. However, this form is completely different and cannot be compared with Fatyanovo and other Corded Ware and post-Corded Ware forms. Alongside this, some Fatyanovo and Balanovo motifs are very characteristic of Abashevo decoration in this area. However, there are a great number of specifically Abashevo motifs and compositions. Therefore, we should accept some participation by the Balanovo population in forming Abashevo culture on the Middle Volga. With Pit-Grave-Poltavka ware, Abashevo ware has nothing common. However, the structure of Abashevo livestock on the Middle Volga, judging from bone remains in burials, is similar to Pit-Grave-Poltavka and distinct from Fatyanovo. There are specific ‘Abashevo’ motifs also in the Caucasus, which did not derive from those Near Eastern traditions that penetrated into the foreststeppe together with Sintashta. An example is the Koban axe, on whose cutting edge identical decoration is present to the ornamental motifs of Middle Volga ware [Sinyuk, 1983, pp. 13, 14; Domanskii, 1984, p. 13]. The later date of these bronzes does not allow them to be used as analogies, but this situation demands an explanation. Parallels to cups widespread on the Middle Volga are known in Transcaucasia in the Middle Bronze Age (Sevan-Uzerlik group), as well as in the Early Bronze Age (KuraAraxian culture) [Kushnaryova, 1994d, tab. 39.4; 112 Munchaev, 1981, tab. 9.11] (Fig. 40.11). Similar forms are also known on the Middle Euphrates from the EB III levels at Tell Hamman et-Turkman, radiocarbon dated to 2600-2300 BC [Thissen, 1989, fig. 2,11,13, p. 197]. Cylindrical jars are rather characteristic of many cultures of the Near and Middle East too. Therefore, it is a quite reasonable idea that a group of people who had taken part in the Sintashta movement from the Near East and Transcaucasia, developed afterwards on the Middle Volga. These paradoxes hinder our understanding of the actual mechanisms of cultural genesis. Nevertheless, I should like to suggest a model, whilst not pretending that it is the final solution to the problem. With the appearance in the Eastern European forest-steppe zone of the Sintashta population, moving east, the early Poltavka tribes were displaced northwards to the west bank of the Middle Volga. It is absolutely unclear what the role of the Sintashta people was in this; their migration could be only one element in this process. It is possible that it was not the Sintashta people themselves who participated in the formation of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture, but groups of Don Abashevo people, whose culture had been formed earlier as a result of Sintashta influence (at the time of migration from the Near East) on the Middle Don. The latter is more probable, as there are ceramics of the Don-Volga Abashevo culture on settlements in the south-west part of the Middle Volga region [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 70-85; Bolshov, 1995, p. 151]. Because of the mediating character of this impulse, which also took place early – in the period of formation of the Don-Volga Abashevo, as well as the subsequent isolation of the Middle Volga Abashevo, the metal complex here is more specific than in other Abashevo cultures. Contact with the displaced Pit-Grave-Poltavka population resulted in the transformation of the culture. It seems probable that this transformation was very transient: there is no archaeological evidence for this contact, but that is not surprising in view of the absence of settlements. The process was underpinned by the Pit-Grave-Poltavka component. Nevertheless, the mechanism of borrowing common Abashevo ceramic forms is not absolutely clear, nor is the occurrence on the Middle Volga of such typical Sintashta burial constructions as the clay platform above the burial pit and the clay lining of their sides. On the Middle Volga migrants met the Fatyanovo and Balanovo populations; this was reflected in some transformation of ceramic forms and in the appearance of specific decorations as well. But the influence of these cultures on the formation of Abashevo must not be overestimated. In this period similar processes were probably taking place on the Middle Oka, where the Corded Ware cultures had contact with the left-over Eneolithic of the Middle Don (Ivan Bugor), perhaps, displaced therefrom by the forming Abashevo culture [Kaverzneva, 1992, p. 158; 1995]. Some of the ceramics included in the Shagarskaya culture complex are, in my opinion, comparable with early Abashevo. This is ware with an outcurved rim and internal rib [Kaverzneva, 1992, p. 157]. Originally, whilst forming in the Volga region, Abashevo culture had contacts with the Neolithic (or in S.V. Kuzminikh’s terminology “Quasi-Eneolithic”) Volosovo people [Bolshov, 1995, pp. 151, 152]. By virtue of the sharp differences between these groups, this contact did not result in any transformation of these cultures. More significant appear the communications with the Fatyanovo-Balanovo world, which were probably not always peaceful. How Middle Volga Abashevo was included in the common Abashevo system of relations is not absolutely clear. At any rate, metal from the Urals was imported, though in limited quantities. Single Sintashta complexes, and even some with well-identified secondary burials, have been found here (NovoBaybatirevo cemetery). However, the ceramics they contain do not have ‘early’ features [Efimenko, 1961, pp. 105-110]. Therefore, the infiltration of this zone by the Sintashta population took place no earlier than the end of this culture’s high phase. Probably, it was the reason for Abashevo’s displacement into the Volga-Vyatka interfluve and its greater isolation from sources of metal. In this region Abashevo culture is dated rather late. Also of interest is the occurrence of cordons with a triangular cross-section on ceramics here [Khalikov, 1961, p. 219]. Although both Chirkovo and Sintashta influences could have been involved, the shape of the cordons indicates that it was the latter. With the appearance in the Western Urals of Seima-Turbino populations, the Middle Volga Abashevo group’s existence came to an end: either it was superseded or quite rapidly assimilated. The Abashevo culture in the Western Urals is no less complex. Here, as in the Transurals, there is almost no basis for any discussion of local features, but that does not exclude the assimilation of the lo- 113 Fig. 46. Map of the distribution: Don-Volga Abashevo (a), Middle Volga Abashevo (b), Volga-Ural Abashevo (c) Sintashta (d) and Petrovka (e) cultures. cal population by the newcomers. In the burial rites we can observe mixed features of various Abashevo cultures with Sintashta. There are inhumations, contracted and extended on the back, but the proportion of secondary burials is very great. Orientations vary widely. A local feature is the broad use of rock in burial constructions. The ceramics reflect Middle Volga, as well as Don-Volga and Sintashta features. Sintashta ceramics usually accompany sites on the middle reaches of the Belaya river. Only in this region is metallurgical slag known on settlements. Here the fortified settlement of Tyubyak has been investigated. It seems to be comparable with the Shilovskoye settlement and, partly, with Sintashta fortified settlements. It indicates the direct penetration of the Sintashta population into the region. Don-Volga and Middle Volga Abashevo people, probably at a quite early stage of their development, could have participated in the cultural genesis. However, with our current understanding, it is obviously impossible to reconstruct this system authentically, as we have no evidence about the relative chronology of individual sites. We must confine ourselves to saying that the principal features of the process of cultural genesis here was consolidation into a unified system too. Probably, we ought to consider the Ural Abashevo complexes under different categories. It is necessary to divide them into those close to the Middle Volga ones, and Balanbash complexes, which, in my opinion, are almost identical to Sintashta. Apart from this, there is the necessity of separating the late, formed as a result of these various contacts, from the early, formed after the migration from the Near East. The cemetery at Nikiforovskoye Lestnichestvo probably belongs to the latter: its ceramics contain a set of forms rather similar to the Sintashta; burials are dominated by extended inhumations, as on the 114 Don, and types of knife are very archaic [Vasiliev, Pryakhin, 1979]. This is a cemetery with flat burials, which I regard as an early feature. The Balanovo people could have taken part in the forming of the complexes, comparable here too with the Middle Volga Abashevo, as on the Middle Volga. This is confirmed indirectly by the presence in the Western Urals of stone axes of Balanovo types [Obidennov, 1996]. Whereas Abashevo cultures included local DonVolga components, the Sintashta culture is almost completely foreign, formed as a result of long-distance migration. Despite statements of a number of scholars to the contrary, it contains practically no features of any local Transural culture. This is because there was a very severe drought in the Southern Transurals in the early 2nd millennium BC. In fact the condition obtained everywhere, but it was particularly intense in this region, causing a catastrophic decrease in the number of wild animals, which the local population hunted. This entailed a commensurate sharp decrease in the human population [Kosintsev, 1999a, p. 257]. No components of Sintashta culture have prototypes in the previous cultures of the region; they go back to Near Eastern examples. The Sintashta fortified settlement repeats Near Eastern tradition in both architectural details and building technique; the tradition was widespread in Transcaucasia, Anatolia and Syria. Burial rites show parallels in such complexes as Alaca Höyük, Till-Barsip, Bedeni and Trialeti, as well as in the Sevan-Uzerlik cemeteries, where there are also large burial chambers with double roofs on which animal bones were placed. The skeletons of horses have been revealed in the Hyksos burials in Palestine. A very early and regular custom in the Near East was the rite of secondary burial, and the use of the burial chamber for repeated burials as well. It is important to point out that originally the Sintashta rite was not the classic ‘kurgan’. Separate burial tombs had their own superstructures. A certain return to the earlier Eastern European traditions has occurred only later. Metallurgical production based on the use of arsenic bronzes is a borrowing from the territory of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province. In searching for an actual source for this, we must completely eliminate the northern bloc of cultures: Catacomb and Poltavka people knew only metalworking (casting, forging, etc.), and the Pit-Grave people of the southern part of the Western Urals did not be possess the technology of alloying metal at the smelting stage. Therefore, it is possible to assert that technologies of ore smelting, as well as of alloying, were introduced from the southern cultural bloc of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province. Separation from the initial terrain and the absence in the Urals of tin ligatures hindered the use there of tin alloys, which were already known in the southern part of the Circumpontic zone. The set of weaponry has Near Eastern parentage too. Tools were developed from forms, which had a clear basis in the Middle Bronze Age of the Circumpontic zone. Ceramic ware had Syrian prototypes – but only the Sintashta forms themselves. Alongside them, the sites of the Transurals contain wares comparable with those in the Multi-Cordoned Ware (KMK), Catacomb and Poltavka cultures, and the Pit-GraveCatacomb sites of the Middle Don. Biconical vessels, especially those decorated with the vertical herringbone design on the body, may show parallels with KMK. These vessels are included in the Sintashta complex. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether they reflect the participation of a KMK population in the formation of Sintashta, or testify to a close common ancestry that took part in forming both cultures. An indication of the latter is that Sintashta ware is often not really angular, and the rib on the body is the result of the application of a cordon to a smooth profile. Alongside this there is also true angular ware itself. Thus, I am inclined to believe that both the possibilities indicated could be valid. The comparisons of Sintashta decorations with Transcaucasian ornamental traditions do not answer unambiguously the question about the participation of bearers of the Sevan-Uzerlik, Trialeti and ProtoColchian cultures in the migratory process. I do not believe that Sintashta cultural formation can be connected with the Northern Caucasus, where there are reliable parallels in metal, ceramics and burial rites. It is most likely that these parallels were conditioned by Near Eastern influences spreading in Middle Bronze Age II, not only to the Southern Urals, but also throughout Eastern Europe. The migration of the Sintashta tribes passed through the Caucasus, which determined the similar features of material culture. This suggests that the Sintashta broke their journey from the Syro-Anatolian region temporarily in Transcaucasia and the Northern Caucasus. 115 Ceramics, exhibiting parallels in Catacomb, PitGrave-Catacomb and Poltavka antiquities, are present already in the later Sintashta complexes, those of the high phase. Very representative lines of development can be observed on material from barrow 24 of the Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery, where two central graves and one pit on the periphery of the barrow contain Sintashta ware itself, whilst there was ware relating to Poltavka culture in the southern part, in pit graves of the barrow. In the more northerly pits this ware already had many Sintashta features. Probably, in the high phase, the population of the Eastern European steppe started to be absorbed into the Sintashta system, which resulted in an increase in the size of fortified settlements, and the appearance of a second circle of dwellings and fortifications. These processes caused both the culture’s territorial expansion and its active transformation. In the third phase, Petrovka culture formed on the Tobol tributaries as well as to the east. Despite the unification of ceramic forms and decoration, there was considerable variety in the processes of ceramics production in this culture, which testifies to the multipartite nature of its formation. Petrovka antiquities were distributed in Northern and Western Kazakhstan. On the tributaries of the Ural and westwards the Early Timber-Grave culture of Pokrovsk-type formed; shortly after that, as will be shown, the Alakul culture developed on the base of Sintashta, Abashevo and Poltavka cultures. In consequence of the process I have described, various features of material culture changed. Small undefended settlements arose, testimony to the more active development of the area and the beginnings of political-military stabilisation. This became possible through changes in building technique: large pitdwellings with rows of posts appeared, i.e. it became possible to erect individual houses. In Petrovka settlements the circular plan gave way to the rectangular. Burial rites were transformed too. The custom of secondary burial tapered off. In the high phase it was typical only of the large central burial tombs. In Petrovka culture this custom was present, but only in respect of the burials of charioteers. Inhumations in a contracted position on the side became prevalent. The arrangement of peripheral burials in a circle remained, but the burials were no longer oriented along the arc of the circumference. There was a partial return to the former Volga-Ural traditions. By the end of the last phase in the Transurals and Kazakhstan, the mutual assimilation of the newcomers from the Near East and the local populations was complete. 5.3. The Abashevo family of cultures Of late one can detect a tendency in archaeological literature to abandon the concept of the ‘Abashevo family of cultures’ [Kuzmina O., 1992, pp. 74, 75]. This is grounded on the removal of the Don-Volga Abashevo and Sintashta cultures from the framework of this family, and in the idea that Middle Volga Abashevo predates Ural Abashevo. In this work I have shown that the various Abashevo cultures are basically contemporary. This updates again ideas about a unified family of cultures. Before initiating further discussion on this subject, I should like to return to the concept of a ‘family of cultures’. It seems to me that similar formations do not necessarily arise on the foundation of ethno-genetic unity. More important is the unity of the forming processes of the different cultures of the family, and of the mechanisms whereby it functions – the causes of the appearance and preservation of similar features in material culture. The beginnings of the formation of the Abashevo family flow from migration of Aryan tribes from the Near East to the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe. These tribes have left Sintashta sites in the Transurals and comparable antiquities in the DonUral forest-steppe. Here they met ethnically related populations. Below I shall show that in previous periods many tribes speaking Indo-European languages had migrated north from the Near East. This eased the process of integration of the incomers and the local people, and promoted the formation and adoption of new stereotypes. The proportion of newcomers was probably somewhat lower on the Don and in the Western Urals. In the Transurals, where an earlier Indo-European population was absent, the formation of Sintashta culture presented a greater contrast with what had gone before. Very likely, the Aryan component was here originally present in its purest form. 116 Thus, the formation of all cultures included in the Abashevo family was subject to a unified process connected with the migration of Indo-Iranian tribes, who involved the local population in the processes of cultural transformation and, probably, language assimilation. How this happened differed in individual areas. It is more difficult to understand how this system functioned subsequently. On the face of it, there were trade relations. At any rate, metal from the metallurgical centres of the Urals was diffused far to the west. But it is not quite clear what was imported into the Urals in exchange. On Ural settlements there are no traces of imports. It is possible that they could have imported cattle to supplement the meat ration. It is no secret that the main source of nutrition for cattle-rearers was dairy produce. In Sintashta times it was hardly possible to graze considerable stocks of beasts in the Transurals: small settlements were lacking and only spaces directly adjoining fortified settlements were developed. The long continuance in this area of fortifications points to the instability of the situation. This could hinder the accumulation of considerable stocks too. But I opt for an exchange of ‘metal for cattle’ as quite likely. Alongside this, using aerial photography to reconstruct the ratio of enclosures for horses and cattle with the bone remains of these animals on the Sintashta settlement, conclusions have been drawn about the export of horses by the Sintashta population [Gayduchenko, 1995, pp. 110-113]. Whilst accepting the figures, I must point out that they could also be affected by the active use of horses for military purposes and as draught animals. The evidence presented by L.L. Gayduchenko of the import of hornless cattle from the south into the steppes and the Transurals is not convincing either [Gayduchenko, 1995, pp. 113-115]. In this scheme the steppe zone of Eurasia is considered as the Indo-European homeland. From it the Indo-Europeans penetrated south, into the Eastern Mediterranean, whence in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC hornless cattle started to be imported into the steppe. The situation seems to be a little different. Constant Indo-European migrations from the Near East to Eastern Europe were accompanied by the distribution of hornless cattle in this region. After the Sintashta migration hornless cattle occur in the Transurals, then, in the Late Bronze Age, after the migrations into these areas cease, they fade away. Thus, this aspect of trade relations remains rather problematic. In constructing a model of relationships in the framework of the Abashevo family of cultures, apart from trade, the dominance of foreign Aryan tribes in the Don-Ural forest-steppe and cattle rustling should be taken into account. Already by the time of migration the means of dominance had appeared: Shilovskoye settlement on the Don, Tyubyak in the Western Urals, Sintashta fortified settlements in the Transurals. Alongside this, the organisation of separate expeditions or permanent outposts took place. We can identity Sintashta ceramics in the Tobol basin and the Volga region. In the Don area barrow 16 of the Vlasovo cemetery, which includes material of Ural Abashevo, marks this process. On the Volga the Potapovka cemetery is rather representative in the same way. As we have already mentioned, it was used by the incomers from the Urals. However, in this case I do not mean some transient military expedition: a continuous contact between the newcomers and the local Poltavka population has been identified reliably, reflected especially in the transformation of ceramic technologies and by the presence in a Poltavka burial of an object cast of VK group copper, which was not characteristic of Pit-Grave-Poltavka metalworking. This indicates the continuance of the Poltavka population (up to the Seima era) in the Volga region. Burial complexes of Sintashta type are widely known both in the foreststeppe and Volga steppe regions [Agapov et al., 1983, pp. 17-19, 42]. Apart from this, in the foreststeppe ceramics of Sintashta type are also known on settlements [Vasiliev et al., 1994, p. 105], although there were no fortified settlements here comparable with those in the Transurals. It is possible that these were small permanent outposts, which had to wage war constantly: this is indicated by the high proportion of men who met with a violent death [Yablonskii, Khohlov, 1994, p. 187]. It is rather difficult to check the suggested model. The form of organisation of such an expansion is not quite clear either. I assume the existence of a unified organisation only for the early period of Sintashta culture, directly after the migration from the Near East. In my opinion, the evidence in the Volga region relates to the high phase. Whatever the case, it was an amorphous enough formation. The Sintashta presence was felt most of all in the southern part of the forest-steppe. In regions adjoining the forest zone (Middle Volga, Western 117 Urals to the north of the middle reaches of the Belaya river) it is nugatory. The relations of the Abashevo and Sintashta tribes with their neighbours were built on different bases. We see the incorporation of the steppe tribes into the Sintashta cultural system – the Catacomb cultures to a lesser degree than Poltavka culture. Very likely, relationships were eased by the similarities of language. Below it will be demonstrated that the infiltration of Near Eastern Indo-European languages into the steppe zone began as far back as the Neolithic, leading to a considerable resemblance between the languages and cultures of the Sintashta people and the population of the Eastern European steppes, and promoted the easier incorporation of the latter into Sintashta society in the second phase of this culture’s existence. In the Orenburg area of the Western Urals the late dates of the Pit-Grave culture [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, p. 79] allow us to assume that it had contacts with Sintashta culture. However, there is no archaeological evidence of this. Such contacts are also lacking in the Southern Transurals – probably the local population was either exterminated or superseded in the process of Sintashta migration. The exception is material of the Malokizilskoye settlement, whose ceramics show separate features of the Transural Eneolithic. The forest Transurals demonstrates another situation: no inclusions of Sintashta ceramics or metal are known in sites of the Ayat culture. More significant is the infiltration of Sintashta people eastwards over the northern forest-steppe into the Tobol basin and the Middle Irtish region, where artefacts of Sintashta culture have been found. This particularly concerns the Tobol basin, where Sintashta burials and, following them, Petrovka sites occur [Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 268, 269]. Further east the fading of Sintashta expansion can be observed. In the Irtish basin we know of only two objects comparable with Sintashta: a knife and spearhead from the Rostovka cemetery [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 243]. In the forest zone of Eastern Europe the tribes of the Abashevo family met, at the stage of their forming, the Fatyanovo-Balanovo population, which was included in the cultural genesis of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture. Probably, contact with the Volosovo population took place too [Bolshov, 1995, pp. 151, 152]; however, as in the case of the Ayat culture of the Transurals, it was rather superficial and thus was poorly reflected in the features of both cultures, thanks to the incompatibility of the cultural models of the incoming Indo-European tribes and the hunters of the forest zone. Nevertheless, the infiltration of the Abashevo populations far to the north suggests that they may have had broader communications than the people of Sintashta culture with the forest world. More appreciable communications of the Abashevo tribes (first of all in the Western Urals) may be traced with the Seima-Turbino tribes, on whose sites are present both metal and ceramics of Abashevo types. Some have talked about the incorporation of the Abashevo people into the Seima-Turbino communities [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 221224]. As a whole, the situation in this zone was quite complicated; this is reflected in the distribution of burials of Abashevo people who met with a violent death, and in the occurrence of the Balanovo fortified settlement. The migratory processes conditioned this, causing the local populations of the forest zone of Eastern Europe to mix with some waves of the incomers. The Fatyanovo tribes, identified usually with proto-Balts, came here from the west. I doubt they were proto-Balts, but it is very likely that they were Indo-Europeans. From south and south-west the expansion of the Abashevo tribes occurred, and burials comparable with Sintashta have been found as far as the Kama river [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 220] – I am inclined to identify them with Iranians. Finally, a stream of conglomerations, whose basic constituents were Seima-Turbino tribes, penetrated this area from the east. These tribes, as will be shown below, were Indo-Europeans too, which made their contact with the Abashevo people easier. The contacts of the Sintashta-Abashevo tribes with the forest world look as follows. West from the Urals there is archaeological evidence, to the east there is not; nevertheless they probably occurred there too. In the Finno-Ugrian languages a considerable number of early Iranian (pre-Scythian) borrowings have been identified. Whereas in the FinnoUgrian tongues localised west of the Urals they are quite copious and reflect various economic relations, in the Ugrian tongues of the Transurals and Western Siberia they are limited to numerals [see Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 921-929]. This endeavour to teach neighbours to count was hardly disinterested: probably, it was an outgrowth of laying these tribes under tribute. Therefore, it is possible 118 that Sintashta squads carried out regular annual expeditions north, but we have no evidence to show how far into the taiga their influence extended. It is very likely that not all Indo-Iranian borrowings by the Finno-Ugrian languages were Iranian; there is a hypothesis that many cultural terms were borrowed from Indo-Aryan. When did it occur? The first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC has been suggested, when in the forest zone farming economy appeared [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 149-151]. This opens the possibility that the Sintashta population spoke an IndoAryan language, but this is a matter of controversy between linguists. We shall touch on this problem again in more detail below. Thus, the mechanism by which the Abashevo family functioned seems to be as follows. It was based on the dominance of foreign Iranian tribes within the territory of the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe, the key role in which was playing by the Sintashta tribes of the Transurals, who some- times carried out expeditions to this zone. Alongside this, there were separate outposts in the southern forest-steppe, providing a constant Iranian presence and safeguarding communications, on which the cattle obtained by way of tribute or in exchange for metal were delivered. In the forest zone the expansion was more muted; only trade relations and incidental military expeditions took place here, and this zone was essentially outside the system formed. This relates more to such cultures as Sintashta, Don-Volga Abashevo and Balanbash (Ural Abashevo). Middle Volga Abashevo is outside this scheme, which urges us to keep open the question about the Abashevo family of cultures. As a matter of fact, the suggested model is very close to later developments in steppe and foreststeppe Eurasia by Scythians, Huns, Turks and Mongols; the Mongol model differs only by its greater degree of centralisation. Chapter 6. Social relations 6.1. ‘Standing on chariots’ In the previous Chapters we have described a series of migrations of Iranian tribes in different directions during the second quarter of the 2 nd millennium BC, in the course of which considerable areas were crossed and subjugated. At the same time, I do not believe the number of people participating in these campaigns was very great. Their success rested on advanced weaponry; the complete set included the composite bow reinforced by bone plates, arrows, spears, maces and battle-axes. ‘Avesta’ assigns a similar set to the god of war, Mithra [Boyce, 1994, p. 20]. In Eurasian cultures it is present most fully in Sintashta cemeteries and has been described in the relevant Chapters. Probably, armour was in use as well. The discovery in the Kamenniy Ambar cemetery of armour-piercing stone and bronze arrowheads and bone plates tends to suggest it. These plates could be sewn onto armour made of any material, for example, leather or felt. The Near East shows a number of similar variants on protective armour. It is also impossible to eliminate the presence of shields, which were already known in the Near East at this time [Gorelik, 1993, pp. 83-138, 175-181]. The arrangement of the entrance on Arkaim on the left side of the trapezoidal curve of the defensive wall points to this. A similar principle was used in Hittite fortifications to cause 119 Fig. 47. The reconstruction of harness. attackers to turn and expose their unshielded side to the site’s defenders. However, it is too early to examine this in detail for want of reliable archaeological evidence. Notwithstanding the above, the main cause of Iranian military success was the battle chariot, harnessed to a pair of horses. In literature different opinion have been expressed about the chariot’s origin [Novozhenov, 1994; Kozhin, 1985; Gorelik, 1988; Kuzmina, 1974]. Scholars are agreed that it was connected with some Near Eastern centre, where the development of similar traditions can be traced back to the 4th millennium BC. Originally, the baskets had very primitive forms, the carts solid wheels, and they were drawn by equids. The best-known evidence is the depiction of a battle cart on a vessel from Khafajeh, dated within the framework of traditional chronology to about 2800 BC [Orthmann, 1975, f. VII]. However, for a long time the chariot wheels had no spokes. The more developed types – square basket, spoked wheels and drawn by horses – spread widely only from the 18th century BC onwards [Novozhenov, 1994, p. 189; Kozhin, 1985, pp. 176, 177; Gorelik, 1988], but some evidence of its earlier use in the Near and Middle East is known too. In particular, R. Drews, who has carefully studied battle chariots, notes that wheels with spokes were known in Cap- padocia and Chaghar-Bazar from the 19 th century BC, and about 1800 BC chariots spread quite widely through Anatolia. Drews reckons that chariots occur earlier in this area than in Northern Eurasia [Drews, 1988, pp. 97-99]. An interesting idea suggests that the battle chariot originated in two centres simultaneously: steppe Eurasia and the Near East [Novozhenov, 1994, p. 180]. In Catacomb times some examples of chariots are known in the North Pontic area [Cherednichenko, Pustovalov, 1991, pp. 206-212], but the wheels have no spokes. In my opinion, these chariots simply mark the connections of this region with the Near East during the Middle Bronze Age; they are not evidence of a parallel origin. In Eastern Europe chariots spread widely only from the start of the Sintashta-Abashevo time, and they show us the forms which are typical of this period in Eastern Mediterranean chariots. Representations of spoked wheels occur on Anatolian seals and terracotta tablets dated to the 19th – 18th centuries BC [Gorelik, 1988, p. 186]. It is assumed that a seal from Kültepe with the image of a chariot should be dated to 20001850 BC [Pigott, 1992, p. 48]. In Syria a seal with the representation of a chariot with eight spokes is dated to about 1750-1600 BC. Clay models of wheels are known in Northern Syria in the Hama H and J levels; that from the later level has spokes [MüllerKarpe, 1974, Taf. 247, 248]. An earlier depiction of a spoked chariot drawn by a horse is on a seal from Hissar IIIB, dated according to calibrated radiocarbon chronology to about 2350 BC [Parpola, 1988, pp. 205, 234]. In this work I do not use radiocarbon dating, but Hissar IIIB is in any case earlier than the Sintashta sites, with which it is possible to synchronise Hissar IIIC. The model of a wheel with spokes from Southern Turkmenistan is of the period Namazga V [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 154], which is contemporary to Hissar IIIB and fathers the thought that the earliest spoked wheels are those from North-Eastern Iran and Southern Turkmenistan. However, the small number of finds does not allow us to make a definite judgment. E.E. Kuzmina believes that accepting calibrated radiocarbon dates for Sintashta culture will set at nought the chronological priority of Syro-Anatolian chariots [Kuzmina, 1999, p. 272]. However, such an approach is completely wrong, as it proposes the use of incompatible reference points. The dating of Near Eastern chariots is grounded on traditional chronological schemes. Were we to use calibrated 120 dates, the chariots from Hissar IIIB would be earlier than the Sintashta examples. Another argument concerns the use of horses harnessed to battle chariots. As a rule, the supporters of the steppe Indo-Iranian homeland insist on the late appearance of horses in the Near East. It is believed that the use of carts drawn by horses began in Mesopotamia about 2000 BC [Hrouda, 1971, p. 120]. With the large number of depictions, there are no doubts about the early dates of Mesopotamian battle chariots (from the second half of the 4 th millennium BC). Unfortunately, even depictions of the 3rd millennium BC do not permit us to identify the equids harnessed to these chariots – of course, this does not preclude the use of horses. In my opinion, some Near Eastern depictions of the 3rd millennium BC show horses, but without detailed analysis it is difficult to prove. Unlike depictions, in which defects of technique have a definite effect, archaeological drawings can show a more objective picture. Therefore I have used a drawing of tomb 800 of the Royal cemetery at Ur of the ED IIIa period and dated, therefore, to about the middle of the 3rd millennium BC [Burney, 1977, fig. 57, p. 72] (Fig. 22.3). It is supposed that the battle carts found in these tombs were drawn by asses [Pigott, 1992, p. 39]. On the drawing the basket of a chariot with a shaft and harnessed animals is shown. By the presence of the alveoli of incisors and fangs on their upper jaw, these animals were determined as equids (Equidae gen. sp.). A horse’s skull is comparable in size with an onager’s, but is larger than that of an ass. Nevertheless, to judge from the size of a scapula bone (40 cm), this chariot was drawn by a pair of horses (Equus caballus) – the scapula of even the largest Kazakhstan onager does not reach such a size.1 Against this background, Hood’s judgment that figurines from III dynasty Ur tombs and from the Palace of Naram-Sin already show horses appears in a completely different light [Hood, 1979, p. 89]. Thus, the earliest battle chariots are known in the Near East. The earliest spoked wheels occur in the Near and Middle East too. There is also some evidence of the use of chariot horses at a very early time (mid-3rd millennium BC), although the main draught animal for this purpose was the ass. But probably the widespread use of horses in the Near East starts in the 19th – 18th centuries BC. 1 This has been determined by L.L. Gayduchenko. Fig. 48. Sintashta charioteers and chariot. All of this may be considered to reinforce the view that chariots first appeared in the Near East. The widespread occurrence in Sintashta burials of arrowheads is a very likely indicator of the use of Syrian tactics of chariot combat, in which chariots were used as mobile platforms for archers. In contrast, in the Aegean and Asia Minor charioteers fought predominantly with spears [Gorelik, 1993, p. 63]. Scholars usually ground themselves on Homer’s texts, images of the Hittite chariots in the battle at Quadesh, etc. However, the study by Drews has shown that in chariot combat everywhere the bow and arrow predominated. At the time of Homer the chariot had become simply a prestigious means of transport for military leaders, and in depicting the battle at Quadesh, the Egyptian artist never showed Hittite chariots in action, simply carrying away the defeated Hittites from the battlefield. But on the relief at Karnak the Hittite charioteers are armed with bows, and on the Knossos ‘chariot’s plates’ a lot of arrows are listed. Levantine and Kassitian charioteers used the same tactics as well [Drews, 1993, pp. 113-124]. Thus, it was widespread everywhere in the Near East and spread therefrom into Greece and the Southern Urals. Very probably the problem of disc-shaped cheek-pieces deserves similar treatment. The literature on this subject is vast [Smirnov K., 1961; Leskov, 1964; Pryakhin, 1972; Kuzmina, 1980; Zda- 121 novich, 1985]. I tend to the view that disc-shaped cheek-pieces with spikes are synchronous in the Eurasian steppe [Zdanovich, 1985, p. 118], and Mycenaean cheek-pieces are somewhat later [Kuzmina, 1980, pp. 15-20]. The presence of Mycenaean decorations on cheek-pieces in the western area of Abashevo cultures indicates a date a little later relative to Sintashta cheek-pieces. As stated above, Mycenaean decorations appeared in steppe and foreststeppe Eurasia in the period corresponding to the late Sintashta-Abashevo complexes. Therefore, the earliest cheek-pieces in this zone are those in Sintashta culture, and one example from Kamenka relating to Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. We have discussed already the question of the Near Eastern origin of Sintashta culture. Below (Section 9 of Chapter 3 in Part III) we shall speak also about a similar possibility for Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. Therefore, we judge that Syro-Palestinian cheek-pieces with spikes, of which early samples are dated no later than 17th century BC, may be considered as the prototype of the steppe discshaped cheek-pieces [Gorelik, 1988, p. 189]. We know now only bronze examples, but the Hittites also used pieces made of horn, whose early examples either do not survive or have not yet been detected. Only one disc-shaped cheek-piece found in Alaca Höyük is known in Anatolia. Unfortunately, its chronological position is unclear [Boroffka, 1998, p. 104]. Thus, until the appearance of the Sintashta population in the steppe zone, chariots were distributed there, but not widely and with somewhat different design features. In the region to the east of the Don, where subsequently Abashevo culture formed, they were completely unknown. This greatly assisted the subordination of these territories. Here, it seems to me, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of an author of a Chinese tract of the 1 st millennium AD, who wrote: “Ten chariots shatter one thousand people, a hundred chariots shatter ten thousand people” [Novgorodova, 1989, p. 141]. Even if we make allowance for exaggeration, the ratio would still be huge. In steppe and forest-steppe Eurasia no population with a similar army existed. This determined both the easy subjection of territories and their subsequent holding. It is worthy of comment also that ever since their first appearance, chariots in China have had the same design features as those of steppe Eurasia and the Near East [Novozhenov, 1994, pp. 160-163]. This indicates an infiltration of Indo-European military groups into Eastern Asia. 6.2. The structure of Sintashta society Reconstructing the social structures of ancient societies from archaeological evidence is a very complex matter, whose solution is impossible without correlating the evidence obtained from analyses of burial rites, grave goods, anthropology, sex and age characteristics of the deceased, etc. In addition, it is impossible for a local site unless there is a relatively large quantity of material. For Sintashta culture it is also necessary to take into account the relative chronological position of separate complexes, as the social characteristics of Sintashta society vary greatly over time. Thus, in this Chapter I shall attempt only the most general outline of its development, and I shall not use historical evidence as parallels, including information from the texts of ‘Rig Veda’ or ‘Avesta’ – although to do so could be rather effective in an illustrative sense, the cognitive capability is not too great. In many respects this is a typical situation, but in our case it is totally unacceptable. The cause of this lies in the mechanism of Sintashta culture formation, grounded on migration over a considerable distance, as a result of which this population appeared in a qualitatively new situation quite unlike the Near East. This would result in substantial social transformations. Therefore, it seems to me more reasonable to start from material and logic, instead of historical analogies. What I have just said should not to be understood as a rejection in principle of the use of ethnological and historical analogies. In a deeper analysis of material this would, of course, be required, but now its use can only distort the picture. On the face of it, the system described above of the functioning of the Abashevo family of cultures, leads us to assume a high degree of consolidation of Sintashta society. Furthermore, fortified settlements and burial constructions are sufficiently different from our ideas about the steppe Bronze Age to have caused talk about the existence of a 122 ‘proto-city civilisation’ in the Southern Urals [Zdanovich, Batanina, 1995, p. 56; Zdanovich, 1995, p. 37]. Recently, this point of view has been developed. It is supposed that there were some levels of development of the lands around Sintashta proto-cities: on the third level (within the borders of a river valley) there were small farms; on the fourth (land district with clearly delineated borders), undefended settlements, cult objects, etc. Mycenaean Greece, Minoan Crete and the states of the Mayas are shown as structural parallels [Zdanovich, 1999]. This interpretation was taken up by other scholars and, by way of repetition, entered the scientific arsenal [Zdanovich, Zdanovich D., 1995, pp. 48, 49; Zdanovich D., 1995, p. 64; 1995a, pp. 52, 53]. Recently, it achieved its logical completion in the formulation of an idea that a central supreme power existed in the Transurals in this period [Tikhonov, 1999]. To check the validity of the term ‘proto-city civilisation’ it is necessary to undertake a comparison of a structure identified archaeologically with the meaning of such concepts as ‘city’ and ‘civilisation’. Etymologically, the Russian word for ‘city’ – gorod – means a habitation space, fenced with defensive structures only. As a matter of fact, the word gorodishe, under which nobody aims to see functions appropriate to a city, has a similar value too. Therefore the differentiation of the concepts ‘city’ and ‘gorodishe’ should lie in the functional plane. This thesis is correct, particularly because cities were not always fenced with defensive walls – their presence or absence characterises trends in the military-political situation, nothing more. Therefore, our further reasoning will be based on the idea of a city as the centre of some district, executing political, administrative, economic or sacral functions. Any actual city could exhibit any number of these attributes, but Sintashta fortified settlements do not conform to this stipulation. In an economic sense, craft or trade may be regarded as possible functions of a city. However, the absence of crafts in Sintashta times has already been discussed. Sintashta made practically no use of specialised metallurgical furnaces, and the presence of metallurgical remains within all investigated dwellings testifies, probably, that domestic production characterised this advanced economic activity. This is so to an even greater extent with ceramic production: specialised pottery kilns have not been found, and there is no use of the potter’s wheel. However, in the Sintashta cemetery one hand-made vessel has been found. There were almost no admixtures in the clay – an attempt to replicate Near Eastern wheel-made prototypes [Gening et al., 1992, p. 250, fig. 136.8], but the quality of manufacture testifies, it seems, to a lack of experience. Use of a hard form during the forming of ware allowed perfect enough forms to be created, but also reveals the absence of professionalism. The surfaces of many, excellently treated with slipping, do not testify to craft production. This is a tradition only identified in the Near East from the Neolithic. Sometimes it is possible to find the judgment that craft skills were demanded to manufacture chariots. However, it is difficult to agree with this. Woodworking tools are always present in the burials of charioteers, who very likely produced and repaired the chariots themselves. Of course, we may assume a division of labour inside a family or collective, but in the case of Sintashta culture it is not possible to say anything for certain about craft production. The situation with trade is similar. Sintashta sites show no evidence of it. Furthermore, for this period it is hardly possible to imagine the use of Sintashta fortified settlements as intermediate points on trade routes from Kazakhstan to the Volga region, or from the forests to the steppe. The import of metal from the Southern Urals to the west cannot be accepted as likely beyond the framework of intertribal exchange, but subsequently I shall return to this problem. The main fact against interpreting Sintashta fortified settlements as cities, is the absence of the opposition ‘city – village’. Undefended Sintashta settlements in the Transurals are unknown. Despite longstanding talk about their existence, no adequate material has been yielded by any excavation, or even from a trial shaft. We can assume the presence of some small cattle-breeding camps, but they were not villages either by function or definition. The birth of the usual undefined settlements occurs only in the final stage of Sintashta culture, when fortified settlements start to fall into decay. Usually supporters of the ‘proto-city civilisation’ mention them when speaking about the presence of a surrounding agricultural territory. None of the above leads us to regard Sintashta settlements as ‘cities’. If the theoretical arguments do not convince, it is sufficient to turn to data about the size of those ancient settlements that may be designated as cities. In the Early Dynastic period Uruk measured 2.53 km, Lagash 123 19001200 m, Ur 1000690 m, and Tell Chuera 1000800 m [Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 391]. The area of Sintashta settlements cannot be compared with any of them. The term ‘proto-city’ seems to be no more pertinent. The prefix ‘proto-’ is used to designate precedence, but Sintashta fortified settlements showed no tendency to develop into cities at all. This was only the application in the Urals of a standard SyroAnatolian architectural form, part of a centuries old tradition. In the Near East, saturated with conflicts, this was the most sensible form of settlement, and not all similar settlements became cities. “Urbanisation” was apparently just a way of reducing the perimeter of the defensive walls. In the Transurals, with the stabilisation of the situation and the development of other architectural forms, which allowed the building of individual houses, the necessity for fortified settlements disappeared. In some works another approach to the concept of ‘proto-city’ is found: a high level of production with the manufacture of additional products, presence of social and property differentiation, political integration and a primitive state machine [Andreev, 1987, p. 10]. These features are obviously missing in Sintashta culture. Under some conditions we can accept the term ‘quasi-city’, defined by the following features: 1) fortifications; 2) compact building; 3) planning; 4) municipal improvements: paved streets, wells, drainage; 5) well-equipped dwellings; 6) presence of a ceremonial centre [Andreev, 1987, pp. 7, 8]. However, in itself this term accentuates the inappropriateness of the ‘city’ concept when applied to Sintashta settlements. In a similar way it is possible to discuss the concept of ‘civilisation’. This term can be traced to the designation of the civil community in Rome (civitas), although it started to be used much later [Kultura drevnego Rima, 1985, p. 23; Masson, 1989, p. 6]. In Rome civitas was understood as a normatively ordered society. In modern tradition this sense is largely preserved. Therefore it is necessary to understand under ‘civilisation’ any social structure within whose framework the relationships of individual – community – society are realised through the prism of civil law, i.e. civil society. As a counter to this are traditional societies, in which these relationships are realised directly through convention or ‘folk’ law. In conditions of ‘civilisation’ the rule of law is usually paramount, although not always. In any case, we may identify ‘civilisation’ with ‘statehood’, in- cluding early state forms within this concept too. Thereby we avoid the controversies that have arisen in the discussions of Roman statehood [Koshelenko, 1990; Kapogrossi, 1990; Günter, 1990; Bolshakov, 1990; Egorov, 1990; Kim, 1990; Kofanov, 1990; Chernishov, 1990; Shteierman, 1990]. It is worthy of comment that in the course of this only two landmarks were discussed as points of reference for the state: the laws of the XII tables and the first principate; whilst in Greece, as a similar bench mark, the reforms of Solon were considered [Koshelenko, 1987, p. 41]. A similar approach to the concept of ‘civilisation’ has allowed us to lay out the requirements for determining civilisations from archaeological evidence [Masson, 1989, p. 8]. They comprise the presence of cities, monumental public buildings, taxes or tribute, intensive economic activity, including trade and craft, writing, germs of science, advanced art, privileged classes and the state. In a reduced form this list may consist of monumental architecture, cities and writing. The realities of Sintashta culture do not correspond to this. Furthermore, as in the case of ‘cities’, there was no tendency to develop statehood, which again hinders the use of the prefix ‘proto-’. The inexpediency of understanding Sintashta culture as a proto-civilisation may be demonstrated to us most clearly by comparison with Archaic Greece [Yaylenko, 1990, pp. 17-28, 39-62]. The polis system itself arose there, as mentioned above, only at the start of the Classical period – the 5 th century BC. The social system of the Archaic period (13th – 6th centuries BC), understood as proto-polis, already showed features inconceivable for Sintashta society: the beginnings of private landholding and wage labour, and, especially, the individual nature of public relations. This social system differed from the polis in two qualitative respects: absence of civil society and of codified rules of law. For similar Anatolian settlement structures the term ‘Festung’ (bulwark, fortification) has been suggested [Korfmann, 1983, p. 194]. Etymologically this is close to the Russian term ‘gorodishe’ and the English terms ‘hill fort’ and ‘fortified settlements’, but there is no hint of any possible correlation with the terms ‘city’ or ‘proto-city’. Furthermore, for the problem under discussion, the fate of this architectural tradition in the Near East is essential. In the relevant Chapter we have observed its smooth development there over the some millennia. Its decay 124 took place in the second half of the 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC, and was connected with the appearance of early statehood and the first Anatolian civilisations. In Western Anatolia this was much earlier. Therefore, similar architecture does not of itself equate to level of civilisation. Quite the opposite; it is a reliable reference mark to the absence of such a level. Similar conclusions can be drawn from burial rites. Sintashta burials cannot be compared with the royal tombs of Ur or Trialeti barrows [Grigoriev, 1999]. Recently the term ‘complex society’ has started to be applied to Sintashta culture. This term seems to me completely meaningless, because everything that is more than a proton or neutron can be interpreted as in some way complex. Although the use of this definition allows extensive reasoning on paper, it has already proved in the course of the discussion to be difficult to operate with in practice. At the conference on Arkaim in August 1999, whose subject was complex societies, discussion of this problem was quickly minimised; even scholars who did not hold this position but were trying to discuss the problem in terms of it and using the relevant terminology, were compelled to use the most general phrases, or examples which did not connect directly to the problem [see Epimakhov, 1999]. Thus, we should forget the concept ‘proto-city civilisation’ and approach Sintashta culture without prejudice, resting exclusively on the available materials. Sintashta settlements do not provide any basis for speaking about social or property differentiation. The architecture of dwellings is standard; the artefacts they contain do not distinguish any one from another. Constructions in which we could see evidence of the higher social status of some group on the settlement are absent. There are traces of three dwellings in the centre of the settlement of SakrimSakla on the surface, but excavation of similar constructions in the Shilovskoye settlement on the Don and Demircihöyük in Anatolia have shown their productive nature. A similar situation obtained during all phases of Sintashta culture. The evidence of burial rites points to other conclusions. In what are, in my opinion, the earliest complexes (the Sintashta cemetery and part of the burials in the Kamenniy Ambar cemetery) appreciable social differentiation is missing. Burials of warriors, including burials with horses and chariots, are not always placed in the central burial tombs (the only exception is complex CI). These are the classic warrior cemeteries, which show sex and age differentiation only. Statistical analysis of burial rites has shown that charioteer burials are not distinguished from those of other men and in the general sampling, which includes women and children, comprise 18% by one estimation [Nelin, 1999, p. 55] and 14% by another [Epimakhov, 1998, p. 21]. This evidence was based on the presence of chariots or other attributes of warrior-charioteers in the complexes. However, the occurrence of combined cheek-pieces made of wood and bone leads one to suspect the existence of wooden cheek-pieces, which may not have survived [Usachuk, 1999, p. 157]. Prestige attributes (rarely found spearheads and axes) do not necessarily occur in burial tombs with chariots. So we cannot speak about the appearance of a special stratum of warrior-charioteers. The distinctions in the burial rite (sizes of grave pit, grave goods) were conditioned almost exclusively by sex and age characteristics and the number buried in a tomb [Nelin, 1999, p. 56; Epimakhov, 1998, pp. 20, 24]. These particularities continue into the following phase, whose burials already contain new features. Central burial tombs, in which the warrior-charioteers are buried, start to predominate quite noticeably. In other grave pits warrior burials occur too, but they are not distinguished by rich grave goods. The central tombs contain ceramics of Sintashta type; those at the periphery may also yield ceramics of the Volga-Ural cultures, sometimes in a ‘pure’ enough kind, sometimes transformed according to the Sintashta canon. Scholars have already identified this [Potyomkina, 1994, pp. 97, 98]. Thus, Sintashta society originally had the character of a rather monolithic militarised collective: the richer burials are not testimony to the appearance of another social stratum, but rather a feature of a personal superiority in general, unlinked to social differentiation. It is possible that the society had no permanent leaders at all. And the collectives were not very large, although it is possible to evaluate the number of people only approximately from the materials of these settlements. On the core sites excavated (Sintashta, Arkaim) the outer circle of dwellings had not been rearranged, but the dwellings of the inner circle had been rebuilt. Thus, at the outset, only the latter existed, containing about 20 dwellings. The area of Sintashta dwellings varies between 100 and 170 sq m. The vestibule and household rooms occupied a part of 125 this; the living rooms perhaps half. If we estimate that each person occupied 2 sq m, the number of inhabitants in each settlement falls within the range of 500-800 persons, of whom some 80 to 100 were adult males. Thus, it was a rather typical tribal collective with corresponding forms of self-administration. Indeed, it is possible that the population was even smaller. For the settlement of Demircihöyük, where the size of dwellings is half that of the Sintashta settlements, M. Korfmann has estimated that each house contained 5 – 5.5 persons [Korfmann, 1983, p. 217]. Using a similar estimate, the population of the inner circle of the Sintashta settlements was about 200 – 220. In the following phase, through the functioning of the developed system, including in the Volga-Ural steppe and forest-steppe, the Eastern European population became involved. Sintashta tribes dominated it, but a part of the late Poltavka population was included in their communities. First of all, this may be traced in burial rites – in central tombs Sintashta ceramics prevail (although not always). This hardly entailed significant changes to the social structure; there is certainly no reflection of this in the materials of settlements. The only change concerns size of settlement, with the number of dwellings increasing almost threefold and the number of inhabitants reaching 1000 – 1800 commensurately. There is mutual assimilation of the different population groups, so that all traces of social (or rather ethno-social) differentiation have vanished, even in burial rites, by the start of the Late Bronze Age. Anther important question is how the whole Abashevo socio-political scheme functioned. It is now rather difficult to say how many people had moved into the Transurals, as the absolute and relative chronologies of the separate settlements are obscure and we do not know which of them are early. I believe that it is reasonable to assume seven to ten settlements, which gives about 5000 – 6000 migrants from the Near East to the Transurals. Some had settled between the Don and the Western Urals, but there is no similar degree of concentration of materials comparable with Sintashta. Thus, the number of people taking part in this ‘exodus’ hardly exceeded 10,000. At first, in the course of this migration, a certain unity was demanded in the collective. Therefore at this stage I posit the existence of a common leader. It is possible that just such a leader was buried in the Large Sintashta barrow. Similar barrows are absent near other settlement and burial complexes of Sintashta culture, which accentuates its extraordinary nature. Subsequently, this degree of consolidation disappeared. We can find no obvious fortified settlement that could demonstrate its predominant role over the whole of Sintashta society. Thus, it is necessary to discount the idea of a unified system of Sintashta settlements. Nevertheless, some forms of unity could have existed. They were indispensable for organising the control of the Eastern European and Tobol-Ishim territories, and for the division of this control. Apparently, these functions were executed by a rather loose confederation of clans. It did not eliminate inter-tribal conflicts: settlements were repeatedly burned down (however, not always as a consequence of war). We can also guess that the expansion of settlements on the tributaries of the Ural was directed westwards, and that of the settlements on the Tobol tributaries eastwards, based on the course of the subsequent cultural transformation, in which there is observed the tendency to form the Early TimberGrave culture on the Ural, and the Petrovka on the Tobol. The transformation of the Sintashta system seems to be this. During the migration there was a rather close union of several Iranian tribes or clans, which disintegrated into a rather amorphous confederacy in the course of the development of Eastern Europe and the Transurals, and the process of settling the various territories. At this stage intertribal or inter-ethnic differentiation is entirely absent, but ethnic differentiation does accompany the resultant Sintashta dominance in the forest-steppe and steppe zones. Already in the second phase local populations began to be included in the social systems of the incomers, initially women (as we can see from the anthropological evidence of the Potapovka cemeteries), and originally in subordinate positions. Subsequently, ethnic distinctions were eroded from within. The inhabitants of Sintashta outposts in the Volga region and Kazakhstan grew into the local soil and the concerns of the metropolis became alien to them. This undermined the economic fundamentals of the Sintashta fortified settlements, which had increased considerably in size by this time and whose population had reached 20-30,000. It became impossible to sustain this concentration of population: the conditions of the steppe and the south of the forest-steppe could not support the quantity of cattle required. This had an effect on burial rites as 126 well. Above we discussed the reducing trend in sacrificial animals in burials from the early to the late phases of Sintashta culture. The outcome was the abandonment of fortified settlements as a form of living space and a transition to separate small settlements, scattered over the river valleys, with a gradual development of dependent territories. A new phase in the history of the region began, connected with the enormous Timber-Grave-Alakul formation. A similar situation is quite characteristic of a number of Eurasian cultures. Archaeologists have repeatedly found cases of clearly expressed social differentiation in the early stages of a culture and subsequent levelling. Apparently, it is a reflection of the processes of ethnic assimilation. At that time, the coming of a new ethnos and its dominance of a certain area immediately involved the appearance of ethno-social differences. In the process of assimilation these differences were smoothed out, and signs of social stratification disappeared from archaeological sites. Chapter 7. Economy In describing the economy of the Sintashta and Abashevo cultures, all writers make assumptions about their complex nature, combining metallurgy, cattle breeding and agriculture [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 116-157; Gorbunov, 1989, pp. 94-115; Zdanovich, 1989, p. 185]. The actual economic forms of a particular culture are usually outside the framework of consideration, and these forms were, in my opinion, rather different. In this essay I shall examine, predominantly, the Sintashta economy, using others to provide the indispensable background for understanding how the whole Abashevo economic system functioned. Although metallurgy was not the main economic activity of Abashevo times, in many respects it provided social development. 7.1. Metallurgy Abashevo-type metallurgy appears as a break with former Volga-Ural traditions. The genetic succession of Abashevo and Catacomb metal production [Korenevskii, 1983] is not beyond dispute; it is grounded upon types of artefact that were distributed widely through the Circumpontic area. Whilst this is so with many types of artefact, in some cases we must search for parallels in cultures of the southern part of this area. Metallurgical production wholly borrowed the tradition of arsenic alloying widespread in the southern zone. Alloying with tin was barely used, conditioned by the absence of tin minerals in the Urals. The atavism of crucible ore smelting, Balanbash melting cups and Sintashta birch bark vessels are preserved, although the chief smelting technique cannot be designated as smelting in crucible. Production had a strong home character. Smelting operations were carried out in all dwellings, but volumes are insignificant. Sintashta and Abashevo settlements do not give the impression of being intensive centres of metallurgical manufacture. Nevertheless, the metal trade apparently took place and, taking into account our ideas about Sintashta social structure, we can presume that a settlement may be considered as a trade unit. Alloyed metal imported from Ural centres was distributed, predominantly, through the southern part 127 of the forest-steppe, where the direct presence of allied populations has been identified. It barely penetrated into the steppe zone, and the quantity of it on the Middle Volga is rather insignificant too. One interpretation is that the metal trade was not conducted for profit, but from ‘geopolitical’ motives. This, of course, does not eliminate the possibility of some diffusion of arsenic bronze out of the borders of related tribes. Metal re-melting and forging were carried out everywhere in Eastern Europe. Seemingly, it was quite characteristic of all cultures of the Bronze Age. Imports of arsenic bronzes into the Volga-Kama region to the north, where the Seima-Turbino populations lived, were surprisingly large (Fig. 32). In a number of cemeteries (in particular in Turbino) the incorporation of (probably Ural) Abashevo people into the Seima medium is observed. The correlation of artefacts from complexes with different cultural features suggests that the Abashevo were subservient [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 222, 226, 227], but this demands special analysis. In the Asian distribution zone of Seima-Turbino nothing similar is observed. Single Sintashta objects are present, indicating the synchronism of only Sintashta and Rostovka, but metal import is obviously missing. First of all, in this period the SeimaTurbino populations still had communications with the Altai region, a rich ore base. On the other hand, we should not forget the migratory model of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, by which the meagre presence of Sintashta-Abashevo bronzes in the east and their large quantity in the west is explained. The situation changed fundamentally for the Seima-Turbino people on the western slopes of the Urals. The considerable distance brought problems with the import of metal from former sources, leading to a change to the use of local raw materials [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 273]. The nearest production centre was the Balanbash one on the Belaya river. Furthermore, the Sintashta-Abashevo system had started to disintegrate. In the Western Urals, the Seima-Turbino people came into contact with groups whose military organisation was weaker than in the Transurals. The Iranian component here was present to a lesser extent, and was mixed more intensively with the local tribes. Therefore as a result of Seima-Turbino pressure, a new system of relationships appeared, somewhat reminiscent of that which was constructed by the Sintashta people. In both cases we see the incorporation of neighbour- ing tribes into the society of aliens, and in the both cases what took place was not commodity exchange but rather the delivery of materials in the form of tribute. Whereas the Sintashta people took cattle as tribute, the Seima-Turbino took metal. Both Sintashta and Seima-Turbino materials demonstrate to us the subordinate position of those they incorporated, but the degree of subordination was not absolute and tended gradually to smooth out in the course of mutual assimilation. Thus, a significant amount of arsenic bronze in the Volga-Kama region is to be dated to a later time and already reflects in essence another situation; it does not have any relation to the classic Sintashta-Abashevo system. By the final phase, when the processes of disintegration had increased (Petrovka – Early Timber-Grave time), metallurgical production was distributed everywhere outside the primary centres. Its remains are found on many settlements of the Volga region, the Urals and Kazakhstan. Tin import from the Altai has been established. The forms of deliveries of metal probably underwent considerable transformation too. A relationship based on true exchange had appeared. If this existed in Sintashta-Abashevo times, it had a secondary character. To some extent the conclusion about the noncommodity character of metal production in Sintashta time may be supported by investigations of the ore base. Judging from analyses of slag, several ore mines were exploited, but only the mine ‘Vorovskaya Yama’ could be connected authentically with Sintashta culture. However, this is not certain either; it might have been exploited at a later time, as Late Bronze Age ceramics are found there. This mine is not comparable in scale with the Kargali ore mines or Kenkazgan. It is much smaller even than the individual mines of the Kargali field. Calculations show that about 10 tons of copper were obtained from the mine (I reckon this is an overestimation). Further calculations are very speculative – all conclusions have been drawn from suppositions – but they illustrate a problem of the marketability of the product. The Sintashta population of the Transurals varied at the different times from five up to thirty thousand persons. Taking into account that the lifetime of all the Sintashta phases was about 200 years (or more), and the average life of individual Sintashta people about 30-50 years, we can admit, the total population throughout was between 50,000 and 200,000. This equals 50 – 200 g of metal from 128 ‘Vorovskaya Yama’ per capita. Including other ore mines (and our investigation suggested that their number was not too great) can increase this number tenfold, but if we take into consideration the use of metal in burial rites and losses, this figure does not seem excessive. These calculations can be updated, but qualitatively this will not change the situation. They, as well as the character of production identified on settlements, indicate the absence of specialisation and marketable deliveries of metal. Nevertheless, metallurgy did not play a great role in Sintashta economics. 7.2. Agriculture The situation with agriculture seems even more confused. There is no direct evidence to indicate its presence. So, why is it believed to have existed? What is available is indirect, and not beyond dispute. One argument is the topography of settlements – arranged in broad river valleys conveniently irrigated from the estuaries [Zdanovich, 1995, p. 31]. However, this would demand considerable engineering activity by way of dams and channels, which should, of course, leave identifiable remains. The surroundings of fortified settlements have been thoroughly investigated – indeed it is difficult to find any other region, which has been inspected with such carefulness and by so many methods. It would be impossible to miss systems. But none has been found – the occasionally discussed irrigation ditches [Lavrushin, Spiridonova, 1995, p. 170; Zdanovich, Batanina, 1999, p. 213] are not such. There is indeed a network of long, narrow and shallow depressions, descending to the river, which are in reality traces of ancient cracks in the frozen earth. But they are packed tightly together and in local conditions would perform the contrary function of drainage: water does not flow uphill. Another argument is the discovery amongst Abashevo remains of simple digging tools [Pryakhin, 1976, pp. 125, 126]. However, it is not at all clear that they were used in agriculture. It is possible to say the same also about sickles, which are sometimes connected by scholars with the cultivation of grain crops [Gorbunov, 1986, p. 103; Pryakhin, 1976, p. 125]: Abashevo sickles could have been used for gathering and to provide winter forage for young cattle as well. In previous cultures of the Volga-Ural region there were no sickles. Cattle breeding had a nomadic nature, and for the winter cattle were herded to the south, or in water meadows and river valleys. The Sintashta people arrived with no agricultural skills. Otherwise, more developed shapes of sickles, which were widespread at this time in the Caucasus and the Near East, would have been introduced. On the other hand, having a settled mode of life, they could not drive cattle far to the south. Thus, there was the necessity to provide some forage, and this resulted in the development of sickles of such a basic type. Archaeobotanical investigations are even more convincing. The attempted backwashing of cultural levels of Sintashta fortified settlements has revealed no grain. In general, east of the Dnieper the flotation of cultural levels has yielded but a small amount of grain, all of it from the time of the Timber-Grave culture or later, and in the Urals from the time of the occurrence of the Fyodorovka and Mezhovskaya sites [Lebedeva, 1996]. These conclusions are based on a significant amount of flotation evidence and can hardly be doubted. In descriptions of Don Abashevo agriculture the discovery of separate grains of millet and wheat is mentioned [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 125]. However, reference to the original source demonstrates that feral kinds of millet and wheat were used [Hmelev, 1973, p. 168]. Thus, from the evidence available today, agriculture was absent from the Sintashta and Abashevo economies. This was compensated for by widespread gathering [Hmelev, 1973, pp. 168-171]. Even if traces of agriculture should be detected in the future (which I doubt), it did not play any noticeable role in the economy. We should allow for agriculture as a hypothetical factor in later investigations: in the Near East these tribes could have known about it. But it does not follow that this actual Iranian group was in possession of similar skills. However, I shall show below that the Sintashta population spoke Iranian, probably the Abashevo tribes too. In the Finno-Ugrian languages terms connected with agriculture and cattle breeding are known, borrowed from an early Iranian dialect, amongst them the term for a pig [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 921-929]. This quasi-testifies that the Abashevo people were a source for this borrowing, because there were pigs in their herd. Therefore, it 129 is necessary to assume the existence of agriculture in the forest-steppe Volga-Ural region, but the problem of agriculture in Sintashta culture remains open. However, the failure to find grains in the cultural layers indicates that if there had been agriculture, its role was very limited. 7.3. Cattle breeding From the above conclusions, it is clear that the main activity of the Sintashta and Abashevo economies was cattle breeding. If for the majority of Abashevo settlements this is probably so, the situation with the Sintashta economy is much more difficult. In the Chapter dedicated to the structure of the herd we have discussed the difference identified between herd structure and food, reflected in faunal remains on settlements. In the Sintashta herd the horse was used primarily for military purposes and as a draught animal. Cattle formed the principal source of food, with horses second and sheep third. There are calculations of the possible density of population in the Bronze Age, which take into account the number of cattle required per capita and the area of pastures to support them. Pursuant to this, a family consisting of 5-6 persons would have needed about 20 head of cattle (all pasture animals are evaluated as cattle). Based on these calculations, it is estimated that the valley of the Tobol river, an area of 65,000 ha, could have supported 6001,400 persons [Evdokimov, Povalyaev, 1989]. The radius of terrain of any Sintashta fortified settlement is about 25-30 km, which corresponds to an area of 280,000 ha, capable of sustaining about 4,000 persons. The population of one settlement was less than 2,000, so it seems the Sintashta people kept a reserve of pasturage. However, this is contradicted by a number of factors, which cannot be expressed statistically. The evidence adduced above is based on the modern ecological situation in the Tobol river valley. It takes into account the minimum level of cattle, below which reproduction of the herd is impossible. It is obtained for the Late Bronze Age and admits the limited occurrence of agriculture. In the Sintashta economy agriculture was absent. The area of river valleys in this region was smaller, and the watersheds had considerably smaller volumes of biomass than the valley meadows. The climate at the time was much more arid – this is apparent even without archaeo-climatological studies. The fortified settlements were so low lying that until recently they could be flooded when the river level was very high. However, all archaeo-ecologists agree that the Sintashta climate was much more arid and extreme than in the 3rd millennium BC [Dyomkin, 1999; Dyomkina, Dyomkin, 1999]. There is no archaeological evidence that the territory within the 30 km radius was completely developed. Any archaeological traces in favour of this are absent. The unstable political-military situation was a factor – marked by the steady preservation of the fortified settlement tradition and their occasional destruction by fire. Sintashta people could not, unlike nomads, drive cattle large distances. Furthermore, the indispensable minimum number of cattle was higher because many horses were not used as food. All of these factors taken together ought to put the Sintashta collectives on the edge of survival. But we observe the converse. Huge quantities of cattle were used in burial rituals, and society was quite rich and stable. Specialists note that use of animals in burial rites was redundant even for Petrovka and Pokrovsk burials. For the Sintashta rite they use the term “irrationality” [Kosintsev, 1999, p. 330]. In my view the cause of this paradox lies in the nature of the Sintashta economy, which it is possible to define as military – cattle breeding. In the course of migration from the Near East, which covered a large distance and was certainly enforced, it was impossible to keep all the herd indispensable for normal reproduction. Some part certainly reached the Urals – probably the hornless cattle, which were characteristic of the Near East – but not enough. There were possible two courses of action. The first, limited to restoring the herd gradually, was not pursued: early Sintashta burials are distinguished by abundant sacrifices. The second way was the enforced seizure of cattle in neighbouring areas. Their absolute military advantage allowed the Sintashta people to do this. Probably, the first and most extensive seizure took place in the course of migration. Control over the Eastern European forest-steppe and partly the steppe zone was henceforth established; its purpose, the periodic taking of cattle. It was supported by a constant military presence and episodic campaigns. This demanded a significant number of horses, which caused their dominance in the herd. In the process of the disintegration of the system, 130 and as a result of the gradual separation of the interests of the Iranian groups in Eastern Europe from those of their main massif in the Transurals, these cattle raids diminished. It is probable that earlier they were not too well ordered and were not the basic means of existence: that was local cattle breeding. Taking cattle by force allowed the Sintashta people not just to survive but to live well enough. With the disintegration of the system, the fortified settlements disappeared. For the steppes of Northern Eurasia, in conditions of purely cattle rearing economies, it was a nonsense – an artificially grafted alien tissue, which the organism rejected. Thus Sintashta culture carried the seeds of its own destruction. Nevertheless, on its basis the economic systems of the Late Bronze Age were formed. Chapter 8. Periodisation and chronology of the Sintashta culture After the discovery of Sintashta sites in the Transurals and of similar remains in the Volga region, attempts to understand their place in the system of the Volga-Ural and Ural-Kazakhstan cultures have continued. Originally they were synchronised with Early Timber-Grave sites in the Volga region and with Petrovka culture in Northern Kazakhstan [Zdanovich, 1988, pp. 138, 139; 1989, pp. 187, 189; Kachalova, 1985, pp. 42, 43]. In the same chronological horizon were placed the sites of the MultiCordoned Ware culture (KMK) in the Ukraine [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 37-39]. Now this has been revised and the Sintashta sites are considered as preceding the Early Timber-Grave culture, participating in its formation [Vasiliev et al., 1995a, p. 37]. However, as Sintashta is perceived as a culture formed with Abashevo participation, the latter is taken to be an earlier phenomenon [Vasiliev et al., 1994, p. 85; Kuzmina O., 1992, p. 75], and, accordingly, Poltavka sites also appear to be earlier. This interpretation has not raised doubts among scholars. However, a theory has also been advanced about the synchronism of Sintashta and Abashevo cultures [Epimakhov, 1993, p. 58]. The problems of the correlation of Sintashta with Catacomb culture are also a matter of debate. It seems that the formation of Sintashta was contemporary to the appearance of cordoned ornamentation in Catacomb cultures. On the Middle Don similar ornamentation occurs in the second phase of local Catacomb culture. Now this must mean that the first Pavlovsk phase of Middle Don Catacomb culture is, probably, contemporary to the late phase of Donets Catacomb culture. Another possible indicator of the synchronisation of Sintashta culture with the second phase of Middle Don Catacomb culture is the occurrence of curved bronze rim-plates for wooden vessels, which are rather characteristic of Sintashta. However, the Don finds differ from those in Sintashta by the punch decoration [Sinyuk, 1996, pp. 86, 88, 89, 130]. At the same time, we have already discussed the single forms comparable with Pavlovsk ceramics, in which residual Pit-Grave features are expressed. It is not a basis yet for the syn- 131 chronism of Sintashta with the Pavlovsk phase of Catacomb culture. It is more probable that the Sintashta formation corresponds to the beginning of the second phase of Middle Don Catacomb culture, and as the influence proceeded from the west, there are in the Sintashta material small inclusions of the earlier phase. Important for Sintashta chronology is the chronological correlation between Sintashta and MultiCordoned Ware culture (KMK): this last has numerous parallels in Central Europe, which should allow Central European chronological schemes to be used for cross dating Sintashta. Unfortunately, the possibilities of this are rather limited. There is no direct occurrence of Sintashta objects together with artefacts of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture in one complex, nor is there a common presence in any archaeological site, which would allow their stratigraphic correlation to be defined. As discussed above, there is a basis for the synchronisation of Don Abashevo with late KMK complexes, but this is also to assert the synchronism of the Abashevo culture in this area with sites of the Pokrovsk type, which places these KMK complexes later chronologically relative to the Sintashta sites. In particular, there is a basis for synchronising the late phase of the Middle Don Catacomb culture with KMK. In this phase Timber-Grave burial ritualism already occurs, which allows us to date this phase to the Pokrovsk period. In ceramics, cordoned ornamentation characteristic of the previous phase continues, but ‘herringbone parquet pattern’ and incised vertical herringbone ornamentation are known on KMK ceramics [Sinyuk, 1996, p. 134]. However, these features can corroborate only the synchronism of late KMK, late Catacomb and Early TimberGrave complexes, and their dating to the postSintashta period as well. The dates suggested for the beginning of the third phase of Middle Don Catacomb culture (late 17th – early 16th century BC) are compatible with this too. This, however, does not remove the problem of correlating early KMK and Sintashta. R.A. Litvinenko, who studied this problem, drew the conclusion that most of the types on which it is possible to make a comparison of KMK and Sintashta had rather a long life and cannot be used for this purpose, and that the only possible indicator was the ‘three-knobbed’ beads present on Sintashta sites and on late KMK sites [Litvinenko, 1999, p. 134]. However, if we take into account the fact that in the final phase of Sintashta culture po- tent westward impulses, often already transformed, have been identified, then this type of bead in Sintashta culture could not have derived from those in KMK, but should be regarded as a type existing separately in the East, introduced into the West in the final phase of Sintashta culture and at the beginning of the late KMK phase. In this case, early KMK and Sintashta can be regarded as in principle contemporary formations. Furthermore, I am not certain that early and late KMK sites belong to the same archaeological culture. However, this will be discussed below in the Chapter devoted to the Middle Bronze Age in Eastern Europe. It seems to be no less problematic to correlate Sintashta and Tashkovo cultures. Some scholars suppose that the Sintashta formation was affected by Tashkovo culture [Zdanovich, 1995, p. 41], others take a diametrically opposite stand [Kovalyova, 1995, pp. 69, 72]. The problem of periodisation of the Volga-Ural and Kazakhstan cultures is also complicated by the absence of reliable stratigraphic evidence. Therefore, in our attempt to solve it, we shall proceed by examining the development of cultural processes in the region, without which, in my opinion, any periodisation cannot be conceived at all. At its most general this scheme seems to be as follows. The advance of Aryan tribes eastward resulted in the formation of the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures, on the basis of which the Petrovka, Timber-Grave and Alakul cultures were subsequently formed. Contemporary, but with some lag, in the southern part of the forest zone and northern forest-steppe there was a movement of the SeimaTurbino population from the opposite direction, which provides very important chronological reference marks for comprehending the chronological correlation of Sintashta and Abashevo. According to the model suggested for SeimaTurbino sites, they are dated, as a whole, to the same chronological phase, but in the Irtish area these cemeteries occur somewhat earlier than in the Western Urals [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 262]. Nevertheless, already in the Irtish area we can identify a rather limited contact with Sintashta, reflected by the representative Sintashta objects made of arsenic bronze found in the Rostovka cemetery [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 65, 95]. Petrovka materials, where the proportion of tin bronze is extremely high, have already been dated later, by when, because of the penetration of Seima-Turbino populations, reli- 132 able deliveries of tin had been established and the related technologies had been borrowed. The Turbino cemetery, arising later than Rostovka, shows close connections with Ural Abashevo. This allows us to conclude that, as a whole, Sintashta and the Abashevo of the Western Urals were synchronous. There is no absolute evidence for the synchronisation with them of Abashevo cultures on the Don and Middle Volga, but there are some convincing facts that western and eastern Abashevo cultures are synchronous. The process of Seima-Turbino migration was rather transient [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 276], and Abashevo and Sintashta metalworking traditions are so similar that there is no basis for their separation from each other. Neither the use by the Abashevo people of the Don and Volga of metal from the Urals nor the absence of their own ore smelting technologies proves their formation prior to the metallurgical centres of the Urals starting to function. The common Abashevo ceramic tradition has no precursors in the Volga-Ural region and was largely connected with Sintashta migration from the Near East. To the south, Abashevo cultures are synchronous to Poltavka culture. There is some evidence to support this: their common precedence to Early Timber-Grave culture; an appreciable presence of Poltavka materials on Sintashta sites of the high phase, where they had been subjected to rather fast transformation by the Sintashta canons; presence of metal of the rather late VU and VK groups in some Poltavka burials in the Potapovka cemetery [Agapov, Kuzminikh, 1994, p. 170]; mixing of the Poltavka and Sintashta ceramic traditions in the Potapovka cemetery; participation of Poltavka culture in the formation of Petrovka culture. The last may be indicated by the decoration executed by ‘stepping’ combed impressions, rather typical of Petrovka ware with a short vertical cylindrical neck and ledge, and the use of crushed shells in clay for pottery making. The discovery on the Poltavka culture settlement at the village of Staraya Yablonka of Abashevo ceramics and a knife with a small waist and pointed heel to the tang, testifies to a partial synchronisation of Poltavka and Abashevo complexes too [Vasiliev, Nepochatii, 1997, p. 44]. In addition, Petrovka culture is synchronous already to the Early Timber-Grave culture of the Pokrovsk type, although it was formed somewhat earlier. It appears that the earliest Petrovka sites in Kazakhstan were partly contemporary with Sintashta culture of the high phase in the Transurals. This is suggested by their forming because of the coming of people from the Transurals, as well as the initial use by metallurgists of the Semiozerki II settlement of ore sources from the area of Sintashta culture [Grigoriev, 1994, p. 18]. In the Transurals, Petrovka sites are later developments; this is reliably attested by the stratigraphy of the Ustye and Sintashta settlements [Vinogradov, 1995] and by the nature of the Petrovka metal technologies as well. Similarly, the Pokrovsk type formed on the basis of the Sintashta-Abashevo complexes everywhere, including the Ural basin in the Transurals. In this period, the presence of Early Timber-Grave people of the Berezhnovka type may be observed in the Transurals. The formation of Early Timber-Grave and Petrovka cultures marks the start of the following chronological phase, which coincides with further penetration by the Seima-Turbino population west into the Middle Volga basin, and the appearance of the Seima cemetery. In the Orenburg area Sintashta migration set a limit to Pit-Grave culture. Their contacts have not been fixed, but there is no other explanation for the demise of Pit-Grave culture in the south of the Western Urals. However, artefacts typical of Abashevo metalworking are absent. It is possible, therefore that Pit-Grave people in this zone disappeared before the Sintashta migration owing to a disastrous drought in the previous period. Above I have already mentioned the connections of Tashkovo and Krotovo cultures, and with the westward penetration of Seima-Turbino tribes too. The latter is demonstrated by the presence of Seima arrowheads and drops of tin bronze of the VK group in material of the Tashkovo II settlement. This gives a basis for synchronising Tashkovo II, Rostovka cemetery and Sintashta. Late Tashkovo materials are very likely dated to the post-Sintashta period. Two Tashkovo vessels have been found in barrow 19 of the Chistolebyazhye cemetery of the Alakul culture [Matveev, 1998, pp. 276, 277, 345]. It is necessary to make one small clarification concerning the settlement of Tashkovo II. As will be shown in Section 2 of Chapter 2 in Part II below, I regard the Chirkovo, Krotovo and Seima-Turbino sites as contemporary to such settlements as Tashkovo II. Furthermore, the Tashkovo ceramic tradition itself has earlier roots in the Transurals and indeed, to some extent, inherited both the ornamental techniques and decorative schemes of the Eneolithic Lipchinskaya culture. This opens the possibility 133 of some sites linked to Tashkovo culture having an earlier date than Seima-Turbino bronzes and the Tashkovo II settlement. The lower border of their existence is not quite clear: they could be contemporary to early Sintashta. Similarly, it seems that there are pre-Seima Krotovo ceramic complexes on which such typical details of the ware as the cordon are absent [Stefanova, 1986, p. 44]. Comparisons allow us to divide the Volga-Ural cultures into two chronological groups. The first one contains Sintashta-Abashevo and late Poltavka antiquities. Use of arsenic ligatures, absence of the technology of casting socketed objects, and the presence of a great number of artefacts having parallels within the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province favour consideration of these cultures within the framework of the Middle Bronze Age. Indeed we may speak quite confidently about the synchronisation of their appearance with Multi-Cordoned Ware culture (but it is not quite clear with which one) and the transformation of the Catacomb cultures in the West, which indicates the period MBA II. The chronological framework of Abashevo cultures covers this entire period. Therefore we cannot talk about a period of transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age: the whole era was characterised by its own features, qualitatively distinct from LBA features. According to this, the first phase of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province may be considered as part of the Middle Bronze Age. The disintegration of the system and the influence of Seima-Turbino metalworking resulted in the appearance of tin ligatures, thin-wall socketed casting and new types of object (first of all in the appearance of celts). Therefore, Early Timber-Grave and Petrovka sites should be attributed to the Late Bronze Age and, accordingly, to the second phase of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province. Thus, the cultures of Middle Bronze Age II in the West are partly contemporary to the Late Bronze Age cultures in the East, and also in the Kama basin. This was conditioned by the dynamic character of the formation of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province system, and the contrary directions and partial synchronism of the formative impulses. Briefly we shall touch upon the internal periodisation of Sintashta culture. Usually, three phases are mentioned, but the last, the ‘late’ phase, includes sites of the Petrovka and Pokrovsk types, dated to the Late Bronze Age – they were a continuation of Sintashta culture, but already outside its framework. However, consideration of these sites as a ‘final’ phase in the existence of the Sintashta system, or in another terminology of the ‘country of cities’, is quite correct. Furthermore, there are Sintashta objects with Petrovka and Early Timber-Grave features. It is possible to regard them as transient. Sintashta culture itself may be discussed as two phases only: early and high. The border between them (like that with sites of the Petrovka-Pokrovsk era) is rather fuzzy and is determined less by qualitative than quantitative indicators. In the architecture of fortified settlements these distinctions are inconspicuous. The consideration of oval fortified settlements within the early phase is hardly right: their Near Eastern prototypes, as shown in the Chapter 1, were round in form. The distinctions in burial rite are more visible. Secondary burials, burials of warrior-charioteers placed in circumferential tombs, burials accompanied by rich sacrifices, and burial sites without a mound are all more characteristic of early graves. In the ceramic complex types with Syrian and Transcaucasian parallels prevail. It is possible that bronze arrowheads date only to this time, but it is difficult to be confident. Some features are typical of burial customs of the high phase: burial mounds, ditches and banks encircling the burial site, clear differentiation of central and circumferential burials, connection of secondary burials mainly with central tombs, more modest sacrifices. Eastern European forms occur in the ceramic complex alongside Syrian, and forms developed from the synthesis of the two. Angular biconical ware, which is typical of the following phase, appears. However, it is possible to discuss these characteristics as just a tendency – the individual sites (for example, Kamenniy Ambar 5) combine in themselves features of various phases. After dealing with the problems of relative chronology, we can turn to those of absolute chronology, which rests on a very shaky basis. However, building on ideas about the place of Sintashta among the Volga-Ural cultures, it was possible to offer a solution to these problems. Originally, the culture was dated to the 16th century BC [Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1997, pp. 26-34; Gening, 1975, pp. 94, 95]. Increased understanding of its place as a precursor of the Early Timber-Grave culture has allowed the dating to be pushed back to the 17th century BC [Gening et al., 1992, p. 376; Gorbunov, 1986, p. 68], and subsequently, on grounds of synchronism with KMK, to 134 the 18th century BC [Zdanovich, Zdanovich D., 1995, p. 49]. These dates are all in the traditional system of chronology. It is possible it to agree in general terms, but today the tendency is to a further deepening of Sintashta chronology – up to the 20th century BC – on grounds of radiocarbon analysis [Vinogradov, 1995]. There are three strands for the cross dating of Eurasian cultures this time: Chinese, Balkan-Danube and Near Eastern. The first gives considerably later dates – from the 14th century BC – and has been subjected in this connection to quite searching criticism. The formation of Seima-Turbino bronzes under a Chinese impulse has been pronounced as ungrounded [Chernikh, 1970, p. 101]. More reliable dates are demonstrated by European parallels. The presence of Seima-Turbino-type spearheads in the Borodino hoard indicates a 16 th century BC date [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 259]. However, taking into account that the infiltration of Seima-Turbino bronzes was in a westerly direction, and the synchronism of the Seima cemetery on the Oka river with Early Timber-Grave culture, the date should be that of the start of the Late Bronze Age, i.e. the date of the Early Timber-Grave and Petrovka cultures. The high phase of Sintashta may be dated partly to the 16th century BC too, and so may the Abashevo cultures. The formation of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon on the Altai is dated to the 17th century BC, based on the reasons given above and on non-calibrated radiocarbon dates [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 261]. The currently favoured dating of disc-shaped cheek-pieces is not beyond dispute. If we start with the idea that these cheek-pieces originated in the Eastern European steppes, the occurrence on them of decoration executed in pseudo-Mycenaean style becomes unclear. However, if we assume Balkan impulses, this gives a sufficiently late date. Therefore, it is absolutely true that Mycenaean decoration is not a basis for the late dating [Otroshenko, 1986, p. 231]. Because of this, steppe cheek-pieces are usually understood as earlier and are dated to the 17th – 16th centuries BC [Novozhenov, 1994, p. 178; Kuzmina, 1980; Zdanovich, 1985]. However, we cannot use cheek-pieces to date cultures when it is highly probable the Eastern European cheekpieces were themselves dated on the basis of our ideas about that region’s cultural systems. But if we do rest upon cheek-pieces, and the earlier date of Sintashta cheek-pieces relative to those on the Don (and the context of these finds does not contradict this), the absence of decoration on Sintashta cheek-pieces may be regarded as a sign of an early date. The traditional dates of the Mycenae are 1570-1515 BC according to the long chronology and 1550-1490/80 BC according to the short [Kaiser, 1997, p. 130]. This also determines the end date of the Sintashta culture’s existence. Based on the historical model suggested here, the Near Eastern line of cross dating is basic for us. The appearance in the Near East of disc-shaped cheek-pieces, and also the widespread occurrence of chariots of the type brought north by the Sintashta people, is limited to the period of the 19th – 17th centuries BC [Gorelik, 1988, p. 192; Novozhenov, 1989, p. 115]. Depictions of headbands suggest the presence from this time of disc-shaped cheek-pieces, whose early metal samples are dated to the 17th century BC [Novozhenov, 1994, p. 180; Gorelik, 1988, p. 192]. Thus, we can base a date of the 18 th – 17th centuries BC upon cheek-pieces and chariots. But it is necessary to remember that the finds discussed above from the time of Namazga V, Hissar IIIB and the royal tombs of Ur indicate even earlier dates. In Anatolia socketed chisels are dated to the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC, which provides a lower date limit for Sintashta culture [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, pp. 170-173]. Chisels and drifts without socket cannot be used for dating, as they occur in Anatolia throughout the Bronze Age [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, pp. 159-174]. It is not quite clear whether we can use Sintashta spearheads with an open socket. In the 17 th century BC spearheads with a cast socket occur in Transcaucasia and Syria-Palestine (Trialeti, RasShamra etc.) [Dzhaparidze, 1994, p. 89; Kushnaryova, 1994, p. 104]. Therefore, the absence of similar technology in Sintashta metalworking may mean that the migration took place before this. However, it could not be before the early 2nd millennium BC, when the transition from stemmed to socketed spearheads (appearing, however, somewhat earlier) occurred in the Near East [Esayan, 1966, p. 15]. Narrow dates may be indicated also by a fragment of an axe of Kabarda-Pyatigorsk type found on the Olgino settlement, which corresponds to the second phase of the North Caucasian culture: in the first phase axes of this type were smooth. The transition to the second phase took place about 18001700 BC [Markovin, 1994b, p. 283; Nelin, 1996a]. Therefore, the Sintashta migration could not have 135 taken place earlier than 1800 BC. A piece of a stone axe with Fatyanovo and Balanovo parallels from the Arkaim settlement offers much broader dates – the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. Tanged bronze arrowheads provide indirect evidence. In Anatolia they occur from the 3 rd millennium BC, but diffuse widely in the 17th century BC [Medvedskaya, 1980]. Their rather infrequent occurrence on Sintashta sites compared with stone arrowheads points towards the 18th century BC. A knife with a rhombic heel to the tang, found in Ur, is dated to the 18th – 17th centuries BC [Gorelik, 1993, pp. 224, 225]. A small bronze wheel on casting moulds from Kültepe may be dated to the Karum period. In the short chronology this corresponds to 1850-1650 BC, and in the middle chronology to 64 years earlier. The casting mould from the house of Adad-Sululi corresponds to the time of Karum Kaneš II [Müller-Karpe A, 1994, pp. 49, 215-217]. Ware that I consider a prototype of Sintashta forms appeared in Tell Mardikh IIIA level, which has a broad dating from the 20th century BC. The same ware occurs in Hama H, which succeeded Hama I in the 19th century BC [Ortmann, 1985, p. 69; Loon, 1985, pp. 57, 58, 60]. In Tell Nagila in the south of Palestine, ceramics of similar shapes occur on ruins of a settlement of Middle Bronze Age II (1750-1550 BC). Thus, we have quite a broad range of dates. I suppose that the most reasonable fall into the 19th – 17th centuries BC, whilst the above mentioned parallels – chariots, spearheads, axes, arrowheads and cheek-pieces – suggest the 18th century BC as quite probable. A consideration of Seima-Turbino material brings us to the problems of calendar dates. These sites start to diffuse from east to west somewhat later than the rise of Sintashta, and the materials of the Rostovka cemetery permit the reliable synchronisation of Sintashta culture and these cemeteries of the Asian zone. That Seima sites in Eastern Europe were partly contemporary to Sintashta is confirmed by the inclusion of Abashevo material in them. However, they continued to exist into the postSintashta period, and sometimes include Early Timber-Grave material. In the Carpatho-Danubian basin the infiltration of Seima-Turbino metalworking in the form of spearheads with round decorated socket is dated by the horizon of the Apa-Hajdusamson hoards, Veterov culture, Madjarovce group, and in Southern Germany by the Langquaid hoard. This also corresponds to the final stage of Sintashta, and to stage BrA2b, and is dated in the system of calibrated radiocarbon dates to about the 18th century BC [Gerloff, 1993, p. 66]. Indeed it is possible that the distribution of these principles of metalworking took place somewhat later here than in the east. Subsequent distribution in this area of spearheads with a smooth socket, close to Petrovka and Pokrovsk examples, was a mark of the end of Sintashta culture. In Central Europe, metalwork of this type is represented by the horizon of the Bühl hoard, which corresponds to periods BrA2c in Austria or BrA2\B1 in Southern Germany and to the late Wilsford series of the Wessex culture, and is dated to about 1650 – 1600 BC [Gerloff, 1993, p. 78; Rittershofen, 1984, pp. 322324; Neugebauer, 1991, Abb. 9,10]. It is worthy of comment that there is at this time Andronovo-like ware on settlements in Southern Germany [see Krumland, 1998]. At this time Sintashta culture no longer existed. This situation also corresponds in general to the latest radiocarbon dates of Sintashta culture. It is necessary to take into account as well that Eastern European inclusions certainly appeared in the West later, but how much later it is impossible to say. From all that has been said, it is possible that Sintashta culture corresponded in time with stage BrA1 in Central Europe, however it is not quite clear to what part of this stage it should be dated. Below we shall discuss the conformity of early KMK and a number of the cultures succeeding the Bell-Beaker and Corded Ware cultures in Central Europe. However, we do not know if Sintashta was synchronous to early KMK material. The chronological position of this material can be determined relative to the sites of Central and Western Europe. The final phases of the Corded Ware cultures were replaced in Germany and Austria by new cultural types – Straubing, Unterwölbing, Adlerberg. These are characterised by burials with very few grave goods, except bone rings, which is identical to KMK burials [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 528-531; Bertemes, 1989, Taf. 27]. The same situation is observed also in North-Eastern Italy (Polada culture). Furthermore, ceramics with relief ornamentation, unknown in Central Europe since the Neolithic Chamer and Mon-See groups, spread. A very precise correspondence to some types of ceramics of the KMK and Late Catacomb cultures may be traced among materials of Wessex culture [Gerloff, 1975, pl. 48. C. 1. 49, A. 250, B. 3. 58, 59], although the 136 local ceramic tradition of the Bell-Beaker culture is predominant there. At the same time, the distribution of Central European (Unětice culture) metalworking traditions is very clear. These processes fall into the stages BrA1 and early BrA2, and are dated to the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC, which wholly corresponds to the calibrated radiocarbon dates of Sintashta. Thus, we may regard the formation of Sintashta and KMK, and the essential cultural transformations in Europe, as contemporary phenomena, carried out within the framework of a unified forming process. With a view to correcting the chronological system, we shall attempt, with the help of Sintashta materials, to superimpose the European and Near Eastern lines of synchronisation. As stated above, Sintashta settlements did not exist for long: they underwent only two rebuildings before they were replaced by Early Timber-Grave and Petrovka sites. I have my doubts about the durability of similar constructions, although I admit that even some quite significant repairs might not be identifiable archaeologically. Nevertheless, judging from the nature of the cultural layers and the remains of dwellings, fortified settlements could not have continued in existence for as long as several centuries. This does not allow us to take as initial dates the 20th – 19th centuries BC, if we start from the traditional chronological system. The duration of the high phase of Sintashta culture could, perhaps, be determined more clearly by means of dendrochronology. An investigation was conducted by A. Gavriluk but, unfortunately, it was not completed. Therefore it is not quite clear how fully the dates obtained cover the whole period of Sintashta culture. Overall, the length of the high Sintashta phase was 130 years, and taking into account the Early Timber-Grave and Petrovka periods, 230 years. As we date the start of the Early Timber-Grave culture to the 16th century BC, the exodus of the Sintashta people from the Near East may be dated within the range of 1730-1640 BC. Dates of the both ends of the range tie in with actual events. In 1742-1740 BC the Kassite encroachment into the country between the Tigris and Euphrates and their infiltration into the Khabur basin took place [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, p. 66]. About 1650 BC, Hattušili I came to the Hittite throne and expanded militarily into South-Eastern Anatolia and Northern Syria [Herney, 1987, pp. 24, 190]. The earlier date is more likely. If we accept the second, we are compelled to date the Early Timber-Grave culture and, accordingly, the Seima cemetery to the late 16th – early 15th century BC, which narrows unjustifiably the chronological range of the TimberGrave and Alakul cultures. In addition, such dating of Seima-Turbino conflicts with its parallels in the Balkan-Carpathian area [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 260]. Also in favour of the first date is the dating of the late limit of Pit-Grave culture in the SouthWestern Transurals and the beginning of KMK in Ukraine [Zdanovich, Zdanovich D., 1995, p. 49; Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, p. 79]. This date does not conflict with that derived from typological parallels, or with the conclusion discussed above that the most authentic dating of the early Sintashta complexes is the 18th century BC. This allows us to return to the question of the chronology of Sintashta culture. Its early phase is to be dated to the last third of the 18 th century BC – early 17th century BC, the same time as the formation of the Abashevo cultures on the Don, in the Western Urals and on the Middle Volga. The high Sintashta phase covers the whole 17th century BC. The appearance of Seima-Turbino tribes in the Middle Irtish basin falls into the same chronological range. In this connection, the appearance of the Tashkovo II settlement is to be dated within the 17th century BC, and of Chirkovo culture in the Kama area to the 17th – 16th centuries BC, which is compatible with the accepted dating for this culture [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, p. 136]. At the same time, it is necessary to assume the existence of earlier Tashkovo sites. In the late 17th – early 16th century BC the formation of the Early Timber-Grave and Petrovka cultures took place. It seems to be quite possible that the re-forming of Poltavka culture and the appearance of late Poltavka sites were caused by Sintashta encroachment into Eastern Europe. In this case, we may date these sites to the late 18 th – 17th century BC. Such, in my opinion, is the system of Sintashta chronology and the chronology of neighbouring areas. Of course, this demands a careful verification by means of dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating. Indeed, taking into account the specificity of these methods, it is necessary either to verify or to correct the suggested system based on a considerable series of calibrated dates. However, must be stressed that in the present work traditional chronological schemes are used. Use of dendrochronologically calibrated radiocarbon dating has resulted in 137 considerably earlier dates for European cultures. In this connection it has been suggested that the dates of Eastern European archaeological cultures be changed [Trifonov, 1996a]. Accordingly, the chronological horizon into which the late Catacomb, Potapovka and Pokrovsk antiquities fall, is to be dated to the period 2100-1800 BC. The calibrated dates for Sintashta fall into either the 20 th century BC [Vinogradov, 1995] or the 19th – 17th centuries BC [Kuznetsov, 1996b, p. 58]. Furthermore, we should remember that the earliest Pokrovsk and Potapovka sites may be contemporary with the latest Sintashta. Therefore, we must be ready to redate both the whole range of Eurasian cultures and the historical events known from Near Eastern sources. But although there are dates within the 21 st – 20th centuries BC on Sintashta settlements, the basic radiocarbon dates fall into the interval of the 18 th – 16th centuries BC [Zdanovich, 1997, p. 60; Kuznetsov, 1996b, p. 57]. At the same time, there is a series of dates obtained for the Sintashta cemetery two decades ago. These dates fall into the range of the late 24th – early 17th century BC – the calibrated dates of the definitely later Alakul culture fall into the 20th – 18th centuries BC [Matveev, 1998, pp. 362-372]. However, these were obtained from the material of just two cemeteries on the periphery of Alakul culture. They cannot reflect later Alakul complexes, and the material from these cemeteries shows a great number of Petrovka features. The calibrated radiocarbon dates obtained on the Timber-Grave settlement of Gorniy fall into the 17th – 15th centuries BC [Chernikh et al., 1999, p. 98], and correspond better to the calibrated dates of the late Sintashta culture than do the dates obtained on the Alakul sites by A.V. Matveev. Thus, radiocarbon analysis suggests two probable chronological positions for Sintashta: the last third of the 3rd millennium BC and the 20th – 18th centuries BC. In the judgment of A.V. Matveev, this removes the problem of the early enough occurrence of the Mitannian Aryans in the Near East relative to traditional Sintashta dates, and permits the interpretation that they came from the north [Matveev, 1998, p. 373]. However, this approach is absolutely illegitimate: the traditional chronology of Northern Eurasia is constructed on Near East chronology and, in comparing North Eurasian archaeological evidence with the history of the Near East, it is absolutely unacceptable to substitute radiocarbon chronology. 138 Chapter 9. Beginning of the Late Bronze Age in steppe Eurasia The beginning of the disintegration of the Sintashta-Abashevo system, as already mentioned, falls into the early Late Bronze Age. The infiltration of the Seima-Turbino population promoted the re-forming of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province, the appearance of tin ligatures, development of new bronze object types and transformation of old ones [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 266, 267]. At this time the borders of metallurgical and mining production were extended fundamentally, resulting in its appearance throughout the Urals and Kazakhstan. Tin was most probably extracted in Eastern Kazakhstan, where there were huge reserves in the fields of the Kalba and Narim mountain ridges [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 247, 248]. These factors promoted the essential transformation of the Province, forming qualitatively new trends and types of connection. However, the re-forming of the metallurgical province did not automatically result in the termination of the Sintashta-Abashevo system – what we can see under both Early Timber-Grave culture of the Pokrovsk type and Petrovka culture is its persistence. In these cultures the gradation of the burial rite was preserved, although not so clearly expressed. Fortifications are known everywhere in Petrovka culture and in the Early Timber-Grave of the Transurals. This requires a twofold approach to this period. As a whole, we must view it within the framework of the Late Bronze Age and, accordingly, as a stage in the formation of the Timber-Grave and Alakul cultures, but on the other hand we may speak of it as a stage in the disintegration of the old system. The true balance may vary from area to area: this process did not happen uniformly and rested on different bases. The enormous charge of power given by Sintashta culture had a deep effect on further cultural genesis in the Eurasian steppe and forest steppe. In the previous Chapters I have demonstrated why the Sintashta system disintegrated. Above all, this was internal, connected with the gradual attenuation of communications between the diverse areas developed by the Iranian population, and also with the inclusion of local populations into Iranian groups. This caused an increase of cultural polymorphism. Probably the final blow to the system was the appearance of the Seima-Turbino and then Fyodorovka populations. The earliest new cultural stereotypes started to show themselves in the east, in the TobolIshim interfluve. Here, on the basis of migrating bearers of the Sintashta culture, Petrovka culture formed [Zdanovich, 1973; 1983; 1988]. In addition, Poltavka groups probably participated in its formation, although their role was not great. At any rate, in the considerable unification of forms and ornamentation of ceramic ware, different manufacturing technologies and traditions may be observed, which is usually connected with the mixing of different populations [Gutkov, 1995a]. Petrovka culture in many respects inherited Sintashta features (Fig. 49). Ditches and ramparts encircle its fortified settlements, but these fortifications had a rectangular plan. The reasons for this change are not quite clear. On the Middle Irtish, similar rectangular fortified settlements are found in Krotovo culture (Chernozerye VI) [Stefanova, 1988, p. 55]. This culture formed after early Sintashta, but it is obviously earlier than Petrovka. Therefore, eastern influences, which resulted in such a transformation of architecture, cannot be excluded. In Petrovka culture there are burials of warrior–charioteers, but lacking the splendour and monumental character of the burial architecture and rites typical of Sintashta. The types of metal artefact are essentially a further development of Sintashta forms. The most obvious change is in the ligature: Petrovka metallurgists alloyed copper with tin [Kuzminikh, Chernikh, 1985, pp. 365, 366]. There are objects succeeding Seima-Turbino metalworking – spearheads with cast sockets [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, fig. 47.2]. The types of furnace which arose in the Sintashta period were developed further: two-sectioned furnaces with a depression for two-sectioned 139 2 1 3 11 8 4 10 9 7 5 6 13 12 14 15 17 18 19 16 20 21 22 24 23 25 Fig. 49. Petrovka culture. 1 – Petrovka II; 2, 15-17 – Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery; 3, 4-6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 22-24 – Kulevchi; 7, 10-13, 19, 21, 25 – Berlik; 9 – Kamishnoe II. 140 bellows, and deepened furnaces too. A new type of raw material, smelting ore from quartz veins, was brought into use [Evdokimov, Grigoriev, 1996]. However, as a whole, Petrovka culture may be considered the successor of Sintashta traditions, although eastern impulses are evident, mainly in architecture and metalworking. The culture had a tendency to extend the developed area. Petrovka sites are known both in Central Kazakhstan and in the forest-steppe part of the Tobol basin [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 132; Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 83, 183-197, 227]. In the Tobol area, Petrovka features are rather clearly expressed in early materials of Alakul culture [see Matveev, 1998]. Petrovka complexes replaced Sintashta ones in the Southern Transurals on the western tributaries of the Tobol. This is clearly observed in the material of the well-investigated Ustye settlement [Vinogradov, 1995]. Apparently, in this region there is no development of Sintashta culture into Petrovka culture. The cultural changes here were connected with the coming of the Petrovka population from Kazakhstan [Grigoriev, 2000]. Obviously, this cultural transformation was not accompanied by any essential linguistic changes: all the main components participating in it had their roots in Sintashta culture. In an ethnic sense we may regard this transformation as an extension of the territory that had been developed by the Iranian population in the Asian part of Eurasia. Similar ‘mild’ cultural transformation also took place in the Volga-Ural region (Fig. 50). On the face of it, it seems that the formation of a new cultural bloc here starts first on the Lower Volga, where sites of the Berezhnovka type occur. The characteristics of these sites suggest strongly that their genesis was with Poltavka culture [Kachalova, 1985, p. 33; Merpert et al., 1985, p. 17]. Evidence of the coexistence of the Sintashta-Abashevo system with the Berezhnovka type, and of the earlier date of the latter relative to the Pokrovsk type, is rare, but occurs everywhere – on the Volga [Pryakhin, Matveev, 1988, pp. 121, 122; Pamyatniki srubnoy kulturi, 1993, p. 12], and in the Transurals, where Berezhnovka-like ware is present in Sintashta and Bolshekaraganskiy cemeteries [Gening et al., 1992, fig. 136.2; Botalov et al., 1996, fig. 13]. However, in the Volga area, Potapovka features are also present on the Berezhnovka ware itself [Mochalov, 1997, p. 17]. This shows that there had been northern impulses into the steppe at the time of the high phase of Sintashta. In opposition to this, there is the view that the basis for the formation of Timber-Grave antiquities in the Volga steppe region was the Catacomb not the Poltavka culture. Now the volume of late Catacomb materials in the region, and even in areas east of the Volga, has increased considerably, not just burial complexes but settlements as well. Some Catacomb burials contain features of Early TimberGrave rites. From this the conclusion has been drawn that Timber-Grave culture in this territory originated on the foundations of Catacomb [Dryomov I., 1996; Yudin et al., 1996, pp. 127-131; Yudin, 1997; Zakharikov, 1997; Dryomov I., 1997]. However, it is impossible to imagine such a thorough transformation of culture without external influence. Furthermore, the Catacomb complexes of the Lower Volga, on which these conclusions rest, do not really have proper Catacomb features, as has already been remarked [Kuznetsov, 1997]. For example, in the Kalach cemetery the burials are generally in grave pits, with bodies lying on their left side, oriented north or north-east, which was not typical of Catacomb cultures [see Tikhonov, 1997]. Similar burial features have also been found in the barrow at Tambovka, which is deemed to belong to Catacomb culture [Turetskiy, 1976]. Against the theory that Catacomb people stayed for only a short time in the Volga region (60-100 years) [Dryomov I., 1997, p. 66] such a transformation seems to be improbable. Therefore, assuming the participation of bearers of Catacomb culture as one substratum in the formation of the Timber-Grave culture of the Volga steppe region, I reckon its role in this process was rather limited. It is also very interesting that supporters of a Catacomb basis to Timber-Grave culture in the Lower Volga recognise the presence of the SintashtaPetrovka impulse on the late Catacomb substratum too. This resulted, in their opinion, in the formation of some local differences [Yudin, 1999]. In my opinion, it is more justified to see in these impulses the reason for such a considerable transformation of Catacomb culture. In this connection, witness the results of excavation of the Smelovskiy cemetery, where three burial groups have been revealed [Lopatin, 1997; 1997a]. The first was left by local population and contains a combination of Poltavka and Catacomb features; the second by a foreign component, combining Sintashta, Petrovka and Pokrovsk traditions; the third exhibits a synthesis of both. 141 2 1 4 3 5 6 7 Fig. 50. Timber-Grave culture. 1 – Lipoviy Ovrag; 2 – Aknazarovskiy cemetery; 3 – Ismagilovo; 4 – Spiridonovka IV; 5 – Mosolovskoye; 6 – Staro-Yabalakli; 7 – Maslovskoe II. In the Volga forest-steppe the formation of Timber-Grave culture was connected with the Pokrovsk type [Vasiliev et al., 1995a, pp. 36, 37; Vasiliev et al., 1985, p. 71; Mochalov, 1997a]. Pokrovsk sites appeared on a Potapovka basis, reflecting a coalescence of the Poltavka and Sintashta peoples. Therefore they preserve many features of Sintashta culture: large burial pits and warrior burials, similar ceramic forms and types of metal artefact; however, the burial rite declines. Grave pits decrease in size, their construction becomes much simpler, and former Volga-Ural features occur increasingly: chalk and ochre linings, northern and north-eastern orientations of the grave pits. The similar nature of the origin of Timber-Grave culture on the Volga is also reflected in the anthropological characteristics of the TimberGrave populations, among which scholars distinguish series that may be traced back to local proto-European types and to types of a southern, Mediterra- nean origin [Khohlov, 1999, p. 229]. The bearers of the latter were, apparently, Sintashta people. It is also impossible to exclude some effect of the Seima-Turbino populations on the process forming Early Timber-Grave (Pokrovsk type) antiquities. This is demonstrated by metalworking: in Pokrovsk burials there are spearheads with a cast socket, inheriting Seima-Turbino prototypes. However, there are some ritual features too. In barrow 7 of the Pokrovsk cemetery a spearhead has been found. It had been forced into the ground, like a spear-shaped knife in the Bikovskie barrows. A similar ritual detail characterises Seima-Turbino sites [Malov, 1999, p. 246]. The formation of the Pokrovsk type covered a vast area from the Don (based, above all, upon local Abashevo culture) to the Volga and Transurals [Gorbunov, 1992, p. 162; Vasiliev et al., 1995; 1995a; Pryakhin, Matveev, 1988, pp. 135, 136; Grigoriev, 142 2000]. In the Transurals this process is found predominantly on the eastern tributaries of the River Ural, and was caused by the original connection of the fortified settlements located here with the DonVolga region. However, it was not just on the Lower Volga that the Catacomb cultures participated in the genesis of Timber-Grave culture. On the Middle Don the late phase of Catacomb culture is characterised by the disappearance of Catacomb burial rites, and the appearance of contracted inhumations lying on their left, oriented east, in which it is possible to see the onset of Timber-Grave ritual features [Sinyuk, 1996, p. 89]. This phase was quite short, and we have little right to see in it the transformation of Catacomb into Timber-Grave ritual. We should probably be discussing this as evidence of cultural contacts, formed as a result of eastern influences. Indeed, the beginning of this process is connected, apparently, not with proper Pokrovsk infiltration into the Don area, but with the coming of the Abashevo-Pokrovsk populations, represented by such sites as the Vlasovo and Filatovka cemeteries. Thus, there were considerable movements of eastern populations at this time, resulting in the distribution of Timber-Grave culture [Sinyuk, 1996, pp. 206, 207]. Sites of Pokrovsk type are dated to the 16th century BC [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 76; Vasiliev et al., 1985, p. 75]. The dating of the Berezhnovka complex is more difficult, but I assume its formation in the second half of the 17 th century BC. Subsequently, about the late 16th – early 15th century BC, a levelling of the system took place, and the classic Timber-Grave culture formed, whose bearers then moved west, up to the Dnieper, and south, into the Eastern Caspian and Aral regions.1 However, if in Central Asia we can see the direct infiltration of Timber-Grave populations, in the North Pontic area a more complicated process took place, founded on integration with local populations and communications with the Balkan-Carpathian area, probably starting at a very early stage [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 63, 76; Merpert et al., 1985, pp. 21, 24, 25; Kuzmina, 1986, pp. 203, 204]. As a matter of fact, processes that occur in this period are, to some extent, a continuation of the 1 It is necessary to have in mind that these are the dates corresponding to traditional chronology. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of the Timber-Grave settlement of Gorniy fall into the period of the 17th – 15th centuries BC [Chernikh, et al., 1999, p. 98], although in the traditional system this settlement would probably be dated to the 15th century BC or later. Sintashta system, although they are not identified as such. Therefore, in my opinion, the controversy about whether Pokrovsk is a separate culture or merely a subculture within the framework of Timber-Grave culture, reflecting the higher social status of the Pokrovsk population, is not very fruitful [Yudin et al., 1996, p. 132; Lopatin, 1996, pp. 146-147; Otroshenko, 1997]. All participants in the discussion view the process in the same way – as an effect on the Eastern European population of foreign groups, possessed of political superiority. Nor are there particular doubts about the roots of these groups: they were the bearers of Sintashta culture. However, the processes of disintegration, which we have observed in Sintashta materials, obtained their completion in the Timber-Grave period. At the beginning of the developed phase of Timber-Grave culture, burials expressing high social status disappeared, and the steppe was ‘democratised’ again. We must look for new social regulators, not the obsolete ones of the Sintashta period. This becomes apparent most clearly in the rise of craft production. On a number of Timber-Grave settlements specialised foundries have been found, but the evidence from the settlement of Gorniy, situated on the Kargali ore fields in the Southern Urals, is especially amazing. Its inhabitants specialised in mining and metallurgical operations. 1,300,000 fragments of bones of 20,000 individual domestic animals, mainly (96%) cattle, have been found in the 464 sq m of the settlement excavated to date. It would have been impossible to maintain such herds owing to shortage of pasture. And this convincingly testifies to the development of specialised production and exchange, which is confirmed by the great variability in size and weight of adult animals, indicative of cattle obtained from a variety of sources. [Antipina, 1997; Chernikh, 1997, p. 69]. A similar situation has also been identified in the Don area where, as well as separate workshops, there are specialised settlements of metal-casters with a huge volume of production. The most obvious similar settlement is Mosolovskoye, on which about 700 parts of casting moulds have been discovered [Savrasov, 1998; Pryakhin, 1996]. Thus, within a vast area from the east bank of the Dnieper up to the eastern tributaries of the Ural, the unified process of Timber-Grave cultural formation is observed. It is possible to interpret this process as the further Iranisation of this zone. That is most definitely so for the Don-Ural forest-steppe. In the steppe zone the preservation of proto-Iranian 143 and Indo-Iranian dialects is possible. The preservation of the non-Iranian ethnic groups is also very likely in the Ukraine, where the core population consisted of KMK people and penetrations of Fyodorovka tribes (which will be described below) have been found. Furthermore, in the previous period a very strong Catacomb population had existed here, who could in some zones have preserved their language. The origins of Timber-Grave culture and the subsequent formation of the so-called Timber-Grave family of cultures have never been debated as thoroughly as Andronovo problems. The formation of Timber-Grave culture, though subject to certain external impulses, was realised on a predominantly local basis; the quantity of its components was not very great, and they may be determined without difficulty. In the study of the so-called Andronovo culture we have a completely different situation, whose historiography is overflowing with widely differing interpretations. A key problem is that there has always been a correlation of Fyodorovka and Alakul cultures. The range of interpretations is extremely wide. The original idea that Fyodorovka and Alakul were respectively the eastern and western variants of Andronovo was refuted rapidly with the discovery of Fyodorovka materials in the Transurals. Next, the view of the genetic succession of these cultures and the precedence of Fyodorovka culture triumphed [Krivtsova-Grakova, 1951; Salnikov, 1951]. This correlation was then replaced by its inverse. The common features of both cultures allowed them to be united into the Andronovo family of cultures. However, by this scholars have meant different things. Some of them see a genetic sense and argue for the continuity of Petrovka, Alakul, Fyodorovka and Sargari cultures seriatim [Avanesova, 1979, pp. 20, 21; Zdanovich, 1984, pp. 19-21]; others believe that Alakul and Fyodorovka cultures existed contemporaneously [Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 270, 271; Kosarev, 1981, p. 112; Kuzmina, 1986, p. 192; Grigoriev, 1999b]. This also determines attitudes to ceramic types with mixed features: Kozhumberdi, Amangeldi, Semirechye etc. Supporters of the first stand interpret them as transitional types; the others as contact types [Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 170, 171; Kuzmina, 1986, p. 198; Zdanovich, Shreber, 1988, pp. 9, 10]. Similarly, the Bishkul ceramic type is viewed as either a late Alakul or Fyodorovka type, although the mechanism of its appearance is regarded as the same [Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 269, 270; Zdanovich, 1984, p. 20]. As a result, we have deadlock. Many aspects of the problem have now been solved [Kuzmina, 1994], but I cannot agree with all aspects of this solution. It is also necessary to note that the covering of Alakul levels by Fyodorovka (in exceptional circumstances) is not identified beyond peradventure and can indicate only that people of Fyodorovka culture infiltrated particular areas later than Alakul people. As a rule, the stratigraphic correlations of the UralIrtish region are made on the basis of the Petrovka levels’ being covered by Alakul material, and the Fyodorovka levels by Sargari [Zdanovich, 1988, pp. 165, 166; Zdanovich, 1984; Malyutina, 1991, p. 159]. Thus, the idea of the genetic succession of Alakul and Fyodorovka cultures is found initially in these correlations. As a whole, there is no point within the framework of this book in concentrating our attention on criticism of the theory about the genetic succession of the Bronze Age cultures of the Ural-Irtish region. I have analysed it in more detail elsewhere [Grigoriev, 2000]. Here I would like only to re-emphasise that this theory is not based on any evidence and contradicts both the materials of the Ural-Irtish region and evidence from neighbouring areas as well. The next phase in the history of the Iranian tribes of the Eurasian steppe and of the forest-steppe to the east of the Urals is connected with the development of the Alakul culture, which, being close to Timber-Grave, forms with it one huge Timber-Grave – Alakul cultural area. Alakul culture is diffused over vast spaces from the Transurals and Western Kazakhstan to Central Kazakhstan [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 46; Zdanovich, 1988, p. 140; Potyomkina, 1983, pp. 15-19] (Figs. 51, 53). The settlements of this culture are very numerous. They are characterised by an absence of fortifications; however, the heritage of Sintashta culture is easily distinguished in the habitation architecture of the Alakul period. There are rectangular dwellings, set somewhat deeper into the ground than Sintashta ones (although surface constructions are also known), and post-hole construction of walls and roof. Frequently they are arranged in rows, but not attached to each other [Zdanovich, 1988; Grigoriev, 2000; Stefanov, 1996; Vinogradov, 1982; Sorokin, 1962; Potyomkina, 1976; 1982; 1985]. The burial rite is a little simpler but, as a whole, inherits Sintashta traditions. Grave pits on the burial site are situated, as before, around a central one, 144 2 1 4 6 5 3 9 10 7 11 8 12 Fig. 51. Alakul culture. 1 – Mirnii II; 2, 3 – Agapovka; 4, 7 – Tsarev Kurgan; 5 – Novonikolskoe I; 6, 8 – Verkhnyaya Alabuga; 9 – Kamishnoe I; 10, 12 – Alakul; 11 – Baklanskoe. 145 Fig. 52. Alakul dwelling. oriented along the arc of the circumference, as in Sintashta culture, but orientation in various directions linked with the compass becomes predominant. The size of burial pits decreases. The skeletons are placed on their side in a contracted position. The rite of disarticulated or secondary burial practically disappears [Zdanovich, 1988; Potyomkina, 1976; 1982; 1985; 1995a; Salnikov, 1967; Krivtsova-Grakova, 1948; Margulan et al., 1966; Usmanova, 1989; Matveev, 1998]. The grave goods become much poorer; frequently ornaments, rather seldom tools and weapons. Sintashta – Alakul parallels in burial rites have been demonstrated most thoroughly by A.V. Matveev, which has allowed him conclude that the theory of Alakul originating on the basis of Petrovka is fallacious: he believes that it came about through interaction between the Sintashta and Petrovka populations, which, apparently, is quite correct for Kazakhstan and the Ob basin [Matveev, 1998, pp. 348-353]. All these differences between Sintashta and Alakul burial rites indicate a certain stabilisation of the situation and the more peaceful character of the Alakul period. Within this diverse area particular features of the arrangement of burial sites and the construction of graves are observable. In the Transurals there are graves with wood-lined sides under barrows, the pits covered with timber. In Kazakhstan circles of vertical slabs were constructed around the barrows. Grave pits might have coverings of slabs or stone boxes, and cists be put into them [Salnikov, 1952; Stokolos, 1968]. The metal artefacts of Alakul culture, as well as those of Petrovka, inherit Sintashta traditions, as do ceramics. Scholars usually connect the origins of Alakul culture with either Petrovka or the Early Bronze Age sites of the Tobol basin [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 140; Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 259-272; 1995a, pp. 152, 153; Vinogradov, 1984, pp. 29-22]. However, all its features can be traced back to Sintashta culture [Grigoriev, 2000]. In ceramics this may be observed in the 146 absence of decoration on the lower part of the neck, the sometimes biconical profile of the neck, the smoothly profiled lower part of the belly, ornamental motifs richer than in Petrovka culture, the use of wood chips for decoration, etc. These are all absent in Petrovka culture, but well known in Sintashta. Therefore it is impossible that there was any great chronological break between the Sintashta and Alakul cultures. Many years ago it was suggested that this culture had been formed in the South-Western Urals sometime in the 16th century BC [Fyodorova-Davidova, 1964; 1973]. Several grounds were given: the occurrence of Alakul ware in the same complexes as Early Timber-Grave ceramics retaining Poltavka culture features; the presence in Alakul burials of some Poltavka ritual features (north-eastern orientation of bodies, occasionally burials in a contracted position on the back, colouring of bodies with ochre, chalk inclusions in the fill of graves, bedding of cortex and cane). To my mind, with the discovery in this region of the Vetlyanka IV cemetery [Gorbunov et al., 1990; Gorbunov, 1992a], things are now clear. In it Alakul ware and rite (contracted inhumations on the left side) were combined with late Sintashta and late Abashevo ceramics, and with AbashevoSintashta burial traditions as well (presence of secondary burials, post fences around grave pits, arrangement in a number of cases of graves in rows, presence of ash and chalk in the graves, birch-bark beddings). Statistical comparison of Sintashta and Vetlyanka ceramics has shown their affinity, allowing us to speak about their genetic connection [Mochalov, 1999, p. 45]. By virtue of this, the conclusion about the formation of Alakul on a Sintashta (Noviy Kumak) basis seems to me indisputable [Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1997, p. 35]. The Alakul people, having been formed in the south of the Western Urals on the basis of Sintashta, Ural Abashevo and, partly, Poltavka tribes, penetrated into the Transurals and Kazakhstan, probably under pressure from the Timber-Grave people, where they gradually assimilated the related Petrovka population [Grigoriev, 2000]. This happened at a relatively early stage – during the 16th century BC; at any rate, by the early 15th century BC it was completed and Alakul culture held almost complete sway over the whole Ural-Irtish interfluve. Along the Urals there is a broad zone of Timber-Grave-Alakul interaction, with sites with common features. On some sites in the Western Urals (Usmanovskoye II set- tlement) the proportion of Alakul ceramics reaches 40% [Salnikov, 1951; Rutto, 1987; 1992; Grigoriev, 2000; Obidennov, Obidennova, 1992, pp. 144-146]. The vagueness of this border was conditioned by a number of circumstances. First of all, these cultural blocs were formed on the same Sintashta base; their bearers were ethnically close and spoke, apparently, the Iranian language. In the formation of the Timber-Grave people the proportion of the Poltavka population was higher. In the second place, it is possible that the wide occurrence of Alakul materials in the Western Urals was stimulated not just by contacts between Timber-Grave and Alakul populations during the developed phases of both cultures, but also by the Western Ural origin of Alakul. It is rather difficult to say what kind of language the bearers of these cultures used. During all previous periods of the Bronze Age there was an increase in the Near Eastern Indo-European presence in Eastern Europe. Therefore the appearance of Aryan tribes here meant contact between relatively similar languages. At a rather rough estimate the population of the Volga-Ural region was about 50,000 in the Middle Bronze Age [Kuznetsov, 1991, p. 14]. According to our approximate calculation, about 10,000 people (perhaps even fewer) participated in the Iranian Sintashta migration. On the other hand, the foreign component was predominant. The archaeological evidence reveals a gradual mixing of local and foreign traditions, but it cannot answer questions about the language that came to be used by the cultural units thus formed. To solve this problem, we turn to linguistic evidence connected with the contacts of Indo-Iranian and Finno-Ugrian tribes. The formation of the Finno-Ugrian ethnic and cultural massif in the forest zone of Eastern Europe, the Urals and Western Siberia was probably connected with the influence of populations from the Eastern Caspian region during the Mesolithic and Neolithic, to which Eastern European and Transural cultures were subjected [Mosin, 1996; Vasiliev, 1995, pp. 207-211]. This resulted in the formation in the Eneolithic of a vast cultural area covering the different natural zones of the Urals and Northern Kazakhstan [Chairkina, 1996]. However, to the south of the forest zone of the Urals, either virtually no other population was present when the Sintashta people appeared [Mosin, 1995], or it was superseded without contact. It is possible to guess that until the appearance of the Aryans in forest-steppe and steppe, the Volosovo and Garino cultures to the west 147 Fig. 53. Locations of the Timber-Grave (a) and Alakul (b) cultures. of the Urals and the Ayat culture in the Transurals represented this massif in the forest zone. As already emphasised, these populations had practically no contacts with the Indo-Iranian world. To some extent we may speak about the rather poor Sintashta contacts with Ayat, and the contacts of the Abashevo people with the late Volosovo tribes. Nevertheless, the presence of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture far to the north suggests the possibility of contacts with the local population. However, for the Middle Bronze Age II period we are right to stress overall poor communications between forest and steppe, conditioned by sharp differences in cultural and economic types. Therefore at this time any serious interaction between Indo-Iranians and Finno-Ugrians was lacking. Abashevo culture of the Middle Volga, situated on the edge of the forest, is an exception. At the start of the Late Bronze Age, when the mutual assimilation of the Sintashta and Poltavka populations had been completed, the situation changed in the most fundamental way. The contacts between forest and steppe increased sharply, and all cultures of Northern Eurasia from the Volga region up to Western Siberia show the deep impress of this process. Furthermore, both linguists and scholars studying the ancient mythology of the FinnoUgrian people have identified numerous Indo-Iranian borrowings [Kuzmina, 1994, pp. 248-253], especially in terminology connected with cattle breeding and farming. It is necessary to emphasise that the borrowings are both Indo-Iranian and Iranian [Abaev, 1981] – and, the Iranian borrowings originated from some pre-Scythian language. Therefore, Finno-Ugrian populations had contact during the Bronze Age not only with Aryans but also with Iranians. Hence, I imagine that the bearers of Sintashta culture spoke Iranian – at the time of their migration the Indo-Iranian languages had long been differentiated. The problems of the ethnic identity of Sintashta culture are reviewed in more detail in Section 6 of Chapter 4 in Part II below. Now we leave steppe Eurasia to turn to the migrations of other Indo-Iranian and Indo-European groups. Subsequently, we shall return to this area to consider the problem of the ethnic interpretation of Fyodorovka culture, which is understood either as Ugrian or as Indo-Iranian. 148 Part II. The origins of southern Indo-Iranian cultures, and cultural processes in Northern Eurasia in the Late Bronze Age Introduction In Part I we have shown that the Iranian culture of forest-steppe and steppe Eurasia was foreign to this area, and its origin was connected with a precipitate migration from the Near East. We have demonstrated convincingly that all those features showing themselves in the Urals had very early forerunners to the south of the Caucasus. At the same time, Sintashta exhibited numerous features which bring it together with the previous cultures of Eastern Europe. We are not entitled to regard them as borrowings; they indicate related links. This circumstance allows us to accept two approaches to the problem of uncovering the processes that resulted in the appearance of the Sintashta complex. The first supposes that all Eastern European cultures originated from the Near East and the Caucasus; the second is a little more complicated: it is reduced to an assumption that in the Early Bronze Age some part of the Pit-Grave population migrated to the south, where its culture was transformed under the influence of Near Eastern neighbours. In the 18 th century BC a part of this population returned to Eastern Europe, and another part remained in its new homeland, participating in the formation of the Mitanni Empire and in the actions of the Hyksos, being hired out as mercenaries to Syrian rulers. Sometimes these marginal elements burst briefly into the historical sources, creating the illusion of an Aryan presence in the Near East. Indeed the written sources are of little help to us: the archives of the Near Eastern states seldom touch upon the ‘barbarian’ hinterland and its inhabitants, except when they become entangled in the broader concerns of their more developed neighbours. Even then they appear under abstract names, which often carry no sense of ethnic identity. Thus, traditionally these people have been regarded as Semites or North Caucasians, and nobody has doubted their presence. A connection of some of them with the ‘banana’ tongue, whose nature is not clear, is sometimes adduced. Its existence has been reconstructed on the basis of separate linguistic features in Sumerian. Therefore the problem can be solved mainly with the help of archaeology and linguistics. As a matter of fact, this problem cannot be reduced to searching for reasons why Near Eastern cultural elements appeared in the Urals. It is minutely intertwined with that of the origins of both the Indo-Iranians and the Indo-Europeans as a whole. To consider the question of the origins of Sintashta culture outside the general framework of the Indo-European problem is impossible. On the other hand, the origin of this culture is a key to the solution of the problem of the Indo-European homeland, which has been exercising historical science for almost two centuries. Since then, this homeland has been localised in the most diverse parts of the Eurasian continent, from India to Northern Europe. The Indo-European family of languages is the largest group of tongues on the globe. Various populations in Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Iran, India and a number of the republics of the former Soviet Union speak languages of this group. In this book we touch upon historical languages, many of which do not survive today. Above all, these are the Indo-Iranian tongues, which are divided into Iranian and Indo-Aryan. Armenian, Greek, ancient Albanian and, apparently, the ancient Balkan tongues (Thracian, Phrygian) are close to them. A special group of dialects is identified in the Central Asian Tocharian tongues, which show a very close ancient affinity with Celtic and Italic. These last fall into the group of ancient European tongues, to which also Baltic, Slavic and Germanic are related. Their affinity with Celtic and Italic was formed later, during subsequent intensive contacts. Initially they fell into the different branches of proto-IndoEuropean, which were formed at the beginning of its dialectal partitioning. The most early isolated dialect group is the Anatolian tongues, including Hittite, Luwian and Palaic, and later Lydian and Lycian as well. There were also other Indo-European languages, for example Venetic, whose affiliation with any definite group is uncertain by virtue of the scarcity of linguistic material. There were certainly other languages, even groups, of the Indo-European family in antiquity, but these have not been found in later written sources. Here I shall not essay a comprehensive historiography of the Indo-European problem; for that there are the books of N.L. Sukhachyov, J.P. Mallory and V.A. Safronov [Mallory, 1989; Safronov, 1989; 151 Sukhachyov, 1994]. I shall consider only those aspects not to have lost their topicality. The best known and most widespread of them is the hypothesis of the origin of the Indo-Europeans in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe – the socalled “Kurgan theory”. V.G. Childe suggested it as a hypothesis in connection with the Indo-European identity of the ‘ochre burials culture’ of Eastern Europe; it has been supported by Piggott and developed subsequently by M. Gimbutas [Childe, 1950; Piggott, 1965, pp. 81-97; Gimbutas, 1970; 1994]. Within this framework the Sredniy Stog culture is viewed as the first Indo-European culture, followed by Pit-Grave and Corded Ware. The discovery of contracted burials with ochre in the Balkan Peninsula is considered as evidence of the Indo-Europeanisation of this area. This theory is very popular among archaeologists and therefore requires special analysis. Scholars supporting it focus attention on several cultural components, which are considered as significant for determining the solution of the whole problem. One is the domestication of the horse, which, according to this theory, is supposed to be an ethnic symbol of Indo-Europeans. In the opinion of Gimbutas, the horse had been domesticated by the Eneolithic tribes of the south of Eastern Europe in the 5th millennium BC 1 (Samara, Khvalinsk and Sredniy Stog cultures). The basis for this conclusion was the discovery in the Syežeye cemetery of flat horse figurines made of bone, and 15 bone fragments of young stallions on the settlement of Dereivka. Undoubtedly, figurines need not be a sign of domestication – otherwise we could discuss the problem of mammoth domestication in the Palaeolithic. Subsequent investigations have shown that the horses from Dereivka were wild [Levine, 1999, p. 36]. Another topic, discussed by Gimbutas in the last mentioned work, is the set of cultural attributes that are regarded as features of the Indo-European identity of complexes. Apart from domesticated horses and cattle, it is represented by a set of arms: axes, daggers, spearheads and arrowheads [Gimbutas, 1994, pp. 22, 33, 44, 84-86, 99, 100]. Needless to say, it is simply impossible to discuss the problem of ethnic reconstruction in such a generalised form. There is no correct basis for this theory, and it does not solve the problem of correlating ar1 Following the author, I use here and subsequently calibrated radiocarbon dates. chaeological material with linguistic evidence. Gimbutas makes such an attempt by way of assertion in the final part of this work – but it is unconvincing [Gimbutas, 1994, pp. 110-129]. Thus, on the face of it, we have no need to discuss this theory further; however, in my opinion, there are many aspects of it worthy of attention – indeed, so is the whole this theory. But this needs to be done not on the approach postulated by the theory itself but by the analysis of processes in Europe in the Eneolithic and Bronze Age. First of all, we can discuss the infiltration of the steppe component into the Balkan Peninsula, already identified by Childe. Subsequently, Gimbutas described some of the waves. The first, in about 4400-4300 BC (occurrence of complexes such as Suvorovo in Moldova and down to Macedonia), resulted in cultural transformations in the Balkans and the appearance of cultures combining steppe and local features. Further Indo-Europeanisation seems to be evident in the formation of the Baalberg group in the first half of the 4th millennium BC, and in the infiltration into the Balkan Peninsula of the second stream of the steppe population (Usatovo type), close culturally to Maikop and the early level of the Mikhailovka settlement. As a result of this, a number of new cultural formations arose in the Early Bronze Age (Ezero, Veselinovo, Karanovo VII, Nova Zagora, Bikovo, Sitagroi IV). The continuance of these processes led to the formation of the Baden group and the Globular Amphorae culture. The forming of new cultural groups was stimulated by a third wave, represented by the population of Pit-Grave culture, penetrating into Central Europe and the Northern Balkans. These processes fathered the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB), which was formed on the basis of the Pit-Grave and Vučedol cultures and distributed subsequently throughout Western Europe, including Iberia and Britain. A considerable agglomeration of Corded Ware cultures, distributed over Northern Europe up to the Middle Volga, formed on the basis of contacts between the steppe component and Funnel Beaker culture [Gimbutas, 1994, pp. 35-105]. In my opinion, this scheme is essential for subsequent development of Indo-European studies, as most of the processes described really correspond to the distribution of Indo-Europeans over the European continent. However, it is not able to solve the problem as a whole for several reasons: 1. It is not linked with linguistic evidence. Therefore, there is not real clarity to what kind of migra- 152 tions it describes. Rigorous proof of the Indo-European identity of the Eneolithic and later complexes of Eastern Europe is lacking. Therefore, the correctness of the choice of the original area, whence Indo-Europeanisation of the continent started, is unclear. 2. Despite the manifest heterogeneity of the steppe components migrating into Europe, it is assumed that all of them spoke Indo-European languages. 3. Despite considerable cultural changes in Eastern Europe during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age, the immanent development of the cultures of this area is supposed. 4. The processes described took place in the 5th – 3rd millennia BC, which does not allow their development to be observed through to the occurrence of historically known Indo-European languages, identified in written sources, or, at the very least, to the settling of Indo-European populations in those regions where we can be certain of it on the basis of historical or linguistic evidence. For this reason, it is impossible to judge the correctness of the scheme as a whole. J.P. Mallory, working within the framework of this theory, has attempted a solution, trying to link it with linguistic materials and historically known IndoEuropean populations [Mallory, 1989]. He traces the development of Indo-Europeans from the DnieperDonets culture of the North Pontic area. The formation of ancient Europeans (Balts, Slavs, Germans, Celts and, probably, Italics) is connected with the distribution of the Corded Ware cultures, for which links with the steppe zone have been substantiated. The collapse of the Balkan Eneolithic cultures is interpreted as the consequence of the infiltration of Thracian and Anatolian tribes into this area. The movement of Hittites through the Caucasus is assumed, stimulating the formation of cultures with the kurgan burial rite in the Bronze Age of Transcaucasia and Anatolia. The distribution of Indo-Iranian and Tocharian is connected with Pit-Grave, Afanasievo and Andronovo sites. It is supposed that Aryan infiltration into the south took place through the Caucasus and Central Asia, which is quite in line with Russian historiographical tradition and does not require any comment. For all its orderliness this theory is not without essential shortcomings. First of all, the method by which the extent and location of the Indo-European homeland were chosen, is confusing. It was based on a rather limited range of linguistic evidence: the presence in the proto-Indo-European language of words meaning horse, some types of trees, for example birch, etc. However, Indo-European terminology does not distinguish the wild horse from the domestic. Horse bones are really absent in the Anatolian Neolithic, but they are known in Transcaucasian Neolithic and Eneolithic settlements, on sites such as Alikemektepesi.1 Connecting the appearance of kurgans in the Anatolian and Transcaucasian Bronze Age with the steppe zone of Eastern Europe does not stand up to scrutiny either. In Transcaucasia this burial rite is known since the Eneolithic, possibly since the Neolithic, and the first kurgan culture of Eastern Europe, Maikop, has an undoubtedly Near Eastern origin. It is necessary to note that the infiltration of steppe cultures into the south, from Anatolia to India, is a weak spot in all interpretations placing the homeland of the Indo-Europeans in the steppes. Any northern influence is completely wanting in this zone. The postulated connection of Eastern Andronovo people with Tocharian lacks internal logic, for Andronovo culture is interpreted elsewhere in Mallory’s book as belonging to the Eastern Iranians. Furthermore, the argument is based too much on generalisations. In Mallory’s judgment, cremations are established for Tocharian; in consequence, their connection with Fyodorovka (Andronovo) culture is suggested. But cremations are less typical of Fyodorovka burials in the east than in the west, and the consideration of cultures with different geneses within the framework of unified Andronovo culture is illegitimate, as will be demonstrated below. (I shall touch upon this question in more detail.) Here we shall describe some positive aspects of the theory. The infiltration of steppe populations into the Balkan Peninsula was, it seems, really connected with the movement of Thracian tribes – I am inclined to link the development of the Corded Ware cultures with waves of Indo-Europeans, though not just from the steppe zone. In fact, perhaps the majority of scholars studying Indo-European problems agree with this stand, irrespective of the choice of the initial points of origin of these peoples. 1 The situation with birch is similar: It has been postulated that birch was unknown in the Near East [see, for example, Safronov, 1989, p. 48], although palaeobotanical investigations on the Tell Maghzalya in Northern Mesopotamia have revealed its pollen. 153 Many scholars adhering to the theory also suppose that the Eastern European localisation of the Indo-European homeland can be confirmed by the presence of very ancient contacts between the bearers of the proto-Indo-European and proto-FinnoUgrian languages. However, analysis of the vocabulary testifies in favour of the diametrically opposite point of view. There is no actual evidence of such contacts: the earliest between people speaking these languages took place after the disintegration of the proto-Indo-European language – between bearers of proto-Finno-Ugrian and one of the early IndoIranian dialects. Somewhat later came borrowings from the Tocharian tongues into Finno-Ugrian, but evidence about contacts is limited to these Tocharian and Aryan borrowings [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 148, 149, 157]. Therefore, some affinity of proto-IndoEuropean and proto-Uralic can be discussed from the position of the Nostratic theory only. For all of these reasons, this theory cannot be accepted in its entirely. Its essential weakness is the poor use of linguistic material, which should form the basis of any solution to the problems of the origin of a particular ethnic group. This was corrected by the appearance of the book by T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1981; 1984]. Analysis of Indo-European languages reveals early Indo-European contacts with Semites, Kartvelians, and North Caucasians. In addition, the nature of the landscape, flora and fauna of the Indo-European homeland have been reconstructed. This has allowed the Indo-European homeland to be placed in the area including Eastern Anatolia, the Armenian Plateau, and Iranian Azerbaijan. The same regions are indicated by analysis of the lexicon, which allowed the Indo-European environment to be reconstructed. Their expansion from this homeland, reconstructed on the basis of linguistic material, is as follows. In the dialectal partitioning of Indo-European languages, the Anatolian tongues separated first of all, and the population speaking them displaced step-by-step to the west, to Central Anatolia. Tocharians moved to Central Asia, followed by the Iranians and Indo-Aryans (some Indo-Aryans penetrated into the North Pontic area). The Armenians displaced into the Armenian Plateau, and the Greeks moved through Anatolia to the south of the Balkan Peninsula. The European group (Celts, Italics, Germans, Balts, Slavs) migrated through Central Asia – around the Caspian Sea to Europe. This theory has encountered the serious opposition of linguists, but above all of archaeologists, who assert that the archaeological material does not confirm such migrations. Quite the contrary: in almost every case it is possible to find a movement in the opposite direction to that shown by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. This implies that either the suggested linguistic system is incorrect, or that the whole archaeological conception of what took place on the continent in antiquity is wrong. Linguistic objections have been adduced but I am unable to discuss their appropriateness for want of competence in these matters. Nevertheless, during broad debates based on linguistic reasoning, I.M. Diakonov suggested that the Indo-European homeland be located in the Northern Balkans and in Central Europe, whence Anatolian tongues diffused into Anatolia, and Indo-Iranian into the steppe zone [Diakonov, 1982; 1982a]. The archaeological arguments have not been adduced, but against a background of conceptions about the genetic succession of steppe cultures from Pit-Grave to Late Bronze Age cultures, and the penetration of steppe LBA cultures into India and Iran, as well as the earlier chronological position of Balkan Early Bronze Age cultures relative to related Anatolian ones, they look quite convincing. Such an approach allows the Pit-Grave people to be regarded as Indo-Iranians without, as a whole, contradicting the chronology of the dialectal partitioning of Indo-European languages. It is also possible to find quite clear testimonies to the distribution of the Balkan – Central European complex north and west, and to link this with the appearance of other Indo-European groups. V.A. Safronov has applied this concept to the archaeological material in his monograph, ‘Indo-European Homelands’ [Safronov, 1989], where, for the first time, an archaeological system of dialectal partitioning of Indo-European languages is suggested. As one of the book’s referees remarked, it is possible to dispute separate theses, but it is extremely difficultly to contest the system whilst suggesting nothing in return [Safronov, 1989, p. 392]. Therefore, Safronov’s theory has obtained an advantage peculiar to any system of knowledge: the absence of separate elements does not deprive the scheme of its integrity. Nevertheless, criticism of similar systems is possible, without creating an alternative theory, by attacking their foundations. In this connection we shall consider the supposed Balkan origin of the Indo-Europeans in somewhat more detail. 154 The essence of Safronov’s views may be reduced to the following. For substantiation he does not base himself on cultures whose Indo-European identity is beyond doubt (it is possible to attribute to those only cultures of the Bronze Age). He determines initially the geographical range of proto-IndoEuropeans, localising them on the Balkan Peninsula. In addition, an Indo-European identity is postulated for the Vinča culture (5th millennium BC). This draws it together with the theory of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, as the origin of Vinča culture is connected, probably in truth, with Chattal Hüyük, whose protoIndo-European identity gives rise to serious doubts. Further Indo-Europeanisation of the continent is seen in the following processes. Vinča culture exerts influence on the non-Indo-European substrata of Binja-Bičke and Želiz-Železovce with the formation of an early phase of Lengyel, Lužanky group. Funnel Beaker culture is viewed as a derivative of Lengyel, and its next contact with Lengyel resulted in the formation of cultures of the Boleraz-Baden type. The Corded Ware cultures and Globular Amphorae culture are interpreted as derivatives of Funnel Beaker. These conclusions were drawn, mainly through comparison of ceramic forms. I have already written in the introduction to Part I that in any cultural transformation stimulated by the migration of a new ethnos, the former ceramic tradition is partly preserved by the assimilation of the local population, creating the illusion of autochthonous development. This circumstance, together with the failure to prove that Vinča was Indo-European, places in doubt all the superstructure built upon it. The actual cultural processes in Europe were characterised by two sharp breaks: in the south-east of Central Europe and in the Northern Balkans at the transition to the Early Bronze Age, and in Central and Northern Europe at the transition to the Late Bronze Age [Chernikh, 1988; Merpert, 1988; Mongeit, 1974]. These transformations were so appreciable that it is possible to see behind them the appearance of a new ethnos – the Indo-Europeans. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasise that up to this point the theory of Safronov can be combined, albeit incompletely, with that of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, as it is based on the idea that Vinča culture was of Near Eastern origin. We have stated our doubts about its Indo-European identity on the grounds of its connections with Chattal Hüyük, but it is not the only culture in the Balkan Peninsula with Near Eastern correspondences. Therefore, it is pos- sible to presume also the participation of various nonIndo-European populations in the Neo-Eneolithic cultural genesis of this area. In addition, it is not clear whether all proto-Indo-Europeans left the Near East and with what kinds of process their appearance in Eastern Europe and return to Asia were connected. How is it possible to explain the cultural breaks in the European Bronze Age mentioned above? Thus, there are many inconsistencies from the outset. Safronov has determined with complete accuracy a circle of typologically related cultures such as Usatovo, Kemi-Oba, Novosvobodnaya and Kuban-Dnieper (Novo-Titarovo). The comparisons of these cultures with Globular Amphorae culture are correct too. Therefore, the key problem in the direction of connections is that of chronology. The western cultures listed are dated by means of radiocarbon analysis: Usatovo to the 25th – 24th centuries BC; Globular Amphorae to the 25th – 22nd centuries BC. The settlement of Zarembovo, where Globular Amphorae ceramics occur together with those of the Funnel Beaker culture, has the date ca. 2675 BC [Safronov, 1989, p. 235]. The chronological position of Novosvobodnaya is determined between Maikop (but not its late phase) and the late phase of the Kura-Araxian complexes such as Sachkhere. The latter is dated by the bayonet-shaped points of the Naram-Sin period to the 23rd century BC. The Mesopotamian parallels of Early Dynastic II and III determine the date of Maikop. Ii is substantiated, by the way convincingly enough, by the connection of Maikop with the North Syrian fortified settlement of Tell Chuera, which is dated by the same parallels to the period Early Dynastic III. Therefore, Maikop is seen as Semites having penetrated to the north, and is dated to the late 26th – early 23rd centuries BC [Safronov, 1989, pp. 235, 243-256]. The date of Novosvobodnaya is determined by the various systems to the 23rd – 22nd or 25th – 23rd centuries BC [Safronov, 1989, p. 235], i.e. later than Zarembovo. In my opinion, there are a number of errors of logic in this construction. Parallels with Tell Chuera ceramics are not a basis for the late date of Maikop. The ceramics of Tell Chuera are, as a whole, a foreign phenomenon on the Semitic settlements of North-Western Syria. It should be viewed in the same light, as the occurrence in Syria-Palestine in the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC of Khirbet Kerak ware or the distribution of Anatolian architectural traditions. This phenomenon, apparently, was connected with Eastern Anatolia. 155 The use of different dating systems for western (radiocarbon dating) and eastern cultures (crossdating with links to chronology constructed on written sources) may be disputed too. Using the radiocarbon method for eastern sites changes the situation utterly. Maikop and Novosvobodnaya are then dated within the range of 3500-3200 BC, which, making all allowance for errors, is much earlier than the date of the Globular Amphorae culture. Repino, late Sredniy Stog and Tripolie A1 and 2 fall, apparently, into the same chronological horizon [Trifonov, 1996a, p. 47]. In this case these are calibrated dates. In addition, ceramics similar to early Maikop are dated in Eastern Anatolia to even earlier time [Trifonov, 1996a, p. 45]. This circumstance reverses the direction of the Indo-European invasion suggested by Safronov. Pit-Grave sites of the Berezhnovka period in the Volga area are contemporary to the end of Tripolie A – Tripolie B1, and fall into a range of different formations (lower level of the Mikhailovka settlement, Novodanilovka, Sredniy Stog, Khvalinsk) on which basis the Pit-Grave culture formed [Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992; Nechitaylo, 1996]. It is most likely, therefore, that these sites are no later than Funnel Beaker culture, which does not permit us to search for the roots of Pit-Grave in Globular Amphorae culture. Safronov’s scheme has linguistic inconsistencies too. Semitic and Indo-European linguistic communications are explained by the presence of Maikop in the North Caucasus [Safronov, 1989, p. 257]. However, even if we admit that this culture was Semitic (which is not so, in my opinion), according to the suggested scheme its bearers could make contact only with Hittites, Indo-Aryans and Iranians. The problem of contacts with other Indo-European groups is solved simply enough: they were realised through maritime links between the Eastern Mediterranean and the south of the Balkan Peninsula [Safronov, 1989, p. 242]. Semitic and Kartvelian linguistic connections are substantiated by the contact of Maikop with the Kura-Araxian tribes of the central part of the North Caucasus [Safronov, 1989, p. 261]. However, Kura-Araxian sites there are too late: they were separated from the main core of Kura-Araxian tribes, and could not provide the means of transmission of borrowings. It is possible to ignore this, as Maikop might not be the only ‘Semitic’ group. However, this situation is more realistic in explaining Kartvelian and ancient European connections by contacts in the North Caucasus between the Kura-Araxian and Kuban-Terek1 cultures [Safronov, 1989, p. 264]. A similar situation may be observed in the explanation of linguistic connections between the North Caucasian languages and the Semites and Indo-Europeans. To this end, StarčevoKereš culture is compared with Shulaveri-Shomutepe and conclusions drawn about the latter’s migratory origin from the Balkans and the North Caucasian identity of both cultures [Safronov, 1989, pp. 269, 270]. However, the undoubted connections of Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture with earlier cultures of the Near East are ignored, although it is true that the resemblance of these cultural formations is indicated. It is possible to enumerate many more similar inconsistencies, but what has been said above is more than enough. The work by Safronov, although detailed and worthy of respect, demonstrates with all evidence that the Indo-Europeanisation of the continent could not have been realised from the Balkan Peninsula alone. In general, a similar conception of Indo-European origins is suggested by C. Renfrew [Renfrew, 1987]. He has connected Anatolian early Neolithic settlement complexes such as Chattal Hüyük with the Indo-Europeans. The further penetration of IndoEuropeans he coordinates with the distribution of Neolithic cultures over Europe, and subsequently with the migrations of European populations into the North Pontic and Volga areas. Indeed, the direct migrations of Indo-Europeans from the Near East in an easterly direction are assumed, which is doubtless a step forward compared with the previous model. However, as discussed above, firm evidence is missing of the Indo-European identity of the Anatolian migrants, as well as connections of Early Bronze Age Indo-European complexes of the south of Eastern Europe with previous sites of the Balkan Peninsula or Central Europe. Renfrew has noted that, to judge from the lexicon, the Indo-European, AfroAsian, Elamite-Dravidian and Altaic languages were diffused from agricultural regions. It is the rather narrow area of the Near East that reinforces the Nostratic theory [Renfrew, 1998, p. 118]. Makkay also takes a similar stand [Makkay, 1987]. He has suggested the localisation of the IndoEuropean homeland in Anatolia, whence Indo-Europeans migrate into the Balkan Peninsula, whilst 1 There are many scholars who do not agree with the existence of this culture. 156 Anatolians stay in Anatolia. He interprets StarčevoKereš, Karanovo-proto-Sesklo, and then Vinča, Gumelnitsa and Dimini as different Indo-European groups in the Balkans. Two zones of distribution of the Indo-European tongues formed: western (Liearbandkeramik culture)1 and eastern (where the IndoIranian tongues (Mariupol) were subsequently reshaped). This separation reflects, in Makkay’s judgment, the partitioning of the Indo-European languages into two groups: ‘centum’ and ‘setum’. The imperfection of this theory is the absence of connections between Mariupol and Balkan Eneolithic, which has been pointed out by J.P Mallory. Thus, the majority of scholars placing Indo-Europeans on the Balkan Peninsula, link their origin ultimately with Anatolia, which corresponds quite closely to the archaeological material. However, it is necessary to take into account relevant circumstances. Against the background of many scholars contemplating the Anatolian origins of Indo-Europeans, only some of them assume distant migration as the way Indo-European tongues were distributed. In this sense the work by A. and E. Sherratt is very indicative. They have called the theory of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov ‘the model of billiard balls’ and note that it is unacceptable from an archaeological point of view, as in Europe we can observe a continuity of cultures over millennia, which allows the languages of Central Europe, the Balkan Peninsula and Anatolia to be classed as one family since the time of the Linearbandkeramik culture [Sherratt, Sherratt, 1997, p. 472, 474]. Below I discuss the situation in Europe, and we shall see that a number of essential cultural transformations took place there in which it is possible to see the Indo-Europeanisation of Europe. However, in my opinion, to consider Linearbandkeramik culture and those of the Balkan Eneolithic within one language family is debatable. If the origins of early European cultures were connected with Anatolia, it is possible to assume that their bearers spoke both Indo-European and proto-North Caucasian dialects. The distribution model of Indo-European tongues suggested by the Sherratts is even more problematic [Sherratt, Sherratt, 1997]. Unlike Renfrew, who sees the process of Indo-Europeanisation in the distribution of farming and cattle breeding, they pay attention to essential changes taking place in economics in the 4th – 3rd millennia BC, which they term 1 Called also LBK, Linearpottery, Danubian I culture. the ‘secondary products revolution’. They have in mind the invention of the plough, breeding of sheep and cattle, not just for meat but also to obtain wool and milk, and the use of wheeled transport. These developments were diffused from the Near East, reflecting the process of Indo-Europeanisation. It is possible to agree with such an approach, but only in part. The distribution of arable agriculture, wheeled transport and new species of sheep and cattle can indeed reflect the appearance of the Indo-Europeans from the Near East. However, these novelties could have been introduced in separate areas by other Near Eastern populations too, in particular by proto-North Caucasians; and we have no methodological basis to define which areas were penetrated by Indo-Europeans and which by proto-North-Caucasians. The only fixed points are that these novelties were actually distributed and, at a much later time, Indo-Europeans lived in Europe. We cannot be more definite except in a most tentative fashion. The other point at issue is the suggested method of Indo-Europeanisation of Europe. The migrations are conceded only in rare cases, when they are quite obvious – for example, with the infiltration of the Pit-Grave population into the Hungarian plain. In the suggested scheme all displacement of populations is rather insignificant, which quite impresses me by virtue of its simplicity, though I do not share this point of view. In the opinion of many, the role played by trade and the borrowing of innovations was much more important than migration at the time of the distribution of Indo-European dialects. This resulted in the formation of bilingual communities and, as a result, in the forming and distribution of Indo-European dialects. In particular, the distribution of the Greek language is presumed on the basis of maritime contacts with Anatolia. Above, discussing Safronov’s theory, I called into question the capability of common isoglosses to form through maritime contacts. The distribution of language by this means seems to me impossible. At any rate, I know of no similar examples from written history. I assume that the borrowing of new terms is possible after the borrowing of new technologies, but this has nothing in common with the distribution of language: new terms are established within the local tongue; they do not change it. Thus, the scope of discussion about the supposed Anatolian origins of the Indo-Europeans has been broadened, but the different writers are at variance in their understanding of the actual processes 157 of distribution through Eurasia. It is necessary to emphasise that all the works discussed above have contributed to the solution of this problem. In particular, connecting the process of Indo-Europeanisation of the continent to the distribution of farming and cattle breeding is very important. One more approach offering a solution to the Indo-European problem is that suggested by N.Y. Merpert and E.N. Chernikh [Chernikh, 1988; Merpert, 1988]. Without linking the Indo-European homeland to an actual area, they have noted the comparability of the reconstructed proto-Indo-European language with the cultures of the Circumpontic zone at the time of early metal. Indeed, if Chernikh connects the distribution of the proto-Indo-European language with migratory processes, which are difficult to detect because of fundamental cultural transformations, Merpert accentuates the concept of ‘contact continuity’, which he regards as applicable to this zone since the Neolithic. In the latter case the existence of ‘language unions’ of different ethnic groups is assumed, resulting in the end, apparently, in the formation of the Indo-European languages. However, in my opinion, such a situation is possible only for rather small areas. For an area as vast as the Circumpontic zone, it is difficult to imagine the formation of related dialects on the basis of language unions. Furthermore, this conflicts with the basic concepts of modern linguistics, which not only derive the Indo-European languages from a single predecessor, but also determine, in the most general outline, the relative chronology of the separation of individual dialect groups. Nevertheless, it is necessary to emphasise the continuity of contacts identified by Merpert within the framework of the Circumpontic zone. In my opinion, they were a consequence of migratory processes, recurring with regularity. Summarising both these articles: 1) the IndoEuropean homeland is to be localised in the Circumpontic zone; 2) since either the Eneolithic or the Early Bronze Age, we may speak about the distribution here of people who spoke Indo-European dialects; 3) significant cultural transformations, which took place repeatedly in this area, were a consequence of migratory processes. As a whole, N.L. Sukhachyov shares the stand of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, but suggests a model of the ‘disrupted homeland’, in which part of the IndoEuropean population separated from the primary core very early, as far back as the Neolithic, at the time of the infiltration of the Anatolian cultural complex into the Balkan Peninsula. Probably, this movement should be linked with the appearance of peoples inhabiting Europe in historic times: Greeks, Thracians and ancient Europeans. Indo-Iranians migrated east directly from the Near East, which is well confirmed by the latest discoveries in the Caspian region and Central Asia [Sukhachyov, 1994, pp. 203-214]. This removes the inconsistency between the theory of the Near Eastern origins of the Indo-Europeans and the early Indo-European river names found in Central Europe. At the same time, if Sukhachyov’s hypothesis based on Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, it conflicts with a number of essential aspects of their theory, and does not explain later contacts of ancient Europeans with people speaking Iranian, Altaic and Finno-Ugrian, or between Iranians and Semites. However, Sukhachyov did not aim to provide a comprehensive scheme. One of the earliest hypotheses is that the IndoEuropean homeland was in Central Europe. Recently this theory has been examined in detail by C.-H. Boettcher [Boettcher, 1999]. A basic point is the absence of non-Indo-European river-names in Central Europe. This is the only such area in Europe from which it is possible to draw the conclusion that Indo-Europeans formed the earliest ethnic seam. Indeed, it is supposed that Mesolithic people already spoke a language which was a predecessor of Indo-European. Yet it was definitely not a tongue that we could designate as proto-Indo-European: the reconstruction of the latter rather clearly indicates the acquaintance of its bearers with metal. Furthermore, there is evidence about the natural environment, which confirms that Indo-Europeans lived in an area with a temperate climate, mountains, open spaces and forests. This corresponds readily to such regions as the Balkan Peninsula, Anatolia and Transcaucasia. Boettcher avoids an apparent inconsistency connected with the distribution in Europe of Linearbandkeramik culture, which originated in the Balkans, and ultimately in Anatolia as follows. It is supposed that they were non-Indo-European people who, having spread through Europe, did not rename the rivers. Through them the Hamito-Semitic and Caucasian connections of Indo-European tongues may be explained. The pre-Indo-European populations remained only in the coastal regions of the north, which is reflected in the materials of the Ertebölle culture. To explain their subsequent expansion the concept of ‘feudalism’ is introduced, and 158 these peoples are seen as the ‘Vikings’ of antiquity. Their culture was close to the Dnieper-Donets culture, whose bearers shared common Mesolithic roots with those of Ertebölle. Thus, populations remained in the North Pontic area who spoke languages that were the precursors of Indo-European tongues. The subsequent expansion of the Ertebölle tribes south resulted in the rapid formation over the huge spaces of Northern, North-Western and Central Europe of Funnel Beaker culture, which is regarded as protoIndo-European. Afterwards, on this base Globular Amphorae and then Corded Ware cultures formed. This reflects the separations of the western IndoEuropean dialects (Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, Venetic, Illyrian). Their subsequent partitioning and distribution occurs in the Urnfield period, which corresponds to actual archaeological material. In the south, in the Middle Danube basin, the Baden complex appeared, which reflects the separation of southern dialects (Anatolian, Greek, Thracian). The subsequent movement of Anatolians is connected with the formation of Trojan culture at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age: this is readily demonstrable against the background of parallels between Troy, the Balkans and Central Europe. In the east, after the formation of the Ochre Burials culture (Pit-Grave), we can speak about the separation of the eastern dialect group (Indo-Iranians). Their movement east and south is described in full conformity with the Kurgan theory. The Tocharian movement, a stumbling-block for many theories, is mentioned but not described, as the Tocharians are regarded as a people speaking a dialect of the western group. This scheme is not without internal logic, but there are various inconsistencies. In it the development of cultures of North Pontic area from DnieperDonets to Pit-Grave, as well as the connection of the Dnieper-Donets culture with the previous Mesolithic complex of Europe is presumed. In this case we should assume the development of Indo-Iranian dialects from a postulated language that was the predecessor of proto-Indo-European, instead of proto-Indo-European itself, which contradicts the linguistic evidence. Otherwise we would need to demonstrate the origin of Pit-Grave culture from Funnel Beaker, and that contradicts the archaeological evidence. However, the main problem is different. These inconsistencies can be removed if we deny the Indo-European identity of Pit-Grave culture. This will not be a popular point of view either, but it is possible to explain the occurrence of Indo-Iranian on the steppe by the coming of the Sintashta population, and to connect its origin in the Near East with infiltrations of the European archaeological complex into Anatolia at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. However, it is not clear how this all will correspond to the scheme of dialectal partitioning of IndoEuropean languages. Eventually, we can ignore this scheme too, having decided that the archaeological processes are not quite adequate to the linguistic ones. However, the main complexities in Europe remain. If, as supposed, the people of Linearbandkeramik culture had adopted all the pre-existing names of European rivers, the stability of river names since the Mesolithic is surprising, as is the absence of evidence of steady contacts between this population and local Mesolithic tribes. The other problem is the formation of Funnel Beaker culture. Despite its fast expansion, it clearly diffused from south-east to north-west, and not the reverse. Ertebölle culture could have participated as a local substratum in its formation in a rather limited area, but this was not a decisive influence. In essence, Funnel Beaker culture formed on the basis of Linearbandkeramik and the cultures of the Danube zone as well, in particular Lengyel. In this case, these are cultures of the Balkan-Central European circle with more distant roots in Anatolia. This returns us again to the theories about the Balkan and Anatolian origins of the Indo-Europeans. A number of existing hypotheses have been reviewed by Mallory, who has combined them into four models [Mallory, 1997], all of which, in his opinion, have a number of essential faults: either they contradict the linguistic evidence or could not show the appearance of Indo-Europeans in one area or another. For example, the hypothesis about the localisation of the Indo-European homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppes cannot explain their coming into Anatolia, Iran and India. An essential problem for the majority of models is, in Mallory’s judgment, the Dniester-Dnieper boundary, which partitioned two different cultural units. Breaking it down from west to east, as we have argued above, does not correspond to archaeological realities. Nevertheless, as we have shown, it could be circumvented from the south, therefore it is not a limiting factor. Among the abundance of processes identified archaeologically, it is quite possible to glean evidence to support any scheme. In particular it is possible to connect the southern expansion of Indo-Iranians primarily with 159 the coming of steppe peoples into the Balkans and then, after the re-forming of this cultural complex, into Anatolia. Among the plethora of archaeological data, it is not difficult to describe the movement of these populations east from Anatolia. There is another problem. The reconstructed archaeological processes must correspond with the processes reconstructed by linguists, and for that to be apparent it is essential to write not about the movement of steppe populations east or south, but to operate with concrete archaeological material, by means of which it is necessary to demonstrate the dialectal partitioning and distribution of Indo-European tongues. If they take the position that these processes are not adequate, then archaeologists should not attempt to be engaged in Indo-European studies at all. All hypotheses including the Near Eastern one contain a number of inconsistencies: for the latter, in my opinion, the movement of ancient European populations is the most problematic. The Iranian infiltration north from the Near East (established in Part I) allows us to conjecture that their progeny migrated subsequently into Iran. In Part III, I shall demonstrate also the presence of IndoAryans in Eastern Europe, as well as Indo-Iranians at an earlier time. In effect, all these groups could have penetrated south, the role assigned to them by the Russian historiographical tradition. And, on the face of it, there are facts to verify this. However, these reflect only a local episode of Indo-Iranian migrations and have no connection with the general characteristics of the processes. I shall now start to substantiate this thesis. 160 Chapter 1. Indo-Iranians in Central Asia, India and Iran 1.1. Central Asia To be convinced of the last element in the foregoing introduction, it is quite enough to examine the hypothesis about Indo-Aryan infiltration into India from areas of the Eurasian steppe. The basis for it is the idea about an immanent development of Eastern Europe cultures. And if we identify the formation of the Indo-Iranian with Eurasian steppe Bronze Age cultures, we are compelled also to explain their infiltration into India by the migrations of these cultures southwards. Similar migrations start to be identified only in the Late Bronze Age, when the infiltration of Timber-Grave, Alakul and Fyodorovka tribes took place into Central Asia1 [Kuzmina, 1986, pp. 204-207; Sarianidi, 1975, pp. 20-26; Saltovskaya, 1978, pp. 95, 96; Kuzmina, 1964, pp. 147-151; Srednyaya Asia …, 1966, pp. 227-239; Tolstov, Itina, 1960, pp. 28-31; Isakov, Potyomkina, 1989, pp. 145165; Itina, 1962, pp. 111-113]. At this stage these migrations to the south were yet not very large. This process intensified somewhat in the final period of the Late Bronze Age and was connected with Sargari-Alexeevka culture [Isakov, Potyomkina, 1989, p. 165]. On the face of it, all of this was the gradual drift of Indo-Iranians towards Hindustan. However, from this moment a series of inconsistencies and logical impasses arises. At the end of the Bronze Age in the south of Central Asia the Yaz I culture formed, in which features of the previous agricultural culture and steppe cultures are reflected [Kuzmina, 1964, p. 151; Srednyaya Asia …, 1966, pp. 189-191; Itina, 1962, p. 116; Sarianidi, 1972, p. 22; Askarov, 1979, pp. 3436]. The active participation of steppe tribes in its 1 We shall see that the problem of the migration of people of Fyodorovka culture is more complicated. formation seems unconvincing and local roots and the use of the Iranian language more possible. The Achaemenids, who included this area in their Empire, found an Iranian population here [Sagdulaev, 1989, p. 59]. Among the main arguments in favour of identifying steppe cultures with Aryans who migrated into Iran and India is the presence of Iranian and IndoAryan place-names in Northern Eurasia and IndoIranian inclusions in Finno-Ugrian tongues [Smirnov, Kuzmina, 1997, p. 52]. These really confirm the presence of Indo-Iranians in Northern Eurasia in the 2nd millennium BC, but not that it was they who spoke the Avestan and Vedic languages. Quite the contrary: the long contact of these cultures with FinnoUgrian peoples presupposes language borrowings, however small. Yet intense study of ‘Rig Veda’ and ‘Avesta’ reveals not even a hint of such borrowings. At the same time, limited proto-Finno-Ugrian inclusions in the Avestan and Vedic languages, but borrowed through the Dravidian tongues, are quite possible. We shall touch upon this contact later. To turn to the most general background, which, in general, is precisely reflected in metal, the history of this area of the Middle East can be presented in terms of the initial expansion here of the borders of the ‘Iran-Afghan Metallurgical Province’, which is subsequently ‘forced out’ from the north by the Eurasian Metallurgical Province [Chernikh, 1978] that was connected with the already mentioned migratory processes of the Late Bronze Age. However, the penetration of the standards of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province to the south was not particularly intense. It barely reached Southern Uzbekistan and Northern Afghanistan, where already in the late 18th – early 17th century BC, as a result of the activity of western tribes, the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex had formed, blocking the way to the south for the steppe tribes [Sarianidi, 1977, p. 158; Askarov, 1977, p. 5]. Indeed, it is necessary to emphasise that, after it was fully formed, this complex 161 was exposed to some effects from Eastern Khorassan, Southern Turkmenistan or the Indus valley, and does not include any steppe components. Therefore, we should conclude that Indo-Iranian penetration into this area would have taken place earlier, that the southern migrations of steppe tribes were not connected with it, and that the archaeological sites they left were not their ‘landmarks on the road to India’. The deficiencies of the arguments presented have allowed theories to flourish about the destruction of the Harappan civilisation through natural causes unconnected with Indo-Aryan infiltrations, and that the inhabitants of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro already spoke an Indo-Aryan tongue. Theories denying Aryan encroachments into Hindustan are especially widespread in Indian historiography [Srivastava, 1984]. The main argument against such ideas is that the deciphering of its written sources has raised the possibility that the Harappan civilisation had a Dravidian identity [Bongard-Levin, 1988, p. 63]. Unfortunately, an indirect cause for these ideas developing was the theory about the connections of the Eurasian steppe cultures with the Indo-Iranians, and their southern migration with the Indo-Aryan penetration into India. This was an inducement if not to agree with, at any rate to be reconciled to, ecological reasons for the destruction of Indus civilisation. There is, nevertheless, some basis to the ecological interpretation. Some research has demonstrated that the period previous to this was characterised by heightened tectonic activity, leading to the destruction of dams and the overflowing of rivers. This resulted in climate change, disturbance of the natural balance and had negative consequences for the health of the people [Allchin, 1984]: the evidence of skeletons shows that genetic diseases appeared [Kennedy, 1984]. These diseases were a consequence of malaria, which was widely distributed by the abundance of mosquitos on the abandoned fields. This left the Indo-Aryan newcomers practically untouched, as the populations formed in Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean had a higher resistance to it. In the steppe zone of Eastern Europe the need for such resistance did not arise [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 915, 916]. The decline of Indus civilisation was clearly marked in the 19th – 18th centuries BC. It was accompanied by the collapse of system, building of fortifications, more primitive constructions in cities, overflow of rivers and constant breaks in dams. It is worthy of comment that this process touched the northern zone of Indus civilisation to a greater degree. In the excavation of Indus cities buried skeletons were found [Arheologia Asii, 1986, pp. 168171; Medvedev, 1990, pp. 87-90; Bongard-Levin, Ilyin, 1985, pp. 107-110]. However, attenuation and decline of Indus civilisation caused by ecological reasons does not vitiate the idea of Aryan encroachment: the crisis could have facilitated it. Therefore all the evidence mentioned can testify both to an ecological catastrophe and an accompanying complicated military-political situation connected with the penetration of Indo-Aryans, whose identification with any actual archaeological sites remains debatable. In this connection, it is necessary to ask: how, indeed, these sites should look? Based on the idea that the suspected penetration of Indo-Aryans into Hindustan took place in the Middle Bronze Age of the Circumpontic zone, identification of the people of Catacomb culture with Indo-Iranians, and the primary localisation of Indo-Iranians in the Near East, I have presumed that Indo-Aryan material culture should be comparable with both Catacomb culture and Near Eastern antiquities. In outcome it has been found that there are archaeological complexes adequate to these requirements in regions directly adjoining the areas of Indus civilisation, and they have been known for a long time. A true understanding of them did not occur in Russian historiography because of their incompatability with former historico-cultural schemes. In Southern Tajikistan the Tulkhar and Aruktau cemeteries have been investigated [Mandelshtam, 1968]. It is necessary to describe them briefly because they are regarded by supporters of the southwards movement of the Indo-Aryans as a link between the steppe cultures and those of the Indian subcontinent. These cemeteries are situated within the Bishkent valley, in the area of the outflow of the rivers Kaphirnighan and Surkhan-Darya into Amu-Darya. Eighty-eight burials relating to this period were excavated [Mandelshtam, 1968, p. 6] (Fig. 54). In most cases the burials of the Tulkhar cemetery are in ‘T-shaped’ catacombs, with narrow rectangular entry pits and oval burial chambers (Fig. 54.1-2). In some cases chambers are rectangular with rounded corners. Two burials have been found in which the longitudinal axis of the entry pit coincides with that of the burial chamber. In some single chambers there are oval stone ‘circles’ around the 162 2 1 3 4 10 5 6 7 11 13 9 8 14 12 15 16 17 18 Fig. 54. Bishkent culture. Tulkhar cemetery. 163 skeletons, or rectangular recesses lined with stone slabs with secondary burials. The majority of chambers are small. As a matter of fact these are ‘pits with a sloping descent’ (Fig. 54.1). However they were undoubtedly covered, which generally integrates them with true catacombs also present in the cemetery. Most burials are inhumations, although single cases of cremation have been found. The skeletons lie in a contracted position on their side (males on the right side, females on the left) with arms before the face. The degree of contraction is, as a rule, large. In child grave pits multiple burials have been identified, causing the bones to be removed and intermixed. There are two non-standard constructions in the cemetery. Both are rectangular pits with north-south orientation and, in contrast with rest, were filled with soil immediately after the completion of the rituals. On their surface a rock was placed, surrounded by other small ones. In the southern part of the pit bottoms, calcined small-sized bones had been placed in depressions covered by stone slabs. In the central part of one of the pits stones were set out in the form of a swastika, and in the other as a rectangular cross (Fig. 54.3) [Mandelshtam, 1968, pp. 8-47]. Burials at the Aruktau cemetery are practically on the surface; there is only one instance of a grave pit – surrounded by rectangular or circle setting of stones, and filled inside with rocks or soil. The bodies are in the contracted position with arms before the face. They are oriented to the east or north-east [Mandelshtam, 1968, pp. 46-52]. In both cemeteries the only animal bones to accompany the burials were those of sheep. Bodies in the Tulkhar cemetery were supplied with grave goods [Mandelshtam, 1968, pp. 61-713]. The following metal artefacts have been found there: 1. Bronze double-edged leaf-shaped knives with slight ‘pentagonal’ blade, and short or elongated narrow rectangular tang (Fig. 54.5). 2. Stemmed spearheads or javelins (presented in the publication as knives) with sub-triangular blade and rhombic cross-section (Fig. 54.14). 3. Double-edged dagger with parallel edges to the blade and a short tang (Fig. 54.7). 4. Dagger with a metal hilt. The blade is barely ground. The hilt has a cordoned thickening on the sides, a hole and relief decoration. The transition to the blade is asymmetric (Fig. 54.6). 5. ‘Razor’ of sub-rectangular shape with slightly curved edges and small handle (Fig. 54.15). 6. Fragment of a two-winged arrowhead with a latent socket. 7. Round mirrors (one with a handle), pins (both spirally- and triangular-folded), disconnected round pendant (Fig. 54.9,10,12). The character of metal objects from the Aruktau cemetery is different. There are bent sickles, grooved bracelets, and disconnected round pendants. Half the metal artefacts of the Tulkhar cemetery are made of tin bronze, principally daggers and mirrors, with one third of ‘pure’ copper. The remaining artefacts are made of arsenic copper. All artefacts from the Aruktau cemetery are made of tin bronze [Bogdanova-Berezovskaya, 1968]. The ceramics yielded by the Tulkhar cemetery comprise hand- and wheel-made ware. The main types are: 1. Bellied pots with smooth profiling and slightly outcurved rim. There are some examples with a spherical bottom and straight neck and rim (Fig. 54.17). 2. Tall-necked jugs. 3. Jars: a) straight-walled; b) open with slightly concave walls and slightly outcurved rim; c) closed flaring jars with narrowed neck, on a base (Fig. 54.13,18). 4. Bowls with straight or outcurved rim, which is underlined, in a number of cases, by a groove (Fig. 54.16). By comparison, at Aruktau jugs and some types of jar are absent and the bowls are more profiled. There are fewer vessels, so no detailed conclusions may be drawn. The set of grave goods allows the connection of the cemeteries with each another and their place in the system of the Eurasian Bronze Age to be determined. From the material of these cemeteries and separate finds in the south of Central Asia, the Bishkent culture, which has been dated to the early 1st millennium BC, was isolated. Its connection with the IndoIranians was determined too [Mandelshtam, 1968, pp. 135-141]. From the materials of this culture it has been concluded that steppe components penetrated south in the final period of the Bronze Age. Thus, this culture serves as a link between Eurasian steppe complexes and Indo-Aryan sites in India. It is impossible today to agree with such a dating of the Bishkent culture. Its metal complex cannot be 164 compared with standards of metal working in the final stage of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province, and burial rites and ceramics are totally different too. Therefore we turn to analogies to the individual types of grave goods. The leaf-shaped elongated knife with short rectangular tang was a typical enough article of the Middle Bronze Age in the Circumpontic zone. It appeared in Anatolia as far back as the Early Bronze Age, and in the Middle Bronze Age is characteristic also of Catacomb culture [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 51; Chernikh, 1966, p. 129]. The elongated narrow tangs of the Tulkhar knives are an archaic feature too. Similar knives occur in Asia Minor and were especially common in the Middle Bronze Age [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 51]. They occur in the Maikop culture, in Mari and Kish of the mid-3rd millennium BC, and in Ur of the 18th – 17th centuries BC. In the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC such knives occur in India [Gorelik, 1993, p. 222, tab. III, 18, p. 224, tab. IV, 2,4,8,10,45]. Spearheads or javelins of a similar type are not present in the northern part of the Circumpontic zone, but in the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age they are known [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 50]. Close analogies are found in Palestine: Gaza, Megiddo (18 th – 17th centuries BC) and Byblos (20th – 19th centuries BC) [Gorelik, 1993, p. 282, tab. XXXIII, 115,116]. Anatolian materials allow the dagger with a short tang to be dated to the Middle Bronze Age [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 51]. The dagger with the metal hilt has a similar date. This type of hilt occurs in Anatolia on daggers with swelling blades (Middle Bronze Age) and on single-edged knives with a curved back (Late Bronze Age) [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 53]. It is typical of Seima-Turbino singleedged daggers [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 118, 119, 123]. A dagger with such a hilt also occurs at Dashli-3 in Northern Afghanistan [Sarianidi, 1977, p. 77]. A similar dagger, made of arsenic bronze, has been found in Vakhshuvar (Southern Uzbekistan) [Rtveladze, 1981; Levushkina, Flitsiyan, 1981]. It is much more likely that this style of hilt arose in the Near East: a dagger from Kish with such is dated to the middle of the 3rd millennium BC; a single-edged knife from Gaza to the 18th – 17th centuries BC. About the 17th century BC metal-hilted daggers became very typical in the Near East. Some scholars connect their broad distribution with the Hyksos [Gorelik, 1993, pp. 17, 218, tab. I, 8, p. 222, tab. III, 21]. Mirrors and pins of the types described are known in the Middle Bronze Age in the southern part of the Circumpontic zone [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, pp. 62, 63] and in the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 81-85]. There are parallels in Sapalli, Egypt and Palestine too. Sapalli demonstrates also analogies to the ring with disconnected ends and jasper beads. Such beads occur also in Byblos, Talish and Giyan Tepe. They are dated within the framework of early Namazga VI [Askarov, 1973, pp. 110, 112, 113,115]. Razors of the described type are characteristic of complexes such as Dashli-3 in Bactria [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 77, 80]. A close comparison occurs in the Early Bronze Age level of the Kul-Tepe I settlement in Azerbaijan [Ismailov, 1987, p. 15] Two-winged metal arrowheads are known in the Near East, but in all cases they are tanged. Tanged arrowheads have also been found in Sintashta. The only analogy known to me is the casting mould from the Rostovka cemetery [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 88, 89]. It provides one more parallel with Seima-Turbino bronzes. Thus, this metal corresponds to that of the Circumpontic zone of the Middle Bronze Age, as well as to metal of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex. By analogies with the Circumpontic zone we can date contacts of Bishkent culture with the Bactro-Margianan complex to the latter’s earlier phase. It should be noted that the metal objects from Tulkhar show more parallels with the southern area of the Circumpontic zone than with the northern. Those from Aruktau give the impression of a later date – the presence of bent sickles and grooved bracelets – and, in confirmation, all are made of tin bronzes. The ceramics have analogies in the west too. Jars with concave walls were widespread on sites in both North-Western and North-Eastern Iran. Cylindrical jars with concave walls are known also on the Kura-Araxian settlement of Pulur in Eastern Anatolia. Similar forms were widespread also far to the south – on the Umman-Nar settlement in Oman, dated to the 3rd millennium BC. Jars on a base with a narrow neck and spherical walls are known in North-Eastern Iran [Stankevich, 1978, fig. 7.71A, 14.71B, 26.72B, 28.174B; Serge, 1984, fig. 41.19.5, 41.20.3; Keban Project, 1976, tab. 61-64, 80-82]. Numerous parallels to the Tulkhar ceramic complex are known at Halava in Northern Syria in levels relating to the last period of the Early Bronze Age 165 [Ortmann, 1985, pp. 67-69, 75-79] – which corresponds in Syria to the levels Selenkahiyeh III and IV, in Anatolia to levels Troy III-IV, and in Mesopotamia to the period of the third dynasty of Ur [Loon, 1985, p. 58]. Burials in catacombs have parallels within the Circumpontic zone too, in South-Eastern Caspian area and Palestine. Indeed, ‘T-shaped’ catacombs are regarded as quite early. Contracted burials on the right side are also characteristic of Catacomb culture rites. But in this case we can speak about Catacomb people, dated by ceramics to the end of the Early Bronze Age, and by metalwork to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age of the Syrian chronological system, which corresponds to the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, pp. 36, 37; Bickermann, 1975, p. 181; Loon, 1985, p. 58]. Therefore, the period of use of Tulkhar cemetery may be defined as at least from the early 2nd millennium BC, and that of the Aruktau cemetery somewhat later. There is a basis also for earlier dates. The periods Selenkahiyeh III and IV are rather long. However, even using the date of Selenkahiyeh III, we obtain a date within the last quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. Similar dating of ZamanBaba, Suyargan culture and Lyavlyakan culture is quite possible too, but it seems to be difficult to confirm this now. Therefore it is possible to speak about either the late 3rd millennium BC or the early 2nd millennium BC. The connections with early Namazga VI, Dashli-3 and Sapalli may give a somewhat later date. The radiocarbon dates of the transitional period from Namazga V to Namazga VI fall between 1850 and 1550 BC, but the calibrated dates fall into the range 2330-2000 BC [Dolukhanov et al., 1985, p. 122]. Other scholars favouring traditional chronology are inclined to date the formation of complexes of this type to about the 18th century BC [Sarianidi, 1993, p. 144]. The correction of these dates is a future task, but in any case we must discuss a much earlier period than previously supposed. The Bishkent culture population is alien to this area. Judging from their metal work they were connected with the southern part of the Circumpontic zone; and from their ceramics further east. It is possible to accept that this population was Indo-Iranian, confirmation of which is provided by swastikas in grave pits, affinity of the Tulkhar materials to the Catacomb antiquities of the Eastern European steppe, as well as to the post-Harappan formations in India and Pakistan. The anthropological evidence confirms connections with Western Asia too. Examination of skulls has shown that a number their features are comparable with those in the Timber-Grave, Andronovo and Tazabagyab series, but they are considerably larger [Vinogradov et al., 1986, pp. 178, 183]. Their height has allowed the Tulkhar skulls to be linked with the Near East and adjacent areas [Kiyatkina, 1968, p. 182]. Skulls of this type are found also in other areas of Central Asia. They are combined into East Mediterranean type III and have nothing common with skulls of the previous Kelteminar culture [Vinogradov et al., 1986, pp. 198, 199; Dryomov, 1988, pp. 41, 42; Ginzburg, 1972, p. 68]. To a very great degree anthropological materials of the Bishkent culture show connections with western Central Asian (Caspian) series, represented in the Sumbar cemetery in South-Western Turkmenistan. Ii is more difficult to discuss an earlier complex, Parkhai II, but there are probably some similaries with it too [Kiyatkina, 1982, pp. 56, 57]. The Bishkent burial rite shows no parallels in the north. At the same time, the combination of catacombs and grave pits having an entrance with contracted burials and secondary burials, is characteristic of the earlier Parkhai II cemetery in the SouthEastern Caspian area (Fig. 60). In Bishkent and Parkhai II burials, men are buried more commonly on the right side, and women on the left. Therefore, it is necessary to search for the roots of this practice in this region [Khlopin, 1989]. The formation of Bishkent culture should not be perceived as a local phenomenon; it falls into a wider context. The cultural transformations in Central Asia in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC were much more significant – broadly the gradual expansion to the east and north-east of the Iranian and Near Eastern cultures. In the 3rd millennium BC the metal production of the tribes of Southern Turkmenistan (periods Namazga III and IV) was bodily connected with Iran, whence metal was imported and the forms of artefacts were borrowed [Kuzmina, 1966, pp. 86-90]. Indeed, certain links of Iranian production with the Circumpontic zone have been identified. They are demonstrated most clearly by the penetration to the east of such types of artefact as axe-adzes and axe-hammers, known on the Balkan Peninsula since the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC [Chernikh, 1978, pp. 89, 96]. The Central Asian examples have as prototypes Iranian forms dating to the late 3rd millennium BC [Vinogradov A., 166 Kuzmina, 1970, pp. 126-133]. This type continued in this area for quite a long time, being present in Zaman-Baba culture, the Early Bronze Age culture of Kyzylkum (Lyavlyakan) and on Dashli-3 in Bactria as well [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 71, 74; Vinogradov A., Kuzmina, 1970, p. 126]. Axes excavated in Bactria, having a bent down knob on the back or a rounded cutting edge, have Caucasian and Near Eastern parallels (Fig. 56.11,14) [Gorelik, 1993, p. 254, tab. XIX, 6-20, p. 256, tab. XX, 13,20,21,28,29, p. 258, tab. XXI, 81-90]. Contemporaneously, a rather unusual technique of ore smelting in crucibles appeared. This technology first appeared in Gilyan, in the late 5 th – early 4th millennium BC [Pigott V., 1988]. However, I do not consider it a local phenomenon. Smelting technology tends to demonstrate a considerable spatial and temporal unity. In this period the same technology was certainly typical of western regions: Azerbaijan and Northern Mesopotamia. Further, it has been identified at Khapuz-Tepe in the period of Namazga IV (in the original publication the structure of this slag is treated differently [Terekhova, 1980, p. 144]) and was widely used on Early Bronze Age sites in the Kyzylkum desert [Grigoriev, 1996, p. 113]. I have interpreted similarly the microstructures of slag from the metallurgical complex found on Dashli-3, where a crucible with nonsmelted ore was discovered too [Sarianidi et al., 1977, pp. 35, 36; Grigoriev, 1996, p. 116]. Apparently, we cannot connect these processes on the Iranian Plateau and in Central Asia with the activity of South Mesopotamian centres, and not only because of their gravitation to the northern part of this area. The rather early Sumerian interest in territories to the north-east was not extended beyond adjacent Elam. Subsequently, proto-Elamites expanded violently in this direction, probably penetrating up to the eastern borders of the Iranian Plateau. However, this had dampened down in the early 3 rd millennium BC and did not revive. Therefore, the interest of the South Mesopotamian states was concentrated upon Upper Mesopotamia and regions near the Persian Gulf [Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1990, pp. 618]. Thus, all events in Central Asia in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC should be connected only with Northern Mesopotamia and Northern Iran. Until this time the situation in Central Asia looked quite uniform and monotonous. In the south of Turkmenistan settled farmers lived, in the foothills of the Kopet Dag, within a very restricted zone that did not extend beyond a limit of the desert. To the north and north-east, the vast regions of dry steppe and semi-desert of the Southern Aral area and Central Asian interfluve were developed by tribes of the Neolithic Kelteminar culture, who were hunter-gatherers [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975]. The process of desertification of these areas had begun but had not progressed far. In the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC, a sharp break in the cultural system took place there. The re-forming of the agricultural culture of Southern Turkmenistan commenced. Kelteminar culture ceased [Vinogradov A., 1981, pp. 22-36]. On the lower Amu-Darya the Suyargan culture formed. New types of ceramics appeared: bellied pots with straight rim decorated by notches and herringbone design [Tolstov, Itina, 1960, pp. 14-21]. Hunting and gathering played a leading role in the economy of these tribes. Most investigators see the roots of Suyargan culture in the local Kelteminar culture, which had been modified by impulses from the south – from Turkmenistan, but most likely, from North-Eastern Iran [Srednyaya Asia …, 1966, pp. 214, 215; Tolstov, Itina, 1960, p. 14] – whose bearers had penetrated into the Akcha-Darya delta of the Amu-Darya through Uzboi, bypassing the tribes living in foothills of the Kopet Dag. This was possible because the break of the Amu-Darya into the Northern delta happened later, in the early 2 nd millennium BC [Itina, 1977, pp. 25-27]. Analysis of skulls from the Kokca 3 cemetery shows that the Suyargan tribes belonged to the Indo-Dravidian anthropological type [Antropologicheskiye tipi …, 1988, pp. 113, 114]. However, most features on which this conclusion is based are characteristic of the Mediterranean type and occur frequently in a series that is impossible to connect with Dravidians [Vinogradov et al., 1986, pp. 187, 188]. At the same time, in Inner Kyzylkum, a so-called Early Bronze Age culture arose within the Lyavlyakan, Besh-Bulak and Ayakagitma depressions [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975, pp. 225-228]. Apart from a new type of ceramics it differed by the presence of metallurgy, use of crucible ore smelting, and casting production [Grigoriev, 1996, p. 113]. It is impossible to describe the more detailed features of this culture as these materials are represented by assemblages on the surface and originate from destroyed sites. Bellied vessels with a straight or slightly outcurved neck comprise the ceramic complex. It is not comparable with anything known 167 in Central Asia [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975, p. 225]. However, a casting mould of an axe-adze, found with the ceramics, has parallels in Iran [Vinogradov A., Kuzmina, 1970, pp. 126-130]. To the south-east, on the Zerafshan, the ZamanBaba culture of farmers and cattle-breeders grew up. Its metal objects are stereotypical of the IranAfghanistan Metallurgical Province, and hand-made vessels with a round and flat bottom represent ceramics. Zaman-Baba people lived in pit-dwellings, and their burial constructions comprised grave pits and catacombs with perpendicular shafts and contracted burials. The ceramic complex is diverse: part shows parallels with the previous Kelteminar culture, another part with the Catacomb culture, and a third part with South Turkmenian and North Iranian complexes, such as Anau III, Shah Tepe II, III, Hissar IIIB and C. As in the Tulkhar cemetery, a combination of hand-made and wheel-made ware is observed. Rectangular partitioned burners are very interesting; they find parallels in the Okunev culture, Catacomb cultures and on Shah Tepe II. A female figurine is similar to those from Shah Tepe and Namazga V. The set of metal analogies (mirror, spatula, knife) is the same – Hissar, Shah Tepe, Namazga. [Srednyaya Asia …, 1966, pp. 206-212; Kuzmina, 1958]. The origin of this culture was connected with the migration of a southern population, probably from regions near the Kopet Dag, who made contact with the local Kelteminar population, forming mixed cultural features. [Sarianidi, 1975, p. 28; 1998, pp. 28, 29; Srednyaya Asia …, 1966, p. 212; Kuzmina, 1958, p. 33]. The connections of this culture with the subsequent formation of the culture of Sapalli are interesting because, in the latter, burials in catacombs were widespread too [Alyokshin, 1989, pp. 153, 154]. Sometimes it is possible to meet the opinion that Zaman-Baba was formed by the migration of steppe tribes [Kuzmina, 1997, p. 86]. This judgment is based on the presence of pit-dwellings, catacombs, and ceramics comparable to the forms of Eastern European Catacomb people. However, the latter cannot be traced back to the Pit-Grave cultural tradition. The search for sources of this ceramic tradition to the south of the Caucasus is more fruitful, and we shall discuss this in the relevant Chapter. Similarly, catacombs, as we have already argued, do not have a source in Pit-Grave burial practice; they demonstrate a long-lived line of develop- ment in the South-Eastern Caspian area. Pit-dwellings cannot be regarded as an exclusively northern feature: they are known also in the south, for example, on the settlements of Kura-Araxian culture. Thus, we see in Central Asia the unified process of forming an entire range of new cultures, linked with potent western impulses. Indeed, the materials of the Tulkhar cemetery can be correlated with the Indo-Aryan ethnos, whose connection with ZamanBaba cannot be excluded either, although it is difficult to speak about this authentically. Nevertheless, we may state the presence of Indo-Iranians to the north of the zone of the Indus civilisation in the early 2nd millennium BC. The southerly invasion of Bishkent culture is demonstrated at the Shortugai settlement in Northern Afghanistan, where Bishkent graves cover a level containing Harappan materials [Bongard-Levin, Ilyin, 1985, p. 133]. This was the most northerly outpost of Harappan civilisations, apparently serving as a trading station [Francfort, 1984]. Sumerians and Elamites also organised this type of settlement at a considerable distance from the mother country. Material from Vakhsh culture cemeteries investigated in Southern Tajikistan, the best known of which is Tigrovaya Balka, is very similar to Bishkent [Piankova, 1974]. The skeletons lie contracted on their side in catacombs and pits with recesses, faces orientated to the entry shaft. The radiocarbon date is about 1400 BC, however, the size of the cemetery (130 mounds) suggests that it functioned for a long time. Unfortunately, there are a very few artefacts wherewith to date it. The ceramics are most comparable with those in the Tulkhar cemetery, as are the razor and mirrors. In addition, there are forms similar to ware from Sapalli, Dashli and Namazga V and VI. The presence of stone maceheads and tanged arrowheads cannot help with dating the complex. A dagger of Luristan type and socketed spearhead (unfortunately not adduced in the publication) may indicate Near Eastern connections. It is possible that precisely Bishkent and Vakhsh materials can be connected with Kafirian. This dialect had separated from the Indo-Iranian tongues very early, and its speakers lived to the north of the Indo-Aryans, within the mountainous regions of Northern India [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 915]. This brings us to events in Hindustan in the crisis period of Indus civilisation. 168 1.2. Hindustan The picture described above preceded the Svata culture in the north of Pakistan [Stakull, 1989; Vinogradova, 1995]. This culture formed in the 18 th – 17th centuries BC (periods Ghaligay I-III are probably outside the framework of the subsequent cultural tradition). In the early phase, the clear connections of these sites with Kashmir, Hissar IIB and IIIB, and then with late Harappa, have been identified. The presence in this culture of settlements with a formal plan and rectangular houses on stone socles is worthy of comment. The burial rite found in Svata cemeteries is very interesting too: catacombs, and pits with recesses and shoulders, containing cremations and contracted inhumations on the side. The closest analogies to burials and artefacts are to be found in the Tulkhar and Tigrovaya Balka cemeteries. However, parallels to this material, both chronological and territorial, are very broad: Zaman-Baba, Tagisken, Namazga VI and Hissar III [Kuzmina, 1972]. This indicates the long continuance of this culture: non-calibrated radiocarbon dating gives dates from the 16th – 15th centuries BC up to the mid-1st millennium BC [Kuzmina, 1972, p. 117]. Therefore, I am inclined to view this culture within the framework of the process described. The marked connections of Svata culture with Northern China demand a special explanation. The Gandhara cemeteries found in this region and dated from 1710 to 430 BC, contain burials in pits covered with stone slabs and surrounded by stone rings. Within the pits are found contracted on the back and secondary burials, less often cremations. All parallels to this culture are present on the sites of Iran and the Caucasus [Allchin, Allchin, 1982, pp. 237-240]. No less important for us is the resemblance of the Gandhara graves with the early stage of Painted Grey Ware culture, as well as with materials from the Gumla V level covering the Harappan level in the valley of the Gomal, a western tributary of the Indus in Northern Pakistan [Bongard-Levin, Ilyin, 1985, p. 138]. In the late Harappa period links increased between the Indus valley and Southern Baluchistan, whence came some types of artefacts, thanks prob- ably to migrations of the Baluchistan tribes (by this term a territorial not an ethnic identity is meant) and East Khorassan tribes. The outcome was the formation of the Jhukar culture in various regions formerly held by Indus civilisation [Bongard-Levin, Ilyin, 1985, p.110-111]. The seal-amulets of this culture are similar to those in Margiana, and have parallels in Susiana as well as in Hittite glyptic, which indicates western connections [Sarianidi, 1976, pp. 6667]. Parallels for pins and axes are known in Hissar IIIB [Allchin, Allchin, 1982, pp. 241-242]. Thus it is clear that at the end of the Harappa period, a number of close ‘barbarous’ cultures existed in the Indus valley, some of them connected with the Near East via Central Asia, another part with Iran, including its north-east. Earlier the dates 2300-1750 BC were suggested for Harappan civilisation; now the range 2900-1900 BC is convincing, after which the post-Harappa period started [Thapar, 1984, p. 20]. This period is characterised by contacts with ‘barbarous’ peripherals and the IndoAryan invasion of the Indus valley. Very likely, these phenomena should be dated within the 19 th – 17th centuries BC. By this was conditioned the termination of Harappan civilisation on different sites [Bongard-Levin, Ilyin, 1985, pp. 93-95; Shetenko, 1979, p. 137]. The infiltration of Indo-Aryan tribes into the Indus valley was not such a rapid affair. The advanced early Harappan states encountered them here. They were broken by the ecological crisis discussed above. Besides, the fortifications of Harappan towns were not designed to withstand serious attacks. They were probably constructed for protection against small groups of bandits and cattle thieves [Kesarwani, 1984, p. 72]. Nevertheless, this process was prolonged and diverse. Naturally, there was no absolute change of population: in general, the former inhabitants remained, but in a more lowly condition within the developing Varn system. Some suppose that the local aristocracy might have been incorporated into its Varn equivalent [Medvedev, 1990, pp. 91-97], but this is rather unlikely. Whatever the case, the transformation of the Aryan material culture would be rather appreciable, and this precludes the finding of ‘pure’ Aryan complexes in this area. Nevertheless, one ascribes cemetery H in Harappa to the Indo-Aryans. The Indo-Aryan invasion of the Ganges basin took place later, and is connected with Painted Grey Ware culture. It is dated no earlier than the 11th cen- 169 Fig. 55. Indo-Aryan cultures and migrations of the Indo-Aryan tribes. 1 – Parkhai; 2-4 – Shah Tepe, Tureng Tepe, Yarim Tepe; 5 – Tepe Hissar; 6 – Tigrovaya Balka; 7 – Tulkhar; 8 – Quetta; 9 – Jhukar; 10 – Harappa, cemetery H, 11 – Kalibangan; 12 – sites of Grey Painted Ware culture; 13 – Tell Brak; 14 – Chaghar Bazar. tury BC, though an earlier phase of the culture has recently been distinguished. Such a late dating is confirmed by analysis of the texts of ‘Rig Veda’, where the Sarasvati, the Indus and the rivers of the Punjab are mentioned repeatedly, and the Ganges occurs only once [Bongard-Levin, Ilyin, 1985, pp. 134-135]. Recently, however, sites with Painted Grey Ware have been detected on the east bank of the Indus as well [Mughal, 1984]. The conformity of early materials of the Painted Grey Ware culture with Gandhara graves and Bishkent culture, mentioned above, permits the hypothesis that the Indo-Aryan infiltration of the Ganges valley might have began about the mid-2nd millennium BC. This dating is relatively flexible as there is a considerable chronological gap, which can hardly be filled by an early phase of Painted Grey Ware culture. However, it is not necessary to link the origin of Painted Grey Ware culture with the complexes mentioned above. One opinion points to supposed resemblances with the ceramics of North-Eastern Iran (Shah-Tepe) and that the occurrence of this ware marks the coming of the post-Vedic Aryans, described in the ‘Mahabharata’. No burials of Painted Grey Ware culture have been found. It is supposed that cremation, known already in the Svata culture, was practised. It is possible to talk about a series of non-contemporary streams [Parpola, 1988, p. 197; Lal, 1981; Gaur, 1981; Allchin, 1981]. The situation is even more complicated: in the Ganges basin until the 13th – 12th centuries lived tribes of the ‘copper hoards’ or ‘ochre ceramics’ culture, which had Eneolithic features [Shetenko, 1979, pp. 165-172]. The unappealing nature of this forest terrain and the 170 difficulty of both movement and conducting war were likely causes of the very late appearance of Indo-Aryans here. Thus, the start of the Aryan invasion of India is to be dated within the range of the 19th – 18th centuries BC. Originally it was limited to the Indus valley, and realised, predominantly, from regions bordering it to the north and north-west, although infiltrations of tribes from the west (Southern Baluchistan) have also been identified. Aryan migrations into the Ganges basin took place later, in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. These have been linked to descendants of tribes settled on the Upper Indus. In general, from the start these populations had various material cultures and represented different groups of the Indo-Aryan tongues. During the migratory processes, and through contacts with different tribes of Hindustan, the differences between them increased significantly. This picture of the Aryan invasion is supported by linguistic evidence [Bongard-Levin, 1988]. Apart from the Vedic Aryans, it was Indo-Aryan groupings speaking Dardic and Kafirian dialects who entered Hindustan. Judging from the absence in their language of Vedic inclusions, these groups came here earlier. In the Indus basin Aryans interacted with the proto-Dravidian groups, and in the Ganges basin with people who spoke Mundian tongues, which belonged to the Austro-Asian language family. We can assume that people speaking various other unknown Indo-Aryan dialects, other (nonMundian) Austro-Asian languages and languages of the Tibeto-Burman family, were also included in this process. However, these problems are still little studied. The situation was certainly not limited to language contacts. Harappa people and other tribes living in pre-Aryan India had enormous influence on Indo-Aryan religion, culture and style of life, outnumbering the incomers [Gopal, 1981; BongardLevin, 1973; 1984, p. 75]. This agglomeration, in every respect (cultural and linguistic) multipartite, which took part in the ethnogenesis of the Indian subcontinent in the 2nd millennium BC, has resulted in that variegated ethnic picture to be observed in modern India. From what has been stated above, it is possible to draw the following conclusions. The leading parallels to the Indo-Aryan cultures of India may be found in the cultures of Baluchistan, Tajikistan and North-Eastern Iran. At the same time, the cultures of Tajikistan (Bishkent and Vakhsh) are most closely comparable in burial rites with earlier and contemporary complexes in the South-Eastern Caspian. Also taking into account the parallels of Mitannian white-painted ware in such complexes as Hissar III [Parpola, 1988, p. 205; Girshman, 1977, pp. 3-19; 1981, pp. 140-142], the Caspian area should be regarded as the Indo-Aryan homeland (Fig. 55). 1.3. Bactria and Margiana Now let us return to Bactria and Margiana. Here, in the 18th – 17th centuries BC,1 an archaeological complex arose, which is represented by such sites as Dashli-3 in Northern Afghanistan, Sapalli in the south of Uzbekistan and Namazga VI in Turkmenistan [Sarianidi, 1977; Askarov, 1977]. These were a new phenomenon in this area, and V.I. Sarianidi has integrated them into a Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex (BMAC) [Sarianidi, 1974, p. 70], whose formation was preceded by the destruction of old towns and settlements usually regarded as evidence of the coming of new ethnic groups [Sarianidi, 1970, p. 30; 1993, p. 144; Masson, 1984, p. 60]. Large fortified centres arose – rectangular fortresses, enclosed by walls constructed from large adobe blocks – up to 1.6 ha (Sapalli) and even 4 ha (Jarkun) in extent [Askarov, 1977, pp. 15, 46]. Outwith the fortresses the unfortified parts of the settlements spread over areas reaching occasionally 50 ha (Jarkun). Inside the fortress Dashli-3 in Bactria the plan is subordinated to the circlular principle; at its centre is the so-called ‘Round Temple’ [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 34-40]. The basis of construction is the double fortification wall with inner filling and projecting towers or buttresses (Fig. 56.1). The walls of the fortress itself are of the usual brickwork. Inside the round citadel (this does not eliminate possible sacral use) there was a large rectangular building, partitioned into several rooms, with a series of buildings adjoining it. A number of construc1 The calibrated radiocarbon dates demonstrate the following division of this complex: Kelleli period – 2200-2100 BC, Gonur period – 2100-1800 BC, Togolok period – 1800-1500 BC [Kohl, 1992, pp. 189-193]. 171 tions are arranged in a circle along the defensive wall. The majority of them share adjacent walls. Parallels to both the general design and separate details of the interior are provided by the ‘Oval Temple’ in Khafajeh, the temple dedicated to Shara in Tell Agrab, and Mesopotamian architecture of the Uruk III, IV periods. The architecture of Northern Mesopotamia shows the greatest similarity, particularly the central and northern temples in Gawra XIII. After the appearance of a new population (Gawra XI), the resemblance decreased [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 39, 40]. Also on Dashli-3 a large rectangular palace with strong Mesopotamian analogies has been excavated [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 40-46] (Fig. 56.2). Excavation in Margiana has revealed a number of palaces and temples too: the fortress of Aji-Kui (probably the residence of a local ruler), and a large palace in Gonur. These are similar to those in Mesopotamia, but sites in Northern Syria – palaces in RasShamra and Alalakh – demonstrate the most precise analogies. Within the excavated fortresses double walls filled with soil have been investigated. They too had no local roots in Margiana [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 80, 82-84, 88]. As we saw earlier, the Sintashta population introduced a similar technique of defensive wall building from Syria-Anatolia too. The most interesting discoveries in Margiana are the temples: the ‘Temple of Fire’ in Northern Gonur and the temple Togolok 21 (Fig. 56.3). In the latter complex, rituals reflecting features of protoZoroastrianism have been identified archaeologically, including different stages of Haoma preparation. Haoma was made of ephedra and poppy, whose remains were revealed during excavation. Parallels to these temples are known in the Near East: the ‘Oval Temple’ in Khafajeh, Tell Brak in Northern Syria, and Tilla and Hatuša in Anatolia. The Megaron in Gonur cannot be traced back in local architectural tradition. The location of similar constructions was the Eastern Mediterranean [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 90-132: Meyer-Melikyan, 1990; 1998; Meyer-Melikyan, Avetov, 1998]. Very important architectural details have parallels in the west – what Sarianidi calls the ‘blind windows’ of temples in Bactria and Margiana, are typical of complexes in the vicinity of Lake Urmia; narrow cells in the ‘Temple of Fire’ in Northern Gonur, identical to those of temples in Hatuša; the design of the audience-hall in the palace of Northern Gonur; with parallels in Alalakh, Zincirli and Tell Taya [Sarianidi, 1999a, pp. 277, 278]. Burials in Dashli and Sapalli were in both grave pits (sometimes with recesses) and catacombs. The contracted on the side position prevails, but secondary burials occur frequently too [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 51, 55; Askarov, 1973, p. 42]. Catacomb and recessed burials or similar, and grave pits with a sloping entrance were widely diffused in Central Asia at this time (Zaman-Baba, the Tigrovaya Balka, Tulkhar and Sumbar cemeteries). Crypts with a lateral entrance and catacombs of the Parkhai II cemetery in South-Western Turkmenistan are, perhaps, the earliest similar constructions in this area [Khlopin, 1989]. But the earliest catacombs are found in levels of the Halaf era at the Yarim Tepe I settlement in Northern Mesopotamia [Antonova, 1990, p. 78]. Therefore, it is possible to consider the catacombs as a local tradition, widespread in the previous period in Margiana and North-Eastern Iran. However, another type of burial, shaft tombs, has parallels in Northern Syria and Anatolia. It is possible to add to these parallels the presence of incomplete skeletons and bone fragments, which may indicate the Near Eastern customs of ablation of soft tissues from bones, although burials contracted on the right side were, nevertheless, standard [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 6773]. The discovery in Northern Gonur of a special room, in which bodies were placed for ablation, seems to be very important. This is the earliest archaeological evidence of the Zoroastrian Dahma [Sarianidi, 1999a, p. 279]. One feature of the Bactrian burial rite is that rams were buried with a rite similar to that for people. A detailed study of this and comparison with early Christian sources has shown its connection with Eastern Mediterranean myths about the replacement of a human sacrifice by that of an animal. The bestknown example is Abraham’s substitution of a lamb for his son Isaac in the Old Testament [Sarianidi, 1995]. Analyses of metal and ceramics show very interesting comparisons too. The ceramic complex is rather miscellaneous. North-Eastern Iran was a distribution zone of similar practice. It is relevant that there is also an area of distribution of signs, scratched on some vessels, covering South-Eastern Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and the Indus valley, which testifies to the close intercommunications within this expanse [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 61-70]. There is also a resemblance of some forms of ware (cups, pots, bowls) with material from the Tulkhar cemetery and with those of Northern Syria (cups, pots, bowls, ves- 172 2 1 7 6 4 5 8 9 12 11 3 10 15 16 17 Fig. 56. Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex. 173 14 13 18 sels with a spout). As a whole, analogies to Bactrian ceramic forms are in the west: in Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia and Greece [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 61-70]. Although, for example, pedestalled vases are known in Central Asia in the Namazga V period, they differ from those in the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex. BMAC vases are closer to the forms of South-Eastern Anatolia and Syria [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 38-40]. For the Kelleli phase of BMAC, the tube-footed vase with corrugated hollow foot is characteristic. Similar ware is known in Beyçesultan, in levels of the Early Bronze Age [Lloyd, Mellaart, 1957, fig. 6; 1962, fig. P. 28, P. 38]. The earliest appearance of a form typical for the whole Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex – vessels executed with clearly slanting sides to the lower part (Fig. 56.15, 17) – is known among the materials of the Hassuna culture of Northern Mesopotamia [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, figs. 19, 21, 30]. So far, we are unable to line up a typological series of similar forms with which to fill an enormous chronological gap of almost three millennia, but it is possible to state quite unambiguously that this is to be filled only by Near Eastern material: to the north such a form is unknown. Such a specific Bactro-Margianan form as the zoomorphic vessel has its prototypes in the Near East as well as in the Aegean, and vessels with handles with bull-head terminals have theirs in Central Anatolia [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 43; Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 136, 137]. On the Eneolithic ware of the Tüllintepe settlement in Eastern Anatolia, for example, applied human figurines, snakes and human faces are known [Esin, 1993, figs. 4-6]. We have already discussed a number of common components of the metal complex of the Tulkhar cemetery and such sites as Dashli and Sapalli (razor, tanged knives, dagger with cast hilt, pin). Except for rather unusual forms of razor, so far known only in this area, the majority of metal from Dashli also finds analogies in the west, in Early and Middle Bronze Age complexes: fork-shaped instruments and socketed hooks in the Caucasus, and Eastern Khorassan; tanged knives and stemmed spearheads in the Circumpontic zone; pins with either a coiled or ribbed head in the Circumpontic zone and Iran – in Southern Turkmenistan they appeared later; and pins with zoomorphic heads in Mesopotamia, South-Western Iran, Mycenaean Greece and Asia Minor [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 73-85; 1988, pp. 23, 24; 1998, pp. 57-61]. The axe-mattocks found in Bactria and Mar- giana have parallels in Iran and Mesopotamia of the Akkadian period [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 57]. As mentioned above, this type occurs first in the west, and in Central Asia it is dated to the late 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC and after. Bactrian axes have parallels in Luristan (Fig. 56.11-14) [Sarianidi, 1978], but it is impossible to see this as evidence of migrations from the west. The same ceremonial axes are known also in Eastern Iran (Shahdad). In fact, the axes found in Luristan have been identified as imports from Bactria [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 57]. Thus, they show the direction of communications. All Bactro-Margianan metal is alloyed, mainly with arsenic, but in the early Kelleli phase also, very occasionally, with tin. There are copper-tin-arsenic alloys [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 57; Terekhova, 1990, p. 182]. Such a picture is rather characteristic of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province in the late 3rd millennium BC. The explanation of the presence in Bactrian metal of traces of lead is probably not metallurgical but geochemical. These traces are very common in the copper ore fields of Central Asia [Sarianidi et al., 1977, pp. 36-38; Ruzanov, 1988, p. 56]. Stone artefacts are very interesting: maceheads and, especially, arrowheads [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 101103]. They are absolutely identical to those we observed in the Sintashta complexes. Thus, taking into account parallels already discussed, it is difficult to accept the separate invention here of such a peculiar arrowhead as the ‘Seima type’, with its elongated semi-triangular form, short tang and small barbs. In discussing parallels to the Sintashta complex, we have already touched upon analogous maceheads and arrowheads in the Near East and Transcaucasia. Figurines from Margiana have parallels in Syria (Mari, Selenkahiyeh); biconical spindle-whorls in the contemporary sites of Hissar IIIC, Mundighak and Jhukar. The conical spindle-whorls of Syria-Anatolia (Troy, Gawra) are probably prototypes for those in Central Asia. The decorations on these spindlewhorls have analogies in Alişar Hüyük [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 46, 48]. The crucible ore smelting found on Dashli-3 cannot fall into a random category. We have already identified its penetration east from the Near East [Sarianidi et al., 1977, pp. 35-36; Grigoriev, 1996]. Metallurgical slag has been found on the surface of Gonur in Margiana, but has not yet been analysed, 174 thus we cannot say definitely what type of smelting produced it [Sarianidi, 1990, p. 31]. The parallels given indicate unconditionally that the formation of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex was connected with the west. Earlier it was supposed that these tribes might have come from North-Eastern Iran [Sarianidi, 1977, p. 158]. However, it is now clear that they were from the Near East, and Khorassan may be regarded as an intermediate point [Sarianidi, 1989b, p. 22]. This is indicated most clearly by the evidence of glyptics. The drawings on the seals and amulets of both Bactria and Margiana are similar to those from Elam and Southern Mesopotamia. In regions bordering the Persian Gulf objects referred to BMAC are everywhere widespread. Often they occur in the same burials with items made by local craftsmen. One explanation is that their presence arose from trading activities, and it is probably true [DewringKaspers, 1986]. Widespread and exact parallels to Bactrian seals and amulets are found in Northern Mesopotamia, Syria, Eastern Anatolia and Greece. In particular, the closest parallels to bronze seals from Margiana are from Mari in Syria [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 63]. Scholars distinguish two styles in Syro-Anatolian glyptic. The first is more comparable with Babylonian; the second has analogies in Egypt. BMAC seals fall into the Egyptian style [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 143]. A scene with goats stretching up to the branches of a palm-like tree, widespread in Margiana and Bactria, is rather common on Palestinian ware; it is widespread in Syria-Palestine [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 36; Kahane, 1975, figs. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-7, 4]. A human figure, with a bird’s head and wings, holding a goat in its hands, is the most interesting on Bactro-Margianan seals. Identical drawings are known in Anatolia and Greece [Sarianidi, 1993; 1998, p. 143]. This cult of a bird of prey may be traced back to very ancient times and was originally a hunting cult. There is archaeological evidence: in the Mesolithic level of the settlement of Zawi Chemi Shanidar in Iranian Kurdistan a burial has been investigated, in which the wing bones of a large bird of prey and the skulls of goats were also buried [Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998, p. 45]. It follows from Part III that such a find in this area offers a possible connection with much later drawings of Anatolia, Margiana and Greece. The drawings of figures on bended knees, well known in Bactro-Margianan glyptic, have parallels in the Syro-Anatolian area too. On Tepe Gawra and in Western Iran prototypes of the Margiana-Bactrian scene with a man fighting against a dragon are known. The drawings of acrobats with a bull are widespread in Syria-Anatolia and Crete [Sarianidi, 1999, pp. 56, 58]. It is necessary to emphasise that these drawings reflect not just a resemblance but an identity of style and subject. Therefore, there is no basis to doubt Sarianidi’s conclusion that the Syro-Anatolia region was the homeland of tribes that had appeared in the early 2nd millennium BC in Central Asia [Sarianidi, 1976; 1986; 1989b; 1993]. As a whole, the style of drawings on the seals of all these areas is characterised as ‘Mitannian’ [Sarianidi, 1989b, p. 23]; and it was a new phenomenon in Bactria and Margiana. After its appearance, such characteristics of the previous cultural tradition as anthropomorphic plastic vanished. Incidentally, the same development took place in the Indus valley [Sarianidi, 1976, p. 68]. After this cultural formation arose in Central Asia, there were no essential cultural transformations in that area up to the establishment of the Achaemenid Empire. This allows us to state confidently that tribes from SyriaAnatolia spoke Iranian dialects which subsequently mutated into East Iranian [Askarov, 1981, p. 178; Sarianidi, 1981, p. 189; 1989b, p. 23]. As the migration of the founders of Sintashta culture was linked to this area too, it is possible to suspect that they spoke one of the dialects of this language group. Analysis of the ‘Rig Veda’ texts is rather interesting. Based on it, A. Parpola has drawn the conclusion that the Dasa, who warred with the Aryans, were a people of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex. Indeed, their Iranian identity is emphasised, reflected in the later self-naming of one of the Iranian tribes of this area [Parpola, 1988, pp. 220-230]. This does not correspond to a picture of the destruction of Indo-Aryan settlements (Hissar IIIB) by Iranians. In North-Eastern Iran in this period the converse took place: replacement of an IndoAryan population by an Iranian. The Indo-Aryan battles against the rectangular fortresses belonging to Dasa could easily describe the storming of Harappan cities, which had rectangular outlines. But another argument connecting the Iranians of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex with Dasa seems, if not watertight, rather convincing. This term was probably used to designate strangers in general, and in Vedic poetry the echoes of different events were interlaced. 175 Very likely, the flourishing of the Bactrian centres was somehow connected with the beginnings of the colonisation of India, and it is quite possible that they partly reinforced it. This explains numerous parallels between Bactrian and post-Harappan antiquities [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 37]. In particular, this may be indicated by the discovery in Pirak, in the Kachi valley, of figurines of women, horses and camels, with parallels in complexes of the Namazga V and VI period. Furthermore, on the rock painting ‘Altar rock’ in the Indus valley, an Iranian warrior is depicted identical to the drawing on the vessel from Hasanlu [Parpola, 1988, pp. 239, 244]. Study of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex has permitted a number of conclusions to be drawn, essential for comprehending developments during the 2nd millennium BC within Central Asia. The connection between the complexes Namazga V and VI has been revised. The latter, on all parameters, should be included in BMAC. The related complexes are Hissar IIIC in North-Eastern Iran, and Damboli and Sibri in Baluchistan. These sites replaced a former cultural layer, and their appearance was connected with the Syro-Anatolia area [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 136-141, 156, 157; 1999a, pp. 279, 280]. It is supposed that the spur to these tribes moving east was Hittite expansion [Sarianidi, 1999, p. 70]. Let us remember that the same area has been suggested above as the homeland of the tribes of Sintashta culture. BMAC replaced previous cultures directly, without any break in time. This change, based on non-calibrated radiocarbon analyses and Near Eastern parallels, is dated to either the 19 th – 18th centuries BC or the early 2nd millennium BC. The correspondence of these dates to the start of the crisis of Indus civilisation was, apparently, not accidental [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 77, 78, 155; Sarianidi, 1990, pp. 71-74]. In conclusion, let me touch briefly upon the ethnic aspects of the cultural processes of the late 2 nd millennium BC over a vast area, including NorthEastern Iran, Margiana, Bactria and Baluchistan. The archaeological complex which had formed here did not undergo serious change for a long time, and when this area was included in the Achaemenid Empire, it was already inhabited by an Iranian population. The situation here was completely unlike the usual portrayal in Russian historiography – of a crisis in this civilisation1 and invasion of the area by steppe tribes. 1 I suppose the term ‘civilisation’ is quite applicable to BMAC, in contrast to Sintashta culture. Numerous settlements remained, and the quantity of so-called Andronovo ware is insignificant throughout the whole of Margiana and Southern Turkmenistan. The last Takhirbay phase in Margiana is dated up to 750 BC [Sarianidi, 1990, pp. 63, 74; 1998, pp. 42, 43]. Besides, as discussed below, Andronovo ware cannot be regarded as something unified, and the presence within any area of Alakul and Fyodorovka ceramics may reflect different processes that were pulling in the opposite direction. Therefore, in Central Asia this ware demands special analysis. The main supporter of the encroachment into India of northern tribes, E.E. Kuzmina, posits their earlier infiltration into Central Asia, during the Petrovka phase. She bases this on a burial in the Zardcha-Khalif cemetery, where a ‘Petrovka’-type cheek-piece has been found together with a bronze snaffle-bit and a bronze horse-headed pin. These finds were accompanied by ceramics of BactroMargianan type [Kuzmina, 1999a]. V.M. Masson supplements this argument by the discovery of horse bones in the context of late Namazga V. In his opinion, this is evidence of a rather early southward penetration of Sintashta populations. Indeed, he and Kuzmina point to the Petrovka ceramics found on the Turgai settlement on the Zerafshan in levels of the Sarazm III or IV period [Masson, 1999; Kuzmina, 1999, p. 272]. Needless to say, bronze snaffle-bits and pins do not occur in Northern Eurasia. It would be more correct to compare the cheek-piece with the bronze snaffle-bit with a cheek-piece with snaffle-bit from Gaza. But these comparisons are more appropriate against the background of the Near Eastern origin of BMAC. No finds of Sintashta types have yet been made in Central Asia, although I do not exclude the possibility. However, such finds would not bear Eastern European features. This means that some inclusions of a proto-Sintashta component in the migration of BMAC people from Anatolia are probable. Petrovka ceramics in the south of Central Asia is an episodic phenomenon; in any case it postdates the formation of BMAC. In Section 6 of Chapter 4 below, it will be demonstrated that the bearers of Sintashta culture spoke the Iranian tongue. Their origin from the same area as bearers of the BMAC traditions opens the possibility of the latter’s Iranian identity. Furthermore, as we shall see, the penetration to the west of the ancestors of the Persians and Medes began from the former BMAC area. Finally, the regions settled by the BMAC population correspond precisely to the 176 geographical descriptions of Avesta; that is an accepted fact [Fray, 1993, pp. 53, 54]. It is reinforced by the discovery of temples reflecting proto-Zoroastrianism in Margiana. The consideration of BMAC people as IndoIranians [Sarianidi, 1990, pp. 90-102] is wrong for chronological reasons. The dialectal division of IndoIranian cannot be dated from the early 2 nd millennium BC. In particular, as will be demonstrated in Section 5 of Chapter 4, the beginnings of the isolation of the proto-Scythian dialect were almost contemporary to the beginning of BMAC. Therefore, I am inclined to interpret the coming of BMAC people as the development of Central Asia by Iranian tribes. 1.4. Iran Iranian-speaking peoples occur in the written sources of Mesopotamia for the first in the 9 th – 8th centuries BC [Grantovskii, 1970, p. 334]. However, many scholars now assume their earlier appearance in Western Iran (in the 12th – 11th centuries BC), whence, in the early 1st millennium BC, they spread over the Iranian Plateau. Indeed, Southern Russia is considered as the initial area, with a migratory path through the Caucasus [Dandamaev, Lukonin, 1980, pp. 39-42]. However, archaeological evidence contradicts this. There are no Late and Final Bronze Age complexes in the south of Eastern Europe to which it is possible to trace back the cultures not only of the Persians and Medes but of the Scythians too. Probably, this underlines the absence of local roots for these ethnic formations in both regions. Undoubtedly, this thesis does not remove the problem of inclusions of an autochthonous substratum in the ethnogenesis of the Iranian tribes, both in Eastern Europe and in Western Iran. Neither written nor linguistic sources permit unconditionally the homeland of the Persians and Medes to be located within a particular region. Therefore, it is necessary to concentrate on archaeological evidence. In the 14th – early 13th century BC in Western Iran, Grey Ware culture was diffused, after which the Early Iron Age of this area commenced (Fig. 57). This cultural tradition continued to exist here without interruption until Achaemenid times, which allows us to link it with the West Iranian ethnos [Dandamaev, Lukonin, 1980, pp. 44, 45]. This cultural complex is widespread throughout Western Iran, from the Lake Urmia region in the north (Hasanlu V, Dinkha III) to Eastern Luristan (Giyan Tepe) and, probably, Fars. Typologically similar complexes have been investigated in the north of Central Iran (Kaytaria, Khurvin), which has permitted G.N. Kurochkin to unite them with western Iranian sites into the Marlik culture [Stankevich, 1978, p. 25; Dandamaev, Lukonin, 1980, pp. 51-66; Kurochkin, 1990, pp. 16, 17]. It is very interesting that the northern part of this cultural area coincides with a geographical spread of the Medes, and the southern with that of the Persians [Dandamaev, Lukonin, 1980, pp. 40-42]. In the north-west this culture replaced such complexes as Dinkha IV, with numerous parallels in the Khabur ware of Northern Syria and Asia Minor, and dated to the first half of the 2nd millennium BC [Kurochkin, 1974, p. 35; 1990, p. 16, 17]. Usually Khabur ware is regarded as Hurrian. The ceramics of Marlik culture are represented by vessels with a spout, bowls with a handle, tripods and jugs [Stankevich, 1978, p. 25; Kurochkin, 1990, pp. 17-18]. Very important for us is that the sites of the north of Central Iran are dated to a somewhat earlier time. In addition, it is necessary to point to the resemblance of all sites of this culture to the earlier sites of North-Eastern Iran (Shah Tepe, Tureng Tepe II, Tepe Hissar III), integrated by Kurochkin into the Astrabad culture 1 (Namazga V in another terminology) [Stankevich, 1978, p. 24; Kurochkin, 1990, pp. 20, 21; Young, 1967]. The latter is dated from the mid-3rd millennium BC up to the 18th – 17th centuries BC in the traditional chronological system [Stankevich, 1978, p. 18]. There is a considerable chronological gap with the Central and Western Iranian sites discussed. A number of forms, including vessels with spouts, are known among the ceramics of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex [Sarianidi, 1998, p. 40]. This complex replaced those integrated into the Astrabad culture and includes some of its ceramic types. Therefore it fills the former gap between the cultures of North-Eastern Iran and Grey Ware culture in the west. To the north of North-Eastern Iran, in SouthWestern Turkmenistan, the Sumbar culture (Fig. 58) has been investigated. Its ceramics are comparable 1 Such a grouping of these complexes was subjected to criticism [Medvedskaya, 1977, p. 104], but in another article this criticism has been disproved [Kurochkin, 1990]. 177 2 1 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 Fig. 57. Complexes of Grey Ware culture of Iranian Early Iron Age I. to the Iranian complexes discussed above, and burials were in catacombs, in which skeletons were placed on their side in a contracted position (Fig. 58.1) [Khlopin, 1983, pp. 38-43, 74, 75]. The Sumbar burial rite shows parallels in Dinkha III, where adobe brick was layed before the face of the deceased – similar to what was done in the shafts of Sumbar catacombs [Kurochkin, 1990, p. 20]. The discovery in South-Western Turkmenistan of such sites as Parkhai II, with which Sumbar culture is, in part, generically connected, suggests its autochthonous nature [Khlopin, 1983, p. 70]. The earlier date of both the Astrabad and Sumbar cultures relative to sites in Central and Western Iran allows us to interpret their formation as flowing from an eastern influence, and to connect this with a migration of West Iranian tribes. Such sites as Sumbar and Parkhai II diffused this influence also to the eastern and southeastern regions of Central Asia [Khlopin, 1983, pp. 43-46]. Thus, from the 18th century BC, we can localise the homeland of the West Iranian tribes in North- Eastern Iran and South-Western Turkmenistan, whence sprang their subsequent migration into Central and Western Iran. These cultures had no connection with northern steppe cultures. A cordoned vessel from Tepe Giyan, presented sometimes as evidence of the converse, is not a true parallel (Fig. 57.3). First of all, its shape is typical of Grey Ware culture, which has also earlier analogies in the BMAC ceramic complex. Secondly, parallels to the cordon on this vessel must be sought not in the Cordoned Ware cultures of the Asian steppes but in the Caucasus, where broken cordons with curled terminals are present on ceramics of the Kayakent-Kharochoevo culture [Markovin, 1994a, tab. 107.13,14]. For the ceramics of the Near and Middle East, cordons had not, as a whole, been exotic since the Eneolithic. On the other hand, we have no possibility to link the genesis of the Iranian cultures to the cultural formations that had appeared in Central Asia in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC (Bishkent and Vakhsh), although we can identify some related 178 2 1 3 4 5 14 6 7 9 8 10 11 12 13 16 15 20 17 18 Fig. 58. Sumbar cemetery. 179 19 features, such as the catacomb burial rite and some parallels in metals and ceramics. The BMAC complexes and, to an even greater degree, Sumbar culture are closer to them. However, we have already discussed that the BMAC peoples spoke Iranian dialects and came from Syria-Anatolia. The origins of the Bishkent and Vakhsh cultures were connected to North-Eastern Iran, where, it appears, the IndoAryan homeland was situated. The cultures of the Iranian Iron Age I were connected with this area. Therefore, the cultural genesis of this zone is extremely important for comprehension of the problem as a whole. Probably, the Bronze Age cultures of the South-Eastern Caspian area were formed under Near Eastern influence too. There is evidence justifying this, but there are a number of paradoxes hindering an integrated picture too. Excavation of the Parkhai II cemetery has allowed the autochthonous development of the culture to be traced back to the late 5 th – early 4th millennium BC [Khlopin, 1989; Khlopin, Khlopina, 1980; 1983]. In addition, from the early phases there was grey ware – usually regarded as a feature identifying Iranians. On this basis some have concluded that their homeland lay in the south-eastern part of the Caspian area [Khlopin, 1989, p. 126; Young, 1967]. However, this is contradicted by two circumstances: first, as we have sought to show, some other Iranian groups migrated from the Syro-Anatolia area; secondly, it is impossible to speak confidently about Iranians at such an early time. As a last resort we can speak of the early Parkhai II phases as either Indo-Iranian or Indo-European. Besides, in the previous period a population of the Jeitun culture had developed this region. This has suggested a line of succession from Jeitun to Parkhai II, further to the Sumbar cemetery and to the Aryan cultures of Hindustan and Sintashta [Khlopin, 1994]. However, it is rather problematic to trace connections either between Jeitun culture and Parkhai II or of Sumbar culture with Sintashta. It is more realistic to search for early sources of the culture of South-Western Turkmenistan in the west. It is possible that IndoEuropeans appeared here even earlier than in Iran, moving along the Caspian coast. We can admit infiltrations of Indo-Europeans into Iran no earlier than the second half of the 4 th millennium BC, when the Hissar I complex arose in North-Eastern Iran, and that of Sialk III, succeeding the Sialk II level (which reflects, apparently, the presence of Dravidian populations), in Central Iran. They have essential parallels in ceramics and, very likely, belong to the same culture [Hrouda, 1971, p. 72]. All features of Sialk III have parallels in Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Maikop culture of the Northern Caucasus (Fig. 59.1-9). It is impossible, however, to regard the last as evidence of communications with the Northern Caucasus, as Maikop culture originated in the Near East [Munchaev, 1994a, pp. 224, 225; Andreeva, 1977]. The following features mark a western impulse: signs of the appearance of the potter’s wheel, which are also found in Maikop ware; borders on vessels depicting ‘a row of animals’ (Fig. 59.4); prominent seals with eyelets (Fig. 59.2), socketed chisels, a pin with a conical head (Fig. 59.9), flat adzes (Fig. 59.6), awls with a stop (Fig. 59.5) and, probably, rods with reinforced terminals (Fig. 59.7) – but only so far as comparison with so-called Maikop ‘cheek-pieces’ is permissible [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, figs. 7, 8, 10; Munchaev, 1994a, tab. 47, 51, 52, 54, 57, p. 219; Masson, 1989, fig. 32, pp. 122-124]. In Central Iran the development of this culture was interrupted in the early 3rd millennium BC and the Sialk IV complex is sharply distinct from its predecessor [Masson, 1989, p. 130; Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1990, p. 10]. But in North-Eastern Iran the old population remained, its culture continuing in the levels Hissar II, III, Tureng Tepe III, and Shah Tepe II [Stankevich, 1978, p. 24; Masson, 1989, pp. 132135]. One opinion is that these complexes are connected with Indo-Aryans, based on the presence in them of black ceramics also found together with Hurrian ‘Khabur ware’ in the Mitannian centres of Chaghar Bazar and Alalakh. These ceramics disappeared in the early 2nd millennium BC, when a wave of new tribes swept over this area, as well as over Margiana and Bactria (Fig. 59.10-18), bringing an end to all the cultures of Eastern Iran, Bactria and Margiana. Large-scale destruction, accompanied by fires, has been fixed at the excavation in Shahr-i Sokhta in Sistan. The destroyed buildings were close in design to architecture of the periods Namazga V, Hissar IIIB, Mundighak IV3, Tepe Yahya IVA, and Bampur VI [Tosi, 1983, pp. 89-92]. It is worthy of comment that this was the time when Indo-Aryan invasion of Hindustan began, where ceramic parallels to such complexes as Hissar IIIB are known. This hypothesis is reinforced by the abundance in Mitannian art of drawings of peafowl, which testifies to the presence of Mitannian Indo-Aryans in Iran before 1600 BC: in Northern 180 3 2 7 1 5 4 6 8 9 12 13 14 15 10 11 17 16 18 Fig. 59. Indo-European cultures in Iran. 1-9 – Sialk III; 10-18 – Hissar III. Mesopotamia the peafowl is unknown. Therefore, the migration of Mitannian Indo-Aryans into Northern Mesopotamia apparently started from this region too. It is possible that the formation of the complexes of Giyan II and III was connected precisely with these processes [Mallory, 1989, p. 39; Girshman, 1981, pp. 140-142; Brentjes, 1981, p. 148]. However, the metal complex of Hissar III shows earlier and contemporary analogies in the Near East [Masson, 1989, fig. 34], where tanged two-winged arrowheads appeared in the Early Bronze Age and were widely diffused in the Middle Bronze Age [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XLIII; Medvedskaya, 1980]. The earliest copper maceheads with an elongated socket are known in Palestine about the late 4th millennium BC, but in Luristan and Mesopotamia some maceheads are known from the second half of the 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XXX]. Bayonets and spearheads with a bent stem were very widespread in the Middle Bronze Age of the Near East [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, fig. 4; Gorelik, 1993, tab. XXXII]. From the Early Bronze Age, analogies to glasses-shaped pendants are known [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, fig. 11; Arheologia Asii, 1986, p. 116]. In the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age socketed axe-mattocks were present [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, fig. 3]. A similar situation shows itself at different periods of the Parkhai II cemetery culture (Fig. 60). Already in the phase YuZT-VII (late 5th – early 4th millennium BC) a pin with a flat triangular head is present, having a later parallel in Maikop culture [Munchaev, 1994a, tab. 48; Khlopin, 1989, fig. 1]. The subsequent phase contains such artefacts as 181 2 3 1 5 4 6 7 9 8 Fig. 60. Cemetery of Parkhai II. pins with coiled heads, socketed axe-mattocks, maceheads with elongated sockets, and stemmed spearheads (or knives) [Khlopin, 1989, figs. 2-4, 6]. The subsequent western contacts may be indicated also by analysis of artefacts of Sumbar culture [see Khlopin, 1983, pp. 46-54]. Stone maceheads, as we have noted already, were used in the Near East from the Neolithic up to the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, metal artefacts are more indicative. The whole metal complex can be designated as Near Eastern [see Avilova, Chernikh, 1989; Gorelik, 1993], containing standard goods of the southern flank of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province of the Middle Bronze Age: needles, tanged arrowheads, stemmed spearheads and javelins with a stop, tanged knives, a two-edged dagger with a short tang and a hole for attachment to the handle, awls with a stop, maceheads, ornaments relating to them. It is possible to make some comparisons using ceramic materials. In the 3rd millennium BC, tribes of the Susa culture (Susa D, Giyan IV, Jemshidi IV, Hasanlu VII etc.) lived in the Zagros Mountains from Lake Urmia to the Persian Gulf area [Stankevich, 1978, pp. 17, 18]. Some of its forms are comparable with the ceramics of the South-Eastern Caspian; the resemblance might have appeared independently, but there are vessels with a spout, so typical of the Iranian Grey Ware culture [Stankevich, 1978, figs. 1, 2]. These have also been unearthed in the excavation of Tepe Farukhabad on the Deh Luran plain [An early town …, 1981, figs. 40, b, 51, a, 52, k, 65, a], and ceramics from Tell Asmar have this detail too [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 209]. The earliest spouted vessels are found in Ur, in the level of Ubaid time [Wooley, Moorey, 1982, p. 26]. In Palestine they are known from the second half of the 3rd millennium BC [Burney, 1977, fig. 82]. In Halava in Northern Syria they, and cups with horizontal small handles, have been revealed in layers of phase II. Some of these ceramics had not been produced in Halava and have parallels on the Euphrates [Ort- 182 mann, 1985, pp. 65-67, 72, fig. 3, p. 73, fig. 4, p. 74, fig. 5]. This phase of Halava is contemporary to the Early Dynastic period of Mesopotamia, levels Hama J, and Selenkahiyeh I-II, which allows it to be dated to the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. Vessels with a spout are known also on the Arslantepe settlement in Eastern Anatolia [Palmieri, 1981, fig. 9.1]. In the South-Eastern Caspian area the earliest spouted vessels occur in the period YuZT-IV (second half of the 3rd millennium BC) [Khlopin, 1989, fig. 4]. I am far from linking their appearance to any one of the abovementioned complexes of Northern Syria and Zagros, but this can indicate a general western connection. Similar parallelism was impossible without constant interaction or additional influences from the Near East. However, these probably took place only in the final stage of these cultures’ existence – in the early 2nd millennium BC (Hissar IIIC, YuZTIII) [Khlopin, 1989, p. 123]. Therefore, taking into account the genesis of both the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex and Sintashta culture, we may suggest that Iranians appeared here at the same time. They apparently met other Indo-Iranian ethnic groups, whose formation had begun as far back as the 4th millennium BC. It is possible that the appearance of Elamites in the north of Central Iran (Sialk IV) divided the Aryan population of the SouthEastern Caspian from the main Indo-Iranian population, and resulted in formation of an Indo-Aryan ethnos in the early 3rd millennium BC. With the coming of the Iranians in the early 2 nd millennium BC, some Indo-Aryans were displaced to Northern Mesopotamia, the bulk to the east and south-east. It is now difficult to be more definite. It is possible only to say with confidence that the ethnic and cultural processes in the region were never connected with the cultures of the Eurasian steppe. In the main, their axis of realisation was directed along the line SyriaAnatolia – Northern Mesopotamia – North-Eastern Iran – South-Western Turkmenistan (Fig. 61). This system was not diffused further east until the early 2nd millennium BC. The only exception is Western Margiana, where grey ware similar to that in Parkhai II of the period YuZT-IV occurs on such sites as Namazga IV. This was accompanied by the appearance of the technology of crucible ore smelting, hitherto unknown, but present in very early complexes in the north of the Iranian Plateau [Grigoriev, 1996; Khlopin, 1989, p. 121; Pigott V., 1988]. Some schol- ars believe that this impulse was absorbed quite rapidly by the local population – it had already ceased to be appreciable in the levels of the Namazga V period and grey ware disappears from them [Stankevich, 1978, p. 23]; others that it remained in Western Margiana up to the end of Namazga V [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 24, 26]. The latter is closer to the truth: after the cultural ‘demolition’ in Central Asia in the early 2nd millennium BC, both the traditions of NorthEastern Iran and Namazga V diffused east and south-east. Contemporaneously, the Iranisation of Margiana and Bactria occurred, conditioned (as discussed above) by migration from the Syro-Anatolian area. Indeed, the participation of the South-Eastern Caspian population in this process is very probable. On this evidence, it is, of course, impossible to connect Indo-Aryans exclusively with the Parkhai II cemetery. It is much more likely that we should include all sites in this zone: Parkhai II, Hissar II, IIIB, Namazga V, etc. As a result of all the events described, the Iranisation took place of a considerable swathe of terrain, including Parthia, the north of Khorassan, Bactria and Margiana. In the 14th century BC part of the Caspian population migrated west, settling in the north of Central and Western Iran, to form the beginnings of the Medes ethnos, and then moving south, into eastern Luristan and Fars, the Iranian population formed the ancient Persian ethnos. Such, in outline, are the ethnic processes on the Iranian Plateau and in Central Asia, linked with the southern groups of the Iranian peoples. There are, however, doubts regarding the possibility of identifying the Grey Ware complexes of North-Western Iran with Iranians, based on a tendency to earlier dating of these complexes and to the written sources placing the appearance of Iranians in this region no earlier than the 10 th century BC [Kurochkin, 1990, p. 21]. In fact, a broad Iranian presence in Western Iran is revealed by onomastic data in about the 9th – 8th centuries BC, which is compatible with its starting in the 10th century. However, it is not a basis for denying an earlier Iranian presence in this area – in the previous period similar information is simply absent in Assyrian sources, as is information about possible routes of Iranian migration [Grantovskii, 1970, pp. 334-337, 341]. There is one more inconsistency demanding an explanation. There are in the East Iranian tongues some ancient European isoglosses, and some (Pamirian, Afghani) have very limited conformities with 183 Fig. 61. Iranian cultures and migrations of Iranian tribes: a – sites of North-Western Iran and Central Asia, b – sites of Grey Ware culture in Iran, c – migration of the Iranians, d – migration of the Medes and Persians. 1 – Dashli 3; 2 – Sapalli; 3 – Jarkutan; 4 – Namazga VI; 5 – Hissar III C; 6 – sites of Grey Ware culture of Northern and Western Iran. 184 Finno-Ugrian [Grantovskii, 1970, p. 357]. However, the majority of East Iranian and West Iranian languages do not contain Finno-Ugrian inclusions. As to ancient European inclusions, their occurrence in the Iranian languages of Central Asia could have other reasons than Aryan migration from the steppe zone. Below, we shall touch upon this in more detail. Therefore, we can say that northern influence was not too significant. This corresponds to the situation of the final stages of the Central Asian Bronze Age, when the infiltration of the area by steppe tribes did not change the main thrust of development. Meanwhile, Finno-Afghani and Finno-Pamirian isoglosses are a poorly investigated problem and subject to much debate. The scheme suggested above would be quite irreproachable were it not for a basic inconsistency relating to the composition of Bishkent culture metalwork, detected in the analysis of artefacts from the Tulkhar cemetery [Bogdanova-Berezovskaya, 1968]. I have written above that half these artefacts are made of tin bronze; the others are either arsenic bronze or pure copper. It is not necessary to take into account the high lead contents of a number of objects, as this is typical of the geochemical picture of the ore-fields of Central Asia [Sarianidi et al., 1977, pp. 36-38; Ruzanov, 1988, p. 56]. Such a high proportion of tin bronze has no analogies either within the Circumpontic zone, especially at the start of the Middle Bronze Age, or in this area. Iranian complexes demonstrate another picture too [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 70; Chernikh et al., 1991, p. 601; Pigott V., 1988, pp. 4-6], although there is some overall resemblance with the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age. Tin bronzes were used everywhere, but much more rarely than arsenic bronzes. To some degree this picture is comparable with the metal structure of the Trialeti barrows in Transcaucasia, but they are dated to the late phase of the Middle Bronze Age [Teneyshvili, 1993, p. 7]. The metal of the Troad demonstrates the closest parallel in the predominance of tin bronzes [Treister, 1996, p. 206]. Taking into account the hypothesis that Troy imported tin from Afghanistan, the Tulkhar situation becomes, on the face of it, more understandable. However, I am not inclined to share this hypothesis: Troy in the Early and Middle Bronze Age was a unified cultural complex with the Balkans, where the proportion of tin bronze was quite high. But this is not important. It is something else which surprises: the broad manufacturing of tin bronzes was not continued by the metallurgists of Dashli, Sapalli or other BMAC settlements, although there is a small quantity of them everywhere [Askarov, 1977, p. 124; Sarianidi et al., 1977, pp. 37, 38; Terekhova, 1990]. Tin bronze is a high proportion of the metal of the Sumbar cemetery, although there are also arsenic and tin-arsenic alloys [Golibin, 1983]. Therefore, it is most likely that the preponderance of tin bronze artefacts in the metal of the Tulkhar cemetery indicates historical connections with the South-Eastern Caspian, and the appearance of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex reflects the coming of a population with another technological tradition. To sum up on the formation of the Indo-Iranian cultures of the southern region, I should like to emphasise that, for scholars studying the archaeology of Iran and India, the conclusions drawn about the connections of the cultures of this zone with the Near East are not unexpected. They would be rather surprised by the occurrence of any evidence, however limited, indicating the coming of populations from either Eastern European or the Asian steppes. However, any migrations from these regions into areas to the south of Central Asia have no archaeological confirmation. Quite the contrary: there were waves of new migrations of Near Eastern populations through Iran and Central Asia to the north during the Late Bronze Age. Above we have discussed the paradox of the presence in the Tulkhar metal complex of a high proportion of tin bronze. Near Eastern connections explain the situation. However, soon afterwards, such bronzes began to be diffused widely and rapidly further north. Speculations about this lead us into a new circle of comparisons and conclusions. 185 Chapter 2. The Seima-Turbino phenomenon and cultural genesis in the Northern Eurasian Late Bronze Age 2.1. The problem of the formation of Seima-Turbino metalworking and previous cultures of the Sayan-Altai region To the greatest extent the composition of objects from the Tulkhar cemetery is comparable with the metal of the Seima-Turbino sites of Northern Eurasia, in particular with metal of their Sayan-Altai group [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 191]. These sites reflect new traditions in Eurasian metallurgy. Use of tin bronze enabled the application of new metalworking technologies: manufacturing of cast thin-walled socketed tools and weapons. New types of artefact appeared: spearheads with a cast socket and wide blade, celts, knives without a tang and with straight or semi-triangular blade, daggers with a cast handle (single-edged with a curved back and double-edged with a stiffening rib). Many objects are decorated with ornament or figures, either animal or human, using the lost wax technique. Apart from metal artefacts, the Seima-Turbino sites have yielded various bone and two-winged, leaf-shaped stone arrowheads (‘Seima’ type with a short semi-triangular tang and those with a straight base and without a tang), flint knives and distinctive rings of nephrite. This phenomenon arose in the Altai in the 17th century BC, then Seima-Turbino people swept rapidly through the north of the forest-steppe and the south of the Western Siberian forest zone into the Western Urals, making contact with the already formed Sintashta and Abashevo populations [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 268-277]. E.N. Chernikh and S.V. Kuzminikh have justified the direction and dynamics of this process perfectly. But how it came about is not really clear. I shall attempt to demonstrate that this lies in those great movements which took place in the Near East in the early 2 nd millennium BC. It is impossible to accept the independent formation of Seima-Turbino metallurgy in the Altai. These metal artefacts had neither primary nor transitional forms, and demonstrate surprising integrity, unity and completeness. It is also impossible to imagine that such an advanced technology of metalworking could arise in a void. Actually, long before the Seima-Turbino phenomenon arose, the SayanAltai region was subjected to Indo-European migrations. The first appearance of Indo-Europeans in the Sayan-Altai mountainous area falls into the Early Bronze Age and was connected with the Afanasievo culture. Calibrated radiocarbon dating places this culture in the first half of the 3 rd millennium BC [Görsdorf et al., 1998]. Recently, Afanasievo sites have been found not only in the Sayan, where they were distinguished for the first time, but also in the Altai [Khlobistina, 1975]. They are represented, predominantly, by cemeteries with stone circles, and contracted on the back or secondary burials. Settlements with a very thin cultural layer have also been revealed [Vadetskaya, 1986, pp. 16, 17; Semyonov, 1982]. As this culture is practically identical to PitGrave culture, it is regarded as a product of the eastward migration of Pit-Grave tribes [Alexeev, 1961, p. 380; Semyonov, 1987, p. 18]. Migration from Eastern Europe conditioned also the area’s metal artefacts: double-edged tanged knives of Pit-Grave types and a shaft-hole axe of Novosvobodnaya type [Grishin, 1971, tab. 1.2-4,6-10, tab. 12.3]. The appearance of the new population resulted in the assimilation of the old, reflected in the mixed anthropological composition, in which there is an autochthonous Mongoloid component from the Sayan and Altai, harking back to the Upper Palaeolithic [Alexeev, 1961, p. 129]. The migration of this population was rather rapid and has left behind hardly any sites over the vast 186 spaces between the West Urals and the Altai. The exception is the only burial found in Central Kazakhstan [Evdokimov, Loman, 1989], but we have no evidence for concluding that it was connected with this event. The capability to undertake a fast migration may be confirmed by the familiarity of the Afanasievo with the harness, which follows from the discovery of some rather imperfect horn cheekpieces [Kozhin, 1970]. During the second half of the 3rd millennium BC there were serious changes in the Sayan and Altai caused by the great cultural transformations taking place in Eurasia in the Middle Bronze Age. There was a re-formation of Afanasievo culture in the Altai. Ceramics similar to those in Pit-Grave culture were replaced by bellied pots [Soenov, 1995, fig. 5.2,3, fig. 9.1; Posrednikov, Cib, 1992, fig. 3.1,2,6]. The basis of this culture was, of course, that of Afanasievo, but large pots with brushed ornament on the surface have a distant affinity with some types of Novotitarovo ware in the Northern Caucasus, sites of the Northern Caspian area and late Pit-Grave burials of the South-Western Urals as well [Morgunova, 1992, fig. 5.2; Vasiliev et al., 1986a, fig. 11; Kiriushin, Klyukin, 1985, fig. 5.18-21]. One burial feature is the custom of placing a stone slab under the head of the deceased, which is known also in Okunev culture, and, at an earlier time, in the Eneolithic burials of Kul-Tepe I in Transcaucasia [Posrednikov, Cib, 1992, p. 9]. A contemporary distribution of the technology of crucible ore smelting took place. We have already observed its distribution up to Central Asia. Now we can identify it in the Altai, where, in the layer of the Kolivanskoe I settlement dated to the 3rd – first half of the 2nd millennium BC, ore was smelted in crucibles with a volume of 0.5 litre [Alyokhin, Dyomin, 1988, pp. 85, 86]. It is very interesting that in the structure of the herd of this settlement, features other than those known earlier in the Altai have been found. Whereas sheep predominate on Afanasievo settlements and in the herd of the Pit-Grave people of the eastern zone, on Kolivanskoe I it is cattle, with horses in second place [Alyokhin, Galchenko, 1995, pp. 22, 23]. To the east, in the Sayan, the Okunev culture arose, generically unconnected with that of Afanasievo [Vadetskaya et al., 1980] (Figs. 62, 63). Apart from essential distinctions in the types of artefact, this is indicated by a fundamental difference of manufacturing techniques [Ivanova, 1968]. It is much more likely that the origins of Okunev culture lay in the Circumpontic zone, particularly in its Near Eastern part or some adjacent region to the east thereof. It has been opined that the Okunev culture was formed on the basis of Neolithic forest tribes, and that its art was derived from Neolithic art executed in wood and not found archaeologically. Indeed, some types of site have been distinguished, from which linkages have been put together to chart the gradual disappearance of Neolithic and Afanasievo traditions. Thus, Okunev is supposedly formed on the basis of local Neolithic cultures that included an Afanasievo component, scholars differing only in their apportionment of the two components in the process. However, Afanasievo culture is viewed as having coexisted during its final phase with Okunev [Vadetskaya, 1986, pp. 29, 35; Khlobistina, 1973; Semyonov, 1997, p. 153]. I am inclined to regard the early sites such as Melnichniy Log and Tas-Hazaa as contact ones. The representations on the stone plates of the latter cemetery have, for example, clear parallels in the Near and Middle East [Khlobistina, 1971, fig. 2.4]. There has always been support for the Near Eastern roots of the Okunev culture, based predominantly on analysis of representations [Savinov, 1997b]. Those buried in Okunev cemeteries lie on their back in a contracted position, inside stone boxes on whose walls drawings have been found. Sometimes, a stone slab-pillow was placed beneath the head of the deceased (Fig. 63.2). One stone box could be used for repeated burials. Indeed the bones of earlier occupants might simply be raked up against a wall. There are decapitated skeletons, and in some cases burial masks were used. Anthropomorphic stelae are extremely widespread (Fig. 63.10). All these features in different combinations are widely known within the Circumpontic zone and in the Near East. To expect their independent appearance is hardly probable. Furthermore, a special group of burials is now under investigation, best represented in the valley of the River Uybat [Lazaretov, 1997, pp. 33-35]. Unlike the typical Okunev complexes, known by the name of Chernovaya from the cemetery Chernovaya VIII, central burials of the Uybat type are represented by large grave pits with ledges, on which a cover rested that could serve as a floor for burials of the second tier. The lower tier burials had higher social status, which the grave goods reflect. These 187 4 6 3 2 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 13 12 14 15 16 Fig. 62. Okunev culture. 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16 – Chernovaya VIII; 3 – Uybat V; 6, 9 – Verkhniy Askiz I; 4, 10 – Minusa depression; 5 – Altai; 11, 13, 14 – Pistakh. 188 features pull together the Uybat complexes with the so-called late Pit-Grave burials of the Orenburg area, as well as with the Novotitarovo burials of the Northern Caucasus. The only Okunev culture stone stele is of special interest. It was found in one of large grave pits of this group, so that the top with human face was above the mound surface. A menhir in a similar position (but with a completely different style) was found in barrow 16 at Suvorovskaya and relates to the North Caucasian culture. The impression of an Eastern European impulse strengthens with the presence on the mound periphery of burials in catacombs, whose occupants had obviously lower social status (Fig. 63.3). All peripheral burials of this group (both in grave pits and catacombs) were placed in a circle, and one quadrant (eastern) remained free of tombs. This also reflects Catacomb culture tradition. These facts, as well as the discovery of burners similar to those in Catacomb culture (which will be discussed below), have allowed I.P. Lazaretov, the excavator of the Uybat complexes, to conclude that the formation of the Okunev culture was stimulated by the influx of a population from the south of Eastern Europe, which he dates to the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC, or 24th century BC in the calibrated radiocarbon system [Lazaretov, 1997, pp. 39-40]. The whole duration of Okunev culture falls, probably, in the last third of the 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC according to the radiocarbon dates obtained [Görsdorf et al., 1998]. The outcome of anthropological investigation of those buried in Okunev culture cemeteries, which has revealed rather clearly the lack of uniformity of the Okunev population, is close to this conclusion. In the formation of the culture, the participation of two components has been supposed – one local, with Mongoloid features; the other foreign with European ones, similar to a series of the Early and Middle Bronze Age from the south of Eastern Europe [Gromov, 1997]. If we accept the possibility of population movement from Eastern Europe, it would have passed through the territory of Northern Kazakhstan, developed at this time by tribes of the Botai culture. The discovery in some Okunev cemeteries of small stone disks identical to those in Botai culture (Fig. 62.9) is interesting in this connection [Khavrin, 1997, p. 72, tab. V, 19-21; Zeibert, 1993, fig. 15]. Jars, often decorated with applied cordons and knobs, are characteristic of the Okunev ceramic complex (Fig. 62.12,15,16) [Vadetskaya et al., 1980, tab. XXVII-XXIX]. In Transcaucasia and Northern Mesopotamia these features occur from the Neolithic and Eneolithic and are present on ware throughout the Bronze Age. A ceramic type peculiar to Okunev culture is the burner. Afanasievo burners are known too, but the Okunev ones have a partition, by which they are closer to those of Catacomb culture [Maximenkov, 1965]. Rectangular partitioned burners are found in the Zaman-Baba cemetery, and a vessel with a partition on Shah Tepe II [Kuzmina, 1958]. However, Catacomb burners are much closer to those of Okunev, some of which are ornamented in style similar to Catacomb decoration (for example, short grooves arranged in staggered rows) (Fig. 62.11). Bellied pots, often with brushed decoration on the surface, occur too [Podolskii, 1997, fig. 7]. This last type has been discussed above, where it was concluded that it had been introduced from Eastern Europe. As already mentioned, the Okunev custom of laying the head of the deceased on a small stone slab has very early parallels in Transcaucasia, in burials of the low level of the Kul Tepe I settlement [Abibulaev, 1965, p. 43]. But the considerable time gap precludes this being a direct parallel. Analysis of Okunev images can be very indicative. For example, anthropomorphic figures with a bird’s head and antenna-shaped limbs are similar to those which spread from the Syro-Anatolian area into Margiana, Bactria and Greece (Fig. 63.8,14,15) [Sarianidi, 1993; Vadetskaya et al., 1980, p. 69, fig. 12]. They are known also in Elam of the mid-3 rd millennium BC [Buisson, 1970, fig. 7.1]. The figure of a ‘fancy predator’ attempting to swallow up a heavenly body, widespread in the Okunev art, is rather interesting (Fig. 63.9,11). A similar myth was known in Mesopotamia, and scholars consider that these figures reflect an infiltration of this myth into Central Asia. In the new area the figure of the ‘fancy predator’ became ursine shape, which is quite natural in the conditions of Southern Siberia [Studzitskaya, 1997, pp. 256, 257, tab. I-IV]. Nevertheless, by virtue of their gracefulness such figures reflect, for the most part, lupine predators. In this connection an interesting parallel is in Germanic-Scandinavian mythology, where, in the description of end of the world (‘Ragnarøk’), a wolf swallowing up the sun is mentioned [Petrov F., 2000]. It is possible that this is a common Indo-European image originating in the Near East. 189 2 4 3 1 7 5 8 6 14 12 11 9 10 13 15 Fig. 63. Okunev culture. 1 – Chebaki; 2, 3, 4 – Uybat III; 5, 6 – Sayan canyon; 9, 11 – Sulekskie devki; Parallels to Okunev drawings: 12, 13 – Saymali-Tash (Tien Shan); 14 – Anatolia; 15 – Margiana. 190 There are certain analogies to representations of carts dated to the Okunev period. The drawing of a cart with a boat-shaped basket from the mound at Ust-Byur’ is similar to Hungarian vessel-shaped models. The decoration of the two-wheeled cart from Verkhniy Askiz corresponds to ornamentation on clay models from Tell Chuera and Tepe Gawra [Novozhenov, 1994, p. 148]. Less certain is the dating of the stone plate found in the Ozernoe settlement in the Altai, on which, by means of fretwork and bas-relief, three friezes of bulls and (apparently) cows were executed. Drawings similar in scene and style are known in Egypt and the Near East [Molodin, Pogozhaeva, 1990]. One other type worthy of comment is the sunheaded anthropomorphic figure (Fig. 63.10). M.A. Devlet points out precise analogies among Kazakhstan petroglyphes, and explains these figures in relation to later Tibetan and Mongolian traditions [Devlet, 1997]. In Kazakhstan similar figures are found within the Tien Shan mountain system, part of the enormous number of rock depictions in this area – indeed, petroglyphes of all periods up to the Middle Ages are known hereabouts. However, scholars attribute the sun-headed figures, as well as animal figurines executed in bi-triangular and rectangular style (Fig. 63.12,13), to the late 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC. The stylistic affinity of these drawings to the painted ware of Namazga, Susa, Giyan and Sumer, to seals of the Near East, to figures of Egyptian solar deities and to Hittite drawings has been remarked, pointing to the influence of Middle Eastern civilisations on the rise of this artistic style [Mariashev, Goryachev, 1998, pp. 64, 65, tab. I, VIII]. Very peculiar mask-shaped faces with either bull’s horns or ‘antennae’ known in the Sayan canyon, have a similar range of parallels in Armenia and on the Upper Indus (Fig. 63.5,6). Figures with ‘antennae’ also have Near Eastern parallels, permiting Devlet to write that the further search for evidence of the Mediterranean or Near Eastern roots of Okunev art may be quite legitimate [Devlet, 1998, pp. 154-159]. Very indicative in this connection is the discovery of specially sawn bull skulls with horns, bearing a strong resemblance to the masks in a cultic building of the Kura-Araxian settlement of Gudabertka [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 165]. It is possible that the Okunev drawings reflect the same ceremonial masks and, ultimately, some cult having Near Eastern – Transcaucasian roots. The parallels, on the face of it, indicate the infiltration of Near Eastern art into Southern Siberia through Iran and Tien Shan. However, in the opinion of D.G. Savinov, there are several styles in Okunev art. Therefore its origin cannot be connected to any one western population group. Most probably, infiltrations of various mobile cattle-breeding groups took place. The parallels with the Near East are the result of an indirect transfer of artistic style during the development of the steppe areas [Savinov, 1997, p. 212]. However, Near Eastern parallels are not limited just to fine arts. The Near Eastern origin of Okunev culture may be indicated by the discovery of stone balls (rods or maceheads) and daggers without a tang, comparable with those of the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, fig. 5; Vadetskaya et al., 1980, tab. XIX, 13, XXI, 5,10] (Fig. 62.1,2,8). Unfortunately, most Okunev graves have been plundered; consequently, there are very few metal artefacts from them. Thus, chance finds of Okunev and late Afanasievo times from both the Minusa area and the Altai, lacking analogies among Andronovo and Karasuk bronzes, are of interest to us. First of all, a series of knives with a curved or concave back, close to Near Eastern forms of the Middle Bronze Age [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, fig. 7; Gorelik, 1993, tab. I; Grishin, 1971, p. 11, tab. 2.2,3,5,6]. Pole-axes found in the Altai, with a long narrow rectangular wedge, extended cutting edge and ridge on the back, have analogies in Mesopotamia, where they are dated to the 22 nd century BC [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XIX, 99; Grishin, 1971, p. 24, tab. 12.4] (Fig. 62.5). However, the parallels cannot be a chronological guide, as similar types of axe existed in the Near East over a long period. Similar pole-axes have been found in Palestine, where they are dated to Middle Bronze Age II [Kempinski, 1992a, fig. 6.51; Miron, 1992, pl. 18. 303,304, 19. 305,306, pp. 71, 78, 79]. The shaft-tube axe with a straight perpendicular wedge and ridge on the back has direct parallels in the Near East on sites of the mid-3rd millennium and 22 nd – 21st centuries BC [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XIX, 11,15,34,36,44; Grishin, 1971, tab. 12.5] (Fig. 62.4). Unfortunately, chemical analyses of Okunev metal are rare. However, a summary of them indicates important conclusions that shed light on the nature of Okunev metallurgy [Khavrin, 1997a]. Judging from relative chemical purity, oxidized ores were used for smelting (although, in my opinion, use 191 of secondary sulphides is possible too). The use of chalcopyrite in this area starts only in the Karasuk period. In addition to ‘pure’ copper, Okunev metallurgists made active use of copper-arsenic alloys and there are single artefacts alloyed with tin. These latter occur so rarely that it is hardly right to regard them as sources of Seima-Turbino metalworking. As a whole, this pattern of alloys is quite typical of metal production in the Circumpontic zone, particularly of its southern part, where, in the mid-3 rd millennium BC, single artefacts were alloyed with tin. The discovery of a crucible, to whose bottom small copper prills and slag had adhered, has a certain interest [Khavrin, 1997a, p. 161]. It is possible that this find reflects the technology of crucible ore smelting. A very exotic type of Okunev site is the fortified structure ‘sve’ once dated to the Middle Ages (Fig. 63.1) [Gotlib, 1997]. These are situated on mountain tops, and are characterised by several lines of walls, frequently with a citadel on the top. The walls are made of large stone blocks, sometimes with large rocks used in the facing, and small ones as infill, which is characteristic of Near Eastern architecture. There are usually few areas suitable for habitation inside the walled perimeter. Therefore, it is hardly possible that these fortifications were used permanently. More likely, they served as a refuge for the neighbourhood on the approach of enemies. The parallels adduced indicate that the Middle Bronze Age cultures of the Sayan-Altai region were formed as a result of migrations from the west and the assimilation of the local substratum by a foreign component. It is more difficult to discuss the courses and initial areas of these migrations. The abundance of Eastern European features in both Okunev and late Afanasievo sites indicates that populations from late Pit-Grave and early Catacomb sites participated in them. Therefore, it is possible that the activity of the Catacomb tribes in Eastern Europe resulted in an eastward movement of the Pit-Grave population that was a catalyst of this process. This is not contradicted by the lower date of the Okunev culture. At the same time, Okunev sites have a significant number of features bringing them together with the cultures of the Near East – indeed, features missing in Eastern Europe. Therefore, we may hazard the direct migration of some Near Eastern group into Southern Siberia. It is more difficult to define its path. The simplest version is a hypothesis about migration through the Caucasus and the south of Eastern Europe, in which the Eastern European population was involved. This would provide a reasonable explanation of all components of the culture. Another hypothesis posits a southern migration via Central Asia. This is reinforced by the discovery of comparable drawings in the Tien Shan and of the distribution of crucible ore smelting. But the latter was used at various times by populations of different cultures, so cannot serve as a reliable foundation. On the other hand, Tien Shan drawings could be a result of the deviation from the route of part of the population moving through Eastern Europe. At the moment, the first hypothesis seems more probable. It is possible that the late Afanasievo and Okunev cultures existed up to the appearance of SeimaTurbino metalworking in this region. In this sense, a cast socketed spearhead with narrow rhombicshaped blade and rhombic socket-shank, found in a late Afanasievo grave in the Minusa depression, is very indicative: to a certain extent, it could have served as a prototype of the classic Seima-Turbino spearhead [Grishin, 1971, p. 18]. However, the features of Seima-Turbino objects are generally more comparable with Near Eastern examples, as will be demonstrated below. This does not allow the formation of Seima-Turbino metalworking on a local basis. This tradition, nevertheless, differs little from the metalworking of the Okunev and late Afanasievo period. 2.2. Seima-Turbino bronzes and contemporary cultures of the Western Urals and Siberia Returning to the Seima-Turbino complexes, I would like to mention one more peculiarity – their “transcultural” nature. Metal itself can be transcultural, and in a number of cases related types of artefact occur in complexes of different cultures. But this situation also has a certain framework. Usually a similar set of metal artefacts occurs in several related cultures. In the case of Seima-Turbino bronzes, we have a culture whose burial rite is unclear, and almost the whole assemblage, except for metal, is composed of inclusions from other cultures. Ceramics are especially indicative. Very few vessels are found with burials, and they are interpreted either as ware left by grave robbers, or as that of people incorporated into Seima-Turbino com- 192 munities. It is represented by single finds containing Krotovo-Elunino features in the east and Abashevo in the west of the Seima-Turbino area [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 228-230, 240, 243]. Therefore, practically the only guide to cultural identity is metal. This situation is explained by the immiscibility of Seima-Turbino people with those they incorporated. This is yet one more surprising phenomenon, for the evidence of such large cemeteries as Rostovka, Seima and Turbino, is that they were long in use, and it is not possible to speak about a rapid migration [Matyushenko, 1999], although that cannot be eliminated completely if part of the migrants settled en route. Taking these paradoxes into consideration, it is quite possible to accept the definition of these cemeteries as a phenomenon to which there are no analogies, either archaeological or historical. However, there are sufficient reasons to suppose that Seima-Turbino bronzes were somehow connected with a large bloc of Northern Eurasian cultures, including Elunino, Krotovo, Tashkovo and Chirkovskaya. First of all, the area of distribution of these cultures coincides exactly with that of SeimaTurbino sites (Figs. 64, 69). Elunino sites are situated on the Upper Ob, within the foothills of the Altai, in the region of concentration of the Sayan-Altai group of Seima-Turbino bronzes [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 15, 31; Kiriushin, 1985; 1987]. The Krotovo sites are situated on the Middle Irtish and neighbouring regions, and on the Upper Ob. Here are found known Seima-Turbino sites such as the Rosrovka cemetery, the Omsk hoard, several burials of the Sopka 2 cemetery, and a set of single finds [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 15, 31; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988; Molodin, 1985, pp. 35-37; Stefanova, 1988]. Sites of Tashkovo culture are distributed over the Lower Ob. In this region cemeteries of Seima-Turbino type have not yet been found, except for one chance find of a spearhead at Shadrinsk. However, to the north, on the River Konda, the Seima-Turbino cemetery of Satiga XVI has been investigated [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 22, 23, 78, fig. 39.1; Kovalyova, 1988]. It should also be noted that Bronze Age settlements with traces of metalworking and original crucibles have been discovered within the Konda region. These are accompanied by combed-pitted ware of the Leushi type. Such ceramics have no similarities with those in Krotovo culture, but show some Krotovo features in the form of applied cordons under the rim. This ceramic complex is rather local, and is deemed to have been introduced into the Konda region [Vizgalov, 1988]. The nature of the earliest metallurgy in the Konda basin is, apparently, pre-Seima; it is dated to the early 2nd millennium BC [Koksharov, 1999]. Subsequently, metallurgical production appears at other Konda basin settlements. In the Polimyat stage of this area’s cultural development, dated to the second and, partly, third quarters of the 2 nd millennium BC, casting moulds for making celts, cores for casting socketed spearheads, and tanged stone arrowheads are present, which are also typical of Seima-Turbino sites [Koksharov, 1991]. It is unclear why Koksharov placed the consideration of the Satiga XVI cemetery (and, accordingly, of Seima-Turbino celts) within the framework of the following Varpul stage, dated to the third quarter of the 2 nd millennium BC. It seems to be doubtful, however, whether a discussion of this problem is possible until after the full publication of materials from this area. In this case, the general direction of the process is more important for us. Therefore I should also mention the discovery of a ball-shaped macehead in the Satiga cemetery and a plate of bone armour on the Saygatino VI settlement [Koksharov, 1991, pp. 96, 99]. The material from the settlement Volvoncha I, whose latest level falls into the Polimyat stage, is very interesting too [Koksharov, Stefanova, 1993]. A large rectangular dwelling surrounded by a defensive ditch has been investigated here, and a cast mould for making celts found. The jar-shaped ware decorated with short combed impressions is very interesting. Typologically, it is rather similar to jars of the Chirkovskaya culture. On the other hand, these forms are comparable with those in Krotovo and Tashkovo cultures. It is similar also to the architecture and materials of the Pashkin Bor I settlement, where a mould for casting celts and a core for casting socketed spearheads were found. However, articles produced were smaller than Seima-Turbino articles of corresponding type. This is explained by the greater distance from the mining centres, and consequent relative scarcity of raw materials [Stefanova, Koksharov, 1988, p. 173]. All of this allows us to consider cultural changes in the Konda basin within this framework. Within the Kama river region, where there are a number of Seima-Turbino sites including largest Turbino cemetery, settlements containing ceramics of Krotovo type have been investigated. In another Eastern European area of Seima-Turbino bronze con- 193 194 11 9 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fig. 64. Seima-Turbino sites: a – cemeteries; b – single finds. 1 – Klepikovo; 2 – Elunino; 3 – Ustyanka; 4 – Sopka 2; 5 – Rostovka; 6 – Satiga; 7 – Kaninskaya cave; 8 – Turbino; 9 – Sokolovka; 10 – Berezovka-Omari; 11 – Seima; 12 – Reshnoe; 13 – Nikolskoe; 14 – Borodino hoard. 14 12 13 7 centration, the Middle Volga, settlements of the Chirkovskaya culture are situated [Khalikov, 1987b, pp. 136, 137]. The coincidence of the areas of this cultural bloc and Seima-Turbino bronzes may not itself be accidental, all the more so as they are contemporary, although the early phases of the Tashkovo, Krotovo and Chirkovskaya cultures could be dated to the pre-Seima period. However, this is indirect evidence. The direct facts, grounded on analysis of the material characteristic of these cultures, are more important for us. The main problem is that many Seima-Turbino cemeteries have been found by chance and the information about them is incomplete. As a result of casual excavations, the Seima cemetery has been destroyed. Burials in the Turbino cemetery were frequently disturbed by the later Ananyino level because they were too shallow [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 14-20]. In contrast, in Siberia a number of complexes containing together Seima-Turbino as well as Krotovo and Elunino materials have survived and been well investigated [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988; Kiriushin, 1987]. Thus, they are very important for the solution of the whole problem. It is necessary also to note that if Krotovo and Seima-Turbino cemeteries demonstrate a certain unity, Elunino ones are somewhat removed from them by the dominance of contracted on the side burials [Kiriushin, 1985, pp. 73-75]. In other respects, the burial rites of this bloc of cultures and of SeimaTurbino too are very similar. It is necessary, however, to bear in mind that proper Chirkovskaya and Tashkovo burials are unknown, and burials in the Konda basin contain Leushi ceramic material. In other respects these are flat burials, whose graves are arranged in rows. They are not usually oriented in any fixed direction, but parallel to the river on whose bank the cemetery is situated [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 20; Molodin, 1985, p. 76]. Often the bodies lie on their back in an extended position, although some are on their side with legs bent at the knee [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 19; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 64; Molodin, 1985, pp. 76-80]. The proportion of secondary burials is rather high, which gives the impression that the graves were probably robbed in antiquity. Very often, the skeletons had been subjected to violent dismemberment. However, definite traces of robbery have not been found [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 64, 65; Molodin, 1985, pp. 80, 81; Kiriushin, 1987, pp. 103, 105, 107, 109] – moreover, the ‘robbed’ graves were furnished with the richest grave goods. Very likely, the rite of secondary burial was variable. There was a custom of putting corpses on a special site for this purpose. After the decay of soft tissue and its consumption by scavengers, bones were transferred to the grave pit [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 65]. In one Elunino culture grave another variant of this rite has been found. The deceased was placed on either a cover or a dais above the burial pit. After the ablation of soft tissues and the collapse of the cover into the pit, the grave was filled with soil [Kiriushin, 1987, p. 105]. There were probably other such burials but none has been reliably identified. They would explain the presence of skeletons with some articulated bones in secondary burials. Such burial rites as cremation, partial cremation, the burial of skulls and tiered burials occur more rarely [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 65; Molodin, 1985, p. 81; Kiriushin, 1987, pp. 103, 105, 107, 109, 114]. A very typical feature of the burial rite is the placing of grave goods outside the grave on the ancient surface. It is likely that grave goods were sometimes placed on either the dais or cover at secondary burials, producing the fragments of ceramics that have been found subsequently in the fill of pits. Thus, as with the Sintashta burial rite, we see here, despite the undoubted unity of complexes and commonality of basic traditions, varying treatment of bodies. There is also a tendency for cemeteries containing fewer anatomically complete skeletons to be especially rich in metal artefacts. Therefore, it is impossible to eliminate a connection between Seima-Turbino artefacts and the custom of secondary and disarticulated burials, although it could not be stable in conditions of ethnic contacts. The rather peculiar customs of the SeimaTurbino tribes have also been investigated in the Volga region. The materials of the famous Pepkino barrow are rather indicative, where a collective burial of Abashevo warriors has been excavated. In one grave 28 men were buried, 18 of them decapitated. Some skulls have traces of scalping, arrowheads are embedded in the bodies, and skulls are pierced by something like a battle-axe. There are also traces of simulating trepanning to extract a piece of skull to make an amulet. The arrowheads embedded in the bodies belong to the Seima type [Mednikova, Lebedinskaya, 1999]. 195 2 3 1 5 4 8 7 9 6 10 11 Fig. 65. Seima-Turbino artefacts. 1, 6, 9 – Seima; 2 – Irbitskoe; 3 – Novo-Pavlovka; 4 – Rostovka; 5 – Borodino hoard; 7 – Cigankova Sopka; 8 – Novaya Usman; 10 – Krivoe Ozero; 11 – Panovo. 196 1 2 3 4 11 9 8 10 7 6 5 12 13 15 14 16 17 18 Fig. 66. Seima-Turbino artefacts. 1, 2, 16 – Seima; 3, 14 – Reshnoe; 4, 6-8, 17 – Rostovka; 5, 9, 11-13, 15 – Turbino I; 10 – Sokolovka; 18 – Bazyakovo III. 197 Fig. 67. Seima-Turbino warriors. A very peculiar site is the Kaninskaya cave on the Pechora river, which may be either a sanctuary or sacrificial place [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 23, 24]. As a rule, the cultural identification of archaeological complexes is based on ceramics. In our case this is very difficult to undertake. The material of the Chirkovskaya, Tashkovo and Krotovo settlements is well enough studied. Because it contains such a small quantity of ceramics, it is difficult to make comparisons with vessels from Seima-Turbino cemeteries. And this is a significant feature in the cultural sense. Elunino burials are also poorly furnished with ceramics. To an even greater degree this relates to Krotovo burials. Two hundred burials of the Krotovo cemetery of Sopka 2 contained only 10 vessels [Molodin, 1985, pp. 75, 82]. Therefore we are forced to use very limited collections. Scholars have noted repeatedly the affinity of the ceramic traditions of the Chirkovskaya-Tashkovo-Krotovo-Elunino cultural bloc, on the basis of which conclusions about a certain commonality of these cultures are drawn [Stefanova, 1988, pp. 70, 71; Kiriushin, 1987, p. 121; Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 45, 46; Khalikov, 1987b, pp. 136-139; 1991a, pp. 8, 9; Glushkov, 1988; Kiriushin, 1988, p. 61; Kovalyova, Rizhkova, 1991, pp. 33, 34; Soloviov, 1991, p. 51]. The classic form is the large closed jar with elongated proportions, wide neck and rather narrow bottom. The most characteristic feature of this ware in all these cultures is a straight or wavy cordon around the top of the vessel (Figs. 68.1; 70.1; 72.2-4). Investigators of Tashkovo ceramics have paid attention to one feature having parallels in the Sintashta ware: in several cases the cordons were applied to an incised groove [Kovalyova, 1997, p. 29]. The technique of ornamentation of various territorial groups of sites differs, even within Krotovo culture. More often there are combed impressions, zigzags made by the technique of ‘stepping’ combed impressions, and incisions, but in Tashkovo culture, for example, incised technique, often made with a ‘receding’ stick or spatula, is dominant [Molodin, 1985, pp. 37-40; Stefanova, 1988, pp. 60-63; Kiriushin, 1985, p. 73; Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 35-39; Khalikov, 1987b, pp. 136-139; Stefanova, 1986]. These distinctions were conditioned by the migratory nature of the formation of the whole cultural bloc, as well as by inclusions of local components. As well as large jars, there are vessels of smaller size and lower proportions in collections. These may be closed jars with a smooth profile, either tapering outwards from the base then curving pronouncedly to the vertical half way up, or tapering outwards all the way from the base to the rim (Fig. 70.4,5). In Sopka 2 such types of ware as jars and pots occur [Molodin, 1985, p. 82]. The ceramics of Seima-Turbino cemeteries correspond, as a rule, to types described above. In the Altai cemeteries these are Elunino and Krotovo ceramics [Kiriushin, 1987, pp. 120, 121]. This does not give a special basis for the conclusion that potteries of these complexes belonged to totally different cultures, as in essence this variant of Krotovo ware differs from Elunino ware only by the presence of cordons. Some of the cordoned ware on various Krotovo settlements differs too [Molodin, 1985, pp. 38, 39]. The forms and ornamentation of these groups of Altai ware are close enough. It is possible that the presence or otherwise of cordons is a chronological sign for Western Siberia. It is supposed that on early Krotovo ware cordons were either single or absent [Kiriushin, 1987, pp. 120, 121; Stefanova, 1986, p. 44]. The Rostovka cemetery has yielded more diverse ware, but it seldom falls outside the ceramic traditions of the Krotovo and Tashkovo cultures. It 198 2 3 1 4 6 5 8 7 Fig. 68. Ceramics from the Seima-Turbino cemeteries. 1-3, 7 – Rostovka; 4, 5 – Reshnoe; 6, 8 – Turbino. has been divided into five groups, although some vessels were included in none [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 89-95]. Closed low jars decorated with short combed impressions, having analogies in the Krotovo ware of the Baraba steppe from the Sopka 2 cemetery, fall into the first group [Molodin, 1985, p. 39, fig. 15.2,5,8] (Figs. 68.2,3; 70.4). Earlier analogies are known in Okunev culture [Vadetskaya et al., 1980, tab. XXVII-XXIX]. Jars with slenderer proportions decorated with an applied cordon, incisions, combed impressions and zigzags made by ‘stepping’ combed impressions, have been placed into the second [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 91, 92] (Fig. 68.1,7). This is similar to Middle Irtish Krotovo ware [Stefanova, 1986; 1988] (Fig. 70.1). Those vessels not included in any group are similar to Krotovo ware, although they have some Okunev culture features too [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, 199 200 (d)cultu C , Tashkovo (c),hirkovskaya (a), Krotovo (b) es of the Elunino of sit D Fig. 69.istribution ( nskaya cultureg). phase of Prikaza Zaymishe t Kama area (f), he oned ware of the shi type (e), cord res, the Leu 4 2 1 3 5 Fig. 70. Krotovo culture. 1 – Preobrazhenka III; 2 – Chernozerye VI; 3, 5 – Saranin II; 4 – Sopka 2. pp. 95, 97]. The third group, comprising jars decorated with wavy or zigzag-shaped cordons and wavy lines, is not really outside the Krotovo framework, but wavy incised lines are more characteristic of Tashkovo ware [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 92-95; Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 37, 38]. The small quantity of material in the fourth and fifth groups is most closely comparable with Tashkovo because of the slightly outcurved rim, straight lines executed in receding incised technique, zigzags, rows of incisions and impressions [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 92-95; Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 35-39], although it is probably impossible to attribute it to the Tashkovo culture itself. Thus, most of the ceramics of the Asian zone of sites of Seima-Turbino type is identical to Krotovo ware; a further part demonstrates features comparable with Krotovo traditions. There is nothing outside the Tashkovo-Krotovo-Elunino framework, and although part of the ware from Rostovka has been compared with Petrovka ceramics [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 240], I do not see the basis for such a conclusion. There is even less basis for supposing that the whole ceramic complex belonged to the robbers of the Rostovka cemetery [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 240]. I know of no other cases where robbers left so much of their own pottery on the burial site and in graves, nor any instance of them specially leaving a great number of bronze artefacts in pillaged graves. Furthermore, excavators have found no clear traces of robbery [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 63]. The judgment about the connection of SeimaTurbino metal with Elunino and Krotovo settlements seems accurate, as does the possibility of such a connection for Tashkovo settlements [Korochkova et al., 1991, p. 75]. The situation on the Seima-Turbino sites of the European zone is more complicated. The quantity of pottery here is less, and the poor collection of ware of the Seima cemetery, known only from drawings, has not survived [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 228]. On other sites some vessels have been uncovered. As a result, there are differences of opinion between scholars. Two interpretations are current: in the first, it is considered to belong to the Abashevo culture [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 228-230]; and in the second to the so-called Chirkovskaya-Seima culture [Khalikov, 1987b, p. 136]. Actually, three vessels from the Reshnoe cemetery are comparable with Abashevo forms [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 229, fig. 103.7,9,10]. Indeed, one of these vessels [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 229, fig. 103.9], judging from its form, could be linked 201 2 3 1 5 4 7 6 8 Fig. 71. Tashkovo culture. Tashkovo II. also to Tashkovo culture [Kovalyova, 1988, p. 37, fig. 7.1]. One of the vessels [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 229, fig. 103.6] is close to both Abashevo and Sintashta ware (Fig. 68.5). The similarity with the latter is emphasised by the concavity of the bottom and the ornamentation, which was usually formed in the removal of the vessel from a hard form-base during manufacture. However, the remaining ceramics have no Abashevo features, in my opinion. Bellied pots with a short straight neck [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 229, fig. 103.8] are not characteristic of Abashevo ceramic complexes, but are similar to Krotovo ware from the Sopka 2 cemetery [Molodin, 1985, p. 39, fig. 15.1,3]. The attribution of the jar with straight diverging sides found in the Reshnoe cemetery to Abashevo culture [Cher- nikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 229, fig. 103.11] is questionable. The form cannot be related to either Abashevo jars with vertical sides or Abashevo cups, whose sides are more profiled (Fig. 68.4). It raises associations with the Middle Irtish Krotovo ware [Stefanova, 1988, p. 58, fig. 2.8] (Fig. 70.5). We can be more definite about a small closed jar from the Turbino cemetery [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 229, fig. 103.12; Bader, 1964, fig. 105] (Fig. 68.6). Similar small jars are well known in both Tashkovo and Krotovo materials [Molodin, 1985, p. 39, fig. 15.4; Kovalyova, 1988, p. 37, fig. 7.4; 1997, fig. 31.2] (Fig. 71.6). In addition, fragments of a large jar with an applied cordon, enjoying undoubted Tashkovo-Krotovo parallels, were found in the Turbino cemetery [Bader, 1964, figs. 105, 106] (Fig. 202 68.8). Two jars of closed type from the Sokolovka cemetery [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 229, fig. 103.13,14] do not correspond to the Abashevo ceramic tradition either, where such bending of the body is found only on pots. On Krotovo sites similar forms are known [Molodin, 1985, p. 39, fig. 15.2,5,8; Stefanova, 1988, p. 58, fig. 2.5, p. 59, fig. 3.4]. The excavators of the cemetery correlate this ware guardedly with Poltavka culture; however, the presence in the collection of a shaft-hole axe with massive backs and fragments of a Timber-Grave culture vessel make this parallel unlikely, because Poltavka is dated to the earlier period [Kosmenko, Kazakov, 1976]. But this cemetery cannot form a point of reference as the material is collected from levels eroded by the river. In light of the facts, I do not think that the interpretation of the ceramics from the Seima cemetery as belonging to the Chirkovskaya culture has lost its topicality, although this ware is of no crucial importance. The whole collection is so small that it does not permit conclusions to be drawn about the proportions of Abashevo and Chirkovskaya pottery in Seima-Turbino complexes. For us, their coexistence is more important. Indeed Seima-Turbino metal is connected, as in the east, with Chirkovskaya-Krotovo ceramics. The presence of Abashevo ware is readily explained by those intimate contacts with Abashevo tribes which have been reconstructed for the Seima-Turbino population [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 273-275]. However, the complexity of this interpretation of ceramics is probably connected with the fact that many complexes of Chirkovskaya culture are very similar to those of Abashevo. It is explained by the formation of the Chirkovskaya tradition having been interrupted by either the coming of the Abashevo people or their integration into the ChirkovskayaSeima collectives [Bolshov, 1991, pp. 164, 165]. In any case, we should not expect to discover one type of ceramics over the vast spaces from Rostovka to Reshnoe. The search for cultures close to their origin and development is more profitable [Bader, 1976, p. 45]. At the same time, I do not believe that analysis of ceramics is a decisive argument: making ceramics was woman’s work, and in the cemeteries of migrating military collectives ware could readily occur that was manufactured by inhabitants of the territory through which they had. Nevertheless, a similar picture may be obtained also by analyses of other material. There are four types of arrowhead in the Krotovo culture of the Baraba steppe: tanged, semi-triangular, almond-shaped (including those with a worked up base) and willow-shaped [Molodin, 1985, p. 40]. The last two are more characteristic. It is worth mentioning that two examples of two first types have been found in a burial of casters from the Sopka 2 cemetery together with Seima-Turbino artefacts [Molodin, 1983, pp. 104, 105]. In the Altai, arrowheads of all four types have been found in a burial in the Cigankova Sopka cemetery, alongside a Seima-Turbino knife and Krotovo-Elunino ceramics [Kiriushin, 1987, pp. 106, 113, 114]. The same types have also been discovered on Krotovo sites of the Middle Irtish, where, however, tanged and semi-triangular arrowheads predominate [Stefanova, 1988, pp. 64, 65] (Fig. 70.2,3). The situation is similar in the Rostovka cemetery, where tanged and non-tanged arrowheads (the latter divided into small (triangular) and large) have been distinguished [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 82]. Large non-tanged arrowheads are similar in shape to some examples from the Baraba steppe of almond-shape with worked up base. On Tashkovo settlements a group of arrowheads resembling those of Krotovo settlements of the Middle Irtish has been found [Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 40, 41; 1997, figs. 53, 54]. A similar set is contained also in Seima-Turbino sites of the Western Urals and the Middle Volga as well [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 230-234] (Fig. 66.14-17). Thus, we see a practically identical quiver set. The materials of the Sopka 2 cemetery are distinguished somewhat from the general picture in the dominance of almond-shaped and willow-shaped arrowheads. Indeed, this cemetery contains a smaller number of proper Seima-Turbino inclusions. In Krotovo and Seima-Turbino sites, bone arrowheads occur too [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 23, 233; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 88; Molodin, 1985, pp. 47-51; Stefanova, 1988, p. 66]. Two sites demonstrate the greatest quantity and diversity of types: Kaninskaya cave and Sopka 2. For us it is important that these types are practically identical. Stone ball-shaped maceheads occur rather rarely. One macehead was found in each of four cemeteries: Sopka 2, Rostovka, Satiga and Ust-Gayva [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 85; Molodin, 1985, p. 42; Koksharov, 1991, p. 96]. Scholars have noted an affinity of the unit-cast disconnected silver-gilt ring, found in the Krotovo level of the settlement at Michurinskoe, to similar 203 1 2 3 5 4 Fig. 72. Ceramics of Chirkovskaya culture. 1, 3-5 – Galankina Gora; 2 – Kamskiy Bor II. finds from the Rostovka cemetery [Merts, Frank, 1996, p. 75]. In addition, we can compare arrowstraighteners found in the Rostovka cemetery and Sopka 2 [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 86, 87; Molodin, 1985, p. 46] with flint knives with retouched sides. The latter are very characteristic of SeimaTurbino cemeteries. They are present in Seima, Turbino and Rostovka (Fig. 66.13). They are less characteristic of Krotovo and Tashkovo sites, although single examples occur in Baraba and Tashkovo II too [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 230; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 83, 84; Molodin, 1985, p. 42; Kovalyova, 1988, p. 41]. On Krotovo settlements of the Middle Irtish, bronze prills, fragments of crucibles, and foundry moulds for casting spearheads and knives of SeimaTurbino type, have been found [Stefanova, 1988, p. 66]. A mould for casting Seima-Turbino spearheads has also been found in the Altai, on the Kalantir 11 settlement [Kiriushin, Klyukin, 1985, p. 94]. Traces of metalworking have been discovered on the Tashkovo II settlement as well [Kovalyova, 1988, p. 40]. Analysis of prills of metal has shown that they relate to tin bronze of the chemical group VK. At this time similar compounding was used extensively by Seima-Turbino metallurgists. The evidence presented is sufficient to link Seima-Turbino and Krotovo-Tashkovo metalworking. Even on Sintashta settlements, now excavated over an immeasurably larger area than Krotovo ones, finds of bronze artefacts, cast moulds, crucibles or traces of metalworking are rather an exception. There is a great number of such finds in levels of the Petrovka period. Proper Sintashta complexes create an impression of ‘production’ centres because of finds of slag obtained in ore smelting, naturally absent in the barren regions of Western Siberia. Aggregating all the evidence indicates that the Chirkovskaya-Tashkovo-Krotovo-Elunino cultural bloc and Seima-Turbino cemeteries were culturally connected phenomena; thus the problem of their origin is one. This position also raises the question of the inclusion of all these complexes into one family of cultures. The problem of its existence has been 204 already raised, but Seima-Turbino materials have been not examined in this light [Glushkov, 1988]. It is easy to see that a considerable number of the components which may be included in this family were earlier included in the Samus family of cultures [Kosarev, 1981, pp. 86-106] – I mean sites now defined as belonging to Tashkovo culture, as well as the Rosrovka cemetery. However, the ceramic types of these sites are close to Krotovo ware. On the other hand, the chronological position of cultures included into the Samus family, varies. Analysis of the ceramic material of the Samus IV settlement has shown that it belongs to different cultures [Molodin, Glushkov, 1989, p. 129]: Stepanovo material dated to the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, proper Samus ware (mid-2nd millennium BC), and combedpitted ceramics of the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. These complexes were genetically unconnected. Samus metalworking has also a later date [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1988a, p. 73; 1989, p. 160]. It assimilated the main Seima-Turbino features, but is characterised already by artefacts of the SamusKizhirovo type. The distribution zone of these bronzes is displaced to the north relative to Seima-Turbino artefacts [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1988a, pp. 72, 73; 1989, p. 16]. This does not permit materials of the Rostovka cemetery to be viewed within the framework of the Samus family of cultures; they should be included with other Seima materials in one family with Krotovo and related cultures. This family could be named ‘Seima’, but in historiography this term has a quite definite semantic sense. The term ‘Rostovka’ is quite reasonable because this cemetery has been investigated in detail and most clearly reflects all the characteristic components of this family, combining those of Seima-Turbino, Krotovo and Tashkovo sites. Accordingly, the Chirkovskaya (Chirkovskaya-Seima), Tashkovo, Krotovo and Elunino cultures should be included in the family, as well as the Leushi type of the Konda basin. To some extent it is possible to compare with these cultures the Vishnyovka and Stepanovo complexes as local, earlier substrata. However, the naming problem seems to be unimportant. In this book I shall name all phenomena ‘Seima’ or ‘Seima-Turbino’, which is more customary. It is necessary, however, to emphasise that the possible inclusion of these complexes in one family is currently hypothetical – how it functioned is not yet clear. But the conclusion that all these cultures were involved in a unified process seems to me indisputable. A late hoard found within the Rostovka cemetery – a suggested date is the transition from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age – demands special mention. There are two cast tetrahedral socketed chisels (Fig. 66.7,8), three one-edged knives, awls and needles. Pottery, associated with it, decorated with ‘pearls’ (knobs extruded on the inside of a vessel) and impressed rows, often with an applied ring base, has no direct parallels in other Western Siberian cultures [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, pp. 99102, 123-125; Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 240242]. It is not my task to refute the suggested date. It is more interesting to clear up the probable time of appearance of the socketed tetrahedral chisel, as this seems to be essential for further discussion of the destiny of the Seima-Turbino tribes. First of all, the suggested late date is not indisputable – all the hoard’s metal artefacts have an extremely wide date range. Late dating grounded on the presence of applied bases may be impugned too: ware with an applied base occurs occasionally in the Sintashta period, even earlier in southern cultures. Cast tetrahedral socketed chisels had no prototypes in Western Siberia. I know no analogies in the Near East either, where such articles had disconnected forged sockets even in the Late Bronze Age. However, earlier finds of similar chisels are known: a chisel with a disconnected socket was revealed by excavations on Cyprus [Vermeule, Wolsky, 1990, tab. 103]; a great number of similar artefacts have been found in Anatolia – discussed in the description of Sintashta metallurgy [Müller-Karpe A., 1994, pp. 170-173, Taf. 74, 75]. Probably, irrespective of the dating of this actual hoard, tetrahedral chisels with a cast socket already existed in the Seima period, although none has been found in any Seima-Turbino complex. As a rule, large production instruments occur without a cultural context; they were seldom used as grave goods. For example, no socketed grooved chisel (or gouge) has been discovered in the Seima-Turbino cemeteries, but there is a mould for casting one from the Rostovka cemetery [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, fig. 38.3] (Fig. 66.6). This is the only evidence of the existence of this type of artefact throughout the whole period. More significant is that socketed chisels (both tetrahedral and grooved) were obligatory satellites to the distribution of Seima-Turbino articles, or articles inheriting Seima-Turbino traditions, to the west. 205 2.3. The problem of cultural genesis in Northern Eurasia at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age The formation of the cultures discussed above took place on the multicomponent basis that is characteristic of cultural genesis overall – these aspects have been touched upon, above all, in the solution to the problem of the origin of Seima-Turbino sites [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 251-253]. Their genesis is seen as the result of the interactions of fishermen and hunters, who left the sites of the Glazkovskaya culture situated in the region between the Yenisei and Lake Baikal, and groups of cattle-breeders and metallurgists of the Altai and neighbouring areas. In fact, there are a number of parallels with Glazkovskaya materials among those of Seima-Turbino cemeteries: double-sided insets of the rectangular form, asymmetrical flint knives, rings of nephrite, bone arrowheads, bone armour plates and squeezers, the method of attaching knife blades at an angle into bone handles [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 230-235; Khlobistin, 1987, pp. 332, 333] (Fig. 66.4,12,13). This parallel is true also for stone arrowheads with a straight base, at least for those of them differentiated by the blade’s more elongated proportions and straight edges. Probably, we should include in this list the non-tanged bronze knives present in Glazkovskaya culture as well [Khlobistin, 1987, p. 332]. Conformity of burial rites is obviously important too. Glazkovskaya burials were also flat and arranged in rows along a river; the deceased lying on their back in an extended position, less often with legs bent at the knee. Occasionally, there are burials of skulls, cremations, and tier burials [Khlobistin, 1987, pp. 328-330]. Probably, we should remove from this list only bone armour plates and bronze knives. These are much more likely to have been reverse borrowings into the Glazkovskaya communities of the Baikal area through contact with Seima-Turbino people. In any case, there are sufficient analogies without them. Therefore, attempts to link nephrite rings found in Seima-Turbino cemeteries to regions of the south of Central Asia [Vinnik, Kuzmina, 1981, p. 50], even if true, do not change the situation. There is no basis to doubt the participation of the Glazkovskaya population in the cultural genesis of Western Siberia. It is possible that this population had come into the Altai about the end of the Eneolithic. At any rate, there are an asymmetrical flint knife and a rectangular inset in the Eneolithic layers [Kiriushin, Klyukin, 1985, pp. 101, 111], also the head of a javelin similar to that in Tashkovo II (confirmed, by means of microwear analysis, as a meat knife) [Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 40, 41]. However, analogies to flint knives and rectangular insets can also be found in the south, in the Kyzylkum desert (see below). These seem more justified, and contact with the Glazkovskaya population happened somewhere to the east. It is more difficulty to define the origin of ceramics. As a rule, scholars see local Western Siberian and Transural roots to the Tashkovo and Krotovo ornamental traditions [Kosarev, 1981, p. 107; Stefanova, 1988, pp. 70-72; Kovalyova, 1988, p. 44]. This is more than possible, taking into account the peculiarities of ornamentation of all the cultures of this bloc within the various terrains. In the Altai, the prototypes of Elunino ware and of local Krotovo ceramics have been found [Kiriushin, 1988, p. 61]. Probably, the opinion that the early Tashkovo and Krotovo settlements predate Seima is partly true. However, this does not relate to such settlements as Tashkovo II with its Seima-like set of arrowheads, cordoned ware, round settlements and other features, all of which we have discussed above. Therefore it is possible to suppose that local populations took part directly in the formation of all these cultures. In the Sayan area, late Afanasievo and Okunev complexes were such a local substratum. Some ceramic types of the Middle Irtish, as well as the already mentioned discovery of a spearhead with a cast socket in a late Afanasievo burial, confirm this. Indeed, it is possible to say the same about the Western Urals and Volga region, where the Krotovo-Tashkovo, late Volosovo, Balanovo and Abashevo populations participated in ethnic and cultural processes [Khalikov, 1987b, pp. 136, 137; Soloviov, 1991, pp. 60-64]. However, we have not cleared up the origins of major features of the material culture introduced by the suspected group of Altai metallurgists and cattle breeders. They could not have been formed on a local basis in the Altai. We must list their defining features. First of all, there is the technology of casting copper-tin and copper-tin-arsenic alloys and typical basic objects: celts, socketed spearheads with a 206 wide blade, daggers (Figs. 65.1-11; 66.1-3). Secondly, there are some architectural features, notably the round plans of Tashkovo culture settlements (Fig. 71.1). On the Krotovo settlement of Chernozerye IV on the Middle Irtish, rectangular dwellings with central hearths were positioned side by side at a slight angle too. The overall plan is not clear because only a limited area has been excavated. It is supposed that other dwellings here were absent, but the construction is similar to that on the Tashkovo settlements [Gening, Stefanova, 1982, pp. 53-55]. On the Krotovo settlements of Inberen X and Chernozerye VI, fortified ditches have been found [Stefanova, 1988, p. 55]. Fortifications have been investigated also on the Leushi settlements of Volvoncha I and Pashkin Bor I [Koksharov, Stfanova, 1993; Stefanova, Koksharov, 1988]. Then there are tanged arrowheads and stone maceheads, absent in Glazkovskaya culture, the rite of secondary burial, and, finally, the tradition of decorating vessels with applied cordons under the rim – throughout Northern Eurasia this last occurs but rarely in the pre-Seima era. The exceptions are the Sintashta and Okunev cultures; however, on ware inheriting Okunev features, cordons are absent. The connection of cordoned ware with bearers of metallurgical traditions is seen most strongly on the Leushi settlement of the Konda basin, where cordons appeared contemporaneously with metalworking, and did so on ceramics with nothing in common with Krotovo ware. It has already been remarked above that cordons were, apparently, not characteristic of early Krotovo ware. It is not difficult to see that the whole complex is extremely similar to early and high Sintashta. To the above, it is possible to add a bronze tanged arrowhead, found in the Altai in a burial with a vessel of Krotovo culture [Kiriushin, 1987, p. 114]. It is close to similar (all be they rather simple) Abashevo arrowheads [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 151]. One more parallel is the technology of forming large jars. In Krotovo culture a start was made with the rim, then the straight upper part was executed by the band method; the rest of the body tapered sharply towards the attached base [Glushkov, 1990, pp. 65, 66]. The basic form of Sintashta jars is quite similar, which indicates the possibility of similar technology. This is confirmed by the fact that the sides occasionally become very thin further down the vessel, and would have been unable to support the weight above them if any other method of manufacture had been used. Very likely, the reinforced form of the rim is further testimony. This prompts us to consider the possible Sintashta factor in the formation of this bloc of cultures. The chronological position does not invalidate this: Sintashta falls partly into the pre-Seima period. The presence of Sintashta-Abashevo artefacts in Seima-Turbino complexes [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 183] is, on the face of it, confirmation of such a hypothesis. Despite this, we are compelled to reject it. Sintashta and Seima-Turbino spearheads are really very similar in form, but they were made using absolutely different technologies. The possibility that the origins of thin-walled casting of sockets lay in the Urals is unsustainable, as tin deposits were unknown there. Also, there was no Ural tradition of casting celts or daggers with a metal hilt. Whereas Sintashta cordons below the rim are usually triangular, those of Krotovo ware are round. Architecture and burial practice were extremely simple, unlike Sintashta culture, so no direct borrowing is conceivable. But most important is that SeimaTurbino metal had a westerly direction of distribution, demonstrated by a whole complex of morphological and chemical evidence [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989], and had a Glazkovskaya component. Certainly, we can admit an infiltration of some Abashevo groups into the Altai, and their subsequent return already transformed [Gorbunov, 1990, pp. 13-17], but this is very hypothetical. However, another variant seems to be me more valid. The marked resemblance of cultural features is conditioned by the related origins of their initial components, instead of their genetic connection. More convincing, therefore, is the hypothesis of the initial Near Eastern origin of the main component, which had a decisive influence on the formation of the whole phenomenon. In the Chapter dedicated to analysis of Sintashta architecture and burial rites, examples of architecture with round-plan fortified settlements, secondary burials of parts of skeletons and partial cremation have already been adduced in Western Asia, which saves us from repeating it here. Above all, comparisons of metal, whose parallels in Northern Eurasia in preSeima times are virtually absent, are of interest. We are able to find analogies within only the Circumpontic zone. From the Early Bronze Age the lost wax casting of animal-butted and decorated axes was common here; from the Middle Bronze Age the broad use of tin ligatures. In Troy the widespread occurrence of tin ligatures is found even earlier – 207 3 2 1 4 8 5 7 6 9 Fig. 73. Near Eastern analogies to Seima-Turbino metal artefacts. 1 – Kish (mid-3rd millennium BC); 2 – Kul Tepe (late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC); 3 – Hama J; 4 – Gaza (18th – 17th centuries BC); 5 – Sachkhere (second haft of the 3rd millennium BC); 6 – Boghazköy (16th – 15th centuries BC); 7 – Beyçesultan; 8 – Ikiztepe; 9 – Egypt (16th century BC). from the period Troy II. The earliest instance of lost wax casting is in the Nahal Mishmar hoard in Palestine, dated to the late 4th millennium BC [Moorey, 1975, p. 42; Muhly, 1980, pp. 30-32; Müller-Karpe A., 1994, p. 155]. Employment of tin ligatures commenced in the Near East at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Cudeyde, Ikiztepe, Alişar, Troy I, Thermi I, Tepe Giyan, Tepe Yahya) [Moorey, 1975, p. 43; Coghlan, 1975, p. 47; Yalcin, 2000, p. 27]. Early Dynastic I period texts from Ur quite clearly distinguish copper and tin bronzes [Potts, 1994, p. 153]. In the 20th – 19th centuries BC enormous deliveries of tin took place in areas of South-Eastern Anatolia. The weight of individual ingots reached 65 kg. It is calculated that over a 50-year period about 80 tons of this metal could have been transported. From this quantity it was possible to obtain about 800 tons of bronze [Muhly, 1980, p. 33]. Therefore, in this region these technologies had an old tradition, lacking in the Sayan and Altai. Seima-Turbino artefacts containing high concentrations of silver in copper are of special interest: Cu+Ag and Ag+Cu alloys have been found. From 353 analysed Seima-Turbino objects, only 22 with such a composition are known. It is supposed that the source of the metal was the Nikolskoe field, which is situated near the Tash-Kazgan mine in the Urals [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 166, 172-175]. However, it is impossible to be certain of the metal’s provenance, based on emission spectral analysis. It is most likely that these are artificial alloys. Similar objects are known in the Near East, although quite rare [Hauptmann, Palmieri, 2000, p. 77]. Double-edged daggers with a cast hilt and single-edged daggers with a curved back have been known in Anatolia since the Middle Bronze Age. There, as in Seima-Turbino cemeteries, double-edged daggers usually have a simple hilt, and single-edged daggers a flat hilt with a border along the sides. The single-edged dagger from Tell el-Ajjul has such a 208 hilt, although its blade does not have a bent back (Fig. 73.1,2,4-6). Also known in the Near East are socketed spearheads with a wide blade, but the socket was forged – a different technology [see Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, pp. 51-53; Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 108-124; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 166.25]. Similar spearheads occur from the second half of the 3rd millennium BC onward throughout the Near East [Gorelik, 1993, p. 62]. The leather binding of the socket was indispensable in preventing the spearhead detaching itself from the shaft. An example of a spearhead with disconnected socket and leather binding has been found in a barrow of the Pokrovsk period at the Storozhevka settlement on the Lower Volga [Lyakhov, 1996]. There is a cast imitation of similar bindings on some Seima-Turbino spearheads, which begs us to connect their genesis with regions where spearheads with disconnected sockets were known (Fig. 65.4). In Anatolia and Syria some spearheads with forged disconnected socket had a small bronze ring or mount – in place of the leather binding [Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 15, 16; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 253.10,11]. As we shall see below, this was subsequently reflected on SeimaTurbino spearheads. A quite remarkable fact is the appearance of spearheads with a cast socket in the Near East, in the 17th century BC. In Egypt, the Hyksos spearhead with an inscription of the pharaoh Ahmose I has been found (16th century BC) (Fig. 73.9). It is socketed, with a mount on the socket, lancet-shaped blade and similar in proportions to examples from Seima-Turbino cemeteries, though with a narrower blade [Berlev, Khodzhakh, 1979]. Cast-socket spearheads are rather typical finds in Syria (Ras-Shamra I), in the Trialeti barrows of Transcaucasia (Trialeti, Arich etc.) and in Mycenaean shaft-tombs. They are dated by Syrian parallels to the 17 th – 15th centuries BC [Dzhaparidze, 1994, tab. 26.22, tab. 26.5, p. 89; Kushnaryova, 1994, p. 104]. A distinctive feature of them is the presence of either a ring or mount on the socket. Its likely original use was for attaching spearheads with a disconnected socket to the shaft, but on the cast spearheads from Trialeti these rings and mounts are often made of silver and gold and had a purely decorative function. In SeimaTurbino spearheads eyes on the socket executed the fastening function. There are cast cordons or mounts (often decorated), cast together with the socket, on the end of socketed Seima-Turbino spearheads (Fig. 65.5,11). They have no function and were deriva- tive of the rings and mounts known on Near Eastern spearheads. As mentioned above, single-edged knives and daggers with a cast hilt and border along the sides occur also in the Near East. Unlike in Anatolia, frame-shaped hilts become typical also of double-edged daggers. Their mass distribution occurred in the 17th century BC [Gorelik, 1993, p. 17]. SeimaTurbino double-edged daggers with a cast hilt and arc-shaped edges are practically identical to those from Kish and Sachkhere of the middle and second half of the 3rd millennium BC [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 116, fig. 65; Gorelik, 1993, p. 222, tab. III, 22,56]. The decoration of the hilts of daggers and backs of axes or battle-picks with cast figurines of animals was widespread in Western Asia [Gorelik, 1993, p. 222, tab. III, 23,33,34, p. 226, tab. V, 6,11,21, p. 258, tab. XXI, 42,43,47,53,57,67,71,80, p. 270, tab. XXVII, 8]. The genesis of such artefacts as celts is not clear. It is possible that the Near Eastern socketed battle-adze was a prototype. The hypothetical possibility of a similar transformation may be indicated by the later socketed adzes from Armenia, which have both horizontal and vertical sockets [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XXVI, 105,106]. In this case the prototype for the eyes might have been the expanded side stops of flat adzes used to attach the shaft, widespread in the southern part of the Circumpontic zone [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 54; Picchelauri, 1997, Taf. 31-32]. Such assumptions are pertinent against a background of lack of information about transitional forms. However, some Anatolian adzes with expanded side stops are rather large, therefore it is necessary to keep open such possibilities [Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 1-4]. A connection of cast celts with very similar forged instruments produced in the Near East is more logical. A similar object is known in the Hama J level in Syria (Fig. 73.3) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 247 D]. It is impossible to line up a definite typological series from this object, but the appropriateness of seeking Near Eastern connections for Seima-Turbino celts may be indicated by their relief decoration. It is unnecessary to consider widespread ornaments, such as hatched triangles, but on SeimaTurbino celts there are ornaments known in the Transcaucasian Middle Bronze Age, without prototypes in the Sayan-Altai area [see Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, figs. 12-23; Kushnaryova, 1994, tab. 28; 1994b, tab. 42; 1994d, tab. 40; Dzhaparidze, 1994, tab. 18, 21]. It is possible to relate them to chains of lozenges hung from border belts, sometimes termi- 209 nating in an isosceles triangle, with the acute triangles inserted into each other (Fig. 66.2,3). Sometimes chains of lozenges hang either from the apex of a triangle or from the space between the triangles. Occasionally, there are rows of vertical lines cutting space between triangles. This type of decoration may be traced back through Middle Bronze Age ornamentation to Kura-Araxian anthropomorphic patterns. Further east we know of daggers with a cast hilt and border from Dashli-3 and the Tulkhar cemetery, where we have already noted a very high proportion of tin bronzes. In Rostovka cemetery a mould for casting socketed arrowheads has been found [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 29]. On the one hand, it is comparable with a fragment of a socketed arrowhead from the Tulkhar cemetery; on the other, the herringbone design on the socket is similar to the decoration of Sintashta arrowheads. Subsequently, socketed arrowheads with similar decoration (but with a prominent socket) are known in the Elovskaya culture in Siberia [Kosarev, 1981, p. 155], but I do not think they were connected with the preservation of Seima-Turbino traditions. A socketed arrowhead from the Altai, and others in Abashevo culture, can also be linked with the Near East, in which we have already noted the presence of such arrowheads. Known in Seima-Turbino complexes, fishing hooks and stemmed chisels (Fig. 66.5,11) occur earlier in Northern Eurasia only in Sintashta culture. Discussing such Sintashta artefacts, I have adduced parallels in the Near East [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 206; Müller-Karpe A., 1994, pp. 159-174, Taf. 6572]. Finally, slag from crucible ore smelting is present in the excavation of the Turbino cemetery on the Shustova Mountain. No analysis has been conducted, but typologically it is uniform with slag from Khapuz-Tepe, Lyavlyakan and Dashli-3, and differs sharply from the other shapes of slag of the Eurasian Province. It falls into the scheme of distribution (given above) of crucible ore smelting technology from the Near East to the east and further to the north. Thus, we find parallel distribution of the technologies of metallurgy and metalworking. The second important fact is the distribution of flint arrowheads of ‘Seima’ type. They are present in both Sintashta-Abashevo and Seima-Turbino complexes. However, it is difficult in this case to talk about borrowings, as these cultures moved in con- trary directions, and their stable coexistence as well as permanent contacts have been identified only from the time of the Seima-Turbino populations’ appearance on the western foothills of the Urals. However, I have already noted the broad presence of these arrowheads in Dashli-3 (Fig. 56.8,9). A similar arrowhead with expressed barbs has been found on an Early Bronze Age site in the Kyzylkum desert. In general, the flint industry of Lyavlyakan differs most obviously by the two-sided treatment, which was not typical of the industry of the Kelteminar period [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975, p. 227]. In addition to this arrowhead, there are objects in the Lyavlyakan collection already known to us: almondshaped arrowheads (including those with a workedup base), which cannot be traced back to Glazkovskaya culture either; asymmetrical meat knives; disks with a hole, made of sandstone and similar to those found in the Sopka 2 cemetery [Molodin, 1985, p. 42]; and two-sided, treated rectangular insets [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975, pp. 53, 93, 111, 155, 159, 181, 183, 193]. These artefacts were accompanied by ceramics of two types: closed bellied profiled jars and pots with a short, slightly outcurved rim. They are decorated with bands of incisions or short combed impressions [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975, pp. 225227]. As a whole, this is distinct from Krotovo or Tashkovo ceramics, but some pieces have a small cordon under the rim [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975, p. 140, fig. 38.11, p. 207, fig. 58.7]. The same feature is characteristic of ceramics of the early (Kamishli) phase of Suyargan culture, for which short necks, bellied bodies and herringbone pattern or notches are typical. The origin of this ware is connected with Iran, where similar shapes were widespread in the 3rd millennium BC. In the Near East cordons have been noted since the Jemdet Nasr period, and they were distributed predominantly within the northern regions of Western Asia and the Southern Caspian [Tolstov, Itina, 1960, pp. 16-21]. Thoughts about the connection of lazurite beads from Rostovka with areas of the south of Central Asia are interesting. Similar ornaments are characteristic of Central Asia. A great number have been found in Lyavlyakan [Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975, p. 233 and following; Matyushenko, 1975, p. 137]. There are other, more opaque connections. On the Tashkovo II settlement, fragments of ceramics used as scrapers have been found. These are known 210 in the Eneolithic cultures of the Near East, Central Asia and the Caucasus [Shamanev, 1998; Shamanaev, Ziryanova, 1998, p. 199]. Such parallels are indispensable for identifying the direction of the process, which might, furthermore have been multipartite. Perhaps, its full historical reconstruction is a work for the future. However, even in the form formulated here, it corresponds to the anthropological situation in the south of Western Siberia. The European component was present here for a long time, as far back as the Neolithic. However, a second wave of population of Eastern Mediterranean type has been identified, which is comparable with the Central Asian craniological series and, in particular, with that from the Tulkhar cemetery [Dryomov, 1988, pp. 40-43]. There are two types in the anthropological material of SeimaTurbino sites: Mediterranean, and mixed, with a touch of Mongoloid features. Indeed, in the east, the men fall into the first type, the women into the second [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 252, 253; Kiriushin, 1987, p. 116]. The Mongoloid component with mixed features can be compared with the anthropological material from Glazkovskaya burials, whose skulls show similar features [Khlobistin, 1987, p. 330]. Perhaps the occurrence of Mongoloid features among skulls of the Timber-Grave population in the north of the Volga forest-steppe was connected with the westward penetration of these groups [Shevchenko, 1986, pp. 196, 197]. A theory of more ancient Mongoloid features in the population in the north of Eastern Europe has not been confirmed [Gokhman, 1986]. Thus, in the cultural genesis in Western Siberia at the beginning of the Bronze Age, there were three main elements. The local component is presented by quite miscellaneous substrata: bearers of the combed-pitted, combed and linear-stabbed ornamental traditions [Kosarev, 1981, pp. 75,76]. Anthropologically, this component has European features. Another component was the Glazkovskaya culture tribes of the Baikal region. They already had Mongoloid features, but mixed with appreciable European components. The third component is the least clear culturally. Its roots are in northern regions of Western Asia, and the migratory routes to the east pass through regions of the Southern Caspian and NorthEastern Iran into the Central Asian interfluve. The distribution of cordons on ware as well as crucible ore smelting provide probable confirmation of this route. Anthropologically, this component falls into the Eastern Mediterranean type. In Central Asia the appearance of this population is dated to the late 3 rd millennium BC. I do not eliminate an additional infiltration of some Near Eastern groups in the time directly prior to the formation of the Seima-Turbino set of bronze artefacts. An indication is that the most typologically similar knives are dated in Anatolia to the Late Bronze Age [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 53]. However, we have no right to think that these knives were introduced into Anatolia from Central Asia: in the former area these articles have both an old tradition and a line of development from more simple forms; in the latter they occur in a completely developed shape. Furthermore, the tradition of manufacturing spearheads with a cast socket occurs in the Near East no earlier than the 17 th century BC. The primary contact of these three components is barely confirmed archaeologically. Probably, the post-Afanasievo population also participated in the formation of the new culture. In the Altai, lateAfanasievo sites dated to the early 2nd millennium BC have been investigated. Ornamentation made by the technique of ‘stepping’ combed impressions, subsequently peculiar to Elunino and Krotovo complexes, is typical on the ceramics of these sites [Posrednikov, Cib, 1992, pp. 9, 10]. An explanation may be obtained from the analysis of Okunev material. Okunev features in the Rostovka cemetery have already been mentioned; however, comparisons of Okunev material with that of Krotovo from Sopka 2 are much wider [Molodin, 1988]. We can assume the infiltration of separate Near Eastern and Central Asian groups into the Baikal area. It is possible that the occurrence of metallurgy in the Glazkovskaya tribes was connected precisely with this – indeed, metallurgy founded on the use not just of pure copper but also of tin and arsenic bronzes [Khlobistin, 1987, p. 332]. The beginning of contacts with Western Siberian cultures is a little clearer, but not much. In Baraba, cordoned ware is found in a complex with ceramics of the Odino type [Molodin, 1985, pp. 2731]. At the same time metallurgy appeared here, marked both by metal artefacts and crucibles with low sides. A similar type of crucible subsequently became characteristic of all the cultures formed in Western Siberia and to the west of the Urals. It is much more likely that the process of consolidation of these groups in the Altai region was rather discontinuous. The migration westward started quite 211 soon – this is indicated by how easily distinguished are the components participating in it. The further process and courses of these migrations have been described in detail [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 269-277]. Part of the collective settled on the Middle Irtish. In the regions of the Ishim and Tobol the route started to deviate north. In the previous period, the population on the Ishim left ceramics of Vishnyovka type [Zdanovich, 1973, pp. 21-24; Tatarintseva, 1984]. Chronologically it preceded Krotovo, although it has so many features in common with it that the question of their genetic connection has been raised [Stefanova, 1988, p. 72]. Perhaps, the Sintashta people’s expansion eastward forced the Vishnyovka people to move into the Irtish region. For this reason the migrating wave passed north of the Tobol and Ishim, which were subject to this expansion, and is found in the Tyumen area of the Tobol basin. In the forest zone of both the Transurals and the Tobol basin, the Eneolithic is represented by the Lipchinskaya, Shapkul, Ayat and Andreevskaya cultures [Kosarev, 1981, pp. 43, 44, 49-53; Starkov, 1981, pp. 66-70]. Tashkovo levels in the Tobol basin cover Lipchinskaya, Shapkul and Andreevskaya materials. The Koptyaki and Andronovo levels lie above them [Kovalyova, 1988, p. 45]. In this connection, the Tashkovo culture itself can be viewed in this region as a temporary discontinuity of local traditions and lines of development, though Tashkovo decoration incorporated local ornamental tradition. The place of Tashkovo culture in the family of Western Siberian cultures is very disputable. On the one hand, there is a theory about its formation in the Tobol basin, dating from the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC, with the subsequent formation of Krotovo culture under its influence [Kovalyova, 1988, pp. 45, 46]. On this basis, Tashkovo II is seen as quite an early settlement. On the other hand, the parallels between Tashkovo and Krotovo and connection of both with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon suggest a different line of connection, in which all these cultural formations can be viewed within the framework of a unified migratory process. As to Tashkovo II, this version is more than probable and the question is limited, in effect, to the interpretation of the early Tashkovo settlements. One thing is beyond doubt: the Tashkovo antiquities belong to the first half of the 2 nd millennium BC. This is pre-Andronovo. Indeed, Tashkovo set- tlements are certainly dated in part to the Seima period. Local cultural formations were their basis, and southern impulses exerted influence upon them. However, it is now difficult to say which features of Tashkovo culture were formed under the effect of the so far poorly recorded early southern impulses, and which through the penetration of Seima-Turbino populations. We are unable to reconstruct the forms of interactions between these different populations. Therefore, we can state only that this migratory process was more significant than it once seemed. After the infiltration of this stream into the forest zone of Eastern Europe, the contact of the Krotovo people with the late Garino population is found in the Kama region. As a result of further migration into the Middle Volga area, the Chirkovskaya culture formed, comparable with Krotovo in ceramics, habitation architecture and burial rite (Fig. 72). Alongside the Krotovo people, the Balanovo and, probably, late Volosovo populations participated in its formation. The ratio of these components differed from place to place [Epokha bronzi …, 1987, pp. 136139; Stavitskii, 1997]. Thus, the origin of Chirkovskaya culture was contemporary with the appearance of Seima-Turbino cemeteries west of the Urals. This time is also the upper limit of the Balanovo tribes’ existence, which is consistent with the pre-Seima nature of Balanovo metalworking [Chernikh, 1966, pp. 73-77; 1970, pp. 107, 108]. But, here again, as in the case of Tashkovo culture, an earlier start to the formation of Chirkovskaya antiquities is possible, as a tendency to rethink its dating has recently revealed. However, the close interaction of people of Chirkovskaya culture with Seima-Turbino tribes seems to me beyond doubt. From the Middle Volga some of the migrants penetrated the Lake Onega area. It is much more likely that this group had lived for some time in the Volga region, where the typical range of SeimaTurbino flint and metal is accompanied not by cordoned jars deriving not from those of Krotovo culture but from Chirkovskaya pots with a vertical rim inheriting Balanovo ceramic traditions [Oshibkina, 1987, pp. 148, 149; Oshibkina, 1984]. This last circumstance emphasises yet one more connection of Seima-Turbino metal with the Chirkovskaya-Krotovo-Tashkovo-Elunino cultural bloc. Anther group penetrated into the Eastern Baltic – Estonia and Southern Finland – where metal artefacts of Seima-Turbino type occur [Chernikh, 212 Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 16]. The separate collectives migrated southward and interacted with some population having close contacts with Mycenaean Greece, perhaps even with the Mycenaean Greeks themselves. This is marked by the nature of metal and other artefacts of the Borodino hoard in the North Pontic area, but not only by them. In Mycenae a socketed spearhead, with an eye on the socket for attachment, has been found. It can serve as testimony to earlier contacts with the Seima population [Schliemann, 1878, p. 320]. A celt from Kapulovka, a double-edged dagger and a cup of the Ust-Gayva type are rather similar to those in Seima-Turbino cemeteries too. Subsequently, spearheads with eyes reflecting post-Seima traditions of metalworking were diffused here. This evidence testifies to connections between the North-West Pontic area and areas to the east and north-east previous to the formation of the Noua and Sabatinovka cultures [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 176, 177; Leskov, 1967, figs. 17, 18]. With the further formation of the Ingul-Krasnomayatsk metallurgical centre in this area there was a change to the production, in the main, of articles having Balkan prototypes. However, without the influence from the Volga-Kama region it is difficult to imagine the distribution here of such categories of article as celts. It is also possible to assume that the occurrence of cordons below the rim in the Noua and Sabatinovka cultures was connected with this impulse too. Relief ornamentation was present in this zone earlier on ceramics of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. However, a cordon around the top of a vessel was not typical. In this case we have probably come across two organically similar traditions. An additional argument in favour of such an interpretation is that, in the Final Bronze Age, cordons were diffused on ware throughout the vast spaces of Eurasia from the Danube to the Altai and Central Asia. This has posed questions about the existence of a family of Cordoned Ware cultures and to link its origin to impulses from the North-West Pontic area [Chernikh, 1983]. However, the metalworking of the Sabatinovka culture had no noticeable effect further east. Just the reverse. Eastern metallurgical centres influenced a number of the common types of artefact of this family of cultures. On the other hand, at the very beginning of the Final Bronze Age, we observe a pressure of forest cultures southward, reflected particularly in the movement of the Mezhovskaya population. In the complicated formation of the Cordoned Ware cultural bloc, unity seems to have been provided by impulses from the northern forest-steppe and south of the forest zone. To the west of these areas, Seima-Turbino-type metalware is very much rarer. Nevertheless, the impulse given by this migration did not die away on the Dniester-Neman line: in the 16th – 15th centuries BC over the whole of Europe west of the Dnieper essential transformations took place, accompanied by the destruction of a whole array of European cultures. There are several cultures with barrow burials in this period in Central and Western Europe: the Tumulus culture in Central Europe, Rhône culture in South-Eastern France, Armorican culture in Brittany, Wessex culture in South-Eastern England [Mongeit, 1974, pp. 57-63, 109-112]. In these cultures the traditions we have observed in Eastern Europe in the previous period have been identified, much transformed: developed metalworking with the casting of celts, socketed spearheads, single-edged daggers with a curved back and cast hilt; vessels decorated with a cordon; sometimes, secondary burials and even pole fences encircling the grave pits, as in the Abashevo culture of the Middle Volga. A tendency to an increase in stone cists as well as in cremations in grave pits is observed, pointing to parallels with Fyodorovka culture. These changes were connected with the further percolation westward of the processes described. The Middle Bronze Age of Central and Western Europe commenced with the passage of the Seima-Turbino migration through this region, although such a migration had its beginning as long ago as the Early Bronze Age. It is necessary to issue a warning in order to prevent terminological confusion. The Middle Bronze Age of Central Europe corresponds to the Late Bronze Age in Eastern Europe. Generally, the Central European Bronze Age is considered to begin after the extinction of the Corded Ware cultures. This phase corresponds to Reinecke’s stage Br A. Within the framework of traditional chronology, this was dated to the period 1800-1500 BC, and within that of calibrated radiocarbon dates, its first phase (Br A1) is dated to the range 2300-2100 BC, and the second stage (Br A2) to 2100-1700 BC [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 67]. S. Gerloff adduces slightly different dates. She shows that calibrated radiocarbon dates of phase Br A1 show considerable dispersion within the range 213 3 1 2 7 4 5 6 10 11 12 9 8 13 14 15 Fig. 74. Unětice culture. 2400-1800 BC, giving most confidence to a range of 2200-2000 BC, which is contemporary with Sintashta culture. This phase corresponds to Early Bronze Age III in the Eastern Mediterranean, confirmed by the numerous imported necklaces from Central Europe found in this area. Thus, this period starts in the last quarter or last third of the 3rd millennium BC. Phase Br A2 falls into the period of the 18 th – 16th centuries BC. The stage Br A2/B1 is, as a whole, synchronous with early Mycenaean shaft tombs. In Switzerland, the Zürich-Mozartstrasse settlement, dated by means of dendrochronology to 1607-1504 BC, is connected with this transitional stage [Gerloff, 1993, pp. 66, 68-74, 80, 81]. It is possible that on the Middle Danube the Early Bronze Age starts somewhat earlier. However, its end completely corresponds to that of phase Br A2 [Schubert, 1974, p. 70]. The clearest phenomenon of this period was the Unětice culture, extending from the Danube up to Schleswig, including Bohemia and Western Poland (Fig. 74). It had been dated from 1900 to 1450 BC [Sarnowska, 1969, p. 121]; now, calibrated radiocarbon dating gives 2300-1800 BC [Sherratt, 1998, 214 p. 257]. The culture preceded the occurrence of Eastern European components in this area, but could be partly contemporary to them. In Unětician ceramics it is possible to find parallels to some of the ornamental motifs distributed in the subsequent period, in particular, horizontal rows of short incisions, incised lines, and cordons [Sarnowska, 1969, pp. 43-59]. However, the cordons could relate to the late stages of Unětician development and reflect contact with eastern components. Unětician metalworking is characterised by forms widespread in Central Europe: flat battle-axes with a triangular wedge and tube, flanged axes with massive edges, solid-hilted daggers, triangular daggers with a semicircular heel and rivet arrangement, massive necklaces and wrist-bands, spiral-shaped bracelets, finger rings and pendants (Fig. 74.1-10). The tin ligatures based on Bohemian tin deposits became widespread, which allowed more complicated shapes to be casted, in particular, solid hilts of daggers [Sarnowska, 1969, pp. 63-106; Sherratt, 1998, pp. 257-259]. These metalworking practices partly survived in Central Europe in the Middle Bronze Age, coexisting with those introduced from the east. It is much more likely that Unětician culture largely inherited the traditions of the Bell-Beaker culture, but the influence of Carpatho-Danubian cultures is possible. In the previous period, the Nitra culture existed in Southern Slovakia and in parts of Hungary. It was already showing some components of subsequent Unětician metalworking: triangular daggers, rings, and pins [Schubert, 1974, pp. 15-18]. The end of the Unětician period is characterised by the spread of fortified settlements. This tradition was retained in Bohemia and Moravia in the subsequent Tumulus culture period. Important changes also took place in burial rites. Unětician burials were characterised by contracted inhumations on the side, in simple graves not covered with barrows. It is only right at the end of the Unětician epoch that large barrows and occasional cremations occur. However, these barrows were distinguished by their large size and magnificent burial rite. This situation was characteristic of a vast area, including Bohemia, Moravia, Saxony and Thuringia [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 36-43]. As a rule, this is a sign of new populations with whom elite burials appeared. However, these changes happened later. The regions developed by Unětician culture were, perhaps, poorly covered by Seima-Turbino migration, which passed somewhat to the south, through the Carpathians and Southern Germany. Earlier, the appearance of the first celts and socketed spearheads in the Carpathian basin had been dated to the 16th century BC and placed within the Middle Bronze Age in the chronology of Central Europe [Hänsel, 1968, p. 170]. Precise analogies to Seima-Turbino spearheads have been found in the Carpathians (for example, the Odaile-Podari hoard). In Seima-Turbino cemeteries themselves similar spearheads (fork-shaped with a short socket) are known only in Western Siberia [Kaiser, 1997, pp. 68-72]. This indicates the relative impetus of the movement of separate groups, while others might well stay many years in one place. At this time the Madjarovce culture formed in South-Western Slovakia, on the north bank of the Danube. Its rise is usually connected with western impulses. On the Nitriansky Hrádok settlement of this culture a Seima-Turbino spearhead with decorated socket has been uncovered1 (Fig. 75.2), also a Transylvanian axe of A. Mozsolics’s variant B. Similar spearheads are also found in Hungary, from the areas of distribution of the late Unětice and Otomani cultures [Schubert, 1974, pp. 23-26]. In the late Unětician Bullendorf hoard in Austria a socketed spearhead has been revealed [Schubert, 1974, Taf. 34.9]. We do not need to discuss metal import: it was locally produced. Casting moulds have been discovered amongst the finds [Rittershofer, 1984, p. 218; Neugebauer, 1994, Abb. 70.24]. On late Unětician sites finds of socketed arrowheads are also known [Rittershofer, 1984, p. 229]. Certain changes took place in this period in Hungary too. The early phase of the Otomani-Füsesabony culture corresponds to Mozsolics’s chronological horizon ‘Hajdusamson’, which is contemporary to P. Reinecke’s phase Br A2 and the Langquaid horizon in Bavaria [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 93]. This period is marked by the first occurrence of Seima-Turbino artefacts in Europe. The Hajdusamson horizon is dated within traditional chronology to 1700-1500 BC, and by calibrated dates to 2100-1700 BC. Among the materials of this culture socketed spearheads are known [Kulturen der früh1 J. Lichardus and J. Vladar relate this settlement to the horizon 7 suggested by them for the Carpathians, which corresponds to the beginning of the Br A3 phase [Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, pp. 29, 30]. This phase probably corresponds chronologically to the late stage of Br A2 in terms of the German sequence. 215 1 3 4 5 2 8 7 9 6 10 11 12 Fig. 75. Bronze artefacts of the Langquaid horizon: 1 – Flonheim; 2 – Nitriansky Hrádok; 3-4 – Rederzhausen; 5-12 – Langquaid. 216 2 1 4 3 5 Fig. 76. End of the Early Bronze Age in the Alpine region. bronzezeit …, 1984, Taf. LXVIII, 4]. The occurrence of fortified settlements was another new development. On the Otomani II settlement homes were packed rather densely together [Mongeit, 1974, pp. 52, 80, 86; Boroffka, 1995a]. However, it is possible that these fortifications had local roots, and that their building simply reflects the beginning of an unstable period caused entirely by infiltrations of eastern components. On cheek-pieces and metal artefacts, Mycenaean decoration occurs, which was earlier seen as a form of connection with Mycenaean shaft tombs [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 101]. Similar decorations are known also on objects from the Borodino hoard, indicating the synchronism of these phenomena. Within Germany the earliest traditions of SeimaTurbino metalworking appear in the south. In the Br A1 phase the Central European Unětician tradition of metalworking was widespread here. The first objects made in the Seima tradition occur in the Br A2 phase, reflected by material from the Langquaid hoard in Bavaria, in which a spearhead with a decorated socket has been uncovered (Fig. 75.5) [Stein, 1979, Taf. 33.9; Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 49, fig. 18]. A similar chance find was made at Flonheim (Fig. 75.1) [Gebers, 1978, Taf. 72.2]. Two spearheads of this type were found in the Rederzhausen hoard (Fig. 75.3,4) [Müller-Karpe, 1980, Taf. 310 H]. This period in Southern Germany is characterised by the presence of such a component as Strau- bing, as well as the strong influence of Unětice culture (Fig. 148.7-16). In Hesse the first stage of the Bronze Age (phase Br A1) is represented by the Adlerberg group (Fig. 148.17-29), which was formed on the basis of Bell-Beaker culture, but we shall discuss the possibilities of earlier eastern impulses into this area further. The situation changed sharply in the following period (phase Br A2), when tin bronzes and other types of artefact similar to those in the Unětice culture of Central Europe appeared. We should note that copper-tin alloys were widely diffused over Europe for the period corresponding to the end of phase Br A1 and the beginning of phase Br A2 [Gerloff, 1993, p. 83]. In Hesse the occurrence of these bronzes is contemporary with the Langquaid hoard in Bavaria [Jockenhövel, 1990a, pp. 197-199]. Finds from this time are rather rare, which indicates a certain amount of destruction in this area. There is, probably, one more testimony to the invasion of Central Europe by the Seima-Turbino peoples. On Bronze Age settlements in Saxony, burials are known of skulls and pieces of bones showing signs of cannibalism. Unfortunately, the publication does not define more exactly to which period these finds relate [Grimm, 1997]. In particular, many similar finds have been made in Slovakia, on settlements of the Veterov, Madjarovce and Otomani cultures. They are known on Unětice settlements very rarely. Often, traces of scraping and incisions are visible 217 5 2 9 7 8 4 6 1 10 11 3 Fig. 77. Seima-Turbino traditions in Northern France. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Essone; 3 – Mulan; 6, 11 – Tiais; 9 – Paris; 10 – Butini. on bones, and the cooking of body parts is not excluded. Sometimes there are pieces of skull. A ceremonial mask found on the Nitriansky Hrádok settlement, made from the front of a skull, is especially interesting [Furmanek, Jakab, 1997]. It should be noted that the distribution here of bronzes of SeimaTurbino type is dated exactly to this time and found on settlements of this group. The connection of such rituals with these cultural groups can be demonstrated also by an example from South-Western Poland, where, at the end of phase Br A2, the Nowa Gerekwia Group occurs, whose formation is usually connected with the abovementioned cultural developments in Slovakia. At this time both fortified settlements and burials on settlements appeared here. Very often there are separate human bones, especially skulls and pieces of skull. It was uncharacteristic of Unětice culture and is subsequently absent from Trzciniec culture. This picture is repeated again in Lausitz culture. Often there are skulls and bones, frequently dumped in a pit on the fortified settlements, showing signs of cannibalism. In addition, these hillforts bear traces of attacks and destruction. From this the conclusion has been drawn that these customs were typical not of the local population but of the newcomers [Gedl, Szybowicz, 1997]. Thus, populations practising similar rituals had appeared in this area again. These processes also diffused to the south, but originally with limited intensity. 218 The beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Switzerland is not quite clear because there is a definite gap with the previous cultural tradition. The former Corded Ware culture, which, pursuant to Central European chronology is regarded as Late Neolithic, coexisted, probably for a long time, with cultural developments of the Early Bronze Age. Two EBA phases have been determined here: early and late, corresponding to phases Br A1 and Br A2 in Central Europe. Objects made of pure copper characterise the metalwork of the first phase, but in the second, tin bronzes diffused through the area [Strahm, 1971, pp. 5-8]. The forms of artefact are similar to Unětician ones in Central Europe, therefore influence from this region is quite possible [Strahm, 1971, Abb. 12.2-4, Abb. 17.1-7; LichardusItten, 1971, Abb. 2, 3, 5]. The burial rite is characterised by inhumations contracted on the side and skeletons extended on the back, sometimes in stone boxes. Cremations are not known at this time [Mottier, 1971, pp. 145-148]. There is cordoned ware in the Early Bronze Age in Switzerland (Fig. 76.4,5). The cordons are horizontal and vertical. Sometimes decoration in the form of a zigzag made by applied cordons is present [Strahm, 1971, Abb. 12, 15; Lichardus-Itten, 1971, Abb. 5. 12-15]. The shape of these cordons is closer to those in Multi-Cordoned Ware culture than to those on ceramics of cultures of the Seima-Turbino circle. However, the influence of the Seima population starts to be felt in this area in the Early Bronze Age. It is possible to see this, for example, with the discovery of a socketed spearhead with SeimaTurbino decoration (Fig. 76.3) [Strahm, 1971, Abb. 17. 14]. A similar alternation of originally Unětician effects and then Seima ones is rather typical for most of Europe. It is possible that this arose from the displacement of a part of the Unětician population as a result of eastern expansion. In determining more exactly when Seima bronzes occurred in Central Europe, we must consider J.-W. Neugebauer’s chronological analyses [Neugebauer, 1991, pp. 50-53, Abb. 9, 10]. As Reinecke’s phases each cover a considerable time-span, they have been subdivided. Phase Br A2 consists of subphases Br A2a-c. The Langquaid hoard corresponds to sub-phase Br A2b. To the same phase are dated late Unětician complexes and the early stage of Veterov culture. On the western Danube at this time the Unterwölbing group developed into Gemeinle- barn III. The calibrated radiocarbon dates for sites of Veterov culture of this stage fall between 1900 and 1750 BC. Fundamental cultural transformations took place also in Northern France, demonstrated most visually by the hoards of the Parisian basin (Fig. 77). At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age the same set of artefacts was diffused here: socketed spearheads, celts, single-edged daggers with a curved back, fluted gouges [Mohen, 1977; Gaucher, 1981]. Typologically, the spearheads of this area are closer to articles of so-called ‘Eurasian’ types, formed in the early 16th century BC (in traditional chronology) on the basis of Seima, than to Seima artefacts proper. There are decorations with Seima parallels on the sockets of some spearheads. Some spearheads have eyes in the socket for attachment to the shaft. This also finds parallels in the east. In addition, in Europe a transformation is observed: the displacement of eyes to the heel of the blade, characteristic of later spearheads. The mechanism of these migratory processes was much more complex than the simple movement of a population from east to west. Most visually it shows itself in Britain, isolated from the continent by the Channel – a baffle to those background noises unavoidable in the analysis of other European materials. In continental Europe, alongside the usual transformation caused by the coming of a foreign component and its interplay with the local substratum, the processes of cultural genesis was complicated by a composite system of interactions of various cultural developments and local migrations in different directions. In Britain this took place too, but it is much easier to define the basic processes. Some complexity is introduced by various traditions, which we have traced back in Eastern Europe, being present in the Late Bronze Age cultures of Britain, where they had old roots. As one feature identifying the movement of eastern tribes, I have mentioned above the occurrence of burials under barrows. In England, long and round barrows were well known since 2500-1500 BC. Concentric fortifications, so-called ‘henges’ were widespread too. Best known is Stonehenge. These are mainly cultic installations, but it is possible to derive from them the subsequent tradition of building fortified settlements of circlular plan. This cultural tradition may be traced back to Neolithic times, and falls into the megalithic culture widespread in many other coastal parts of Western and Northern Europe. 219 5 6 7 4 8 3 2 12 1 10 11 13 9 15 16 14 17 Fig. 78. Wessex Kulture. 1 – Totland; 2 – Arreton Down; 3, 6, 8 – Ebnal; 4 – Akeley; 5 – Wangford; 7 – Hartington; 9, 16 – Harlyn Bay; 10 – Darowen; 11 – Amesbury; 12 – Beedon; 13 – Stanton Harcourt; 14 – Farway; 15 – Kervellerin; 17 – Mottistone. In the early 2nd millennium BC, Bell-Beaker culture was diffused in Britain through migrations from the continent. There are metal artefacts; collared and cordoned jars appeared; burials under barrows continued (or there was a secondary appearance of this rite despite a similar local tradition). Under the barrows, stone cists have been found; the rite combined inhumation and cremation [Megaw, Simpson, 1979, pp. 178, 189; Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 253]. The full transition to cremation happened much later – in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC [Darvill, 1987, pp. 117, 118]. The appearance of this culture was connected, apparently, with the distribution of the Corded Ware cultures of Northern Europe, but such features as cremation, cists and cordoned ware were not characteristic of them. Thus, in Britain there is the earliest appearance of those features which later, in the 16th – 15th centuries BC, become characteristic of many cultures of the Eurasian continent; and they occur independently. 220 In the period under consideration, Wessex culture formed in South-Eastern England, whose appearance was something of a break with the traditions of the Bell-Beaker culture. A. Sherratt interprets the formation of Wessex culture as a further development of those social relations which had arisen after the appearance of Bell-Beaker culture, and had stimulated the appearance of rich burials in large prestigious burial chambers [Sherratt, 1998, pp. 254, 255]. However, the studies of S. Gerloff indicate the existence of a vast system of communication with distant areas in the east. Chronologically, the formation of Wessex culture corresponds to the processes described here. During the early phase, Wessex I (Bush-barrow), the culture was closely connected with the Unětice culture of Central Europe, as well as with Brittany. Most obviously this may be demonstrated by the distribution of Armorico-British triangular daggers. However, the early phase already had some parallels with Mycenaean shaft tombs, which indicates that its start could be close in time to them, although early Mycenaen corresponds as a whole to the end of the late part of Wessex I. The gold articles have parallels on the continent at the end of phase Br A1, but principally in Br A2. Biconical cups distributed in England are similar to continental cups Br A2, and from this time tin bronzes typical of Central Europe diffused [Gerloff, 1975, pp. 196, 244; 1993, pp. 75, 78]. Furthermore, a number of features of the previous Bell-Beaker culture persist, in particular in ceramics. This confirms the broad participation of a local substratum in the formation of Wessex culture, whose early phase should be seen as the outcome of the effect of a Central European population on the local substratum. The continental influence was sharply intensified in the second phase of Wessex I (CamertonSnowshill), when groups of elite burials appeared. At this time socketed spearheads and the first fluted gouges started to be diffused in Britain as well as on the continent. A number of parallels are observed with the cultures of Switzerland and the Mycenae, and with the Tumulus culture of Germany. This phase of Wessex may be synchronised quite confidently with the period from Br A2/B1 to the beginning of phase Br C inclusive. Female ornaments have parallels with those of the period Late Helladik I-IIa in Greece, which corresponds to the 16th – 15th centuries BC. A similar outcome is provided by calibrated radiocarbon dating: 1600-1265 BC. The occurrence of biconical urns often decorated with an applied cordon, identical to continental ware, is worth mentioning. However, in Britain they start to be used for burying cremated remains. In the preceding stage different urns were used for burial [Gerloff, 1975, pp. 214, 232-234, 237, 238, 244; 1993, p. 78]. S. Gerloff links the formation of the second phase of the culture with the coming of a continental population with close connections with the Mediterranean world, stimulated by the enormous transformation accompanying the distribution of new types of weapons and fortified settlements which had resulted in the rise of the Middle Bronze Age in Europe [Gerloff, 1975, pp. 242-246]. A further paradox is that Wessex biconical cups also have parallels in the North Pontic area, in the ceramics of the late Catacomb and Multi-Cordoned Ware cultures (Fig. 78.12,13) [Gerloff, 1975, pl. 48. C.1, 49. A.2]. This could indicate a rather distant penetration of this component. Spearheads with a flat stem, on whose end a hole for a rivet attachment is present, are the main type for this period (Fig. 78.1) [Needkam, 1979]. The appearance of socketed spearheads belongs, as a whole, to the Middle Bronze Age, but the first examples are dated to the end of the Early Bronze Age [Ehrenberg, 1977, fig. 2]. Among them occur examples the shape of whose blade is similar to that of early stemmed spearheads (Fig. 78.2) [Needkam, 1979, fig. 1.5.45, 1.9]. This may be evidence of cultural developments of both the Early and Middle Bronze Age coexisting for a while. Essential changes in metalworking occurred in the Middle Bronze Age [Megaw, Simpson, 1979, p. 207], of which the appearance of arrowheads looking back to Seima-Turbino forms is of most interest to us. They have a cast elongated round socket, a wide long blade, and a round or rhombic socketshank. On the socket there are eyes for attachment (Fig. 78.3,4). Some sockets are ornamented with triangles or zigzags which correspond closely to Seima tradition [Ehrenberg, 1977]. Middle Bronze Age hoards also contain celts with a side eye [Farley, 1979]. In addition to objects linked with SeimaTurbino metalworking, metal of Central European origin occurs in the Wessex complexes, in particular, pins of Unětician types [Megaw, Simpson, 1979, p. 227]. All these types indicate that a population carrying with it the traditions of Seima-Turbino metalworking penetrated Britain at the end of the Early Bronze 221 Age, and, apparently, coexisted for rather a long time with the local population. The presence of Unětician objects opens the possibility that a Central European population was involved in these processes. It is possible that it was precisely the Unětician complex which promoted the formation of the first stage of Wessex culture. Its movement to the west was stimulated, perhaps, by the Seima-Turbino onslaught. The formation of the second Wessex phase was connected with the coming of Seima-Turbino populations, although the features of their culture had been transformed in Central Europe. It is less certain that a Sintashta-Abashevo component also participated in such distant migrations. In Northern and Central Europe its participation may probably be seen in the occurrence of graves enclosed by a circle of stakes, which we have discussed above. The possibility to discuss the problem is given by ware of ‘Food Vessel’ type distributed in both Northern England and Ireland, and characterised by its angular form, outcurved rim and internal rib under the rim – some of these shapes have rather close associations with Sintashta and Multi-Cordoned Ware ceramics [Gibson, 1978, fig. 11:4] – whose appearance is usually dated to the 16th century BC, although radiocarbon analyses suggest earlier dating (from the 18th century BC) [Gibson, 1978, p. 45]. (This, however, corresponds to the common Eurasian situation, for radiocarbon dates almost everywhere are earlier than traditional ones, as we have already mentioned repeatedly.) Nevertheless, in Britain these processes followed the same course as in continental Europe, but proceeded with noticeable delay, and, in the case of this ware, it is difficult to speak about eastern connections: although individual aspects are similar, nothing has been found which fully conforms, either metal or cordoned ceramics. Thus, the re-formation of cultures in Central and Western Europe was connected with impulses from the east. Neither the traditions of metalworking nor ceramic production of the Chirkovskaya-TashkovoKrotovo-Elunino cultural bloc are present here in a pure form. In Eastern Europe they were affected by the inclusion of Corded Ware and post-Corded Ware cultures in the re-formation process. The participation in the following cultural genesis of the Abashevo population, above all Abashevo people of the Middle Volga, is quite possible too. The infiltration of migrating groups into Central and Western Europe did not result in the immediate replacement of the indigenous populations. Process- es of assimilation stretched for 50-100 years, marked by the duration of the late phases of the Unětice as well as the Otomani-Füsesabony culture [Mongeit, 1974, pp. 52, 86]. The local population was not annihilated. They remained, step-by-step adopting the language of the newcomers. A rather sensitive indicator of this is metalwork. In the preceding period European metalworking had no features comparable with the Seima-Turbino tradition [see Junghans et al., 1968]; with the appearance of eastern migrants these traditions were diffused everywhere. However, they did not displace pre-existing types of artefact, or did so but incompletely. Sometimes it is possible to see the formation of syncretic types inheriting both local and Seima-Turbino features. Nevertheless, the new cultural formations are quite a contrast with what had gone before. In the North-West Pontic area the changes are not so striking. Despite the undoubted appearance here of a foreign component, the Balkan-Carpathian tradition nevertheless remained dominant. 2.4. The ethnic content of cultural transformations in Northern Eurasia The enormous changes that enveloped the vast areas of Eurasia as a result of the Seima-Turbino migration must have been influenced by essential changes in the ethnic structure of this part of the continent. However, the ethnos of bearers of the Seima-Turbino traditions still remains unclear. Scholars assume that they were Indo-European, Uralic or Altaic [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1990, p. 139; 1994, p. 29]. As I indicated in the introduction to this book, ethnic and cultural processes do not fully coincide with one another. Cultural genesis in the northern forest-steppe as well as in the south of the forest zone of Eurasia was characterised by contacts of very different cultural components, which were formed in three remote areas of Asia. The interpretation of that particular process is possible only at a rather hypothetical level. Therefore, attempts at similar reconstructions should start from a determination of the ethnos of the initial components. 222 Identifying the local components is somewhat easier. Starting probably from the Mesolithic, movements of populations from the Aral region reached the Urals. Sometimes scholars connect this invasion with proto-Finno-Ugrians. The cultural and linguistic differentiation of these groups resulted in the formation in the Western Urals, Transurals and Western Siberia of three large ethno-cultural areas. Scholars connect the combed ceramic tradition, represented in the Western Urals by the Garino and Volosovo tribes, with the beginnings of the formation of the proto-Finns. The combed tradition in the Transurals and Western Siberia marks the formation of Ugrian tribes; the combed-pitted tradition that of the Samodian. The latter start to form to the west of the Urals, then displace into the eastern slopes and into Western Siberia, settling, predominantly, in taiga regions [Kosarev, 1987, pp. 314-316]. This allows us to regard the people of the Kelteminar culture as proto-Finno-Ugrian. This hypothesis has not yet been properly developed, but its foundations seem correct and settling the linguistic identity of the area’s separate cultures can be subject only to corrections in detail. Thus, in Western Siberia a predominantly Ugrian population participated. The Samodian component comes through as much weaker and shows itself only in the forest part of the Tyumen basin and, to a greater degree, in the Konda basin. There is, however, a view that there had been a proto-Indo-Iranian component in the Transurals since the Neolithic, brought to light by the occurrence of sites of Koshkino and Boborikino types that fall outside the local line of development and were linked with more southern terrains [Kovalyova, Chairkina, 1991, pp. 51, 52; Kovalyova, 1993]. Ceramics similar to those in the Boborikino culture, occur in the Northern Caspian area from the early to the late Neolithic [Vasiliev et al., 1993, p. 23]. But there is no basis to connect this with Indo-Iranians, although the Indo-European identity of the populations leaving these ceramics should not be excluded. However, there is a considerable chronological gap between these cultures and the events described, and tracing their derivations down to the Bronze Age is very problematic. In the Transural forest-steppe the migrants had rather occasional contacts, whose intensity should not be overestimated, with the Iranian-speaking Sintashta tribes. In the Western Urals and the Volga region the language situation was much more complex. Popu- lations speaking Finno-Ugrian languages lived there, but alongside them were other tribes who made contact with newcomers too. First of all, there were the Abashevo people, probably in large part Indo-European. A Baltic identity is supposed for the Balanovo people [Bader, Khalikov, 1987, p. 84; Kraynov, 1987a, p. 75], with whom a rather close interplay took place, but there is no conclusive evidence of this. It would be possible to assume that they were IndoEuropeans, and we shall demonstrate that this was really so, but there is no hard evidence yet for the more precise determination of the place of the Fatyanovo, Balanovo and Corded Ware populations inside the Indo-European family. Finally, in this region the interplay with the Iranian tribes of the Southern Urals increased. Thus, in a most general way, we can describe the languages widespread to the west of the Urals in pre-Seima times as both Indo-European and Finno-Ugrian. The second component connected with the Glazkovskaya culture, probably spoke one of the Altaic languages that formed in Southern Siberia and Central Asia, although their primary origin could be related, apparently, to other regions. In Finno-Ugrian languages numerous Altaic borrowings are found, linked with metallurgy and horse breeding. This has caused it to be suggested that the language of the Seima-Turbino tribes was Altaic [Khalikov, 1991]. There is no doubt that the connections of the UralAltaic languages are a very difficult problem – linguists see them as an outcome of either contacts or shared origins [Barta, 1985; Honti, 1985]. However, in this case, we will discuss just the borrowings, which are dated to the period of early metal. It is still not clear why the Glazkovskaya component should have been the conduit for metallurgical and horse-breeding terminology, which was not initially peculiar to it. There are several possible explanations. The first is that the bearers of metallurgical and cattle-breeding traditions were assimilated by people speaking one of the Altaic languages. However, this is improbable. Examples of the assimilation of more developed incomers by a local population are not rare but, as a rule, they are accompanied by the reorientation of the incomers to traditional local economic forms, which cannot be observed in this case [Kosarev, 1984, pp. 176-178]. In addition, we have already noted that the clear distinctiveness of the component parts of the migrating collective testifies to their low miscibility, certainly at the migratory stage. Therefore, some composite 223 model of association seems more likely when the Glazkovskaya population, which was closer to the Finno-Ugrian economic and cultural model, first made contact with the local populations. It is noticeable that no technical or economic terms were borrowed, but those of objects forming the focus of attention when hunting collectives meet more developed migrants, viz. ‘metal’ and ‘horse’. Within this framework the linguistic borrowings are more explicable. Finally, the possibility of the earlier acquaintance of the Baikal population with metallurgy and horse breeding through contacts with the Okunev population is not excluded, although there was no borrowing. There is further confirmation. Finno-UgrianAltaic lexical isoglosses covering metallurgical terminology [see Khalikov, 1991] go back, finally, to Indo-European languages. This offers two interpretations: the appearance of such terms in Finno-Ugrian languages resulted from contacts either with IndoEuropeans or with Altaic-speaking people who received their metallurgical terminology from one of the Indo-European language. This problem demands more careful linguistic study. As regards the horsebreeding lexicon, there are similar borrowings from Turkic languages in Russian: ‘loshad’. This borrowing is interpreted as quite late [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 556]. Nevertheless, the Glazkovskaya component is rather strongly pronounced in the Seima-Turbino complexes and genetically it was not connected with Indo-European cultures. Therefore, there is quite a high probability that this population spoke an Altaic language. The third component is the most difficult to comprehend. On the one hand, it shows immediate Near Eastern features clearly pronounced. On the other, it includes the same features, but mediated by the cultures of Central Asia. The latter is less visible and indirect. The situation is complicated also by the alien Near Eastern component having made contact in the Sayan and Altai regions with a local substratum also connected genetically with Western Asia. A significant number of common features with Sintashta culture suggest, as an initial impression, an Indo-Iranian identity to this component, which does not contradict its Near Eastern origin. Numerous borrowings in Finno-Ugrian languages from Indo-Iranian also testify to this [Kuzmina, 1994, pp. 248-253]. We now have evidence of the use of battle chariots in all areas developed by Indo-Aryan tribes; its complete absence in Seima-Turbino materials shows that these collectives were not Aryan. An early exodus from the primary homeland, when chariots were still not widespread, could explain this – most probably the 3rd millennium BC, when rather primitive chariots occur but only in Mesopotamia [Gorelik, 1988] and, apparently, North-Eastern Iran. Therefore, it would be more logical to correlate the features of the Indo-Iranian component with those which occur in Central Asia in the late 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC. The presence of Indo-Aryans in Central Asia in this period opens up the possibility that some peripheral Indo-Aryan groups were involved in the subsequent migration, but there is no firm basis for this. We can speak of Bishkent culture as Indo-Aryan, of Zaman-Baba as Indo-European (most likely, Indo-Aryan) and about the Sumbar culture and Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex as Iranian. But any facts to indicate the linguistic identity of the people of either the Suyargan or Lyavlyakan cultures are wanting. It is possible only to remark their rather archaic features and connections (probably indirect) with Western Asia. The former population of the Sayan-Altai region played a small role in cultural genesis. Okunev features occur in the ceramics of the Rostovka cemetery. It is also possible to relate contracted-on-theback burials to them. In Elunino ware may be traced traditions of the late Afanasievo ceramics of the Altai. Our ideas about the latest Near Eastern complex are most unclear. Many of the details given above allow surmise. First of all, there is the character of metalworking and the similarity of Near Eastern spearheads and daggers to those in SeimaTurbino cemeteries. We could accept that this similarity arose independently, but the specificity of the blades and hilts of the daggers, as well as the design of the sockets of spearheads, are contrary to this. These features mark the appearance of a new Near Eastern group overlapping the former wave. The part these waves played in the subsequent cultural genesis is not quite clear, but it is likely that the majority of traditions on which the conclusion about a Near Eastern component was drawn (metal, round plans of settlements, fortifications, cordoned ware, arrowheads of Seima type, etc.), were introduced by the second wave. This is the most probable solution, although we could always hypothesise about the earlier existence of circular settlements and other features in the Central Asian interfluve, whose ab- 224 sence is to be explained by the nature of the sites of this zone, which are situated on eroded dunes. However, such an assumption cannot be a base for further study, but we should keep it in mind. This complicates the understanding of ethnic processes in Northern Eurasia. Because of this the basic means of determining the ethnos of a complex is bronzes of Seima-Turbino type. They go back, as we have already mentioned, to Near Eastern prototypes. Further, they are diffused over Northern Eurasia from the Sayan to the Irtish. To the west two main zones of concentration are found: the Kama basin and the Middle Volga. Samus-Kizhirovo types, which are derivative of Seima-Turbino artefacts, spread north from the Seima area in the Ob and Irtish basins. Karasuk culture bronzes have a certain typological affinity with those from Seima-Turbino sites, although there is no basis to see in this a genetic connection. Karasuk artefacts are later diffused, predominantly within Southern Siberia and Western Mongolia, reaching the Amur river, and Northern China. In the literature a comparison has been made of the areas of distribution of Karasuk culture and Ket place-names [Chlenova, 1975]. Ket or, rather, Yenisei languages also show affinity with Sino-Tibetan and North Caucasian (Hurrian, Hattic, NakhDagestan, Urartian) languages, leading conclusions to be drawn about their connections [Starostin, 1982]. Their homeland could have been the Near East, whence proto-Yenisei and proto-Sino-Tibetan groups migrated eastwards. The Sino-Tibetan migration happened perhaps quite early. At any rate, in the Austronesian languages of Eastern Asia, saturated with Sino-Tibetan borrowings, none is linked with either metallurgy or ceramic production [Peyros, 1988, p. 331]. The migrations of the proto-Yenisei people happened later, the regions covered by them marked by river-names, deriving from both the Hurrian and Yenisei languages: the Kama basin, the interfluve of the Ishim and Irtish, such tributaries of the Ob as the Vasyugan, Ket’, and Chulim, the Altai and Sayan, Abakan, Selenga, the Amur basin and Kamchatka [Maloletko, 1989]. Thus, we can see an almost complete coincidence with the geographical range of Seima-Turbino, Samus-Kizhirovo and Karasuk bronzes. The exceptions are Kamchatka, where similar bronzes have not been found, and the Middle Volga, where proto-Yenisei river-names have not been identified. During future studies such rivernames may well be revealed there. But meanwhile we should rest on the absence of such facts. As regards Kamchatka, there are two explanations: the low level of archaeological investigation or the considerable transformation of the culture of the migrants, except, of course, their language. Nevertheless, the geographical coincidence supports the hypothesis of the proto-Yenisei identity of the Near Eastern component which had appeared in Western Siberia at the end of the Middle Bronze Age – start of the Late Bronze Age. In many respects this also removes the problem mentioned earlier of the resemblance of Karasuk and Luristan bronzes [Novgorodova, 1989, pp. 126-128; Chlenova, 1972, pp. 131-135; 1974]. Probably, it could explain the presence in the Samus culture of a ceramic group whose production process cannot be derived from Western Siberian traditions: the preparation of its clay compounds was based on mixing different kinds of clays, a feature of the pottery of more advanced regions, for example, the south of Central Asia [Glushkov, 1990, p. 64]. It is possible also to show parallels between anthropomorphic representations on Samus ceramics and Kura-Araxian ware [see Kosarev, 1981; Munchaev, 1987; Studzitskaya, 1987; Glushkov, 1987]. There is one more relevant fact. Samus representations show stylistic analogies in the south of Central Asia as well as in the Near East; those enclosed by either an oval or a circle are especially interesting. Scholars have indicated a connection with the bronze stamp-seals distributed over the Near and Middle East in the early 2nd millennium BC. A sample of such a seal has been found in the Ob basin [Glushkov, 1987]. There are also theories about the comparability of the drawings of faces on Samus ceramics and on Okunev stelae [Vadetskaya, 1969]. This may be confirmed by a piece of an Okunev vessel with such a drawing found in Khakassia, in the Askiz cemetery [Pauls, 1997, p. 126, 127]. This affinity could have resulted from the participation of Okunev people in the formation of Samus culture, but it was most likely conditioned by common Near Eastern sources. There are various different views of this problem. In the Vasyugan basin, proper Hurrian rivernames are found. The discontinuance of local traditions occurred here only with the appearance of the Andronovo population. This has encouraged the supposition that Fyodorovka culture reflected different ethnic groups – the Fyodorovka people of this region have been identified as Kassite (originally) and 225 then Hurrian [Maloletko, 1988; 1989]. The subsequent expansion of Fyodorovka culture eastward also promoted expansion of Yenisei languages. A Chapter of this book is dedicated to the problems of Fyodorovka culture, and here I shall only remark that the terms ‘Andronovo-like’ and ‘Andronovo’ are not identical. Material from the Vasyugan basin relates predominantly to the Elovskaya culture, which is included in the circle of ‘Andronovo-like’ cultures, but in which, at the same time, Irmen-Karasuk features are clearly present [Kosarev, 1981, pp. 145161]. Another solution to the Near Eastern language presence in Western Siberia is grounded on evidence of Hurrian borrowings in the Yenisei languages, as well as on numerous parallels in the mythology of the Sumerians and the Selkup people [Gening, 1989]. Based on Sumerian use of figured stamps for decorating vessels, the Near Eastern impulse has been connected with Western Siberian complexes of ware with figured-stamped decoration. This seems to me very debatable for three reasons, at least. In the first place, such a significant ethno-cultural reconstruction cannot be made based on only one feature (in this case a type of stamp). It is possible to cite a great number of examples of the spontaneous formation of similar features in quite distant areas independent from each other. Secondly, the periodic appearance of complexes with figured-stamped ware in the southern taiga and forest-steppe of Western Siberia is usually regarded as a sign of the coming of a population from the northern taiga. Notwithstanding these objections, there could be some truth to this approach. Some of the abovementioned Siberian complexes could really have been subjected to Near Eastern influence, albeit indirect. The stand on Sumerian mythology as well as Sumerian ceramic traditions implies, rather, the migration of Sumerians. However, by the Late Bronze Age Sumerian was already a ‘dead’ language in Mesopotamia. It has nothing in common with either Hurrian or Yenisei, and is unconnected with any known language. Nevertheless, the mythological scenes cited are very valuable. For example, they can be extended by the myths about the Deluge at the Ugrians of the Ob [Mifi …, 1988, p. 567]. However, many Near Eastern peoples experienced the influence of Sumerian mythology. Hurrians were no exception [Mifi …, 1988, p. 608]. This reduces the possibility of a connection of figured-stamped ware with the Near East and, accordingly, with the distri- bution of the Yenisei languages. Eventually, Yenisei languages fell into one macro-family with Hurrian, and in this case we may discuss later contact of Hurrian with a related language, as well as its early alliance with the Yenisei languages. Therefore, the problem is the appropriateness of defining these river-names as Hurrian. Thus, the problem of the appearance of these languages is rather complex. It can be of interest for us only with regard to its connection to the rise of Northern Eurasian cultures at the start of the Late Bronze Age. First of all, we should note that the presence of place-names of any ethnos does not always enable real comparisons with a particular archaeological culture, and identifies only the presence of a particular ethnos in a given area. Place-names tend to be dated badly and could be left by bearers of a similar dialect but different archaeological culture at a different time. North Caucasian languages were formed quite early, in the late 6th – early 5th millennium BC, and by the early 2nd millennium BC they were already highly differentiated [Starostin, 1988, p. 154]. Therefore, the process of the formation of Yenisei languages had to be connected to events of an earlier time. This conflicts with the hypothesis, debated above, that the Yenisei languages formed in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, in the time of the Karasuk culture. I have assumed a Near Eastern impulse in this culture’s formation, but other ethnic groups could have been its bearers, most probably Indo-Iranians. The following supports such a hypothesis: resemblance of Karasuk and Luristan bronzes; intensive use of chariots by the Karasuk people, absent in Seima-Turbino complexes; affinity of Scythian with previous Near Eastern and Southern Siberian materials; prevalence of Iranian river-names in Southern Siberia [Chlenova, 1984]. This last reduces the weight of arguments in favour of the IndoIranian identity of the Fyodorovka people: apparently, these river-names were left by the Karasuk populations. These problems will be discussed below in more detail. As regards Hurrian river-names, whose occurrence does not contradict events of the 2 nd millennium BC, they have been found only in the Ob basin. Their appearance may be compared to later processes linked with the rise of the Elovskaya culture. The exodus from the Near East of the groups who left proto-Yenisei river-names had to have taken place earlier. It is also impossible to exclude migra- 226 tory waves at different times. Very early occurrences of southern populations in the forest zone of the Transurals and Western Siberia are found in the form of peoples with traditions of incised-stabbed decoration of ceramics [Volkov, 1999, p. 21; Kosinskaya, 1999]. This ware is not uniform and was left by different groups of people. In the Transural Neolithic two basic groups existed: Koshkino and Boborikino. Both, in the opinion of the majority of scholars, had southern origins, but if Koshkino ceramics show analogies in the Eastern Caspian area, Boborikino has parallels in the Seroglazovo culture of the Northern Caspian. In the Transurals the Koshkino tradition occurs first, followed by the Boborikino population [Kovalyova, Ziryanova, 1998, pp. 168, 176]. Moreover, the Boborikino ceramic complex has a certain affinity with Shulaveri-Shomutepe ware. V.T. Kovalyova has demonstrated connections of Boborikino ceramics with the Neolithic ware of the Nizhnyaya Shilovka settlement on the East Pontic littoral [Kovalyova, 1999, p. 26]. In my opinion, this difference is not particularly important, and these parallels indicate the Transcaucasian–Near Eastern region as a whole, for the abovementioned Caucasian cultural formations arose as a result of impulses from the south. There is probably a chronological break before the onset of Boborikino culture; however, the dating is very unstable, based on but a single radiocarbon date (mid-4th millennium BC [Kovalyova, 1999, p. 26]), which is understandable in light of the poor stratigraphy of Transural sites and the isolation of Boborikino material from the other Neolithic complexes in this zone [Kovalyova, 1986, p. 26]. However, since Boborikino culture preceded the Lipchinskaya, Shapkul and Andreevskaya materials, which are dated to the early 3rd millennium BC, and in view of its later chronological position relative to the Koshkino type, dated to the 5th millennium BC, a date within the 4th millennium BC is quite probable [Ziryanova, 1999; Kovalyova, 1999, p. 26]. Nevertheless, study of the Near Eastern connections of Boborikino culture seems to be required. Indirect migrations into the Transurals from some southern area during the Neolithic may be confirmed by the discovery of ware of Koksharovo-Yuryino type with applied zoomorphic decorations, found in sites called conditionally ‘Tells’. Recent excavations have also revealed ceramics of Basyanovo type, which can be regarded as a forest variant of the forest-steppe Boborikino culture [Kovalyova, Artefiev, 1993; Shorin, 1998; 1999a]. The function of the sites is not yet clear. Scholars have surmised that they were cultic sites, but these are not really characteristic of Northern Eurasia [Shorin, Baranov, 1999, p. 50]. Therefore, it is impossible to exclude a connection with the genesis of the proto-Yenisei people and of other ethnic groups; in particular, a possible connection with proto-Indo-Europeans has been suggested [Shorin, 1998, p. 136], indicated by ceramics excavated in Northern Mesopotamia in the settlement of Tellul eth-Thalathat in levels of the Hassuna period. These ceramics have figured appliqués traditional for this cultural circle, as well as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic appliqués below the rim, identical to those in the Transurals [Fukai, Matsutani, 1981, pl. 35.1; 36.17,18; 37.12]. Nevertheless, Boborikino culture and materials of the Koksharovo-Yuryino type are a rather local phenomenon, limited to the Middle Transurals. Furthermore, they underwent no development in the Eneolithic period. Another complex obviously alien to the forest zone is the Lipchinskaya culture of the Transurals, dated to the 3rd millennium BC. However, it does not spread beyond the area and it has no prolongation in other cultural formations. Furthermore, the presence in its ceramics of the false corded technique of decoration and Catacomb-like ornamental motifs, and also of hollow-based flint arrowheads on sites with Lipchinskaya levels, excludes a protoNorth Caucasian identity for this culture, but can explain Finno-Ugrian contacts with Indo-Aryans, which are fixed by linguistic evidence. It should be noted that Indo-Aryan borrowings, dated to the 3 rd millennium BC, have been reconstructed for the proto-Finno-Ugrian language, whose disintegration took place no later than 2500 BC [Parpola, 1988, p. 201; Lelekov, 1982, p. 34]. This corresponds to the appearance of the Lipchinskaya culture and the start of its contacts with the Ayat culture in the Transurals in the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC. The formation was on a local base, but scholars have assumed that southern steppe impulses reinforced it. The Lipchinskaya people started to interact quite strongly with the Ayat population, who had the local roots [Shorin, 1995, pp. 32, 38]. In this case, we can regard Ayat culture as the starting point for FinnoUgrian cultures and to connect with its derivatives further expansion of the Finno-Ugrians. It is necessary to search for the roots of Lipchinskaya culture in the South-Eastern Caspian area, where Indo-Aryans settled in the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC. 227 I know of no other possibilities for Indo-Aryan contact with Finno-Ugrians. Contacts between the Catacomb cultures and the forest world have been not found. Furthermore, these cultures are dated later than the proto-Finno-Ugrian language. From all the evidence, it is clear that the expansion of the people speaking proto-Yenisei dialects everywhere from the Kama to Western Siberia could have taken place only at the end of the Middle Bronze Age – beginning of the Late Bronze Age, which was contemporary with the formation of the SeimaTurbino phenomenon. However, there is no reason based upon the linguistic arguments about the considerable differentiation of North Caucasian dialects at the beginning of the second quarter of the 2 nd millennium BC, to connect this expansion with the component that migrated from the Near East directly beforehand. Furthermore, proto-Yenisei river-names are not found on the Middle Volga, where the migrants were clearly present, nor to the west. To the east of the Urals, in Western and Eastern Siberia, complexes of the 4th – 3rd millennia BC comparable with Near Eastern materials are absent, even very much transformed. The exception is the Neolithic of the Amur basin and the Bronze Age complexes subsequently formed in this area. It is possible to relate features interest to us: cordoned ware, applied zoomorphic decoration, anthropomorphic painting on ceramics and, finally, the round plan of the Valentin Peresheek settlement, which is identical to the structure of the Tashkovo II settlement. However, there is no point seeking 2nd millennium influences, as all these features had appeared already in the 3rd millennium BC [Andreeva Zh, 1987, pp. 352-358; Valentin Peresheek …, 1987, pp. 3443; Khlobistin, 1996, pp. 310-325]. Probably, these sites explain the presence of proto-Yenisei rivernames here. Thus, as the generator of the whole process, the people speaking proto-Yenisei dialects in the Western Urals and Western Siberia should have had more archaic features than the group coming from the Near East in the 2nd millennium BC. They should be localised along the route taken by these second wave migrants between the Near East and the Altai. The southern Central Asian region and, above all, the Lyavlyakan culture of the Central Asian interfluve, match these conditions. However, this culture is rather poorly reflected in material from Western Siberia. There are two possible explanations. The first supposes that the only contact of the migrants with it took place in Central Asia, but this is contradicted by the abundance of proto-Yenisei river-names in Western Siberia and the Kama basin. Therefore, it is better to stay with the second version, which implies the involvement of proto-Yenisei tribes in the migratory process. For reasons that remain unclear, there was quite full cultural and, subsequently, linguistic assimilation, which left only a muted echo of some aspects of their culture in subsequent cultural formations. Such an assimilation to the same degree did not occur with the bearers of Glazkovskaya culture. Why was this? Perhaps, they were more adapted to life in that particular ecological niche, where this phenomenon developed, and thereby succeeded in retaining many cultural features. Let us return to the ethnicity of the culture which started the whole process by saying what it was not. As demonstrated above, we should exclude North Caucasians. Even more categorically, I exclude Semites or Kartvelians, linguistic evidence for whose presence in Western Siberia is completely missing. The typological likeness with Sintashta allows us to guess that they were Indo-Europeans. It is impossible to be more precise within the limits of archaeological methodology. The situation may be explained by comparing the picture reconstructed from archaeological material with that from linguistic evidence. From this we can say with near certainly that tribes speaking ancient European dialects were the main generators of the migratory process described. 1 1 The scheme suggested in this book is close to the theory of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov, who located the IndoEuropean homeland in the Near East, and I would like to emphasise the independence of my work. What follows has to demonstrate the objectivity (insofar as one can use the word in respect of scientific research) of the scheme developed. In a number of cases it is possible to illustrate a patricular idea (be it true or false, it matters not) with actual material, even to substantiate it statistically. This is done without malice, and flows, basically, from scientific practice. It was not the original object of this work to confirm the linguistic theory mentioned above, and, at first, I was sceptical about localising all IndoEuropeans in the Near East, as my preliminary publication [Grigoriev, 1996a] reflects. I was inclined to identify the movement of the Seima-Turbino populations originally with Iranian, and then with Hurrian migrations, but a number of paradoxes confused me. The impulses from the Volga-Kama region into Central and Western Europe caused me to reconsider my attitude to the works of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. The comparison has surprised me: it has revealed resemblances in detail not just in general. Always believing comparative linguistics to be one of the most complex and advanced discipline, I did not realise its capabilities. 228 Now it is rather difficult to define precisely the initial localisation of the ancient Europeans. It is very likely that they were settled within an area which was isolated from other Indo-European groups. The most plausible region of their primary localisation is the valleys of the mountain systems bordering on the east with Lake Urmia. Certainly, the region should be determined more precisely, resting on materials of North-Western Iran. In the 17th century BC the people speaking ancient European dialects started their movement eastward. (This date is in traditional system; the radiocarbon date would to be much earlier.) The migratory stream moved along the southern outcrops of the mountain ridges of the Elburs and Kopet Dag without any contacts with the Western Iranian ethnos, which appeared about this time in the South-Eastern Caspian area. Why there were none is not clear. There are two possible explanations: separation by mountain ranges, or the later beginnings of the Western Iranian formation. Moving further east, ancient Europeans reached Bactria, where, by this time, the Iranian culture represented by the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex had already been formed. Contacts with it were very short and are practically unreflected in the archaeological material.1 Much more likely, they were limIn conclusion, I would like to express my pleasure at the scientific accomplishment of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov; especially when their theory was almost buried by the debate it fomented. Therefore, I shall be glad if my unassuming efforts contribute to this theory taking its proper place. I want to emphasise again that what I have done is not an attempt to put myself on a level with these outstanding scholars, or to claim a solution to either the question of the Indo-European homeland or the problem of Indo-European migrations. The priority of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov in this is indisputable. My work has not introduced any fundamental changes. Strange to say, it is pleasant to feel this. In the following pages the reconstruction of the ethno-cultural process from archaeological evidence is given in the text; the parallels from the linguistic reconstruction are placed in the notes. The quotations are translated from Russian into English from the article by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov ‘Migrations of tribes, bearers of Indo-European dialects, from the initial territory in the Near East to historical places of their habitation in Eurasia’, VDI, 1981, 2. We shall not attach importance to distinctions in the definition of archaeological cultures involved in this process, as the common direction of the processes is more important. 1 ‘The word could have penetrated into Indo-European dialects from Semitic as far back as the time of their residence within the Near East, and into Eastern Iranian already from these dialects.... The discovery of the word in the Pamirian tongues can indicate the great antiquity of contacts between “ancient European” and ited to attempted attacks on Iranian towns, unsuccessful in outcome. This conclusion can be drawn from the absence of traces of destruction and from the discovery of arrowheads of ‘Seima’ type – although the latter could have belonged to the local population. The Iranians had also migrated into this area from the Near East, therefore some types of artefact could be identical. The Iranian barrier prevented the ancient Europeans from making their way north-east, into the valleys of Tajikistan settled by the Indo-Aryan population that has left cemeteries of the Bishkent and Vakhsh types (Tulkhar, Tigrovaya Balka etc.). The way northward, where the Iranian culture of Sapalli type had formed, was barred too; the road west by the Karakum desert. Thus, there was only one way: to cross the Amu-Darya, then across the Karshinskaya steppe to reach the Zerafshan and appear on the border of Kyzylkum. Much more likely, there was a contact with proto-Yenisei tribes, who are represented here by material of the Early Bronze Age culture of Lyavlyakan.2 Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence does not allow us to quantify the forms and degree of these contacts. The presence of ancient Europeans in the Central Asian interfluve is very poorly marked – by the only tanged arrowhead found on one of the Lyavlyakan sites and by inclusions of Lyavlyakan materials in Western Siberian sites. This points to a short stay by the migrants in this area, which is readily explained by the developing deser-tification of the Kyzylkum in this period: there was no point in lingering here. Iranian dialects in Central Asia’ (p. 29). A brief comment is called for. In my opinion, it is possible that a small number of Eastern Iranian languages, in particular Pamir, formed later, as a result of the infiltration of tribes who had settled the steppe zone, because they contain a limited number of Finno-Ugrian inclusions. Therefore, such contacts could also take place to the north. 2 ‘... there are also borrowings from ancient European dialects into the languages of Central Asia such as the Yenisei languages, evidence of whose presence up to the late 1 st millennium BC is found in place-names over a considerable part of the territory of Central Asia. Therefore, tribes who moved into Central Asia should have made contact with Yenisei people’ (p. 26). In this case I doubt the possibility of the presence of proto-Yenisei tribes in this area even up to the late 2nd millennium BC, because of the appearances here of the Alakul and then Sargari populations from the steppe zone. Evidence of contacts of these peoples with the local population is lacking. Similarly, if we assume that the Suyargan people in the Aral area spoke proto-Yenisei too, they should have been assimilated in this period by Iranians, represented here by the Timber-Grave culture, which resulted in the Tazabagyab culture forming. 229 Some of the local populations were included in the further migration, indicated above all by the coincidence of areas of proto-Yenisei river-names and Seima-Turbino bronzes. In this case it is even possible to say that we are dealing neither with an attendant migration nor with the ousting of this population northward, which is hardly probable in itself. Proto-Yenisei tribes were included in the migratory process as a component. Furthermore, on Northern Eurasian sites we discover not only Lyavlyakan ornaments but also arrowheads. The proportion of these arrowheads on sites hardly differs; the greatest quantity is contained in settlements and cemeteries of the Middle Irtish and Baraba. Apparently, a large section of the protoYenisei tribes remained in the Middle Irtish basin, subsequently diffusing over Siberia, and only some of them participated in the next migrations, and then just as far as the Kama region, where they were finally assimilated. From the Central Asian interfluve the stream of migrants passed along the northern slopes of the Tien Shan. This was the only possible course of further movement, through a rather narrow corridor, restricted on the south by the Tien Shan mountain system, and on the north by the Kyzylkum and Betpak-Dala deserts and the Southern Balkhash area. Having traversed this corridor, the migrants crossed the Tarbagatay mountain ridge and appeared on the Upper Irtish, on the borders of the SayanAltai mountain area. Thus, a description of the route makes understandable the impetuous nature of the migration of this, formerly the least mobile group of the IndoEuropeans. Almost all of it passes between mountains and deserts, and other populations either held or barred the way to those places suited to settlement. This occasioned the rapid movement of a large number of people over a distance of some thousands of kilometres and their unexpected appearance on the borders of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Therefore, it cannot be excluded at all that ancient Europeans appeared at some time in the Altai, where they were much more likely to stay for a long time. This new location was extremely successful. The Altai is rich with copper-ore fields; the mountain ridges Kalba and Narim abounded with tin. The last circumstance played a considerable part in ensuing developments in Eurasia. It was in this region that specifically Seima-Turbino metalworking finally came about. Before the arrival of the ancient Europeans, the Altai was inhabited by people of the Afanasievo culture. The identity of Afanasievo and Pit-Grave cultures casts no doubt upon the former’s Indo-European nature. This has allowed Afanasievo culture to be linked with the Tocharians and to explain, thereby, the historically known presence of Tocharians in both Eastern Turkestan and Sinkiang [Semyonov, 1987; Danilenko, 1974, p. 138]. This conclusion is basically correct, but it needs a little refining. Now, it has been demonstrated above that Afanasievo culture is not seen as something uniform, and a whole series of late Afanasievo sites has been investigated, yielding inflated bomb-shaped ceramics. These are similar to some late Pit-Grave vessels of the Western Urals and the Northern Caspian. Distant comparisons are possible with some Novotitarovo ware. This allows us to extrapolate a connection of the Tocharians with some late Pit-Grave complexes. It seems to be necessary to consider the earlier Afanasievo and Pit-Grave complexes as Indo-Iranian. The presence of Indo-Iranian inclusions in the Finno-Ugrian lexicon [Abaev, 1981] allows us to speak about the Aryan identity of both the Pit-Grave and Afanasievo peoples. In this case, the Tocharian component came into a region settled by an Indo-Iranian substratum. There is, however, also the possibility of identifying Okunev culture with the Tocharians. Linguistic studies demonstrate the differentiation of the Tocharians within the Near East, where they are mentioned in written sources under the names ‘Gutians’ and ‘Tukri’. This corresponds to their self-names, as well as the ‘Kushi’ of the Tocharian texts and the ‘Tochar’ of the Indian ones [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989, pp. 15, 16]. The Gutians should be identified with a country called Gutium, known from the Mesopotamian sources, situated between Elam and Subartu (Subir). The most likely location of Gutian is, in the 3rd millennium BC, the region of the Lesser Zab river, and, by the early 2nd millennium BC, the Lake Urmia region. The Tukri lived, apparently, in the region bordering Zagros on the east [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989, pp. 15, 16, 18, 23; Yusifov, 1987, p. 19; Potts, 1994, pp. 26, 27]. It is possible that this displacement of the Tocharians to the north was caused by the campaigns of Naram Sin. The Tocharian migration into Southern Siberia and Central Asia might have been connected with this too, which allows more precise dating of the early phases of Okunev culture within the parameters of traditional 230 chronology, but it is also possible that it was connected with the earlier campaign of Sargon in Gutium. As a result of migrating to Central Asia the Tocharians made contact with proto-Turks and protoUgrians [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989, pp. 26, 27].1 No appreciable interplay of ancient Europeans with Tocharians has been traced. Probably, the main body of Tocharians was displaced to Sinkiang, and a small part incorporated into the collectives of ancient Europeans and gradually assimilated. 2 After the start of the new migration to the west some of the Tocharians remained behind. A similar reconstruction is indicated by the parallels shown by the Sopka 2 cemetery with Okunev culture and, to a lesser extent, with Afanasievo culture. Some Okunev features are reflected in the ceramics of the Rostovka cemetery. Further to the west they are absent. Nevertheless, some Tocharian group could be involved in the migratory stream westward: in the languages of the Finno-Ugrian peoples there are Tocharian inclusions, some of which can be interpreted as Indo-European in general but others quite clearly correspond with the Tocharian dialects. These borrowings indicate that contacts took place in the period preceding the disintegration of Ugric unity, but after the isolation of early Permic dialects from the other Finno-Permic languages, which corresponds to the mid-2nd millennium BC to the early 1st millennium BC. These contacts involved practically all of the Uralic languages despite their disintegration, and terms connected with horse breeding and metallurgy were borrowed. This links the infiltration of the Tocharian lexicon into the Finno-Ugrian languages with the migration of the Seima-Turbino tribes [Napolskikh, 1994; 1997, p. 155]. However, it is impossible to connect the Seima-Turbino migration entirely with the Tocharians: in the Tarim basin Tocharians were to be found from the early 2nd millennium BC, and the described process began, as we have men1 ‘Tocharian dialects were, apparently, the first, earliest (preceding also Indo-Iranian migrations) wave directed eastward...’ (pp. 23, 24). Here we find a discrepancy too, as the archaeological reconstruction suggests an earlier occurrence of Aryans in this region. However, there is no firm basis for opinions about the language of the Pit-Grave population. It is more correct to consider them as Indo-Europeans. 2 ‘All these languages (ancient European – S.G.) show a number of lexical isoglosses that are common with Tocharian, which it is rather difficult to explain without an assumption of contacts, perhaps during joint migrations of these languages together with people who spoke the Tocharian language’ (p. 25). tioned, with migration from the Near East directly preceding the movement westward. Furthermore, although Finno-Ugrian borrowings from Tocharian clearly took place, they do not identify the direction of movement of the Tocharian population. Moreover, the Tocharian languages contain inclusions from the Finno-Ugrian languages, although on a very limited scale [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 936-938]. This would be impossible if the Tocharian migration were connected with the movement of the SeimaTurbino tribes. Therefore, it is more plausible to regard Okunev culture as Tocharian. I have already cited Devlet’s judgment that the semantics of Okunev representations are best explained as resting on Tibeto-Mongolian traditions [Devlet, 1997], and this reinforces the hypothesis about the Tocharian identity of Okunev culture. It cannot be excluded that the re-formation of Afanasievo culture in the Altai was accompanied by the distribution of the Tocharian language too. With the appearance of SeimaTurbino tribes in the Sayan-Altai area, their interaction with the Tocharians began. It is possible that in the second half of the 2 nd millennium BC some Tocharians penetrated into North-Eastern China, forming the Chao-dao-gou culture, which has rather early prototypes (late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC) in Iran and later in Seima-Turbino bronzes [Kovalyov, 1998]. Thus, Tocharian borrowings in Finno-Ugrian languages could be connected with the inclusion of bearers of the Okunev and late Afanasievo cultures in the Seima-Turbino migration, as well as with a primary Tocharian migration from the Near East into Central Asia. Now it is difficult to describe this migration precisely. On the face of it, it passed mainly through Iran and the south of Central Asia. In Sinkiang, Tocharian material in the Tarim basin has parallels with the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 157, 158]. Furthermore, pre-Seima metal penetrated into China, and is closer to Bactrian than to the metal of the Near East (see Chapter 5 in Part II), and a tendency for the technology of crucible ore smelting to be distributed into Central Asia by the southern route is to be observed. Moreover, rock drawings identical to those in Okunev culture are known in the Tien Shan. All this supports a southern path for Tocharian migration. However, the presence of Finno-Ugrian borrowings in Tocharian languages, albeit limited, points to a migration via Northern Eurasia – the numerous Eastern European inclusions in the Okunev culture 231 (see Section 1 of Chapter 2 in Part II) tend to support this. Indeed, if the migration took place in the 3rd millennium BC through Central Asia, FinnoUgrian tribes might remain there (Section 1 of Chapter 1 in Part III). Therefore, it is possible that one of the Tocharian groups (Gutians and Tukri) took the first route and the other the second. The Tocharians moving into Sinkiang are mentioned in Chinese sources as ‘Yueh-chih’. This has been substantiated, but only linguistically [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989, pp. 29-33]; however, it corresponds closely to historical realities. After the rout of 174 BC, a part of the Yueh-chih migrated into Central Asia and Bactria, where some small territorial groups formed which were soon integrated into the Kuchanian kingdom. As a result, the ancient name, Bactria, disappears from the written sources and the territory is called ‘Tocharistan’ [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989, pp. 30, 33; Drevneyshie gosudarstva …, 1985, pp. 206, 250, 251]. The conformity of this name and that of the kingdom to Tocharian ethnic names signifies the Tocharian identity of Kuchanians, the Yueh-chih and the correctness of the linguistic reconstruction relative to the Near Eastern Gutians and Tukri. After the ancient European populations settled in the Altai, a vast area of interaction (or sphere of influence) grew up, extending to the east into the Sayan and, probably, to the north-west along the Irtish river. In the east this brought contacts with the Mongoloid Glazkovskaya population, speakers of one of the Altaic languages. For some reason this population was included in the further migration, and its incorporation into the ancient European collectives probably happened quite late, directly before the beginning of the migratory process, without a prolonged joint occupancy of the Altai. Components of the Glazkovskaya complex have been traced rather clearly on sites up to the Middle Volga.1 It is possible that this population was the first to start riding on horseback, as the terminology passed into the European languages from some of those of the Altai at almost the same time as the appearance of riding in the steppe zone and the disappearance of chariots [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 554, 732]. However, as to the chronological coincidence, the first use of saddle-horses in battle was in the Near East, although 1 ‘Such an eastern path of migration of ancient Indo-European dialects explains some lexical connections of the western group of Indo-European languages with Altaic...’ (p. 26). the evidence of this is still rather limited. On a cylinder seal of the Gutian period what is assumed to be a horseman taking part in battle is depicted. It is possible to disagree with this interpretation, but on another drawing from Susa, which has been dated to the early 3rd millennium BC, warriors with horses are depicted quite clearly [Hood, 1979, p. 90]. Thus, there are many questions with this group of borrowings into ancient European languages; all the more so when it is remembered that the Glazkovskaya culture people were not horse breeders. In the 16th century BC, maybe somewhat earlier, the sudden migration of ancient Europeans westward began under the stimulus of the appearance of a new wave of Indo-European tribes, which had passed along the same steppe corridor used earlier by the first wave. The westward migration developed within the broad zone of the whole foreststeppe, including the south of the forest zone, with separate groups temporarily settling en route. One part passed along the Irtish and then along its western tributaries to reach the Western Urals: along the Konda to the Pechora, along the Tura, Pishma and Iset’ to the Kama and Volga; another through the southern forest-steppe into the region where the Sintashta fortified settlements were situated. Unlike the northern zone, settlement complexes of ancient Europeans have not been found here. We can observe evidence of the infiltration only in three spearheads found at Troitsk, Dzhetigara and in the Orenburg area [Maznichenko, 1985]. In this area the ancient Europeans came across the Iranian population of Sintashta culture. At that moment the processes working towards the disintegration of the Sintashta system (see Section 2 of Chapter 6 in Part I) showed their worth in full measure. However, it is impossible to imagine that inhabitants of Sintashta centres gave up the conventional system of life within the fortified settlements of their own free will, after mature reflection upon the existing situation. There is a basis for supposing that the arrival of the ancient Europeans delivered a fatal blow to the Sintashta system. The discovery of Seima-Turbino spearheads in this area establishes their presence. In chronological terms, the appearance of Seima-Turbino metalworking coincides with the end of the high Sintashta phase. The modus operandi of ancient Europeans in the Southern Transurals is indicated by the fact that all Sintashta settlements investigated perished by fire. Some scholars suppose that the inhabitants left of their own volition – most possessions had been taken 232 away. Others see behind all this some mysterious cultic action [Malyutina, 1999, p. 121]. Such an attitude to inexplicable phenomena is, in general, peculiar to archaeology. Similar explanations have been suggested also for the destruction of the Tashkovo settlements [Kovalyova, Ryzhkova, 1999, p. 219]. We shall try, however, to reconstruct the situation on a rational basis. At excavated Sintashta settlements traces of attack have been found. This is particularly well demonstrated, for example, by the materials of the Malokizilskoye settlement, where even full human skeletons have been found. Therefore, it is quite probable that the settlement was set on the fire either during or after its storming. The fires on other fortified settlements have two possible causes. The first is arson by the inhabitants, who fled the settlements for secure places because of the inroads of the enemy. The second is arson by the conquerors of the settlement, before moving further west: they may even have occupied the settlements for a time, but this is not reflected in the archaeological remains. It is impossible to invent any third cause when the traces of destruction are universal to all excavated settlements. The explanations clearly indicate an incursion. There is also no doubt that these conquerors were ancient Europeans: there are no other large movements of populations through steppe and forest-steppe Eurasia at this time. This southern migratory stream passes through the area of the Sintashta and Abashevo tribes and appears in the VolgaKama area, where it merges with those ancient Europeans who migrated through the forest zone. Thereafter we have the full right to call them already Europeans. They brought into the Volga-Kama area a great number of arsenic bronzes, obtained as trophies, which they used subsequently to manufacture their own articles. Some of the Abashevo people, and fewer of the Sintashta, were incorporated into their communities, taking, by all accounts, subordinate positions [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 274, 275]. The Iranians, who were situated to the south, soon recovered. The rehabilitation of settlements on the ruins of houses destroyed by the inroad began, but the processes of disintegration had entered a final phase. Contacts between Iranians and ancient Europeans were gradually adjusted. This is seen most clearly in the changes in metalworking stereotypes and the transition to the use of tin ligatures. Everywhere in the steppe and in the forest zone, the multicomponent alloy Cu+As+Sn was employed, probably testimony to stable contacts between the European and Indo-Iranian communities.1 It is much more likely that local contacts of ancient Europeans with Finno-Ugrians started in the Irtish basin, but they became most intense after the beginning of the migration to the west, especially with regard to those populations which moved through the forest zone.2 Originally, to the east of the Urals, Europeans had contacts with the protoUgrian population and, to a lesser extent, the protoSamodians. To the west, contacts with proto-Finnish tribes took place, possibly more intensive because the Europeans had long settled in the Volga-Kama basin, and some penetrated into the Pechora basin as well as into the area of Lake Onega. The separate migrating collectives forced their way further: into the North-West Pontic area, where their presence was extremely limited, and into the Eastern Baltic. Separate small-scale infiltrations further west cannot be excluded.3 The Europeans who had come into the VolgaKama area made contact with the descendants of the Indo-European populations which had appeared here very early – the bearers of the Balanovo culture – as well as with the Abashevo people of the Middle Volga. This consequence was to create the Volga-Kama area of ethnogenesis.4 Intensive inter1 ‘On the approaches to both the Pontic and Volga steppes, which were an area of concentration for Indo-European tribes going from the east, contacts with early Iranian dialects could happen also’ (p. 29). 2 ‘Apparently, the presence of Indo-European lexical borrowings in Finno-Ugrian, whose source was ancient European dialects, testifies to the migration of bearers of ancient European dialects westward through Central Asia’ (p. 26). 3 In this case I believe it indispensable to pay attention to the incompatibility of archaeological and linguistic reconstructions. On the basis of the localisation of ancient European river-names such as Soluchka, Salntas, Salontia, a stay by people who spoke ancient European dialects in the North Pontic area (p. 28) is supposed. There is a river-name of similar type - Solonchanka - also in the area of localisation of Sintashta culture. However, archaeological reconstruction does not assume a long term presence of ancient Europeans in either of these zones. 4 ‘The movement of ancient European dialects through Central Asia, with further orientation to the west of Eurasia, implemented, apparently, in the form of repeated migratory waves, flowing from the east to the west of Eurasia, where then these tribes settled and developed a certain common area. Newly arrived tribes joined those settled already within this territory, 233 action with the Timber-Grave tribes forming to the south ensued, and from here impulses westward started to be realised. Perhaps, these relations were not entirely peaceful, as the already mentioned materials of the Pepkino barrow belonging to Abashevo culture may indicate. With this conclusion we leave, for the time being, the movement of the ancient Europeans, to return to the Ural-Irtish interfluve and to consider what took place in this area at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. thus, a common intermediate area was forming Indo-European tribes for migrating from the east who later occupied more westerly areas of Europe. This common intermediate area becomes an area of contacts and secondary rapprochement of earlier Indo-European dialects already partly separated from each other’ (p. 27). S.G. - In this case too it is necessary to note the discrepancy of archaeological and linguistic reconstructions. Pursuant to the archaeological scheme, the migratory periods of the ancient Europeans were very short and could not result in the considerable separation and rapprochement of these dialects, all the more so since cultural differentiation between different groups does not happen. On the other hand, in the Volga-Kama region a considerable bloc of local Indo-European peoples participates in further ethnogenesis, but it is impossible to relate them to the ancient Europeans. 234 Chapter 3. Fyodorovka culture and its offspring 3.1. The origin and nature of Fyodorovka culture A new phenomenon in the history of steppe and forest-steppe Eurasia was the formation of the Fyodorovka culture (Figs. 79-83). In Part I we left this area, having described the appearance of the Alakul culture. Usually, together with Fyodorovka, it is interpreted within the framework of the Andronovo family of cultures or Andronovo culture, which determined the cultural face of the vastness of Eurasia in the Late Bronze Age. However, as will be demonstrated below, if syncretic contact types, which incorporated features of both Alakul and Fyodorovka cultures, are excluded from consideration, the ‘pure’ complexes show nothing in common. This not only undermines the question of the formation of Fyodorovka culture on the foundation of Alakul, but also casts doubt upon the appropriateness of discussing the existence of an Andronovo family of cultures [Bobrov, 1993; Grigoriev, 1999b; 2000]. For several decades the problem of the origins of Fyodorovka culture has been conditioned by the absence from Northern Eurasia of any cultures of the previous chronological horizon to which it would be possible to trace back features of Fyodorovka material culture. Eneolithic cultures of either the forest Transurals or Central Kazakhstan were suggested as such [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 118; Potyomkina, 1985, p. 273; Salnikov, 1965, p. 23], but there is no actual basis for this. It is also impossible to derive the Fyodorovka culture from Alakul. Thus, early forms of the culture are lacking. Taking into account that the region held by Fyodorovka culture is well investigated, this points to its formation having a migratory nature. Some scholars are inclined to think that this migration was from Kazakhstan (in general or its eastern part) [Tkachov A., 1999; Tkachova, 1999; Korochkova, 1999, p. 167]. Moving forward a few steps, I should note that relative to the Southern Transurals this is, perhaps, correct. Until recently, description of the characteristics of Fyodorovka culture has rested mainly upon burial complexes (Fig. 79.9-11). Fyodorovka burial sites are arranged under barrows and surrounded by either rectangular or round stone settings. Inside them soil extracted from graves is raised into semi-rectangular platforms. The walls of graves are lined by stone slabs or masonry in the manner of a cist. Graves (where they occur) are positioned not in circle, as in the Alakul and Sintashta cultures, but abreast. However, the clearest feature distinguishing the Fyodorovka from the Alakul burial rite, is the widespread occurrence of cremation. But there are fundamental differences in the territorial distribution of cremations. In the Transurals most burials are cremations; in Kazakhstan, cremations and inhumations are roughly comparable in number, probably reflecting more intensive contacts with Alakul populations; in Eastern Kazakhstan and the Khakassian-Minusa depression, the proportion of cremations is low, explained usually by the later date of this area’s sites. On the other hand, in the Transurals the replacement of rock by wood in the burial rite occurs more frequently [Kotelnikova, 1999]. The burials of cremated remains in very small round holes in ground were found in the cemetery of Pereyminski 3, in the Tobol area (Stefanov, Korochkova, 2000, p. 68-76). Usually archaeologists find Fyodorovo burials during excavation of burial mounds. Therefore, it is possible that this custom had been practised wider and such burials will be found. The set of sacrificial animals in Fyodorovka and Alakul cultures differs notably too. In the latter cattle bones predominate (hoofs and skulls), in continu- 235 6 5 4 3 7 2 1 8 9 10 11 Fig. 79. Fyodorovka culture. 1, 4, 5 – Pavlovka; 2 – Bierik-Kol; 3, 6 – Putilovskaya Zaimka; 7 – Alipkash; 8 – Sokolovka; 9 – 11 – Smolino. 236 ation of the Sintashta tradition; in the former, the ribs and scapulae of horses and sheep prevail [Kuzmina, 1973; 1975; 1994; Zdanovich, 1988; Salnikov, 1940; 1952; Grigoriev, 2000; Maximenkov, 1978]. Fyodorovka and Alakul sites of the Transurals show the most contrast; in Central Kazakhstan far less, because of the abundance of mixed and syncretic sites [Salnikov, 1952; Stokolos, 1968; Usmanova, 1987; Chindin, 1987]. Pre-Fyodorovka cremations in the Transurals are absent; in the forest-steppe area there are none amongst Eneolithic burials [Vokhmentsev, 1999]. There are only four in the taiga zone of the Transurals and Western Siberia (Barsov Gorodok II, Sosnoviy Ostrov culture and Volvoncha type); they are inhumations, but with charred bones. In the Early Bronze Age cremations occur in the Ekaterininka culture of the Middle Irtish basin [Shorin, 1999, pp. 19, 23; Ocherki kulturogeneza …, 1994, pp. 44, 51]. For neither the Sintashta nor Alakul cultures is cremation characteristic. Nor was it widespread over most of Eurasia, except in Central Europe and Transcaucasia. In the last area during the Middle Bronze Age, it was typical of the population that left the Trialeti culture sites [Dzhaparidze, 1994, pp. 81, 88; Kushnaryova, 1994, p. 98], and it is much more likely that the custom had local Transcaucasian roots, as the Kura-Araxian tribes also used it in the southeastern part of their distribution area [Munchaev, 1994, p. 35]. The earliest cases of cremation are found on the Yarim Tepe settlement, in levels of the Halaf period [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, pp. 198203]. Thus, in Transcaucasia and Northern Mesopotamia this custom existed for several millennia. In North-Western Iran cremations were very regular and were practised up to the early 1 st millennium BC (Hasanlu V) [Parpola, 1988, p. 244]. Hittite cremations dated to the 17th – 14th centuries BC are well known too. Outside Bogazköy (the Hittite capital Hatuša) a place has been revealed where bodies were cremated [Aksit, 1987, p. 59]. There are descriptions of the burial rites of Hittite kings. The king’s corpse was brought to the cremation site in a chariot. The next day the women gathered the cremated remains. Cremation was practised by Greeks, Celts and Romans (for whom it was regarded by Pliny as an innovation), but it was most typical of Balts, Slavs and Germans [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 826-829]. Other Indo-European groups utilized it too: Indo-Aryans, including those living in the Near East. The Mitannian king Paratarna, who reigned about 1500 BC, enjoined that he be cremated after his death [Hrouda, 1971, p. 180]. From the Middle Bronze Age, cremations in urns became rather typical in Western Anatolia too [Kull, 1988, pp. 44, 94]. In regions bordering Northern Mesopotamia, cists and stone grave-coverings are well known. In the Early and Middle Bronze Age cists of stone or clay blocks were characteristic within a very broad area from Central Anatolia to Northern Mesopotamia. They are known also to the south, but they are usually the least common type of burial [Alyokshin, 1986, pp. 84-91, 97, 100-102, 110, 111]. In Anatolia burials in cists, pits and vessels are present from the late 4th millennium BC [Alyokshin, 1986, pp. 85-97]. In Eastern Anatolia there are cists of adobe blocks (Koruçu Tepe), which, along with stone cists, are also known in Northern Mesopotamia (Tepe Gawra). Burials in cists were also extremely widespread in the Syrian Early Bronze Age [Alj-Najar, 1981, pp. 25, 28]. Burials in stone boxes have a lot of parallels in this area too. They are characteristic, in particular, of Kura-Araxian sites [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 66]. Fyodorovka settlements have not yet been studied in sufficient detail, but it is possible to assert that they were undefended. Fortified settlements are unknown. The only exception is the fortified settlement of Barashki I on the Upper Irtish, where a double line of fortifications, which partitions off a cape, has been excavated [Tkachova, Tkachov, 1999]. Authentically detected Fyodorovka dwellings are not numerous and differ from Alakul dwellings [Salnikov, 1952; 1951; 1957; 1959; Grigoriev, 2000; Malyutina, 1990]. They are either surface post-hole constructions of rectangular (usually almost square) form (Kipel, Nizhnespasskoe, Novo-Burino, Bishkul IV, Buguli II), or pit-dwellings, whose posts served only as framework for partition walls and, probably, to support the roof (Miasskoe). The architecture of the Pavlovka settlement in the east of Central Kazakhstan, where many-roomed houses with infilled walls of vertical beams have been investigated, is worthy of comment (Fig. 79.1). It is supposed that they were two-storied. This tradition is absolutely alien to steppe Eurasia. At the same time, on Pavlovka and some other settlements, there are features showing undoubted parallels in southern Eurasian cultures from Transcaucasia to the south of Central Asia [Malyutina, 1990, pp. 104, 105, 110-116; 1991, pp. 151-157]. It is possible to relate to them portable 237 Fig. 80. Fyodorovka dwellings. clay hearths with a cylindrical base,1 clay lining of walls, fireplaces near walls, wells, large storage pits with cupolas, and burials of people and animal on settlements. Some of these features are known also in Sintashta materials, but this does not exclude their independent appearance in Fyodorovka culture. Fyodorovka ceramics consist of several types, of which grave ware is best known. It comprises profiled pots with slipped surface and geometric decorations executed usually by combed impression (Fig. 82.1-8). A number of technological features differentiate Fyodorovka ceramics from Alakul ware. As we remember, Alakul pottery inherited partly Sintashta and Petrovka traditions, with vessels formed from the bottom and the body then attached, whereas Fyodorovka potters first formed a hollow body and then attached a bottom to it. The glossing was made on an already dried surface, often between bands of ornament [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 115; Loman, 1995]. Prototypes are known in Sintashta materials, but are represented there by single vessels in the Sintashta and Bolshekaraganskiy cemeteries, as well 1 Various types of portable hearths or horned object were extremely widespread in Transcaucasia, Anatolia and Crete. However, they came into the last region from Anatolia [Diamant, Rutter, 1969]. as in the Abashevo culture cemeteries of Vlasovo and Nikiforovskoye Lestnichestvo (see Section 5 of Chapter 3 in Part I). Therefore it is unlikely that they formed the basis for a widespread ceramic type. At the same time, it causes us to search for a protoFyodorovka ceramic tradition in the Near East. As a matter of fact, attempts have already been made to link the ceramics of the Tagisken, Fyodorovka and Karasuk cultures with Transcaucasia [Gryaznov, 1966], and Fyodorovka ‘ceremonial’ ware with that of Central Asia in the Namazga VI period [Vinogradov et al., 1996, pp. 145, 146]. The last seems unlikely, although it has a certain foundation (see below). More fruitful is the first, suspecting the distribution of incised black-polished ware with white paste encrustation from Transcaucasia through Iran and Central Asia into Siberia. In a number of the cultures of this area such ceramics are really widespread; also known are such ornamental motifs as horizontal herringbone design, triangles, lozenges, meanders and swastikas. However, I know of no pottery where all these features come together to enable us to speak about ‘Fyodorovka style’. A very clear example is the 2 nd ceramic group of the Uzerliktepe settlement in Azerbaijan. It is black-polished ware, with a narrow bottom, smooth profiling 238 Fig. 81. Fyodorovka cremation burial. and a base. It is decorated by combed ornaments like Fyodorovka ware, although the ornamental scheme, close to the proto-Fyodorovka ceramics of Sintashta sites, is distinct from typical Fyodorovka ware [Kushnaryova, 1959, figs. 12, 13] (Fig. 85.6,7). In my opinion, in its classic state the ‘Fyodorovka style’ was elaborated in the Ural-Irtish interfluve. Initially, some other and simpler ornamental schemes were probably used. This is, perhaps, demonstrated by the nature of proto-Fyodorovka ornamentation of objects in the Sintashta complexes, as well as the early Fyodorovka ceramics of the Pavlovka settlement. Unlike the excavator of Pavlovka, I believe these materials are quite early. It should also be noted that the Pavlovka ceramic type, distinguished within the framework of Fyodorovka culture, carries the impress of developments in both Fyodorovka and southern pottery traditions [Malyutina, 1991]. It is possible that at least some Fyodorovka complexes of Eastern Kazakhstan and Central Asia were of early date as well – the comparative simplicity of the ornamental scheme is typical of them too. This does not exclude late Fyodorovka sites in this zone, in which mixed Fyodorovka-Alakul features are found [Mariashev, Goryachev, 1994], but an unornamented band on the neck cannot always be regarded as an Alakul feature – it is present in the already mentioned proto-Fyodorovka ware of Transcaucasia. Another relevant diagnostic type is Fyodorovka ceramic dishes of either oval or semi-rectangular (with curved corners) shape with high sides (Fig. 82.9). Similar ware had occurred in the Caucasus in the Eneolithic, for example in the materials of the Ginchi settlement [Gadzhiev, 1991, p. 74]. Indirect analogies are known in Transcaucasia on sites of the Karmirberd, Karmirvank and Trialeti cultures [Kushnaryova, 1994, tab. 30.22; 1994b, tab. 34.8; 1994c, tab. 42.17,18] (Fig. 85.4). However, for Fyodorovka oval (not rectangular) dishes, this parallel is quite acceptable (for example, for the dish from the Kinzerskoe cemetery [Salnikov, 1967, fig. 34.11]). Such ware was quite characteristic of Early Bronze Age sites in the Eastern Aegean and in Anatolia since the earliest phases of the Bronze Age. During excavation of Emporio on Samos, dishes with low sides were found in early levels dated to the Kum-Tepe period, as well as in later levels that are contemporary to Troy II and III [Hood, 1981, fig. 210, 241]. Similar forms have also been found on 239 3 2 1 6 5 4 9 8 7 11 10 12 13 Fig. 82. Ceramics of Fyodorovka culture. 1 – Kuropatkino; 2, 3 – Priplodniy Log; 4 – 6, 9 – Smolino; 7, 8 – Putilovskaya Zaimka; 10 – 13 – Pavlovka. 240 1 3 2 4 6 5 7 8 10 13 9 11 14 12 15 Fig. 83. Cordoned ware of Fyodorovka culture and its transformation into Mezhovskaya forms. 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14 – Kizilskoe; 2, 3, 7, 9 – U Spasskogo Mosta; 5, 6, 8, 12, 15 – Miasskoe. 241 the Demircihöyük settlement (Fig. 85.8,9) [Efe, 1988, Taf. 17. 6]. A very characteristic Fyodorovka type is the jar or pot with a cordon under the rim (Fig. 83). It is widespread on Fyodorovka sites in all regions [Malyutina, 1991, fig. 6.2; Grigoriev, 2000; Maximenkov, 1978, tab. XLIII, 13, XLVII, 5, XLVIII, 6; Chernikov, 1960, tab. XIX, 1, XXVIII, XXIX, XLI, 9-16,19-21, XLIII, 3 LV, 1; Gening, Stefanov, 1993, p. 78; Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983, p. 148; Stefanov, Stefanova, 1980, p. 130]. Analysis has shown that the earliest examples are large jars with applied or formed cordons, decorated with simple geometric ornaments and incisions. They differ only slightly from similar objects in Sintashta culture [Grigoriev, 2000]. They are known in but two areas – the Southern Transurals and Eastern Kazakhstan [Grigoriev, 2000; Chernikov, 1960, tab. XIX, 1, XXVIII, 18, XXIX, 9,11, LVI, 1]. By analogy with Sintashta ware, I am inclined to believe that this type was introduced from the Near East and Transcaucasia too, where jars with a cordon under the rim had been widespread since the Eneolithic. Further development is connected with the occurrence of ornamentation in the form of a horizontal herringbone design and a more profiled body [Grigoriev, 2000]. In this form the ware is known throughout the area of distribution of Fyodorovka culture [Stefanov, 1996, fig. 6.2,4; Krivtsova-Grakova, 1948, figs. 57.4,13, 58.1, 59.15, 17; Grigoriev, 2000; Gening, Stefanov, 1993, figs. 5.3-6, 7.2-6; Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983, fig. 1.9,11, p. 150; Stefanov, Stefanova, 1980, p. 130]. The presence of it in Fyodorovka complexes confirms that cordoned ware occurs before the formation of the socalled cultures of the Cordoned chronological horizon [Gening, Stefanov, 1993, p. 85]. Unfortunately, the presence of a cordon is often interpreted as sufficient on its own for the clear attribution of a complex to the Final Bronze Age. It is necessary to note that the cordoned ware of both Fyodorovka culture and the following ‘chronological horizon’ are often rather similar to one another. This concerns Central and Eastern Kazakhstan and the forest-steppe of the Southern Transurals [Salnikov, 1952, tab. XXIX, XXXI, XLII, XLIV, XLIX; Grigoriev, 2000; Chernikov, 1960, tab. XIX, XXVIII, XXIX, XLI, etc.], and testifies to Fyodorovka participation in their subsequent cultural genesis. We shall return to this problem below. In continuing the analysis of Fyodorovka ceramics, I must discuss one more group of ware: pots of Central Asian types, which occur on the Pavlovka settlement, the fortified settlement of Chernozerye I and some sites in the Transurals (Fig. 82.10-13). Usually, scholars connect them with the Central Asian ceramics of the Namazga VI period [Malyutina, 1991, pp. 155-157; Viktorov, Borzunov, 1974, fig. 2.2]. Comparisons with materials of the Sumbar culture of South-Western Turkmenistan seem to be quite pertinent too [Khlopin, 1983, tab. XXIV, 13, XXV, 13,16, XXXVII, 3, XXXVIII, 11]. They differ sharply from all other types of ceramics and are obviously an alien inclusion – one which indicates a possible migratory route. It is necessary also to mention a specific complex in the Chernozerye I cemetery on the Irtish (Fig. 84). For the most part, sites of the Chernozerye variant of the Andronovo family of cultures reflect contacts between Fyodorovka and Krotovo populations [Stefanov, Stefanova, 1980]. However, there is material in the cemetery unconnected with these cultures: jars with vertical handles (a tradition of southern origin) and vessels similar to those in Catacomb culture [Gening, Stefanova, 1994, fig. 2, fig. 22.142, fig. 25.160,2] (Fig. 84.9-11). The latter, on the face of it, blur the picture of migrations through Central Asia. However, it should be remembered that the Catacomb culture of Eastern Europe demonstrates a sharp break from the former Pit-Grave tradition, while in the South-Eastern Caspian and Northern Mesopotamia catacombs are known in very early times, and the beakers of the Donets Catacomb culture have parallels south of the Caucasus (see Section 9 of Chapter 3 in Part III). The direction of connections, detected on ceramics, is repeated with metal artefacts. Fyodorovka shaft-bushed axes with a massive cordoned back cannot be derived from Alakul metalworking. For this type of axe such a back has no functional use. In the Caucasus and Near East, cordons on the backs of axes are very common [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XIXXX; Mikeladze, 1994, tab. 17; Markovin, 1994, tab. 70; Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 6; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 172, 232]. Probably this tradition goes back to Near Eastern shaft-tube axes, where the cordons served to strengthen the edges of rather thin bushes. Most Fyodorovka ‘knives’ with a stop were not knives, but javelins or arrowheads (Figs. 79.4, 84.1). Many have a rhombic cross-section and thicken at the waist. If used as knives this would reduce the length of the functioning cutting edge and make them less effective, but if used as a thrust weapon, they 242 4 3 2 7 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 Fig. 84. Cemetery of Chernozerye I. would carry a larger load. This function may be demonstrated by an original spearhead from the Malokrasnoyarka settlement, to whose blade, standard for this type, a socket had been attached [Chernikov, 1960, p. 44]. Javelins and spearheads of the Sumbar culture in South-Western Turkmenistan provide a full analogy to this Fyodorovka type [Khlopin, 1983, fig. 17] (Fig. 85.2). Similar stemmed spearheads with a small stop are known also in Margiana, on sites of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex [Sarianidi, 1998, fig. 25.4]. They go back to spearheads and javelins with a stop, which were widespread in the Circumpontic zone. In South-Eastern Anatolia (Hassek Höyük) two such spearheads dated to the late 3rd millennium BC have been found – one in a stone cist with a skeleton contracted on its side [Behm-Blancke, 1984, Abb. 8.1,2, p. 52]. On the Arslantepe settlement similar spearheads are known, but of more graceful form than those in Fyodorovka culture [Palmieri, 1981, fig. 4]. Numer- ous variations of similar articles were rather widespread in Anatolia [Stronach, 1957, pp. 113-117]. I do not know a direct analogy to Fyodorovka daggers with a stop-guard and midrib (Fig. 79.3), however, in the Near East midribs on blades occur very early [Gorelik, 1993, tab. III-V]. Single-edged Fyodorovka knives with a curved back might derive from Seima-Turbino knives, but could also have been introduced from the Near East [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, fig. 7; Gorelik, 1993, tab. I]. In the Fyodorovka period the first few arrowheads with a forged socket occur (Fig. 79.2). Analogies are known in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. They are predominantly of Hittite date, but the earliest are found in the royal tombs of Ur [Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 17, 46-48a, p. 50]. A classic type of Fyodorovka ornament is the cast earring with a funnel (Figs. 79.8, 84.6). I know of no full analogies in other cultures. Of interest is the conclusion that cast earrings had chronological 243 5 3 1 4 2 6 7 8 9 Fig. 85. Analogies to Fyodorovka culture in the South-Eastern Caspian area and Transcaucasia. 1 – Kirovakan; 2, 4 – Sumbar cemetery; 3 – Gözlü Kale; 5 – Kizyl Vank; 6, 7 – Uzerliktepe; 8, 9 – Demircihöyük. priority relative to those formed from a sheet [Tkachov A., Tkachova, 1996]. Cast earrings from the Rostovka cemetery demonstrate a certain typological affinity: their ends are usually expanded, and one end of a large ring fits into the smaller end of another [Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, p. 81]. Cast gold earrings similar to those from Rostovka have been found in a cist of the Andronovo period in the MinShunkur cemetery within the foothills of the Jungar Alatau; also in one case cast figurines of horses executed in Seima-Turbino style are present [Akishev, 1992]. I doubt whether they were products of Fyodorovka metalworking, but they can be regarded as an important chronological sign of Fyodorovka culture. Nor do I exclude the possible comparison of Fyodorovka funnel earrings with cast earrings from the Sumbar cemetery, but in just a technological sense [Khlopin, 1983, fig. 17, tab. LV, 5,6]. There 244 are funnel earrings in South-Eastern Anatolia dated to Early Bronze Age II (Fig. 85.3), but I do not know what technology was used in their manufacture [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 289.12]. It is also possible to compare convex bronze plates from the Chernozerye I cemetery with material of the Sumbar cemetery [Khlopin, 1983, tab. XXIII, 8, L, 9,21-23, LII, 8,17,18; Gening, Stefanova, 1994, fig. 5,9,11,24] (Figs. 84.3,5, 85.4). Finally, a hook with a forged socket from the Pavlovka settlement is rather indicative [Zdanovich, 1988, tab. 10.15] (Fig. 79.5). Similar artefacts are not typical of Alakul culture but are extremely widespread in most cultures of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province (Fig. 85.1). In the Late Bronze Age similar objects are known in the North Pontic area in the Loboykovka hoard alone [Chernikh, 1976, tab. XXXII]. However, its clearly later date does not permit comparisons with the Pavlovka hook; furthermore, the latter has a more ‘graceful’ shape, which is more typical of Caucasian articles. Thus, Fyodorovka ceramics and metalworking have, as a whole, Circumpontic roots. In addition, there is a line of parallels with the south of Central Asia, which may indicate the area through which the migration was realised. The Fyodorovka burial rite and traditions of domestic architecture have southern parallels too. It is necessary to note that the distribution of Fyodorovka sites does not rigidly coincide with the territory of Alakul culture, extending only to Western and Southern Siberia. Fyodorovka culture is not present in Western Kazakhstan. However, even in the Southern Transurals, where there is a considerable concentration of objects of this culture, its sites are predominantly to the north of the River Uy, within the forest-steppe territory. Sites with mixed Fyodorovka-Alakul features are known to the south, but their number is not large [Grigoriev, 2000]. To the east, in the forest-steppe Tobol-Ishim interfluve, Fyodorovka ceramics are present on Alakul settlements. Their number is usually insignificant and they occur in complexes together with Bishkul ware, which had incorporated, primarily, Petrovka and Alakul features [Zdanovich, 1973, pp. 36, 37; 1988, pp. 112-114; Grigoriev, 2000; Malyutina, 1994, pp. 17-19]. Fyodorovka burial sites are rare in this zone [Zdanovich, 1988, pp. 86-91; Bukhonina, 1984; Zdanovich, Zdanovich S., 1980]. Basically, Fyodorovka sites are widespread in the northern foreststeppe and on the borders of the taiga zone. Further to the east, Fyodorovka sites are well represented over the whole Middle and Upper Irtish basin, a region in which no Alakul sites are known. In the northern part of this area they form the mixed FyodorovkaKrotovo-Chernozerye type [Kosarev, 1981, pp. 118132; Gening, Stefanov, 1993; Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983; Stefanov, Stefanova, 1980; Gening, Stefanova, 1994; Korochkova et al., 1991; Korochkova, 1987]. Within Central Kazakhstan Alakul sites prevail, but there are many Fyodorovka sites too, as also of the mixed Atasu type which is linked to the Alakul line of development. At the same time, on the Alakul ceramics of this area the Fyodorovka ornamental scheme dominates, but without an unornamented band on the bottom of the neck. Mixed features of both cultures are observed in burial ritualism [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 47; Salnikov, 1952; Stokolos, 1968; Usmanova, 1987; Chindin, 1987]. Further to the east, in Southern Siberia, Fyodorovka sites are of later date. Cremations occur here rather rarely. Contracted on the side burials dominate [Maximenkov, 1978]. The most easterly developments of Fyodorovka culture have been found in North-Eastern China – a temple ring and funnel earrings (Fig. 117. 9,10) [Ling Yung, 1990, p. 33; Varyonov, 1990, pp. 62, 63]. Traditionally, Fyodorovka culture is dated rather late: the 14th – 13th centuries BC [Zdanovich, 1988, p. 144; Kosarev, 1981, p. 111]. Those who believe that Fyodorovka and Alakul cultures were contemporary substantiate earlier dates – from the 16th century BC. Their basis is the following. In the Western Urals and Western Kazakhstan ceramics with mixed Fyodorovka-Alakul features, relating to the Sol-Iletsk and Kozhumberdi types, occur in closed complexes together with Early Timber-Grave culture ware. Poltavka features are seen on the ceramics and in the burial rites of these complexes [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 46; Fyodorova-Davidova, 1973, pp. 148, 151]. Material with Fyodorovka features (including cordoned ware) is present in the Ukraine in rather Early Timber-Grave complexes (Fig. 86.4-20); and on the Lower Dnieper and in the Azov area, Early Timber-Grave burial complexes with rectangular stone settings and boxes typical of Fyodorovka culture have been excavated (Fig. 86.1) [Litvinenko, 1993]. Another point of view is that the appearance of stone boxes in this region relates to the second (developed) phase of Timber-Grave culture. Cremations occur here from the same time [Litvinenko, 1999a]. In any case, within the frame- 245 4 1 5 3 2 7 6 8 11 9 10 12 16 13 17 15 14 18 19 20 Fig. 86. Andronovo materials in the Ukraine. 246 work of traditional chronology this is to be dated to either the 16th or 15th centuries BC. Confirmation of a rather early date is provided by the appearance of stone boxes in the Dniester-Danube interfluve in the Early Timber-Grave period [Shmaglii, Chernyakov, 1970, pp. 108-109]. On the Middle Don some developments of Fyodorovka ornamental traditions –oblique triangles and meanders – are found in ceramics of the developed and Early Timber-Grave culture [Sinyuk, 1996, figs. 59.2, 64.1]. On the Kipel settlement in the Southern Transurals the Alakul level covers one containing Fyodorovka ceramics. It is worthy of comment that Fyodorovka ceramics occur on this settlement together with Petrovka, early Alakul and Bishkul [Grigoriev, 2000; Salnikov, 1951; 1957]. Further, the broad grooves under the rim in Bishkul ware are a feature completely absent in Alakul but very typical of Petrovka ware, indicating the quite early date of this type [Grigoriev, 2000]. On the Korkino I settlement, where Fyodorovka and Cherkaskul ware has been found together with Alakul ceramics, as well as in the Uvak cemetery in a grave with a Kozhumberditype vessel, spearheads of so-called Eurasian type with a cast socket, which are included in SeimaTurbino complexes, have been discovered [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 79, 80; Avanesova, 1991, p. 48]. On the Petrovka cemetery Petrovka II, a Fyodorovka burial has been found in amongst the other graves. On the Kuropatkino II cemetery in Northern Kazakhstan, Amangeldi-type ware with mixed Alakul-Fyodorovka features, whose ornamentation also has Krotovo features (inclined rows, or a combination of horizontal and vertical rows of ‘stepping’ combed stamp), occurs in the same graves with Petrovka jars. Sometimes Petrovka-type ceramics have the same ornamental scheme as others in this cemetery [Bukhonina, 1984, figs. 3.2,8,14, 4.10,15; Zdanovich, Zdanovich S., 1980, fig. 4.1-4,7,12-14]. The knife from the Monteoru cemetery in Romania, thickening at the waist, and similar to Fyodorovka examples, is of early date too. As the Monteoru culture precedes Noua and Sabatinovka, the knife is to be dated to the 16th century BC [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 119, 176]. The possibility that the Pavlovka settlement is chronologically close to the collapse of the Circumpontic Metallurgical Province is confirmed also by the socketed hook, which we have discussed above. As a whole, it does not contradict a 16th century BC date. As has been noted, Seima-Turbino gold earrings were retrieved from a Fyodorovka cist in the MinShunkur cemetery [Akishev, 1992]. In the Semipalatinsk area a Fyodorovka axe with the cordons on the back and a dagger with a framed hilt of Seima-Turbino type were found in the same complex [Avanesova, 1991, fig. 15B]. Near to Samarkand, Fyodorovka funnel earrings are found together with a Petrovka vessel in one burial [Lev, 1966]. On the Vetlyanka IV cemetery in the Urals, Fyodorovka ornamental motifs (oblique triangles) are present on vessels [Gorbunov et al., 1990, fig. 17.3,11; Gorbunov, 1992a, fig. 9.5]. Let us remember that the materials of this cemetery allow the synchronisation of post-Sintashta, late Catacomb, Early Timber-Grave and early Alakul complexes. But there is an essential reservation: the source of this decoration here could be proto-Fyodorovka ware, which is included in Sintashta complexes. Therefore it does not confirm the early position of Fyodorovka culture itself, although testifying clearly to that of the protoFyodorovka type. Classic Fyodorovka ware, as well as cordoned ware, is found in the post-Harappan level of the Shortugai settlement on the south bank of the AmuDarya, radiocarbon dated to 2000-1700 BC [Kuzmina, 1992, p. 174]. The excavations of the Early Timber-Grave Smelovskiy burial ground on the Lower Volga have revealed a group of ceramics accompanying child burials, on which horizontal rows of angled incisions are characteristic. The excavator, V.A. Lopatin, emphasised the originality of this group and the atypicality of its decoration for this period. He adhered to the conventional chronological scheme for Fyodorovka culture, concluding that the Fyodorovka people had subsequently borrowed this type of ornamentation, and had done so from the local group who had left these objects [Lopatin, 1999]. In the light of what I have said above, the situation was quite different. Fyodorovka ornamental motifs infiltrated into Early Timber-Grave communities. At the same time, there are some cremations on the west bank of the Volga typical only of Fyodorovka culture. They are accompanied by ceramic materials and objects that can be related to the Sintashta and Pokrovsk cultures [Bagautdinov et al., 1999]. Therefore it is possible that the appearance of the Fyodorovka component falls into a rather early time: the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. 247 The evidence is that the Fyodorovka culture arose in steppe and forest-steppe Eurasia in the 16 th century BC. Indeed, judging from their inclusions in Sintashta complexes, proto-Fyodorovka vessels in the Near East should be dated to the 18 th century BC. The proofs of a later date, based on inclusions of ceramics of Namazga VI type [Kuzmina, 1988, p. 96], are not correct, and Namazga VI itself is now dated to an earlier time. The radiocarbon dates of the transition from Namazga V to Namazga VI fall into the interval 1850-1550 BC, which, taking into account the calibration, gives a date from 23302160 to 2110-2000 BC. This, as a whole, corresponds to the cultural transformations taking place in Central Asia in the early 2 nd millennium BC [Dolukhanov et al., 1985, p. 122], which necessarily means that Bactro-Margianan ceramics were subjected to very few changes over several centuries. Nevertheless, we can speak about the early date of inclusions of this ware in Fyodorovka settlements. There is only one type of BMAC ware which permits judgment about the chronology of a complex: the tube-footed vase [Sarianidi, 1990, p. 60]. In the early Kelleli period these had a rather simple cone-shaped form of reservoir and a short, always hollow foot. Some vessels had goffered feet. In the following phases the tendency is to a smoothly profiled reservoir, and goffered feet disappear. The vases become taller, and there are massive feet with a cavity in the bottom, reaching sometimes to the middle of the foot. The vases from the Fyodorovka settlement of Pavlovka are identical (Fig. 82.11), therefore, to those of the Kelleli period [see Malyutina, 1991, fig. 7.1,2], which is dated to 1750-1500 BC [Sarianidi, 1990, p. 74]. However, according to the calibrated radiocarbon date, the period falls into the interval 2200-2100 BC [Kohl, 1992, pp. 186-192]. The available radiocarbon dates for Southern Siberian sites fall into the early 2 nd millennium BC [Görsdorf et al., 1998]. It is necessary to note that sites in this zone cannot be regarded as the earliest in Fyodorovka culture. Therefore, the culture may well be close in date to high Sintashta, more likely to its late phase. Thus, contrary to the conventional view, which postulates a general eastward and southward movement of the Fyodorovka tribes, the reverse took place: they moved from the Near East through Iran and Central Asia into the Irtish basin. The main body went further through the forest-steppe to the west, although a part moved through the steppe. In the forest-steppe the migrants made contact with people of Krotovo culture, and in the steppe zone with those of Alakul culture. The migration was somewhat composite; some settled in new areas, mixing with indigenous communities. Rather soon the Fyodorovka tribes infiltrated in the Transurals. However, tribes from the Ishim basin continued to come into this area subsequently. In the clay of pottery from the Transural Fyodorovka cemetery of Urefti I, crushed bones have been detected. This is characteristic of both Fyodorovka and Krotovo ware of regions further east. The use of bone is pointless where ceramics are fired in a bonfire, but rather effective in specialised pottery kilns. Its very presence is additional testimony to the southern origin of the culture [Glushkov, 1990, pp. 64, 65; Stefanov, Stefanova, 1980, p. 131]. 3.2. Cultural genesis in the forest and forest-steppe zones of the Urals and Eastern Europe What followed in the Urals and Volga-Kama regions is important for our understanding of the ethno-cultural history of Northern Eurasia and was connected with the Cherkaskul, Mezhovskaya, Suskan-Lebyazhinka and Prikazanskaya cultures. The earliest of these, the Cherkaskul (Figs. 87, 88), was formed in the southern part of the forest Transurals [Salnikov, 1964; 1965, pp. 32-34; 1967, p. 363] on the basis of local Eneolithic tribes, so it has been supposed, as a result of which a genetic chain Ayat – Koptyaki – Cherkaskul-Fyodorovka has been forged and an Ugrian identity postulated for each link [Salnikov, 1964, pp. 20, 21; 1967, p. 364; Stokolos, 1972, pp. 131-136; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, p. 47; Shorin, 1994, p. 60; Potyomkina, 1995b, p. 14]. However, more detailed studies have shown that the Koptyaki ceramic type is rather local and did not antedate ceramics with mixed Fyodorovka-Cherkaskul features. Its formation was outside the Ayat – proto-Koptyaki – Koptyaki chain and was conditioned by the effects of the Abashevo, Alakul and Fyodorovka ceramic traditions. All scholars are agreed that this type should be dated within the 16 th century BC [Kosarev, 1981, p. 81; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 40, 43]. 248 3 4 2 5 6 7 1 9 8 10 11 Fig. 87. Cherkaskul culture. 1 – Kamensk-Uralskii; 2 – Shartash; 3, 11 – Lipovaya Kurya; 4 – Sigaevo III; 5, 6, 9, 10 – Berezki V G; 7 – Kungur; 8 – Priplodniy Log. 249 1 2 3 6 4 5 Fig. 88. Cherkaskul culture. Ceramics. 1, 6 – Priplodniy Log; 2 – 5 – Berezki V G. In my opinion, the beginnings of Cherkaskul culture were based on Fyodorovka foundations. It inherited the main features of Fyodorovka domestic architecture. The burial rites of the Transurals include cremations, rectangular stone settings, cists, and rectangular clay platforms, all typical of Fyodorovka culture. Even such customs as the use of animal ribs and spatulas in sacrifices are retained; pottery dominates the grave goods and metal artefacts occur very rarely [Grigoriev, 2000; Kuzmina, 1973; 1975; Salnikov, 1959; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995; Malyutina, 1984]. At the same time, burial sites around the Argazi lake demonstrate features of the burial rite of the Abashevo people of the Western Urals: burials set within small stone circles, bodies contracted on the side and oriented to the east [Krutskikh, Shorin, 1984] (Fig. 87.9,10). In this area, Abashevo vessels have been found on settlements as well as Abashevo features in the ornamentation of Cherkaskul ceramics [Salnikov, 1967, p. 371; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 46, 47], but most Cherkaskul pottery inherited Fyodorovka pottery traditions (Fig. 88). Vessels were manufactured starting with the body, to which a bottom was then attached [Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, p. 23]. Very specific Cherkaskul decoration, elaborated according to the Fyodorovka scheme, differs mainly in its broad use of grooves for setting or dividing up areas of ornamentation. That they arose from an apparent link with the Fyodorovka tradition of glossing the dried surface between ornamental figures is confirmed by the presence of rather shallow grooves on Fyodorovka ceramics [Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983, p. 148; Grigoriev, 2000]. Some motifs (inclined zigzags) have parallels in Chernozerye variant ware, which combines both Fyodorovka and Krotovo features [Gening, Stefanova, 1994, fig. 11] (Fig. 88.3). It should also be noted that there are cordons on some proper Cherkaskul vessels [Shorin, 1981, fig. 1.6,8]: this detail is not peculiar to Fyodorovka funeral ware, from which the Cherkaskul type developed. At the same time, cordons are known on Fyodorovka ceramics from settlements and are very characteristic of the ceramics of the Mezhovskaya culture, which was formed on Cherkaskul foundations. Analysis of these ceramic types has shown that it is possible to form typological sequences demonstrating the transformation of Fyodorovka cordoned jars into Mezhovskaya pots, accompanied by increased use of her- 250 2 1 3 5 6 4 9 8 7 12 11 10 13 14 15 Fig. 89. Fyodorovka-Cherkaskul ceramics of the Miasskoe settlement. 251 ringbone decoration [Grigoriev, 2000]. However, unlike ‘pure’ Mezhovskaya, ‘pure’ Cherkaskul settlements are virtually unknown: usually Mezhovskaya ceramics accompany Cherkaskul. Moreover, on settlements in the forest-steppe zone, it is rather difficult to separate from each other Fyodorovka, Mezhovskaya and Cherkaskul ware. Combinations are sometimes observed: Fyodorovka-Cherkaskul with Cherkaskul-Mezhovskaya. The latter has a somewhat later date. A similar compatibility has been observed on the Miasskoe settlement. This leads to the conclusions that the Mezhovskaya type developed very early in the Cherkaskul stage, and that there was a smooth transformation of Cherkaskul culture into Mezhovskaya, a decrease in the proportion of Cherkaskul-type pottery, accompanied by an impoverishment of its ornamentation, and an increase in Mezhovskaya-type [Grigoriev, 2000; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 35-38, 98; Shorin, 1981] (Fig. 89). It is possible that Irmen impulses from the east played some part in the further development of Mezhovskaya ceramics; this is shown, above all, in the appearance of vessels with a narrowed neck and ornamental belts in the form of ‘ladder’. Such a possibility is confirmed by the discovery of Irmentype ceramics in the Tobol basin [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 59, figs. 9.5,7; 11.3; 31.1,3,4,8; KrivtsovaGrakova, 1948, figs. 60, 62; Grigoriev, 2000]. Probably, steppe impulses also played a role in perfecting Mezhovskaya culture – perhaps, they stimulated the development of large Mezhovskaya dwellings with rows of poles supporting a roof [Grigoriev, 2000; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 55-59; Obidennov, 1987, pp. 55-58]. As to Cherkaskul dwellings, because of the almost square plan of some, it is possible to denote Tashkovo and Chernozerye lines of connections, apart from the Fyodorovka strand [Kovalyova, 1988; Gening, Stefanov, 1993, pp. 68-72] (Fig. 87.11). Very interesting conclusions arise from analysis of the Cherkaskul culture metal complex. Unfortunately, Cherkaskul sites in the Transurals are poorly furnished with metal artefacts. However, the absence of other Bronze Age cultures in the forest regions of the Transurals enables all the metalwork of this period, including chance finds, to be linked with either the Cherkaskul or Mezhovskaya cultures. These artefacts correspond to metalworking of phases II and III of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province: that of phase II can be regarded as metal of Cherkaskul culture, that of phase III of Mezhovskaya. This is confirmed by separate finds of bronze objects and casting moulds on settlements [Grigoriev, 2000]. Some artefacts of this zone correspond to Fyodorovka traditions of metalworking: double-edged knives with midrib, guard-stop and rectangular tang; tanged knives; pendants of 1.5 revolutions, with notches; a ring with conical spiral terminals [Kosarev, 1981, fig. 51; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, p. 33; Kazakov, 1978, fig. 22; Petrin et al., 1993, fig. 40.8] (Fig. 87.5-7). Another group of metal is connected with the Seima-Turbino tradition (Fig. 87.1-4). It is worthy of comment that all finds of celts in the Transurals are situated to the north of the Miass river, i.e. in the zone of the basic localisation of both Cherkaskul and Mezhovskaya cultures [Salnikov, 1965a]. Classic Seima-Turbino types are represented in the Transurals by single finds of celts and a double-edged knife with a short expanded tang. But special attention should be given to the discovery on the Lipovaya Kurya settlement of a mould for casting a socketed gouge, which is typologically close to a similar object from the Rostovka cemetery [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, figs. 20, 39, 51; Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988, fig. 38; Khlobistin, 1976, p. 35] (Figs. 66.6; 87.3). A group of so-called ‘Eurasian’ metal, which was derivative of Seima-Turbino, is more representative, but it is rather early and has been included in the proper Seima complexes. The group includes a celt, spearheads with a rhombic socket-shank, and double-edged daggers with a cast hilt [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, figs. 40, 45, 65; Kosarev, 1981, fig. 51; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 31, 32; Petrin et al., 1993, fig. 47.3,4] (Fig. 87.1,2). Articles of the Samus-Kizhirovo types (celts with false eyes) belong to the same line of development [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, figs. 77-80; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, p. 32; Petrin et al., 1993, fig. 47.1,2] (Fig. 87.4). From what has been stated, it can be concluded that the origin of Cherkaskul culture in the Transurals was connected with two formations: Fyodorovka culture, and the populations which left artefacts of Seima-Turbino type. Some Chernozerye features in both ceramics and domestic architecture also confirm the latter. Mezhovskaya culture (Fig. 90) inherited traditions assimilated by Cherkaskul Seima-Turbino metalworking: celts with a rectangular facet, hexahedral celts with an arched facet and frontal eye, daggers of the Sosnovaya Maza type, spearheads with slits on the blade and a round socket, as well as other 252 2 3 1 5 4 7 6 8 9 Fig. 90. Mezhovskaya culture. 1 – Argazi; 2 – Yukalekulevskoe; 3, 5, 6, 9 – Priplodniy Log; 4 – Novo-Kizganovo II; 7 – Berezki V; 8 – Zhukovskaya. artefacts [Chernikh, 1970, figs. 46, 48, 58; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 78-80]. This complex of metalwork of a number of cultures (Mezhovskaya, Prikazanskaya, Suskan-Lebyazhinka) is also evident in some hoards to the west of the Urals (Sosnovaya Maza, Karmanovo, Derbedeni) [Chernikh, 1970, pp. 115, 116; Kuzminikh, 1983; Kolev, 1991]. Sites of the Cherkaskul and Mezhovskaya cultures are well represented in the Western Urals, reflecting the migration thither of their bearers [Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 7, 52-54; Obidennov, 1987, pp. 53-55; Kazakov, 1978; Gorbunov, 1993, p. 5; Obidennov, 1986]. It is necessary to emphasise the originality of Mezhovskaya burial rites in demonstrating enormous variation. Burials on the surface and in very shallow graves, cremations and inhumations, barrow cemeteries and burial grounds, all are known, and inhumations have contracted skeletons lying on the side as well as extended lying on the back. Examples of cremation without the subsequent burial of remains are known. Disarticulated burials occur too [Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 59-67]. It is read- 253 2 1 3 4 Fig. 91. Fyodorovka-Cherkaskul ceramics of the Yazyovo settlement. ily possible to see in these combinations the mechanical mixing of burial traditions descending from both Fyodorovka and Seima-Turbino rites. The Transural origin of both the Cherkaskul and Mezhovskaya complexes is well documented by the addition of talc to potter’s clay, which was characteristic of many cultures of the eastern slopes of the Urals but is unknown in the west [Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, p. 114]. At the same time, it is possible to show also some differences between Mezhovskaya sites in the Western Urals and those in the Transurals. In both areas the metalwork of this period has parallels in that of the Ingul-Krasnomayatsk metallurgical centre of the North Pontic area. In the Western Urals but not in the Transurals bronze artefacts corresponding to the metalworking of the later Kardashinka centre are also known: two-eye celts with a concave, lens-shaped facet and rim elevated above the eyes, tanged knives with parallel edges, moulds for casting knives/razors with a hollow at the end [Chernikh, 1970, pp. 87, 88, 117, 122, tab. XLIII; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 78-80, figs. 47.2,4; 53.10,13; 54.1-3]. These distinctions are because Mezhovskaya culture disappears in the Transurals in the late 2nd millennium BC in connection with infiltration of the Ugro-Samodian population from the north (Gamayun culture). The ceramic material (except for the most northerly sites) does not provide evidence of contacts between the bearers of Mezhovskaya and Gamayun cultures, although the contacts of Gamayun culture with other cultures of the final phase of the Bronze Age in the region are clearly visible [Kosarev, 1981, p. 189; Borzunov, 1992, pp. 91, 130]. This is an expression of the tendency of these populations to displace onto the western slopes of the Urals, which had already started in the Cherkaskul period. It can be seen not just with respect to Cherkaskul and Mezhovskaya sites. Cherkaskul-Mezhovskaya infiltration had a very deep effect on the Prikazanskaya culture of the Kama region. The first, Zaymishe, stage of this culture can be seen as a synthesis of local Volosovo, Seima-Turbino and Sintashta-Pokrovsk traditions. The rectangular houses, connected to one another by corridor-like passages were characteristic in the Eneolithic of many VolgaUral cultures of the forest zone: Volosovo, Garino, Novoilyinskaya, Yurtik [Khalikov, 1987, p. 26; 1987a, p. 140; Kraynov, 1987, pp. 15, 16; Nagovitsin, 1987, pp. 30-32; Bader, 1961]. Both Volosovo and Early Timber-Grave features are reflected in ceramics. Knives with a slight waist and an axe with a rectan- 254 5 3 2 6 4 1 7 8 9 Fig. 92. Suskan-Lebyazhinka cultural type. 1 – Ilyichyovka; 2 – Lebyazhinka; 3, 4 – Derbedeni hoard; 5, 6, 8, 9 – II Lebyazhinka settlement; 7 – Popovo Ozero. gular ridge on the back, similar to axes of the Sintashta cemetery but with a more oval hole to the bush, invite Sintashta-Abashevo associations [Khalikov, 1987, pp. 27, 30]. To the Seima-Turbino component it is possible to link flint arrowheads (tanged, triangular and leaf-shaped), a long flint knife, a bronze celt and a spearhead [Khalikov, 1987, p. 30]. From all of this, the beginning of Prikazanskaya culture can be dated to the 16th century BC, its formation the result of contact between the local Finno-Ugrian population, penetrating north Iranian tribes and incoming ancient Europeans. However, during the following BalimskayaKartashikhinskaya phase, the situation changed fundamentally. There were now Mezhovskaya features in the ceramics, and types of metal artefact that were typical of the whole pre-Ananyino horizon of metalworking in the Volga-Kama region. A number of morphological and chemical features distinguish Pri- kazanskaya metalworking from Mezhovskaya and bring it together with Timber-Grave culture [Kuzminikh, 1983]. Nevertheless, Mezhovskaya is very close to Prikazanskaya culture of the BalimskayaKartashikhinskaya phase. For this reason the border between these cultures is not sufficiently distinct, and scholars relate the same objects either to one or the other. A rather significant development was the formation of the Suskan-Lebyazhinka culture [Kolev, 1988; 1991; Kolev et al., 1995] (Figs. 91, 92), whose main region of localisation was the Volga-Kama basin. However, a small quantity of comparable material is also known in the Tobol forest-steppe area, on the Yazyovo I settlement [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 47; Grigoriev, 2000]. Analysis of the ceramic complex has shown that it was based on Cherkaskul, Fyodorovka and, to a lesser extent, Alakul [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 76; Kolev, 1988]. In addition, there is ware 255 attributed as Andronovo in the Suskan ceramic complex [Kolev, 1999, pp. 254, 255]. The culture’s metalworking is practically identical to that of Mezhovskaya and was formed on a Seima foundation [Kolev, 1991]. Scholars have included in this culture a number of complexes considered earlier as belonging to late Timber-Grave, Mezhovskaya or Prikazanskaya. However, any controversies regarding this serve only to emphasise the unity of the process described [Kazakov, 1999, p. 80], whose essence is that, in the Late Bronze Age, in the vast area between the Volga-Kama region and the Transurals a large cultural bloc was formed, including CherkaskulMezhovskaya, Suskan-Lebyazhinka and Prikazanskaya sites. Fyodorovka and Seima-Turbino traditions were intrinsic to their occurrence here. It is possible that the beginning of these cultures resulted in the partial assimilation and displacement to the west of the first wave of migrants, who left sites of Seima-Turbino type. In speaking about the cultures of this bloc it is necessary to touch upon their economic activities. As we have seen, there is no evidence that Sintashta culture practised agriculture. In the Volga-Ural region domesticated cereals and legumes occur only from the start of the Late Bronze Age and are known on settlements of both Mezhovskaya and Fyodorovka types [Lebedeva, 1996, p. 54] – the rather limited distribution of agriculture southward into steppe was connected, apparently, with the influence of these populations. The structure of the herds of the Cherkaskul, Mezhovskaya and Prikazanskaya cultures is typologically close, although it varies depending on area: about 50% cattle, 25-30% horse, 7-14% sheep and goat and about 10% pig. It is likely that the Cherkaskul people borrowed pig breeding from the Abashevo communities. However, a higher proportion of horse, and the breeding of sheep predominantly for wool distinguish the CherkaskulMezhovskaya herd from those of the Abashevo and Sintashta cultures. As a matter of fact, cattle dominate the herds in steppe regions everywhere, with sheep or goats in second place. As a rule, the proportion of horses is not high, but in this case it was conditioned by the ecology: in the more northerly regions horses are at an advantage in winter pastures because of the high blanket of snow. However, once a herd has been formed, it becomes a cultural indicator. Perhaps in the Final Bronze Age the movement of the Cherkaskul-Mezhovskaya population to the south resulted in an increase of the number of horses in the steppe and forest-steppe [Antipina, 1996; Varov, Kosintsev, 1996; Lebedeva, 1996; Germanov, Kosintsev, 1995; Obidennov et al., 1994, pp. 19-23; Galkin, 1996]. This digression allows us, once again, to emphasise that the economy of the Cherkaskul population could not have had as a genetic forerunner that of Sintashta or those of any of the other Eneolithic tribes of the forest zone. It is simply impossible to imagine that the Eneolithic forest people, who practised gathering, fishing and hunting, could have generated the highly advanced and complex economies of this cultural bloc. Having stated this, let us return to further consideration of events on the banks of the Volga. To the west, the same tendencies described above are to be observed in the Volga-Oka interfluve, where Pozdnyakovo culture arises (Fig. 93). Arrowheads, flint meat-knives, bronze spearheads, and celts reflect the traditions of the Seima-Turbino component. The Andronovo component shows itself in ceramics and ornaments (bracelets with conical spiral terminals, pendants of 1.5 revolutions coated with gold foil). Inhumations dominate in the burial rite (usually with skeletons contracted on the side), but cases of cremation are known, although it is difficult to quantify them as the remains were not always placed in graves. The transition from barrow cemeteries to burial grounds is a trend worthy of comment. Further along the Oka and in the Volga-Klyazma interfluve this process was not too intensive, although there are finds of Pozdnyakovo and Chirkovskaya-Seima ceramics on sites, together with late Fatyanovo, Abashevo-like and late Volosovo ware [Gadzyatskaya, 1992, pp. 138, 139]. Subsequently, in the late 2nd millennium BC, the Pozdnyakovo people throughout this area were either superseded or assimilated by migrants from the north, represented by the culture of net-ornamented ceramics. This resembles the situation with the Mezhovskaya culture in the Transurals [Bader, Popova, 1987, p. 135]. However, let us return to the Cherkaskul, Mezhovskaya and Suskan-Lebyazhinka cultures. Cherkaskul is the earliest. The traditionally late dating of it to the 13th century BC [Kosarev, 1981, p. 141; Khlobistin, 1976, pp. 58-62] has been revised to the 15th century BC, and a date of the second half of the 16th century BC is not excluded [Grigoriev, 2000; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, p. 47]. As Fyodorovka culture is dated from the 16th century BC (see above), 256 2 1 4 5 3 6 8 7 9 10 11 Fig. 93. Pozdnyakovo culture. 1, 7-9 – Korenec; 2 – Volosovo; 3, 5 – Borisiglebovskoe; 4 – Sadoviy Bor; 6 – Zasechye; 10 , 11 – Fefelov Bor. this opens the way to an earlier dating of Cherkaskul culture. The Abashevo population was one that participated in the formation of the Cherkaskul culture, although it was not a very significant component. This is expressed in the Abashevo features in the ceramics and burial rite of the Cherkaskul cemeteries on Lake Argazi, the Abashevo – Cherkaskul – Early Timber-Grave characteristics of the Taktalachuk cemetery in the Western Urals, and the joint occurrence of Abashevo and Cherkaskul ceramics on a number of settlements in the Western Urals [Salnikov, 1967, p. 371; Grigoriev, 2000; Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 46, 47; Kazakov, 1978; Gorbunov, 1993, p. 5]. Cherkaskul metalworking contains types which are present in both Seima-Turbino complexes and later Samus-Kizhirovo. This allows the Cherkaskul culture to be partly synchronised with SeimaTurbino sites, as well as with the Samus culture of the Ob basin. The latter is dated to the 15th century BC. The date of Seima-Turbino bronzes falls within the 17th – 16th centuries BC [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 261; Kosarev, 1981, p. 106; Molodin, Glushkov, 1989, p. 103]. Finally, all these dates are in the system of conventional chronology. In Cherkaskul ceramics on the Novaya III settlement some Alakul features have been noted: isos- 257 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 Fig. 94. Sosnicja (1-6) and Komarov (7-9) cultures. 1 – Zdvizhovka; 2 – Hodosovichi; 3, 6 – Pustinka; 4, 5 – Kvetun; 7 – Kavsko; 8, 9 – Komarov. celes triangles and decoration made by wood chips [Stokolos, 1972, pp. 82, 98, 99]. In aggregate, this allows us to date the Cherkaskul culture within the framework of the 16th – 15th centuries BC. Arising from the participation of Cherkaskul tribes, Suskan-Lebyazhinka culture is dated to some later time, but no later than the early 15 th century BC, as Seima-Turbino was the basis of its metalworking [Kolev, 1991, p. 197]. The Mezhovskaya culture was formed somewhat later, but not later than the late 15th – early 14th century BC [Grigoriev, 2000]. It was once thought that pre-Ananyino metalworking in the Volga-Kama region had been formed under the influence of the Zavadovka-Loboykovka metallurgical centres of the North Pontic area [Kuzminikh, 1983, pp. 129, 130]; more recently that it had chronological priority and was formed directly on a Seima-Turbino foundation. Indeed, the rise of Suskan-Lebyazhinka culture happened rather early, practically at the end of the Pokrovsk phase of the Timber-Grave culture [Kolev, 1991, p. 197; 1993; Bochkaryov, 1995, pp. 121, 122]. On settlements, Suskan and Timber-Grave ceramics cannot be separated stratigraphically. Sometimes both occur in the same accumulations: on the Lebyazhinka V settle- ment in the least damaged, i.e. latest layer, Suskan and Early Timber-Grave ware of the Pokrovsk type occur together [Kolev, 1999, p. 256]. The forming centres of metalworking in the North Pontic area include a set of celts and spearheads of Volga-Ural type. These indicate impulses from the Volga-Urals into this area in the 15th century BC. The radiocarbon (non-calibrated) dates of Suskan-Lebyazhinka culture fall, however, into the period from the late 15th – early 14th to the 12th – 11 th centuries BC [Kolev, 1999, p. 256]. Some earlier Fyodorovka tribes probably penetrated to the west in the 16th century BC, even before the rise of the Suskan-Lebyazhinka and Mezhovskaya cultures. In the Volga area, where they do not seem to have settled, this was marked by the appearance of cremations, but it had almost no reflection in ceramic material [Vasiliev et al., 1985, p. 64; Bagautdinov, 1988]. Probably, it was in the nature of ceramic complexes to be either transformed or replaced by ware of another culture principally where there were ethnic contacts. It should be noted that cremations appear in the Volga area in the early stage of development of Timber-Grave culture. In contrast, in the Ukraine, Andronovo features occur in ceramics during the Early Timber-Grave 258 stage (Fig. 86). Apart from features that can be compared to Fyodorovka ceramics, pottery with clearly expressed Cherkaskul features (Fig. 86.6) is known. Besides, on ware of the early stage of the Timber-Grave culture in this area, there are already cordons, and they remain throughout the culture’s existence (Fig. 86.5-7,11,13,16,17,20). Their appearance is usually explained by the preservation of the traditions of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture, but the resemblance of both the forms of these vessels and the cordons to early cordoned ware in eastern areas permits another interpretation, although not in all of cases. Oval dishes with parallels in Fyodorovka culture (Fig. 86.19) are known too. Contemporaneously, the practice of cremation appears. On the Lower Dnieper 70% of burials follow this rite. In the Donets and Azov areas rectangular settings and cists (Fig. 86.1), and Andronovo decorative motifs as well as Andronovo bronze ornaments occur in Early Timber-Grave cemeteries [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, figs. 16, 18, 19, 22; Litvinenko, 1993, pp. 195, 196; Berezanskaya, Gershkovich, 1983]. The occurrence of knives with a stop in the North Pontic area in the Early Timber-Grave period should be mentioned [Leskov, 1967, p. 173]. Here this period is dated to the 16th century BC too [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 76]. To the west, a Fyodorovka presence may be indicated by knives with a reinforced waist found in Thrace and in Serata-Monteoru [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 176, 177]. The hoard in Beleni included knives with a midrib and in one case with a ring-type stop. However, this hoard is of later date. In any case, the Fyodorovka presence is really not expressed here in its pure state. To the north, in the Middle and Upper Dnieper area, the Sosnicja culture formed, which can be regarded as a variant of Trzciniec–Komarov culture [Berezanskaya, 1967, p. 132] (Fig. 94.1-6). Fortifications are known on settlements of its early phase. Its daggers and spearheads go back to SeimaTurbino prototypes. Local production is confirmed by the discovery of moulds for casting celts and chisels. There are both barrows and burial grounds, inhumations contracted on the side and cremations accomplished, as a rule, in hollow graves. It is worthy of comment that cremations are connected with hollower graves. The pottery is tulip-shaped and is similar to Suskan-Lebyazhinka ceramics; some pots have cordons [Berezanskaya, 1967; Artyomenko, 1987b, pp. 107, 209]. Scholars link the origin of Sosnicja with the Middle Dnieper culture. In many respects this may be true, although the latter is dated very early. The cultural succession may be observed in both ceramics and burial rite [Artyomenko, 1987b, p. 112; see Bondary, 1974]. However, the developed phases of the cultures differ sharply. In the Middle Dnieper the long-term assimilation of population perhaps took place, with both these Indo-European populations coexisting. However, the first impulses into the area from the Volga-Ural region were prior to the earliest formation of Sosnicja culture. This is well documented by the presence here of metal of the Early Timber-Grave period [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 156-158]. Subsequently, there was an increase of Ural features in both metal and ceramics – in which it is expressed by the appearance of cordons, as well as such specifically Mezhovskaya patterns as triangles with a fringed edge [Artyomenko, 1987b, fig. 50.10,13]. Thus, as in the previous period, we see a gradual displacement of the processes of cultural transformation westward. This was qualitatively different from what we have observed in the formation of Sintashta culture: that occurred at once and suddenly, and it is impossible to trace back its development and the step-by-step movement of its bearers from the Near East, whereas the current process is characterised by the gradual displacement of separate, rather small collectives and their closer contacts with local populations. This is most clearly seen in the further distribution of the post-Seima traditions of metalworking, but transformed in a way that corresponds to those changes which it had undergone in Eastern Europe. In addition, it is necessary to note that some of these changes preceded the formation of Tumulus culture and began in the late phase of the Central European Early Bronze Age. A new phenomenon in the metalworking of Central Europe was the appearance of cast spearheads with an unornamented socket, corresponding in the east to spearheads of the Pokrovsk and Petrovka period. These objects were widespread over the whole area, but the best known find is the Bühl hoard in the Donau-Ries district in Southern Germany, which contains some similar spearheads and their fragments, as well as a socketed arrowhead (Fig. 96). Analysis of the hoard has shown that only some finds could be correlated with stage Br A2; as a whole, it corresponds to the horizon Br A2/B1 of Southern Germany, or to the horizon Br A3 of Aus- 259 260 Fig. 95. Distribution of sites of the Chernozerye type (a), Cherkaskul and Mezhovskaya cultures (b), Suskan-Lebyazhinka type (c), Prikazanskaya culture (d), Pozdnyakovo culture (e), Sosnicja culture (f), Trzciniec–Komarov culture (g), Tumulus culture (h). Fig. 96. Artefacts from the Bühl hoard. tria, which is the time of Trzciniec–Komarov culture and of the high phases of the Madjarovce and Veterov cultures [Rittershofer, 1984, pp. 219-228, 314-322]. In another system of periodisation, the time of the hoard corresponds to stage Br A2c. The calibrated radiocarbon dates of this period fall into the range 1750-1600 BC [Neugebauer, 1991, pp. 50-53, Abb. 9, 10]. In Western Germany the standard set of postSeima artefacts becomes settled from the Lindenstruth stage, coexisting for a long time with former types of metal artefact [Kibbert, 1984, Taf. 102]; in the South-west too spearheads with unornamented cast sockets appeared in the Middle Bronze Age [Pirling, 1980, Taf. 10.4.C, F, F1, 18.A., 29.C, 39.A, I, K, L, 44.I, 54.I]. In Northern Germany and Denmark, where all the processes were underway but some at a later date than in more southerly areas, celts and spearheads with a decorated socket inheriting directly Seima-Turbino traditions, appear only from the time corresponding to stage Br B/1 in Southern Germany (Fig. 97) [Müller-Karpe, 1980, Taf. 501, 504, 506]. Significant changes are also observed in ceramic complexes. In Southern Germany the transition to the start of the Middle Bronze Age (stage Br A2/ B1) was accompanied by a fundamental transformation of the ceramic material on settlements (Figs. 98, 99). On those old types which continued to be made there are various new ornamental motifs without analogies in former cultural systems. These changes have been described in detail in the research of J. Krumland [Krumland, 1998]. Many of these motifs have parallels on sites of the Fyodorovka and Cherkaskul cultures, as well as in contemporary cultures of Eastern Europe. There are also new techniques of ornamentation. One such is the combed stamp. It is widespread, but not as common as in Fyodorovka (especially on Fyodorovka funeral ware). The frequency of its use decreases step-by-step from east to west. Another specifically Fyodorovka feature is the use of a triangular stamp for making ornament, which appears in the transition to the Middle Bronze Age in Southern Germany. I shall not describe the ceramics of stage Br A2/B1 in detail; this has been done by Krumland (see above), and it incorporates a number of components of the previous period. I shall confine myself to listing only those features which can be regarded as eastern borrowings. Single and double incised lines relate to comparable ornamental motifs. Generally they are broad and closer to Fyodorovka channels. Various types of zigzag are widespread: short incised, multi-row, and in the form of an unornamented band, elaborated by rows of triangles arranged opposite one another. Pendent triangles hatched with parallel lines, decoration in the form of ladder-like bands, and parallel, unregulated, inclined and vertical lines become characteristic. Various types of impressions and incisions are widespread: finger impressions of different types, vertical incisions on the rim, belts of inclined incisions,1 incisions within incised lines and channels. On different types of ware small ledges occur at the transition from the shoulder to the body: this can reflect borrowing from Alakul ceramic tradition. As in the east cordons appear, either smooth or decorated with incisions. The presence of cordoned ware is very typical of sites of this period. This demands special analysis, as cordons could have been introduced partly by the migration described earlier 1 Belts with inclined incisions appeared at stage B, becoming very typical at stage C. It is remarkable that in the east this type of decoration became widespread somewhat later too. Such a parallelism may demonstrate that the period of these contacts was quite long. 261 and partly to reflect earlier traditions [see also Hoppe, 1994; Rind, 1994]. Concerning the similar cordoned ware of Wessex culture, S. Gerloff points to its affinity with that of Armorican culture in Brittany, and the ceramics of the Parisian basin, Central Europe and Switzerland. As a rule, such material is connected with fortified settlements and is dated to stage Br A2B. There is virtually no basis for doubting its continental origin, but its origin on the continent is less clear. Gerloff finds the closest parallels in the late Neolithic of Switzerland, the Bavarian Danube and Western Bohemia [Gerloff, 1975, pp. 238-242], and the ceramics described shows the greatest affinity with late Neolithic sites such as the Mondsee and Chamer groups, which are dated to 3800-3150 BC. Their pottery also has cordons below the rim, and the cordons are often decorated with incisions or impressions; its forms (rather simple, however) show a considerable resemblance too [see Lochner, 1997; Schröter, 1992, Abb. 17]. But there is a distinct chronological gap between this type and the Middle Bronze Age. It is somewhat more difficult to analyse forms of the Br A2/B1 stage. As stated above, a number reflect local ceramic traditions. Others, by virtue of their relative simplicity, were widespread in many areas. It is necessary, nevertheless, to point out some typical features. It is possible that the appearance on cups of an internal rib near the rim could also indicate eastern impulses at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age – in the east in the previous period it was characteristic of Abashevo and Sintashta ceramics. Probably, pots with a straight neck and ledges on the shoulders and angular pots with a smooth rib had eastern origins. It should be noted that this is all very similar to the situation on Fyodorovka settlements, where there were very appreciable inclusions of previous local cultures, some quantity of cordoned ware, a lot of coarse and poorly identifiable pottery, and only a small part with opulent geometric decoration. The appearance of these ceramics and some transformations in metalworking gradually resulted, in Southern Germany and Central Europe, in the formation of Tumulus culture. In conventional chronology the culture falls within 1500-1300 BC; the calibrated radiocarbon dates are 1800-1500 BC [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 67]. Burials were under barrows, but the mounds, made of soil and situated in fields, have seldom survived. As a rule, none of these bar- 3 1 2 Fig. 97. Metal artefacts of the Middle Bronze Age from Northern Europe: 1, 2 – Virring; 3 – Nordborg. rows was large, unlike those of the transitional phase in Bohemia, Moravia and Saxony. The sites under the mounds were paved with stone and could be lined with clay or sand. There are stone boxes surrounded by stone, less often enclosed by stake circles. The skeletons are generally in the extended position on their back, sometimes contracted on the side, but cremations are known too. The proportion of metal artefacts of post-Seima type starts to increase [Jockenhövel, 1990a, pp. 202, 206; Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 43, 44; Hochstetter, 1980]. The ‘proto-Lausitz’ group, dated to Br B-C and very similar to Tumulus culture, was diffused in this period over the territory of Western and Central Poland. The territory of the Trzciniec culture, similar to the ‘proto-Lausitz’ group and Tumulus culture, extended to the east [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 57, 79], from South-Eastern Poland to the Dnieper (Fig. 94.7-9). Its ceramics also sometimes had a cordon at the bottom of the neck, cremations were known, and its metalworking inherited the Seima-Turbino tradition. At the same time, in both metalwork and ceramics, there was a greater element of Central European traditions than in Sosnicja culture [Berezanskaya, 1967; Artyomenko, 1987a]. This period was characterised, as in other parts of Europe, by numerous hoards. In them socketed spearheads were 262 Fig. 98. Ceramics of phase A2/B1 in Southern Germany. 263 Fig. 99. Ceramics of phase A2/B1 in Southern Germany. 264 often accompanied by typical Central European objects [Blajer, 1990]. As a matter of fact, Trzciniec-Komarov is the eastern flank of the Tumulus culture of Central Europe, whose burial rite was characterised by an increasing tendency to cremation (which we have already found in the east). Burials under barrows are usually in shallow graves or at ground level, with skeletons lying on their back. Cremations and secondary burials occur rarely. The remains of cremation are sometimes found in small holes. The places of cremation were outside the burial grounds. Thus, we see the same burial practices as in late eastern cultures, beginning with the Mezhovskaya. In the south-east, in the Carpathians, burials in cists and urns are known. There was a trend towards flat burials, which is a further parallel with the east [Mongeit, 1974, pp. 58-64]. These cultural features contradict ideas about the further development of the Vistula–Dnieper tribes [Kosko, 1996] – bringing about the formation of Trzciniec-Komarov culture. The theory that local Corded Ware groups, reinforced by both South-Eastern and Central European impulses, participated is more likely [Krušel’nyc’ka, 1995, p. 399]. Let us note also that this culture is left unquestionably by people who spoke ancient European dialects. The beginning of the Late Bronze Age in Hungary coincided with the distribution of Koszider bronzes. This had been earlier dated to about 1300 BC [Bona, 1975, p. 17], but no longer. Overall, the period of the Koszider hoard in Hungary and the Carpathians corresponds to the Central European Middle Bronze Age (Br B), and includes the late stage of Otomani-Füsesabony culture. Perhaps, the appearance of the bronzes reflects the arrival of people of the Tumulus culture. Together with it, cremations, unknown in the former stage, appear here in burials of both the Tumulus and Piliny cultures. But most burials are inhumations of contracted skeletons lying on their side, some of extended skeletons [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 93, 94; Boroffka, 1994, pp. 112, 113; Trogmayer, 1975, pp. 148, 155, 156; Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, pp. 29, 31]. The increasing invasion of the Tumulus people becomes apparent in the distribution of fortified settlements during phase III of the Vatya culture, although these fortifications date partly to Koszider times [Bona, 1975, pp. 57-59]. Swiss territory was also subject to the expansion of Tumulus culture. In the Middle Bronze Age the Seima population had not penetrated into this area. A culture developed which had formed in the Early Bronze Age, notable for the preservation of earlier ceramic forms (Grobkeramik with horizontal cordons). The cultural transformations of this period were conditioned by persistent strong influences from Pannonia and Transylvania, where the pressure from Tumulus culture was greater [Osterwalder, 1971, pp. 27-37]. Probably, this was accompanied by the appearance of new populations. Burial rites underwent the same transformation here as everywhere in Europe. The first cremations appeared. It seems that there were barrows too, but, as in other areas, they were subsequently ploughed up [Mottier, 1971, pp. 149-151]. Cremation is something of a problem. As we have seen, it was extremely widespread in the Fyodorovka culture of the Transurals, but in the process of this population’s movement to the west and their mixing with other peoples it gradually diminished in significance – the situation in Tumulus culture is similar. It is not quite clear why this rite revived to become so widespread. The problem is made worse by cremation being known previously in South-Eastern Europe. Most early cremations occur in Eastern Slovakia (Tiszapolgar); subsequently the number in this area decreases [Parzinger, 1993, pp. 320-322]. But the rite was known in Slovakia in Zok culture and in the Rivnač culture of Bohemia [Primas, 1977, pp. 19, 20]. In the Early Bronze Age it was characteristic of the Coţofeni culture in Bulgaria [Alexandrov, 1995, p. 257]. It is most likely that this was conditioned by Central European influences. In Hungary cremation with burial in an urn was known in the Early Bronze Age (Hatvan, Nagirev and Kisapostag cultures), and also in another Middle Danube culture – that of Encrusted Pottery [Schubert, 1974, pp. 29, 30; Patay, 1938, pp. 45, 52; Primas, 1977, pp. 9-13, 17-19]. Cremation later ceased in the Otomani-Füsesabony culture (except for its early phase) [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 79, 80; Boroffka, 1994, p. 110; Bona, 1975, p. 120]. But in another Hungarian culture, Vatya, it was known in the Middle Bronze Age [Bona, 1975, pp. 32-44; Primas, 1977, pp. 11-13], when it was also widespread in the Wietenberg culture in Transylvania [Boroffka, 1994, pp. 106-109]. Sometimes in Central Europe the rite was borrowed by populations which had previously not used it. In Austria, Bohemia and Moravia it occurs occa- 265 3 4 6 2 5 1 7 9 8 11 10 Fig. 100. The Late Bronze Age in England. 1 – Bowton Fen; 2 – Burvel Fen; 3-6 – Cottesmore; 7-11 – Twing. 266 sionally in Bell Beaker culture, the Corded Ware cultures and the Straubing group of Germany [Neugebauer, 1994, p. 38; Primas, 1977, pp. 23, 24, 48-50]. Thus, inurned cremation occurs first in the Eneolithic of Central Europe. It persisted there virtually all the time, but sometimes the quantity decreased sharply. After the infiltration of the Balkan-Central European complex into Transcaucasia and Anatolia, cremation is known on Hittite sites and within the south-eastern area of Kura-Araxian culture. From here it was borrowed by the ancient Europeans, who re-introduced it into Europe, although it is possible that the continuance of this rite in Central Europe played a part in its distribution too. Therefore, the connection of cremation with the Fyodorovka tradition is not obvious. The processes penetrated further westward. In France, alongside eastern metal, there are ceramics with eastern prototypes. There are cordoned jars and pots in the Armorican ware of Brittany similar to the Early Timber-Grave ware of the Ukraine, Fyodorovka cordoned ware and Suskan-Lebyazhinka ware [see Briard, 1981]. However, it is more likely that its appearance in Brittany was connected with earlier impulses of the Seima period: its calibrated dates start from 2200 BC [Briard, 1981a]. The cultural transformations in Late Bronze Age Britain are rather indicative. The lower date of this period here is about 1400 BC [Megaw, Simpson, 1979, p. 242]. As a whole, metalworking going back to the Seima-Turbino tradition continued, with the standard set of types distributed by Seima-Turbino migration from Western Siberia to Western Europe: socketed spearheads, frequently with eyes on the socket, celts, fluted gouges and tetrahedral socketed chisels (Fig. 100.1-6). Tools and weapons were made mainly of tin bronzes, although arsenic alloys are known too [Megaw, Simpson, 1979, figs. 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.6, 6.3.7, 6.4.14, 6.4.15, 6.4.23; Lawson, 1979, fig. 2.4; Clough, 1979; Farley, 1979a; Davies, 1979; Coombs, 1979; Savage, 1979, p. 233; Coombs, 1979a]. But in the late hoards there are types of object which are known earliest in the Suskan-Lebyazhinka, Prikazanskaya and Mezhovskaya cultures: above all, spearheads with slits on the blade or with a short socket and blade [Colquhoun, 1979, figs. 4.1.2.5, 4.4]. One hoard of the end of the Bronze Age contained, alongside celts and socketed fluted gouges, a double-edged dagger with a stop, which may demonstrate the long-term survival of Fyodorovka tradi- tions of metalworking [Coombs, Bradshaw, 1979, figs. 10.1.4.6.7, 10.2]. Another peculiarity of the change in Late Bronze Age spearheads is the displacement of the eye from the socket to the end of the blade [Ehrenberg, 1977]. Similar spearheads are known in hoards of the Parisian basin [see Mohen, 1977]. Bracelets of the ‘Bingan’ type found in Britain have typical French forms, as well as ‘pins’ decorated in Picardian style [Megaw, Simpson, 1979, p. 255]. One further confirmation of eastern impulses is the appearance of large urns of the Deverel-Rimbury type (Fig. 100.7-11). These are pots, more often jars, of rather rude shapes. There are both open and closed tulip-shaped jars. Frequently this ware has an incised cordon [Wardle, 1992, pp. 32, 47-50; Megaw, Simpson, 1979, p. 260]. In the 15th century BC similar forms appeared in Suskan-Lebyazhinka culture, gradually penetrating to the west. They may be traced back to the ware of Fyodorovka settlements. It has been mentioned above that similar ceramics occur in the Late Bronze Age in North-Western France, in the Armorican culture of Brittany [Briard, 1981]. In this period contacts with the early horizon of Urnfield culture are found in Britain. All of this indicates that the formation of Late Bronze Age culture in England was heavily influenced from the continent [Megaw, Simpson, 1979, pp. 243, 255, 257]. This allows us to return to ethno-historical reconstruction and to draw out the conclusions that have been floating around in Chapter 2. 3.3. Ethno-historical reconstruction Above, we have observed the processes of movements and cultural transformation connected with the bearers of Fyodorovka culture. Early Fyodorovka culture should be localised in the Near East, most likely in the area of Lake Urmia, from which there was the subsequent migrations of its bearers eastward, as well as the possibility of a very limited participation in the migration through the Caucasus of the Sintashta people. Early Fyodorovka culture is to be dated no later than 18 th century BC in the system of traditional chronology; the 267 start of the migration to the 16th century BC, after that of the populations who manufactured SeimaTurbino bronzes. As a whole, the migration passed along the same route as the Seima-Turbino people, which allows us to consider the Fyodorovka people as ancient Europeans. In essence, this fills those gaps left in the comparisons of archaeological and linguistic reconstructions in the previous Chapter. First of all, let us remember that the contacts of ancient Europeans with different Iranian populations, postulated by linguistic reconstruction, were reflected in archaeological material in the form of armed conflict in the south of Central Asia and in the steppe zone, albeit in Central Asia rather episodically. This hardly promoted linguistic borrowings. In contrast, the second wave of ancient Europeans, the bearers of Fyodorovka culture, interacted intensively with the bearers of Central Asian Iranian culture (inclusions of Namazga VI-type ware, analogies to metal of the Sumbar culture, etc.). The contacts with the Iranian tribes of the steppe zone (Timber-Grave, Petrovka, Alakul) were so powerful that it resulted in the formation of a number of mixed cultural types. Another disparity has been expressed. Whereas linguistic reconstruction offers the interplay and secondary rapprochement of already differentiated ancient European dialects, archaeological reconstruction has demonstrated only the displacement of a culturally rather homogeneous population to the west and its contacts with other peoples. There is also inconsistency between the archaeological and linguistic reconstructions in the question of the ancient Europeans’ sojourn in the North Pontic area. Consideration in this light of Fyodorovka culture removes the problems. With the appearance of Fyodorovka people on the Irtish, intensive interaction with the Krotovo population started. This was reflected in the formation of the Chernozerye type. It is possible that the appearance of Fyodorovka tribes in this area was the cause of movements further west of SeimaTurbino tribes. Other regions of interaction were the VolgaKama, Western Urals and Transurals, where, on the basis of mixing Seima-Turbino and Fyodorovka traditions, such cultures as the Cherkaskul, Mezhovskaya and Suskan-Lebyazhinka formed. Thus, the archaeological material confirms the hypothesis of the existence of an area in which secondary rapprochement of ancient European dialects took place. In the 16th century BC migrations of both a proper Fyodorovka component and cultures trans- formed in the Volga-Ural area headed further west. It is likely that the first migrations diffused no further than the North Pontic area – limited migrations into this area took place from the Volga-Kama region. However, the main body of the Volga-Kama and Uralian populations displaced to the west, forming the Sosnicja, Trzciniec–Komarov and Tumulus cultures within an area from the Middle and Upper Dnieper to the Rhine. The Corded Ware and Unětice cultures were, apparently, local substrata participating in their formation. Earlier migrations, linked with Seima-Turbino groups of ancient Europeans, penetrated into Transylvania, the Hungarian plain, SouthEastern France, Brittany, and South-Eastern England (Rhône, Armorican and Wessex cultures). In the first two areas this was somewhat inconsiderable. Either these groups did not participate in contacts with migrants of the second wave or did so to only a lesser extent. We should note that in Central and Northern Europe, where Tumulus culture was situated, Celtic river-names are absent [Sedov, 1993, p. 26]. This allows us to see the bearers of the cultures formed in England, Brittany and France as ancient Celts, which does not conflict with their localisation in historic times. In this case we can assume that most of the Seima-Turbino populations were Celts and Italics. However, in the course of migration and interaction with other ancient European populations, Celtic culture was transformed. It had included many features of both the migrants of the Fyodorovka wave and local tribes. Therefore, in the mosaic of European cultures of this time, it is rather difficult to distinguish the Celts [Kruta, 1991, p. 34]. We can only guess that their localisation was to the west of Germany, but they might have settled in other areas too. It is possible that their subsequent return to Central Europe took place in the Hallstatt period. The proportion of newcomers participating in Celtic ethno-genesis was probably not large. Investigation of Hallstatt period skulls from Bavaria demonstrates that the people living there at this time were heterogeneous. Some skulls had ‘Nordic’ features; others Mediterranean, Alpine or ‘Dinarian’. This indicates strongly the assimilation by the newcomers of a local population going back to the Early Bronze Age [Hahn, 1993, p. 134]. The model suggested here of Celtic ethnogenesis corresponds to the Celtic folklore tradition, which reflects continuous migration, acclimatisation 268 to new natural environments and coexistence with bearers of other languages and cultures [MacCana, 1991, p. 649]. If this tradition reflected later Celtic migrations eastward, it would be necessary to show archaeological evidence of return movements, including that into Britain, to explain its existence. The most likely explanation of it lies in continuous migration from the Near East, realised before the migrations of the Balts, Slavs and Germans, thus causing the Celts to be located to their west. There is one more noteworthy circumstance. Earlier we mentioned that the Abashevo group buried under the Pepkino barrow were scalped, many beheaded, and that trepanning to extract a piece of skull for use as an amulet had been found. Arrowheads of Seima type were embedded in the bodies. Let us remember that the Seima-Turbino people themselves practised very specific burial rites: secondary burials, dismemberment of skeletons and decapitation. Similar customs penetrated Central Europe contemporary with bronzes of Seima-Turbino type. Scalping was practised subsequently by Celts, the beheading of enemies and use of their skulls as military trophies was widespread, as was the practice of cannibalism upon enemies, which subsequently shocked Romans [Kimmig, 1993, p. 172; Moreau, 1961, p. 110, 111]. Interesting evidence about Celtic customs has been obtained in the excavation of Celtic burials in Manching. Anthropological analysis of bone-remains suggests that the presence in burials predominantly of bones of extremities is not a result of the destruction of the cultural layer or the robbery of the graves. The bones carry traces of animal bites and the ablation of soft tissues by knife has been found. This seems to indicate a two-phase secondary burial rite, which is identical to Seima tradition. Furthermore, a case of trepanning has been detected – although it was probably for medical purposes, the patient dying from the operation. The Celts had a rather widespread cult of skulls. As well as the abovementioned trepaning and beheadings, Celts used cups and facial masks made of skulls. [Lange, 1983; Hahn, 1992; 1993, pp. 135, 136]. The last custom was widespread in the Near East, and probably arose from a desire to restore a face after soft tissues were removed as a result of the secondary burial practice. With the disappearance of this practice, the use of burial masks could have continued for other reasons. Similar rites have been found in both the La Tene and Hallstatt periods. Earlier, I mentioned the presence of comparable rituals in Central Europe in the Middle Bronze Age. Thus, these customs may be a sign for determining the Celtic identity of a particular culture. Finally, there is one further custom permitting Seima-Turbino and later Celtic sites to be compared. Among the former, the Kaninskaya cave, stands out a sanctuary and place of sacrifice. Similar sanctuaries were rather characteristic of the Celts. In Celtic caves individual human bones with traces of anthropophagi have been found [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 23, 24; Müller, 1993, pp. 184, 185]. For all these reasons, the identification of Celts/ Italics with Seima-Turbino populations is most probable. In this case, we have the right to see the ancestors of the Germans, Balts and Slavs in the bearers of the cultural bloc which was formed subsequently on the basis of both Fyodorovka and Seima groups. Tumulus culture is to be connected with the Germans, Trzciniec–Komarov with the Slavs and the Sosnicja with the Balts. This is confirmed by the coincidence of the area of Trzciniec–Komarov culture with that in which early Slavonic river-names predominate [Mallory, 1989, p. 80]. Thus, most ancient European peoples had already occupied the territories in which they were historically resident by the mid-2nd millennium BC. The Balts were very close to the Slavs culturally, which is reflected in the discussions as to whether Sosnicja culture was a variant of Trzciniec–Komarov or not. After that, all these groups remained neighbours, leading to subsequent cultural and language contacts and affinity. Those groups which subsequently became eastern Slavs adjoined in the southeast the Iranians, and subsequently the Iranian Scythian tribes. This was reflected in linguistic borrowings. In the case of later Slavonic migration into the Dnieper area, Iranian pre-Scythian borrowings into Slavic, which have no analogies in other European languages, would have been impossible. In the south, the Slavs adjoined the Thracians (see below). However, we shall first discuss the actual connections with Slavs of Lausitz culture, which had derivatives in the Balkans and was distributed throughout Poland. Its roots were within the area previously occupied by Tumulus culture. Therefore, it is possible that the distribution of Slavic dialects to the east happened later, and that Trzciniec–Komarov culture is to be identified with the Balts. Such an approach 269 seems to be more reasonable; it explains some of the major archaisms of Baltic languages relative to other European dialects by their lesser contact with the main area of these languages. Certainly, the processes described here had only the most general character. In reality, each territory shows peculiar, occasionally quite unexpected forms of cultural interplay. For example, there is a burial on the Upper Dnieper, where, in a round grave with the remains of a cremation, a vessel of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture has been found, whose ornamentation has the impress of local Neolithic traditions; and the burial is accompanied by Neolithic flint artefacts [Pobol, 1966]. Thus, impulses of cultures, which can be regarded as syncretic developments formed because of contacts between the Seima-Turbino and Fyodorovka populations, penetrated as far to the west as Britain. This was a composite process with fast migration by some groups and the long-term settling of others, lasting from the 16th century BC to the early 12th century BC, when Deverel-Rimbury ware appeared in England. These movements also actuated local components, both Eastern and Central European, who were gradually assimilated. This resulted in the formation in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC of a vast zone from the Atlantic to the Urals, in which related cultures were formed and the migrations of the ancient Europeans were carried out. The peculiarity of this process, as a result of which in Europe neither pure ‘Celtic’ nor ‘Balto-Germano-Slavic’ cultures appeared but cultures with syncretic features, makes a precise definition of the ethnic identity of individual cultures and cultural types difficult. Some cultures might have been bilingual, with one of the languages achieving a gradual dominance. It is much more likely that there were in this period areas in many regions of Europe containing settlements with populations speaking another ancient European language. Only through the subsequent dominance or weight of numbers of its speakers might one language strengthen within any particular area. The situation was complicated by the tendency of a local substratum to persist. All this seems to be a rather knotty problem for future studies. Nevertheless, the suggested scheme elucidates many things – for example the numerous Iranian and eastern parallels in Celtic culture [Rozen-Pshevorska, 1963]. Apparently, these are difficult to explain just in terms of contacts of Celts in Hungary with Scythians. Similarly, Balto-Iranian linguistic similarities may go back to the Bronze Age, and not be limited to the Early Iron Age [Sedov, 1965, pp. 52, 53]. The prevalence of Baltic river-names as far as the River Seima corresponds rather closely to the area of distribution of sites of the Sosnicja culture. However, these names are known much more widely and cover a region from Northern Poland, the Vistula and the Middle Dnieper to Northern Latvia and the River Oka [Sedov, 1965, p. 54]. Therefore, an identification of Trzciniec–Komarov culture with the Balts is quite plausible. The further expansion of the Balts northward was realised upstream on the Dnieper and its tributaries. In this period (the beginning of the second half of the 2 nd millennium BC) on the Upper Dnieper, Upper Volga and within the Eastern Baltic area, fortified settlements occur, similar in size and construction to those in Tashkovo culture. They consist of oval fortified lines, behind which a row of adjoining dwellings surrounds a central area. Celts and socketed spearheads were diffused; the moulds for their casting are known. It is improbable that this impulse arrived directly from either the Volga-Kama region or the Western Urals, as the metal complex contains objects that are obviously ‘southern’, for example pins with a large spiral terminal (Fig. 101). The burial rites are familiar: a combination of barrows and flat burials, inhumations on the back (less often contracted on the side) and cremations. Cremated remains might be placed in burial urns. Sometimes barrows contain circular settings of stone and stone boxes [Merkevichius, 1996; Graudonis, 1987]. Subsequently, this culture underwent a rather continuous transformation into those of the Early Iron Age. This allows us to see Balts in the bearers of cultures occupying the territory from the Middle Dnieper to the Eastern Baltic from the mid-2nd millennium BC. The southern origin of the Balts is confirmed also by anthropological evidence. The Baltic populations, like others of Europe, have a certain number of people of darker eye colour (12.3 – 22.9 %). It is supposed that this could have originated only in areas with high solar radiation: either Anatolia or the Armenian Plateau. Indeed, it is worthy of comment that in the Eastern Baltic the proportion of dark-eyed people decreases from south to north. This fixes the direction of migration and testifies that the newcomers did not replace the local population completely, but assimilated them in language and culture [Sidrys, 1996]. 270 Fig. 101. The Kivutkalis settlement and Late Bronze Age bronze artefacts from the Eastern Baltic area. Sites of the Trzciniec–Komarov culture, spreading west from Volhynia, the Carpathians and the Dniester, as already mentioned, can be regarded as either Slavic or Baltic. The first option is not precluded by later annals testifying to the movement of the Eastern Slavs from this area. But it cannot be excluded that the Slavs appeared in these regions later, after the time of the Trzciniec–Komarov culture. There are, however, other views. In archaeological literature some believe that the roots of the Balts may be traced back to the Narva culture and through it to the Mesolithic Kunda culture. Already, Narva culture has been viewed as Indo-European [Girininkas, 1996]. It is rather difficult to link the origins of other Indo-European groups to this. More conventional is a hypothesis linking the proto-Balts with Fatyanovo and some other Eastern European Corded Ware cultures, for example, the Battle-Axes. This point of view is compatible with the area of prevalence of Baltic river-names [Bryusov, 1965, p. 55; Kraynov, 1972, p. 257]. However, in this case we should link the Germans and Slavs to the Corded Ware cultures too, which also would not pose insoluble contradictions. However, only the Balts had the possibility of contacts with Finno-Ugrians, and contacts with Altaic, Tocharian and proto-Yenisei people would have been impossible for any of them. The main contradiction is that the postulated connections of the Corded Ware cultures with the Balts, Germans and Slavs has been constructed on the basis of no essential cultural transformations taking place in this area after the coming of the Corded Ware people. This, as we have seen, does not correspond to reality. Nevertheless, the Corded Ware cultures were probably Indo-European – which, perhaps, promoted their rather easy assimilation. Scholars have, in general, no doubts that Corded Ware people were Indo-European, and I shall try here to show only that they could not have spoken the Baltic, Germanic and Slavic dialects. It is a wellknown linguistic fact that these languages lacked their own words for the sea, marine coast and life on the marine coast, which means that their speakers had lived for some long time far inland. Many marine terms in the Germanic, Baltic and FinnoUgrian languages of the Eastern Baltic area can be traced back to a common non-Indo-European and non-Finno-Ugrian base. Some of the terms have an Indo-European nature, but they were borrowed from an earlier Indo-European source. This is explained by the contacts of Corded Ware people with a substratum of Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) in Germany and Poland, as well as with Narva culture in the 271 Eastern Baltic, which resulted in the occurrence of people speaking both Germanic and Baltic dialects [Sausverde, 1996]. However, the TRB and Narva cultures have nothing common: neither common features, nor common genetic roots. Therefore, they cannot be the bearers of this substratum’s lexicon. It is more likely that the Corded Ware cultures themselves were the bearers. On the face of it, this precludes their being Indo-European. Nevertheless, for a number of ‘marine’ terms some scholars suggest a pre-Germanic Indo-European basis, which is reinforced by the discovery in Scandinavia and Northern Germany of three consecutive language layers, separated by the study of place-names: non-IndoEuropean, pre-Germanic Indo-European and protoor early-Germanic [Witczak, 1996; Ostmo, 1996, p. 33]. From these facts the most reasonable conclusion is that both the TRB and Narva cultures were non-Indo-European and non-Finno-Ugrian. They were covered by the Indo-European element of the Corded Ware cultures, which thus could transmit a part of its own and a part of the substratum’s ‘marine’ terminology to the ancient Indo-Europeans and Finns. With regard to TRB culture, the problem remains open, but it was not situated in the Eastern Baltic; as to Narva culture, it seems beyond doubt that it was not Indo-European. It is possible that in this migratory stream, people speaking the Finnish languages of the Eastern Baltic area were somehow involved too: their languages show some contacts with proto-Slavic, dated within the second half of the 3rd – first half of the 2nd millennium BC [Napolskikh, 1997, p. 160]. However, it is more likely that these contacts took place in the Volga-Kama region, as there is a very considerable Baltic substratum in the Finnish languages of the Eastern Baltic. On this basis it has been concluded that people speaking these languages came into areas occupied by the Balts in about the late 2nd millennium BC, which is chronologically compatible with the reconstruction suggested here [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 160, 161]. In concluding my description of ancient European migrations, I should like to make one essential reservation. From the above text the impression could be gained that, at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, the whole population of vast areas of Eurasia, from the Minusa depression to Britain, had started to speak ancient European languages. In the introduction I stipulated that ethnic and cultural processes do not always coincide with one another. Therefore, people of separate cultures, even people of local variants of a culture, could speak different languages. The migrations of ancient European were accompanied by the distribution everywhere of the corresponding culture, but local populations were not everywhere subjected to assimilation. We cannot speak about the Krotovo population of the Baraba steppe as we do about the ancient Europeans, for the Seima-Turbino component is poorly represented in this region. Not even all classic Seima-Turbino sites may be esteemed as left by populations that had preserved their language and not been assimilated by aboriginals. A similar situation could have taken place in the Volga-Kama region in the 17 th – 16th centuries BC, for example. Very likely, despite the coming of the ancient Europeans and the essential transformation of local culture, Finnish populations remained, and even the Turbino cemetery contained the burials of people who spoke a Finnish language. Above, I have mentioned that the FinnoUgrian languages contain agricultural and cattlebreeding terminology, borrowed from some early Iranian dialect. The only source for similar terminology was the Abashevo tribes of the Middle Volga and Western Urals: the separation of Iranian happened in the late 3rd millennium BC, and among the borrowings is the term for a pig [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 924], an animal characteristic of the Abashevo herd. Therefore, the Abashevo people, apparently, spoke an Iranian dialect. The Abashevo component, buried in the SeimaTurbino cemeteries of the Volga-Kama area, had a subordinate position [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 274, 275]. Other evidence to indicate the incorporation of Abashevo people into communities of forest populations and to fix their subordinate position, is lacking. In the Finnish languages the word ‘Aryas’ is etymologised with the meanings ‘slave’, ‘southern’, ‘south-west’ [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 924]. This corresponds both to the inclusion of the Abashevo people into Seima-Turbino communities and the more northerly location of the Volga-Kama sites relative to those on the Middle Volga and in the Southern Urals. Therefore, further penetration of the Seima-Turbino complex into the Lake Onega area, Estonia and Southern Finland could have been accompanied by an expansion of Finnish dialects. In this case, the 16th century BC may be regarded as the starting point of dialect separation in the protoFinnish language. Such a hypothesis is confirmed 272 by the occupation of the Eastern Baltic in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC by tribes of the Corded Ware cultures, who spoke Indo-European languages, as well as by the paradox, discussed above, of the ‘marine’ terminology in both the Finnish languages of the Eastern Baltic and the Indo-European languages of Europe. It is possible that this movement was stimulated by a new migratory wave from the Transurals, resulting in the rise of the Suskan-Lebyazhinka cultural type. In short, it is rather difficult to be certain of the ethnicity of a particular group in the circumstances of the participation in the migratory processes of several permanently interacting ancient European groups (Balts, Slavs, Germans, Celts and Italics) and many other Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples (Iranians, Tocharians and Ugrians, the speakers of proto-Yenisei and of some of the Altaic dialects). This, of course, is not an irresolvable prob- lem, but demands a careful analysis of the whole corpus of local archaeological, linguistic, toponymical and anthropological sources. Our task has been simply to construct a general framework. Let us note one discrepancy in the suggested scheme. There is reason to suppose that before their disintegration, the ancient Europeans had language contacts not only with the Iranians but also with the people who spoke the Scythian dialect of Iranian [Sedov, 1993, p. 23; Abaev, 1972, p. 33]. We shall return to this problem below. From the position of Timber-Grave-Andronovo cultural unity, the subsequent affinity of the Scytho-Saka-Siberian world can be explained, albeit badly. The suggested scheme eliminates this unity. Nevertheless, the expansion of Fyodorovka culture from the Dnieper to Southern Siberia can be interpreted as an expansion of protoScythian groups. The consequence will be examined below, although in general this work does not go beyond the limits of the Bronze Age. 273 Chapter 4. Ethno-cultural processes in Northern Eurasia in the Final Bronze Age 4.1. Urnfield culture The beginning of Urnfield culture is dated to about 1300 BC according to conventional chronology, about 1500 BC in the calibrated radiocarbon system [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 67]. Mycenaean plastics and figurines of the heads of birds on the hilts of single-edged knives with a curved back have been found in complexes of Urnfield culture, allowing these complexes to be dated within the 14 th – 13th centuries BC [Matthaas, 1981]. In this period in Central Europe burials of cremated remains in either urns or in small holes in ground were widespread. As we remember, the last custom occurred most early in the Tobol area (Fyodorovo cemetery of Pereyminski 3). Cremation had been practised in Central Europe during the previous period, but now its use increased sharply. Inhumation was also practised, and in some regions it was very common. Barrows, typical in the previous period, occur less frequently. Sometimes, they have cists and are set in stone circles. Grave goods in prestigious military burials are frequently rich, but rich burials are not always connected with barrows [Harding, 1998, pp. 319, 320; Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 359-366; Kossack, 1995, p. 50; Schauer, 1995, pp. 130-162]. Post-Seima inclusions were present in the previous Tumulus culture, although the bulk of the metal complex inherited local European traditions. From the beginning of Urnfield culture the proportion of celts, socketed spearheads and chisels started to increase [see Boroffka, 1994a; Hansen, 1991] (Fig. 102). Unprecedented military activity and migratory processes characterise this time, [Jockenhövel, 1990a, p. 220] stimulating the development of fortifications. There are many finds of perfect weapons (long swords, spearheads, daggers, celts, arrowheads, armours, helmets, shields). Fortified settlements were now standard for both the Urnfield and 2 3 1 5 4 Fig. 102. Bronzes of the Urnfield period. 1 – RidschtadtErfelden; 2, 4, 5 – Poljanci; 3 – Biez. Lausitz cultures [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 339-358; Kossack, 1995, p. 46]. Most scholars suppose that Urnfield culture inherited the traditions of Tumulus culture [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 367]. Thus, it is possible to speak about the preservation of the former ethnic groups, but the processes of distribution of ancient European languages were now much faster. In Poland, the Trzciniec–Komarov culture was transformed into the Lausitz, which was stimulated by the influence of Urnfield culture [Gedl, 1995, pp. 413-418]. In the Lausitz period, post-Seima standards of metalworking became especially typical in Poland: celts began to appear in large quantities [Kušnierz, 1998]. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age the same set 274 (celts, socketed spearheads, socketed fluted gouges and tetrahedral chisels) was diffused throughout Slovakia and Moravia [Novotna, 1970; Řihovsky, 1992; 1996]. Separate groups of Urnfield people penetrated quite far – up to the Eastern Carpathians [Krušel’nyc’ka, 1995, pp. 400-406]. Urnfield culture also spread rather rapidly to the south: in the 13th century BC to Switzerland. The rite of placing calcined bones in urns, which were then buried in holes, predominated, but barrows are known too. The types of weapon typical of this culture – single-edged knives with hilt, swords, celts, socketed spearheads – were diffused through all territories (Fig. 103) [Primas, 1971; Frei, 1971; Mottier, 1971, p. 151]. This region contains a lot of burial fields, each with fewer cremated remains than in other parts of Europe because of the small quantity of land used for agriculture and, accordingly, the rather small collectives [Primas, 1995, p. 201]. Various interpretations have been put on this. Some assert that there is no evidence to confirm movements of populations in this period [Primas, 1971, p. 62]; others have seen in this an infiltration of Celts into the Alpine area [Frei, 1971, p. 101]. Contemporaneously, the influence of the culture (or its bearers) expanded towards the Balkans. Inurned cremations occur in the north-east of the Hungarian plain and Transylvania, in North-Western Bulgaria, Croatia and Eastern Serbia, accompanied by the distribution of artefacts, above all weapons, typical of this culture. Bronze artefacts, traceable back to Seima-Turbino prototypes, became rather characteristic in Hungarian hoards of this time: single- and double-edged daggers, double-edged daggers with a curved back, cast hilt and a border along the side of the hilt, socketed spearheads, celts, and socketed tetrahedral chisels [Mozsolics, 1981; 1985]. Celts are very often decorated with motifs similar to those on Seima-Turbino objects: a series of pendent triangles, the smaller nesting inside the larger (Fig. 104). A similar range of artefacts occurs also in Romanian hoards: socketed spearheads and celts, knives with a curved back, and socketed, grooved and tetrahedral chisels [Petrescu-Dimbovita, 1977]. The Susiu de Sus, Uioara de Sus, Baleni and some other hoards make a peculiar impression. As a matter of fact, Urnfield culture does not occur in Romania. Here, despite appreciable impulses from Central Europe, new cultural developments (Cos- 2 1 5 3 4 6 Fig. 103. Urnfield culture in the Alpine region. logeni, Noua) were formed predominantly on a local base [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 404-409; Vulpe, 1995, pp. 391-395]. Urnfield sites occur in only the northern and central parts of former Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Eastern Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo), where, alongside cemeteries, there are hoards of this time, containing a 275 4 5 3 2 1 6 8 9 7 Fig. 104. Bronze artefacts from Hungarian hoards. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 – Marok; 3, 6, 7 – Balatonkiliti. standard European post-Seima set of metal artefacts (socketed spearheads and chisels, celts, single-edged knives with a metal hilt) (Fig. 105). These are connected, above all, with Lausitz culture. The ceramics from these sites are very similar to those of related groups in Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, even, in part, with some Trojan pottery. The appearance of the culture in this area is dated from Br C/D [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 443, 448, fig. 162; Teržan, 1995, pp. 324-327, 331, 333]. In the opinion of J.M. Coles and A.F. Harding, this movement to the south reflects the invasion of the Balkans by Indo-European populations; indeed, they are inclined to think that the populations which moved through the west- ern Balkans were Illyrians, and those penetrating into Greece, Bulgaria and Romania were both Thracians and Moesians [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 449]. Similarly, R.A. Crossland is inclined to see a connection between the Illyrians and the movement of the Lausitz group from the north [Crossland, 1971, p. 855]. In my opinion, the localisation of the cultural groups that penetrated into Serbia and Eastern Croatia, as well as their connections with Lausitz culture, suggests that the ancestors of the Slavs may have appeared in Yugoslavia at this time. This, apart from the geographical characteristic, is the evidence that the people of Lausitz culture spoke Slavonic dialects. 276 Fig. 105. Bronze artefacts from the hoard of Donja Bebrina (Croatia). In this period the former culture, characterised by fortified settlements and burials under barrows, continued in Bosnia and on the Dalmatian coast, and persisted through the Illyrian period of the Early Iron Age [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 443, 444; Teržan, 1995, pp. 330, 331]. It seems most likely that the inhabitants were Illyrian populations who had penetrated the region much earlier, probably at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age [Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 449]. Cultural development in Northern Europe (Lower Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia) differed from that of Central Europe. O. Montelius’ period II corresponds here to the southern phases Br A and B. The start of this phase was smooth enough, no sharp changes, and nothing to indicate the appearance of new populations. The standard burial was inhumation under round barrows. As a whole, the gradually developing metalworking corresponded to standards accepted within adjacent areas to the south [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 277-290]. Certain changes took place in period III, corresponding to Br C in Central Europe, when definite features of Urnfield culture were diffused here. However, these changes were not so rapid as in more southerly areas and started somewhat later, about 1200 BC. The principal change is limited to the distribution of cremation, which replaced inhumation very gradually [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 491-500]. Therefore, we can say that the German component increased in Northern Europe quite slowly. 277 4.2. Italy Italy presents a very complicated situation; therefore, it is rather difficult to say when the Italics came into the peninsula. Because of this we must turn to some earlier sites. In this connection it is appropriate to recollect that there are surprising cultural parallels, in a number of aspects even identity, between the Proto-Colchian culture of Western Georgia and the Terremare culture of the Po valley (Figs. 106, 145) [Mikeladze, 1994]: houses of both cultures reposed on foundations constructed of log frames filled with soil (Figs. 106.1,2; 145.1); types of flint and bone arrowheads are identical; the forms and decorations of black-polished ware are similar (Figs. 106.3,4,7,8,11; 145.2-8). The earlier dating of Proto-Colchian culture, the second half of the 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC, is worthy of comment too, while Terremare culture is dated from the early 2 nd millennium BC onward [Mongeit, 1974, p. 92; Mikeladze, 1994, p. 70].1 However, the distance of Proto-Colchian culture from the proposed homeland of the ancient Europeans, as well as the later occurrence in North-Eastern Italy of people who spoke Venetic, undoubtedly an Indo-European language, but who were apparently unrelated to the ancient European populations we have discussed [Mallory, 1989, p. 91], urge us to seek evidence of the separation of the Italics from the common group of Celts and Italics in some later events, that happened in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC – I mean the separation of the Italic tribes from a number of European cultural developments inheriting the SeimaTurbino tradition of metalworking. It is possible that these tribes’ invasion of the Apennines was somehow connected with large movements throughout Europe, stimulated by movements of people of Urnfield culture [Sedov, 1993, p. 22]. As early as the Early Bronze Age, the Polada culture had arisen in Italy. Terremare, which was typical of North-Eastern Italy in the subsequent period, was known already in this culture. The culture incorporated much from Bell Beaker culture, in particular some forms of ceramics. However, there were appreciable eastern impulses during its forma1 Probably, scholars mean in this case continuity between the Terremare and Polada cultures. The latter has an earlier chronological position, but such types of settlement as Terremare are present in Polada culture too. tion. There are inclusions of the ceramics of the Hatvan culture that was widespread in Hungary (socalled Etagen urns). There are small oval ornamented clay objects (‘ritual loaves’), known in Hungary and Romania in the period corresponding to the Central European phase Br A2. Similar artefacts have been found on Veterov sites on the Middle Danube [Neugebauer, 1994, Abb. 63]. On the Italian sites of Br A1 bone rings with holes are found. They are similar to those in the Southern Germany and to bone buckles of the Multi-Cordoned culture in the Ukraine. It should be noted that they very rarely occur on settlements. Usually such rings are found in graves (Southern Germany and the Ukraine demonstrate the same situation). The first cordoned decoration, both vertical and horizontal, appeared on ceramics of the sub-Alpine zone [Rageth, 1975, pp. 157, 169171, 179-181, 217, 218]. Thus, cultural processes in Northern Italy in the Early Bronze Age can be viewed within the framework of those which formed the Straubing group in Germany and the early MultiCordoned Ware culture. At the end of the Early Bronze Age – beginning of the Middle Bronze Age a catastrophe occurred in Northern Italy. Many settlements were abandoned. In their place new ones with different features were built. A qualitatively new phenomenon was appearance of the horse. From this time the first socketed spearheads appeared (Fig. 106. 5,6). At the same time, metalwork of typical Unětician forms diffused, dated to Br A2/B1 and B1: daggers, diadems and pins. Considerable changes also took place in ceramic production. Ornamentation is characterised by cordons, channels, horizontal incised lines, and hatched triangles, sometimes with a ‘fringe’. Sometimes this ware has a cordon around the top (Fig. 106.9,10,12,13), which distinguishes it from the earlier ceramic complexes of Europe. At the same time, a number of earlier ceramic forms persist. Therefore, although the new cultural formations include essential components of the Polada culture, their occurrence is often seen as a sign of the coming of a new population. Particularly from this time there are many parallels with the cultures of the Middle Danube, Friuli and Slovenia [Urban, 1993, pp. 16, 17, 140-143, 168, 169, 260, 261, 276-278; Rageth, 1975, pp. 102-104, 115-123, 145, 146, 223, 232]. Thus, we can see a broad mixture of processes in the formation of Terremare culture. The former cultural component remains quite prominent, but is subjected to the influence of newly 278 6 5 3 1 2 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Fig. 106. The Middle Bronze Age of Northern Italy. 1, 2 – Aqua Petrarca. arrived populations whose materials are similar to the post-Fyodorovka developments of Eastern and Central Europe, and behind whom I am inclined to see the ancestors of the Balts, Slavs and Germans. For a long time (the Middle and Late Bronze Age), the Terremare culture of North-Eastern Italy stayed in contact with Hungary and Northern Yugoslavia. In both these areas identical metalwork is widespread, which has led to suggestions of the continual migration of smiths between them [Schumacher, 1967, pp. 48-51; Crossland, 1971, p. 854; Coles, Harding, 1979, p. 426]. At a later time this part of Italy was settled by the Veneti, whose language is very little known and its relation to the an- cient European languages undetermined. Earlier we discussed the comparability of Terremare culture with the Proto-Colchian culture of Western Georgia. The stability of the culture, despite a number of fundamental cultural transformations in this zone, links it with the Veneti and suggests that their homeland was in Western Georgia. Perhaps their migration was implemented through the North Pontic area and Hungary. It is possible that in the course of it some enclaves of Veneti remained in these areas, which is confirmed by mentions of a Venetic presence in the North Pontic area by ancient authors and the communications of Terremare culture with Hungary. 279 Because the Veneti lived to the north of the Italics, R.A. Crossland suspected that they arrived in the Apennines after them [Crossland, 1971, pp. 854, 855]. But this seems an insufficient argument. In view of the absence of reliable evidence about the Venetic language, we can postulate two reconstructions of the ethnic processes. The first supposes a connection of the Veneti with the ProtoColchian culture of Georgia and an expansion of these components through the Ukraine and Hungary into Southern Germany, Switzerland and Northern Italy, where the Polada culture was formed. In this case we could suggest the same ethnic identity for the Straubing group and early complexes of MultiCordoned Ware culture. At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, ancient Europeans (Balts, Slavs and Germans) came into these areas. In a part of Northern Italy this probably brought about a change in ethnic structure; in the Po valley (Terremare culture), however, the language of the former population persisted for a long time, although no doubt deeply influenced by that of the newcomers. This seems to be the more likely version. It is also possible that the incoming population spoke Venetic, and were the progeny of those responsible for the Straubing type and similar developments of Central Europe, who had been displaced by the ancient European population. The material culture of this population (post-Straubing) was transformed in Central Europe under the influence of the newcomers (post-Seima and post-Fyodorovo), and they were assimilated linguistically. When the Venetic language is confirmed as undoubtedly belonging to the ancient European group, the second version will be shown to be true. In this, the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age is synonymous with the coming of the Veneti, leaving the ethnicity of the former cultural formation completely unclear. At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, Terremare was replaced by the Proto-Villanova culture. However, this was not universal. In the Po valley Terremare culture remained until phase Br D [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 415, 416]. In phase Ha A came the infiltration of Urnfield culture into the Apennine peninsula. At this time communications between Northern Italy and Central Europe decreased somewhat – there is a large cultural gap here, as there is in the east of Central Italy, connected with appearance of this culture – but in phase Ha B they strengthened again. Similar stable communications between North-Eastern Italy and Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary indicate the continuing preservation of the former ethnic component, despite essential changes in material culture [Schumacher, 1967, p. 52; Peroni, 1995, p. 230; Jankovits, 1996]. The coming of the people of Urnfield culture marked, apparently, the appearance of the Italics. The change is most clearly shown in metal artefacts. It is difficult to rely on the rite of inurned cremations because of their presence in Proto-Villanova culture as well [Coles, Harding, 1979, pp. 422, 423]. Perhaps, we are dealing here with the same situation as in Central Europe. E. Schumacher suspected that many features of Proto-Villanova culture, including cremations, were transferred to it by Terremare culture. The latter was closely connected with Hungary [Schumacher, 1967, pp. 48-51], where cremation had deep roots. As a result of this, a rather complicated historico-cultural situation was formed in Italy at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, linked with the infiltration of Urnfield culture as early as 12th century BC and its subsequent contact with Villanova culture, behind which S. Piggott saw the interplay of Italics and Etruscans [Piggott, 1965, p. 192]. The Etruscans were probably the last newcomers to the Apennines. The deep cultural transformations that took place in Etruria and Campania at the transition to the Early Iron Age [Peroni, 1995, pp. 230, 231] were probably connected with their appearance. At this time (from the mid-7 th century BC), rapid urbanisation commenced and large urban centres replaced the numerous Proto-Villanova settlements. Numerous imported articles from Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Mesopotamia and Egypt have been found [Hase, 1995, pp. 283-286], the majority undoubtedly connected with trade – but the coming of a population from the east might affect its direction. 280 4.3. Steppe Eurasia and the problem of the Cordoned Ware cultures After the passage of the ancient Europeans’ migration through the steppe zone of Eurasia a number of cultural transformations took place from the North-West Pontic area to the Altai. They reflected essential changes in the whole cultural system of this part of the continent, where cultures with a number of common features formed here: vessels with an applied cordon below the neck are present in all of them, although the quantity varies between them. Sometimes the cordons are broken, their ends curled down like a moustache. Some common types of metalwork are known too. On this basis it was suggested that these cultures be aggregated into a family of Cordoned Ware cultures, separated into two zones: the western, from the Dnieper to the Lower Danube; the eastern, from the Dnieper to the Altai. To the early phase of the western zone scholars have allocated Pšeničevo-Babadag, Noua, and Coslogeni; to the eastern zone, the Ivanovskoe (Srubno-Khvalinsk in another terminology), Sargari, Begazi-Dandibay and Amirabad cultures, and sites of Trushnikovo and Yaz I types; Sabatinovka is included in a contact zone, although its basic features are closer to Noua culture [Mogilnikov, 1976; Chernikh, 1983]. The determination and existence of this ‘family of cultures’ is rather questionable: its western, eastern and southern (Amirabad, Yaz I) groups show more distinctiveness than resemblances, and all the cultures belong to obviously different ethnic groups that interacted little each other. Some actual common features are to be explained by numerous local processes, not always linked each other, which form the essence of this phase of Indo-European migrations. Within separate territories these processes have been well studied and do not demand detailed substantiation. Our enquiry is limited to their ethno-historical context. In the 15th century BC in the North-West Pontic area two quite similar cultures arose: Noua and Sabatinovka (Fig. 107.1-8). Previously, there had been two cultures with little in common: Monteoru and Multi-Cordoned. However, in the 16 th century BC, as mentioned above, this area underwent the invasion of ancient Europeans, predominantly of the Balto-Germano-Slavic group. This is most clearly expressed in the Dnieper and Donets areas. Earlier, Seima-Turbino infiltrations had taken place too, but they were more limited. The principal effect of these impulses was the appearance of new types of artefact: celts and spearheads with a cast socket. It is perhaps possible to link to the same impulse the occurrence of cordons under the rim on Sabatinovka ware: a cordon here was not characteristic of MultiCordoned Ware culture, and the tendency of the previous culture was to a gradual decrease in the quantity of ornamentation, including cordons [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, fig. 4-8, 10-13; Sharafutdinova, 1995]. The presence of cremations points to the participation of ancient Europeans in the formation of Sabatinovka culture. Cremations in large tombs have been discovered at Borisovka, containing magnificent grave goods indicative of the high social status of the deceased [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 93, 94; Shmaglii, Chernyakov, 1970, pp. 54-56]. The Borisovka burial was accomplished in a practically square pit, which is similar to the Fyodorovka tradition; above the tomb there was a hip-roof containing the entrance into the chamber, elaborated in the form of a central log-frame, which has parallels in the Priplodniy Log cemetery in the Transurals – although that relates to Cherkaskul culture [Malyutina, 1984]. This would seem to reduce the role of Multi-Cordoned Ware in the formation of Sabatinovka culture, although a Multi-Cordoned component participated in its genesis. It is possible that this component had existed as an alien substratum in Noua culture. However, Monteoru was, nevertheless, a basis for the formation of Sabatinovka, as well as Noua culture. This is indicated by distribution of North Balkan types (rough kitchen ware with handles and applied decorations, two-handled cups and cups with eyelet-shaped handles), bone artefacts and arrowheads [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 114]. Although there are differences as to whether Noua and Sabatinovka metalworking should be attributed to one metallurgical centre (Ingul-Krasnomayatsk) or two (Rišešti and Krasnomayatsk), the objects were, in any case, stereotypical of metal production [Chernikh, 1976; Bochkaryov, 1995]. Production had been subjected to impulses from the Volga-Ural area, but ones that were deeply modified, and in a morphological sense it was connected with the BalkanCarpathian area. I do not interpret the establishment of this production as a result of the activity of clans 281 4 2 1 7 6 8 5 3 12 14 9 10 13 11 Fig. 107. The Late Bronze Age of the North-West Pontic area. Noua culture: 1 – Ostrovec settlement; 2 – Rišešti; 3 – Ostrovec cemetery. Sabatinovka culture: 4, 8 – Ingul hoard; 5 – Chervonoe; 6 – Sabatinovka; 7 – Zhuravlinskiy hoard. Belozerka culture: 9 – Kardashinka I; 10 – Zavadovka; 11, 12, 14 – Kirovo; 13 – Babino IV. of craftsmen, although the existence of crafts in this period is possible [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 172-174]. More logical is the forced displacement of part of the Balkan-Carpathian population to the east as a result of the arrival of ancient Europeans in Central Europe [Novikova, 1976, pp. 55, 56]. In the North Pontic area this infiltration was facilitated by the disintegration of the former cultural system through the encroachment of other ancient European groups. From such an approach to their formation, it is most likely that the Noua and Sabatinovka cultures were Thracian. This is indicated, first and foremost, by the geographical characteristics of their main initial component. The cultures of the Carpatho-Danubian basin in the previous period, Otomani, Wietenberg and Monteoru, are regarded as Thracian too [Hoddinott, 1981]. It will be demonstrated that not all cultures on this list should be connected with the Thracians, although it is very likely that the Noua and Sabatinovka cultures are. (Other reasons to sup- port this will be adduced below.) It is important to emphasise that from the rise of the Noua and Sabatinovka cultures in this area, as well as the TrzciniecKomarov culture to the north, a possible zone of intensive contacts of Thracians with either Slavs or Balts was formed here. This depends upon the interpretation of Trzciniec-Komarov culture. These contacts had already been established in the late phase of the Otomani culture, which had considerable influence upon Trzciniec-Komarov and upon the importation of metal to the north [Hoddinott, 1981, p. 51]. In Hungary, Otomani culture replaced Hatvan, whose rise was conditioned by impulses from the Northern Balkans [Kalicz, 1968, p. 189]. As in the case of Monteoru culture, this geographical characteristic is an additional argument in favour of its Thracian identity. In the 12th (11th) century BC, the North-West Pontic area passed through its next transformation. 282 The cultures of the Hallstatt circle appear in the Carpathians and separate this area from its traditional sources of raw materials. Probably, separate groups of this population penetrated far to the south, to the River South Bug, where rich burials in large graves under a canopy have been investigated in the Gordeevka cemetery. These have no analogies in local cultures and are interpreted as an alien Central European component [Berezanskaya, 1998]. In outcome, the general decline of metalworking is observed: a decrease in both the number of types and total number of objects. The decline of copper is partly offset by the greater incidence of iron artefacts than previously, when they were represented by single and often doubtful small-sized fragments [Nikitenko, 1998]. However, it was impossible to eliminate the deficiency completely. Even stone sickles occur, unprecedented against the background of the former level of metalworking. Metallurgists of the Kardashinka metallurgical centre, in the process of formation here, were forced to re-establish communications with the Volga-Ural area [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 185-190; Bochkaryov, 1995, pp. 118-123; Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 141, 143], helped, perhaps, by the inclusion in Sabatinovka communities of Timber-Grave groups that had transmigrated from the Don and Donets, having been forced out by the bearers of the Kobjakovo culture of the Northern Caucasus and the Bondarikha culture of the forest-steppe area of the eastern bank of the Dnieper [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 151]. Western and eastern impulses had an effect on some forms of ware too [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 136, 137], but overall Belozerka culture was a continuation of its Sabatinovka predecessor (Fig. 107.914). The consideration of Belozerka antiquities within the framework of late Timber-Grave culture, which is sometimes found in archaeological works, is absolutely erroneous. We can designate this as a time of stagnation for the Thracian culture of the North Pontic area. Indeed, allowing for both western (ancient European) and eastern (Iranian) inclusions, it should be emphasised that the ethnic structure of this area was not exposed to any essential changes. This is indicated by a steadfast ancient tradition which has localised the Cimmerians in the NorthEastern and North-Western Pontus and attributed to them Thracian language [Trubachov, 1987, p. 123]. Indeed, in spite of the fact that the names of some Cimmerian chiefs have an Iranian origin, there are Thracian names among those of Bosporan archons. Therefore, the names of some chiefs are not a basis for concluding that all Cimmerians spoke Iranian languages [Trubachov, 1999, pp. 42, 137]. Although we can only surmise Iranian sources for the self-name of this people, it is also supposed that the Greeks heard it from the Thracians, which is indicated by the occurrence of the sound ‘k’ at the beginning of the word [Diakonov, 1981]. We shall later discuss the paradox in the two last theses; here our conclusions have a partly unconfirmed nature. Nevertheless, the Thracian identity of bearers of the Sabatinovka and Belozerka cultures is indicated by their genetic connection with North Balkan cultures, the conformity of their terrain to the ancient traditions of Cimmerians localisation, the Thracian identity of the Cimmerians pursuant to the same tradition, and the Thracian form of their initially Iranian ethnic name. The formation of the Cordoned cultures of the eastern zone occurs somewhat later than in the west. It is shown most clearly in the contact zone of the North Pontic area, where investigation of metal artefacts has determined the priority of Sabatinovka metalworking relative to the Zavadovka-Loboykovka centre of metalworking of Timber-Grave culture [Chernikh, 1976, pp. 153-156]. This allows the initial date of the Zavadovka-Loboykovka centre to be placed within the 14th – 13th centuries BC. It is likely, that ‘pre-Cordoned’ developments occupied part of the 14th century BC, but not a long part. Previously, Iranian-language tribes of the Timber-Grave and Alakul cultures occupied the steppe zone between the Dnieper and Central Kazakhstan. To the north and east their neighbours were ancient Europeans, represented by the Prikazanskaya, Cherkaskul, Mezhovskaya and Fyodorovka cultures, as well as sites of the Chernozerye and Malokrasnoyarka types. These peoples enjoyed long and continuous contacts with the steppe Iranians. But in the ‘pre-Cordoned’ period there was strong pressure from these populations on the steppe. Apparently, it was peaceful enough, as the considerable number of mixed sites and the absence of warrior burials designated by sets of weaponry indicate. Just the reverse: from the end of the Sintashta time to the beginning of the Early Iron Age there is a clear tendency of finds of bronze artefacts in cemeteries to decrease. This was obviously not caused by a lack of metal, as a steady increase of metal finds on settlements is observed. In contrast, the proportion of metal in cemeteries of the forest zone is very high 283 6 3 2 5 1 4 8 7 11 10 9 12 13 14 Fig. 108. Sargari-Ivanovskoe antiquities (1-10) and their North Caucasian analogies (11-14). 1 – Bishkul IV; 2, 3, 5, 10 – Petrovka II; 4, – Sargari cemetery; 6 – Ivanovskoe; 7 – Sargari settlement; 8 – Alexeevka; 9 – Novonikolskoe I; 11, 13 – Verkhnegubinskoe; 12 – Harachoy; 14 – Tarki. [Agapov, 1990, p. 9], thanks to unfriendly relations with both the Ugrian populations of the taiga and the eastern Irmen-Karasuk tribes. In the Dnieper-Don zone new migrations of ancient Europeans made little impression. The degree of activity increased to the east. In the Volga area the alien component was rather insignificant, although Fyodorovka and even Mezhovskaya inclusions are found in complexes of stage III of Timber-Grave culture. Horizontal herringbone decoration, a motif typical of these and the Suskan-Lebyazhinka cultures, is present in ornamentation of Timber-Grave ware. At the same time, these details are not essential against a background of the continuance of former burial and ceramic traditions [Kachalova, 1985, pp. 45, 46; Vasiliev et al., 1985, pp. 78-81]. Therefore, an Iranian ethnic bloc remained in the Volga-Ural region, being partly replaced only in northern forest-steppe. The Ural-Irtish interfluve presents more of a contrast, although it is unlikely that there were any serious shocks here either. The intrusions of Cherkaskul and Fyodorovka tribes into the Alakul area were more intensive, as the significant number of mixed sites shows. There is also material indicating infiltrations of Cherkaskul-Mezhovskaya populations into the steppe band of the Southern Transurals and Northern Kazakhstan [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 288; 284 Obidennov, Shorin, 1995, pp. 109-111; Zdanovich S., 1983, pp. 74-77; Evdokimov, 1985]. Therefore the unity of ethno-historical processes lies in the basis of affinity of the subsequently formed Ivanovskoe culture of the Volga-Ural region and the Sargari culture of the Ural-Irtish interfluve (Fig. 108.1-10). Apparently, the main source of cordoned ware in the steppes of these regions was either Fyodorovka cordoned ware from the settlements themselves, or early Mezhovskaya ware. Nevertheless, local Timber-Grave – Alakul tribes were the main component [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 124; Potyomkina, 1985, pp. 269-272, 342, 343; Vasiliev et al., 1985, p. 81]. The genetic connection between Sargari and Bishkul ware determined for the Tobol-Irtish interfluve does not contradict this conclusion, as Petrovka and Alakul ceramic traditions form the basis of the Bishkul ceramic type. Such features of Sargari ware as the forming of hollow body on a hard form-base and manufacture of the body and bottom together can probably be regarded as a development of Alakul traditions. At the same time, there are many bottoms separated from bodies in ceramic collections [Zdanovich S., 1984, pp. 80, 86]. This may indicate the typical Fyodorovka practice in which the body was manufactured first, and the bottom attached later. There are both Fyodorovka and Mezhovskaya features in Sargari ornamentation, for example, triangles with a ‘fringe’, Irmen features too: a narrowed neck on some vessels and decoration in the form of an ‘oblique grate’. In Eastern Kazakhstan, Malokrasnoyarka (Fyodorovka) sites develop into Trushnikovo ones. The absence of the Alakul component here has determined the isolation of the Trushnikovo type from Sargari culture [see Chernikov, 1960]. In Central Kazakhstan a rather smooth transition of Fyodorovka cordoned ceramics into Sargari ware is found [see Margulan et al., 1966]. Thus, in most of the eastern zone of the Cordoned cultures two main ethnic components participated in their formation: Iranian and ancient European (Balto-Germano-Slavic). The role of the last component was rather small in the west, but in the east its importance grew gradually. However, it would be wrong to reduce this process to such a simplified scheme. The broken cordon with curled down ends (‘moustaches’) features in all Cordoned cultures. The form is rather specific and not typical of the Fyodorovka-Mezhovskaya tradition. Earlier, similar cordons were known in ceramic complexes of the Kayakent-Kharochoevo culture in the NorthEastern Caucasus (Fig. 108.11-14). In the steppe zone the Caucasian tradition was subjected to a thorough remaking. However, in the Omsk area, on the periphery of Sargari culture, it occurs clearly enough in the ceramic complex of the fortified settlement of Bolshoy Log. The ceramics have the following characteristics: a barbotine body surface (covered with fluid clay without subsequent smoothing), always excluding the neck; pendent ‘moustaches’ or, for a change, pendent drops; small ledges at the transition from the neck to the shoulder; belts made by tweaks; belts of pendent isosceles triangles made in stabbed technique [Markovin, 1994a, pp. 342-345; Gening, Stefanov, 1993, pp. 93-96]. These features are unknown in earlier complexes in Western Siberia and Kazakhstan, but in Dagestan we can observe their development, at least from the Early Bronze Age [Gadzhiev, 1991, p. 130]. I do not have the feeling (although it needs to be confirmed) that the Caucasian component was particularly large. Nevertheless, its effect was to bring about a certain levelling of steppe Eurasian cultures and the appearance of similar features. This was the second source for the appearance of cordons. There is a suggestion that the North Balkan cultures played an important part in the appearance of cordons in this area [Chernikh, 1983, p. 96], but I do not think this can be confirmed by either ceramics or metal. Overall, the metalworking of the North-West Pontic area is sharply distinct from steppe production, and some of the rather small number of common types were conditioned by earlier impulses from the Volga-Kama area into the South-west and the subsequent interplay of these different cultural blocs. To some extent the possibility of western impulses is indicated by the presence of bronzes of chemical group PB, typical of the Ukraine, in metal complexes of the Volga steppe zone. The first instance of the detection of such metal was in analysis of the Sosnovaya Maza hoard [Agapov, 1990, p. 11; Chernikh, 1966], but the value of this data should not be exaggerated because the spectral emission method of analysis was used. The influence of Irmen culture starts to show in the Asian zone of the Cordoned cultures, probably just after their appearance. Pottery with Irmen features is found up to the River Tobol [Potyomkina, 1985, p. 59, fig. 9.5,7, fig. 11.3, fig. 31.3,4,8; Krivtso- 285 va-Grakova, 1948, fig. 60.7, fig. 62]. This was the likely reason for the distribution through the Asian steppes of pots with a narrowed neck. They are known in Sargari culture and occur rarely even in Mezhovskaya culture [Zdanovich S., 1984, fig. 1, III]. 1 The later chronological position of IrmenKarasuk influences on the steppe relative to the formation of the cultures of the Cordoned chronological horizon has been determined by the clear stratigraphic evidence of the Kent settlement in Central Kazakhstan [Varfolomeev, 1987]. The situation reconstructed using ceramic materials is echoed by metalwork, although not so clearly expressed. As a whole, steppe metalworking represents a further development of Alakul, Fyodorovka and Seima-Turbino traditions, which emphasises the already pronounced idea of a local base to the formation of this cultural horizon. But it also demonstrates a number of new features which cannot be traced back to previous forms, or only with some uncertainty. This applies to steppe and, to a lesser extent, to forest-steppe metal complexes. A connection of Sosnovaya Maza-type daggers with Luristan bronzes, and their distribution through the Caucasus had once been suggested [Merpert, 1966], but there is one problem with this: the main area of distribution is the Volga-Kama region, and there are rather precise prototypes in Seima-Turbino complexes [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, fig. 64.1,2; Avanesova, 1991, fig. 52]. This resemblance might well have been conditioned by the Near Eastern origin of Seima-Turbino bronzes. Why spearheads occur with slits on the blade, whose stemmed versions are known in Transcaucasia and Anatolia, is not quite clear either [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XXXIII; Stronach, 1957, pp. 107-112]. Shaft-hole axes with a ridge on the back occur in the eastern zone in this period. Their form confirms their local roots; however, ridges were characteristic of axes from the Near East [Gorelik, 1993, tab. XIX-XXI; Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 5. 50-56; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 172.2,18,21]. Adzes with a narrow heel and expanded working section are a very revealing type of metal artefact. They have a number of precise analogies in the Circumpontic zone, dating from the Middle Bronze Age [Kuzmina, 1994, fig. 43]. The appearance of 1 Probably, we should also bring into consideration the occurrence of pottery with a narrowed neck in the Amirabad culture of the Aral area, although this is not to be connected with the Irmen complexes themselves. stemmed spearheads in the steppe is another unclear phenomenon. Some of them have a stop, which means that they can be considered basically as a development of Fyodorovka spearheads, but they differ in the proportions of the blade [Avanesova, 1991, p. 49]. This opens up the possibility of an additional influence. The presence of a hook on the stems of individual spearheads provokes Circumpontic associations, although direct parallels are not permissible for chronological reasons. It is possible to be more definite about the Near Eastern analogies to such artefacts as bronze tweezers. They are extremely rare, but are spread through the whole of the Eurasian Metallurgical Province (EAMP) of this time. Identical articles are known on Cyprus, where they are dated from the Early Cypriotic time up to the transition from Middle to Late Cypriotic [Vermeule, Wolsky, 1990, tab. 106; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 344, 345]. It is possible to add one more paradox. The metalworking of the most easterly Semirechye metallurgical centre is connected more closely with that of the western centres of this time than with the central ones [Agapov, 1990, p. 15]. Detailing the actual processes linked to the formation of the final EAMP phase metalworking is complicated enough. What is important here are the signs of external influences on this process. We can be less definite about the ethnic history of this period. The ethnic identity of KayakentKharochoevo culture is absolutely unclear. Apparently, it is possible to connect Irmen-Karasuk influence with Iranians (see below). Probably, they compensated in part for the reduction of the Iranian component in the Ural-Irtish steppes that resulted from the intrusion of ancient Europeans. Therefore it seems rather likely that Iranian was the basic language within the steppe zone from the Dnieper to Central Kazakhstan. However, it is difficult to say now whether this remained so until the beginning of the Early Iron Age. Between the Don and the Altai there is only very poor material, dated to the 11 th – 7th centuries BC. In the Don-Volga interfluve it is limited to several burials. A similar situation is observed in the Transurals [Potapov, 1997; Kostyukov et al., 1996]. The most likely reason for this catastrophic reduction in population was climate change. In the first quarter of the 1st millennium BC there was increased aridity. This strengthened, and was especially severe in the Volga area [Dyomkin et al., 1999]. Con- 286 temporary to the sharp reduction of the steppe population, a rather intensive displacement of taiga tribes to the south is observed, covering the whole forest band of both Eastern Europe and Siberia. We must remember the theory about the cyclic pattern of humidity and aridity, and the heterochronism of these periods within the arid and humid zones [Gumilyov, 1967, pp. 57-63]. Thus, sharp aridity in the steppes should have been accompanied by humidity in the forest zone. This resulted in a decrease in the steppe population and the southward displacement of the taiga population. There are really but two areas of the steppe where archaeological sites of this period are known: the rather sparse Nur sites on the Lower Volga, and the unexpectedly great number of the Dongal sites in Central Kazakhstan [Varfolomeev, 1987; 1992; Loman, 1987]. Despite the considerable distance separating them, their pottery has a number of common features: the mushroom-shaped bulge of the rim, cordons placed under the rim, round and finger impressions, ‘pearls’ (extruded knobs). Dongal ware is comparable with the Obitochnoe ware of the Eastern European steppe, which shows a similarity to the ceramics of the Scythian period [Kachalova, 1985, pp. 47, 48; Loman, 1987]. Most probably, this pottery was formed partly on a Sargari-Ivanovskoe basis, but it is also necessary to pay attention to its Irmen features: ‘pearls’, alternation of ‘pearls’ and arches made by finger impressions, triangles with small circles in the corners [Loman, 1987, p. 125, fig. 8]. The distribution of ceramics of this type was westward. It is possible that a limited number of sites of this period was connected with a transition to nomadic cattle breeding1 and the unstable situation on the steppe. It is unlikely that this movement resulted in a complete replacement of the population, but numbers were sharply reduced. In the Southern Transurals, for example, only single burials with mixed SargariMezhovskaya features may relate to this period – but I am not sure that this is quite true. There is hardly any basis for fitting into this time ceramics of the Zagarinka type in the steppe Tobol basin [Evdokimov, 1987; Kostyukov et al., 1996]. Specific 1 This does not exclude the possible existence of such established settlements as Kent in Central Kazakhstan; but rather it makes them essential. Excavations of Kent have found advanced craft production, which could have served to supply just such nomadic societies. The necessity for interplay between these societies and settled populations is indisputable [see Vzaimodeystvie …, 1984]. features present on Nur and Dongal ware are absent in Zagarinka ceramics. The unornamented band on the bottom of the neck allows Zagarinka ware to be regarded as quite early. It is possible that this type of ware is testimony to the formation of the Sargari culture in the Tobol basin on an Alakul foundation. Thus, in the late 2nd – early 1st millennium BC a rather poor group of sites of the pre-Scythian period formed in steppe Eurasia. There is reason to suppose that it did so as a result of contacts between the local Iranian-language substratum and migrants from the east. This calls to mind a Scythian legend about the coming of such a population into Scythia from the east and to suspect that this group was of Iranian ethnicity. To investigate this problem we must turn to the Sayan-Altai region and the Ob basin, which were occupied in the Final Bronze Age by cultures of the Karasuk-Irmen type. 4.4. The Karasuk-Irmen cultural bloc To the east of the Ural-Irtish interfluve is mountainous country, including the Sayan, Altai and Tien Shan. At different times Indo-European tribes represented by the Afanasievo, Okunev and Fyodorovka cultures occupied it. In the Altai, Elunino sites connected with Seima-Turbino bronzes are known too. Fyodorovka, the latest of these cultures, was replaced by a large cultural bloc including the Karasuk, Elovskaya, Irmen and Lugavskaya cultures, as well as by cemeteries of the Bien type (figs. 109-111). The dating of the initial phase of these cultures varies greatly. Different scholars have placed it between the 15th and the 12th-11th centuries BC. The later dates are grounded, mainly, on the late dating of Fyodorovka antiquities which, as we have seen above, does not correspond to reality. However, in Southern Siberia it is possible that Fyodorovka collectives persisted for a longer time. At the beginning of the 13th century BC metal of the Karasuk culture was already known in Anyang, China [Novgorodova, 1989, p. 139], which means that the culture existed in the 14 th century BC. The Begazi materials of Central Kazakhstan, partly connected with Karasuk, take a stratigraphic 287 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fig. 109. Karasuk culture. Cemetery of Malie Kopyoni III. position after the formation of Sargari culture [Varfolomeev, 1987, p. 62], which indicates a date after the middle of the 14th century BC. But this does not preclude the possibility of earlier dates for Karasuk culture in the Sayan-Altai area. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for sites of this zone fall into the last third of the 2nd millennium BC, but what has been analysed is material from rather late cemeteries [Görsdorf et al., 1998]. Cemeteries of the Bien type located in the Tien Shan contain Karasuk-Irmen features, but their lower chronological border is not quite clear [Karabaspakova, 1987]. The cultural situation within this whole vast area was not, apparently, monotonous. For example, in the Tien Shan, South-Eastern Kazakhstan, sites of the Kulsay type were formed, in which Karasuk features are completely lacking. They are represented by cemeteries with stone settings and wooden frames in grave pits, where the remains of cremations are placed. It is supposed that Fyodorovka populations from Southern Siberia, who had penetrated into this terrain, participated in their formation, although there are also vestiges of features of local FyodorovkaAlakul populations [Rogozhinskii, 1999; Mariashev, Goryachev, 1999; 1999a]. Such preservation for a certain time of former populations is also found in other areas. The correlation of Irmen and Karasuk cultures also remains unclear: were they connected genetically or formed contemporaneously? Therefore, here we shall adhere to a date of the second half or end of the 14th century BC as quite reliable for the formation of these cultures. In this case, the mechanism of the formation of this cultural bloc is more interesting: theories about its Near Eastern origin have been formulated [Chlenova, 1972, pp. 131-135], and we shall examine the arguments later. Here it is sufficient to say that, unfortunately, this point of view has been rejected. The contrary argument was reduced to the fact that Karasuk bronzes could not derive from Luristan, because although the date of Luristan bronzes is very imprecise, it is certainly later than Karasuk. The Luristan style is alien to the Zagros, and the early objects in Luristan complexes were ‘antiques’ from graves plundered in antiquity [Novgorodova, 1989, pp. 126-128; Novgorodova, 1970, pp. 24, 25]. There is one factual and one logical inaccuracy in this. The Near Eastern root was not just based on comparisons with Luristan bronzes. The ceramic parallels, for example, certainly have an earlier chronological 288 5 4 3 2 6 7 1 8 9 10 Fig. 110. Irmen culture. 1, 6, 10 – Ordinskoe; 2 – Kirza; 3, 4 – single finds; 5, 8, 9 – Irmen I; 7 – Krasniy Yar I. position. Furthermore, dating of some Luristan bronzes as ‘antiques’ enables a similar approach to this part. Thus, Luristan parallels are pertinent for us as artefacts that identify a similar cultural type. Although their overall date range is from 25th to the 10th centuries BC, most Luristan finds really date towards the end of this span [Moorey, 1974, p. 22]. Therefore the statement ‘Luristan bronze are dated to the 13th – 10th centuries BC’ is qualitatively the same as ‘Ceramics in the Transurals are dated to the 13th – 10th centuries BC’. Their chronological uncertainty precludes the use of these bronzes either to support or deny the Near Eastern origin of Karasuk. On the other hand, in the case of the penetration of Karasuk tribes from the Near East, their contacts with the Anyang societies in China could have started practically straight away. Clearly, any detailed chronology of the cultures within these areas is impossible until we clear up the general course of these processes. Scholars have already paid attention to the resemblance of Seima-Turbino and Karasuk bronzes, and because of this, the problem of their genetic connection has been discussed [Kizlasov, 1993, p. 47; Bobrov et al., 1997, p. 69]. There is indeed some resemblance, but despite the abundance of bronzes of both types we know no transitional forms. Besides, in the Sayan-Altai area, Fyodorovka metalworking fills a gap between them. It is somewhat similar to them but, as a whole, it breaks the genetic line. However, a longer continuance of SeimaTurbino traditions is found in the Ob basin, in Samus communities, as well as in the Altai, where the Korchazhka culture, keeping the basic features of 289 5 4 6 3 2 1 7 8 Fig. 111. Elovskaya culture. 1-5 – Elovskiy I,II cemeteries; 6-8 – Elovskoe settlement. Seima-Turbino metalworking, was formed as a result of contacts between the Elunino and Fyodorovka cultures. But, of first importance, these areas are separated from the main zone of Karasuk metalworking, and the ceramic material is not the least comparable. There are also no grounds for deriving Karasuk culture from Fyodorovka, although such attempts have been made [Vadetskaya, 1986, p. 62; Matveev, 1986, p. 62]. There are many typological differences between them, and rather convincing reasoning based on the typology of artefacts suggests that the Karasuk population had appeared in the Minusa depression from Western Mongolia [Novgorodova, 1970, pp. 114-119; 1989, p. 130]. So, the Fyodorovka population of Minusa cannot be considered as ancestors of the Karasuk people, but this thesis does not solve the problem of the origin of Karasuk culture: in the previous period only Afanasievo and, probably, Okunev populations lived in Mongolia [Novgorodova, 1989, pp. 81-89], and it is impossible to derive Karasuk from them. The origin of Irmen culture is somewhat clearer. In the Ob basin, sites of the Ordinskoe type have been investigated, which can be regarded as late Fyodorovka. They gave way to those of the early Bistrovka stage of Irmen culture, in whose ceramics both Ordinskoe and Irmen features are mixed. This stage developed into the ‘classic’ Irmen sites. The ceramics of both the Bistrovka and Irmen stages usually lie together, but several clear cases of Bistrovka levels covered by Irmen material are known too [Matveev, 1986; 1993, pp. 97-119]. This would be irreproachable, were it not for one circumstance: features typical of the whole Karasuk-Irmen cultural bloc increase from Ordinskoe to Irmen ware. Any assumptions of convergent development elucidate nothing, as a number of Irmen forms are not just close but in many respects identical to the Trialeti ware of Transcaucasia (Fig. 110.7,9). Therefore, the typological and stratigraphic situation described may also have another explanation. The Irmen component should be regarded as alien, but having had contact with the local Ordinskoe substratum, as a result of which the syncretic Bistrovka ceramic type came into existence, subsequently to be overwhelmed by the Irmen tradition. As the Ordinskoe type was contemporary to the pre-Sargari horizon (14 th century BC), radiocarbon dates of the Irmen stage, which fall into the 13th century BC [Matveev, 1993, 290 p. 127], are not incompatible with such a reconstruction. To comprehend the mechanisms leading to the formation of the cultural bloc we must return to the problems of metalworking, where fundamental changes in its traditions are really very important indicators. On the surface, they seem somewhat illogical. On the one hand, in the metalworking of all the cultures discussed there are many features which are similar to Seima-Turbino sites, separated by a chronological gap from the Karasuk-Irmen bloc. On the other hand, in Seima-Turbino and Andronovo times, tin-bronze was dominant throughout this area. Now an inexplicable reduction in use took place in some areas. On Karasuk sites the proportion of tinbronze is no more than 9% (with the exception of the Malie Kopyoni 3 cemetery). Copper-arsenic alloys predominate heavily; alloys of copper with both tin and arsenic are known too. A similar situation is observable also in the Irmen analytical series (with the exception of the Kamishenka cemetery), as well as in the metalwork of the Lugavskaya culture, situated in the Yenisei basin, very close to Karasuk and Irmen. However, tin bronze is dominant in Elovskaya and Korchazhka samples [Bobrov et al., 1997, pp. 35, 53, 57-62]. At this time, the sources of tin were in Eastern Kazakhstan; thus, the high concentrations of tin in the metalwork of these Ob basin cultures are readily explained. But it is not quite clear why we do not observe the same pattern in that other Ob basin culture – Irmen. Its metallurgists began to direct their attention to Sayan sources of raw material, not those situated on the Altai [Bobrov et al., 1997, p. 69]. Therefore, the reduction of tin alloys has a cultural rather than a geographical basis. In both the Elovskaya and Korchazhka cultures, where tin alloys retain their former position, the local component is more expressed than in the Irmen, Karasuk and Lugavskaya. It is necessary to remember that alloys with arsenic were typical enough for Transcaucasia. Up to the end of the Middle Bronze Age tin ligatures were little used in this area. Certainly, in a number of cases this was not special alloying but use of natural arsenic-containing copper ores. The traces of ancient smelting are found in the Khovu-Axi field in the Sayan region, rich with such ores [Popov, 1999, p. 334]. However, the use of similar ores itself confirms already the existence of a traditional preference for such alloys. Thus, convincing evidence to confirm that the Karasuk and Irmen cultures have their roots in West- ern Siberia and Central Asia is absent. This allows us to return to the plentiful arguments justifying the Near Eastern origin of antiquities of the KarasukIrmen type [Chlenova, 1972, pp. 131-135; 1974]. The following types of Karasuk antiquities have been linked to Near Eastern parallels (Fig. 112.1-23 – Near Eastern artefacts, Fig. 112.24-44 – Karasuk artefacts): tanged two-winged arrowheads with barbs (Luristan, Talish, Alişar II, Troy II) [see also Erkanal, 1977, Taf. 17, 18]; daggers with barbs or a straight guard (Asia Minor); knives with a concave back, handle separated from the blade by a slanting projection (Crete, Cilicia); pseudo-composite knives (Cyprus, Asia Minor); knives with a straight back, curved blade and handle-tang (Troy II, Susa); a knife with a terminal in the form of a human head (Crete). Comparisons of round-looped bronze pendants (Hissar II, III, Luristan) and slit small bells (Giyan IV) are very indicative too. We can add to this list very early Anatolian and Mesopotamian analogies to such specific Karasuk ornaments as palmate pendants [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, fig. 11; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 173.30]. Heels of dagger handles in the form of small bells, very characteristic in Iran and Transcaucasia in the Late Bronze Age, were also rather peculiar to Karasuk daggers [Khlobistin, 1970, p. 195]. In Southern Siberia in the Karasuk period bellheaded pins with a small loop below the bell are widespread too. Pins with a ribbed head from Bactria and Turkmenistan are close to them, as are Anatolian pins of the Middle Bronze Age [Sarianidi, 1977, p. 82; Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 63]. In Azerbaijan, bell-shaped pendants on temple rings occur in the Late Bronze Age [Sazihzade, 1965, p. 68]. Pins with a hole below the head are found on Cyprus, where they are dated to the transition from the Middle to the Late Cypriotic period [Vermeule, Wolsky, 1990, tab. 109, 110]. Barbs on tanged arrowheads are a very early Anatolian and Near Eastern tradition, reflected even in flint arrowheads. For example, there are barbed arrowheads from the Pulur settlement in Eastern Anatolia, dated to the Early Bronze Age [Keban Project, 1976, tab. 567, 568, 711]. All basic types of Karasuk vessels have analogies in Luristan and Northern Iran [Chlenova, 1972, p. 133, tab. 64-66] (Fig. 113.1-26). Some specific Karasuk forms, for example vessels in the form of different animals, have early prototypes in the Eneolithic and the Early and Middle Bronze Age of Palestine and Anatolia [Goner, 1992, figs. 3.12, 3.14, 4.6; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 299]. Remember also 291 Fig. 112. Metal artefacts of the Karasuk-Irmen cultural bloc (24-44) and their analogies in the Near and Middle East (1-23), and in Central Europe (45-57). 1, 8 – Troy II; 2, 3 – Megiddo (18th – 15th centuries BC); 4 – Boghazköy (16th – 15th centuries BC); 5, 11, 16 – Crete; 6 – Shandar (Northern Iran); 7 – Yakke-Parsan 2 (Khorezmia); 9 – Psikhro (Crete); 10 – Elisos (Aegean); 12 – Karmirberd (Transcaucasia); 13 – Dalversin (Fergana); 14 – Mingechaur (Azerbaijan); 15 – Talish; 17 – Alişar Höyük (Anatolia); 18 – Gözlü Kale (Anatolia); 19 – Hissar II A; 20 – Giyan Tepe IV; 21, 22 – Sialk B; 23 – Luristan; 24, 42 – Hun Shan (North-Eastern China); 25 – Mongolia; 26, 38 – Ordos; 27 – Krasnoyarsk; 28 – Semipalatinsk; 29 – Poylova, Krasnoyarsk area; 30 – Krivaya, Minusa depression; 31 – Talmenskoe Barnaul area; 32 – Iudina, Krasnoyarsk area; 33 – Tomsk; 34 – Minusa depression; 35 – Kanay (Eastern Kazakhstan); 36 – China; 37 – Lyaoyan (North-Eastern China); 39 – Okunev Ulus (Minusa depression); 40 – Krasnoyarsk area; 41 – ‘Mogilnik po doroge iz sovkhoza v Saragash’ (Minusa depression); 43 – Zherlik (Minusa depression); 44 – Ust-Tes (Minusa depression); 45 – Smilowo (Silesia); 46 – group Götting Morög (Austria); 47 – Biskupin (Poland); 48, 52, 54, 55 – cemetery of Hallstatt (Austria); 49 – Salling Gerret (Denmark); 50 – Komlod (Hungary); 51 – Hungary; 53 – Dyula (Hungary); 56 – Beierdorf-Welatitz group (Austria); 57 – Dobova (Yugoslavia). 292 Fig. 113. Ceramics of the Karasuk-Irmen cultural bloc (17-26) and their analogies in the Near and Middle East (1-16), and in Central Europe (27-32). 1 – Northern Syria; 2, 3, 15 – Hissar III; 4, 9 – Mari; 5, 8 – Kish; 6 – Sialk; 7 – Hissar I; 10, 14, 16 – Ur; 11 – Shah Tepe; 12 – Luristan; 13 – Auchin-Depe (Southern Turkmenistan); 17 – Ordos; 18, 24, 26 – Hun Shan I (North-Eastern China); 19, 21, 23 – Dandibay (Central Kazakhstan); 20 – Verkhne-Karasukskiy cemetery; 22 – Nemir (Southern Siberia); 25 – Abakan cemetery; 27 – Ravensbruck (Austria); 28, 31 – Hallstatt cemetery; 29 – Donnerkirchen (Hallstatt culture); 30 – Opole-Nova (Lausitz culture); 32 – Zeitlarm (Bavaria, Hallstatt culture). 293 that Begazi ware, which is typologically close to Karasuk-Irmen ceramics, is usually accompanied by wheel-made pottery. In the Altai, on the settlements Burla 3 and Kaygorodok 3, wheel-made pottery is present in such quantity (in addition, it is accompanied by cone-shaped potter’s stands) that any discussion about its being imported is nonsense [Varfolomeev, 1987, p. 62; Udodov, 1988, pp. 107-109]. At the same time, Central Asian ware is a reliable sign of the direction of movement. It is readily possible to find early prototypes of Karasuk-Irmen ware among the Middle Bronze Age ceramics of Transcaucasia. Black-polished ware is very typical of this zone. Incrustation of decorations using white paste is known too. The forms of South Siberian and Central Asian jugs are similar to those of the Trialeti culture. Ornaments are the same too, even to such typical feature as small circles in the angles of triangles [Kushnaryova, 1994, tab. 27-29; 1994d, p. 122; Dzhaparidze, 1994, tab. 21-23] (Fig. 143.8-10,12,13). Southern sources are also revealed in ceramics of the Elovskaya culture, although the local Fyodorovka-Krotovo component is more prominent in the ceramic complex overall. However, the southern component in Elovskaya differs notably from that in Karasuk and Irmen. In this connection, let us remember the presence of Hurrian river-names in the Vasyugan basin. Their linkage with Elovskaya culture is determined on the basis that there was no other break in the local line of development in the Vasyugan basin [Maloletko, 1988; 1989]. The rather dense building of Irmen settlements (Bistrovka 4) reflects Near Eastern tradition, as does the clay floor-lining which occurs in one dwelling [Matveev, 1993, p. 61]. It is possible that Transcaucasian connections are also indicated by a bone conical spindle-whorl from the Irmen I settlement. Discussing Sintashta materials we have already seen such spindle-whorls in Transcaucasia. They are known in the Arich cemetery and on the settlements of the Kura-Araxian culture [Kushnaryova, 1994d, tab. 41; Munchaev, 1981, p. 38]. An important feature characterising Karasuk culture, is the widespread occurrence of chariots. In Mongolia an enormous number of rock depictions with representations of chariots has been found; the representations of Karasuk-type weapons link them reliably with that culture. A similar situation is observed also on the Yenisei [Novgorodova, 1978, pp. 203-206; 1989, pp. 142-165; Devlet, 1998, pp. 183, 184]. The broad use of chariots by Karasuk tribes is indicated also by so-called ‘models of a yoke’ found in graves, which most scholars interpret as hooks for fixing reins [Novgorodova, 1989, pp. 159-161; Varyonov, 1984, p. 50]. There is no pre-Karasuk culture in this area in which the use of chariots has been identified, except for two images of carts, which it is possible to connect with the Afanasievo and Okunev cultures [Novozhenov, 1994, p. 148]. At the same time, Karasuk chariots are identical to those in the Near East. To conclude this survey, it is possible to recollect also similarities between the ‘Animal Style’ of Luristan bronzes and of Karasuk culture. Considered against the background outlined above such a parallel no longer seems so improbable. In the second half of the 2nd millennium BC, Southern Siberia and Central Asia underwent essential cultural transformations over a vast area including the Sayan-Altai and Tien Shan mountain systems, part of the Ob-Irtish interfluve, and the east of Central Kazakhstan. A great cultural zone formed, which included the Karasuk, Irmen, Elovskaya and Begazi-Dandibay cultures, and cemeteries of the Bien type. The area’s earlier ancient European tribes were assimilated. A new locus of cultural genesis arose, connected with the Scytho-Cimmerian ethnos. 4.5. The Scytho-Cimmerian problem The archaeological literature on Scytho-Cimmerian problems is, probably, the most extensive in archaeology and is outside the scope of the present work. We shall touch upon some of these problems but only insofar as they are important for our consideration of ethnic history in the Bronze Age. The facts connected with Scytho-Cimmerian history are in many respects paradoxical and mutually exclusive. As a result, we now have several well-founded points of view, but they do not differ from each other in essence. Despite apparent opposition they are quite similar: all scholars suppose that a local population participated in the formation of the culture of the Scythian period, and that there was a rather potent external impulse. The distinctions are reduced to estimations of the roles of these two components [Murzin, 1990, pp. 4-8]. At the same time, there is rather discordant evidence in written sources, which 294 has resulted in very different assessments of the localisation of the Cimmerians and of the understanding of the Cimmerian problem. These are all based on quite reliable sources. This permits us to regard the theses listed below as though they were established facts, despite their mutual contradiction. – Ancient tradition localises the Cimmerians in the North Pontic area; they spoke Thracian [Trubachov, 1987, p. 123]. – Linguistic analysis of the ethnic name has given rise to suspicions of its Iranian or even Scythian origin. In this connection, it has been suggested that the Cimmerians be regarded as part of the Scythian ethnos. The replacement of the initial ‘g’ by ‘k’ was a result of the Greeks having learned of this ethnic name from the Thracians. There are, however, also some peculiarities in the descriptions of Scythians and Cimmerians in Near Eastern written sources. If a source mentions Scythians, this always means the Scythians themselves; if the term Gimirri is used, this could relate to Scythians, as well as to proper Cimmerians [Diakonov, 1981]. A.I. Ivanchik objects to such an interpretation of the texts, but does not contest that the Cimmerians spoke an Iranian dialect. He supposes that these are ethnic names at the same level and describe two different groups of Iranian-language people [Ivanchik, 1996, pp. 90, 91; 1999a, p. 84]. In later sources, after the Cimmerians have been banished from the historical arena, this term is used of Iranian-language nomads [Grantovskii et al., 1997, p. 82]. In the Akkadian versions of Old Persian texts, Gimirraia always corresponds to the term Saka. All this indicates that the Cimmerians spoke Iranian [Ivanchik, 1996, pp. 126, 127, 159, 160]. – Middle Eastern sources of the 7th century BC are overflowing with information about unusual Scythian and Cimmerian activity in the Near East. The country of Gamir, which in 714 BC was a subject of the campaign carried out by Rusa I, was situated in Central Transcaucasia [Melyukova, 1989, p. 33; Ivanchik, 1994; 1996, p. 30; Erlikh, 1994, p. 173]. There is, however, an opinion that Gamir should be localised in the Lake Urmia area [Grantovskii et al., 1997, p. 75]. However, these distinctions are not essential to the problem discussed here. Besides, in Ivanchik’s opinion, this term could simply mean a country where Cimmerians lived, not a stable placename. Were Cimmerians displaced within the Near East, this country might be displaced in the minds of Near Eastern authors [Ivanchik, 1999a, p. 79]. – Neither in Transcaucasia nor the Near East have antiquities been revealed of the North Pontic type, which it is possible to connect with Cimmerians [Terenozhkin, 1976, p. 205]. The single sites of the beginning of the middle third of the 7th century BC in Eastern Anatolia, considered as Cimmerian, already have early Scythian features [Ivanchik, 1994]. However, more recently Ivanchik has stated that in some cases their cultural and stratigraphic context allows finds to be dated to the beginning of the 7 th century BC [Ivanchik, 1999]. – The earliest Scythian sites of Eastern Europe have no local roots, date from the mid-7th century BC and contain Near Eastern inclusions [Erlikh, 1994, pp. 169-171; Terenozhkin, 1976, p. 209; Petrenko, 1989, pp. 222, 223]. – In the pre-Scythian and early Scythian periods in the North Pontic area traces of the previous Belozerka culture are clearly visible [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 152; Melyukova, 1989a, p. 10]. This list can be continued, but the inconsistencies above are those of especial interest to us with regard to reconstructing the ethno-historical processes. A scheme compatible with all listed above is given below. It should not provoke serious opposition amongst specialists; its essence is simple enough. For us its interest is that it establishes the ethnic identity of Karasuk culture and substantiates the Near Eastern homeland of the Indo-Europeans. It has a rather general nature and consequently does not reflect more complex developments in the Pontic area at the beginning of the Early Iron Age. In discussing the Bronze Age of the Eurasian steppe, we have noted Karasuk-Irmen influences that resulted in the formation of the Dongal, Nur and Obitochnoe types. In Eastern Europe finds of Karasuk knives, daggers, palmate pendants, gorytus clasps and ceramics of the Karasuk-Irmen type are known. These are dated to the 9th – 7th centuries BC [Vasiliev et al., 1986a, fig. 18, 19; Melyukova, 1989a, p. 14; Chlenova, 1973]. Karasuk-type weapons, ceramics, ornaments etc. are known as far as Central Europe and the Northern Balkans in complexes of the Hallstatt and Lausitz cultures, as well as in the late stage of the Urnfield culture [Chlenova, 1972, pp. 131-135; see Hennig, 1970] (Figs. 112.4557; 113.27-32). It addition, there are stelae of Karasuk type with representations of deer (so-called ‘deer rocks’) in the Transurals, the North Pontic area, the Northern Balkans and the Northern Caucasus [Novgorodova, 1989, pp. 180, 181]. This complex of finds 295 shows that Karasuk tribes from Central Asia infiltrated far to the west. The result was the appearance in Central Europe of the populations considered by scholars to be Cimmerian or Thraco-Cimmerian, connected with either the steppe zone or the Northern Caucasus [Metzner-Nebelsick, 1998; Erlikh, 1998]. Indeed, as demonstrated below, some of these groups could have been of Caucasian origin. It is possible that the activities of these mobile groups, together with ecological reasons, were a cause of the catastrophic decrease in the number of archaeological sites in most of steppe Eurasia, their poverty and cultural vagueness. Nevertheless, it is not possible to speak about a considerable number of the Karasuk population advancing to the west. Many former Belozerka traditions remained, for example, in the North Pontic area. This indicates that the alien component, having penetrated into the area settled by the Thracian substratum, did not change the ethnic situation there. The forms of the new societies and the reasons for preserving their Iranian ethnic name, albeit transformed, are not clear but are explicable. The next stage in our argument is to look at Transcaucasia. It is very likely that not all Cimmerian tribes left this area in the second half of the 2nd millennium BC to appear in Southern Siberia and Central Asia. This would explain the presence of Cimmerians in the Near East, found in written sources, and the absence of antiquities of the North Pontic type there. In this case, it is necessary to search for Gamir somewhere in Transcaucasia, within areas occupied by cultures of the post-Trialeti type; and the presence of Cimmerians in Cilicia or in the west of Anatolia is to be fixed by the presence of artefacts of Transcaucasian type. It is possible that in Transcaucasia such a culture is Khodzhali-Kedabek, which shows some parallels with Karasuk (arrowheads, loomed bronze pendants, tacks with mushroom-shaped head). Under the barrow at Sarichoban horse burials are found that may reflect the mobility of Cimmerian groups in the region known from Near Eastern sources [Dzhafarov, 1993]. This permits one more assumption about the possible infiltrations of Transcaucasian Cimmerians into the North Caucasian steppe and into the Northern Caucasus, and their engagement in processes which were in the course of realisation on a local and Central Asian base. And such evidence is available. Assyro-Urartian helmets from the Rutkha and Faskau cemeteries provide the strongest indication [Erlikh, 1994, p. 169]. However, the situation in the Central Caucasus since the Late Bronze Age is rather complex: the Koban culture which had formed there has traces of local, Eastern European, Transcaucasian, and even Central European and Near Eastern components [Kozenkova, 1996, p. 129]. This area certainly played a very important role in the processes described, but it is not clear of what kind. The formation of the Scythians took place in Central Asia, apparently on the same Karasuk basis. The earliest Scythian site here is the Arzhan barrow, dated to the 8th century BC, although some scholars relate it to the second half of the 9 th century BC [Terenozhkin, 1976, p. 210; Gryaznov, 1980, pp. 52-56]. N.L. Chlenova believes it date to the 7th century BC and does not accept that materials from it reflect the sources of Scythian culture [Chlenova, 1999]. It is difficult for me to judge how appropriate is her dating of the Early Iron Age, but her suggested dates for the Bronze Age are too late. Therefore, it is possible that her date for Arzhan is part of the same tendency, but even to accept it does not change the essential situation, as early Scythian sites of the west and east will be practically synchronous [Yablonskii, 1999, p. 291]. V.I. Molodin, who in many respects agrees with Chlenova, has suggested an earlier date of about the last third of the 8th century BC. He too does not believe it belonged to the ancestors of the Scythians [Molodin, 1998]. However, in the western part of the Great Eurasian Steppe belt a basis for the formation of Scythian culture is simply lacking. Therefore, it is more promising to follow those scholars who maintain a Central Asian localisation of the Scythian homeland. As a whole, the formation of early Scythian sites was connected with the mountainous Sayan-Altai region. However, on the foothills to the north, there were some cultures of this time (late Irmen, Zavyalovo, Bolsherechenskaya) in which early Scythian artefacts occur too [Papin, Shamshin, 1999, p. 141]. We have to be less definite about the concrete mechanism of forming Scythian culture in this zone, although rather clear connections of early Scythian sites with previous ones have been traced. Aspects of the grave construction and rituals of the Karasuk, Irmen and Lugavskaya cultures are found in the burial rite of early Scythians of the Sayan-Altai area. Very indicative are horse burials and millstones found in graves of the Irmen culture and peculiar to Scythian sites, rock-obelisks, and many objects, especially knives, bronze arrowheads, pendants, de- 296 1 3 2 4 10 7 8 6 5 9 11 12 13 14 15 19 18 16 17 20 Fig. 114. Scythian culture. 1 – Kostromskaya; 2 – Verkhnii Rogachik; 3, 12 – Zavadskaya Mogila; 4 – Starshaya Mogila; 5 – Nagornoe; 6, 9 – Zhabotin; 7 – Goryachevo; 8 – Zolotoi Kurgan; 10 – Stepnoi; 11 – Chastie kurgani; 13 – Sukhino; 14 – Grishentsi; 15 – Gvardeyskoe; 16 – Krasnoznamenka; 17 – Vasilievka; 18 – Makeevka; 19 – Zhurovka; 20 – Kelermes. 297 Fig. 115. Scythian warriors. tails of horse bridles, etc. [Papin, Shamshin, 1999, p. 141; Bobrov, 1999; Mikhaylov, 1999, p. 132]. The origin of such an important component of Scythian culture as Animal Style is more problematic. It is completely senseless to search for its sources in the North Pontic steppes. As a rule, two areas are discussed: the Near East and Southern Siberia. In the latter, sites of Karasuk art, which is close in style to Scythian, are regarded as a basis for this supposition. D.G. Savinov, substantiating the Southern Siberian roots of the Scythian Animal Style, suggests that its features first arose in the form of leather appliqués on clothing, harnesses, etc. [Savinov, 1997a]. This would also explain its unexpected occurrence in a completely elaborated form. However, earlier sources of this style can be found in Near Eastern cultures. There is a lion tearing a deer on a piece of relief from Kish (about 2800 BC). The deer’s head is turned back, and its antlers have ringshaped endings [Orthmann, 1975, fig. 81a]. These features are typical of Scythian art. A.R. Kantorovich identifies numerous parallels between Scythian and early Near Eastern art. On an object from the Scythian barrow of Slonovaya Bliznitsa, a god or hero striking a chthonic creature attacking a hooved animal is depicted. There are identical scenes in Iran, where they are dated to the 5th century BC; the earliest in Mesopotamia (4 th – 3rd millennia BC) [Kantorovich, 1998, pp. 85, 86]. Figures of deer with bent limbs, subsequently developed into figures of flying deer, are common to the art of both too.1 The earliest similar drawings are known in the second half of the 4th millennium BC in Sumer; later ones in Ur and Luristan, and on Mitannian seals of the Kirkuk type. Another important common motif is the representation of the face of a feline predator (Alişar, Bogazköy, Ordos, as well as later in Assyria and Luristan). Figures of pacing lions can be regarded as a continuation of Hittite traditions. Stylistic comparisons are rather worthy of comment too. The accentuation of the wrinkles of an animal’s eyebrows was characteristic of Scythian art, as well as of Achaemenid and Assyrian. The earliest drawings with this feature are Sumerian of the 3rd millennium BC. Both Near Eastern and Mycenaean2 parallels, dated to the 2nd millennium BC (as well as later in Achaemenid time), have such a feature of Scythian style as the clear separation of shoulders and croups [Kantorovich, 1998a, pp. 148166]. All this points clearly to a connection between Scythian and Near Eastern art, but, in the opinion of Kantorovich, this was implemented thro-ugh the art of the Achaemenid, not earlier [Kantorovich, 1998a, p. 147]. An interesting approach to the origins of Scythian Animal Style is that of V.A. Korenyako. He views it as an art of expressive deformations and effects that were closely connected to the mental peculiarities of riders, warriors and hunters, such as aggression, emotion, defiance of danger, and unbalanced character [Korenyako, 1998, p. 72]. Probably because of this the transition to pastoral nomadism also promoted further development of those features which had been borrowed by the Scythians from the earlier forms of Near Eastern art. 1 It is necessary to note that figures of flying deer with wings are already known on seals from Bogazköy [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 307.18]. 2 Mycenaean analogies are not essential in this case, as Mycenaean art itself had its roots in the Near East. 298 Written sources place the appearance of the Scythians in the Near East in the 670s BC. This corresponds to the archaeological finds in Eastern Anatolia mentioned above, which have early Scythian features and are dated to the beginning of the middle third of the 7th century BC. In the North Caucasian steppe and North Pontic area, Scythian sites are not dated before the mid-7th century BC [Melyukova, 1989, p. 33; Ivanchik, 1994; Erlikh, 1994, pp. 169, 171]. Indeed, there are already Near Eastern features in the earliest sites of this area [Petrenko, 1989, pp. 222, 223]. This evidence determines the trajectory of Scythian movement from Southern Siberia and Mongolia through the south of Central Asia and Iran into the Near East, and only after that into the North Pontic area. All of the above corresponds in general to V.Yu. Murzin’s hypothesis about the origins of the Scythians [Murzin, 1990, pp. 16-31] – that Scythian culture is an amalgam of three components: pre-Scythian culture of the Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk type, proto-Scythian, introduced in the 7 th century BC from the far regions of Asia, and inclusions of Near Eastern culture. The last inclusions are very visible, but they are quite local and limited to armour (for horses and humans) and a number of zoomorphic figures. It is more difficult to distinguish the first two components because of their original affinity. The ceramics have, as a rule, local roots, and mirrors and stone dishes originated in the east. Furthermore, it is not possible to trace in the Pontic area a continuous development of culture which would result in the formation of that of the Scythian period. In contrast to the west, the development of the Scythian culture in the east occurs continuously from the Late Bronzes Age. In the North Pontic area of the 10th century BC there were daggers, arrowheads, bits, cheek-pieces, and anthropomorphic stelae, generically linked to Mongolia and Southern Siberia. Stelae demonstrate that this was not a result of trade. This process leads to the formation of the Chernogorovka complex, which is earlier than Novocherkassk, but coexists with early Novocherkassk. The developed Novocherkassk complex divides the Chernogorovka complex, whose eastern origin is not in doubt, from the Scythian period. This complex has much in common with the early Scythian one – the similarity of Chernogorovka and Scythian arrowheads, cheek-pieces, bridles – but it is not close to the Scythian period chronologically, which seems, on the face of it, to be paradoxi- cal, for there are no proto-Scythian inclusions in the Novocherkassk period. The answer is that both were introduced from the east, but separately: Chernogorovka in the 10th and proto-Scythian in the 7th century BC. The early impulse tapered off. Local communities assimilated these first proto-Scythian tribes. It is possible that they were assimilated by Thracians, because ancient writers assert the Thracian identity of Cimmerian tribes. In the 7th century BC a new impulse is found in the North Pontic area, and a set of objects typical for Scythian times occurs: akinakes, arrowheads, stelae, stirrup-shaped bits, perforated cheek-pieces, mirrors with a closed loop on the reverse, stone dishes. The genetic roots of this phenomenon lay in Mongolia and Southern Siberia. There was the pattern usual for such migrations: newcomers mixed with the local population, producing a diversity of burial rites and construction, which is typical of the early Scythian period. By the 4th century BC a unification of ritual is observed, indicative of a continuing process of assimilation that had been long afoot. However, Murzin supposes that the second wave of Scythians from Central Asia journeyed through the steppe zone, with the Near Eastern component introduced as a result of their subsequent campaigns in the Near East, which had started in Eastern Europe. These campaigns were not a single action but several waves [Murzin, 1990, pp. 4144]. However, the presence of Near Eastern artefacts in the earliest Scythian complexes contradicts this. On the face of it, the similar model of the Scythian ethnogenesis is not reflected in the anthropological material, which testifies to the Eastern European origin of the Scythians. L.T. Yablonskii, following many other authors, notes that Scythian anthropological characteristics are related to the Timber-Grave population of the Bronze Age. Indeed, the proximity of the Scythians to the people of the Tagarskaya culture and to series from the south of Central Asia (Southern Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) is explained by common origins. In the south of Central Asia the impulse from Mongolia and Southern Siberia is really felt; to the west it is lacking. Yablonskii indicates that Mongoloid features were not peculiar to the Eastern European Scythians; they are even clearer in the Saka of the Aral area. Therefore, it is possible that the report by Herodotus of the appearance of the Scythians from Asia concerns 299 them [Yablonskii, 1999a, pp. 141-143; 1999c, pp. 44, 45]. S.G. Efimova takes the same stand. She notes that steppe and forest-steppe Scythians differ anthropologically, but all of them had European features, and that Mongolian admixtures are absent from the series studied, which indicates the local Eastern European roots of the Scythians [Efimova, 1999]. However, she has compared material from the Belozerka culture with Scythian material from the forest-steppe. It is necessary at once to stress the incorrectness of considerating Belozerka culture as late Timber-Grave. As we have explained above, its origins were apparently in the North-Eastern Balkans, although a local component certainly participated in its formation. Furthermore, the main area of Belozerka sites is to the west of the Dnieper, while the Timber-Grave area is to the east. Murzin is correct to assert that this anthropological evidence is not quite correct. Often rather late Scythian material or that from the forest-steppe is used to substantiate the Scythian relationship with the TimberGrave people. But these materials reflect the local substratum rather than the true Scythians. It is already evident that series in Scythia are heterogeneous. It is necessary to compare early material, with its differentiation into complexes of various times and places [Murzin, 1990, pp. 12-13]. Unfortunately, craniological material of the early Scythian period from the Pontic steppe zone has not been published [Yablonskii, 1999a, p. 143]. Therefore, it is impossible to rely on anthropology. But in future we should not expect the presence of essential Mongolian admixtures in early Scythian complexes. The Scythians in Southern Siberia and Mongolia had no Mongoloid features either, just Mongolian admixtures, which were gradually obliterated as a result of contacts with other populations. The first wave in the 10 th century BC was, apparently, very small. The second stream passed through the Near East, and related Transcaucasian populations could have joined it. Intensive contacts with local Eastern European populations might finally obliterate Mongoloid features. A similar approach to solving the Scytho-Cimmerian problem allows us to remove one more basic inconsistency: identifying Scytho-European isoglosses. These isoglosses are broad enough and include lexical, phonetic and grammatical conformities. Furthermore, there are numerous precise parallels between the Osetian epic and the epics of European peoples. The parallels with the legends of the insu- lar Celts are especially difficultly to be explained. The possibilities for comparisons between the figures of Batraz and Cuchulain, Soslan and Cuchulain, Sosriko and Baldur, the death scenes of Batraz and King Arthur, customs of ritual pregnancy of men, military customs of drinking from ritual cups, and myths about a fire wheel, all testify to the formation of these epic narratives within the same area. It is worthy of comment that there is often not just a similarity of poetic figures, but also of the ways of reproducing concrete poetic characters [Abaev, 1965, pp. 5-117; Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 946, 947; Dumezil, 1990, pp. 64-70, 72-78, 89, 90, 95, 96, 168172, 174]. The formation of either these languages or these mythological conformities at the beginning of the Early Iron Age in Eastern Europe is impossible. By then European languages were already differentiated and the peoples speaking them were living in different areas of Europe. In this period the Scythians could have made contact only with Slavs and, probably, with some of the Balts. As a matter of fact, there are Scytho-Slavic isoglosses with no analogies in other European languages. There are also broad Scytho-German isoglosses, explained by the penetration of Gothic tribes into the North Pontic area in the 3rd century BC [Abaev, 1965, pp. 131136; Korol, 1998]. It is possible that Scytho-German isoglosses were formed in part as a result of permanent Scythian raids into Central Europe, even that Scythian groups settled in Transylvania and the Hungarian plain undertook some of these raids [Melyukova, 1999]. But it is impossible to explain the presence of these isoglosses in Celtic and Italic by Early Iron Age contacts, or by those of the Late Bronze Age that we analysed in the introduction to Part II. If the Scythian homeland were in Mongolia and Southern Siberia, the occurrence of these isoglosses is especially difficult to explain. One hypothesis explains the occurrence of the isoglosses by the migration of ancient Europeans around the Caspian Sea into Europe [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 946, 947]. This could be true, but only as to that part relating to ancient Iranian and European isoglosses, some of which could subsequently pass into the Scythian language too – although, as already discussed, the Iranian population remaining in the steppe zone until the coming of both Scythians and Cimmerians was unlikely to be very numerous. The Scytho-European isoglosses relate to at least three different chronological levels. The earli- 300 est fixes the contact of the Scythians with all Europeans who were settled within the same area, and is dated at the latest to the mid-2nd millennium BC. Only after that came the contacts with the Germans and (mainly Eastern) Slavs. Furthermore, Tocharian dialects are also included in some Scytho-European isoglosses, and there are Scytho-Armenian and Scytho-Thraco-Phrygian phonetic isoglosses too [Abaev, 1965, pp. 34, 119, 120, 136-141]. The last can be explained by the intrusion of the Scythian ethnos into the area of the Northern Pontus settled by Thracians but, as a whole, the problem is not solved from conventional positions. The only explanation is that the Scythians were of Transcaucasian origin, arising on the foundation of cultures of the post-Trialeti type. The most acceptable area is Southern Transcaucasia, where, in Middle Bronze Age II, there was a culture, represented by sites of the Sevan-Uzerlik type, closely comparable with Sintashta. Thus, it was probably left by Iranian-speaking people. It is worthy of comment that in Transcaucasia similar forms to those in Sintashta (low pots with outcurved rim) remained into the second half of the 2nd millennium BC in the pottery found in the Artik cemetery. This ware also contained some typical Sintashta ornaments, such as groups of inclined straight lines or the vertical herringbone design separated by verticals [see Khachatryan, 1979]. The Iranian presence, a hypothesis which common Kartvelian isoglosses confirm too, should be dated before the mid-2nd millennium BC [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 634, 635]. In this case, taking into account the above suggested localisation of the ancient Europeans at this period in the Lake Urmia region, the formation of Scytho-European isoglosses is readily explained. Also remember the theories that the Tocharians were localised in the early 2 nd millennium BC in the area of the Lesser Zab, in the Lake Urmia region and in the Zagros [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989, pp. 15, 16, 18, 23; Yusifov, 1987, p. 19], although some of the Scytho-Tocharian isoglosses could have been formed in Southern Siberia and Mongolia as well. Likewise, the localisation of these populations within the same area explains the possibility of comparing Seima-Turbino and Karasuk bronzes. Further archaeological evidence of contacts between protoScythians and ancient Europeans is the presence of proto-Fyodorovka ware in the ceramic complex of the Sintashta culture, as well as the presence of ceramic group II, which is comparable with proto- Fyodorovka, in the Uzerliktepe settlement in Transcaucasia. In addition, the reconstructed migrations of both the ancient Europeans and Scytho-Cimmerians, with their continuous settling in continental regions, explain the disappearance from their languages of the term describing the ‘sea’, which goes back to the common Indo-European base [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 672, 673]. An additional linguistic argument in favour of such a description of early Scythian and Cimmerian history is that in the Finno-Ugrian languages, alongside early Iranian, later Eastern Iranian borrowings have been found, whose nature allows us to speak about the coming of a new Iranian group, unconnected with the people who were the source of the earlier borrowings [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 929-931]. Thus, the separation of Scythian from Iranian happened rather early, at the end of Middle Bronze Age I – beginning of Middle Bronze Age II, about the 18th century BC. It is possible that the formation of this population was connected with the same causes as the contemporary migrations of Iranians into Bactria, Margiana and the Transurals. If that were so, the initial area for this migration would be South-Eastern Anatolia and North-Eastern Syria. This population settled in Transcaucasia, interacting with adjacent tribes: Armenians, Balts, Slavs, Germans, Celts, Italics and Tocharians. In the culture of this group Trialeti features arise. In the second half of the 14th century BC part of the proto-Scythian population migrated to Mongolia and Southern Siberia, forming cultures of the Karasuk-Irmen type; and in the early 1st millennium BC some of these tribes infiltrated from Central Asia far to the west, into the Pontic area, just as the related proto-Scythian tribes from Transcaucasia penetrated into the Northern Caucasus and the Pontus. The mixing together of both these streams with the Belozerka (Thracian) tribes in the North-Western Pontus and with the late Timber-Grave (Iranian) tribes in the North-Eastern, brings about peculiarities in ethnogenesis within the Eastern European steppe at this time (Fig. 116). The multiethnic, and probably multilingual, nature of Cimmerians in the North Pontic littoral may well explain the contradictions described by Herodotus between the Cimmerian chiefs and their people during the incursion of the Scythians. It is rather difficult to separate the bearers of these two streams, close as they are to one another ethnically and culturally. Throughout the area artefacts with both Caucasian and Central Asian fea- 301 Fig. 116. Migrations of Scytho-Cimmerian tribes: a – initial localisation of the Cimmerians and the Gamir country; b – Elovskaya culture; c – Irmen culture; d – Karasuk culture; e – sites of the Bien type; 1 – Cimmerian migration to Central Asia; 2 – Cimmerian migration to Eastern Europe; 3 – Scythian migration to the Near East and the Pontic area. tures occur. This is demonstrated most clearly by the polished pots with white paste incrustation which are typical of pre- and early Scythian times. Some may be confidently connected with the Karasuk effect, others have parallels in the Caucasian cultures, but it is possible to connect many forms with both the latter cultures and those of Siberia and Mongolia [see Stepi evropeyskoy …, 1989, tab. 3, 8, 10, 17, 61, 89]. The difficulties in distinguishing them are caused by the initial relatedness of these traditions and their common derivation from Trialeti culture, whose ceramic forms and ornamental style showed intense durability. Some vessels from the earlyScythian Krasnoznamenka barrows find direct analogies in Trialeti ware [compare Dzhaparidze, 1994, tab. 18.22; Stepi evropeyskoy …, 1989, tab. 89.1,2,4] 302 (Fig. 114. 16). It appears that the migration of the proper Scythians was carried out from Central Asia through the Near East and Transcaucasia. Very likely, from the end of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC the ethnic self-name of this whole group was ‘Gamir’ or ‘Gimir’. The Scythians were a part of this ethnos. This explains the identical reproduction of this ethnic name by both Greek and Near Eastern sources, as well as the latter using this term to denominate the Scythians too. From all that has been said it is possible to conclude that Herodotus was accurate when he described the coming of the Scythians from Asia and their crossing the Araxes on their way to the North Pontic area. What could stimulate such a massive migration of Iranians from the Near East into Central Asia and the formation of the Karasuk and Irmen cultures? The possible correlation of Elovskaya culture with the Hurrians, as well as dating these events within the framework of the 14th century BC, may well be the key. In the Near East it was then that the Mitanni Kingdom was fundamentally weakened and the Hittite New Kingdom waxed strong. Hittite kings undertook a series of rather successful campaigns in Eastern Anatolia and Northern Syria; that of Šuppiluliuma I in 1360 BC especially so, when he passed through the lands of Išuva and Hayasa and routed Mitanni [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, pp. 144147; Zablocka, 1989, pp. 255-257]. Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that these precise events led to the formation of new cultures in Western Siberia and Mongolia: this could have resulted from some lesser campaign, poorly reflected by written sources. It is more likely that general instability in the area stimulated a number of migratory streams, including those into Luristan. There is, however, in Russian scholarship an opinion which contradicts the suggested reconstruction: that Aryans were absent in the Mitannian period in the Near East [Avetisyan, 1978, pp. 3, 4; Diakonov, 1970, p. 47]. But this does not quite correspond to reality even for Mitanni. In this period the Mitannian leader, Agit Teššup, brought together a large group of charioteers at Arrapha, among whom there were Aryan names [Yankovskaya, 1979, p. 28]. Furthermore, judging by Transcaucasian parallels, the Iranians who appeared in Mongolia and Siberia should have lived to the north of Mitanni. 4.6. The ethnic identity of Sintashta culture In the light of what has been discussed in this part, it is necessary to return to Sintashta culture and its ethnic identification, as its Aryan identity can be called into question. Indeed, many features of Sintashta material culture occur in several Indo-European cultures. The Sevan-Uzerlik group of sites is very similar, for example, although it is possible to doubt that they were left by Iranians. Obviously nonIranian sites such as Alişar or Alaca Höyük are comparable too. Therefore the comparison of the evidence of ‘Rig Veda’ or ‘Avesta’ with archaeological sources is not the best exploratory method. As we have seen, at the end of the Bronze Age the Sintashta ethnic component was gradually dissolving and the forming Scytho-Sarmatian system was connected not with it, but with that from Central Asia and Transcaucasia. There is also absolutely no ground for asserting that the Late Bronze Age cultures penetrating far to the south were Sintashta’s heirs, or that the appearance of the Indo-Iranian component in Iran and India was connected with them. Both the absence of facts and the chronology of the dialectal dismemberment of the Aryan languages are contrary to this. Nevertheless, the people of Sintashta culture were Indo-Iranians or, rather, Iranians. There are several facts to support this: 1. Sintashta migration started from the SyroAnatolian region, whence at or about the same time the population migrated which formed the BactroMargianan archaeological complex, and who spoke Iranian. We must also take into account that contemporary Mitannian Aryans occupied this area. 2. There is evidence of an Aryan presence in the second half of the 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC in the territory of Syria-Palestine that enables possible migrations from this area [Grigoriev, 1996a, p. 86] of Aryans, also of Iranians and Indo-Aryans. 3. A number of pre-Scythian Iranian borrowings are found in Finno-Ugrian languages, which denote the presence of an Iranian component in the forest-steppe zone in the 3 rd – 2nd millennia BC [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1981, p. 23]. Indeed, most of these borrowings are included in languages whose bearers occupied the area to the west of the Urals. Only single words, mainly numerals, were transferred into the Ugrian languages [see Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 303 1984, pp. 921-929]. This corresponds to the more active contacts of the Sintashta-Abashevo populations with tribes of the forest zone in the Volga basin and Western Urals, as well as to their virtual absence in the Transurals, where they were limited to the collecting of tribute: numerals form the borrowed lexicon. However, in the opinion of V.V. Napolskikh, Finno-Ugrians had in this period more intensive contacts with Indo-Aryan populations, and most of the borrowed cultural lexicon was transferred into the Finno-Ugrian languages from IndoAryan [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 149-151]. If this hypothesis is correct, we have a greater basis for attributing both the Sintashta and Abashevo peoples to the Indo-Aryans. Ultimately, this is not an archaeological problem, but a linguistic one. However, acceptance of this hypothesis is not able to resolve the problem unambiguously. It is possible that the borrowings were not simultaneous. In this case, we may correlate the infiltration of Indo-Aryan numerals (if they really are Indo-Aryan) into the Ugrian languages with that of the Lipchinskaya culture into this area in the early 3rd millennium BC. We can explain in that way the hypothetical early Indo-Aryan contacts with the Finno-Ugrians. Such an approach does not conflict with the absence of archaeological evidence of contacts between the bearers of Sintashta culture and the people occupying the forest zone. But the intensive contacts to the west of the Urals could have been realised only by the Abashevo tribes. And if the lexical borrowings linked with agriculture, cattle breeding and metallurgy really derive from Indo-Aryan, just the Abashevo tribes spoke them. In this case, the more detailed study of two purely archaeological hypotheses, which are discussed very briefly in the present work, is indispensable: the influence rendered by the Catacomb world on the formation of Poltavka culture, and the special role of the Pit-Grave-Poltavka tribes in the formation of the Abashevo culture of the Middle Volga. But also with this approach, the language of the Sintashta population could just as easily be Iranian, which I favour, as Indo-Aryan, which I think is unlikely. 4. On the basis of place-name analysis contact between Balts and Iranians is identified on the east bank of the Dnieper [Sedov, 1965, pp. 52, 53]. This corresponds to the archaeological situation of the Late Bronze Age, when both the Sosnicja and Timber-Grave cultures were situated here. The latter was formed on the basis of post-Sintashta impulses. 5. Linguistic reconstruction, describing the migrations of ancient Europeans, fixes their contact with Iranians in steppe Eurasia [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1981, p. 29]. 6. Some Pamirian and Afghan languages contain Finno-Ugrian inclusions [Grantovskii, 1970, p. 357]. They are quite local, and this situation corresponds to the limited penetration of the Sargari tribes into this area in the Final Bronze Age. This confirms not just the Iranian identity of the people of Sintashta culture but also that, as a result of the ‘preCordoned’ processes described above, the ethnos of the Eurasian steppe was not replaced. 7. V.V. Ivanov has supposed that the Sintashta fortified settlements explain the linguistic contacts of the speakers of early Iranian dialects with FinnoUgrian and proto-Yenisei peoples [Ivanov, 1999]. Basically, this approach is correct – but these contacts took place, so it seems, outside the main zone of distribution of Sintashta culture. 8. Sintashta culture has many common features with the Sevan-Uzerlik type of Transcaucasia, and both were very likely formed within the framework of a unified migratory process. As has been noted above, the people who spoke the proto-Scythian dialect subsequently lived in this area of Central Transcaucasia. For all the reasons stated above we can assume that the bearers of Sintashta culture spoke the Iranian language: there are many more reasons in favour of this than of their being Indo-Iranian. However, the evidence in favour is still insufficient, and more forceful arguments are required. 304 Chapter 5. Indo-Europeans in China Finally, we touch upon the easternmost areas affected by Indo-European migration – China. The Indo-Europeanisation of this region was not realised, but the Indo-European factor played an essential role in its development. In China the first clear western impulses were felt in the late 3rd millennium BC, when the Longshao culture was formed.1 Unlike the previous Yangshao culture, whose people cultivated only millet and raised only pigs and dogs, this period saw the start of wheat, barley and sorghum cultivation, and the herd was supplemented with cattle, sheep and goats. A new phenomenon was the occurrence of the potter’s wheel, black-polished ware, tripods and vases having parallels in Western Asia, as well as the first traces of copper melting [Vasiliev L., 1976, pp. 203209; Vasiliev K., 1998, pp. 67-69]. This offers to us too great an area whence this impulse could have started. It is possible that it may be connected with the Tocharians, as there are Tocharian inclusions in Chinese languages [Vasiliev L., 1976, p. 300]. However, Okunev or late Afanasievo materials from the Altai, which I am inclined to connect with the Tocharians, do not contain similar ware. Therefore, the ethnic identity of the populations who had contributed to the formation of Longshao culture remains vague. Some definiteness starts from the Bronze Age only. Many scholars note a paradox in the formation of Bronze Age cultures in China, where advanced technologies appeared suddenly. As an autochthonous development such rapid progress was impossible. It is clear testimony to a potent external effect, apparently from the Central Asia [Kozhin, 1990, p. 52]. The Chinese Bronze Age in the Huang Ho basin starts from the Erh-li-tou culture, whose radiocarbon dates span 2005-1745 BC. Probably, this culture reflects the first legendary dynasty, the Hsia, which was subsequently, according to legend, defeated by the Shang people, and which according to the written tradition dates to 2205-1767 BC. Another accepted system of dates places this culture within the period 1850-1650 BC [Chang, 1992, p. 411; Vasiliev K., 1998, p. 70; Vasiliev L., 1976, p. 95]. The culture was replaced by the historically quite authentic Shang dynasty. This period is divided into two phases. The earlier has obtained the name Erhli-kang because of the excavated site at Zhengzhou, the site of the original Shang capital. It is dated in traditional chronology to 1766-1401 BC, and according to the revised chronology to 1600-1300 BC. The later phase (Yin) is named after the excavated second Shang capital – the Yin settlement at Anyang. The chronological framework of this phase is 14011122 BC in traditional chronology, 1300-1027 BC in revised [Arheologia Asii, 1986, pp. 306-313; Ling Yung, 1990, p. 30; Varyonov, 1989, p. 3; Bray, Tramp, 1990, pp. 20, 21, 282].2 Another accepted system of dates raises somewhat the lower border of the Erh-li-tou and Erh-li-kang cultures. In it, Erh-li-tou is dated to 1850-1650 BC, Erh-li-kang to 1650-1400 BC, and Yin to 1400-1100 BC [Vasiliev L., 1976, p. 95]. In any case, I should like to concentrate upon the later date of Yin antiquities and the date of Erhli-kang, comparable with the migratory processes of ancient Europeans. Contemporary to the Shang dynasty of Northern China (although perhaps a little later), the Uchen culture formed in the Yangtze basin [Arheologia Asii, 1986, pp. 310-313]. Very few metal objects have been found so far from the Erh-li-tou period; they become numerous in the period of the Shang dynasty. Indeed, metal and other artefacts allow us to speak about the colossal role of western tribes in the formation of this dynasty’s culture. Above all, this found a reflection in metal artefacts. The types of Shang spearhead are quite varied [Varyonov, 1989, pp. 23-30; 1989a]. However, the earliest forms are typologically comparable with spearheads in Seima-Turbino cemeter2 1 According to the calibrated radiocarbon dates its formation took place about 3000 BC [Chang, 1992, p. 411]. There is one more, dividing the culture into three periods: Early (1766-1550 BC), Middle (1550-1350 BC) and Late (13501100 BC) [Chang, 1992, p. 412]. 305 ies (Fig. 117.2). Their later date allows the Chinese spearheads to be regarded as secondary. Apart from spearheads, Chinese archaeologists identify the socalled ‘northern complex of bronze artefacts’, also labelled ‘Ordos bronzes’ [Ling Yung, 1990, pp. 3133], amongst whose components are daggers – straight double-edged and single-edged with a curved back, both types with a cast hilt – similar to those found in Siberia in cemeteries of the Karasuk culture [Grishin, 1971, pp. 11-17; Zyablin, 1977, p. 28] (Fig. 117.3-6). Another component is shaft-tube axes with a ridge on the back. The wedge of these axes is, as a rule, straight, often with a forged cutting edge (Fig. 117.8,11,12). A similar axe has been found in the Minusa depression [Grishin, 1971, p. 24]. Similar shaft-tube axes with a ridge are known in Bactria. The forms of these objects vary considerably [Sarianidi, 1977, pp. 73-75]. The Bactrian axes are closer than the Chinese to Near Eastern types, where axes with a ridge were rather widespread [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, pp. 48, 49; Tekhov, 1977, p. 5]. It is possible to show one more parallel with Seima-Turbino metalworking. Most artefacts of this time are made of tin bronze. As a matter of fact, the first tin bronzes occur in the period Erh-li-tou III, which does not precede Seima-Turbino metalworking chronologically; in the earlier periods (Erh-li-tou I and II) they are unknown [Chengyuan, 1980, p. 3]. Battle-picks, typical Chinese weapons, are widespread (Fig. 117.7). They occur in both Shang and Uchen sites, and the earliest are dated to the Erh-litou period. Originally they were fastened by means of a tang, but then the socket was borrowed from the north and shaft-tube battle-picks appeared [Ling Yung, 1990, pp. 37, 38, 41; Varyonov, 1989, pp. 917]. In Seima bronzes there are no similar battlepicks. This type of weapon arose in China, although Siberian cultures had a certain effect on its development. There was one more line of development of this type of weapon: from the use of knives with a curved back in the manner of battle-picks to battle-picks with a curved back [Varyonov, 1989, p. 17]. But in general, battle-picks as a type come from the west. On the Iranian Plateau they are dated to 23002100 BC and had already been introduced thence into China [Ling Yung, 1990, pp. 37, 41]. In the Near East and in Luristan battle-picks were widespread too from the last third of the 3rd millennium BC, but all had a socket [Gorelik, 1993, pp. 53, 270, tab. XXVII, 1-12,101-103]. Therefore, it is quite possi- ble to admit that these territories had a role in the appearance of this type of weapon in both Southern Siberia and China. Another common category of artefact in China and Southern Siberia is the celt. In China it occurs quite early, in the Erh-li-kang period, probably dating to the 17th – 16th centuries BC, and perhaps acting as a prototype for some Siberian forms [Ling Yung, 1990, pp. 39, 40]. However, Chinese celts could not have been a basis for the development of Seima-Turbino celts – at any rate, they do not precede to them chronologically [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 261]. It is more logical to admit that celts in China occur together with a whole complex of metal that is comparable with Seima bronzes. It is possible to say the same also about celt-shovels, whose development was connected with Seima-Turbino metalworking [Kuzminikh, Chernikh, 1988]. Bell-headed pins with a small loop below the head, dated to the Yin period, relate to the ‘northern complex’ too (Fig. 117.13). Analogies are known in the Krasnoyarsk area and in the Transbaikalia [Grishin, 1971, p. 35]. China also has gold ornaments of the Fyodorovka type: temple ring and funnel-shaped earrings relating to the Yin period, thus obviously introduced into China in the Late Bronze Age [Ling Yung, 1990, p. 33; Varyonov, 1990, p. 62, 63] (Fig. 117.9,10). Clearly, the formation of the Shang metal complex was subjected over a long time to influences, above all, from the Southern Siberian metallurgical centres of Seima and Karasuk types. A number of forms can be traced back through Southern Siberian to Bactrian and thence to Near Eastern types. Alongside this there is the influence of some earlier metalworking unconnected with the Seima tradition: Chinese bronzes include objects not occurring among Seima bronzes but with the same line of territorial parallels. Some types (for example, battle-picks) could have been introduced into China directly from Iran, by-passing Southern Siberia. The process of borrowing was bilateral. The appearance in the Karasuk, and then in the Tagarskaya culture of ‘models of a yoke’, articles developed in Shang China, can be cited as an example of this [Grishin, 1971, pp. 24, 25; Ling Yung, 1990, pp. 38, 39; Varyonov, 1984; Kozhin, 1990, pp. 46-50]. However, the distribution of types of metalwork is not always connected with migratory processes. We shall seek to demonstrate that the beginning of the Chinese Bronze Age coincided with large mi- 306 6 4 2 1 3 5 8 13 7 9 11 10 12 Fig. 117. China. Indo-European influences. 1 – Dasikuncuni; 2, 7 – Anyang; 3, 5 – Bayfu; 4, 6 – Chaodaogou; 8 – Dakhunci; 9, 10 – Lyuczyahe; 11, 13 – Linjeyuy; 12 – Tsaotsyauan. grations in the western part of Asia. Other features of material culture support this. Rings of nephrite, which are very widespread in Seima cemeteries, [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, pp. 244, 245] occur in China in the Yin period [Varyonov, 1984, p. 43]. It is much more likely that Western Asian influence touched not just the Huang Ho basin. A very peculiar ceramic complex from Uchen demands an explanation [Arheologia Asii, 1986, pp. 310-313; Kuchera, 1977, pp. 53, 113] because it also contains many comparisons with Sintashta forms. In addition to the form of the ceramics, I believe that the presence of concave bottoms is an interesting fact. This is usually the result of removing a vessel from a form-base [Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1990, p. 141]. In this case, the combination of concave bottom and conical body, with sometimes angular form, outcurved rim, and internal rib on the neck is very indicative. Ceramics from the Neolithic site of Hsiavangan on the Huang Ho are of interest in this connection. Alongside typical Chinese ware there are objects of what I believe to be Western Asian forms. Furthermore, two types of burial are present on this site: extended on the back and secondary. The first are accompanied by high-quality painted pottery, and the secondary burials were supplied with ware that had been fired at lower temperature. Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand from the publication how this correlates with actual forms [Kuchera, 1977, pp. 60-63, p. 62, fig. 31.5,7,11,12]. A new line of comparison may be traced using the burial complexes of the Shang period. Their constructions are very similar to those in Sintashta culture (Fig. 117.1). Burials were placed into large tombs, whose size is similar to that of Sintashta graves, and like the central burials of Sintashta cemeteries, they are oriented from the north to the south, have small steps all round the rims of the pits and pitwalls lined with wood [Novozhenov, 1994, pp. 160166; Varyonov, 1984, pp. 43-47; 1990, pp. 62-65; Kuchera, 1977, pp. 132-135]. However, those buried in the tombs lie on their back, which is not char- 307 Fig. 118. Anyang chariot burial. acteristic of Sintashta but occurs in Seima-Turbino cemeteries. It is possible to draw another interesting parallel between Seima-Turbino and Shang burial rites. In both cultures spearheads or daggers were frequently driven into the ground at the bottom of a grave [Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989, p. 21; Varyonov, 1984, p. 44]. But the most comparable feature of the Shang rite, which has analogies in the west, is the placing of chariots in tombs. Such related features as holes for chariot wheels at the bottom of burial pits in both Shang and Sintashta cemeteries cannot be just coincidence. The type of chariot is also similar, although it is common to Eurasia as a whole, as is the custom of placing in graves horses, harnessed in some cases to chariots, and dogs [Novozhenov, 1994, pp. 160-166; Kuchera, 1977, pp. 132-141]. This evidence shows that chariots appeared in China after the coming of a population related to the Sintashta. Subsequently, chariots were fast assimilated by Chinese culture [Kozhanov, 1984]. The existence of so-called ‘chariot’ myths, of vast cosmological meaning, is connected to this. Indeed, they go back to Indo-European, mainly IndoIranian, mythology [Evsyukov, Komissarov, 1984]. There are other West Asian parallels [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 591-592; Vasiliev L., 1976, pp. 262, 280-283, 294, 295, 297-299]: for instance, mass human immolation, practised by the Shang people, is known also in the royal tombs in Ur. The Shang period custom of joint immolation of people and dogs is a purely Indo-European tradition. Human immolation has analogies beyond Mesopotamia. There are immolations of decapitated bodies or separate burials of skulls in both the grave complexes of this time and the ditches of palaces [Chang, 1977, pp. 234, 252]. Earlier we discussed similar customs practised by Seima-Turbino tribes. Therefore, analogies between this population and China are not limited to parallels in metalwork. The defensive walls and foundations of houses were constructed by the han-tu method, in which soil was poured into wooden frames, compacted, and then the frame removed. Perhaps this was a local modification of those building principles which we 308 have already discussed repeatedly. Animal Style, widespread in China in the Shang period, has clear prototypes in Karasuk art. The system of astrological forecasting was similar to that in Babylon, and hieroglyphs were developed, probably on a Sumerian base. This all testifies to the great complexity of processes and events in this part of Asia. But as far as it is possible to judge from our fragmentary information on Chinese archaeology, the formation of Chinese Bronze Age cultures was promoted by a number of impulses from the west and north-west. The earliest of them can be dated to the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC. They were connected with the Iranian Plateau. Probably somewhat later, but pre-Seima, there was a new wave from Bactria through Southern Siberia. It seems that these waves were connected with invasions of Tocharian tribes. Therefore, it is possible that the Tocharians established the first legendary Chinese dynasty the Hsia. The third wave, in which Seima-Turbino and Sintashta features are intricately mixed, established that vast interaction between the Chinese and Central Asian worlds was already taking place in the Seima period. This exerted an enormous influence on the culture of China. I suggest that it was a stimulus for the development of the Chinese state system, as the traditions of Western Asia are reflected in elite burials. This impulse expressed itself most strongly in the Shang period, but its earliest manifestations may be traced already in the Erh-li-kang period, and there is no clear chronological gap between Yin sites and Sintashta and Seima-Turbino sites. Probably the interplay of the two last took place at this time in some other area, for example in Sinkiang. This may be true, as we see in Chinese tombs the combination of both these traditions. The ethnic content of these processes was strongly ancient European (mainly Celto-Italic or Celtic), with a certain participation of an ancient Iranian component. The Shang era is characterised by communications with northern cultures of the Karasuk type. Sometimes very poor Fyodorovka features are felt in these contacts. The proto-Scythian component was dominant, and the part of the earlier ancient European (Balts, Slavs, Germans) rather limited. Thus, Iranian and ancient European groups played a noticeable role in the early history of China, promoting the formation of the Chinese state structure, and probably establishing some Chinese dynasties. As a matter of fact, the formation of a state under an external stimulus was rather typical in ancient societies. In this period the system of relations of China with the northern steppe world first appeared. It has determined nature of historical processes hereabouts ever since. 309 Part III. Origins and migrations of the Indo-Europeans Introduction In the previous Part we have discussed the most debated problems of Indo-European studies: the migrations of Indo-Iranians, ancient Europeans and Tocharians. In my opinion this closes the door on the problem of localisation of the Indo-European homeland in the Near East. The migrations of Anatolian and Balkan peoples from this area, as well as those of Greeks and Armenians, are not so problematic. Hereinafter I shall seek to describe only the general tendencies of these migrations, and separate, as far as possible, the archaeological materials of this area which can be connected with Indo-Europeans. With this purpose, I shall attempt to gain an understanding of the Indo-Europeans’ neighbours – in my opinion a number of non-Indo-European cultures may be taken as Indo-European – of what the first Indo-European complexes were comprised, and in which actual area the Indo-European homeland should be localised. This can be done by means of the Nostratic theory, stating the relationship of the Indo-European, Kartvelian, Elamo-Dravidian, Ural-Altaic and Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) languages [Illich-Svitich, 1971]. However, the last group is no longer viewed within the framework of Nostratic unity [Peyros, Shnirelman, 1992, p. 137]. Recently, the Nostratic theory has been substantiated by genetic studies affirming the relationship of the Indo-European, Elamo-Dravidian and Altaic peoples [Sallares, 1998, p. 132]. This theory is interdependent with the theory of the Near Eastern origin of the Indo-Europeans and reinforces it. It will not be very difficult to link this theory to archaeological materials, as other scholars have reliably tied down its separate strands, and the absence of attempts to originate a general model is explained by the difficulties with the localisation of the Indo-Europeans. It is necessary to note that of recent years some linguists have started to discuss the possibility that all known families of language derive from one root: they conjecture that dialectal partitioning commenced at the end of the Middle – beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic [Ivanov, 1983, pp. 158, 159].1 This hypothesis is reinforced by genetic studies too. The so-called ‘African theory’ asserts that all sequences of DNA existing today go back to one woman, who lived about 100,000 – 200,000 years ago and who was a member of a large population consisting of 10,000 individuals. The other lines (about 9,999) subsequently ceased. These conclusions have recently started to be confirmed by means of studies of male genes [Sallares, 1998, p. 125]. 1 In private conversation V.V. Ivanov has very neatly named this proto-language the ‘language of Adam and Eve’. 313 Chapter 1. Expansion of the Nostratic languages and the first Indo-Europeans 1.1. Formation of the Ural-Altaic languages There is a supposition that Nostratic-speaking people may be connected with the culture of the Caspian Mesolithic, extending from the Eastern Caspian area to the Eastern Mediterranean [Danilenko, 1974]. There are, however, a number of different archaeological cultures within this area, which, furthermore, seems to have been illegitimately expanded to the west. The situation in the Eastern Caspian area is of interest, where two archaeological cultures have been distinguished. The first, Balkhan, goes back to the local Upper Palaeolithic; the other, Eastern Caspian, shows parallels among the North Mesopotamian sites of Zarzi, Hazar Merd, Shanidar B2, and Pa-Sangar [Korobkova, 1989, pp. 152, 153]. This allows earlier dating of the Nostratic languages and their connection with the Epipalaeolithic complexes of the Zarzian type situated in Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan. The movement of these populations into the Eastern Caspian resulted in the formation of the vast Nostratic area. It is possible that this was extended northwards step-by-step. In the Southern Transurals, on the Final Palaeolithic site of Shikaevka II, asymmetric geometric microliths, typical of both the Southern and Eastern Caspian, have been discovered. Thus, already at the end of the Palaeolithic, the cultural unity of the Transurals and the Caspian area, which characterises the following period, was starting to be established [Mosin, 1999a, p. 4]. In the Mesolithic, migratory waves northward had taken place, accompanied by further distribution of geometric microliths, resulting in the formation of the Mesolithic cultural bloc of the Transurals, which is largely comparable with the Mesolithic sites of the Ustyurt Plateau and Kara-Bogaz-Gol Gulf [Mosin, 1996, p. 30; 1999a, p. 5]. These migrations deviated to the west, into the Northern Caspian area, where traditions of Zarzian type are visible in Mesolithic industry and subsequent early Neolithic infiltrations of populations from the Eastern Caspian area have been suggested [Melentiev, 1976, p. 13; Vasiliev, 1999b, pp. 16, 17]. The migrants of the first Palaeolithic and Mesolithic waves spoke Nostratic languages. Certainly, we should not consider the Nostratic languages in the same way as later Indo-European ones. A suitable comparison is with the dialects of Australian aborigines and the situation of primitive linguistic continuity found there, in which close neighbours might well understand one another but remoter dialects already show great differences. A similar absence of a common language and presence of a number of similar dialects could have been characteristic of groups of Mesolithic hunters; nevertheless, it does not describe the Nostratic situation in full measure. In Australia ethnographers found a degrading society, while Nostratic society was in a phase of development. This emphasises again the limited use of ethnographic parallels for reconstructing archaeological situations. At the beginning of the Neolithic, the Kelteminar culture formed in the vast spaces from the Eastern Caspian to the Middle Syr-Darya [Vinogradov A., 1981, p. 167]. One of its components was the Mesolithic Eastern Caspian culture, although within the Central Asian interfluve the main component was, apparently, local [Korobkova, 1989, pp. 155, 159, 160; 1996, p. 108]. The territory of this culture may be regarded as that of the formation of the Ural-Altaic languages. Nostratic dialects were a common component in their formation, but they were less clear in the Altaic languages. A similar model explains a wellknown problem of Ural-Altaic studies, within which two possible paths leading to this language’s formation are discussed. One of them postulates a genetic relationship between Uralic and Altaic; the second explains their affinity by long-lasting contacts. The latter approach does not exclude that the relationship of these groups of languages might be explained by their common Nostratic roots and was unconnected with the existence of Ural-Altaic lin- 314 Fig. 119. Distribution of Nostratic languages: a – initial localisation of Nostratic languages (Zarzi), b – protoDravidian and Dravidian cultures, c – proto-Elamite and Elamite cultures, d – proto-Finno-Ugrian languages, e – proto-Altaic languages, f – migrations of proto-Dravidians, g – migrations of proto-Elamites, h – migrations of protoFinno-Ugrian people, i – migrations of proto-Altaic people. guistic unity [Barta, 1985, p. 11; Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 162, 163]. In this connection, the tendency to divide into Finno-Ugrian (Uralic) and Altaic languages should have become clear at the start of this process and the primary localisations of the peoples speaking these languages should not be too remote from each other. This has allowed to V.V. Napolskikh to conclude that the location was somewhere within the territories of the Urals and Western Siberia [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 162, 163], based on the localisation of proto-Uralic dialects within the zone of southern and middle dark-coniferous taiga of West- ern Siberian type, which he has quite convincingly shown by means of analysis of the faunal lexicon [Napolskikh, 1997, p. 132]. Such a conclusion seems completely contrary to those which are substantiated in this present volume. However, it is not absolutely so, as Napolskikh understands ‘homeland’ to be the area where the Uralic peoples lived shortly before their disintegration [Napolskikh, 1997, p. 110]. Therefore, the time of this disintegration is fundamental. As evidence of the knowledge of agriculture, cattle breeding and metals is absent in the protoFinno-Ugrian language, the date of disintegration 315 must fall within the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. However, from the presence of terms for ceramics in proto-Finno-Ugrian, it is possible to date the existence of that language within the framework of the Neolithic, and the disintegration of the earlier proto-Uralic shold be dated to the 6th or late 5th millennium BC [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 121-125]. Therefore, on a background of continuous impulses from the Eastern Caspian northward during the Mesolithic – Eneolithic, the localisation of the Uralic homeland in the forest zone of the Urals seems to be most reasonable. The people who spoke proto-Uralic, and later proto-Finno-Ugrian dialects are to be localised in the Eastern Caspian area. Their movements into the Transurals in the late Neolithic are marked by the distribution of flint arrowheads of the Kelteminar type [Mosin, 1996, p. 30]. In the Eneolithic, on the basis of these movements, the cultures of combdecorated ware appeared in the Transurals and Northern Kazakhstan. The beginning of their formation was connected with ceramics decorated by corded ornamentation, supplemented with comb impressions, including ‘stepping’ combed impressions. These ceramics show parallels in the Aral area and in the Central Asian interfluve. Such continuous communications between the Transurals and both the Caspian and Aral areas reflect the formation of the proto-Finno-Ugrian population in the Transurals [Mosin, 1999, p. 35; 1999a, p. 7]. It is possible that these processes also covered regions to the west of the Southern Urals as far as the Middle Volga, where scholars have found Central Asian impulses that determined the formation of the Elshanka culture [Morgunova, 1999, p. 33]. However, the FinnoUgrian populations living in the southern part of the Western Urals and the Volga area have left no successors, as the proto-Finno-Ugrian area, reconstructed for the 3rd millennium BC by means of floral and faunal lexical analyses, covers the Middle Urals, Middle and Southern Transurals, the southwest of Western Siberia, and probably the basins of the Kama, Upper Vichegda and Pechora [Napolskikh, 1997, p. 140]. The distribution of such a type of artefact as arrow-straighteners is very indicative. The earliest such finds have been made in the foothills of the Zagros on sites of the 11th – 8th millennia BC. In the Neolithic they occur in three areas: the south of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Transurals (Boborikino sites, Koksharovo hill). Indeed, the finds from the Transurals are typologically similar to the southern prototypes. Subsequently, in the Eneolithic, the area of distribution was considerably extended. Howsever, alongside a local line of development of these articles, additional impulses, accompanied by the occurrence of southern forms of arrow-straighteners, are no excluded [Viktorova, Kerner, 1998]. Dravidian inclusions in Finno-Ugrian languages and vice versa confirm this. Indeed, Uralo-Dravidian communications are of a very early nature. This indicates that they took place somewhere within the area of primary localisation of the peoples speaking these dialects [Masson, 1981, p. 116; Khalikov, 1993, pp. 208, 209; Napolskikh, 1997, p. 167]. Therefore, these contacts must have taken place in the Eastern Caspian, and the early agricultural cultures of Southern Turkmenistan can be regarded as purely Dravidian. A similar contact has not been fixed for the Altaic languages, whose bearers were situated within the Central Asian interfluve and were separated from the Dravidians by the Karakum desert. The expansion of Altaic-speaking people to the northeast was accompanied by the distribution of Kelteminar arrowheads – typical ‘horned’ trapezoids of the Darya-Say type found in the Altai and present in Kelteminar and Mesolithic materials of Kyzylkum [Korobkova, 1989, p. 160; 1996, pp. 105-108; Kungurova, 1987]. It is necessary to take into account that in the Neolithic another southern component came into the Transurals, represented by sites of the Boborikino culture and originating from the Transcaucasian – Near Eastern area. This component interacted actively with local tribes, whose formation had been stimulated by impulses from the Caspian area. It is possible that this reflects very early contacts between proto-Indo-Europeans and proto-Finno-Ugrians, taking place outside their southern homelands. However, all these problems are very far from solution yet. As T.N. Sobolnikova has remarked, all scholars are agreed that in the Transurals the incised-wavy ware complexes have southern origins, however, these complexes are inhomogeneous and were formed by different groups [Sobolnikova, 1999, p. 42]. The origins of some were connected with the south of Central Asia, and this reflects the distribution of proto-Finno-Ugrian populations. A small number of tribes came from Transcaucasia, either proto-Indo-European or North Caucasianspeaking people. The solution to this problem is possible only by detailed comparison of particular southern and northern complexes. 316 Very likely, the Finno-Ugrian presence in the Transurals increased continuously throughout the Neolithic. However, the dialectal partitioning of the FinnoUgrian languages started only in the mid-3rd millennium BC: we can date proto-Finno-Ugrian contacts with Indo-Aryans to the first half of this millennium, expressed in the interplay of Lipchinskaya and Ayat cultures. Perhaps we have the right to link the ensuing partitioning of the Finno-Ugrian languages to the expansion in the Western Urals of cultures with traditions of combed geometric decoration. The common Finnish language condition is to be connected with Volga-Vyatka complexes of the second half of the 3rd – first third of the 2nd millennium BC. The existence of the Finno-Permsk and Finno-Volga unities is dated to the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC. It is possible that with the appearance of ancient Europeans in this area, the dialectal partitioning of the Finnish languages and movement of some of their speakers into the Lake Onega region, Estonia and Southern Finland had started. What has been stated is contrary to the hypotheses supported by most scholars studying the FinnoUgrian peoples, whose origins they connect with either the forest regions of Eastern Europe, or the Kama and the Transurals [Sedov, Smirnov, 1987, p. 294; Sedov, 1992, pp. 296, 297]. However, it is rather difficult to justify the archaeological identification of proto-Finno-Ugrians in Eastern Europe. Linguistic evidence is also lacking for such a localisation of their homeland, except for the postulated early contacts with Indo-Europeans, which indeed cannot be confirmed by language material [Napolskikh, 1997, p. 148]. Therefore, it is impossible to rely on FinnoUgrian material for assistance in trying to solve the Indo-European problem. It is more likely that the reconstruction of Indo-European history will provide essential help in further development of the FinnoUgrian problem. It must also mean that Finno-Ugrian antiquities cannot be limited to Ayat culture. Other contemporary or earlier cultures could have been Finno-Ugrian too. Those Finno-Ugrian populations which resulted in the formation of modern languages can be connected with the Transurals. But this also demands examination, as it is not completely clear whether we may consider the Indo-European inclusions in protoFinno-Ugrian as Indo-Aryan. 1.2. Formation and expansion of the Elamo-Dravidian languages After the separation of the Ural-Altaic languages, a new Neolithic complex with agriculture and cattle breeding formed in the Zagros in the 7th – 6th millennia BC. It is represented by such sites as Jarmo, Tepe Sorab, Tepe Guran and, partly, Tell Shimshara [Masson, 1989, pp. 41, 42; Mellaart, 1975, pp. 80-90] (Fig. 120.1-6); whilst in the early 6th millennium BC the Neolithic Jeitun culture formed on the submontane plains of the Kopet Dag, in NorthEastern Iran and Southern Turkmenistan. Local tribes participated in its formation, but with a considerable and unmistakable impulse from the Jarmo culture too, to be traced in pottery, lithic industry, bone beads, stone disks with a hole, clay cones, etc. [Korobkova, 1996, p. 97; Masson, 1964, p. 45]. The bearers of these cultures probably spoke ElamoDravidian languages. Their localisation is such that it does not preclude relations with the Nostratic family of languages, although linguists are now doubtful of these links, and the problem of the origins of the Elamo-Dravidian languages remains open [MacAlpin, 1981]. It is possible that proto-Elamo-Dravidian was linked to the Nostratic group on account of proximity and not genetic connection, but this is of no relevance to the problem considered here. The disintegration of the Elamo-Dravidian family of languages occurs in the 5th – 4th millennia BC [Peyros, Shnirelman, 1992, p. 137]. This is clearly reflected in archaeological materials. In the north of Iran the cultures with ‘red ware’ (Sialk (Fig. 120.711), Hissar,1 Anau), and in the south those with ‘yellow ware’ form, corresponding to the separation of the Dravidians and Elamites [Masson, 1977, pp. 153155; 1981, pp. 117, 118]. It is necessary to emphasise that reliable evidence about the language of the Jeitun people is lacking, but I am inclined to attribute them to the Elamo-Dravidian family of languages, nevertheless: apart from the Jarmo impulses men1 I am inclined, nevertheless, to see the appearance of IndoEuropeans in the formation of Hissar I, although this demands serious examination. 317 5 1 2 4 3 7 6 8 10 9 12 13 11 15 14 17 18 16 19 21 22 23 20 24 Fig. 120. Elamo-Dravidian cultures. 1-6 – Jarmo; 7-11 – Sialk I; 12-15 – Merghar; 16-25 – Indus civilisation. 318 25 tioned above, there are parallels between this culture and early levels of settlements in North-Eastern Iran (Tureng Tepe) [Sarianidi, 1970, p. 21], continuing through the Eneolithic. However, the replacement of many important features of material culture, including lithic industry, allows us to assert that, as well as Jeitun culture, such complexes as Sialk I in Central Iran had influence upon the formation of the Anau culture of Southern Turkmenistan [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 19, 20]. In any case, it is most probable that related cultures arose in the 5th millennium BC from Central Iran to Southern Turkmenistan, generically connected with the Zagros, whose occurrence may be interpreted as the separation of the Dravidians. It is then that impulses to the south from this region start. As noted above, in this area Dravidians made contact with people who spoke a proto-Uralic language. The invasion of the north-west of Hindustan by a new population began in the 6th millennium BC, already at the stage of the common Elamo-Dravidian language. The earliest agricultural communities of Afghanistan already show extremely close analogies with Jeitun [Shaffer, 1978, p. 83]. This reflects the displacement of the Dravidians southward. The resultant complex of Merghar in Northern Baluchistan demonstrates parallels with both Jarmo and Jeitun [Masson, 1989, pp. 178-180; Jarriage, 1984] (Fig. 120.12-15). However, these processes must have continued into the following period, as the disintegration of common Dravidian is dated to the 4th millennium BC [Peyros, Shnirelman, 1992, p. 136; Masson, 1981, p. 116]. Indeed, the additional invasions of a Dravidian-language component into this area should have started in Southern Turkmenistan: there are Finno-Ugrian inclusions in Dravidian languages, and some Dravidian-speaking populations had remained until then, not only in the south of Hindustan, but also in Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Iran [Masson, 1977, p. 151; 1981, p. 116]. This permanent interplay was carried out through Afghanistan, where the Mundighak complex (early 4th – early 2nd millennium BC) formed. The Afghan metal complex of this time – shaft-hole axes, socketed mattocks, mirrors with a handle, pins with a coiled or flattened head – is similar to those in Turkmenistan and Iran. The closest analogies to Mundighak I and II are known in Namazga II. In the Mundighak III level the communications with Baluchistan and the Indus valley become more appreciable [Shaffer, 1978, pp. 91, 141-144, 172, 173]. As a matter of fact, the formation of Indus civilisation can be regarded as a discontinuity in the cultural tradition going back to Merghar. Some preHarappan people remained, others were assimilated – the latter is most clearly traced in Kalibangan [Sharma, 1984]. These additional Dravidian impulses are traced on Shahr-i Sokhta in levels of the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, where a number of artefacts similar to Namazga III have been discovered [Masson, 1981, pp. 111-113; 1989, pp. 185, 186; Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1990, p. 12]. It is impossible to exclude subsequent permanent interactions between Dravidians living in the north and south. The Harappan trade colony of Shortugai on the Amu-Darya is an example of this [Francfort, 1984; Kuzmina, 1992]. This also determined the affinity of the Indus valley cultures with those in Turkmenistan and Iran, which is especially obvious in anthropomorphic plastic and seals. Certainly, the real situation was much more complicated than that described above. The impulses into Hindustan came from Iran too. This is demonstrated by the early appearance of the potter’s wheel, the similarity of some forms of Neolithic and Eneolithic ware in Central India with Iranian ceramic materials, etc. [Masson, 1984, p. 68; Shetenko, 1965, p. 43; 1968, pp. 101, 108, 117, 118]. Besides, all Dravidian cultures from the Kopet Dag to the Indus valley were subjected to Elamite influences. In Afghanistan, for example, this becomes apparent in parallels between Mundighak III and Shahr-i Sokhta I [Shaffer, 1978, p. 173]. The formation of the Elamites was connected with a southern variant of Jarmo (Guran Tepe) and its evolution into such complexes as Ali Kosh, dated to the 6th millennium BC [Masson, 1989, p. 117]. Apparently, it was but a stage of the Elamo-Dravidian unity. With the separation of the Elamites, an area of cultures with yellow and cream painted ware formed in the south of Iran (Susa, Tall-i Bakun, Jorwe). From here the Elamite expansion proceeded eastward (Tepe Yahya) and into Central Iran (Sialk IV). Similar migrations are indicated, in particular, by Mesopotamian ware of the Jemdet Nasr type found in Tepe Yahya, and scholars rather confidently identify the population of this settlement as protoElamite [Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1984]. Distant influences or migrations are found too, which may be demonstrated by means of the materials of Shahr-i Sokhta and Namazga II and III. These activities were stimulated by the rivalry between Elam and Sumer [Masson, 1977, pp. 153-155; 1981, pp. 117, 319 Fig. 121. North Mesopotamian settlements: a – proto-Indo-European settlements of the 8th – 7th millennia BC; b – protoElamo-Dravidian settlements of the 8th – 7th millennia BC; c – settlements of the Tell Sotto type; d – settlements of the Hassuna culture. 1 – Cayönü Tepesi; 2 – Nevali-Chori; 3 – Tell Maghzalya; 4 – Küllitepe; 5 – Telul et-Talafat; 6 – Tell Sotto; 7 – Yarim Tepe I; 8 – Nineveh; 9 – Umm Dabaghiyah; 10 – Tell Hassuna; 11 – Ali Aga; 12 – Tell Khan; 13 – Karim Shakhir; 14 – Jarmo; 15 – Tepe Sorab; 16 – Tepe Guran. 118; 1984, p. 66; 1989, p. 118; Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1990, pp. 9-12, 14-16; Sarianidi, 1969, p. 243; 1970, pp. 26, 27]. All that has been stated above is not beyond doubt and demands serious discussion and study. Nevertheless, the main impulses forming the cultures of the region arrived from the west. Thus, the origins of the Ural-Altaic and ElamoDravidian languages were connected with a rather restricted region of the Northern Zagros on the upper reaches of the Rivers Diyala and Zab. This gives a basis to search for a culture that can be identified with the proto-Indo-Europeans within adjacent areas to the west. 1.3. Proto-Indo-Europeans in Northern Mesopotamia Neolithic cultural traditions in the Near East are rather varied [see, for example, Gebel, 1984], but only one group of sites, sharing similar features, is relevant to our problem. It flanks on the west complexes of the Jarmo type. In Northern Mesopotamia, within the submontane zones of the Zagros and Taurus, a number of early agricultural settlements of the 7 th millennium BC have been investigated [Porada et al., 1992, p. 80]: on the Sinjar plain in the interfluve of the Tigris and Khabur rivers, Tell Maghzalya, and such well-known sites as Cayönü Tepesi on the Upper Euphrates and Shimshara in the foothills of the Zagros (Fig. 121). The last mentioned settlement 320 1 2 3 4 6 5 7 8 Fig. 122. Proto-Indo-Europeans in Northern Mesopotamia. 1, 2, 4, 5 – Tell Maghzalya; 3, 6-8 – Tell Sotto. is situated close to Jarmo and has syncretic features with both cultural groups. However, the settlements to the west of the Tigris, despite a number of essential distinctions, share many typical features with Jarmo, some (the blade-chipping technique) developed in the Mesolithic. In this sense, the formation of these complexes has a common basis. But there are also other features: resemblance of house-building techniques, anthropomorphic figurines, conical pistils, etc. [Bader, 1989, pp. 228-233]. Tell Nevali Chori, excavated on the Euphrates in the Turkish province of Sanli-Urfa, is perhaps close to these sites too [Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998]. The Nostratic theory allows the sites to be considered as settlements of a population whose language we may designate as proto-Indo-European, or rather as a group of interconnected proto-Indo-European dialects. Yet their material culture at this stage already contains those features which we subsequently discover in the cultures of separate Indo-European populations. First of all, there are defensive walls and rectangular dwellings, whose foundations are made of smallsized stone, filled between two rows of larger stone masonry, on which clay walls (Fig. 122.1) were 321 erected. This architecture contrasts sharply with the architectural traditions of the Eastern Mediterranean, where round dwellings had prevailed since the Natufian period. These were widespread in Palestine and in the Khirokitia culture on Cyprus [Mellaart, 1975, pp. 28-45, 129-132; Investigations …, 1989, pp. 295, 296; Burney, 1977, p. 18; Aurenche, 1981, pl. 4, 5; Stanley-Price, Christon, 1973], appearing subsequently in Northern Mesopotamia too in the Halaf period. Another feature of the North Mesopotamian culture of the 7th millennium BC worthy of mention is the occurrence of tanged arrowheads made on blades, polished axes and anthropomorphic figurines [Bader, 1989] (Fig. 122.4,5). Finds of polished adzes are known also in the Aceramic levels of Haçilar (which does not concern this group of sites) [Neolithic Cultures, 1974, fig. 23]. Also remarkable is the discovery on Tell Maghzalya of a very ancient copper awl made by cold forging of native copper. Copper beads are found also on Nevali Chori [Rindina, Yakhontova, 1989, pp. 306, 308; Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998, p. 41]. A similarly restricted application of copper was also typical at this time of those cultures in this area which I am not inclined to link to the Indo-Europeans. Similar finds were detected in Chattal Höyük and Ali Kosh. However, it is possible that knowledge of copper goes back to the end of the Nostratic epoch, as the first ornaments made of it were found in Shanidar, where they have been dated to the 9th millennium BC [Moorey, 1975, p. 41]. Some later (8th millennium BC) objects have been found in Cayönü Tepesi [Ottaway, 1994, p. 84]. Indeed, the technology developed very slowly, as analyses of artefacts from the 8th – 7th millennia BC demonstrate. Copper beads, which occur on a number of Anatolian settlements (Cayönü Tepesi, Aşikli Höyük, Nevali Chori, Chattal Höyük, Haçilar, Can Hasan), are made by forging with intermediate annealing. Investigations have shown that even the macehead from Can Hasan II (ca. 6000 BC) was made in this way. The earliest cast objects, probably made of copper extracted from ore, do not occur until the Mersin XVI level (ca. 5000 BC) [Yalcin, 2000, p. 18-22]. Palaeobotanical investigations carried out on Tell Maghzalya solve one more important problem of Indo-European studies. Some scholars have doubted the probable localisation of the Indo-European homeland in Northern Mesopotamia owing to the absence of some types of tree, in particular birch, whose name derives from the proto-Indo-European language [Safronov, 1989, p. 48]. However, birch pollen has been detected in the levels of Tell Maghzalya [Zelixon, Kremenetskii, 1989, p. 288]. Linguistic reconstruction of the proto-Indo-European economy corresponds completely to the realities of the North Mesopotamian complexes of the 7th millennium BC. The words for wheat and barley form part of common Indo-European terminology. Millet, rye and oats do not start to be cultivated until after the appearance of separate dialects. The first Indo-Europeans harvested using sickles; grain was not ground but pounded. Flax is known, but not in all dialects. Spinning, weaving and sewing were known. The common terminology of the potter is absent, but the terms for notions such as ‘to pug’, ‘clay’, ‘to model’ and ‘pise wall’ go back to the proto-IndoEuropean condition. There is a common term for designating a fence or fortification. There is also a common term for copper, but a unified terminology linking forging and metallurgical activity is wanting. The terminology for hammer and axe seems originally to have concerned stone objects. Cattle were already domesticated, but their part in the herd was insignificant. Goats and, especially, sheep formed its basis. The term sheep even corresponded to the concept of ‘the whole herd/flock’.1 Hunting with dogs has been reconstructed too [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 580-585, 655-660, 687-693, 697, 704-716, 743-745]. On all settlements of the 7th – 6th millennia BC the only kinds of domesticated cereals were barley and wheat; on some, flax is detected [Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998, p. 41; Lisitsina, 1989, pp. 291-293]. Cereals were harvested by sickles with stone insets, and grain was pounded by pestles in mortars or on millstones. On the Tell Maghzalya settlement, bone needles with an eye, awls and spindle-whorls have been found. There are no ceramic vessels, but clay was used for manufacturing small figurines and in 1 This conclusion is very important. Within Europe the ancestors of domesticated sheep are absent. Sheep were raised from the West Asian mouflon, which dwelt within the area from Anatolia to the Zagros Mountains and in some parts of Northern Iran. Former evidence of finds in the Levant has been not confirmed. The earliest finds of possibly domesticated sheep have been made on the 9 th millennium BC settlement of Zawi Chemi Shanidar in North-Eastern Iran. Despite lacking morphological signs, there are lots of young animals. From the mid8th millennium BC bones of undoubtedly domesticated sheep are known on the settlement of Ali Kosh in the Zagros [Bökönyi, 1991, pp. 549, 550]. 322 building, including small defensive walls. At excavations in Nevali Chori the remains of a defensive wall have been revealed too, and houses were erected of stone with clay mortar [Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998, pp. 38-41]. A copper awl found on Tell Maghzalya shows that there was knowledge of metal, but its processing by means of cold forging explains the absence of special terminology. Of domestic animal remains, 134 bones belong to sheep, 112 to goats and only 6 to cattle. The bones of dogs, wild asses, wild boars, deer, antelopes, gazelles, bezoar goats, mouflons and aurochses, as well as rather large tanged arrowheads, seem to indicate that type of hunting which is guessed at by linguistic reconstruction [Gadzhiev, 1989], and whose presence in the area is indicated also by murals of hunting scenes (of deer, with a dog and a bow) on the walls of houses in Chattal Höyük [Mellaart, 1967, Taf. 56, 57]. An identical situation is revealed by excavation in Nevali Chori, where the remains of domestic sheep and goats have been found, as well as gazelles, deer and wild boars [Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998, p. 41]. Therefore, from the 7th millennium BC, we may speak about the complete similarity of the cultures and economies of Northern Mesopotamia and of the protoIndo-Europeans. It must be emphasised that in Eastern Europe cultural and economic systems comparable to the model reconstructed from linguistic material never existed. In the following phases similarity with later IndoEuropean cultures increases. In the levels of the Tell Sotto, Kültepe, Yarim Tepe I and Umm Dabaghiyah settlements of the 6th millennium BC,1 the transformation of former features is observed, although their cultural succession to the previous era is beyond doubt. The important innovation was the appearance of ceramics (Fig. 122.3,6-8). Such details as applied decoration and a polished surface, as well as the skewed lower part of the body, were carried forward to Hassuna culture and some later Indo-European ceramic complexes [Bader, 1989, pp. 233-240; Neolithic Cultures, 1974, fig. 53]. Settlements of this type are regarded either as proto-Hassuna or as the Tell Sotto culture, but their connection on the one hand with such settlements as Tell Maghzalya and on the other with Hassuna culture does not raise particular doubts [Bader, 1989, pp. 197, 198, 234237; Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 143]. Hassuna culture falls between the end of the first half of the 6th millennium BC and the early 5th millennium BC [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, pp. 153, 154];2 its settlements (Yarim Tepe I, Tell Hassuna, Nineveh, Tell Khan, Ali Aga) are situated between the Upper Khabur and Great Zab. A new architectural principle occurs: grouping of blocks of houses around a court [Lloyd, Safar, 1945]. This has its latest continuation in those architectural forms which have been described in the analysis of Sintashta architecture. The number of ceramic forms increases notably. Vessels with a skewed lower part, similar to later Iranian ware, are characteristic. The smoother forms show later parallels in Maikop culture [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, fig. 1, pp. 90-111]. Simple geometric ornamentation and applied decoration of different forms is widespread. Tanged arrowheads continue from the previous period, but new types occur too: polished axes and stone maceheads [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, fig. 35-37]. An important innovation is the change in herd structure. Already in the latest level of Tell Maghzalya pig bones begin to be found in osteological remains [Gadzhiev, 1989]. In the Hassuna period there is a noticeable increase in the number of pigs in the herd [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 149]. This corresponds to linguistic evidence postulating the later appearance of pig in the herds of the ancient IndoEuropeans. It happened right at the beginning of the dialectal partitioning of the Indo-European proto-language [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 594] and limits the existence of proto-Indo-European linguistic unity to the 7th – 6th millennia BC. The ensuing development of Hassuna culture in this area was interrupted by the appearance of the Halaf culture, which had nothing in common with the former cultural tradition, dated to the first half of the 5th millennium BC, but undoubtedly with more ancient roots.3 There is some confirmatory evidence: rich ware, especially anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels, clay plastic, which is distinct from that in Hassuna culture, and a developed house-building technique. Dwellings, indeed, differ essentially 2 Calibrated radiocarbon dates demonstrate the existence of Hassuna culture within the first half of the 6th millennium BC, whereafter it was replaced by the Halaf culture [Porada et al., 1992, pp. 83-86]. 3 1 There are also other dates for this period within the framework 6200-6000 BC [Porada et al., 1992, p. 81]. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for the Halaf culture fall into the second half of the 6th millennium BC [Porada et al., 1992, p. 86; Schwartz, Weiss, 1992, p. 228]. 323 from those in Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia because they are round [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, pp. 156-268; Masson, 1989, pp. 79-83]. The sources of Halaf culture are unclear. Attempts to link its origin with Chattal Höyük merit attention, but they are not completely convincing [Bogoslovskaya, 1972]. The house-building traditions and anthropomorphic plastic of Halaf culture are similar to those in the Transcaucasian Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture; furthermore, they are of earlier date (from the 6 th millennium BC) [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 104-107, 115].1 However, the ceramic traditions of ShulaveriShomutepe culture are comparable rather to ware from such settlements as Tell Sotto. Nevertheless, the presence in Transcaucasia of both Halaf ware and vessels imitating Halaf samples, suggests communications between these populations [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 111-113], which the affinity of anthropomorphic plastics tends to confirm. We can probably speak about physical communications between the bearers of these cultures, without placing them, however, in one genetic line. There is one more relevant detail. Subsequently, in the Bronze Age, round-shaped dwellings occur in a number of Caucasian cultures. In spite of the fact that other artefacts of the Halaf and ShulaveriShomutepe cultures are usually different, it is possible to speak about the preservation of this component in the Caucasian region and its movement northward. This direction opens the possibility that Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture had a proto-North Caucasian identity [Safronov, 1989, p. 270], and to extend this further to Halaf culture. Thus, the disintegration of the proto-North Caucasian language would have taken place in the 6th – 5th millennia BC, which is close to the conclusions reached by linguists [Starostin, 1985, p. 89]. In this connection, the economic level reconstructed on the basis of the proto-North Caucasian language is striking: it deployed a rich agricultural and cattle-breeding terminology. On the eve of their disintegration, the proto-North Caucasian people were familiar with metal, familiar with the plough, cultivated different kinds of cereals, and herded cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses [Starostin, 1985]. Such a reconstruction corresponds to the Shulaveri1 In addition, houses with a round plan are not characteristic of Chattal Höyük. Its different phases are represented by rectangular houses densely attached to each other [Mellaart, 1975, fig. 46; 1967, p. 67-77]. Shomutepe and Halaf cultures alone, whose herd structures are close to this model. Problems arise only in respect of horses. However, equine bones have been found on the Arukhlo I and Zopi settlements in Transcaucasia, and on Yarim Tepe II in Northern Mesopotamia the remains of asses are well represented [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 135; Bibikova, 1981, p. 301]. Therefore, I will concentrate on the instances of semantic transfer of the terms for these animals [Starostin, 1985, p. 78]. The terminology connected with ploughs and arable land is highly developed too. It is very unexpected so early, but it is reinforced by the discovery of a plough made of antlers on Arukhlo I [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 133], a settlement probably not left by North Caucasianspeaking people, which demonstrates the extreme antiquity of arable agriculture in the area. Indeed, according to the legends of the North Caucasian peoples, their ancestors came into the Northern Caucasus from the south [Ivanov, 1985, p. 52]. The facts adduced make this hypothesis worthy of further development. Furthermore, ShulaveriShomutepe ware shows undoubted affinity with that from Tell Sotto. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that this was an Indo-European culture. The discovery of a very ancient plough on a settlement of this culture is reinforced by the existence of terms for a plough and ploughed field in the proto-IndoEuropean language. This terminology is dated to the third level of dialectal partitioning of the Indo-European proto-language, soon after the separation of Anatolian [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 424, 687, 688]. As will be demonstrated below, this could not have taken place later than the early 5th millennium BC. But Halaf culture was undoubtedly another ethnic component invading Northern Mesopotamia. In the 5th millennium BC2 this ethnic group displaced Indo-Europeans from the Tigris – Euphrates interfluve, occupying a vast area from Syria-Cilicia to the Great Zab, an eastern tributary of the Tigris. The typological connections of Halaf culture with Shulaveri-Shomutepe (architecture) and the presence of Halaf ware in Transcaucasia demonstrate probable contacts between the North Caucasian people and the proto-Indo-Europeans. Thus, Halaf culture was alien for Mesopotamia and the most likely area of its formation is Anatolia. 2 According to calibrated radiocarbon dates – the mid-6 th millennium BC [Porada et al., 1992, p. 86]. 324 In the opinion of H. Lewy it is possible to see the succession of these materials in Assyria, as well as the affinity of pre-Semitic materials in Assyria with pre-Sumerian materials in Babylonia. Analysis of city names in the area allowed him to link this component with the Hurrians [Lewy, 1971a, pp. 730, 731]. However, it is more correct to speak about Halaf’s North Caucasian ethnicity. Very likely, proto-Indo-Europeans in Northern Mesopotamia had quite early contacts with Semites, whose area was to the south of the Euphrates. The settlements of the 8th – 7th millennia BC – Bouqras and Abu Hureyra, which are situated on the Middle Euphrates – have a contact character. On the one hand there are features of the Tell Maghzalya culture, on the other, of the Eastern Mediterranean [Bader, 1989, pp. 231, 232]. On the eastern tributaries of the Tigris contact took place between the bearers of Hassuna culture and the distinct and original Samarra culture (Tell as-Sawwan, Samarra etc.). The origin of that culture is not quite clear; however, the preservation of its traditions in Ubaid has caused it to be identified with the people who spoke the ‘proto-Tigridian’ language, reconstructed by inclusions in Sumerian of words reflecting a very high level of cultural development [Masson, 1989, pp. 78, 79]. The contacts identified by linguists of Indo-Europeans with Sumerians indicate that, with the appearance of the Halaf culture in Northern Mesopotamia, Indo-Europeans had not disappeared from the Near East [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1980, p. 15]. We cannot assume later borrowings from Sumerian, as by the time of the 3rd dynasty in Ur it was a dead language used only for writing [Diakonov, 1990, p. 135]. The contacts of Indo-Europeans with Kartvelians in this period are most imprecise. Archaeologically they are not fixed. Therefore, as Kartvelian is the closest to Indo-European of all the Nostratic lan- guages (there is even a supposition that both these groups of languages have their origins in one protolanguage [Diakonov, 1982, p. 19]), it is possible that the Kartvelians should be identified with bearers of some Neolithic culture close to Hassuna. The stage of the proto-Indo-European language is dated, at the latest, to the 5th – 4th millennia BC [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1980, p. 7]. However, there is an opinion that the Indo-Iranians had already separated in the first half of the 5th millennium BC [Harmatta, 1981, p. 83], which makes proto-Indo-European significantly earlier and corresponds better to the archaeological reconstruction presented here. Thus, sketching out the ethno-cultural circle of the proto-Indo-Europeans, we can start to describe their subsequent history. At this stage we can do so in only the most general terms – there is no possibility or intention to analyse the entirety of Indo-European material within the framework of this book. What follows is designed to show that the system of Indo-European migrations suggested above is compatible with the whole complex of Indo-European cultures. Further reconstruction of the system of expansion of the Indo-European languages leads to many objective difficulties. It is self-evident that Indo-Europeans had already settled different areas of the vast Circumpontic zone by the Early Bronze Age, although other peoples were there too [Chernikh, 1988; Merpert, 1988]. Interplay within this zone was extremely diverse: long- and short-distance migrations, multi-cultural contacts within neighbouring areas, etc. The undeveloped nature of the problem hinders attempts to synthesise a clear picture, aggravated by problems of the radiocarbon dating of cultures in the area [Avilova, 1996a]. Therefore we shall attempt to demonstrate just the basic tendencies, taking into account the provisional nature of some of the dates, and that Indo-Europeans did not participate in all the processes hereinafter described. 325 Chapter 2. Migrations of Indo-Europeans within the Circumpontic zone 2.1. Infiltration of the Near Eastern cultural complex into Europe In the period under consideration, another group of settlements was situated in Asia Minor. Chattal Höyük, whose levels are dated from the late 7th millennium BC, is one of the clearest examples. Many of its features are similar to those of the earlier North Mesopotamian settlements already described; however, they could have formed independently during the transition to a farming economy. No detailed resemblance to its artefacts can be traced even in its closest neighbour, Cayönü Tepesi [Masson, 1989, p. 39]. There has been an attempt to connect Chattal Höyük with the proto-Indo-Europeans [Safronov, 1989, pp. 40-46]; whilst this possibility cannot be excluded completely, the evidence put forward seems to me unconvincing. Should evidence of the connection between Chattal Höyük and Halaf culture [Bogoslovskaya, 1972] and the hypothesis of the latter’s proto-North Caucasian identity be developed more fully, then Chattal Höyük will have to be considered as proto-North Caucasian. It is also difficult to say something definite about Haçilar, a very early (late 8th millennium BC) settlement in South-Western Anatolia, but the fortifications and architecture of its levels I-II, dated to the mid- and second half of the 6th millennium BC [Mellaart, 1982, pp. 104, 105], show earlier parallels in Northern Mesopotamia, and parallels with later undoubtedly Indo-European cultures as well. The most likely situation is that local populations started here to develop a farming economy. However, in the 6 th millennium BC, Indo-European populations infiltrated into Asia Minor on an unknown scale. This may have been one cause for the appearance of the Anatolian cultural complex in the Balkans. The role of the Near East in the formation of the farming economy in South-Eastern Europe is beyond doubt, because of the absence in the Balkans of many wild analogies to cultivated plants, goats and sheep, which appeared here at the beginning of the Neolithic. It is supposed that even those species of domestic animal possessing wild analogies in Europe were introduced here from the Near East already domesticated [Titov, 1984; Bökönyi, 1989; 1991, p. 550]. Indeed, originally there were no essential changes in the lithic manufacturing techniques. J.K. Kozłovski shows that, in the early phase of the neolithisation of the Northern Balkans, in particular in Thessaly, despite the appearance of a farming economy, stone artefacts continued the Mesolithic tradition. Therefore, it is possible to say that the farming economy was introduced by Late Mesolithic communities, to which it is possible to apply the term ‘Proto-Neolithic’. Only with the appearance of ceramics were there radical changes in the technology of lithic manufacture. Apparently, this happened as a result of an influx of new populations [Kozłovski, 1989, pp. 132-136]. Already, in the late 7th – early 6th millennium BC, the Karanovo I, Starčevo-Criş and Preceramic Neolithic of Thessaly cultures had formed in the north-east of the Balkan Peninsula [Todorova, 1979, p. 9].1 This first stage can be designated as mono1 According to calibrated radiocarbon dating, the first stage of the neolithisation of Europe (Argissa, Sesklo, Anza, Nea Nikomedeia in Thessaly, and Macedonia) falls into 7000-5500 BC. Indeed, the Preceramic Neolithic in Thessaly (Protosesklo and Argissa) is dated to the first half of the 7 th millennium BC, and the Early Neolithic from the mid-7 th millennium BC. In Greece, the dates of the Middle Neolithic fall into the range 5700-5600 BC, and of Late Neolithic up to 4560-4395 BC. In Bulgaria, the Early Neolithic (Karanovo I) dates conform, as a whole, to the corresponding period in Thessaly; Middle Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş, Karanovo II-III) is late 7 th – mid-6th millennium BC. Within 5100-4600 BC the cultures of the North Balkan Eneolithic phase (Precucuteni, Tripolie A) existed, although in principle they are sometimes considered as Late Neolithic developments [Whittle, 1998, pp. 139, 140, Coleman, 1992, pp. 255, 256; Gimbutas, 1992, p. 399; Ehrich, Bankoff, 1992, pp. 378, 379]. 326 Fig. 123. Neolithic and Eneolithic settlements in Anatolia and the Balkans. 1 – Cayönü Tepesi; 2 – Mersin; 3 – ChattalHöyük; 4 – Haçilar; 5 – Dimini; 6 – Sesklo; 7 – Nea Nikomedeia; 8 – Sitagroi; 9 – Karanovo; 10 – Veselinovo; 11 – Krivodol; 12 – Bubanj; 13 – Pločnik; 14 – Butmir; 15 – Vinča; 16 – Starčevo; 17 – Polyanica Tell; 18 – Ezero; 19 – Gumelnitsa; 20 – Bojan; 21 – Hamangia; 22 – Tartaria; 23 – Tirpeshti; 24 – Karbuna; 25 – Floreshti; 26 – Solonchene; 27 – Usatovo; 28 – Vladimirovka; 29 – Kolomiyshina; 30 – Tripolie. chrome: Karanovo I ware was coloured by white paint [Todorova, 1995, pp. 83, 84; Pernicheva, 1995, p. 102]. A number of features (mud-walled houses on a stone base, with a polished clay wall covering and paintings in red on a cream background) indicate quite reliable parallels with Haçilar, and it is possible to compare polished ware having eyes for the attachment of cords with the Kizilkaya ceramic complexes, although the circle of possible analogies is not limited to this [Titov, 1969, pp. 171-174; Nikolov, 1989, pp. 191, 192]. Subsequently, wattle- and-daub houses become typical of Balkan Eneolithic architecture. The early houses of Karanovo I do not contain wattle-and-daub walls and correspond more to Anatolian practice. On the same settlement, small models of houses are found, the ridge of whose roof is decorated by an animal head [Whitlle, 1985, pp. 49-51]. Similar architectural detail is known in Chattal Höyük. The discovery in the Balkans of sanctuaries possessing many similar details to those of Chattal Höyük is rather indicative too [Lazarovici, 1989]. 327 An important feature of the Criş (Körös) culture is the presence of relief ornamentation on pottery: applied cordons, ‘bosses’, etc. One more feature connecting the Balkan Neolithic cultures with Anatolia and Mesopotamia is the custom of burials on settlements. In both areas skeletons lie in the contracted position on their left or right side and are sometimes coloured with ochre [Parzinger, 1993, pp. 311, 312]. Subsequently the Criş culture participated in the formation of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture, where these features survived [Whitlle, 1985, pp. 76-80; Chernish, 1996, pp. 27-39], whose habitation architecture – long houses – is similar to that of Criş [Meier-Arendt, 1989]. Linearbandkeramik spread over Central and Western Europe from Eastern Slovakia to the Alps and Belgium, and the distribution of the farming economy in Central and Western Europe is connected with it. Linearbandkeramik people had far from always peaceful contacts with the local Mesolithic hunting populations. In Belgium, for example, a defensive ditch surrounded the settlement of Darion on the border of the culture. The settlement is dated to the second half of the 5th millennium BC (calibrated radiocarbon dates: second half of the 6th millennium BC, or from the late 6th millennium BC). The culture expanded rapidly, and these dates are close to the earliest dates in the southeast [Whittle, 1998, pp. 154, 155; Thomas, Rowlett, 1992a, pp. 345, 346]. Some scholars connect this culture with Indo-Europeans [Makkay, 1987]. This assumption is compatible with the genetic connections with the Starčevo-Criş culture, which is comparable, in turn, with the proto-Hassuna material in Northern Mesopotamia. The affinity of the relief decorations to those on proto-Hassuna ware suggests the latter as the source of it. The forms of Criş ceramics, especially vessels with a ring base, are close to proto-Hassuna ware too. Danubian and North Mesopotamian cultures (Criş, Linearbandkeramik, Tell Sotto, Hassuna) are comparable also on the basis of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic plastics, polished axes and adzes, bone spatulas, and the custom of intramural burials contracted on the side. Therefore, the expansion of Linearbandkeramik culture can well explain the presence of proto-IndoEuropean river-names in Europe. In the Middle Neolithic the Ovčarovo culture formed as a result of contacts between the Karanovo II and Criş cultures in the north. The effects of Criş culture on developments in Bessarabia resulted in the formation of the Bug-Dniester culture [Todorova, 1995, p. 84]. In outcome, the Neolithic farming economy diffused rather quickly in this direction. Vinča, a further culture formed in the Northern Balkans about the mid-5th millennium BC (the date is not calibrated1 ), shows connections with another Anatolian settlement – Chattal Höyük – expressed in the affinity of ornaments, clay plastic, decoration of both hearths and walls by bull and deer skulls, bone spatulas, etc. [Safronov, 1989, pp. 92, 93]. A number of local cultures in Western Bulgaria (Kremikovtsi, Kremenik-Anzanbegovo, GradeshnitsaKirča), dated to the 5th millennium BC, show convincing resemblances with the ceramics of both Anatolian (Haçilar V-II, early Neolithic Alişar, Mersin XXIV-XX), and Mesopotamian settlements (Hassuna V, Samarra). This raises the possibility of direct migrations from the Near East, not mediated by the Karanovo I culture [Nikolov, 1984, pp. 7, 1719; 1989, pp. 192, 193; Pernicheva, 1995, p. 104]. The Near Eastern connections of the Balkan Neolithic cultures are confirmed by the discovery of small copper objects in Neolithic Balkan settlements. The earliest finds are those from Asagi Pinar (Karanovo III period) in Turkish Thrace. These fill a gap between the distribution of the farming economy from Anatolia and the subsequent rapid development of metallurgical production in the Balkans. Finds dated to the late Neolithic are more numerous. They are known on Dimini, Vinča C, Gradeshnitsa, Polyanica I-III, Precucuteni II, Hamangia III, and Sitagroi III [Pernicka et al., 1977, p. 48; Makkay, 1996a, p. 37] Thus, this situation corresponds to the wellknown judgment that, during the Neolithic, infiltrations of Anatolian populations into the Balkans took place, resulting in the formation of the vast BalkanAnatolian cultural complex [Merpert, 1988, p. 21; Titov, 1969, p. 225; Nikolov, 1989, p. 194]. These processes were at their most intense during the Neolithic. Then the cultural affinity of this complex disintegrated, and the Balkan Eneolithic developed quite independently, without appreciable Anatolian influence [Todorova, 1979, p. 68; Titov, 1969, p. 179]. For the entire Eneolithic contacts with Anatolia ceased, which makes it impossible even to attempt 1 There are calibrated dates for different phases of Vinča culture: Vinča A-C – 5265-4560 BC; Vinča D – 4135-3895 BC. Thus, these dates show a great gap [Ehrich, Bankoff, 1992, p. 382]. 328 synchronisation of these areas one with another by cross-linking. The common schemes of periodisation have been constructed entirely through the use of material from the Aegean, with which both these areas had limited contacts [Parzinger, 1993, pp. 253263]. It is possible that local Mesolithic tribes participated in the neolithisation of the Balkans too, becoming incorporated into Neolithic communities. However, Mesolithic sites are not numerous; therefore the number of people here was, apparently, very insignificant. There is no evidence of such incorporation. So, if it really took place, its role in the formation of new Balkan cultures was small [Todorova, 1995, p. 83].1 In the Eneolithic (the 5th – first half of the 4th millennium BC) the integration of these cultures took place, as a result of which a series of new cultural formations arose, extending the initial area, whilst preserving quite comparable features of material culture (the Eneolithic stage of Vinča, GumelnitsaKaranovo VI, Salcuţa, Hamangia, Varna). This cultural bloc exhibited a tendency to expansion northward. In the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC (noncalibrated dates) the Cucuteni-Tripolie culture formed in the North-West Pontic area, as a result of the influences of the North Balkan Bojan and Hamangia cultures on a substratum of Linearbandkeramik [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 190].2 Most clearly this is exhibited in ceramics, but anthropomorphic clay plastic also shows parallels with the GumelnitsaKaranovo culture [Whitlle, 1985, p. 138]. In Central Europe, the Lengyel culture came into existence (late 5th – early 3rd millennium BC3 ). In the opinion of V.A. Safronov it may be regarded as a derivative of Vinča culture, but A. Točik believes that it was formed on a local Neolithic basis as a result of climate change and the economic transformation this brought about [Safronov, 1989, pp. 95, 102; Točik, 1991, p. 313]. 1 See also the conclusions by Kozłovski above, although they relate rather to the first steps in the neolithisation of the Balkans. 2 Calibrated dates of the Cucuteni-Tripolie culture fall into the period 4500-3500 BC [Sherratt, 1998a, pp. 172-174]. According to other evidence, the phase Precucuteni-Tripolie A is dated to 5100-4600 BC; Cucuteni AB and A-Tripolie B to 4600-4000 BC; Cucuteni B –Tripolie C1 to 4000-3400 BC [Gimbutas, 1992, p. 399]. 3 Radiocarbon dates of the culture start from the late 6 th millennium BC [Ehrich, Bankoff, 1992, p. 382]. It is rather difficult to detect in these cultures a likeness with those of the early Neolithic in Northern Mesopotamia or Anatolia. This is explained not only by the changes that accompany any cultural transformation, but also by the rapid development of the farming economy, which resulted in the complete replacement of the features of the new formations. Nevertheless, there is a continuous succession of some categories of artefact. Above all, we can see this in anthropomorphic and zoomorphic plastics, clay cones, stone maceheads, polished axeadzes, and seals [Safronov, 1989, pp. 80, 81, 102; Todorova, 1979, pp. 40, 57-59; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. LVI-LVIII, LXI, LXII, LXIV, LXV, etc.; Movsha, 1969, p. 31]. Essential changes took place in architecture too. Houses have a rectangular form, but their walls are constructed differently: of mud and reed reinforced by wooden poles. Fortifications appeared, but not, apparently, in the early stages: fortified settlements are absent from Tripolie A., arising in the following phase [Passek, 1961, p. 139] as a probable reaction to pressure from the east, which will be discussed further. The forms of fortifications vary from round to trapezoidal and rectangular; the walls are erected in a way different from that in Anatolia. Graphic evidence of this is Tell Polyanica, where defensive walls are erected from stakes, driven into the ground to a depth of 60 cm (Fig. 124.1,11). Another example of a fortified settlement relating to the Karanovo VI stage is Tell Drama, surrounded by a circular ditch, separated from the houses by a space of about 25 m. The houses were arranged rather densely without being attached, their walls parallel to the ditch (Fig. 124.2) [Fol et al., 1991, p. 119, Abb. 2]. It is possible also to mention the acropoleis of Dimini and Sesklo in Thessaly, with large megarons and strong defensive walls of clay on a stone base. Their construction reflects a very advanced level of social differentiation [Parzinger, 1993, pp. 298, 299]. They are closer to Anatolian practice than any other constructions of the Eneolithic Balkans that reflects local traditions. Alongside this, undefended settlements of irregular plan are known in all cultures [Safronov, 1989, pp. 74-79; Whitlle, 1985, pp. 145-150; Todorova, 1979, pp. 48-52; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. LIX]. The ceramic complexes of Balkan Eneolithic cultures have many common features too. Their forms are rather variable, and the quality is high. An important specificity is the tradition of incrusting incised 329 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 8 11 7 9 13 12 14 17 18 15 19 16 20 21 Fig. 124. Eneolithic of the Northern Balkan and North-West Pontic areas. Gumelnitsa culture: 1 – Polyanica Tell; 2 – Drama Tell; 9 – Timishoare; 10 – Ruse; 12 – Ozernoe; 14 – Slivnitsa; 15 – Bolgrad; 16 – Tartaria (Vinča culture); 17 – Nagornoe II; Cucuteni-Tripolie culture: 3 – Solonchene; 4-6 – Karbuna hoard; 7, 8 – Gorodnitsa II; 11 – Petreni; 13 – Luka Vrublevetskaya; 18 – Stena; 19 – Nezvisko; 20 – Krutoborodinci; 21 – Trayan-Djalul Viey. 330 ornaments with white paste. In Tripolie this tradition had already ceased by the end of the early phase, but in Vinča it is present in phases B and C and persists in Lengyel [Passek, 1961, p. 96; Todorova, 1979, p. 17; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 182]. However, the painted pottery of these cultures is more interesting (Fig. 124.12,17-20). A number of its forms and types of decoration also become widespread subsequently in the east, Anatolia and Transcaucasia (pedestalled vases, spiral and meander-shaped patterns, etc.). The seldom-occurring anthropomorphic vessels found already on early Tripolie settlements are especially interesting [Passek, 1961, pp. 52, 96]. They are possibly a reflection of an early Near Eastern cultural tradition. Alongside tillage agriculture [Todorova, 1979, p. 37; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 234; Comşa, 1991, p. 85; Sherratt, 1997, p. 231], cattle breeding was developed. The herd comprised cattle, sheep, goats and pigs [Safronov, 1989, p. 83; Todorova, 1979, p. 38; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 234-236]. However, the most striking successes were in metallurgical production. The scale of mining activities at Ai Bunar in Thrace and Rudna Glava in Eastern Serbia is enormous. Metalworking was based on the use of ‘pure’ copper. Metallurgists of the BalkanCarpathian area did not yet know the use of ligatures. Furthermore, the absence of considerable trace elements in the metal is sometimes viewed as a sign that the artefacts were made of native copper. Investigations have revealed that low concentrations of cobalt and nickel may be such a sign, although not always. As a whole, use of native copper was not typical of Balkan metallurgy. Unfortunately, there is practically no evidence about ore smelting for this time. The fragments of a crucible found at Durankulak do not answer unambiguously whether it was used to melt metal or smelt ore. However, processing of raw ore probably took place. Already in the early Eneolithic some artefacts contained heightened concentrations of lead, arsenic, antimony, which indicates the extraction of ore [Chernikh, 1975; Pernicka et al., 1977, pp. 118121, 127, 130]. Metallurgical production in the Balkans, having received an Anatolian impulse in the Neolithic that resulted in limited use of copper, developed further quite independently, as the specific forms of metal artefact to which it gave rise demonstrate. Some types (shaft-hole axe-hammers, wedge-shaped adzes, flat adzes) may be traced back to stone prototypes, and others (awls and fishing hooks) to bone. At the same time, new types developed: ornaments, tanged knives, axe-adzes, pickaxes (Fig. 124.3-14). There are the first hoards of metal, such as Karbuna, largely uncharacteristic of this area in the Early Bronze Age but widespread in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, which has usually been interpreted as a sign of the appearance of craft production [Chernikh, 1975; 1976, pp. 171, 172; Whitlle, 1985, p. 140; Todorova, 1979, p. 42; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. LX]. It is necessary to note one peculiarity of the chronological distribution of Eneolithic metalwork from this area: the quantity of Early Eneolithic finds is relatively insignificant, increasing in the Middle Eneolithic and reaching great number in the Late Eneolithic [Pernicka et al., 1977, pp. 49-51]. This gives the impression of a sharp increase in metallurgical production stimulated by the development of the craft and trade relations that numerous hoards confirm. However, there is another way of looking at this if we remember that the end of this period was characterised by a serious crisis in the whole cultural system of the area, as well as by external encroachments. These last could have stimulated the appearance of the hoards. Nevertheless, even for the early stage, it is possible to postulate the presence of craftsmen specialising in metallurgical production. Above all, this is indicated by the highly skilled activities revealed by archaeometallurgical studies. At an early stage, metallurgists were already adept in obtaining the optimum temperature for such operations as forging and welding. This was especially so when working with copper containing large concentrations of lead: hot-brittleness sets in at 327°C, whilst the temperatures used seldom exceeded 300°C [Rindina, 1971, pp. 97-98]. A reflection of the high development of the Balkan-Carpathian cultures in the 5th – first half of the 4th millennium BC is the discovery of signs on clay plates and other ware of the Vinča and CucuteniTripolie cultures [Safronov, 1989, pp. 82, 83; Whitlle, 1985, p. 68; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. XCII] (Fig. 124.16,21). Study of the signs has shown that they were quite standardised and frequently arranged in groups [Winn, 1981, p. 235]. Thus, they may have been an early form of writing. Such a possibility is confirmed by Linear A on Crete, which contains corresponding signs [Winn, 1981, p. 250]. Sometimes signs such as these are interpreted as an indicator of the formation of an early civilisation [Safronov, 1989, p. 85]. S. Chokadziev is inclined to regard the occurrence of proto-writing as a sign of arising civili- 331 sation too. Analysing material of the Slatino settlement, he mentions the presence of weapons (maceheads and axes) and male figurines, and conjectures that some men engaged in hunting simply for pleasure. He concludes that in this period there were unions of tribes, from which it was only one step to the formation of civilisation [Chokadziev, 1995, pp. 141-146]. From the arguments put forward the presence of proto-writing is convincing. H. Todorova offers other evidence in support of this: the presence of rich necropoleis (for example, Varna) and one or two public buildings in the centres of settlements. She believes that already at this stage it is possible to discuss the presence of royal power [Todorova, 1995, p. 88]. Such an approach does not contain anything impossible, but there is no evidence of social or property differentiation. In Chernikh’s opinion the discovery in this region of very early gold objects (Varna, Varna II, Khotnitsa etc.), indeed in enormous numbers,1 does not change the situation, as we do not know what status this metal had [Chernikh, 1988, p. 40]. In Varna, 61 of the 281 burials in the cemetery contain gold, and there was a prolific quantity of grave goods in all graves [Ivanov I., 1991, p. 130]. The only explanation is that this was a cemetery of the elite and their retainers – which it might well be. For the Balkan Eneolithic flat burials were typical – contracted on the left side, head oriented to the east [Angelova, 1991, pp. 101-105]. Burials in the Varna necropolis differ in their variety: bodies on the back and on the side, more usually the right side [Ivanov I., 1991, pp. 126-128]. Burials on the back were characteristic of the Hamangia culture [Parzinger, 1993, p. 315]. Therefore such diversity of ritual may indicate the presence of groups of populations with different origins, which in early communities was an indispensable condition for the appearance of social differentiation. Analysis of grave goods and burial rites brings most writers to believe that there was advanced social differentiation in this society, even dividing women and children, and that its structure was outside the framework of a customary chiefdom. Therefore, the existence of a developed hierarchical system is supposed: either ruler-priests or even royal 1 Only one burial in the Varna cemetery was accompanied by gold ornaments (weight 2093 g) [Whitlle, 1985, pp. 160-162]. However, according to the records of the excavator, there were correspondingly 1098, 1516 and 789 g of gold in the three richest graves [Ivanov I., 1991, pp. 126-128]. In any case, there was a great quantity of metal. power [Lichardus, 1991; Nikolov, 1991; Marazov, 1991]. Irrespective of how the problem of early statehood in the Eneolithic Balkans will be solved, it is quite clear that highly developed and consolidated societies were formed here. It is very likely, therefore, that the actual formation of these societies became a barrier to the further invasion of tribes from Anatolia. 2.2. Indo-Europeans and the Caucasus Compared with the rapid development in the Balkan-Carpathian area, cultural processes in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe were slower and progress very irregular. It is much more likely that the early phases witnessed the coexistence of bearers of both Mesolithic and Neolithic traditions in separate landscapes (Fig. 125). Neolithic sites are not numerous in the Caucasus and are distributed over it with extreme irregularity. In Central Transcaucasia, for example, where the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, often regarded as Eneolithic (which is not entirely justified), replaced the Mesolithic culture in the 6th millennium BC, they are practically absent. Many features of this culture indicate its formation as a result of North Mesopotamian impulses; indeed, it is possible to list artefacts with direct analogies on proto-Hassuna and Hassuna settlements: stone maceheads, polished axe-adzes, slate mattocks, clay and stone missiles for a sling, ware with applied and incised ornamentation [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 107-113]. Bone spatulas, found on settlements of Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture, have analogies in Chattal Höyük and in Vinča culture, but it is impossible to exclude their functional identity with bone plates with a rounded end found during the excavation of Yarim Tepe I [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 130]. Anthropomorphic clay plastic is comparable with objects of a very broad area from Northern Mesopotamia to Tripolie. The discovery of the impression of a seal found on the Arukhlo settlement is probably testimony to southern connections too. The same direction of communications can be discussed in relation to the remains of ancient irrigation systems that appeared in Transcaucasia in this period and are typical sub- 332 Fig. 125. Neolithic and Eneolithic sites of the Caucasus: a – Neolithic sites; b – Eneolithic sites. 1 – Nizhnyaya Shilovka; 2 – Kistrik; 3 – Verkhnyaya Lemsa; 4 – Darkvetskiy Naves; 5 – Anaseuli; 6 – Kobistan; 7 – Choh; 8 – Tetramitsa; 9 – Arukhlo; 10 – Shulaverisgora; 11 – Imirisgora; 12 – Khramis Didigora; 13 – Shomutepe; 14 – BabaDervish; 15 – Ginchi; 16 – Alikemektepesi; 17-19 – settlements of the Mill steppe; 20 – Kul Tepe I; 21 – Khaytunarkh; 22 – Tekhut; 23 – Shengavit; 24 – Nalchik cemetery. sequently of later cultures in this area [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, pp. 24, 25, 53, 54]. As a whole, nobody doubts that the formation of Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture was connected with regions of the Near East adjoining Transcaucasia. There is also a basis for statements about the special role in this process of Hassuna culture, or rather such sites as Tell Sotto, as the forms of Transcaucasian ceramics are not so varied as those in Hassuna and correspond more closely to proto-Hassuna (Fig. 126.1-3). However, distinctive house-building traditions preclude a direct connection. In Transcaucasia, only round houses, not present in Mesopotamia until the appearance of Halaf culture, are known in this period. One more feature, which brings together Shulaveri-Shomutepe settlements with Halaf, is the extreme rarity of burials on settlements, which indicates the existence of extramural cemeteries. However, Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture predates the appearance of the Halaf people in Northern Mesopotamia. In Pontic Transcaucasia, Neolithic sites appeared too; the earliest of them (Anaseuli I, Darkvetskiy Naves, Apiancha and Lemsa caves) contain microliths of the Mesolithic type but no ceramics. At the same time, there are polished axe-adzes, 333 3 4 2 1 6 5 7 8 10 9 11 Fig. 126. Eneolithic of Transcaucasia. 1 – Shulaverisgora; 2, 3 – Imirisgora; 4, 5, 8-10 – Kul-Tepe I; 6 – Tekhut; 7, 11 – Alikemektepesi. mattock-shaped instruments, missiles and, most important, the bones of domesticated animals: bulls, sheep and goats, pigs and dogs [Bzhaniya, 1963, p. 75]. In later sites (Nizhnyaya Shilovka, Kistrik, etc.) this complex is enriched by ceramics with incised and applied ornaments, as well as by tanged arrowheads made on blade-type flakes [Bzhaniya, 1963, pp. 75, 80]. Analogies to this material are the same as those to similar artefacts of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture. However, the absence of ceramics on early settlements suggests that the formative impulses were not contemporary. A new cultural complex occurs in Southern Transcaucasia in the last quarter of the 5 th millennium BC. It is known from the excavations of Alikemektepesi, the lower level of Kul-Tepe I and (the latest) Tekhut (up to the mid-4th millennium BC) (Fig. 126.4-11). However, these settlements have been dated by the Halaf inclusions found there. Use of the calibrated radiocarbon dates of this culture allows us to date these complexes within the second half of the 6th millennium BC [Porada et al., 1992, pp. 83-86]. These sites have a certain specificity, which does not permit derivation from ShulaveriShomutepe. At the same time, undoubted postHassuna traditions are present. The chronological gap between Hassuna in Mesopotamia and this cultural complex suggests that, with the appearance of Halaf culture, the Hassuna population was dispersed northward. The area of culturally similar settlements is not limited to Southern Transcaucasia. Comparable material has been discovered at Tilki-Tepe (Eastern Anatolia), Geoy Tepe and Yanik Tepe (NorthWestern Iran) [Korfmann, 1982; Munchaev, 1987, pp. 122-126]. Sites of this group are characterised by rectangular and round pise houses [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 115, 116; Munchaev, 1987, pp. 100, 106, 107, 124; Abibulaev, 1963, p. 157]. Some settlements (Shah Tepe) were surrounded by defensive ditches [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 40]. I am inclined to regard stone maceheads and polished axeadzes, the macro-blade technique of processing obsidian, and polished ware with applied and paint ornamentation as post-Hassuna traditions [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. XLI-XLVIII; Abibulaev, 1959, pp. 448, 450; 1963, pp. 161-163; Munchaev, 1987, pp. 334 100, 102, 108; Korfmann, 1982, Abb. 8, 19, 20, 22]. The tradition of intramural burials is quite similar too, although there are some differences. Hassuna burials (Yarim Tepe I) were usually in the contracted position on the side; contraction on the back, although known, is rather exceptional. Among KulTepe I burials the proportion on the back increases, but at Alikemektepesi there are none. The increase at Kul Tepe I is probably explained by its later date. Colouring with ochre, which is typical of burials of this period, is unknown at Yarim Tepe I, but present occasionally at Chattal Höyük [Abibullaev, 1965, pp. 42, 43; Munchaev, 1987, pp. 100, 106; Mellaart, 1967, p. 245]. Such a feature of late Eneolithic burials of Transcaucasia as a small rock under the head of the deceased has very early parallels in Mesopotamia at Tell Maghzalya [Antonova, 1990, p. 68]. However, we cannot trace the further preservation of this tradition up to the 5th millennium BC. It is necessary to note a number of qualitatively new features: the first, albeit occasional, arsenic bronze artefacts in these settlements; and awls with a stop, a feature which becomes rather characteristic of all cultures of the Circumpontic zone in the Early Bronze Age [Teneyshvili, 1989; Selimkhanov, Torosyan, 1969, pp. 230-232]. Probably this population itself extracted metal ore from local fields. At ancient mines in the village of Zitelisopeli, pieces of slag and stone hammers with a waist, identical to hammers from Arukhlo and Kul-Tepe I, have been found [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 113]. On Kul-Tepe I clay models of sockets with a hub are found, and horse bones formed 7.5% of osteological remains of the Alikemektepesi settlement [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 134, 135; Abibulaev, 1959, fig. 14.10]. The latter is contrary to the belief of Russian archaeologists that the earliest domestication of the horse occurred in the South Russian steppes. All Transcaucasian Eneolithic cultures demonstrate communications, first with Halaf, and then, in the 4th millennium BC, with Northern Ubaid, marked by corresponding inclusions of ceramics on settlements [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 117, 119, 120, 121, 123; Munchaev, 1987, p. 121]. They were realised through Eastern Anatolia, where finds of Halaf ware are known too [Aksay, Diamant, 1973, p. 107]. In the ethnic and linguistic contexts we can view this as the replacement of proto-North Caucasian by Sumerian contacts. Sites reflecting Hassuna traditions occur in the th 6 millennium BC in the mountain regions of Dagestan (Choh). In many respects the Neolithic of Dagestan assimilated local Mesolithic tradition, which in turn incorporated cultural components from the Southern Caspian area [Bzhaniya, 1963, pp. 84, 85; Gadzhiev, 1991, pp. 112, 113]. A new wave of southern tribes appeared in Dagestan in the late 5th millennium BC, reflected in materials of the Ginchi settlement. Radiocarbon dating suggests an earlier date of the settlement – about the mid-5th millennium BC [Glumac, Anthony, 1992, p. 202]. The settlement’s defensive wall is about 2 m thick, constructed of lines of large rocks and filled with small-sized rock. The rectangular foundation of an excavated dwelling has a similar design. Two burials contracted on the side have been investigated. The polished ceramics, covered by engobe, are ornamented by incised herringbone decoration or painting, relief decorations and applied cordons decorated by incisions. There are vessels whose surface is covered with fluid clay [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 124-126; Munchaev, 1987, pp. 110-114; Gadzhiev, 1966, pp. 55-59; 1991, pp. 38-40]. These architectural traditions may be traced back to Tell Maghzalya; ceramics show parallels in the Van-Urmia area (Geoy Tepe M, Tilki-Tepe, Kültepe) [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 126; Gadzhiev, 1966, pp. 59, 60]. Vessels with a sharp bend-ledge resembling the slants in the lower part of Hassuna ware are very particular. It is possible that for firing the Ginchi people used kilns similar to those in the Near East. Ceramics with a polished surface are rather typical. There are some pieces of painted ware indicating southerly connections too; and the connections traced with the Neolithic ceramics of the Alazan valley in Georgia may also be relevant [Gadzhiev, 1991, pp. 64, 66, 67, 71, 94, 95]. The inserts for sickles found on the settlement divide into two types – Shomutepe, and similar to those found in Khaytunarkh, Kul-Tepe, Zopi and Yarim Tepe [Korobkova, Gadzhiev, 1983, pp. 138, 139; Gadzhiev, 1991, pp. 60, 80]. Burners, a handle with a vertical hole, and tweaked cordons have analogies in Gumelnitsa and in the Linearbandkeramik culture [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 111, 113]. The barbotine processing of the surface is known in the Starčevo-Criş and Karanovo I cultures [Safronov, 1989, p. 68]. The parallels were most likely conditioned by these cultures forming from a common source, however it is impossible to exclude that some additional secondary processes may have increased the degree of their comparability. 335 Finally, we must consider the Nalchik cemetery. The bodies in it are coloured with ochre and lie on their backs in a contracted position, which is regarded as a development of ancient Near Eastern traditions [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 139-141]. Indeed, a similar burial tradition diffuses through Eastern Europe only in the Khvalinsk-Sredniy Stog II period, whilst Nalchik is chronologically comparable with the earliest phase of the Mariupol period [Gadzhiev, 1991, p. 106; Merpert, 1991, p. 38]. Therefore, to a certain extent, it could serve as a basis for these steppe cultures. In addition, it is not now an isolated monument. Similar burials are known under mound 6 in Bamut, in Grozniy, and under mound 8 at Komarovo [Munchaev, 1991, pp. 50, 51]. Thus, during the Neolithic and Eneolithic separate groups of Indo-Europeans infiltrated into the Caucasus. It is possible to link to them quite definitely such complexes as Ginchi, Kul-Tepe I, Alikemektepesi, etc. The problem of Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture is more difficult. It may be regarded as any one of Indo-European, proto-Kartvelian or protoNorth Caucasian. Summarising the history of the early Indo-Europeans, I should like to dwell on such important matters as the domestication of the horse and invention of wheeled transport. The presence in the Indo-European lexicon of the terminology for a horse and a wheel is generally used to substantiate the theory that Indo-Europeans originated in Eastern Europe, where, it is supposed, domesticated horses were known from the middle third of the 4 th millennium BC, and wheeled carts were in use from the early 3rd millennium BC. S. Bökönyi, who has done much to substantiate the distribution of the domesticated horse from the South Russian steppes, has derided this theory [Bökönyi, 1991, p. 550]. New evidence shows that the Eneolithic horse in the Eurasian steppe was wild [Levine, 1999, pp. 36, 40-43]. However, wherever we locate the Indo-European homeland, reliable representations of carts or their identification in graves date considerably later than the protoIndo-European stage of language development. Earlier carts may be unreflected by archaeological evidence. On the other hand, the common terminology for the horse is not evidence for the localisation of the Indo-European homeland either: the presence of common Indo-European terms for ‘panther’ or ‘wolf’ is not a stimulus to search for the bones of domesticed examples of these species in the cultural levels of settlements. Hence, the problem of the priority of some area in the domestication of the horse or the invention of wheeled transport cannot be connected directly with the Indo-European question. We can use Greece as an illustration of this: the horse is known there only from the coming of Greeks, but pre-Greek Indo-European place-names have been found. At the same time, there should not be manifest inconsistencies in the solution to these problems. By removing the date of the common IndoEuropean stage to the 7th – 6th millennia BC, the gap between the proto-Indo-European language stage and archaeological proof of the domestication of the horse and invention of wheeled transport is increased (on the surface). Therefore, without claiming a solution to all these problems, I shall attempt to demonstrate that such early dating of the Proto-IndoEuropeans does not contain any inconsistency. As previously stated, the proto-Indo-European term for ‘horse’ could arise from the designation of wild horses. The reconstructed linguistic evidence of the dynamics of Indo-European herd transformation is more important. Originally, sheep and goats were completely dominant (etymologising the term ‘sheep’ with the notion of ‘the whole herd/flock’), and then the proportion of cattle began to rise [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 580-585]. Horses occur later: the partial replacement of the cult of the bull by that of the horse has been reconstructed [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 577]. In settlements of the 7th – 6th millennia BC in Northern Mesopotamia there are no horse remains [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 149; Gadzhiev, 1989]; on the Arukhlo I and Zopi settlements, related to Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture (6th – 5th millennia BC), there are [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 135]. However, it is not possible to be certain that they belonged to the domestic species: the morphology reserves very little space for such arguments. But already on the Alikemektepesi settlement two species of equine remains have been identified [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 134, 135], which points to an earlier date for the beginnings of domestication to allow for the long period of selection necessary for raising different species.1 Therefore, it is possible to offer as a hypothesis that the domestication of the horse took place in the Shulaveri-Shomutepe 1 In contrast, S. Pigott supposes that even horse remains found on the Kura-Araxian settlements of the Transcaucasian Early Bronze Age belong to wild species. Perhaps he bases this on the clear evidence that horses were present in Southern Mesopotamia in the late 3 rd millennium BC (hymn of Šulgi) [Pigott, 1992, p. 48]. 336 period, and that the bones found in Arukhlo I and Zopi are testimony. The absence of wild horses in this region is confirmation. Chronologically, this is little different from the proto-Indo-European language, if at all. There are no particular inconsistencies in correlating such an early dating of the Indo-European homeland in Northern Mesopotamia with the problem of the appearance of wheeled transport, which is partly connected with that of domestication of the horse. S. Bökönyi has pointed out that, from the first, horses were herded not for meat – on early settlements their skeletons were those of rather young animals – but were used for horseback riding, and soon after that in double harness – which best corresponds to their psychology [Bökönyi, 1991, pp. 550, 553]. This suggests a very early occurrence of the harness, but that could have appeared irrespective of the horse. The presence of terminology for draught transport is usually interpreted as a sign limiting the proto-Indo-European language stage to the 4th millennium BC [Mallory, 1996, pp. 9, 10, 16, 17]. Nevertheless, Indo-European terms for ‘harness’ can be explained by archaeological evidence of the 6th millennium BC. Above, I have mentioned the discovery of a plough on Arukhlo I. On the Eneolithic settlement of Ginchi in the Northern Caucasus the pointed antlers of deer have been found, which might have served as ploughs too [Gadzhiev, 1991, p. 80]. An antler plough has also been found on the later Kura-Araxian settlement of Kvatskhelebe, which testifies that the tradition of tilled agriculture continued in Transcaucasia [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 75]. In Mesopotamia, the plough is known from the period Uruk IV, but use of light ploughs probably took place earlier (Hassuna, Halaf, Susa A), which can correspond to about 5000 BC in the calibrated system of dates. In Europe, the earliest evidence of use is about 4500 BC (plough-marks under the barrow at Sarnovo) [Sherratt, 1997, p. 230]. It is possible, however, that ploughs appeared in Europe earlier. Above, we have already discussed the presence of arable farming in the cultures of the Balkan Eneolithic. The use of ploughs drawn by cattle is supposed for stage Precucuteni II [Comşa, 1991, p. 85]. There is indirect evidence indicating the use of ploughs in this area already in the early 5 th millennium BC. In Vadastra in Romania, the deformed bones of bulls have been found, which can be seen as a sign of their use as draught animals [Sherratt, 1997, p. 231]. Thus, archaeological evidence of the early dates of arable farming is not incompatible with earlier dating of the proto-Indo-European language stage. However, the distribution of both the plough and wheeled transport was, apparently, a contemporary process. At a later date (1600 AD) their zones of distribution coincide [Sherratt, 1997, p. 239]. Furthermore, the development of arable farming without the invention of the harness was impossible. Therefore Indo-European terminology for the harness could have been conditioned by the development of arable farming. The situation with wheeled transport is more difficult. Common Indo-European terminology for ‘wheel’ and ‘cart’ goes back to terms meaning forward and rotary motion. Notably, the beginnings of the dialectal partitioning of Indo-European languages, although very early, can be traced already in this terminology. In particular, a common Tocharian – Anatolian basis for the designation of the wheel has been found [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 718721]. Below, we shall discuss the chronology of dialectal partitioning in more detail. Here, I shall note only that the separation of Anatolian could not have taken place later than the early 5 th millennium BC. Thus, wheeled vehicles should have existed in the 6th millennium BC. As a matter of fact, hardly anyone now doubts that wheeled transport was invented in the Near East, with a date, based on the earliest finds, of the first half of the 4th millennium BC [Sherratt, 1997, p. 169]. In Mesopotamia early representations on a seal from Kish and on a vessel from Khafajeh are dated to the 29th – 26th centuries BC and already show harnessed equids and the use of vehicles with a military purpose. A drawing from Tell Halaf (last quarter of the 4th millennium BC) shows a battle chariot too, although there is a completely plausible view that vehicles originally served to lighten the work of farmers and their genesis was connected with the plough harness [Kozhin, 1985, pp. 170, 171; Gorelik, 1988, pp. 184-187]. It is notable that the Tell Halaf drawing already depicts a composite wheel, consisting of a hoop and crossed beams [Gorelik, 1988, p. 187]. Solid and compound wheels with hubs were a later development; wheels without hubs relate to an earlier time [Kozhin, 1985, p. 171]. In this connection, the discovery of a clay model of a wheel with a hub on the Kul Tepe I settlement allows the date of the appearance of hubbed wheels to be pushed back before the early 4th millennium BC in the system of 337 traditional chronology [Abibulaev, 1959, fig. 14.10]. Earlier such finds dated to the 5th and, all the more, to the 6th millennium BC are absent. Clay spindle-whorls or wheels without an expressed hub have been found on proto-Hassuna settlements [Bader, 1989, p. 142, tab. 72], but it is not clear how far they can be correlated to an earlier stage of wheel development. However, if we link directly the date of archaeological evidence of wheeled transport to that of the dialectal partitioning of Indo-European proto-language, the localisation of the Indo-European homeland in the Near East seems more reasonable than in Central or Eastern Europe, or in the Balkans, where evidence of wheeled transport was earlier dated to the 28th century BC, or to the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC in the non-calibrated system of dates [Safronov, 1989, pp. 165-177]. Starting from this date, it is completely impossible to show the dialectal partitioning of Indo-European languages since the separation of the Anatolian languages. Use of calibrated radiocarbon dates deepens the appearance of wheeled transport in Europe to 3400-3100 BC (early Baden – Budakalosz, Szigetszentmarton, the Bronocice settlement in Poland of the Funnel Beaker culture, and finds in Switzerland) [Sherratt, 1997, p. 162; Pigott, 1992, pp. 18, 19]. Finds of wheels in Denmark and Holland become somewhat earlier too – about the early 3rd millennium BC [Pigott, 1992, p. 18]. However, calibrated dates for the Near East would in any case be earlier. Therefore the problem remains, but it has to be solved by Near Eastern material nonetheless. It is possible that the terms connected with wheeled transport were borrowed by the Anatolian languages from some other IndoEuropean source. The exodus from the primary common area of people speaking other dialects took place from the 4th millennium BC, which can completely or partly remove this problem. What has been said above means only that the objections presented against an early date for the proto-Indo-European language stage are, at least, matters for discussion and cannot be regarded as an absolute argument. The main defect is that a system of knowledge should be constructed on facts instead of by identifying their absence. Finds of wheels of the 4th millennium BC are rather rare. If they had not been made, would this mean that we should date the proto-Indo-European language stage to the 3rd millennium BC? 2.3. Early Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe In the steppe zone of Eastern Europe, the developments were slower than in all the areas described so far. The Neolithic of the North Pontic area is represented by sites of the first phase of the Dnieper-Donets culture, with rather imperfect ceramics and relics of Mesolithic traditions of lithic industry [Telegin, 1996, pp. 52, 53].1 The earliest remains in the steppe zone of the bones of domestic animals (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and dogs) have been found on such settlements as Rakushechniy Yar on the Lower Don, once dated to the 5th millennium BC [Telegin, Belanovskaya, 1996, p. 62]. Radiocarbon dating allows the Neolithic level of the settlement to be placed in the range 80006800 BP, or to the 6th millennium BC [Zaytseva et al., 1999, p. 15]. Two other calibrated radiocarbon dates relate it to 5220-4905 BC or 4750-4545 BC [Gimbutas, 1992, p. 396]. The connections of this culture with the south are rather vague. Possible indicators are the occurrence of flat-bottomed ware, polished adzes, ‘arrow-straighteners’, and tanged arrowheads with double-sided retouch. All of these are known in the West Caucasian Neolithic; consequently, these sites may be regarded within the framework of the distribution of the Caucasian and Near Eastern cultural complex northward. Flint artefacts from such sites as Tenteksor in the Lower Volga-Ural interfluve arouse some West Caucasian associations too. The southern connections of these sites may be indicated by polished stone maceheads as well as ceramics on a ring-shaped applied base [Vasiliev et al., 1986, figs. 12, 13, p. 24]. At the same time, the genesis of Tenteksortype sites could be connected also with material of the early Neolithic site of Jangar in Kalmykia [Vasiliev et al., 1986, p. 26]. As a whole, this situation 1 The sites of the following phase of the culture should be included into the Mariupol bloc of cultures and viewed within the framework of the early Eneolithic Azov-Dnieper culture [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, p. 27]. N.Y. Merpert agrees with this conclusion, pointing out that the sites of the Dnieper-Donets culture are situated only in the forest-steppe, and the AzovDnieper culture sites are situated even further into the steppe zone, which indicates a change in the way of life [Merpert, 1991, p. 38]. 338 2 3 4 6 1 7 5 Fig. 127. Azov-Dnieper culture. 1, 5 – Poltavka; 2, 6 – Nikolskiy cemetery; 4, 7 – Mariupol cemetery. produces an impression of a rather sluggish infiltration of the Caucasian populations into local communities, which had no fundamental effect on the cultural development of the area. In the North-West Pontic area, as mentioned earlier, the process of neolithisation was stimulated by influences from the Balkans. The farming economy in the steppe zone was formed under the influence of two counter impulses: from the south and from the west. Indeed, the population predominantly developed river valleys, and did not penetrate into the open steppe [Merpert, 1991, p. 37]. Striking changes occurred on the steppes of Eastern Europe at the beginning of the Early Eneolithic, when the cultures of the Mariupol cultural bloc arose (Fig. 127). In the system of non-calibrated radiocarbon dates used here, these cultures are to be dated to the early 4th millennium BC [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 7, 9-27]; the calibrated dates are about 5000 BC [Gimbutas, 1992, p. 400]. Several cultures are included in this vast bloc: the Samara culture in the Volga area (Syežeye cemetery), the Lower Don culture on the Don (sites Universitetskaya I, III, etc.) and the Azov-Dnieper culture in the Dnieper-Don interfluve (Mariupol, Vovnigskiy and Nikolskiy cemeteries, the settlements of Sobachki,1 Sredniy Stog I, etc.). Despite differences, most obviously in the ornamentation of ceramics, these cultures have a great many identical features. Burials are flat, the bodies extended, lying on the back and coloured with ochre.2 Stone polished adzes 1 The Sobachki settlement is interesting for its intramural burials, but it is the only case of such burials in the Mariupol period [Telegin, 1991, p. 55]. 2 Already about 800 burials of the Mariupol period are known [Telegin, 1991, p. 55]. 339 and maceheads, large blades, copper or gold ornaments from the Balkan-Carpathian area, the presence of sacrifices with horse bones, collared ware with a flat bottom, jet beads, and channelled plates made of the fangs of wild boar are typical of all of them. There are also arrowheads with double-sided retouch, either tanged or hollow-based, and ‘arrowstraighteners’ [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, p. 31; Vasiliev, 1999, pp. 94, 95]. Scholars have connected the formation of these cultures with different previous complexes of the steppe zone: the first phase of the Dnieper-Donets culture, Rakushechniy Yar, sites of the Tenteksor type, the effect of the Kelteminar tribes from the east, interplay with northern forest-steppe cultures [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 32-39; Danilenko, 1974, pp. 39, 40; Telegin, 1996, pp. 48-53; Telegin, Belanovskaya, 1996, p. 70]. At the root of all these conclusions lies, above all, analysis of ceramic material, and they are all probably correct within particular limits because the processes of formation of these cultures differed and were rather distinct in each separate area. However, their indisputable cultural unity urges us to search for a primary process uniting all these local developments into a single whole. There is a theory that burials extended on the back, coloured with ochre, are a phenomenon typical of northern cultures of the European-Siberian area. In southern cultures contracted skeletons without ochre are more typical. Therefore, the culture of the Early Eneolithic in the steppe zone is a northern phenomenon. The subsequent appearance of contracted skeletons with ochre has been interpreted as a synthesis of both traditions [Telegin, 1966, pp. 8, 12, 13; 1991, p. 60]. This conclusion is not beyond dispute. Extended on the back burials had been known in a number of Near Eastern cultures since the Mesolithic: Natufian, Chattal Höyük, Hassuna, Halaf. Ochre is known in burials of cultures of the same circle, with the exception of Hassuna. However, in the Late Eneolithic complexes of Transcaucasia derivative from Hassuna, such as Kul-Tepe I, ochre appears [Antonova, 1990, pp. 41, 42, 60, 61, 62, 65, 70, 73, 77, 78, 82-84; Abibullaev, 1965]. Nevertheless, a similar combination of rituals is not characteristic of cultures of the Hassuna and postHassuna circle as a whole; we can guess at its northern origin, whilst harbouring certain doubts. This emphasises the local basis of formation of all Mariupol cultures, which is usually demonstrated by ceramic material. Other features – polished adzes, maceheads, large blades, tanged arrowheads, ware with a flat bottom – are already well known to us. This complex occurs first in Hassuna culture, and in the 6th – 5th millennia BC penetrated into the Caucasus. Scholars also link the origin of jet beads with the Caucasus [Merpert, 1988, p. 25]. The tradition of collared ware, common for all Mariupol cultures, perhaps derived from the necessity to attach a vessel to a cord [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995 p. 28]. In Hassuna culture, as well as in the Eneolithic cultures of Transcaucasia, this could be achieved by means of relief ornaments, including cordons below the rim. Cordons occur on ware from the Kul-Tepe I and Ginchi settlements, which have an earlier chronological position than the Mariupol cultures. In addition, Ginchi has yielded ceramics with a ‘collar’ similar to those from the Mariupol period [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. XLIII, 22, XLIX, 9, 7]. Channelled bone plaques are found in the Hassuna level of the Yarim Tepe I settlement. They are interpreted as plaques for a bow [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 130]. The earliest bones of a domesticated horse found in Transcaucasia were on the settlement of Alikemektepesi [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 134, 135]. ‘Arrowstraighteners’ have been revealed in Transcaucasia on the early Neolithic site of Anaseuli I [Bzhaniya, 1963, pp. 22, 49], and in Eastern Anatolia on the later settlement of Tilki-Tepe [Korfmann, 1982, Abb.20]. Some components of this complex fell into the steppe zone in the Neolithic, but in this case we may draw conclusions about a new, larger-scale migration of the Indo-European population from Transcaucasia. It is likely that the new ethnic component was less numerous than the local pre-Indo-European population, but nevertheless outnumbered those IndoEuropean populations which had appeared on the Lower Don and in the Northern Caspian in the 5 th millennium BC. More advanced forms of economy and social structure allowed them to assimilate the local tribes, and this is reflected in the formation of the Mariupol cultures. The appearance of these populations in the North Pontic area closes a circle of Indo-European migrations around the Black Sea, which provides the ‘contact continuity’ characteristic of the whole sweep of subsequent development of the Circumpontic zone [Merpert, 1988]. This is exhibited most clearly in the presence of BalkanCarpathian metalwork in burials of the Mariupol period. Cultures of that time are usually regarded as proto-Indo-European [Vasiliev, 1999, p. 95]. This may 340 very well be so, but there is no firm basis for verifying it. In the following phase of the Eneolithic (about the middle or first half of the 4th millennium BC1 ) a new cultural unit formed on the basis of cultures of the Mariupol circle. It is represented, above all, by such cultures as Sredniy Stog and Khvalinsk, and the Ivanovka phase of Samara culture. The abundance of horse bones on a number of settlements of this ‘unit’ suggests that they were horse breeding communities, even that harnesses and cheek-pieces might be present. It is impossible to be certain as the cautious supposition about cheek-pieces has developed into historiographical myth [Trifonov, Izbitser, 1997]. In addition, there is doubt that the horse was domesticated [Levine, 1999, p. 36]. These cultures formed on a local Mariupol basis through a quite complex system of interplay between local Mariupol formations and neighbouring developments [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 41-49; Morgunova, 1995, pp. 64-66]. This ancestry is reflected in all features. The communications with Balkan-Carpathian mining centres, traditional for the Mariupol cultures, continued [Chernikh, 1991]. But the burial rite was fundamentally transformed. Extended on the back burials remained only in Repino culture, formed somewhat later. The Khvalinsk and Sredniy Stog cultures show completely different rites – contracted on the back; less often, secondary burial [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, p. 43; Agapov et al., 1990, pp. 57, 58]. This urges us to guess at additional impulses from the south, where the rite of secondary burial was widespread from a very early date. The genesis of burials contracted on the back may be traced clearly enough. The earliest are known in Hassuna culture, where, however, they are represented by single finds [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 85]. In the Transcaucasian Eneolithic (Alikemektepesi, Kul-Tepe I) the proportion increases notably and there are skeletons coloured with ochre [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 100, 106; Abibullaev, 1965, pp. 42, 43]. We may regard the material from the Nalchik cemetery where inhumations contracted on the back and coloured with ochre have been found, as an in1 Through new methods applied in radiocarbon dating there is ground for earlier dating of this chronological layer (about the mid-5th millennium BC). The late dates from Dereivka fall into the range 3865-3550 BC [Kuznetsov, 1996b, p. 56; Gimbutas, 1992, pp. 401, 402]. I assume such a possibility, but use the traditional dates to base myself upon a unified system of dates, which has in this case a conditional character. termediate stage and one of the components of this complex [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 139-141]. That this cemetery is earlier than the cultures of the Sredniy Stog period does not contradict this. Intramural burials excavated on the Alexandria settlement and dated to the Sredniy Stog period are further indicators of southern tradition [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 307]. From studying artefacts no Transcaucasian impulses can be traced. However, if this migration was initiated from near its predecessor, it would be rather difficult to separate the evidence of the one from the other. It is probable that the applied decoration on one of the vessels from the Khvalinsk cemeteries, sides of vessels coloured with ochre, or the traces of polishing on Sredniy Stog ware can be viewed as such evidence [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, p. 43; Agapov et al., 1990, pp. 53, 59, 66]. Stone sceptres, which occur on different sites of this time, may be further testimony of southern communications. Their Caucasian origin has already been discussed [Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992, pp. 25, 26]. This problem demands deeper investigation. For the present we cannot say how many new populations came into the region, but that they did so is not in doubt. Apparently, we may speak about the IndoIranian (common Aryan) identity of the bearers of Khvalinsk culture and, probably, of the Ivanovka phase of Samara culture. At this time there were rather intensive contacts throughout the Volga-Ural region with the Finno-Ugrian cultures of the northern forest-steppe and the south of the forest zone, accompanied by the formation of cultures with mixed features. In the east of this area stable communications with the Surtandi and Kelteminar cultures have been found, but subsequently, at the time of Pit-Grave culture, evidence of any contacts between the forest and steppe zones is missing [Vasiliev, 1995, pp. 208-212; Morgunova, 1995, pp. 65-68]. It is accepted that the earliest contacts between the Finno-Ugrian and Indo-Iranian languages took place during the common Aryan stage [Abaev, 1981]. They could not have happened in the Early Bronze Age because there was no physical contact, or in the Middle Bronze Age because of the absence of a common Aryan language stage. Therefore, active interplay with their northern and eastern neighbours is evidence that the Khvalinsk culture people were Aryan. However, there is also a contrary opinion that there were no such contacts, and that all borrowings should be connected with a later time within the 3rd 341 millennium BC, when contact took place between an Indo-Iranian population and people who spoke the common non-separated Finno-Ugrian language [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 149-151]. In my opinion the arguments presented in favour of this are powerful enough. In this case it would be rather disputable to refer the Eneolithic populations of the Volga area to a particular ethnic group. There are similar problems too with the languages of the Eneolithic peoples in the Ukraine. It is even more difficult to judge the language of the migrants of the early 4th millennium BC, when the Mariupol cultures were formed. Their obvious cultural affinity with the following period suggests linguistic affinity too, but at an earlier stage of the language. Therefore, it is possible that they could speak the dialects of the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan stage, or rather the Graeco-Aryan unity, if we start, nevertheless, from the obviously poorly developed concept of common Aryan contacts with FinnoUgrians. However, there is no linguistic evidence to support this supposition. It is necessary to note some further details relating to the transformation of the cultural bloc. In the early Dereivka phase of Sredniy Stog culture there is corded ornamentation and some few burials under mounds (Koysug cemetery) [Archeologia Uk SSR, 1985, p. 307]. Impressions of cords are known also on Ivanovka ware in the Southern Urals [Morgunova, 1995, p. 64]. On a local basis, but with some input from Sredniy Stog culture, Repino culture, in whose ornamentation cords play a noticeable role, formed in the Don area. In contrast to other cultures of this chronological horizon, Repino preserved the Mariupol tradition of burials extended on the back. Subsequently, many features of Repino were retained on the Middle Don in both the Catacomb and Abashevo cultures of the Middle Bronze Age [Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995, pp. 49-61]. It is possible that these changes were conditioned by the existence of another Eneolithic cultural unit in the southern part of steppe, represented by Suvorovo sites on the Dniester and Lower Danube, Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka sites in the North Pontic area, Yamno-Berezhnovka sites on the Lower Volga, and a number of sites on the steppes of the Northern Caucasus [Archeologia Uk SSR, 1985, pp. 311-320, 324-331; Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992; Nechitaylo, 1996; Shaposhnikova, 1987, pp. 11-14] (Fig. 128). This list can be considerably extended, for there are a number of local types, as well as sites with an indefinite cultural identity. For example, in both the Molochnaya basin and in the Orel-Sakmara interfluve, burials extended on the back are known, an inheritance of the Mariupol period [Rassamakin, 1987, p. 38]. Secondary burials, tier burials and burials without skulls occur too [Bratchenko, Konstantinesku, 1987, pp. 17, 19]. Contracted on the back burials coloured with ochre are standard for these groups. Barrows and flat burials are known; in the Lower Mikhailovka and Novodanilovka cemeteries, stone boxes, cairns, cromlechs and solid stone circles are characteristic. On the River Molochnaya the only burial excavated from such an early time was in a catacomb [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 313, 325, 328; Shaposhnikova, 1987, pp. 12-14]. Finds of stone zoomorphic sceptres are connected with these burials in different areas, for which there is a parallel in the Khvalinsk cemetery [Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992, pp. 25, 26; Agapov et al., 1990, p. 66]. Flint blades are widespread, and in the Northern Caucasus pendants made of the fangs of wild boar, identical to those from the Mariupol burials, have been found [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 315, 327; Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992, pp. 22-24; Rassamakin, 1987, fig. 2; Bratchenko, Konstantinesku, 1987, fig. 3.5-7,11,12]. Metal objects are not numerous. They are made of Balkan-Carpathian copper and duplicate Balkan-Carpathian forms. Most are ornaments (multiturn bracelets, rings, shell-shaped pendants), but there are also tools: shaft-hole hammers from Ruguja and Petro-Svistunovo, and an axeadze from Ust-Labinskaya [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 315, 316; Chernikh, 1991, fig. 3, 4; Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992, p. 18; Nechitaylo, 1996, p. 29]. Pottery is very varied and rather sparse, which frequently makes difficult its cultural identification. Some of it inherits local traditions, but polished ware inheriting those of the Caucasian Eneolithic is quite characteristic. Novodanilovka amphorae with applied knobs are similar to material from Kul-Tepe I, Tekhut and other Transcaucasian sites [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 312, 313, 319, 327; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. XLIII, XLV, XLVII, XLVIII; Shaposhnikova, 1987, p. 12]. The earliest corded decorations are on this ware (Yamno-Berezhnovka and Lower Mikhailovka types) [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 327; Nechitaylo, 1996, p. 29]. It was once suggested that these complexes had been formed somewhat later than Khvalinsk and Sredniy Stog II; more recently, an early dating be- 342 Fig. 128. Sites of the Novodanilovka type: 1, 3, 6 – Voroshilovograd; 2 – Yama; 4, 5 – Chapli; 7 – Lyubimovka; 8 – Novodanilovka. Sites of the Lower Mikhailovka type: 9 – Mikhailovka: 10 – Konstantinovka; 11 – Ankermeni; 12 – Tarasovka. tween Mariupol and Maikop (from the first half of the 4th millennium BC, or since 3700 BC) has been put forward [Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992, p. 18; Nechitaylo, 1996, pp. 29, 30].1 Thus, they are synchronous with the Khvalinsk – Sredniy Stog II cultures and might even have had a formative effect upon them. Such a position seems quite reasonable. Synchronisation with the Khvalinsk cemetery and Tripolie of the end of period A – period B1 is indicated by the zoomorphic sceptres [Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992, pp. 25, 26; Agapov et al., 1990, p. 85]. This allows these complexes to be related, on the basis of the calibrated dates suggested for Tripolie and Khvalinsk, to the mid-5th millennium BC in the 1 In the Balkans corded decoration, connected with the appearance there of steppe tribes of this type, occurs within H. Parzinger’s chronological horizon 9, which is dated to 3700/ 3600 – 3500/3400 BC [Parzinger, 1993, p. 266, 290] calibrated radiocarbon chronology [Gimbutas, 1992, pp. 399, 401, 402]. Lower Mikhailovka ware occurs within the same complexes as ceramics of the Kvitnyanka phase of Sredniy Stog culture [Shaposhnikova, 1987, p. 12]. In the flat cemetery at Alexandrovsk near Voroshilovograd, a bone buckle has been found, made in the form of a rod with a side projection and a hole in it. Analogies are known in Tripolie sites of period B1 [Bratchenko, Konstantinesku, 1987, p. 30]. The presence of extended skeletons, flint blades and plates of boar fangs in the Northern Caucasus does not allow these cultural complexes to be separated from Mariupol. Two burials adjoining the Mariupol-type Kapulovka cemetery, with which they have no great chronological gap, are particularly indicative [Shaposhnikova, 1987, p. 12]. Primitive Lower Mikhailovka and Novodanilovka anthropomorphic stelae have a parallel in the Khvalinsk cemetery [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 343 313, 328, 329; Agapov et al., 1990, p. 23; Shaposhnikova, 1987, p. 14]. They are most widespread in the North Pontic area. It is very important to note that Near Eastern parallels to them have been discussed [Danilenko, 1974, pp. 81-84]. The copper objects from these sites are similar to the metal artefacts from the Varna cemetery and the Karbuna hoard [Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992, p. 26]. These analogies allow no doubts about the suggested early dates. Perhaps there is no particular reason to doubt the Transcaucasian origin of these cultural groups. Analogies to some of the artefacts and to the ochrecoloured, contracted burials have already been adduced when discussing the problems of Sredniy Stog II and Khvalinsk. Therefore we need only to supplement them. Most important is the origin of burials under barrows, which are usually regarded as originally a steppe phenomenon. Nevertheless, in Transcaucasia burials under barrows dated to the Neolithic are known (barrow at Golitsino; barrows 119 and 125 at Stepanakert) [Munchaev, 1987, p. 64]. It is possible to doubt that they belong to the Neolithic, but their dating to the Eneolithic is indisputable – mounds of the Early Bronze Age covered them. These burials, as well as those considered above, do not contain a great quantity of grave goods. The presence of ochre, small pieces of coal, and a flint blade in the barrow at Golitsino should be mentioned. The indistinct character of these complexes suggests that some similar finds have not yet been separated from already excavated materials. The sources of stone stelae are not quite clear. The earliest are known in the early Neolithic of Northern Mesopotamia. One stele found at excavations of the settlement of Nevali Chori on the Euphrates makes a special impression. It has an elaborated head and hands made in the same fashion as those of steppe Eneolithic stelae [Hauptmann, 1993, Abb. 16]. However, the time interval separating them is too great. The Near Eastern origin of the rite of secondary burial or burial without skulls is beyond doubt (see Chapter 2 in Part II). The earliest burials in a niche or catacomb in Northern Mesopotamia are known on the Halaf period settlement of Yarim Tepe II [Merpert, Munchaev, 1982, pp. 47, 48]. Catacomb burials in the Parkhai II cemetery in the South-Eastern Caspian have a southern origin too and were not connected with the steppe zone at all [Khlopin, 1989, p. 129]. Other cultures with a catacomb burial rite (Dashli 3, Sapalli, Vakhsh, Bishkent, Zaman- Baba) also lack such connections: their origin was stimulated by impulses from the Near and Middle East. The ceramics of Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka sites, as we have mentioned, are comparable with those of the Transcaucasian Eneolithic. Hollow-based arrowheads had been known in Transcaucasia since the Neolithic [Bzhaniya, 1963, fig. 22.45; Bratchenko, Konstantinesku, 1987, fig. 9.2]. The discovery of a dagger with an obsidian blade in the Mukhin II cemetery in a burial of Novodanilovka type, is very indicative. The index of refraction of this obsidian differs from that for obsidian in the Northern Caucasus and Transcaucasia and is identical to obsidian mined in the region of Lake Van. Twenty-one blades of the same type have been discovered on the Tilki-Tepe settlement in the same region. In this case, importation is unlikely for two reasons: first, there are closer sources of obsidian; second, the technique of forming this blade is identical to that used by Novodanilovkan masters [Korfmann, 1982, Abb. 22; Zherebilov, Bespalii, 1997, p. 25]. Similar blades are known in the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age levels of the Arslantepe settlement in Eastern Anatolia [Caneva, 1993]. Probably this tradition of chipping rock goes back to complexes of the Tell Maghzalya type. Thus, we can conclude that a new component appeared in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe, its origin connected with either Transcaucasia or the Armenian Plateau. Apparently, it was formed of nomadic cattle breeders – there is a high proportion of sheep and goats amongst their livestock and a paucity of settlements [Shaposhnikova, 1987, p. 14]. They were rather mobile and penetrated far to the west, which resulted in deliveries of Balkan-Carpathian metalwork into the steppe and forest-steppe of Eastern Europe. The bearers of cultures of the Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka types and the Sredniy Stog populations participated in these migrations to the west. In the North-West Pontic area the active interplay of these populations with the Tripolie people has been found. In the cemetery at Vikhvatintsi many graves had stone cromlechs or contained contracted skeletons lying on their back, which should be viewed as an alien tradition [Passek, 1961, pp. 161, 162]. Thus, in the North-Western Pontus, the first contact of these populations with the Eneolithic cultures of South-Eastern Europe took place. Thereafter, these contacts increased. 344 2.4. Cultural transformations in South-Eastern and Central Europe in the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age Scholars suppose the appearance of these populations resulted in the destruction of the Eneolithic culture of the Balkan-Carpathian region, where a great number of burials of the types mentioned above have been excavated: they are widespread in Bulgaria, Romania, and in the south and north-east of Serbia [Mallory, 1989, p. 235]. Indeed, it is necessary to note that burials in the Dniester-Danube interfluve are similar to those of early Lower Mikhailovka sites [Todorova, 1979, p. 70; Merpert, 1988, p. 26; Agapov et al., 1990, pp. 12, 14]. This indicates that the incursion into the Balkans and Carpathians could have started soon after the appearance of these groups in the steppes of Eastern Europe. In the ceramic complexes of the CucuteniTripolie (periods Tripolie A-B1, Cucuteni A3-4) and Gumelnitsa cultures (periods A/2, B/1) Sredniy Stog ware has been found, which differs from the traditional complex in the high proportion of crushed shells in the clay and the technique of knocking out the sides when forming the vessel. This resulted in an essential transformation of local ceramic production, although the main traditions persisted [Palaguta, 1998; Comşa, 1991, p. 85]. Another sign of the invasion of steppe populations into the Northern Balkans was the distribution of ‘sceptres’ in the form of animal heads [Comşa, 1991, pp. 86, 87]. In consequence, about the mid-4th millennium BC (according to traditional chronology), the whole bright array of Balkan-Carpathian cultures came to an end [Chernikh, 1988, pp. 41, 42]. Within the framework of calibrated radiocarbon dates these processes are somewhat more complicated, as materials of the last quarter of the 5 th millennium BC are almost absent. This had previously seemed to be an inexplicable paradox with a huge chronological lacuna. The radiocarbon dates of the phase Varna – Karanovo VI – Sitagroi II fall within the second half of the 5th millennium BC; such sites as Ezero, Mikhailovka, Usatovo, Sitagroi IV, Baden and Cernavoda date from 3360 BC to the end of the 4th millennium [Ehrich, Bankoff, 1992, pp. 390, 391, 393]. Recently a so-called Transitional period has been separated, contemporary to Tripolie C I-II. Within it are two sub-periods: the Final Eneolithic and protoBronze Age. The former is dated to about 40003700 BC. [Pernicka et al., 1977, p. 54; Todorova, 1995, p. 90; Boyadziev, 1995, p. 173]. This has usually been regarded as a time of infiltrations into the Balkans by nomadic tribes from the North Pontic area, who were bearers of the Sredniy Stog II culture [Todorova, 1979, p. 70]. However, there are opinions that too much importance should not be attached to cultural distinctions in the Balkans between the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age, or to see in this a replacement of the population occupying this area. For example, in the opinion of A. Fol and I. Marazov, the transformation of ceramics and its considerable simplification was conditioned by the concentration of the bulk of effort on the production of high quality metal objects. Arguing against the ‘kurgan theory’, the same writers contend that the encroachment of cattle-breeding Indo-Europeans could not influence cultural change in the Balkans because the horse had been domesticated in SouthEastern Europe about 2500 BC [Fol, Marazov, 1977, pp. 134-139]. If the first thesis is devoid of logic, the second does not correspond to reality. Indeed, the writers adduce really valuable ancient evidence demonstrating that, from at least the last quarter of the 2nd millennium BC, Thracians occupied the NorthEastern Balkans [Fol, Marazov, 1977, pp. 139-142]. But from this it does not follow at all that Thracians (or Indo-Europeans as a whole) already inhabited this territory in the Eneolithic. Below we shall touch upon evidence in favour of the coming of new populations; however, this process is not now regarded as being simple, as once was the case. It had been understood as the appearance of new populations (with skeletons coloured with ochre) that swept away the former cultural system and mixed with local tribes to promote the formation of Early Bronze Age cultures. Now it is regarded as much more protracted and on a larger scale [Garašanin, 1991, p. 207]. The original incoming groups were not so numerous and these developments were quite prolonged. It is unlikely that the infiltration of less numerous (judging from the number of sites) primary groups could destroy such highly organised societies as those of the Balkan Eneolithic. Actually, the underlying crisis was primarily ecological. In the late 5 th millennium BC there was increase in temperature, caus- 345 ing the levels of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean to rise. These processes culminated about 3500 BC. The salinity of the soil increased and the number of settlements sharply decreased [Todorova, 1995, pp. 89, 90]. This eco-catastrophe resulted in movements of population. It had weakened the Eneolithic system, thereby facilitating the infiltration of steppe tribes. The deterioration of the environment was not uniform, and this determined the specifics of these processes. In particular, conditions were much better in Central Europe [Rolf, 1991, pp. 529, 530]. Therefore, alongside movements of the steppe population to the south and the retreat in the same direction of Eneolithic tribes, there were also migrations of the Balkan Eneolithic tribes into Central Europe. Several phases of these movements have been identified. In the first phase tribes of Novodanilovka type (stone sceptres, flat burials coloured with ochre, ceramics with corded decoration,1 and long flint blades) penetrated into the North-Eastern Balkans and the Danube basin. The infiltration of these groups had begun by the Karanovo VI – Bodrogkeresztur – Tiszapolgar – Bubanj – Salcuţa period. 2 These groups were diffused very widely, but primarily over the Dobruja and the Danube basin. The greatest concentration of sites of Lower Mikhailovka and Novodanilovka types is on the Lower Danube. This tends to confirm the nomadic nature of their economy, as the region is favourable for winter pasture and was made use of repeatedly by subsequent nomads. However, migratory waves were not limited to the Northern Balkans, penetrating far to the south, to Macedonia and Montenegro [Garašanin, 1991, p. 207; Tasič, 1991, pp. 265, 266; Kolistrkoska, 1998]. The mixing of these populations with the autochthonous tribes and the formation of new cultural groups commenced. Within the area of the Bodrogkeresztur and Tiszapolgar cultures on the Danube, as a result of 1 It is necessary to note that the corded decoration, considered frequently as a sign of infiltrations into the Balkans from the North, differs. Scholars distinguish cord, pseudo-cord and Winkelschnur, reflecting the different phases of the migratory streams. The first phase falls into the time described; the second corresponds to the Coţofeni – Ezero – Dihili Tash III B period [Tasič, 1991, p. 266]. 2 In addition to the cultures listed above, Cucuteni AB, B corresponds to this horizon, Winkelschnur appeared, and at the end of the period Sitagroi IV and Cernavoda I arose [Parzinger, 1993, p. 266]. infiltrations of steppe tribes and the withdrawal northwestward of bearers of the Salcuţa and Gumelnitsa cultures, the Scheibenhenkel horizon began to form, which was a common phenomenon for the whole of Central and South-Eastern Europe, and gradually such cultures as Baden and Vučedol arose. Under the influence of steppe people in the Karanovo VI period new cultures formed too in the North-Eastern Balkans. One of them, Cernavoda I, started to put pressure upon the Gumelnitsa culture, which, as a result, displaced to the south [Garašanin, 1991, p. 207; Tasič, 1991, p. 267]. In Northern Greece at the end of this period the Sitagroi IV culture appeared, and, as a result of the migration of a population from Thrace, the Yagodina culture formed in the Rhodopes [Todorova, 1995, p. 90], where Eneolithic-type culture is dated to the period 3800-3700 BC, which corresponds to the Transitional Period elsewhere [Boyadziev, 1995, p. 173]. These impulses reach North-Western Anatolia, and this has given a chance for comparisons of Varna and Kum-Tepe IC [Parzinger, 1993, p. 266]. The proto-Bronze Age began either about the mid-4th millennium BC or about 3850-3750 BC [Todorova, 1995, p. 91; Boyadziev, 1995, p. 173]. This period was accompanied by new waves of steppe tribes with ware of Cucuteni C type, and then of Usatovo type, which conduced to the formation of new types [Garašanin, 1991, p. 208]. There is little material of this time. In Thrace the Pevets culture formed, which is connected with Cucuteni B, Tripolie C and Usatovo. In the Dobruja flat barrows with stone circles, stone stelae and coloured red skeletons occurred. In North-Western Bulgaria the Galatin culture arose (Salcuţa IV). Similar cultural developments appeared in Macedonia (Suplevac), Northern Greece (Sitagroi IV, V) and Albania (Maliq II) [Todorova, 1995, p. 91]. The Eneolithic culture remained in South-Western Bulgaria a while longer, where steppe influence is not visible for very long [Pernicheva, 1995, p. 134]. For a long time enclaves of the post-Eneolithic population remained on the islands and peninsulas of the Black Sea – up to the Early Bronze Age, when in other areas the presence of the steppe component is already rather appreciable. Perhaps these places were not of interest to the steppe peoples [Draganov, 1995]. As a result of the destruction of the system and the infiltrations of steppe components practically everywhere except Tripolie, former architectural traditions disappear. It is possible that in some areas it 346 was connected with the partial loss of the settled way of life, in others with the generally unstable situation, and in all with the penetration of other cultural traditions. In a number of areas of the Northern Balkans and the Danube there is no evidence about domestic architecture for this period. In other regions houses are represented by pit-dwellings or huts made of wood and clay [Parzinger, 1993, pp. 301, 302]. The occurrence of Anatolian and Central European features is marked too [Merpert, 1995a, pp. 44, 45]. Anatolian and Near Eastern connections are most clearly seen in metalwork, whose nature started to change with the appearance of these populations in South-Eastern Europe: in the Eneolithic alloys of copper with arsenic were not characteristic of this area, but at the transition to the Early Bronze Age they started to be diffused. This is usually taken as a sign of Caucasian impulses [Rindina, 1961, p. 208; Schubert, 1981]. Actually, as we have seen, earlier arsenic bronzes were rather characteristic of the Transcaucasian Eneolithic. Above we also noted that ligatures were unknown to Balkan metalworking. In South-Eastern Europe some objects of tin bronze are known, dated to the late Eneolithic, but these finds are badly documented and cannot serve as proof of the use of ligatures. Furthermore, their insignificance does not change the general nature of Eneolithic metalworking, although not excluding that tin bronzes appeared for the first time in this area. With the beginning of the protoBronze Age the situation changed qualitatively. Alongside tin-bronze objects there are those of arsenic copper in the area. [Pernicka et al., 1977, pp. 125, 126, 136]. There was also an essential change in technology. In Early and Middle Tripolie, for example, metallurgists very seldom cast articles, and different techniques of forging dominated. In the late stage casting becomes prevalent [Rindina, 1961]. A rather indicative find is the pickaxe from Veremie, which is typologically close to axes found in Armenia. Noticeable traces of nickel have been detected in its composition, just as in objects from a number of sites of the Near Eastern and Maikop cultures. Furthermore, the axe was cast in a two-part mould. Thus neither technologically nor typologically has it anything common with Tripolie objects. Genetically it can be connected with Transcaucasia and the Near East [Rindina, 1971, pp. 129 132, 133], although specifically in the Balkans such bronzes might appear from the terrain of late Tripolie [Todorova, 1995, p. 91]. In addition, tanged tools with a stop, known earlier in Transcaucasia, spread through South-Eastern Europe from the Early Bronze Age onwards. Thus, migrations from Transcaucasia through the steppe zone of Eastern Europe resulted in the destruction of the Balkan-Carpathian Metallurgical Province and started the formation of the Circumpontic Province. Let us remember that, in the opinion of M. Korfmann, the appearance in the Northern Balkans of fortified settlements such as Ezero should be seen as testimony of the synthesis of local Eneolithic and West Anatolian traditions [Korfmann, 1983, p. 240]. H. Parzinger adheres to the same point of view [Parzinger, 1993, pp. 303, 304]. In this connection we must mention Tell Drama, which is dated to the time Karanovo VI and whose fortifications already show features of Early Bronze Age architecture [Fol et al., 1991]. It is separated from the Early Bronze Age fortified settlements by a considerable period, but it demonstrates that there were local sources in the formation of the Early Bronze Age architectural complex of the Balkans. Whilst accepting overall the idea about Anatolian influence, I would like to suggest that it may have come from Eastern Anatolia through the North Pontic area. Further confirmation of such a hypothesis is the distribution of new species of domestic animals. It is considered that the domesticated horse appeared in the Ukraine in the first half of the 4th millennium BC, as indicated by finds in Dereivka. Then, in the late 3rd millennium BC it penetrated into the Near East through the Caucasus [Sherratt, 1997, pp. 170, 171]. However, osteological investigations of the Dereivka herd have shown that the bones are those of wild animals [Levine, 1999, p. 36]. It is possible to be more definite about the following period. In the second half of the 4th millennium BC the horse is known in the Northern Balkans (Gumelnitsa, Karanovo VI, Cucuteni A, Tripolie B, Tiszapolgar). In the Tripolie culture wheeled transport appears together with horse breeding [Movsha, 1982]. South into Greece horse breeding did not penetrate until the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC. In Eastern Anatolia the horse is dated to the first half of the 4 th millennium BC. (Norşuntepe, Tilki-Tepe, Tepechik, Arslantepe) [Bökönyi, 1987, p. 137]. It is possible that in Iran domesticated horses occur in the late 4th millennium BC [Sherratt, 1997, p. 216]. Some scholars believe that the vase from Tell Halaf, 4th millen- 347 2 1 3 4 5 Fig. 129. Lengyel culture. 1 – Bučani; 2 – Tešetiče-Kžieviče; 3 – Zimno; 4 – Kostyanec; 5 – Listvin. nium BC, depicts a wild horse [Hood, 1979, p. 90]. And, as we have already mentioned, in Eastern Transcaucasia horse remains are found even earlier. The situation with the horse is duplicated by the distribution through the Pontic area and DanuboCarpathian basin at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age of a new species of sheep, larger and with better wool. This sheep appears in Mesopotamia in the Jemdet Nasr period, about the late 4th millennium BC, if not earlier, but its selection was probably undertaken in Anatolia [Bökönyi, 1987, pp. 139-142; 1991, p. 554]. The penetration of Europe, including Eastern Europe, by the horse and this sheep took place at the same time – the end of the Eneolithic– beginning of the Early Bronze Age. The bones of this sheep occur on sites of Usatovo type, Tripolie CII, Tell Drama (Karanovo VI) [Bökönyi, 1991, p. 554]. Thus, there is no basis to connect the domes- tication of the horse with earlier Eastern European material. Much of the changes in this period in the Balkans were connected with the Near East. Many scholars now adhere to such a point of view. In the opinion of A. Sherratt, for example, the occurrence in the Balkans of grapes, olives, ploughs, 1 asses, woolly sheep, fortifications constructed using rock, and the technology of alloying copper with arsenic were connected, above all, with Anatolia [Sherratt, 1998a, p. 184]. Indeed, Eastern Europe was simply an area through which the transfer of these new traditions was realised. Despite the ecological crisis having shaken the Eneolithic cultures, such a sharp destruction of the former system – so fundamental that it caused the 1 Above we discussed the evidence of the probable earlier appearance of the plough in Europe. 348 appearance of a new cultural system – was impossible without the coming of a new ethnic component. This precludes our acceptance of that hypothesis that Indo-Europeans had been present in the Balkans since the Mesolithic [Merpert, 1987, pp. 126, 127]. Below we shall discuss the problem of the ethnos of those populations which appeared in the Balkans from the late 7th to the early 5th millennium BC. It is most likely that these groups spoke different languages, that the first infiltrations were connected with the pre-Indo-European tribes of Asia Minor, under pressure from Indo-Europeans, and that proper Indo-European migration did not start until the second half of the 6th millennium BC. Therefore, we shall not attempt an ethnic interpretation of separate cultures. It is impossible without detailed comparison of them with the early Neolithic complex of South-Western Asia, and detailed interpretation of the latter. We will limit ourselves to the actual presence of a particular group in the Balkans in this period. It is already well established that Greeks came into the south of the Balkans about the late 3 rd millennium BC. Analysis has shown the replacement of one pre-Greek layer of place-names by another: pre-Indo-European and Indo-European, namely Anatolian (Hittite-Luwian-Palaic) and proto-Balkan (Pelasgic) place-names [Titov, 1970, pp. 32, 38]. From this it would seem that groups of Indo-Europeans had penetrated into the Balkans in the 6th millennium BC. As a result of their consolidation, the formation of Anatolian languages was set in motion. This corresponds to the earliest separation of this language branch, according to linguistic evidence, and its isolated nature, although our hypothesis makes this process occur somewhat earlier. Indeed, not all the cultures described above were left by Anatolian-speakers. Those formed in Central Europe might have been of different ethnicity. The cultural destruction of the mid-4th millennium BC may be seen to mark the coming of people who spoke Balkan languages (Thracian, Phrygian) and probably Albanian.1 There is further support for this supposition. There is ground to suppose that the described migratory process continued not just in the BalkanCarpathian area but also in Central and Northern Europe. In the opinion of V.A. Safronov, Funnel 1 The tribes speaking Albanian may probably be identified with the Maliq group. Beaker culture (TRB) formed on the basis of Lengyel culture (Fig. 129) right at the end of the Eneolithic, about the mid-4th millennium BC. This extended subsequently over the whole of Northern and North-Western Europe (Fig. 130). Comparison of the architectural, burial and ceramic traditions confirms this: similar ceramic forms, post dwellings with reed walls covered with clay, burials contracted on the side [Safronov, 1989, pp. 106-109, 117-125; Midgley, 1992]. A number of other details, such as the incrustation of ornaments with white paste, allows TRB ceramics to be compared with earlier complexes of South-Eastern Europe [Todorova, 1979, p. 17; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 260]. The developed mixed TRB economy, combining agriculture and cattle breeding, with cattle predominant in the herd, refers us to the same circle of analogies too [Safronov, 1989, pp. 120, 121; Todorova, 1979, pp. 37, 38; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 261]. However, Slovak scholars suppose that there was influence in the opposite direction, from Funnel Beaker upon Lengyel [Točik, 1991, p. 315]. According to M. Midgley, the formation of TRB was a result of contacts between Linearbandkeramik culture and local tribes of forest hunters. In the calibrated chronological system the earliest sites of this culture, which are in the east and south-east of its area, date from the mid-5th millennium BC. Then the culture diffused to the west, where it is dated from the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC2 [Midgley, 1992, pp. 31, 201, 227-229]. However, irrespective of the precise basis on which it was formed, its genetic roots are in the Balkan area, where Lengyel and LBK arose. Such typical TRB features as long houses go back to both these cultures – they were rather characteristic of LBK [Whittle, 1998, pp. 157, 158]. The distribution of fortifications in the form of circular palisades is rather curious: most widespread in Denmark, to a lesser extent in Germany. Apparently, they were a common TRB tradition. The fortified settlement of Quenstedt in Southern Germany is worthy of comment; five rows of palisades have been revealed (Fig. 130.1) [Midgley, 1992, pp. 341354]. These fortifications can be compared with those in Lengyel culture or in the Northern Balkans. 2 Calibrated radiocarbon dates of the culture determine its start as either about 4420-3905 BC or about 3970-3770 BC. The Scandinavian dates for it are later, which indicates its distribution from south to north [Thomas, Rowlett, 1992a, p. 348; Boguski, 1992, p. 367]. 349 2 3 4 5 1 9 8 7 6 12 10 11 Fig. 130. Funnel Beaker culture. 1 – Büdelsdorf. 350 Their existence confirms Safronov’s opinion. Another argument in support is the occurrence in Funnel Beaker culture of stone axes typologically close to those widespread in the Balkan-Danube cultures (Lengyel, Gumelnitsa, Tiszapolgar, Bodrogkeresztur, Tripolie) [Zapotocky, 1991]. These waves of influence extended far to the west. Fortified settlements occur in the north of France in the late Neolithic (Michelsberg time). Their construction is identical to that in Lengyel culture: ditches and palisades of different forms with trapezoidal long houses arranged always outside the fortifications [Dubouloz, 1991; Bertemes, 1991]. At the same time, there are new features, whose origin was connected with the steppe world of the North Pontic area, and which are not derived from the former cultural formations of Central and South-Eastern Europe [Merpert, 1976, pp. 123-126]: collared ware, barrows (both round and long) with stone boxes and circles, corded ornamentation, contracted burials on the back. These features are most characteristic of the Baalberg group of TRB [Safronov, 1989, p. 123]. In the south-eastern part of this culture burials on the back in the extended position are known, which was typical of the Mariupol rite [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 275; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 261]. As an additional detail, though less unconditional, flint knife-blades can be esteemed, which were characteristic of the Eneolithic cultures of the northern and eastern Pontus [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. XCVI, 14]. There is also such characteristic detail as corded decoration in the Funnel Beaker ceramic complex [Safronov, 1989, pp. 104-111]. The formation of TRB happened about the mid4th millennium BC (about the mid-5th millennium BC in the calibrated system). Indeed, the earliest sites are those in Moravia, Silesia and Southern Poland, i.e. closest to the regions involved in the cultural transformation which had been stimulated by the steppe tribes. It is worthy of comment that the date of Sarnovo, already containing the Pontic cultural complex, is determined by radiocarbon analysis as about 3600 BC (cal. 4417 BC) [Safronov, 1989, p. 106; Midgley, 1992, p. 201]. In the north and northwest of Europe TRB sites are later. Thus, the dates of the formation of TRB correspond with the period when cultures of the Mariupol type were replaced by Khvalinsk – Sredniy Stog II, Novodanilovka, Lower Mikhailovka, etc. The presence of Mariupol features in TRB (collared ware, extended on the back burials), as well as of Lower Mikhailovka and Novodanilovka (barrows, cromlechs, stone boxes, corded decoration), suggests that these populations participated in its formation.1 I had been inclined to see the long barrows of TRB as a synthesis of the kurgan tradition with that of Mariupol trench burials [Grigoriev, 1999a, p. 332], but it is more likely that the synthesis was of the kurgan tradition with a local one. In the opinion of Midgley, they reflect the tradition of long-house building [Midgley, 1992, pp. 463, 464]. Sherratt reckons that long barrows with stone tombs diffused from Normandy, although he agrees that they are an imitation of long houses [Sherratt, 1998a, pp. 177, 180]. Probably, the formation of TRB may be regarded as the outcome of interplay between several non-Indo-European and Indo-European populations: local North European, Central European and North Pontic (Azov-Dnieper culture, sites of Lower Mikhailovka and Novodanilovka types). The Central European substratum was, apparently, the most numerous. Thus, the vast region of Central, Northern and Western Europe was occupied by populations connected genetically with the Balkans, and indirectly through the Balkans with South-Western Asia. At the same time, a number of features not deriving from Central and Eastern European traditions are characteristic of TRB: passage graves and dolmens, typical, above all, for the western area of the culture [Midgley, 1992, pp. 409-462]. Their appearance in Northern Europe was most likely conditioned by the effect of the western Atlantic substratum which, to an even greater extent, complicates our understanding of TRB. It is rather difficult to say what languages the bearers of these cultures spoke. It is impossible to exclude completely the presence of an Indo-European component in Northern Europe, even at this early time, but it is more likely that this population was pre-Indo-European. In Chapter 3 of Part II we discussed the presence in Northern Germany of three language layers, and mentioned that Funnel Beaker culture is most likely to have fallen into the earliest pre-Indo-European layer, although it is difficult to be definite about this. In Central Europe, as a result of the very complex interplay of steppe, North Balkan (penetration 1 Additional support for the probable partial synchronism of Mariupol-period cultures and of the chronological horizon replacing them, is provided by the discovery of two rims of Khvalinsk ware on the Shapkino VI settlement, within layers containing the Mariupol ceramic complex [Khrekov, 1996, p. 74]. 351 of the Gumelnitsa and Salcuţa cultures), and local (Lengyel) populations, the influence of TRB began. Overall this resulted in the appearance of the cultural conglomeration of the Boleraz-Baden circle, which soon started to press on the Balkans [Garašanin, 1991, p. 207; Tasič, 1991, p. 267; Točik, 1991, p. 315; Raczky, 1991, pp. 340, 341; Kalicz, 1991, p. 380]. The situation in the Northern Balkans seems more definite, where the Eneolithic cultures were replaced by cultural formations vaguely connected with the former tradition (Ezero, Karanovo VII, Veselinovo II, Sitagroi IV). Linear settlement plans, standard for the Eneolithic, gave way to circular with an area in the centre, for which there were earlier prototypes in Anatolia (Fig. 15.2). These transformations in architecture at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age covered many areas of Europe. In the previous period fortifications were represented by ditches, ramparts and palisades; now defensive walls with stone foundations or frequently built entirely of stone, rise up. They were infilled with rubble. This has allowed H. Müller-Karpe to conclude that there was Near Eastern influence on the formation of European architecture of the Early Bronze Age [Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 404-407]. Corded decoration appeared on Balkan ware, but the traditions of the Central European cultures (Lengyel, TRB) are visible too [Merpert, 1988, pp. 26-31; 1995a, pp. 41, 44, 45]. These effects overlay a rather fluid system which began to form in the Balkans in the Transitional Period. As well as the Central European influence, new waves of steppe tribes (Pit-Grave culture) invaded the area [Garašanin, 1991, p. 212]. A new phenomenon is the influence of the new cultural formations of Central Europe. As a result of this there was a permanent interplay of local, steppe and Central European components in Bulgaria. This can be traced clearly in the example of the Coţofeni culture, which is characterised by arsenic bronzes, corded ornamentation and cemeteries with the remains of cremation. Sometimes barrows occur, reflecting contacts with the PitGrave culture population, but there are cremations accompanied by local grave goods under barrows. Perhaps the rite of cremation diffused from the Middle Danube, where it was known in the previous epoch [Alexandrov, 1995, p. 257; Nikolova, 1995, p. 274]. Burials under barrows are typical mainly of Northern Bulgaria and the Upper Thracian plain, where the influence of steppe tribes was especially strong. In other areas flat burials are more widespread. Intramural burials formed a new development for Bulgaria; it was not typical of sites of this zone, but is known in the Baden – Kostolac – Vučedol cultures on the Middle Danube [Nikolova, 1995, pp. 271, 272]. 2.5. The formation of the Anatolian Early Bronze Age cultures The Balkan and Central European cultural complex shows a tendency to displace eastward into Anatolia. The Balkans become closly connected, above all, with North-Western Anatolia. First, it is necessary to note the discovery of objects made of arsenic copper of a similar chemical composition on sites of the Balkan proto-Bronze Age and on a probably somewhat later site in North-Western Anatolia (Ilipinar). This can testify in favour of one source of metal for both these areas [Pernicka et al., 1977, pp. 136, 137]. These communications are clearly shown in the ceramic complex too. There are cups with a sharp rim, sometimes reinforced inside, on the Kum-Tepe IB3 and Beyçesultan XXV-XVIII/XXIX-XXXIV settlements. Analogies are known in the Gumelnitsa and Salcuţa cultures [Parzinger, 1993, p. 264; Mellaart, 1971, p. 366]. This ware began its rapid diffusion, penetrating even into rather distant regions of Transcaucasia: in the Eneolithic level of Yanik Tepe settlement in Transcaucasia a vase and ceramics with anthropomorphic drawings having Central European prototypes [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, fig. 17.7-9].1 These are not just single finds. They occur quite rarely in Western Anatolia, but are well represented in Central Anatolia. The settlement of Ikiztepe, for example, is almost identical to Veselinovo, and ware of Maritsa and Gumelnitsa types is present in Anatolia on the settlements of GelveriGüzelyurt, Büyük Güllücek and Yarikkaya [Özdogan, 1 For example, vases and ware with anthropomorphic facial drawings are not known in either the Neolithic or Eneolithic levels of the Demircihüyük settlement [see. Seeher, 1987]. Such ware appears as a result of impulses from Europe. 352 1 2 Fig. 131. Fortified settlements of North-Western Anatolia and Greece. 1 – Troy; 2 – Dimini. 1991, pp. 218-220]. On Alişar 12M-14M, ware of Cucuteni A type is known – tube-footed vases and slender vessels with a high neck [Parzinger, 1993, p. 265]. The ceramics of the Yarimburgaz settlement have parallels in those of such European sites as Vinča, Karanovo III and Paridimi. The earliest ware from Alişar can be compared with that from Ilipinar phase V and Vinča [Yakar, 1991, pp. 248, 253]. In addition to these Balkan examples, numerous parallels with the ceramics of Central Europe are known too. The ceramic complexes of the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia and Transcaucasia also have parallels in the late Neolithic Mondsee-group on the Danube, which is dated to the Baalberg time (about 3800-3150 BC) and relates to the circle of South German and Swiss late Neolithic sites [Lochner, 1997, p. 9]. Amongst the comparable features it is possible to list pots with one handle (mugs), cups, oval applied knob-shaped handles, and knob-shaped handles with a vertical hole. The Kura-Araxian ware in Transcaucasia shows the closest visual resemblance to this type of European ware in such forms of decoration as concentric circles and anthropomorphic faces, made by combinations of concentric circles with either trian- gles or zigzags. Far widespread are double and triple knobs (nipple-shaped appliqués), typical subsequently for the Transcaucasian Middle Bronze Age and transferred thence into Sintashta culture [Lochner, 1997, Taf. 4, 48, 52, 59, 98, 99, 104, 107]. But perhaps these last should not be taken into account, as originally they had appeared in the Neolithic of the Near East. In the period directly preceding the infiltration of European populations into Asia (Eneolithic levels of the 5th – 4th millennia BC in Tüllintepe), they were known in Eastern Anatolia. Earlier they were widespread in Northern Mesopotamia, Central Anatolia and Transcaucasia [Esin, 1993, pp. 114-117]. Therefore, it is impossible to exclude their local origin. More indicative is the occurrence of anthropomorphic faces on ware in Anatolia, and then further in Transcaucasia. The genesis of this ornamental type goes back to Central European cultures, including Funnel Beaker. In that same culture are known footed vases, distributed in Anatolia at the end of the Eneolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age [see Midgley, 1992, figs. 29.3.5, 43.6, 45.1.2, 48.2, 51.6.7, 54.1, 60.2, 63.11; Podzuweit, 1979, Taf. 12, 15], whose occurrence can also be explained by the influence of the Balkan cultures, in which they are present too. 353 At the beginning of the Bronze Age the pace of these processes starts to increase. Balkan traditions show through North-Western (Kum-Tepe, Demircihöyük), Central (Ikiztepe, Yarikkaya) and Eastern Anatolia (Arslantepe VI). There are conformities to the pre-Trojan levels of North-Western Anatolia in the early levels of the Early Bronze Age in the North-Eastern Balkans. Indeed, it is necessary to emphasise the later nature of this movement relative to changes in the Balkans. Most clearly it is shown in the architecture of Troy, which obviously inherited features from the Eneolithic architecture of Dimini and Sesklo, with the megarons, acropolis and lower city (Fig. 131) [Parzinger, 1993, p. 306]. Thus, at the end of the Eneolithic, Balkan and Central European populations penetrated Anatolia. This infiltration was not unique and cannot be reduced to just a matter of influence – the destruction of former settlements is sometimes found; and it is apparent at the transition from the Eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age even in such distant areas as South-Eastern and Eastern Anatolia, where it entailed a change in architecture too [Behm-Blancke, 1984, pp. 40-48]. It stimulated development in all areas. The success in metallurgical production is especially visible: the rather limited production of the Eneolithic gave way to a boom. Anatolia began to deliver metal to Mesopotamia. However, within Anatolia developments were varied. In the North-west, they were based on the Late Eneolithic Kum-Tepe culture, which also covered the area of Turkish Thrace. During the Troy I period this line of development was not interrupted, although additional impulses from the Balkans continued to arrive. Changes in this area took place at the end of Troy I, when many of its urban centres (Emporio, Thermi) were destroyed.1 The enemy came from the European continent and also diffused into South-Western Anatolia [Mellaart, 1957, pp. 72, 86; 1971, pp. 371-384]. Nevertheless, there were no fundamental changes at the transition from Troy I to Troy II. A continuous succession of cultural development is to be observed up to the end of Early Bronze II, which in the system of calibrated radiocarbon dates corre1 In contrast to this, C.W. Blegen has supposed that Troy II continued the traditions of Troy I [Blegen, 1971, p. 415]. It is not so important for our following discussion, because the roots of this culture are to be looked for on the European continent. Besides, it is quite obvious that European influences continued during the whole Troy I period, but there is a question about their forms and intensity. sponds to 2700 BC,2 when large-scale destruction took place throughout this zone [Easton, 1976, pp. 166, 167; Yakar, 1979, p. 54]. Nevertheless, from the end of the Balkan Early Bronze Age I and at the beginning of the following period the number of parallels between the Balkans and Troy starts sharply to increase. As a result, from phase Troy II this settlement can be regarded as forming one culture with the new Balkan formations, and we can guess that North-Western Anatolia and Thrace were settled by the same population [Merpert, 1988, pp. 29-31; Katinčarov, 1991, pp. 98, 99] (Fig. 131.1). Thus, it is possible to surmise that there were continuing movements into Anatolia from Europe over a quite extended time. The replacement in Troy of the early Balkan complex by a later one is well fixed stratigraphically. Classic megaron 102 (Troy Ib) covers an apsidal building (Troy Ia). In addition, from this time there is ware with corded ornamentation [Müller, 1972, pp. 59, 82, tab. 21; Akurgal, 1990, p. 48]. Similar ware occurs in all Early Bronze Age levels in the North-Eastern Balkans from the earliest phase, Michalič [Katinčarov, 1991, p. 96]. Handles with incisions, as in Ezero, have been found in Heraion, Beyçesultan, Demircihöyük [Parzinger, 1993, p. 269]; and in the level Troy I a stele with a formalised representation of a human face, such as is present also in later levels of Troy [Blegen, 1971, pp. 413, 414]. Remember that burials with stelae occur also in the Balkans. Apsidal buildings dated to the Early Bronze Age are known also at Megiddo and Mesar in Palestine. It is possible that this reflects the distribution of a European cultural impulse as far as Palestine. Certainly, the infiltration of Khirbet Kerak was connected with the eastern regions of Anatolia – but earlier apsidal buildings are known in Palestine (at Byblos, 5th millennium BC) [Ben-Tor, 1992, pp. 60, 61]. Thus, from the late Eneolithic, the Balkan population penetrated into Anatolia under pressure from 2 The traditional dates of the Anatolian Bronze Age are somewhat different. The Early Bronze Age of this territory is divided into three periods: EB I – 3350–2900 BC; EB II – 2900–2400 BC; EB III – 2400–2000 BC [Mellink, 1992, p. 219]. These periods correspond to different building phases in Troy: EB I to Troy I, EB II to Troy II, EB III to Troy III-V. Indeed, the tombs in Alaca Hüyük correspond to Troy II, but it is not excluded that they were started in the middle of this period because the thickness of cultural layers of settlements in Central Anatolia is less than that in Troy [Mellaart, 1971, p. 368, 368]. 354 Fig. 132. Anatolia and the Balkan Peninsula in the Transitional period from the Eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age: a – Balkan sites and Anatolian sites with European features; b – area of the Novodanilovka, Lower Mikhailovka and Sredniy Stog sites; c – direction of the movement of Paleobalkan tribes; d – direction of the movement of Anatolian tribes. 1 – Pulur; 2 – Norşuntepe; 3 – Arslantepe; 4 – Alişar Hüyük; 5 – Alaca Hüyük; 6 – Ikiztepe; 7 – Ahlatlibel; 8 – Beyçesultan; 9 – Troy; 10 – Lerna; 11 – Dimini; 12 – Sitagroi; 13 – Karanovo; 14 – Kojadermen; 15 – Cernavoda; 16 – Salcuţa; 17 – Coţofeni; 18 – Suvorovo; 19 – Usatovo; 20 – Mikhailovka. steppe tribes, forming the Early Bronze Age cultures there [Yakar, 1984, p. 63]. The ethnic aspect of the cultural processes is revealed by analysis of the names and place-names of the ‘Iliad’, which led L.A. Gindin to conclude that, at the end of Troy I, North-Western Anatolia had started to be occupied by Thracians and Luwians, who then developed both coasts of the Sea of Marmara for a long time, including period Troy VI [Gindin, 1991, pp. 29, 38]. Therefore, taking into account the earlier Anatolian toponymic stratum in Greece [Titov, 1970, pp. 3238] as well as the subsequent succession of cultural development in the Northern Balkans, it is possible to conclude that the bearers of the Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka cultures spoke Palaeobalkan dialects (Thracian, Pelasgic, Phrygian, proto-Albanian). Of these, Pelasgic is the most uncertain. The others were close to languages of the Graeco-Ar- 355 menian-Aryan group, but Albanian fell subsequently under an appreciable ancient European language influence [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 909, 911]. In the Balkans people speaking these languages struck a blow at the former Anatolian groups, who were displaced into Asia Minor up to the Armenian Plateau. In Eastern Anatolia the formation of a culture close to Kura-Araxian began, but this process was complicated by Transcaucasian influence, as the cultures, alongside both local and European components, include features once peculiar to the Eneolithic of Transcaucasia. This is especially visible in metalworking, with the widespread occurrence of arsenic bronzes, not originally characteristic of Western and Central Anatolia [Yakar, 1984, pp. 64-67]. Then a southward movement of the Transcaucasian and Eastern Anatolian components is observed. The appearance in the Early Bronze Age in Palestine of Khirbet Kerak ware and apsidal dwellings probably explains the mention of Hittites in the most ancient parts of the Old Testament. This process extended over a long time, and ethnically close Central European populations were included in it. As a matter of fact, its actual forms were not limited to the simple occupation of land, replacement and assimilation. The coexistence of different ethnic groups frequently took place, despite the cultural levelling of the new system. However, for the purposes of this book, the general direction of migrations and nature of cultural transformations are more important. In Central Anatolia there was sharp change in the middle of Early Bronze Age II, when the royal tombs of Alaca Hüyük appeared. Similar tombs are situated in the coastal region further north (Mahmutlar, Horoz Tepe). These tombs contained brachycephals, whereas the normal anthropological type in Anatolia was the dolichocephal. From this J. Mellaart has concluded that the ruling class formed here were foreigners, although they could not be Indo-Europeans [Mellaart, 1971, p. 386; 1971a, p. 686]. At the end of Early Bronze Age II there was a catastrophe in Central and Western Anatolia, reflected in a sharp decrease in the number of settlements. This process was unequal. Konya, Cilicia and a number of areas in North-Western Anatolia suffered, Troy II, Poliohni V, Beyçesultan XIIIa, Ahlatlibel and hundreds of other settlements were burned, while in the region to the south-east of the Sea of Marmara the number of settlements remained high. Contemporaneously, the south-eastward expansion of the Troy II culture with its wheel-made pottery took place. The culture of Cilicia in Early Bronze Age III becomes so similar to that of Troy that it is impossible to doubt that these changes were connected with the coming of a population from NorthWestern Anatolia. A similar destruction of cities took place in Thrace at the same time. This allowed Mellaart suppose that all these destructions reflect the coming of hostile groups from the Balkans. In addition, from Early Bronze Age III to the Late Bronze Age the cultural tradition is uninterrupted in SouthWestern and Southern Anatolia. In historic time these areas were occupied by the Luwians, who, in Mellaart’s opinion, in due course destroyed Troy I. They had been displaced into Southern and SouthWestern Anatolia by the subsequent invasion of new populations from the European continent [Mellaart, 1957, p. 69; 1971, pp. 406-407]. Probably, this invasion was connected with Thracians, whose presence in North-Western Anatolia is confirmed by placename analysis of ‘Iliad’. Contemporary with this is the replacement of Cypriot Eneolithic culture by the Anatolian cultural complex on Cyprus. This process had begun already at the end of the Cypriot Eneolithic (Philia stage), but showed itself fully in the period EC I, when such sites as Vounous appeared. The destruction in Western Anatolia at the end of Early Bronze Age II, as well as the arrival of an Anatolian population, caused it [Frankel, 1998]. Exactly these events may have resulted in the subsequent close communications of Cyprus with Western Anatolia. Mellaart is inclined to connect the appearance of Hittites in Central Anatolia with other events. He sees in the distribution of kurgans in Transcaucasia and Anatolia a sign of the appearance of Indo-Europeans. The destruction in Karum II was connected with the Hittite invasion of Eastern Anatolia, and this settlement was originally used as a cemetery. To a later time, about 1750 BC, is dated the destruction of Beyçesultan, a capital city, probably a centre of the Arzawa kingdom [Mellaart, 1957, pp. 59-63; 1971a, pp. 689, 690, 699]. Thus, in his opinion, two Anatolian-speaking peoples, the Luwians and the Hittites, were advancing from different areas: the former from the Balkans, originally into North-Western Anatolia, and subsequently to the south; the latter from the North Pontic steppes into Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatolia, migrating subsequently to the west. Such a reconstruction corresponds to the succession of archaeological materials but is open to 356 doubts from the linguistic point of view. R.A. Crossland has indicated this disharmony and noted that Hittites and Luwians could have penetrated into Anatolia from the same area, at the same time, and that Hittite migration from the east does not mean that they had previously arrived in Anatolia from the east too [Crossland, 1971, pp. 833, 841, 842]. Both these points of view are quite true, if we start from some other initial premise. As written above, it is most likely that the separation of part of the protoIndo-European population and the formation of the Neolithic complex in the Balkans and Central Europe resulted in the formation of the Anatolian languages. The displacement of these populations at the end of the Eneolithic – beginning of the Early Bronze Age into Anatolia stimulated development in North-Western Anatolia as well as in areas of Eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia. Thus, this movement conduced to the separation of two different Anatolian dialects – Luwian in the west and Nešite (Hittite)1 in the east. However, on the basis that the Luwian language is more archaic than Hittite, Crossland suggests an earlier separation of Luwians from the remaining Indo-European core, as well their earlier infiltration into Anatolia [Crossland, 1971, p. 837]. Rather, this is to be explained by the Hittites having penetrated far to the east, thereby restoring contacts with the remaining Indo-Europeans earlier. The problem is where this separation happened. If Hittites and Palaics advanced to the east of Anatolia and into Transcaucasia at the end of the Eneolithic – beginning of the Early Bronze Age, Luwians could have come from the Balkans either at the same time, or at the end of Troy I. The question is how to estimate the changes at the end of this period – as the coming of the Luwians, or that of a new wave of Luwian tribes overlaying the former Luwian substratum. Subsequent events correspond almost exactly to Mellaart’s reconstruction of the expansion of these populations. The Hittites came from the east into terrain held previously by the Hattians and started to make contacts with the Luwians. The Hattian language was widespread until the beginnings of the formation of the Hittite Kingdom in Central Anatolia and was probably an autochthonous language of the North Caucasian family. Luwian was localised in the south-western part of the Kingdom (from the Halys river and the Konya plain to the west to the mountains in the area of Malatya), as well as to the south (Cilicia) and west (Arzawa). Luwian was the language of small principalities in the Lukka country of North-Western Anatolia, and of tribes in most of Western Anatolia. There was one more Anatolian Palaic language: Palaic-speaking people were localised in the district of Pal inside the Hittite Kingdom, but by the 14th century BC this language had fallen into disuse [Crossland, 1971, pp. 831, 832, 836; Macqeen, 1968, p. 174]. The infiltrations of Assyrians and Semites into South-Eastern Anatolia complicated the ethnic picture there to a very great extent [Lewy, 1971, pp. 716-721]. 1 The source of the name Nešili is clear from Anitta’s text, where it is written that his father, Pitkhana, occupied Neša. The occupation of Hatuša by Anitta resulted in the appearance of the second self-name ‘Hittites’ [Crossland, 1971, p. 834]. 357 Chapter 3. Cultural transformations in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe in the Early and Middle Bronze Age 3.1. The Northern Caucasus in the Early Bronze Age At the beginning of the Caucasian Early Bronze Age two large cultural blocs formed (Fig. 133). The first is connected with the Maikop culture of the Northern Caucasus. Earlier it was known predominantly from cemeteries. However, more recently a series of settlements (Meshoko, Yasenovaya Polyana, Veseliy, Galyugay I, etc.) has been excavated [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 200-210; 1994a, pp. 174-177], comprising sites in caves, undefended settlements and fortified settlements as well. Indeed, on the Meshoko settlement a stone wall (either oval or circular) surrounding a hill has been revealed. Dwellings of rectangular form were attached to the inside of the wall. Rectangular dwellings have also been investigated on Yasenovaya Polyana, Miskhako and Dolinskoe. On Galyugay I and Sereginskoe round dwellings are known. We have already seen a similar combination of round and rectangular dwellings on the late Eneolithic settlements of Kul-Tepe I, Alikemektepesi and Tekhut in Transcaucasia. Maikop burial sites have a monumental character and allow us to speak about two different ceremonial traditions – Maikop and Novosvobodnaya; though some kurgans have mixed features [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 211-213, 218, 221-231; 1994a, pp. 178-188; Nekhaev, 1986; Dneprovskii, Korenevskii, 1995; Korenevskii, Petrenko, 1982; Korenevskii, 1981; Chechenov, 1970] (Fig. 134). Mounds of earth, cromlechs and burial pits, containing skeletons coloured with ochre and lying contracted on their side, are typical of Maikop tradition (Maikop, kurgans 713 of the Ust-Jegut cemetery, etc.). Double wooden covers and corner posts have sometimes been traced, bringing together Maikop burial tombs with those in Alaca Hüyük and Sintashta. The Novosvobodnaya group is characterised by the presence of kurgans with cromlechs, stone mounds, dolmens, and contracted on the side skel- etons, lying often on the ancient surface level on rubble-paved platforms (Novosvobodnaya, Bamut, etc.). The Nalchik tomb stands out in this group; it was constructed of vertical stelae, some anthropomorphic, taken from earlier graves. This is regarded as the sign of the appearance of a new population, replacing that which erected the anthropomorphic stelae [Chechenov, 1970, p. 123]. The two groups also have different ceramics. For Maikop, vessels with a globular body and outcurved rim are characteristic, although other types are known on settlements as well (Fig. 135.11,14). Novosvobodnaya forms are more varied. Amphorae with a short vertical neck and applied knobs are especially indicative (Fig. 135.13,15,16). In both groups wheel-made pottery is known [Munchaev, 1994a, p. 219; Bobrinskii, Munchaev, 1966]. Maikop antiquities are now dated to the last quarter or end of the 4th millennium BC [Munchaev, 1994a, p. 170; Piotrovskii Yu., 1991, p. 17; Korenevskii, 1991, p. 39, Gimbutas, 1992, p. 403]. Probably, the date of Novosvobodnaya materials is similar, but it could be a little later [Piotrovskii Yu., 1991, p. 19]. I am inclined to share the view of those writers who regard the Maikop and Novosvobodnaya complexes as genetically disjunct, and Maikop culture as an amalgam of these two originally isolated groups [Andreeva, 1996, p. 86; Trifonov, 1991a; Gey, 1991; Risin, 1991]. The Eneolithic sites of the Caucasus were its third component [Nechitaylo, 1991, p. 13; Rezepkin, 1991, p. 21; Nekhaev, 1991; Gey, 1991b, p. 68]. The genesis of the Maikop group is now known well enough. Early Maikop ware shows parallels with that of Eastern Anatolia, Syria and Northern Mesopotamia (Arslantepe, Tilki-Tepe, Geoy Tepe, Amuq F, Gawra XII) dated to the second half of the 4 th millennium BC [Andreeva, 1977; 1979, pp. 33, 34; 1991, p. 46; 1996, pp. 87, 93-99; Trifonov, 1987, p. 20]. This is confirmed by finds of cylinder seals, parallels between Maikop cheek-pieces and similar objects on Mesopotamian drawings, and the com- 358 Fig. 133. Early Bronze Age Caucasian cultures: a – Kura-Araxian culture; b – Maikop culture. 1 – Arslantepe; 2 – Pulur (Sakyol); 3 – Norşuntepe; 4 – Pulur; 5 – Geoy Tepe; 6 – Yanik Tepe; 7 – Uchtepe; 8 – Kul-Tepe I; 9 – Kul-Tepe II; 10-14 – Lchashen, Arich, Shengavit, Erevan hoard; 15 – Mingechaur; 16 – Sioni; 17-20 – Shulaverisgora, Imirisgora, Trialeti, Berikldeebi; 21 – Kvatskhelebi; 22 – Sachkhere; 23 – Lugovskoe; 24 – Serzhenyurt; 25 – Ginchi; 26 – Chirkeyskoe settlement; 27 – Derbent; 28 – Velikent; 29 – Rassvet; 30 – Miskhako; 31– Krasnogvardeyskoe; 32 – ‘Na uch. Zissermana’; 33 – Ulskiy aul; 34 – Maikop; 35 – Yasenovaya Polyana; 36 – Novosvobodnaya; 37 – Kostromskaya; 38 – Meshoko; 39 – Vorontsovskaya cave; 40 – Veseliy; 41 – Ust-Jegut; 42 – Kislovodsk; 43 – Pyatigorsk; 44 – Chegem; 45 – Nalchik; 46 – Galyugay; 47 – Bamut. parability of representations on Maikop silver vessels with the art of Syria-Palestine, Northern Mesopotamia and Egypt. The copper objects of the Maikop group contain high traces of nickel, which is characteristic also of artefacts from Amuq [Chernikh, 1966, pp. 44-50; Nekhaev, 1986, p. 248; Trifonov, 1987, pp. 22, 23; Andreeva, 1979]. Similar admixtures are contained in metal of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine in objects accompanied by Khirbet Kerak ware [Ben-Tor, 1992a, p. 115]. Scholars assume that the source of this metal could have been in the Near East, for example Oman [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 113], but Anatolian sources are more likely. We shall touch upon this problem below. Recently, local North Caucasian sources have been suggested. The admixtures are explained by nickel-containing alloys [Galibin, 1991, pp. 60, 61]. However, there is a complete absence of evidence of mining and ore smelting in the Caucasus up to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. But even if there had been local ore extraction, it is possible, as in the case of Sintashta metallurgy, to speak about the borrowing of the Near Eastern tradition of alloying. 359 1 2 3 4 Fig. 134. Maikop culture. 1, 3, 4 – Bamut; 2 – Aul Kubina. Earlier complexes comparable with Maikop are sites such as Ginchi, Alikemektepesi, Tekhut, etc. Some scholars have already paid attention to this [Korenevskii, 1991, p. 40; Rezepkin, 1991, p. 21]. In this case comparison is possible not just on the grounds of burials of bodies coloured with ochre and contracted on their side or the affinity of architectural traditions mentioned above. Some ceramic forms of these complexes are indicative too [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, tab. XLIII; Gadzhiev, 1991, pp. 76, 77]. The discovery of early Maikop ware in the pre-Kura- Araxian level of the Berikldeebi settlement in Transcaucasia is also very interesting. The remains of a defensive wall belong to this level [Glonti, Dzhavahishvili, 1987, pp. 84-86]. We can trace back this line of development to Hassuna culture, where there is ware similar to Maikop [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, figs. 30-32]. So, in the most general terms, the situation is this. After the appearance of Halaf culture in Northern Mesopotamia, Hassuna culture was displaced northward. In the last quarter of the 5th millennium 360 9 2 3 10 8 6 1 4 7 5 11 13 14 12 15 16 Fig. 135. Maikop culture. 1, 10 – Bamut; 2, 12, 16 – Novosvobodnaya; 3, 11 – Maikop; 4, 13 – Krasnogvardeyskoe; 5, 14 – Ust-Jegut; 6 – Makhashevskaya; 7 – Chegem; 8 – ‘Na uch. Zissermana’; 9 – Krasnodar area; 15 – Kislovodsk. 361 BC the post-Hassuna developments penetrated into Southern Transcaucasia, forming the northern periphery of this cultural group, although its main zone of distribution was the area of lakes Van and Urmia. In the 4th millennium BC the expansion began of these populations south into Northern Mesopotamia and Syria. At the end of this millennium they were displaced from these regions too – in Western Syria a new culture appeared (Amuq G) [Andreeva, 1977, pp. 52, 53]. In 3300-3200 BC the Sumerians expanded into regions on the Northern Euphrates. This was accompanied by the construction of fortified colonies, such as Habuba, Carchemish, Samsat, as well as a number of small settlements over the whole course of the Euphrates to the mountains of SouthEastern Anatolia. Uruk ware and other artefacts are found on a number of settlements in Eastern Anatolia that had become involved in the system of communications formed as a result of the expansion [Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1990; Guillermo, 1993, pp. 24, 25, 29-36, 48-53]. It is possible that these precise events resulted in the replacement of the previous populations of the area and the appearance of the Maikop group in the Northern Caucasus.1 Maikop culture can be seen, therefore, as an outpost of Near Eastern civilisation. It subsequently had active contact with the steppe world and promoted the formation in this zone of mixed population groups, whose subsequent migration west into Bulgaria and Hungary is marked by burials with vehicles [Sherratt, 1998a, p. 187]. There is a broad spectrum of opinion concerning the ethnic identity of the tribes of Maikop culture, but many are unsupported by serious argument and have been subject to repeated and valid criticism [see the discussion Markovin, 1990; 1990a; Andreeva, 1990; Korenevskii, 1990; Safronov, 1990; Chechenov, 1990; Lovpache, 1991; Vinogradov V., 1991]. The connections of Maikop culture with Hassuna permit the hypothesis that this population was Indo-European. We are probably right to speak of them as Indo-Iranians: some correspondences with Maikop or proto-Maikop type are diffused eastward. It is possible to relate to these a rather early pin with a flat triangular head from the Parkhai II 1 It is necessary to pay attention to the presence of a somewhat different consideration of this problem. M.S. Rothmann, for example, doubts the real existence of a South Mesopotamian component so far to the north and Uruk expansion in this direction. In his opinion, all this was limited to the distribution of the culture [Rothmann, 1993]. cemetery (late 5th – early 4th millennium BC) and ‘animals dancing in the round’ on ware from Sialk III and Hissar I [Masson, 1989, fig. 32; Khlopin, 1989, fig. 1; Andreeva, 1996, p. 91]. Other similar examples are the presence of a Maikop-type mattock in Sialk III and pitchfork-shaped objects in Bactria and in Northern and North-Eastern Iran [Sarianidi, 1977; 1988, fig. 37; Masson, 1989, fig. 32; Iliukov, 1979, p. 144]. However, these objects are more characteristic of the Novosvobodnaya group. Therefore, the parallels are not definite and this undermines somewhat the theory that the Maikop people were IndoIranian: it is more correct to describe them as IndoEuropeans. The only possibility of archaeological substantiation of Maikop’s connection with the IndoIranians is the material of the Koruçu Tepe settlement in Anatolia. Tombs with wooden covers occur there, which can be viewed as an origin of the Maikop tradition. The ceramic complex does have parallels in North-Western Iran [Yakar, 1984, p. 67], which, as we have seen earlier, is where the IndoIranian cultures were generated. The genesis of the Novosvobodnaya group is less clear. There have been attempts to link its origin to Globular Amphorae culture [Safronov, 1989, p. 227], but the chronological position of the latter does not permit this [Dergachov, Manzura, 1991, p. 57]. It is possible to compare it with the Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka complexes, which are pre-Maikop in date and whose ceramics show forms which are similar to Novosvobodnaya [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 84, 87]. However, there is ware with a ‘staining’ surface typical of Novosvobodnaya in the North Pontic area. Its occurrence in the Ukraine falls into the Early Bronze Age and is connected with Novosvobodnaya influence [Danilenko, 1974, p. 99; Nechitaylo, 1984]. Therefore the resemblance of these complexes can be explained by the proximity of their initial area of development, which has given derivatives at different time. This is indicated, in particular, by the prevalence of ware with a ‘staining’ surface in Kakhetia in Northern Transcaucasia on such settlements as Sioni [Munchaev, 1981, p. 50, 51]. It is possible that one piece of evidence of Novosvobodnaya’s southern origin is that wheel-made pottery is more typical of it than of proper Maikop. Thus, both the origins and ethnicity of the Novosvobodnaya group remain open. 362 3.2. The Kura-Araxian culture of Transcaucasia Another large cultural bloc of the Caucasian Early Bronze Age is the Kura-Araxian culture (Fig. 136). Its ceramic complex shows, despite certain variations, parallels in the west: in Thrace (Ezero), and North-Western and Central Anatolia (Alaca, Alişar, Beyçesultan, Troy). Black-and-red polished ware from Amuq (phases H, I) is close to KuraAraxian; so too is Khirbet Kerak ware in Palestine [Andreeva, 1977, pp. 53, 55; 1996, pp. 87, 88; Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1963, pp. 11, 18; Hrouda, 1971, pp. 102, 103], predominantly the northern regions, with only some fragments found in the south [Vaux, 1971, p. 213]. The area of distribution of Kura-Araxian culture includes Transcaucasia, the North-Eastern Caucasus, North-Eastern Anatolia and North-Western Iran [Munchaev, 1981, p. 13]. It replaced Transcaucasian Eneolithic sites, and on KulTepe I a sterile interlayer has been found between the Eneolithic and Kura-Araxian levels [Abibulaev, 1963, p. 165]. In some areas (Berikldeebi) KuraAraxian levels repose on that containing ware with early Maikop features [Glonti, Dzhavahishvili, 1987, p. 80]. In Syria-Cilicia the levels with Khirbet Kerak ware (Amuq H, I) are separated from the protoMaikop level (Amuq F) by phase G [Andreeva, 1977, pp. 52, 53]. These circumstances demonstrate unconditionally that the appearance of Kura-Araxian culture postdated the formation of Maikop, which is compatible with conventional dating of Kura-Araxian from 3000 BC [Munchaev, 1981, p. 18]. There is a tendency, based on radiocarbon analysis, to push back the date of Kura-Araxian culture to the mid-4th millennium BC, even to 3700-3600 BC, which inevitably results in earlier dates for Maikop too [Glonti, Dzhavahishvili, 1987, p. 86; Glumac, Anthony, 1992, p. 204]. However, in this case the period of transition to the Early Bronze Age in the Balkans would have to be dated earlier. Therefore the cultural parallelism manifest in a broad belt from the NorthEastern Balkans to Transcaucasia could be stimulated by none but Balkan impulses. A number of forms of Kura-Araxian ware have earlier analogies in the Balkans and in the Danube basin: black and brown polished bowls with applied triangular and hemispherical handles, and tube-handled ware [Merpert, 1988, p. 30]. Perhaps mugs and spiral design may be interpreted as ‘European’ elements too. Anthropomorphic ornaments, appropriate to KuraAraxian ware and similar to such ornaments in Western Anatolia, are very indicative [Podzuweit, 1979, Taf. 12, 15]. It is necessary to search for their earlier prototypes in Central Europe. Above, we discussed the coming of the North Balkan population into Asia Minor about the mid-4th millennium BC. This impulse thus reached Eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia, and influenced the formation of Kura-Araxian culture. I am inclined to connect this movement, above all, with Anatolian tribes (Hittites etc.), although the participation of other populations should not be excluded. At the same time, former local cultural traditions are clearly visible in this new development. There is a significant number of bronze objects, much more than in the Eneolithic, and characterised by great typological diversity. The tradition of alloying copper with arsenic persisted, typical of the Transcaucasian Eneolithic, as did that of manufacturing tools and weapons with a small stop on the tang or stem. Bayonet-shaped spearheads, known in Eneolithic times and produced through the Early Bronze Age, are very indicative [Munchaev, 1981, tab. 12.41-53, p. 39; Teneyshvili, 1989; 1993, p. 7]. These principles of metalworking, initially Transcaucasian, became characteristic of the whole Circumpontic zone. This indicates that the actual processes were infinitely more complex than described here. However, alongside the preservation and development of local metalworking traditions, the influence of southern cultures was felt. For example, stemmed spearheads in Transcaucasia are of somewhat later date than in Mesopotamia [Picchelauri, 1997, Taf. 69, p. 23]. Kura-Araxian settlements are notable for diversity of layout and architecture. Fortified settlements (Shengavit, Garni, Geoy Tepe, Shirak, etc.) are known. In house-building the combination of round and rectangular dwellings known in this area in the Eneolithic continued. At the same time there were mud dwellings with rounded corners (Kvatskhelebe) and pit-dwellings with post-hole roof construction (Mingechaur) [Munchaev, 1981, pp. 30-33; 1987, pp. 154, 155]. As well as permanent houses there are seasonal constructions in high mountainous regions, which suggests the existence of distant-pasture cattle breeding, an element of pastoral nomadism in this otherwise quite settled society [Sagona, 1993, p. 473]. Burial rites are very varied. There are as many barrows as flat cemeteries. Barrows are surrounded 363 1 2 5 6 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 16 13 14 15 17 Fig. 136. Kura-Araxian culture. 1 – Pulur; 2 – Shengavit; 3 – Trialeti. frequently by cromlechs, as on Maikop sites. Stone boxes are widespread. Contracted skeletons lie usually on the side, but in the south-east of the KuraAraxian area cremations are known. There are also burials on the ancient surface on pebbled platforms, which has parallels in Novosvobodnaya antiquities [Munchaev, 1981, pp. 34, 35; 1987, pp. 170, 171]. The discovery of child burials under the floors of dwellings on the Amiranis-Gora settlement should be noted, because this was characteristic of Anatolian cultures from a very early time [Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970, p. 66]. Stone artefacts demonstrate the continuance of former traditions. Some details on ceramics are indicative too. In the North-East Caucasian variant of Kura-Araxian culture there are vessels present coated with a rough clay covering known in the Eneolithic complex of Ginchi [Munchaev, 1981, p. 23]. From what has been said above it seems that the local Eneolithic population survived in the area. As some Kura-Araxian features were included subsequently in obviously non-Anatolian (in a linguistic sense) cultural formations, this is also evidence of the preservation of the former ethnic group. The diversity of the variants of Kura-Araxian culture leads to the suggestion that the culture reflects different, mainly Indo-European ethnic groups. In Anatolia they were probably bearers of Anatolian (Palaic and Nešite) dialects. 364 3.3. Eastern Europe in the Early Bronze Age Pit-Grave culture formed at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age on the steppes of Eastern Europe from the North-West Pontic area to the Southern Urals. Most radiocarbon dates for it fall into the period after 3000 BC [Gimbutas, 1992, p. 404]. The previous stratum of Eneolithic cultures and cultural types, including such sites as Sredniy Stog II, Khvalinsk, Novodanilovka, the lower level of the Mikhailovka settlement, Yamno-Berezhnovka and Repino formed the basis. This was a time of appreciable migration. Yamno-Berezhnovka features from the Volga-Ural region, though less rigid, start to be seen in materials of the Northern Pontus [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 338, 339]. It is possible that the Pit-Grave people expanded northward from the Lower Volga, into the Volga forest-steppe, as well as north-east into the Southern Urals [Turetskiy, 1997, p. 29]. The presence everywhere of Repino ware from the Don area has allowed even this to be connected with the expansion of the Pit-Grave people too [Trifonov, 1996b]. However, analysis of PitGrave complexes in the Don basin has indicated that Pit-Grave people came into this area later. Indeed, analysis of burial rites permits the separation of different burial groups with, apparently, different origins [Sinyuk, 1996, p. 53]. On this background additional impulses from the Caucasus are observed. In the steppe area to the east of the Dnieper and in the Crimea these are strongly pronounced in materials of the Kemi-Oba culture (Fig. 137.1-9). A number of Kemi-Oba complexes have also been revealed in the North-West Pontic area [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 331-336; Subbotin, 1995; Šepinskiy, 1963; 1966]. Their contemporary existence with Pit-Grave culture is marked both stratigraphically and by the presence of Novosvobodnaya types of metal object in Kemi-Oba complexes [Korenevskii, 1974]. The latter is distinctive also of Pit-Grave culture, within whose area and in Pit-Grave burial complexes themselves axes of Novosvobodnaya type are known (Figs. 135.2; 137.11): an axe from Truevskaya Maza is the best known example. The easternmost find is now an axe from the Altai [Chernikh, 1966, p. 63; Grishin, 1971, tab. 12.3].1 The last find was a consequence of Pit-Grave migration to the east and the formation of early Afanasievo sites. If in the Eneolithic the steppe received exclusively Balkan-Carpathian metal, in the Early Bronze Age the flow of raw materials underwent change. In the Pit-Grave culture of the North Pontic area a considerable proportion of objects are made of arsenic bronzes of Caucasian origin [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 351]. The discovery of a Novosvobodnaya-type axe in Kalmykia, in the Pit-Grave cemetery of Tachin Tsarng, has allowed bone hammer-headed pins to be placed into the same chronological horizon as metal of this type. These pins probably confirm a southwards direction of transmission, as their analogies made of silver are known in Ahlatlibel and Alaca [Erdniev, 1982; Shilov, 1982a, pp. 217, 218]. Scholars have also written about the possibility of linking the bone ‘slings’ of Pit-Grave culture to similar forms of Near Eastern metal pins [Kiyashko, 1976, pp. 34, 35]. Apparently, there is no support for the idea that at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age a large population penetrated into the steppe. The only indication is Kemi-Oba. Maikop sites are found in just the steppe part of the Northern Caucasus (Central Sravropol area) [Mishina, 1989]. Nevertheless, infiltrations of separate collectives northward are very probable, most likely at different times. Polished ware of Caucasian appearance is found not only in the lower level of the Mikhailovka settlement but also in the upper [Shaposhnikova, 1970]. This settlement shows another divergence from steppe traditions. In its late level houses and defensive walls on a stone socle have been excavated, and mortars for crushing ore have been found [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 340-343]. The latter is especially important. The spontaneous generation of extractive metallurgy in the barren regions of the Lower Dnieper is unlikely. Meanwhile, mining and ore smelting were well known in the eastern area of Pit-Grave distribution. One source of raw materials was the Kargali ore mines in the Southern Urals [Chernikh, 1993; 1996, 1 Axes of the Baniabic type, having analogies in the Northern Caucasus (Maikop) and Volga area (Truevskaya Maza), occur in the Early Bronze Age in Romania. In the intermediate area such finds are not known [Vulpe, 1970, p. 26]. Probably these finds reflect the invasions into the Balkan-Carpathian region in the PitGrave period. 365 4 2 3 1 5 6 11 9 8 7 12 14 13 10 15 16 17 18 Fig. 137. Early Bronze Age of Eastern Europe. Kemi-Oba culture: 1 – Kersonovka; 2, 3, 9 – sites and burials of Crimea; 4 – Simferopol; 5 – Sioni (Switzerland); 6 – Kemi-Oba; 7 – Mamay; 8 – Kazanki. Pit-Grave culture: 10 – Linyovka 3; 11, 17 – Tamar-Utkul VIII; 12-14 – Mikhailovka; 15 – Shpakovka; 16 – Raygorodok; 18 – Uvak. 366 3 2 4 1 6 7 5 Fig. 138. Usatovo-Sofievka antiquities of the North-West Pontic area. 1, 5, 7 – Usatovo; 2 – Nerushay; 3, 4, 6 – Sofievka. p. 71]. However, here too, as far as it is possible to judge from the presence of Caucasian-type axes, metallurgical production was not independently generated [Kravtsov, 1992, fig. 3.8,16]. Furthermore, resemblances are traced in other aspects of material culture. The occurrence of stone fortifications in the late level of Mikhailovka cannot be derived from local tradition either. Building techniques here reflect features typical of the Near East and Maikop. Therefore, it is possible to agree that the Caucasus played a large role in the formation of Pit-Grave culture [Kuznetsov, 1996a]. We must pay attention to one circumstance. In the late Pit-Grave period a new feature appears in the burial rite – contracted on the side burials. They are present practically everywhere [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 348, 349; Kravtsov, 1992, p. 33]. In the North Pontic area contracted skeletons differ anthropologically from the earlier burials, contracted on the back: the former relate to the Eastern Mediterranean type, the latter are more comparable with the Pit-Grave people of the Lower Volga area [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 531; Khohlov, 1997, p. 32]. Therefore, the supposition that the occurrence of burials on the side was connected, in Pit-Grave culture, with a tendency to a decreasing degree of contraction in those buried on the back, leading to their legs falling to one side, leading thence to intentional burial on the side [Ocherki kulturogeneza…, 1994, pp. 97, 98] is not probable. It is possible that at least some of these changes were connected not with Indo-European migration but with movements of North Caucasian-speaking people, but only if the proto-North Caucasian identity of Novosvobodnaya and Kemi-Oba, which is discussed below, can be confirmed. At the same time, I do not exclude for the Early Bronze Age more distant sources of migration than the Northern Caucasus, especially for that period corresponding to Tripolie CII (mid-3rd millennium BC by the radiocarbon method) [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 213]. There are antiquities of the Usatovo type at this time in the North-West Pontic area (Fig. 138). They include the local late Tripolie substratum, but the basis of this complex is characterised by features of steppe, Caucasian and Near Eastern origins: kurgans, stone partitions, cromlechs, wooden and stone covers, sprinkling corpses with white clay or ochre, burials contracted on the side and oriented to the north and north-east. There are also some very indicative artefacts: stone hollow-based arrowheads, shaft-hole axes, and daggers with a rivet arrangement without a tang. These last are ‘silver-plated’, actually a special arsenic-based coating, and viewed as Anatolian imports. Daggers similar to those from Usatovo occur in Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age but are more characteristic of the Middle Bronze Age. Their date is the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. Resting on Anatolian parallels, it is possible to place Usatovo shaft-hole axes within the same chronological framework. The use of arsenic for ‘silver-plating’ objects was known in Anatolia from the 3rd millennium BC [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, figs. 3, 5, 6; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, pp. 220, 223-225, 227, tab. LX; Moorey, 1975, 367 p. 43; Shmaglii, Chernyakov, 1970, pp. 91-95; Rindina, Konykova, 1982]. Stratigraphically, Usatovo burials are earlier than Pit-Grave [Shmaglii, Chernyakov, 1970, p. 95]. Thus, a genetic connection of Usatovo sites with the Near East is very probable; it was perhaps indirect, realised via the steppe and through Caucasian cultures such as Novosvobodnaya and Kemi-Oba. At the end of the Early Bronze Age in the Azov area and the steppes of the Northern Caucasus cemeteries of the Novotitarovo cultures appeared (27 th – 23rd centuries BC). They contain burials under barrows, in pits with ledges, frequently furnished with wagons [Rassamakin, 1991; Gey, 1991a]. On the boundary of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, pits with ledges diffused also to the east – to Kalmykia, the Volga area and the Southern Urals [Kravtsov, 1992; Shilov, 1985, p. 31]. This might be linked, at least in part, with Novotitarovo culture, as in the Northern Caspian and the Southern Urals ware with Novotitarovo features is known [Morgunova, 1992, fig. 5.2; Vasiliev et al., 1986a, fig. 11]. It is not fully understood yet whether this new ethno-cultural layer completely replaced the PitGrave population of the Southern Urals, where it is seen as a late phase of Pit-Grave culture and is dated to the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC. Large grave pits arranged in a complicated manner with imitations of burials with wagons, clay platforms and earthen banks in barrows, have allowed these complexes to be linked to a direct Novotitarovo migration from the Northern Caucasus [Bitkovskii, Tkachov, 1997, pp. 72, 73]. The participation of genetically distinct population groups in the cultural genesis of the Southern Urals during the Early and Middle Bronze Age is confirmed by the technological analysis of ceramics, which has detected different techniques of manufacture [Salugina, 1993]. What has been said above illustrates the considerable complexity of ethno-cultural processes in the Early Bronze Age. Even proper Pit-Grave material should probably not be regarded as belonging to single ethnos. [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 352]. The western and eastern zones of the Pit-Grave cultural area differ notably. In the west, particularly around the Dnieper, settlements are well known and cattle predominate in the herd, both indicating a strongly settled way of the life. The discovery of a wooden plough in a burial provides evidence of tillage agriculture in late Pit-Grave complexes [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 350; Bidzilya, Yakovenko, 1973]. At the same time, there may have been enclaves of nomads, who were completely dominant in the east. In the eastern regions settlements are absent because of the unproductive terrain and its unsuitability for agriculture [Kuzmina, 1997]. In the Volga-Ural area the former Khvalinsk and Yamno-Berezhnovka substrata remained the base of ethno-cultural processes for almost the whole Early Bronze Age. Therefore, it is completely unclear what language the population spoke, but probably some Indo-European tongue – this is the generally accepted opinion (which I share), although it lacks an underpinning of rigorous proof. V.V. Napolskikh supposes that in the 3rd millennium BC an Indo-Iranian population had got into contact with bearers of the still-common Finno-Ugrian language [Napolskikh, 1997, pp. 149-151] – but Pit-Grave and Poltavka tribes did not make contact with the forest zone. Hence, it is impossible to be certain of their ethnos. In the North Pontic area the situation was far more complex. There was probable long-lasting preservation of Thracians, infiltrations of some Indo-European groups from the east, as well as the presence of a North Caucasian-speaking component. On the Middle Don the assimilation of the bearers of Repino culture by Pit-Grave people has been identified. Therefore, it is quite probable that an IndoEuropean substratum, going back to the cultures of the Mariupol period, survived in this region. Today these problems remain far from solution. Furthermore, they are aggravated by quite fundamental cultural transformations in the late Pit-Grave period, so significant as to throw into doubt the consideration of early Pit-Grave and late Pit-Grave sites within the framework of a single line of cultural development. To an even greater extent this relates to those Pit-Grave groups who lived up to the end of Middle Bronze Age I. Although we continue to call them Pit-Grave, in this case it is no more than a tribute to tradition. 368 3 4 2 1 6 5 8 7 9 Fig. 139. Globular Amphorae culture. 1 – Uvicla; 2 – Dovgoe; 3, 4 – Suemtsi; 5 – Barby; 6 – Böhlen-Zeschwitz; 7, 9 – Zörbig; 8 – Umashkovci. 3.4. Formation of the Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware cultures In the central and eastern parts of Europe, the further history of Indo-Europeans of the described groups was connected with the transformation of Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) and the rise of Globular Amphorae culture, which happened on its basis and on that of local Neolithic cultures [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 290, 291; Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 262; Midgley, 1992, p. 487] (Fig. 139). This new culture covered the regions between the Elbe and the Dnieper forest-steppe. Its earliest site, where ceramics of both TRB and Globular Amphorae culture occur together, is the settlement of Zarembovo, dated by the radiocarbon method to about 2675 BC. As a whole, Globular Amphorae culture corresponds in time to Tripolie C1-2 [Sveshnikov, 1983, p. 18; Avilova, 1975]. It is necessary to remember that the calibrated dates of this period of Tripolie fall into the 4th millennium BC, and of Zarembovo into the range 3520-3355 BC. Thus, the calibrated dates for Globular Amphorae culture are in the last third of the 4 th millennium BC [Gimbutas, 1992, p. 399; Thomas, Rowlett, 1992a, p. 349; Boguski, 1992, p. 369]. Globular Amphorae combines features of Balkan Eneolithic (contracted on the side burials, incrustation of ornaments with white paste) and of steppe Eneolithic (stone boxes) [Sveshnikov, 1983]. The Corded Ware cultures of Northern and Eastern Europe start to form in the mid-3rd millennium BC (Fig. 140.1-7).1 A local Neolithic substratum underlay this process, but TRB (in its final phase of development) and Globular Amphorae were the main components determining its cultural nature. Already in TRB stone battle-axes are known, prototypes of those in the Corded Ware cultures [Midgley, 1992, pp. 286-290; Zapotocky, 1991]. The winding out of this phenomenon was rather rapid, and soon Corded Ware sites covered vast areas up to the north of Scandinavia [Ostmo, 1996, p. 25]. The mechanisms of formation varied from culture to culture. Those of the Carpathians and Volhynia (Pochapi, GorodokZdolbitsa) fell under the influence of late Tripolie in 1 Radiocarbon dates of early Corded Ware cultures start from the 29 th century BC. The dates of the Corded cultures in Southern Germany, Switzerland and Austria are somewhat later – from 2500 BC [Thomas, Rowlett, 1992a, p. 353; Wells, 1992, p. 360; Boguski, 1992, p. 371]. This is explained by that Bell Beaker culture tribes occupied these areas. 369 2 1 3 4 6 5 7 8 9 10 12 11 13 14 Fig. 140. Corded Ware cultures. 1-7 – Corded Ware culture of Northern Europe; 8, 9, 11, 12 – Fatyanovo culture; 10, 13, 14 – Balanovo culture. 370 their initial phase and then had close communications with the Carpatho-Transylvanian area, their source of metal [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 364390; Artyomenko, 1987]. In the formation of Middle Dnieper culture, Globular Amphorae and, apparently, Pit-Grave participated [Artyomenko, 1987, pp. 41, 42]. In the late (or second half of the) 3rd millennium BC the Corded Ware cultures of the Eastern Baltic arose, and then Fatyanovo and Balanovo, spreading east as far as the Middle Volga and Kama (Fig. 140.8-14). In the formation of the last two, Eastern Baltic and, probably, Middle Dnieper tribes participated [Kraynov, 1987a; Kraynov, Loze, 1987]. Some scholars, comparing amphorae with ornamental imitations of handles with ware of the Globular Amphorae culture, conjecture that the latter participated too [Kraynov, 1972, pp. 108, 109; Kozhin, 1963, pp. 36, 37]. The south-westward connections of Fatyanovo culture are demonstrated also by ornaments (wrist-bands, spiral rings, ornamented pendants), as well as by copper axes with a curved wedge and prominent bush, which are identical to Bulgarian samples [Bader, 1971, pp. 68, 69; Korenevskii, 1973, p. 42]. The influence of Globular Amphorae culture is felt also in the Eastern Baltic, where ornament in the form of fish scales occurs on local ware [Rimantiene, Chesnys, 1996, p. 50]. Similar decoration is known in Globular Amphorae culture and has, apparently, a North Balkan origin. Thus, the formation of each culture was a separate and quite complex phenomenon. Despite apparent TRB, Globular Amphorae or Pit-Grave features, the new formations do not derive from any of these [Loze, 1996, p. 60]. The process is interesting to us as a whole because it resulted in the formation of the ethno-cultural bloc that was subsequently subjected to assimilation by the ancient Europeans. Its principal components were a pre-Indo-European Neolithic substratum, Indo-European Anatolianspeaking and proto-Balkan-speaking populations, and probably some other branches of the proto-IndoEuropeans not surviving into historic time. It is possible that Indo-Iranian tribes participated in the formation of Middle Dnieper culture too. Such Eastern European developments as Kemi-Oba and Novosvobodnaya also played some part in the formation of these cultures, but what is not clear. Therefore, it is difficult to identify the language spoken by the tribes formed in this zone. It is very likely that the Corded Ware people spoke different languages in different regions. 3.5. Bell Beaker Culture The expansion of Bell Beaker culture everywhere from Scotland to the Iberian Peninsula was a new phenomenon in Western Europe (2800-1800 BC).1 This culture is represented, above all, by individual burials, containing weapons and other metal objects, under round barrows. With it the horse and the tradition of making alcoholic drinks appeared in the west of Europe for the first time. It was once supposed that its sources should be sought in Spain. However, scholars now incline to the view that a more probable basis is the Rhine variant of the Corded Ware cultures, where very similar cups have been found [Sherratt, 1998, pp. 250-253]. This idea had been mooted earlier by S. Piggott, who surmised that it was possible to see in its expansion over Western Europe the migrations of Indo-Europeans [Piggott, 1965, pp. 100-102]. In the opinion of Sherratt, expansion of the culture was by no means synonymous with migration, rather it was the distribution of the lifestyle of the militarised and mobile societies of the Corded Ware people. In the Rhine area of Germany the Corded Ware cultures lie on the megalithic substratum. Bell Beaker culture occurs here somewhat later. One of Corded Ware’s components in this area was the culture of Single Burials (burials in round stone settings, accompanied sometimes by stone stelae). There are decorations in the form of belts of triangles or herringbone-shaped zigzags on some stelae. Some ceramic fragments of this culture have been found during excavations of megalithic constructions, which may indicate contacts between the new population and the builders of megaliths [Jockenhövel, 1990, pp. 177-182, Abb. 93, 94]. The ceramic forms of Bell Beaker are close to those in Corded Ware or the culture of Single Burials. The earliest cups have features of the latter. This is shown especially in materials of the RhineNetherlands zone [Jockenhövel, 1990, p. 184]. The discovery in the Rhine zone of Germany of an idol of Anatolian origin made of chalkstone is especially interesting. From Near Eastern parallels it can be dated to the 3rd millennium BC [Jockenhövel, 1 The main radiocarbon dates of this culture fall into the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, but the latest dates into its last quarter [Thomas, Rowlett, 1992, pp. 341, 344]. 371 1990, p. 194]. This undermines the idea that the formation of Bell Beaker culture can be reduced to just the distribution of the lifestyle of the Corded population. Besides, the presence of stelae in this area indicates connections with the steppes. 3.6. Anthropomorphic stelae These cultural processes are duplicated by the distribution of anthropomorphic stelae. Stelae of different forms occur rather widely. Scholars separate simple stele-menhirs and anthropomorphic stelae. In the Western Mediterranean the earliest simple stelae are known from the late 5th – 4th millennium BC and are connected with the megalithic tradition and with settlements surrounded by bastion fortifications. Some scholars believe that these fortifications came from the east [Burfield, 1993, pp. 11-13]. However, the earliest stelae have been found at the excavation of the Neolithic settlement of Nevali Chori on the Middle Euphrates [Hauptmann, 1993, Abb. 16]. In the Near East other parallels to the stelae of the Eastern European steppe have been found too [Danilenko, 1974, pp. 81-84]. Most stelae are revealed outside their archaeological context because the tradition of secondary use was everywhere widespread. This makes it difficult to identify to which culture they belong [Burfield, 1993, p. 14; Telegin, Mallory, 1993, p. 320]. The earliest stelae on the Eastern European steppe are found on such sites as Lower Mikhailovka, Novodanilovka and Khvalinsk. They are quite primitive and differ from later examples [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 313, 328, 329; Agapov et al., 1990, p. 23; Shaposhnikova, 1987, p. 14]. In the Early Bronze Age of the Eastern European steppe zone, stelae occur on sites of the PitGrave and Kemi-Oba cultures. Eighty percent of these finds are connected with burials, but this is more often already their secondary use. However, stelae are found only in the Ukraine, where KemiOba culture was widespread; not on the Don and Volga, where there are only Pit-Grave sites. Furthermore, the rich Kemi-Oba tradition of stone-working is lacking in Pit-Grave culture. This reflects the existence of two different ideologies in the Eastern European Early Bronze Age [Telegin, Mallory, 1993]. It is possible, however, that some of these stelae date to the Eneolithic time and were used repeatedly in the Early Bronze Age. In the Northern Caucasus stelae are found in the Novosvobodnaya context – the Nalchik tomb made of such stelae is the best known, but they were reused, which can indicate their earlier appearance [Chechenov, 1970, p. 123]. In South-Eastern Europe stelae occur on Early Bronze Age sites in the North-Eastern Balkans and on related sites in North-Western Anatolia, as well as on sites of the Baden culture. As has been discussed, the formation of Baden culture was conditioned by contacts between a local substratum and Eastern European steppe components. Stelae are known in this culture from the end of the early phase of classic Baden and in sites of its late phase [Endrödi, 1993]. Therefore, their occurrence could be connected with the distribution of Kemi-Oba traditions to the west (which does not conflict, as a matter of fact, with the stylistic resemblance of the stelae). Stelae in Ezero in the North-Eastern Balkans correspond to the Kemi-Oba tradition too [Telegin, Mallory, 1993, pp. 322-327], but the earliest stelae in this area relate to the proto-Bronze Age and were connected with the distribution of Usatovotype sites over this zone [Todorova, 1995, p. 91]. In Troy the earliest stele has been found in Troy I, and the tradition continued without interruption [Blegen, 1971, pp. 413, 414; Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 139]. The appearance of stelae here can be seen in the context of the distribution of the Balkan cultural complex into Anatolia at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Thus, the distribution of stelae over Eastern Europe was connected with two impulses from the Caucasus/Near Eastern area: in the Eneolithic and at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Stelae of the earlier time are, as a rule, undecorated. In Switzerland undecorated stelae (Lutry, Yverdon) are dated to about 3300 BC, earlier than the well-known decorated stelae in Sion and Aosta (Fig. 137.5) [Burfield, 1993, p. 13]. They are connected with the dolmen tradition. Dolmens have been found here of about 3630 BC in the calibrated system of dates. Anthropomorphic stelae such as that in Sion are dated to the 3rd millennium BC, starting from 2700 BC [Gallay, 1993, pp. 180, 188, 189]. In Northern Italy the earliest anthropomorphic stelae carry representations of daggers of Ramadello type, comprising a triangular blade with a straight heel and a semicircular base to the hilt. Sometimes 372 stelae have decoration in the form of bands of zigzags. Stelae found near Bergamo depict, in addition to Ramadello daggers, people, deer, and bulls/ oxen harnessed to wagons and a plough. The earliest such daggers fall into the Copper Age and are dated from 2900/2800 to 2400 BC, the latest from 2400 to 2200 BC. Early stelae relate to the Ramadello period, and the later ones to the period of the Bell Beaker culture [De Marinis, 1993; 1993a; Casini et al., 1993; Fedele, Fossati, 1993, Pedrotti, 1993]. The drawing of oxen harnessed to a plough and wagons allows the distribution of stelae in this area to be linked to the distribution of these items from the Near East in the period of the so-called ‘secondary products revolution’ [Sherratt, Sherratt, 1997]. Such an approach is confirmed also by finds of fragments of Baden culture ceramics together with stelae in Northern Italy, which fixes the existence of communications with the Danube basin at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC [Tunzi Sisto, 1993]. In Central Europe stelae are found in the context of the Corded Ware, Single Burials and Unětice cultures [Burfield, 1993, p. 12; Müller, 1993]. In Leuna-Göhlitysch (Saxony-Anhalt) a stone box with a geometric design is known [Sherratt, 1998, p. 188]. This may be a reflection of the Kemi-Oba tradition too. There is a variety of stelae in Spain. They certainly belong to different times, but a gravestone from San Sebastian de Carabandal, decorated with zigzag bands, indicates the possible connection of some with sites of the Kemi-Oba type [Ramirez, 1993, fig. 20]. In Southern France the earliest stelae can be dated in the calibrated radiocarbon system to the mid-4th millennium BC. Non-calibrated dates start from 2800 BC [D’Anna, et al., 1993, pp. 154-157]. This corresponds to the dates of Pit-Grave culture and Kemi-Oba. In Northern France statues/menhirs with stylised female representations are widespread. Sometimes they had been used to cover passage graves and they differ from those in the Pontic area [Kinnes, 1993]. Thus, there could be different sources for the distribution of stelae over Europe. Most probable is the independent appearance of simple stele-menhirs within the framework of megalithic tradition in the Iberian Peninsula and of the more complicated stelae of Northern France. The episodic infiltration of simple Eneolithic stelae from the steppe zone is quite likely, particularly in relation to the Balkans. How- ever, the main body of stelae was connected with the distribution of the Kemi-Oba tradition to the west in the 3rd millennium BC. In the opinion of J.P. Mallory, the distribution of statues/menhirs was caused by the expansion of the Indo-Europeans. He draws this conclusion from the separation by D.Y. Telegin of three types of stelae, the three strata in Indo-European society supposed by Dumezil, and from the attributes of a god represented on stelae, whom M. Gimbutas took to have an important place in the Indo-European pantheon. Indeed he stipulates that proof of the Indo-European connection of the stelae is less important than the answer to the question of whether they had been diffused from Eastern Europe, which in the context of the ‘kurgan theory’ is, basically, equivalent [Mallory, 1993]. However, even in the case of the distribution of stelae from east to west, this problem is more complex. 3.7. Problem of the archaeological identification of the North Caucasian peoples The cultural systems of the Caucasian Early Bronze Age and their proposed connection with the Indo-Europeans do not leave a place for the other ethnic groups of this area – Kartvelians and North Caucasians. Nevertheless, it can be stated confidently that these ethnic groups lived in the Caucasus in the Bronze Age, although I cannot accept the former interpretation that all Caucasian cultures belonged to Caucasian-speaking people [Krupnov, 1964, p. 40]. However, the separation of the archaeological material left by them is rather complicated: for millennia they developed together with Indo-Europeans, which led to a certain cultural parallelism. The supposition about the connection of ShulaveriShomutepe culture with proto-North Caucasians is no more than a hypothesis, based only on comparison with the Halaf house-building tradition, and is not substantiated by linguistic evidence. The protoNorth Caucasian identity of the Halaf people has still to be proved or disproved. It will be possible to be more certain only when a system of proto-North Caucasian cultural development has been con- 373 Fig. 141. Dolmen at Anastasievka. structed from the Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age, including material from Anatolia, Northern Mesopotamia and the Caucasus. It is possible that apart from Hurrian material culture, noted already in written sources, a role in the construction of such a system could have been played by a situation that arose in the Caucasus in the Early and Middle Bronze Age connected with the problem of Caucasian dolmens (Fig. 141). This problem has been widely discussed in the literature [Korenevskii, 1983a; 1984; 1994; Rezepkin, 1982; Risin, 1990]. Therefore, we shall not investigate it in detail, particularly as there is a quite broad spectrum of opinion. For Indo-European problems it is secondary, however, even its brief examination is capable of separating the proto-North Caucasian population from the Indo-European, albeit on a rather hypothetical level. Following other scholars I suppose that such a specific form of burial architecture as the dolmen could not have arisen independently and was diffused from some unified centre [Markovin, 1984, pp. 6, 7]. Two different starting dates of the Dolmen culture of the Caucasus have been suggested: 2700 BC and the late 3rd millennium BC [Risin, 1990; Markovin, 1994, p. 251; Markovin, 1997, p. 398]. The first seems more reasonable to me because the appearance of dolmens in Novosvobodnaya barrows is inexplicable in terms of late dating. Furthermore, the hypothesis about the earlier chronological position of Abkhazian dolmens has now obtained more reliable confirmation [Rezepkin, 1982, pp. 37, 38]. It seems quite reasonable to conclude that the dolmen tradition was not connected with the kurgan, and that Europe was its region of origin.1 Indeed, two probable locations are suggested: Western Europe and the Iberian Peninsula, whence the dolmen tradition reached the Caucasus via the Mediterranean. In the first case scholars connect the penetration of this tradition to the east with the passage graves of Northern Europe, thence with the Funnel Beaker and Globular Amphorae cultures [Markovin, 1994, pp. 252, 253; Rezepkin, 1987, pp. 29, 30]. This seems to be unlikely,2 despite the similarity between passage graves and the barrow at Psinako in the Western Caucasus. The barrow also has parallels among Mediterranean megaliths [Markovin, 1991, p. 52; 1994, tab. 68; 1997, pp. 318-337]. The resemblance of Caucasian knives to Mediterranean forms confirms perhaps the Mediterranean variant too, as does the presence of analogies to ornaments from the Esheri dolmens in Syria-Palestine [Markovin, 1973, p. 245; Korenevskii, 1992, p. 97]. In the last region dolmen constructions are known too, mainly in Transjordan. Dolmens in Palestine have been dated to the Early Bronze Age, but earlier dates should not be excluded [Bahat, 1992, p. 91; MüllerKarpe, 1974, pp. 105, 106]. Irrespective of how the dolmen tradition was transmitted to the Caucasus, its primary source seems to have been the very early megaliths of the Iberian Peninsula [Markovin, 1994, p. 252], where they date from the mid-5th millennium BC. Some later megaliths occur in Southern France (about 4000 BC) and Denmark (3500 BC) [Service, Bradbery, 1979, p. 15]. In this case, the possibilities of comparising Caucasian dolmens with material from Central and Northern European can be conditioned by both genetic connections and a common protosource, which is irrelevant to the problems considered here. By the time of the Dolmen culture’s appearance the proper Maikop tradition had come to naught, and communications with the Dolmen people are known for just the Novosvobodnaya group and the Eneolithic substratum of the Western Caucasus [Risin, 1991, p. 49]. The most reasonable interpretation is that the Dolmen population came from out1 In Europe, as well as in the Pontic area, megalithic constructions are situated in coastal areas. They are known in Portugal, Spain, Britain, Ireland, Western and Southern France, Southern Italy, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, Malta, Denmark and Southern Sweden [Service, Bradbery, 1979, pp. 11-15]. 2 See the critique in the literature [Markovin, 1984, pp. 4, 5; 1997, pp. 390-392]. 374 side and amalgamated with the Novosvobodnaya [Markovin, 1973, p. 22; 1997, p. 392]. Linguists have identified a number of Iberian – North Caucasian isoglosses [Čirikba, 1985]; most demonstrate North Caucasian inclusions in Iberian languages connected with some other historical events. However, the infiltration into the Caucasus of the dolmen builders opens the question of inverse borrowings [Markovin, 1997, pp. 394, 395]. It is possible that the bearers of the dolmen tradition were also Iberian-speaking. In this case we can regard the Novosvobodnaya group as North Caucasian. The formation on a late Maikop (Novosvobodnaya) basis of so-called North Caucasian culture [Markovin, 1994b, p. 261] makes this hypothesis tempting. The evidence of a North Caucasian linguistic presence in the Dnieper and Balkan-Carpathian areas is curious too [Safronov, 1989, p. 273]. For the Dnieper it is possible to explain it by the Kemi-Oba culture’s containing the Novosvobodnaya metal complex, a burial rite similar to Novosvobodnaya (cromlechs, stone boxes, rubble paving of grave bottoms, stone mounds above burials) and relics of megalithic tradition such as painting the walls of stone boxes and monolithic tombs [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 331-336]. Hollow-based arrowheads have analogies in Maikop sites in Chechnya [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 339, 350]. In the Balkan-Carpathian area the evidence is the occurrence of Usatovo-type antiquities, with cromlechs, coloured skeletons and stelae. Therefore, it is quite possible that the distribution of stelae and of such cultures as Kemi-Oba, Usatovo, and Bell Beaker was connected with migrations of North Caucasian-speaking people. There is not enough evidence of this, but the likelihood should not be excluded. The situation with the Corded Ware and Globular Amphorae cultures is less clear. It seems that the former people spoke different languages: some could have spoken IndoEuropean, others proto-North Caucasian languages. However, these suppositions demand detailed examination. It is necessary also to indicate inconsistencies. Earlier, I linked the Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka types with Indo-Europeans, but they have a certain similarity with the Novosvobodnaya group, despite a chronological gap. It is not yet clear how to explain this – by ethnic affinity or geographical proximity of original sources. Another explanation, that of a proto-North Caucasian component occurring in the Iberian Penin- sula is not excluded either. This is simpler and does not demand such complex correlation of different cultural systems, although simplicity is no testimony of verity. In the Chapter describing Sintashta architecture, I briefly mentioned the fortified settlements on the Cyclades, characterised by the presence of round bastions. In one of these (Kastri) ware similar to Kum-Tepe and Troy I has been found [Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 152]. The character of metalworking duplicates Anatolian practice too. On the Cyclades in the early 3rd millennium BC, arsenic copper contains traces of nickel, as is frequently the case in Anatolia. There is a manifest influence of Anatolian metallurgy. In addition, there are traces of copper melting in Kastri. Isotopic analysis has demonstrated that the same metal was widespread here as in Troy II [Gale et al., 1985]. Perhaps this impulse penetrated further, into the Western Mediterranean. Bastion fortifications, identical to those from the Cyclades, are also known in the Iberian Peninsula (Los Millares, Vila Nova de S.Pedro, Zambuijal and others) and in the south of France (Lebous). In the opinion of Müller-Karpe, their occurrence in the Western Mediterranean was connected with impulses from the Near East, where similar bastions have been discovered during excavation in Türme [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 535-549, 599, pp. 404, 405]. At the same time, the metallurgy of copper with arsenic alloying arose. It is possible that the proto-North Caucasian component was introduced with this impulse. The Bell Beaker culture, penetrating into this area, lies above this ethno-cultural layer. This example emphasises that until we are able in the most general outline to identify the cultures which might be connected with North Caucasians and Kartvelians, irresolvable inconsistencies will remain in the Indo-European problem. The great antiquity of the proto-North Caucasian language and the high level of development of its speakers is absolutely clear, as are the very early contacts with peoples speaking proto-Indo-European. This limits the search for the homeland of the protoNorth Caucasians to regions in the immediate vicinity of Northern Mesopotamia, where the proto-IndoEuropeans lived, and within the area involved in the ‘Neolithic revolution’. To the east of the proto-IndoEuropeans were the Elamo-Dravidian tribes, to the south, the Hamito-Semitic people. Therefore the search must be conducted either to the north or to 375 the west. To the north, in Transcaucasia, infiltrations of Indo-Europeans can be observed from the Neolithic onward, connected with which was the distribution of cattle breeding and agriculture. If the North Caucasian’s homeland were localised in this area, it would be necessary to consider them as borrowing Indo-European economy and culture. This does not appear to correspond to reality, although the final solution will be made only by linguists. A search in the west, on the Konya plain, where the famous settlement of Chattal Höyük is situated, is a better prospect. The migrations from this area into the Balkans allow us to assume that most of the developed cultures of the Balkan Eneolithic, above all Vinča, were established by proto-North Caucasian-speaking people; nor is such a supposition without basis for the Aegean world, including Minoan Crete. The proto-writing of Vinča culture, as already discussed, has direct correspondence in Linear A. Connections with Chattal Höyük (though this sounds fantastical as a first approximation) are indicated by frescos in both cultures depicting scenes of games with a bull, in Chattal Höyük also with a deer. Together with the people speaking North Caucasian dialects, these games reached the Western Mediterranean, continuing into our time in the form of the Spanish corrida. The infiltrations of proto-North Caucasians into Northern Mesopotamia were connected with Halaf culture, and into the Eastern Mediterranean with the Khirokitia culture in Cyprus. The reconstruction of the later history of the proto-North Caucasians in the Near East is facilitated by presence of Hurrian and Urartian written sources, and in the west by the well-studied culture of the Etruscans. All that has been said is no more than supposition, indicating the basic possibility of such reconstructions. Detailed study of the problem will probably reveal its falsity. But today, it seems quite reasonable as the starting point for a discussion. 3.8. The Caucasus in the Middle Bronze Age The Middle Bronze Age in Transcaucasia witnessed a number of new cultural developments [Kushnaryova, 1983, pp. 10-12] that I am inclined to connect with Indo-Europeans: various features of the material culture of these sites have similarities with those cultures of the end of the Middle Bronze Age and beginning of the Late Bronze Age, described in Parts I and II of this book (Fig. 142). The basins of the Kura and Alazan were occupied by the Trialeti culture (Fig. 143). It formed on a Kura-Araxian basis, as the ceramics of its early Martkopi phase amply demonstrate, but with the influence of some other components, both southern and northern. O. Dzhaparidze, for example, believes that the occurrence of burials under barrows was connected with the infiltration of a northern steppe population [Dzhaparidze, 1993]; however, barrows are known in Kura-Araxian culture, and erection of large examples might merely have social reasons. Communications with the Aegean – Anatolian world are more important. They show in ceramics and, especially, in the prevalence of similar types of rapiers and socketed spearheads [Aretyan, 1973]. Axes of the Tepe Gawra type, found in Eastern Georgia (Fig. 143.5), indicate communications between there and Anatolia and Mesopotamia – but these were always characteristic of this region [Picchelauri, 1997, Taf. 5. 47-52]. Ceramics demonstrate the same connections too: some of the forms of ware and decoration of Eastern Anatolia are comparable with those in Trialeti [see Çilingirogli, 1984]. Early Bronze Age II vessels from Gözlü Kule in the Taurus mountains are very similar to Trialeti ware (Fig. 143.14,15) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 289.51,56]. Burial rites are rather differentiated. Alongside ordinary burials there are elite burials under magnificent barrows made of stone and earth, in large grave pits with walls faced with stone or wood, as well as in underground burial halls covered by mounds (Fig. 143.1,2) [Dzhaparidze, 1993; 1994; Kushnaryova, 1994]. The ethnos of the people of Trialeti culture is not clear. Some features (heads and limbs of cattle in graves, burial chariots, large burial chambers) bring Trialeti culture together with the Iranian Sintashta group. The forms and decorations of ware show certain parallels with artefacts of the Iranian Karasuk-Irmen populations and even with ceramics of the Scythian period in the North Pontic area. The rite of cremation is comparable with the rituals of Baltic, Slavic and Germanic tribes. Socketed spearheads provide a parallel with another ancient European group – the Celts and Italics. Such specific weapons as rapiers, as well as some ornaments (for example ‘waves’) have analogies in Mycenaean Greece. Art objects belong to the Hittite – Anatolian 376 Fig. 142. Middle Bronze Age Caucasian cultures: a – North Caucasian culture, b – sites of Dagestan, c – ProtoColchian culture, d – Dolmen culture, e – Trialeti culture, f – Sevan-Uzerlik group. and Near Eastern cultural circle. The Indo-European nature of Trialeti culture is demonstrated in addition by scenes represented on its metalwork and ceramics, whose Indo-European parentage is made clear by analysis [Aretyan, 1988]. At the same time, none of the listed ethno-cultural formations has similar combination of all these features. Whilst speaking about Trialeti as Indo-European, we cannot yet offer a more precise ethnic identification. There is an impression that in this period a conglomeration of different ethnic groups appeared in Transcaucasia, and it is rather difficult to say what language their progeny started to use. The expansion of Trialeti culture south into Armenia at a late phase raises the question of whether these were Armenian-speaking people, although it is also possible that the Armenians penetrated this area later. In Southern Transcaucasia, on the other hand, Trialeti replaces sites of the Sevan-Uzerlik type, known by the fortified settlements of Uzerliktepe and Lori Berd and some of the complexes from the Lchashen and Arich cemeteries [Kushnaryova, 1959; 1965; 1994d] (Fig. 144). The architecture and burial rite of these sites are so similar to those in Sintashta that Sevan-Uzerlik culture may be assumed to be Iranian. The typological resemblance itself is not a sufficient argument to solve this problem. Sevan-Uzerlik sites in Southern Transcaucasia fall into a rather narrow chronological range – the 18th – 17th centuries BC [Kushnaryova, 1994d, p. 127]. Thus, their appearance is almost contemporary with the rise of Sintashta culture in the Urals. It is possible that these processes were somehow interdependent. 377 1 4 3 5 2 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 11 15 Fig. 143. Trialeti culture. 1, 9, 11 – Trialeti; 2 – Martkopi; 3 – Maskheti; 4, 5 – Kirovakan; 6 – Metekhi; 7 – Angekhakot; 8 – Arich; 10 – Sisian; 12 – Aygashet; 13 – Kirgi; analogies to Trialeti ware: 14, 15 – Gözlu Kale. 378 2 3 1 6 5 7 4 8 9 10 Fig. 144. Sevan-Uzerlik group. 1, 2, 5, 9 – Lchashen; 3 – Zolakar; 4 – Uzerliktepe; 6 – 8, 10 – Arich. An earlier formation in Southern Transcaucasia, preceding Sevan-Uzerlik and succeeding Kura-Araxian, is connected with the Karmirberd culture. Apparently, it arose from the influence of Anatolian impulses on a Kura-Araxian substratum [Simonyan, 1982; Kushnaryova, 1994b, p. 116]. There is no evidence as to the ethnos of these people. Finally, there was the Proto-Colchian culture of the Middle Bronze Age in Western Georgia (Fig. 145). We have discussed it, demonstrating ceramic parallels with Sintashta. Probably, it was left by IndoEuropeans. In the Chapter describing the Final Bronze Age of Europe its connection with cultures in North-Eastern Italy has been assumed. Thus, all changes in the Transcaucasian Middle Bronze Age have Transcaucasian or Near Eastern origins. These cultures lack any features to link them to developments in the North Pontic area, and it is impossible to connect the spread of burials under barrows with northern influence. As we have seen above, barrows in Transcaucasia existed from the Eneolithic, and the appearance of such magnificent complexes as those in Trialeti culture was most likely conditioned by the rise of early state formations. Comparing materials of the Eastern European steppe zone with the Caucasian and Near Eastern, we can see rather the reverse. In the steppe during the Early and Middle Bronze Age, tendencies originating in 379 2 3 4 1 5 7 6 8 Fig. 145. Proto-Colchian culture. the Neolithic and Eneolithic persist, and the new cultures forming here include features of cultures in the Caucasus and the Near East, where they had an earlier chronological position. This precludes localisation of the Indo-European homeland in Eastern Europe and the subsequent movements of steppe tribes into the Near East as well. Below I give some examples to support this. It is necessary to emphasise that they demonstrate the general direction of processes; they do not pretend to show the detailed mechanism of cultural transformations in the southern part of Eastern Europe. This is still impossible because of the absence of broad comparisons between the Eastern European and Near Eastern materials. 3.9. Eastern Europe in the Middle Bronze Age The period of the Middle Bronze Age in the Volga-Ural area is very relevant for our understanding: the cultures found there on the boundary of the Middle and Late Bronze Age interacted vigorously with the Sintashta culture described in Part I. At the transition to the Middle Bronze Age not such a sharp cultural transformation may be observed in the Volga region as in the west. Pit-Grave culture was transformed into Poltavka. Indeed, the smoothness of this transformation and the absence of qualitatively new features have allowed many scholars to speak of Poltavka as just a phase in the development of Pit-Grave [Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994, p. 86]. A similar approach finds no place for the Poltavka historico-cultural bloc [Kuznetsov, 1991]. As a matter of fact, the idea of this bloc is constructed on an assumption of the unity, wideranging nature and synchronism of the cultural transformations that took place at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Eastern Europe. It dictates the acceptance of the full replacement of Pit-Grave culture throughout its area of distribution and allows discussion about the presence of a similar formation on the eastern borders of the Catacomb cultural bloc. As a number of works have demonstrated, many complexes are wrongly included in it [Turetskiy, 1992, pp. 68-73; Morgunova, 1991, p. 123; Shilov, 1991, pp. 142, 143]. Furthermore, the probable presence of Poltavka burials in territories outside the Poltavka core provides no basis for the separation of some Poltavka cultures at all. For example, the Pit-Grave burial near Karaganda probably reflects the migration of Pit- 380 Grave people to the east and the appearance of Afanasievo culture on the Yenisei, but it does not permit Central Kazakhstan to be included within the PitGrave area [Evdokimov, Loman, 1989, pp. 45, 46]. It is necessary to note the presence of rather small Poltavka cemetery in the Transurals, in the area of Magnitogorsk (II Malokizilskoye) [Salnikov, 1962a, pp. 51-55]. However, it is a single example, thus not grounds for speaking about the prevalence of a Poltavka population thereabouts. However, we may assume appreciable impulses from the southern zone of the Circumpontic Province (CMP), confirmed by the presence of bayonetshaped objects, typical of this zone in the Middle Bronze Age, in Poltavka culture burials in the Potapovka cemetery [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 50; Agapov, Kuzminikh, 1994, p. 167]. A supporting argument is the signs of frontal-occipital and ring deformations found on skulls from Poltavka burials, which indicates probable connections with the Caucasus [Khohlov, 1997, p. 33]. These Caucasian or North Caucasian impulses extended far beyond the Volga and reached the Southern Urals [Khalyapin, 1999, p. 107]. Probably more distant impulses influenced the situation in the Southern Urals at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age too, when there are iron objects in late Pit-Grave burials (Utyovka, Boldirevo, Tamar-Utkul) [Vasiliev, 1999a, p. 139]. For this period it is unique throughout Eastern Europe, but already in the 3rd millennium BC ways of making iron were known in Anatolia, although earlier iron objects have been found too. Thus, it cannot be excluded that these objects were brought from there. Nevertheless, despite the possibilities of some impulses, it is necessary to emphasise that they were not of decisive importance in the cultural genesis of the Volga area. A local line of development predominated, which can be designated as Pit-Grave – Poltavka. Also found in the Early Bronze Age is the continuance of such differences between the western and eastern zones of the Eastern European steppe as the presence of settlements in the west and their absence in the east [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 405, 407, 413, 415]. This was connected with a different type of economy in the Pontic area, where, together with cattle breeding, agriculture was developed [Korpusova, 1990, pp. 173, 174]. Some settlements of the Poltavka period start to occur on the Lower Volga but, as a whole, the settled way of life is regarded as having been introduced into this area from outside [Vasiliev, Nepochatii, 1997, p. 46; Lopatin, 1996, p. 140]. As this line of development had started here already with the Yamno-Berezhnovka and Khvalinsk sites, it is possible to speak about the preservation in the area of the former, probably Indo-Iranian, substratum. This also smoothed the path for the subsequent relatively easy contacts between the Sintashta and Poltavka populations and resulted in the formation of the vast Timber-Grave-Alakul Iranian bloc. What has been said demands serious examination, for, as we have already shown, the nature and intensity of external influence on the area at the end of the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age is not completely clear. In the Middle Bronze Age, when the Catacomb cultures started to form, the situation was more complicated in the Pontic area than in the east (Fig. 146). The greatest contrast was in the Donets region, where, about 2400-2300 BC, the Donets Catacomb culture appeared [Smirnov, 1996, p. 122]. Subsequently, a number of Catacomb cultures formed throughout the northern part of the Circumpontic zone. Many scholars have already criticised hypotheses about the genetic connections of the Pit-Grave and Catacomb cultures and now this theory is not taken seriously by anybody, which does not remove the possibility that the local Pit-Grave substratum was assimilated by the Catacomb people, or the participation of Pit-Grave people in the genesis of Catacomb culture [Klein, 1970]. In many areas scholars separate a Late Pit-Grave – Early Catacomb period, characterised by the coexistence of Pit-Grave and Catacomb traditions [Kiyashko, 1999, pp. 161176]. The initial impulse to the formation of the Catacomb cultures started from the regions of the Northern Caucasus and, apparently, from Transcaucasia. The early catacombs contain dolmen ware and hollow-based arrowheads, especially typical of the Caucasian area. The ceramics have nothing common with those in Pit-Grave culture, but some forms are comparable to Transcaucasian stereotypes of the Early Bronze Age [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 409, 411, 419]. The early Donets sites show particularly close connections with the Caucasus, notably on knives with a bend in the middle part of the blade, ornaments, and braid decorations on vessels. Furthermore, these decorations are not corded but made by a metal stamp. The forms and ornamental style of 381 2 3 4 1 6 9 8 11 5 7 10 13 12 Fig. 146. Catacomb culture. 1 – Novofillipovka; 2, 6 – Voroshilovograd; 3, 5, 8, 9 – Frunze; 4 – Privolye; 7 – Velikaya Kamishevakha. Analogies to arrowheads of the Catacomb type in the Near East and Transcaucasia: 10 – Trialeti; 11, 12 – Negada, El-Fayum; 13 – Jerico. Early Donets beakers go back to Transcaucasian prototypes, above all to Kura-Araxian culture [Smirnov, 1988; 1996, p. 123] (Figs. 136.15; 146.6). On some cups we can observe the clearly expressed anthropomorphic design intrinsic to Kura-Araxian ware [Bratchenko, 1976, fig. 16.5]. Similar groups of ceramics, on which the Transcaucasian – Near Eastern features are found, are present also on the Lower Don: beakers, pedestalled beakers, flasks with prominent handles, cups, amphorae, and applied nipple-shaped and oval knobs in lieu of handles [Kiyashko, 1999, figs. 65-67, 68, 72, 74-80]. It is difficult to describe as a culture the circumstance in which similar features are collected together. Their greatest concentration is among the Kura-Araxian antiquities of Transcaucasia. In this light, the distribution of hollow-based flint arrowheads with barbs of Catacomb type seems to be interesting. Scholars connect their appearance in the early Eneolithic of the Crimea with influences 382 from the Caucasus [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 323]. They are present in the Kemi-Oba complexes and are absolutely dominant in different Catacomb cultures and KMK [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, pp. 10, 27, 31; Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 332, 406, 411, 455; Kovalyova I., 1981, fig. 5; Andreeva, 1989, fig. 15; Kubishev, 1991, p. 10; Sinyuk, 1983, p. 147; Smirnov, 1996, figs. 6, 12, 24, 35, 41, 47; Sanzharov, 1991a, p. 245]. In Transcaucasia arrowheads of this type are known in Trialeti, Lchashen and the dolmens of Abkhazia. The earliest examples, of the second half of the 4th millennium BC, are found in Egypt [Gorelik, 1993, p. 302, tab. XLIII, 11, 11а, 189,190, 194, 224; Markovin, 1997, figs. 168.23.40, 174.34; Picchelauri, 1997, Taf. 96-98]. There are quite early arrowheads with a hollow in the base (both triangular and semicircular) on Kura-Araxian sites in the Caucasus [Munchaev, 1981, p. 38] (Fig. 146.9-12). Catacomb metal objects are made of arsenic bronzes supplied from the Caucasus [Chernikh, 1966, p. 90]. It is supposed that the Catacomb system of weights and measures had a Near Eastern origin. Indeed, comparison with the Mesopotamian and Egyptian systems has revealed that it was closer to the latter [Kubishev, Chernyakov, 1982; 1985], but we should not imagine that it was borrowed directly from there; it is more likely to have come from some area of the Eastern Mediterranean within the Egyptian orbit of influence. This is supported by other evidence, in particular, the distribution of faience beads and Egyptian scarabs [Kubishev, Chernyakov, 1982, p. 109], although the scarabs are dated to the 17th – 16th centuries BC. Therefore, it is not quite clear whether this was caused by the following impulses at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age II, or by the formation of a system of contacts as a result of all the migrations in the Eastern Mediterranean during this period. Artificial deformations of skulls and clay imitations of faces on skulls, widespread amongst Catacomb tribes, have numerous parallels in the Near Eastern – Transcaucasian area. In particular, deformed skulls are known from cemeteries of the Kura-Araxian culture [Novikova, Shilov, 1989; Shevchenko, 1986, pp. 182-185; Shishlina, 1989]. Originally, the custom was to remove the soft tissues from the skull and restore the face with clay. But there are also true burial masks in Catacomb graves. Similar cases have been revealed on Neolithic sites in Palestine [Antonova, 1990, pp. 44-48, 122-124; Neolithic Cultures, 1974, p. 44, fig. 21]. The tradition of clay imitations was extremely widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean and not limited to Palestine. Similar customs are found in Haçilar and Chattal Höyük [Barlett, 1982, p. 52]. Occasionally, Catacomb and pre-Catacomb graves reveal secondary burials, a rite usually associated with the Near East [Korenevskii, Petrenko, 1989, pp. 195, 196; Rassamakin, 1991, pp. 46, 47; Boltrik et al., 1991, pp. 71, 79; Iliukov, 1986, p. 227]. Decapitated burials are known too [Andreeva, 1989, fig. 2]. Finally, the most important distinctive feature of Catacomb culture is burials in catacombs, and this tradition could not have developed from burials in pits or stone boxes. It goes back to the Near Eastern and Iranian tradition of burials in pits with a lateral recess and catacombs. The earliest catacombs are those found in the Halaf culture of Northern Mesopotamia and are dated to the mid-5th millennium BC. Burials of skeletons contracted on the side have been excavated on the Yarim-Tepe settlement. It is worthy of comment that the entry shafts sometimes have rectangular form. There is also colouring with ochre. The contraction of the skeletons is sufficiently acute to suggest that the bodies were bound [Antonova, 1990, pp. 78, 79, 82]. This last feature is typical of a number of Catacomb culture burials. Subsequently, in the 3rd millennium BC, catacombs occur in Palestine and Jordan. In the Bronze Age cemetery of the Tell Selenkahiyeh settlement the burial constructions are pits with lateral recesses [Kink, 1970, pp. 71-73; Merpert, Munchaev, 1984, p. 312; Suleyman, 1983, pp. 121, 122]. However, in the Eastern Mediterranean the catacomb rite was not a persistent phenomenon throughout the Bronze Age. It occurred as a foreign phenomenon, subsequently developing into specific Mediterranean forms. An example of this is the appearance of catacomb burials in Palestine at the beginning of so-called Intermediate Bronze Age, between the Early and Middle Bronze Age, dated to about 2300-2000 BC, and contemporary to early Catacomb antiquities in the North Pontic area. Originally these were rather typical catacombs with spherical entry shafts, stone partitions, and skeletons contracted on their right side facing the shaft. In Jericho alone 346 such burials have been investigated (Fig. 146.13). Indeed, their appearance marks the coming of a new, more mobile population, as little construction of this period is known there and 383 the former cultural tradition ceased [Barlett, 1982, pp. 78, 79; Gophna, 1992, pp. 127, 138, 139; MüllerKarpe, 1974, pp. 118-121]. On many settlements cultural levels are absent; on others lighter constructions were erected. In Ugarit in Syria the newcomers used a hill simply as a burial place. Furthermore, grave goods (pins, socketed spearheads, axes, daggers) have parallels in Anatolia and in the Caucasus which establish the northern roots of this phenomenon [Kenyon, 1971, pp. 567-594]. Already in the Early Bronze Age we find in Palestine and on Cyprus more complicated catacomb constructions with several chambers and repeated burials. [Vermeule, Wolsky, 1990; Meyerhof, 1982; Kenyon, 1971, pp. 579-581; Catling, 1971, p. 818]. On the face of it, their chronological position suggests development from the catacombs which had appeared in Palestine, but we are probably dealing with a somewhat more complicated situation, as these multi-chamber tombs correspond more to the rock tombs typical of the whole Western Mediterranean. Sometimes Mediterranean tombs resemble catacombs, but their entrance is horizontal and commonly arranged from the slope of a hill [MüllerKarpe, 1974, Taf. 347, 422, 437, pp. 178-181, 184187, 266-281]. Therefore, it is more likely that they spread from the Western Mediterranean, in absolute independence of what has been described above. In the Eastern Mediterranean these two phenomena met. On the other hand, attempts to derive the catacomb burial rite from rock tombs are unjustified too. Typologically they are little differentiated, and most artefacts discovered in sites of the Intermediate Bronze Age in Palestine have northern parallels. The practically contemporary occurrence of the catacomb burial rite in the Eastern Mediterranean and the North Pontic area urges us to suppose that they were somehow interdependent. As a matter of fact, burials in catacombs could have developed from those in caves, widespread in Palestine since the Mesolithic Natufian culture and especially widely represented in both the Eneolithic Ghassul culture (late 5th – 4th millennium BC) and in the Early Bronze Age [Kink, 1970, pp. 168, 170; Antonova, 1990, pp. 43, 52-56; Vaux, 1971, p. 223]. Burials in both caves and catacombs could reflect the practice of settling in caves, common in SyriaPalestine from the earliest times and through the whole historic time, and from the Eneolithic in artificial grottos whose form resembles a catacomb. However, here again we do not see full typological conformity. Only in some cases are grottos identical to catacombs; more often they differ sharply, and material from Southern Palestine shows that catacombs replaced the former tradition of burials in caves and grottos [Kenyon, 1971, pp. 576, 577]. It is more likely that the formation of the catacomb rite derived from something else. As we have seen, starting from the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC, catacomb constructions had developed in the South-Eastern Caspian from pits with a lateral entrance; from the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC they become typical for a range of cultures in North-Eastern Iran and Central Asia, whose genesis was connected ultimately with the Near East (Figs. 54, 58, 60). This makes it difficult to identify the initial terrain whence bearers of this tradition migrated into Eastern Europe. The Transcaucasian parallels are likely to mark the route taken, nothing more, but it seems clear that the search for this initial area should be conducted in the south. The SouthEastern Caspian is now the preferred area, as the following arguments show. Burials in pits with a lateral recess were an established and regular practice. Below, I try to show that the Catacomb population spoke an Indo-Aryan language. The connections of Indo-Aryans with the South-Eastern Caspian are well known and have already been discussed above. I have also mentioned the comparability of aspects of the material culture of Catacomb sites and the Eneolithic Lipchinskaya sites in the Transurals. Migration of the population which established Lipchinskaya culture is most likely along the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea – in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC these regions had not yet wasted away. At the same time, the possibility of migration from the South-Eastern Caspian through the Eastern Mediterranean and further through the Caucasus is not excluded. In this connection the signs found on Catacomb culture vessels or at the bottom of burial chambers seem very interesting. Careful analysis has shown that this was a very archaic script form, and comparison with ancient written systems has revealed considerable affinities, mainly with the Eastern Mediterranean proto-Byblos script and the linear A script of Crete. The Catacomb signs can be compared also with those on Timber-Grave ware of a later time, probably having a Catacomb origin [Pustovalov, 1998]. Scholars studying the TimberGrave signs are inclined to think that they too re- 384 flect an early stage of development of writing systems [Zakharova, 1998, p. 110]. This, like the system of weights, is an additional argument for connecting the Catacomb cultures with the Eastern Mediterranean. It is very important to fix the presence of the Indo-Aryan language in the North Pontic area for our further reasoning [Trubachov, 1976; 1978; 1987; 1999]. In the Middle Bronze Age Catacomb and KMK tribes occupied this area. The best-known evidence of this presence is the ethnic name ‘Sind’, which is correlated with the Indo-Aryans. The quantity of evidence is very great, already surpassing the linguistic evidence that supports the Scythian presence in this area. These conclusions are often subjected to criticism, and it is possible that some of the etymologies may be challenged but, as a whole, there is no reason to doubt the presence of a very strong Indo-Aryan stratum in the Northern Pontus. Of more interest to us is whether, resting on linguistic evidence, we can identify which cultures of this area should be linked to the Indo-Aryans, and with what regions of Eurasia we should connect their origins. In this sense the presence of very limited Hittite inclusions in Bosporan epigraphy is a useful pointer [Trubachov, 1999, pp. 33, 70, 71, 171]. But they can indicate only regions to the south of the Caucasus as a whole, as any population migrating through this terrain could have made contact with the Hittites. However, there is a basis for asserting that IndoAryan populations appeared in the Pontic area from the Eastern Mediterranean. The name of one of the Sindian queens, Tirgataw, corresponds to the female name Tirgutawiya on plates from Alalakh in Northern Syria. The epigraphic form of the Meotian selfname, MAITAI, corresponds to the self-name of the Near Eastern Indo-Aryans, Maitanni, but without the Hurrian suffix -nni [Trubachov, 1999, pp. 44, 71, 110]. The problem is that the languages of both Pontic and Near Eastern Indo-Aryans have conformities, including conformities with Hittite, which are unknown in the Aryan languages of Hindustan. On this basis, and in conjunction with the theory of the Eastern European origin of the Indo-Iranians, O.N. Trubachov has concluded that an Indo-Aryan substratum existed quite early in the North Pontic area, that there was migration from this area into Mitanni, and that Meotians participated in the formation of this kingdom as well [Trubachov, 1999, pp. 70, 102, 173]. However, if we assume the southern origin of the Indo-Europeans, the North Pontic priority becomes less certain, and we should compare the archaeological evidence with the linguistic. The events of the Late Bronze Age do not help. As we have seen above, this is when Thracians, Iranians and ancient Europeans penetrated into the North Pontic area. Therefore the only real alternative is the choice between the Catacomb people and the bearers of Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. The former are to be preferred, as their burial rite is close to that of Indo-Aryan cultures in the south of Central Asia and the South-Eastern Caspian. There is one further argument. As I have already noted, the occurrence of the catacomb burial rite in the Eastern Mediterranean is dated to the cusp of the 24th/23rd centuries BC. At almost the same time mentions of the ‘Manda horde’ appear in Near Eastern written sources. These may well be associated with the Indo-Aryans [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, pp. 130, 131]. Furthermore, the migration of Indo-Aryans through the Caucasus is confirmed by the corresponding borrowings into the Caucasian languages [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 919]. This matches the archaeological evidence of the close connection of Catacomb culture with the Caucasus. The formation of the different Catacomb cultures was a complex enough process, varying from area to area. To judge from the T-shaped catacombs, the Donets and Dnieper-Azov were the earliest Catacomb cultures [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, p. 405]. However, this indicator is probably not universal: on the Don catacombs of this form relate frequently to later phases [Sinyuk, 1996, p. 125]. On the Middle Don, Catacomb culture occurs somewhat later, possibly synchronous to the late phase of Donets culture [Sinyuk, 1996, p. 86]. In a number of areas, in particular the Middle Don, the preservation of PitGrave culture and its coexistence with Catacomb is found. This is a particular feature of the early Pavlovsk phase of Middle Don Catacomb culture [Ozerov, Bespaliy, 1987, p. 164; Toshev, 1991, p. 97; Sinyuk, 1996, pp. 88, 123]. Indeed, there were some influences; the earliest reached the area from the Northern Caucasus, but the subsequent ones from the Lower Don were more significant. Anthropologically the Pit-Grave and Catacomb people differ here, but there is no clear correlation of these two types, or mixed types, with burial rite, which indicates the miscibility of populations during cultural formation [Pogorelov, 1989, p. 121; Sinyuk, 1983, pp. 144, 150 154; 1996, pp. 137, 138]. On the Mid- 385 dle Don, for example, this situation showed itself up to the beginning of Middle Bronze Age II, when the re-formation of the Catacomb cultures took place here [Pogorelov, 1989; Antropologicheskiye tipi …, 1988]. On the basis of new impulses and internal interplay, new Catacomb cultures occurred, extending considerably the initial area. H-shaped catacombs, in which the axes of the entry shaft and burial chamber are parallel, are already peculiar to them, as are catacombs with round entry shafts. This process is dated to the late 18 th century BC [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 405, 409, 415, 416; Sanzharov, 1991; 1994, pp. 23, 24, 28, 29]. In some areas the Corded Ware cultures (Kharkov-Voronezh culture) participated in this transformation too [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 407, 417]. In Predkavkazskaya culture of this time dismembered burials and materials comparable with those from the south-western regions of the Northern Caucasus appeared [Trifonov, 1991]. It is of note that cordons appeared on ceramics in this period too. Some cordons are wavy, which has clear analogies in Transcaucasia [Brat- chenko, 1976, figs. 29.7, 31.2; Sanzharov, 1994, p. 24]. This feature and the chronology link the development to such phenomena as the formation of the Sintashta and Multi-Cordoned Ware cultures. In the Bakhmutino burial at Verkhne-Yanchenko a knife with a small stop has been found [Bratchenko, 1976, fig. 46.5]. It is similar to those from Sintashta, except for the blunted heel of the tang. As parallels to this type of knife we have discussed some Near Eastern examples. Thus, today the connection of the Catacomb cultures (though probably not all of them) with the IndoAryans is the most preferred. They originated, apparently, in the South-Eastern Caspian, and their movement occurred not directly through the Caucasus but initially through areas of the Eastern Mediterranean. Indeed, it seems that systems of communication with the populations remaining in the Eastern Mediterranean were established and the arrival of additional waves of these populations over a quite prolonged time should not be excluded. 3.10. Multi-Cordoned Ware culture and the question of Greek origins cultures relative to KMK, or reflect local conditions within the Don area. Despite this, it is more correct to speak about the relative synchronism of these processes. Unfortunately, KMK settlements are little known. The exception is the Kamenka-Liventsovka group, which demonstrates examples of Near Eastern fortification tradition (for more detail see Chapter 1 in Part I). The metalwork has both chemical and morphological parallels in the Caucasus [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 38]. Transcaucasian or Anatolian impulses into the North Pontic area at the beginning of Middle Bronze Age II are indicated by the contents of hoards of bronze objects, such as Kolontaevka, Ribakovka and Berislavl [Leskov, 1967, fig. 14]. The shaft-hole axes with a massive back and axes with a curved wedge have parallels in Transcaucasia (Svanetia) and Anatolia; shaft-hole axes with a groove on the back and adzes with an extended cutting edge are similar to Anatolian forms [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, figs. 3, 8; Mikeladze, 1994, tab. 17, 42-47] (Fig. 147.14-21). In Eastern Georgia axes similar to those of Eastern European are known too [Picchelauri, 1997, Taf. 8. 85-87]. These objects The Multi-Cordoned Ware culture (KMK) was diffused over the considerable spaces of the North Pontic area (Fig. 147). In the Part I of this book, analysing Sintashta culture, we turned repeatedly to KMK to find parallels in ceramic and metal objects. The determined Near Eastern origin of Sintashta culture allowed us to make a similar assumption for KMK, as these were typologically the closest among the contemporary cultural formations of the steppe zone. We cannot presume KMK participation in the formation of Sintashta. Single KMK burials are known up to the Volga but not beyond [Monakhov, 1984]. Furthermore, Sintashta culture has more sharply delineated Near Eastern features than KMK. There are instances of layers containing KMK ceramics being covered by those with ware of the Don Abashevo culture [Pryakhin, 1976, p. 55; Sharafutdinova, 1995, p. 132]. This may indicate the lateness of formation of the Sintashta and Abashevo 386 2 1 6 5 3 4 8 7 10 9 11 12 13 19 14 15 16 18 17 20 21 Fig. 147. Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. 1 – Krivoy Rog; 2 – Kamenka; 3, 5 – Tekstilshik (Donetsk); 4 – Babina Gora; 6, 8 – Ribakovka hoard; 9 – Kislitsa; 10 – Prokazino; 11 – Chapaevka; 12 – Dudarkov; 13 – Susa (analogy to KMK ceramics); 14, 16, 17 – Berislavl hoard; 15 – Kolontaevka hoard. Transcaucasian analogies to axes of the late Catacomb period: 18-20 – Svanetia; 21 – Sukhumi hoard. 387 were not connected with any actual archaeological complexes, so there is no evidence to favour their connection with KMK. However, their synchronism to this culture indicates Transcaucasian impulses into the area at this time. Discussing the metalworking of the Sintashta culture, I have mentioned that KMK adzes do not derive from local traditions. They have elongated proportions, a very narrow heel and a forged cutting edge shaped as a broad arc [Archeologia UkSSR, 1985, pp. 456, 459] (Fig. 147.6). Similar adzes are known in North Caucasian culture and Anatolia [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 54; Chernikh, 1966, p. 104]. Decorations made by applied cordons are characteristic of Early Bronze Age ware in Eastern Anatolia [Munchaev, 1987, pp. 184, 185]. The extensive cordoned ware of the Near East has already been discussed in the description of Sintashta ceramics. Here I should like to mention one parallel with KMK ceramics: an angular vessel with an outcurved rim and a cordon on the rib. A zigzag, also in cordoned technique, is situated above this cordon [Amiet, 1986, fig. 43.11] (Fig. 147.13). The vessel is found in a level of period III in Susa (‘protoElamite’ period) and consequently has an enormous chronological gap with KMK – but it may indicate a long tradition of similar ornamentation in the Near East. A bone ring with two lateral holes has been found in a dolmen at Dakhovskaya. It is akin to bone buckles and may reflect KMK’s southern connections [Markovin, 1997, fig. 96.7]. A small bone axe from Dudarkov with representations of animals and a palm is a very important indicator (Fig. 147.12). Analysis has shown its affinity with representations from the Near East and the Mediterranean. The style of drawing of the palm has analogies in ware from Sialk and Giyan [Formozov, 1974, pp. 249, 250]. In the Liventsovka fortress obsidian arrowheads have been discovered, further pointers to links with the south [Zherebilov, Bespalii, 1997, p. 25]. Thus, it seems most likely that the formation of KMK was connected with the appearance of a new Near Eastern group, which superimposed itself on the Catacomb substratum. The role of the latter in the formation of KMK is very great. In a number of cases ware from KMK and Late Catacomb settlements is barely distinguishable. There is also a tendency of KMK people to penetrate westward [Sharafutdinova, 1995, pp. 249, 250], possibly over great distances. KMK burials have been excavated in Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 114]. Earlier, I supposed that these burials came from the final phase of KMK’s existence, when its bearers were compelled to move to the west under pressure from populations moving in from the east. But it is also possible that they were earlier. In the opinion of E. Kaiser, axes and adzes of the Skakun and Kolontaevka types are similar to those in the Corbasca hoard in Romania, which may fall (but it is not certain) into the Schnekenberg – Glina II horizon. An axe from Divnogorsk can be dated to Br A1 [Kaiser, 1997, p. 36]. It is necessary to note that as well as more complicated and large burial complexes 1 there are also simple burials of skeletons heavily contracted on the side, in small oval or rectangular graves, supplied with very poor grave goods; and these are more characteristic of KMK. Often bone buckles with one central and one or two lateral holes are the only culturally identifiable feature (Fig. 147.4). Analogies to them are unknown in other cultures of the steppe zone. However, some conformity to KMK is known to the west of its main area distribution. At the end of the Early Bronze Age2 the Perjámos culture arose in Hungary, preserving the local tell-settlement tradition; its ceramic traditions are apparently local too. Burials occur in small rectangular or oval graves, on the right or left side; indeed, skeletons are sometimes heavily contracted. Burials contain vessels and small-sized ornaments: beads, pendants, and rings. Bone rings, very similar to KMK buckles, are found too [Bona, 1975, pp. 79-86, Taf. 85.11,12]. In the second half of stage Br A1 in Hungary the Gata group forms, continuing during phase Br A2. It has the same types of ornaments as those in the Straubing and Unterwölbing groups. Burials are usually flat, contracted on the side or back. Skeletons on the back are usually taken to indicate eastern influence, but western roots (Straubing, Unter1 When scholars studying KMK write about large grave pits, these are, in fact, inferior in size to Sintashta graves. They are relatively small and may be deemed large only with respect to the very small and inexpressive graves, which are most typical of this culture. 2 The date of this culture corresponds, as a whole, to phase Br A2, but its beginning may be dated to the final stage of phase Br A1. 388 3 10 11 2 8 4 13 1 7 12 9 5 14 6 15 16 20 22 17 24 18 19 25 21 23 26 27 28 29 Fig. 148. Early Bronze Age of Middle Europe. 1-6 – Unterwölbing; 7-16 – Straubing; 17-29 – Adlerberg. wölbing, Oggau-Loretto, Gumtransdorf-Drassburg) are generally suggested for this group [Bona, 1975, pp. 236-248]. The Unterwölbing group on the Austrian Upper Danube is very interesting (Fig. 148.1-6). Its early phase shows parallels with the late phase of Nitra culture and with Aunjetitz-Wieselburg as well; the end of this phase has parallels with early Unětice culture. Connections with Unětice are expressed, above all, in the metal complex. Burials of skeletons contracted on the side are characteristic – men on the left side, women on the right. Small oval graves are very typical, but there are occasional cists. Bone rings similar to KMK buckles occur sometimes in 389 graves (Fig. 148. 34) [Schubert, 1974, pp. 44-51; Neugebauer, 1994, p. 83; Bertemes, 1989, Taf. 27.10-13; Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 528 B 13]. Flat cemeteries with contracted skeletons, where grave goods are dominated by bone rings, are widespread from Austria to the Middle Rhine. There are the Straubing and Adlerberg groups, both quite similar to Unterwölbing (Fig. 148.7-29). Burials are quite often furnished with bone rings (Fig. 148.2023) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 531 F 12, 534 A 15,18, D 3; Gebers, 1978, p. 69]. Among material from old excavations in Straubing is a biconical vessel with cordoned ornamentation, regarded as belonging to the Chamer Neolithic group (Fig. 148.15) [MüllerKarpe, 1974, Taf. 491]. Similar ceramics are fairly characteristic of KMK too. All the groups listed are dated within period Br A1 and directly precede the horizon of the Langquaid hoard [Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 256, 257]. Similar burials in small oval or rectangular graves, accompanied by poor grave goods and bone rings, are found in North-Eastern Italy. They date to stage A1, from which time cordoned ornamentation occurs there [Rageth, 1975, pp. 157, 169-171, 179181, 217, 218]. To the north-west, in Switzerland, former cultural developments were replaced by the Early Bronze Age culture, whose ceramics are widely ornamented with cordons of forms rather similar to those of KMK. These sites are dated within phase A1 [Strahm, 1971, Abb. 12, 15; Lichardus-Itten, 1971, Abb. 5. 12-15]. If the formation of these cultural groups is really interdependent, we can date the early KMK complexes to phase Br A1. S.S. Berezanskaya, the main specialist on this culture, speaking about the common direction of cultural processes in this period, has suggested that there were some impulses from Transcaucasia through the steppes to the Balkans, and that this population then withdrew whence it had come [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 42]. In Berezanskaya’s opinion, the characteristics which link KMK with the Mycenaean shaft tombs are the presence of large tombs, sometimes with ledges on the rim, wooden or stone covers, the stone lining of walls, buried sacrificial animals, burials sometimes on the back with arms on the pelvis, at the side or in front of the face, flint hollow-based arrowheads, javelin-straighteners, bronze spearheads with a long disconnected socket, and the technique of cladding [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 38]. It is worthy of comment that a number of Mycenaean arrowheads are made of obsidian, as are some KMK examples [Zherebilov, Bespalii, 1997, p. 25]. On the Kamenka settlement in the Eastern Crimea a discshaped cheek-piece with two spikes has been found1 [Ribalova, 1966, p. 179] (Fig. 147.2). Typologically it is close to Mycenaean ones. This evidence does not yet allow us to connect KMK with the movement of the Mycenaean Greeks, although this should not be ruled out; it just demonstrates some features common to the two cultures. In addition, it is necessary to note a paradox. In early KMK complexes there are no objects decorated in ‘Mycenaean’ style. They occur, in Berezanskaya’s opinion, in later ones, dated to the 16th century BC – if indeed such a grouping of these complexes is proper – above all, in the Borodino hoard, containing objects decorated with Mycenaean ornament. However, these conclusions of Berezanskaya’s are not fully justified: in authentic KMK complexes Mycenaean decorations and bronze spearheads have not been discovered. They are present only at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, and classic KMK sites are rather free of Mycenaean influences. In the 17th – 16th centuries BC Mycenaean ornaments, to be exact ‘Carpatho-Mycenaean’, occur on the cheek-pieces of the Don Abashevo culture and the Potapovka cultural type, on Early Timber-Grave bronze ornaments (including those from the Southern Urals) and on ceramics (Fig. 149) [Moiseev, Efimov, 1995, fig. 3.2; Vasiliev et al., 1994, fig. 33; Kuzminikh, 1983a, fig. 6]. Often these objects have an earlier date than the Mycenaean tombs, although there are also contemporary complexes. It is rather doubtful that this ornamental style was formed in the steppes or forest-steppes of Eastern Europe. These ornaments are rather rare, occur randomly over the whole steppe zone and are dated to a very narrow chronological horizon: from the end of the Sintashta-Abashevo period to the beginning of the Timber-Grave–Alakul. In earlier Sintashta complexes, as with KMK, ornaments in Mycenaean style are unknown and it is not yet entirely clear with what historical processes their occurrence was 1 This cheek-piece has actually two spikes, and it is described in the archaeological publications exactly so. Recently A. Usachuk, who has investigated cheek-pieces from Northern Eurasia, told me that it once had four spikes, but two of them were lost in the process of exploitation. I am very grateful to him for this information. 390 1 2 4 5 3 6 7 Fig. 149. Mycenaean ornaments in Eastern Europe. 1, 2 – Yabalakli; 3 – Ilyichyovka; 4 – Petryaevskiy; 5 – Privetnoe; 6 – Yubileynoe; 7 – Pasekovo. connected, but in regions bordering the Carpathians their date is earlier than proper Mycenaean [Otroshenko, 1986, p. 231], making their distribution thence into steppe most probable. V.V. Besedin takes a different view, having examined all currently available objects from Eastern Europe with ‘Mycenaean’ ornaments. In his opinion, Eastern European decoration differs in a number of essential respects from Balkan-Carpathian. Marking the later position of Mycenaean cheek-pieces (on which the slat played a purely decorative role), he supposes also that Carpathian ornaments are later than Eastern European, synchronising them with the subsequent Timber-Grave–Alakul period. Indeed, he assumes that the earlier disc-shaped, undecorated cheek-pieces of the Carpathian basin are contemporary with the Eastern European pieces – they are similar enough – but that the roots of the Mycenaean style ornaments are to be sought, nevertheless, in Eastern Europe. [Besedin, 1999]. However, he fails to take into account that decoration of this style had been a feature of the ceramics of Carpathian basin cultures with spiral ornaments since the end of the Early Bronze Age. These cultures arose at practically the same time as Sintashta, while the distribution of the ornaments through Eastern Europe marked the final phase and termination of the Sintashta epoch. Therefore, it is still possible to presume that these decorations appeared from the west. Searching for the roots of this type of decoration we can forget about Northern Eurasia. Already at the end of Early Helladic II in Greece (Lerna) and in the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia prototypes were extremely widespread. Certain stylistic parallels can be found also in the Trialeti culture of Transcaucasia. Therefore, taking into account Anatolian influences in Greece during the Early Bronze Age, it is possible to surmise that the style originated in Anatolia, but its remote roots could have been in the Balkans, whence the impulses forming the Anatolian Bronze Age cultures had proceeded since the late Eneolithic. As an example, it is possible to recall decorations, which can be viewed as a remote prototype of the Mycenaean style, on ceramics of the Gumelnitsa culture [Müller-Karpe, 1974, Taf. 670]. The bone figured buckles occuring in KMK, widespread in the Carpatho-Danubian basin, have also a western connection (Fig. 147.5). The earliest examples are known in Troy II, III, Ezero III, Schnekenberg-Glina II, Stžižuv culture, etc. [Gershkovich, 1986, pp. 139, 140]. All this may confirm that a wave swept over the Ukraine from the Balkans to the east, but had no influence at all on the cultural situation in the Pontic and Volga-Ural areas [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 42]. This also does not allow KMK to be regarded as a culture left by the Mycenaean Greeks. 391 At the same time, there is no basis to doubt the Near Eastern origin of the Greeks; Near Eastern influences are present throughout Greek culture, including in many mythological scenes [Sogomonov, 1989; Nikulina, 1977; Oliva, 1977; Wilhelm, 1992, pp. 102, 105]. As a rule, this is explained by rather intensive later contacts. However, in a number of cases, especially mythological parallels, this affinity was conditioned by a common initial area. For example, Mycenaean figurines representing the ‘Smiting God’ have prototypes in the Near East and Syria-Palestine [Petrovic, 1998]. Similar mythological scenes indicate the same connections. A very common figure in Greek mythology is the centaur, which is very likely of Mesopotamian origin: a rushing centaur shooting from a bow is represented on the impression of a cylinder seal from Nippur, dated to the 17th year of the reign of Kurigalzu II (1329 BC) [Boehmer, 1975, p. 347, fig. 103a]. As well as bronze socketed spearheads (discussed many times in the present work), it is necessary to note other types of Mycenaean weapons: obsidian hollow-based arrowheads and bronze rapiers [Schliemann, 1878, pp. 85, 313, 324]. These were quite typical in Transcaucasia, particularly in Trialeti culture. Transcaucasian and Near Eastern parallels can also be found for the bronze tridents with curved ends discovered at Mycenae [Schliemann, 1878, p. 293]. There are also very specific Mycenaean gold ornaments with representations of galloping deer, jumping gryphons, with the body of a feline predator and the wings and heads of an eagle, and scenes of animals (a lion, a bull and a deer) attacking each other [Schliemann, 1878, pp. 207, 210, 211, 354]. These scenes and their style of representation subsequently become typical of Scythian art. However, there is no means of connecting the origin of Scythian art with Mycenaean. Above we have discussed the problem of the Near Eastern genesis of Scythians and their art, and it seems most justified to explain the marked resemblance by common Near Eastern sources. Faience beads found in Mycenaean Greece also have connections with Syria, where analogies are known in the Amarna period [Wage, 1979, p. 200]. Comparison of the Lion’s Gates in Mycenae and Bogazköy is more problematic. The details of their construction differ slightly, but they indicate the existence of common ideas. However, some of the constructional principles of Mycenaean fortifications can be compared with those in the Near East. In the discussion of Sintashta architecture we spoke of the erection of adobe walls on a stone base as rather typical of Near Eastern architecture. A similar wall, relating to the Middle Helladic, has been excavated in Mycenae [Rowe, 1979, p. 253]. The discovery of a great number of Mycenaean objects in the Eastern Mediterranean (Troy, SyriaPalestine, Egypt) deserves to be mentioned too; this indicates the existence of a vast system of communications [Wardle, 1998, pp. 237-243]. A similar system had been created by the Hyksos. But it was especially typical of the Greeks to maintain communications with areas where once they had lived, through which they had migrated, or where Greek enclaves remained. An important contribution to substantiating the Near East origin of the Greeks has been made by Robert Drews [Drews, 1988]. He has noted that three essential cultural transformations occurred within the territory of mainland Greece, behind which it is possible to see the coming of the Greeks: in 2100, 1900 and 1600 BC. He inclines to the last, connecting their coming with Mycenaean encroachment. All Greek dialects, he supposes, derived from the original two (northern and southern), which were a function of geographic separation and not of two separate migratory waves, and those two in turn from proto-Greek [Drews, 1988, p. 39]. From detailed presentation of the facts, two conclusions are drawn: the continuous connection of Mycenaean Greeks with chariots, and the Near Eastern origin of the battle chariots. This is confirmed by the presence of prestige objects of eastern origin in Mycenaean tombs. A suggestion of the comparability of Mycenaean tombs with burials in the Caucasus and South Russia merits attention too [Drews, 1988, pp. 189-190]. All this taken together supports the view that the Greeks appeared at the beginning of the Mycenaean period, and all the parallels demonstrated above suggest that the migration was undertaken through Eastern Europe. This leads us on to consider the possibility of identifying the Greeks with one of the Eastern European cultures. J. Lichardus and J. Vladar, although not discussing the overall question of Greek origins, adduce a number of the elements of the Mycenaean complex. Taking into account an undoubted local component, they indicate numerous parallels in the Carpathian basin, whence a rather essential influence in the formation of Mycenaean culture could have come. In addition, they note a number of rel- 392 evant parallels in Eastern Europe up to the Southern Transurals (Petrovka, Sintashta, Potapovka, Abashevo, KMK), based on the opinion of Russian scholars that these complexes were earlier than Mycenaean shaft tombs. The considerable connections of Mycenaean culture with the Transcaucasian Trialeti culture and also with Anatolian materials (burials, chariots, rapiers, obsidian arrowheads, spiral decorations, bone objects and pins) are noted too. Indeed, they guess at Near Eastern impulses in the formation of Sintashta culture. The Mycenaean phenomenon arose in consequence of prolonged influences spreading from Anatolia, Transcaucasia and the steppes through the steppe zone and the Carpathian basin. Part was carried along the shipping routes, but the steppe component was dominant [Lichardus, Vladar, 1996]. Despite the general accuracy and logic of this approach, it is still not completely clear whence and how the Mycenaean Greeks came. In the steppe zone only Sintashta has some typologically similar features preceding Mycenae, and this is an affinity at only the most general level, not of specific types of artefact. In all other cultures objects comparable with Mycenaean ones definitely lack an early chronological position and are either contemporary or very little before the time of the shaft tombs. As we seek here to reveal the distribution of languages and peoples, it is necessary to determine which Eastern Europe cultures could claim identification with the Greeks. Above we have noted that until the appearance of KMK in Middle Bronze Age II, the North Pontic steppes were occupied by Catacomb tribes who spoke the Indo-Aryan language. The ethnos of the KMK people is less clear. We have touched upon arguments in favour of correlating them with Mycenaean Greeks. An additional fact in favour of this is that the basic process in this period in the North Pontic area was of KMK contacts with a Catacomb substratum, which could explain the affinity of Indian and Greek mythologies. The burial masks found both in Mycenaean shaft tombs and Catacomb burials could be another borrowing too [Schliemann, 1878, pp. 253-257]. Nevertheless, all these features could also have originated in the Near East. The chronological position of KMK is incompatible with its being Greek; it can explain only the coming of the Mycenaean Greeks. Dorian migration could not have taken the same path. Already in the 15th century BC Multi-Cordoned Ware culture had ceased to exist, to be replaced by a Thracian population. In the 12th century BC, when Dorian migration took place, the basic processes transforming the cultures of the Northern Balkans, Central Europe and the North-Western Pontus were conditioned by movements of Urnfield culture to the south [Arheologia Vengrii, 1986, pp. 37, 38]. At this time migrations westward through the North Pontic area are absent. As a matter of fact, Drews has conjectured that some Greeks settled in the north of Greece, while the Mycenaeans penetrated into Thessaly, with the Dorian Greeks forming subsequently on the basis of these populations [Drews, 1988, p. 222]. In the light of this, the conventional view that the Dorian Greeks came from the north, from the CarpathoDanubian basin, seems to be most valid. It is supported by the presence of ‘Carpatho-Mycenaean’ ornaments in this area at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and in the Late Bronze Age too. Therefore, it is impossible to exclude that KMK should be connected with the Greeks, but the problem is that ‘Mycenaean’ features are present in late KMK complexes. Furthermore, it is not quite clear how to combine the idea of a Greek homeland in the Near East with the arrival of the Achaean Greeks in Greece at the end of Early Helladic II – beginning of Early Helladic III (about 2200 BC). Their coming was not accompanied by a cultural transformation such as that which was observed here at the transition to the Bronze Age. A qualitative change of culture did not occur. This corresponds to historical tradition, which narrates that for a long time the Greeks coexisted with a local population, the Pelasgians, who were apparently one of the Palaeobalkan groups that had penetrated into the south of the Balkan Peninsula [Istoria Evropi, 1988, pp. 141, 142]. There was some quantitative charge: greater distribution of battleaxes, use of stone boxes for burials, and barrows. The clearest indicator of the coming of a new population is Minyan ware, which has parallels in Anatolia [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1981, p. 14]. This is offset by the appearance of apsidal houses, widespread in the previous period in Central Europe and the Northern Balkans [Parzinger, 1993, p. 308]. Another indication that the Greeks came from the north is the discovery of clay ‘anchors’, which were already known in the Northern Balkans in the Eneolithic [Whitlle, 1985, p. 69; Mallory, 1989, p. 76]. 393 There are different points of view on the appearance of the Greeks in Asia Minor. Some scholars believe this predated their appearance in mainland Greece, others take the diametrically opposite view; whilst linguists differ too, some localising protoGreeks in Anatolia, others supposing they were originally inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1981; Diakonov, 1982; 1982a]. The last point of view is confirmed by Troy VI, in which Minyan ware is well represented, being of later date than that at which this ware occurs in the south of the Balkans. This level relates to the Late Bronze Age of the Circumpontic zone and simply cannot be dated earlier than the 18th – 17th centuries BC [Avilova, Chernikh, 1989, p. 38]. The probable presence of some Minyan ware in Troy V may reflect only the increase of the Greek component in the Troad and indicate that the trajectory of this infiltration was to the east. However, it is not testimony to the earlier occurrence of this ware in the west of Asia Minor. At the same time, as the Near Eastern origin of the Greeks is for me beyond doubt, it is necessary to try to search for Greeks among the tribes migrating to the north from the Black Sea. This is indicated by features of the ‘kurgan’ cultures being represented in the culture of early Greeks and the occurrence of apsidal houses, and reinforced by Greek – North Caucasian linguistic connections [Nikolaev, 1985]. But how all this corresponds to the archaeological material is less clear. At least two versions have to be discussed. The first posits a quite early exodus, corresponding to the formation of the Mariupol cultures, and an assumption that their bearers spoke dialects of the Graeco-Aryan group, before these languages were separated. In this case it is possible that, in conjunction with the movement of Thracian tribes around 3700 BC, part of this population, intermixed with newcomers, appeared in the Danube basin, where the separation of the proper Greek dialects took place. But by virtue of later Near Eastern parallels this approach is unconvincing. In the second, the separation of the Greek language in the Near East and the migration into the Carpatho-Danubian basin through the North Pontic area can be examined. In this case an archaeological sign of such a migration might be the appearance of either the Kemi-Oba or Novotitarovo culture, later superseded by Catacomb tribes. A similar approach can serve also as an illustration of Greek – North Caucasian connections, and within it, the presence of Achaeans in the Kuban basin, noted by Pliny, can readily be explained [Borukhovich, 1964, p. 41] – although it is possible that their occurrence was connected with some later events. Another migratory route is more likely: that through Anatolia. In Early Bronze III so-called Minyan ware was widespread within the areas to the south and east of the Sea of Marmara (Tavşali – Iznik). About the end of this period it started to be diffused over the western coast of Anatolia, into the Troad (Troy VI) and Greece.1 In the opinion of Greek scholars, it is from this time that Greeks appeared in the south of the Balkan Peninsula. Therefore, in the opinion of J. Mellaart, the Early Bronze III population in the area of the Sea of Marmara spoke Greek. In the Middle Bronze Age not only the Troad but also more remote regions of Anatolia were included in the zone of distribution of Minyan ware. In the Late Bronze Age there was a strong kingdom of ‘Ahhijawa’ and some Lukka lands in Western Anatolia. The population of the former spoke Greek, of the latter the Luwian language [Mellaart, 1971, p. 410; 1971a, pp. 700-702]. Indeed, the localisation of Ahhijawa in mainland Greece and its identification with the Achaeans is unlikely; it is always mentioned in an Anatolian context. Furthermore, Ahhijawa was a strong unified kingdom, whilst Greece contained many small states in this period. Movement from the territory of Greece in the Mycenaean period is also unlikely. Mycenaean materials are rather poorly represented on the Anatolian coast: Mycenaean ware occurs in Western Anatolia only episodically, which is a sign of trade rather than of colonisation. Therefore, it is necessary to suppose that after the Greek invasion of Europe a considerable part of the population remained in Anatolia. They lived near the Luwians. According to Homer, Miletus was settled by barbarians. Therefore the Milluvanda kingdom was, apparently, Luwian [Zanger, 1994, pp. 42-47; Macqeen, 1968, pp. 178-185; Mellaart, 1968, pp. 187190]. On the face of it, all of this supposes that the Greek homeland was in North-Western Anatolia, south-east of the Sea of Marmara. However, if we look at these processes in a broader context, a different situation appears. The formation of the proto-Greeks in Asia Minor is confirmed, above all, by the great number of 1 Mycenaean ware, marking the later Greek invasion of Anatolia, occurs in Troy from level VII only [Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 137]. 394 words borrowed from Kartvelian, as well as return borrowings into this language from Greek. In addition, there are borrowings of Greek words and myths into Anatolian languages and return borrowings too [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 904-907]. All this supposes that the Greek homeland was situated between the Anatolian-speaking populations and the Kartvelians. The most reasonable area for this is the north-eastern part of Anatolia. As a matter of fact, processes that could correspond to the migration of Greeks from this area have been described. At the end of Early Bronze Age II, after the occupation of Konya and South-Western Anatolia by the Luwians (see Section 5 of Chapter 2), Anatolia was divided into two parts. The centre and north were unaffected. There were no changes until 2200 BC, when, from the area to the east of the Halys river (in particular Kültepe), Cappadocian ware started to be diffused to the west. Similar ware occurs also in Eastern Anatolia and on the Elbistan plain. It can be viewed within the framework of the vast province of painted ware including Southern Transcaucasia in addition to Eastern Anatolia. In Central Anatolia the distribution of these eastern components is noted in Bogazköy and Alaca, further to the south in the Develi valley, in Acigöl, Acemköy and Yincirli, and in the eastern part of the Konya plain. The newcomers smashed the former culture represented by the royal tombs in Alaca, except along the coastline. The further distribution of Cappadocian ware is observed to the west of the Halys (Karaoglan, Etiyokuşu, Ahlatlibel, Polatli II). Indeed, the former settlements had been destroyed, which indicates an incursion [Mellaart, 1971a, pp. 681-698]. Thus, this process reached the Sea of Marmara, where Minyan ware was distributed, which soon began to diffuse thence into the Troad and mainland Greece. J. Mellaart was inclined to see behind this two connected but distinct processes: the coming of the Hattians into Central Anatolia, and the migration of the Greeks from around the Sea of Marmara [Mellaart, 1971a, pp. 686, 699, 700]. However, in my opinion, it is possible to link the former population of this region of Central Anatolia with the Hattians. We can imagine this process as unified: movement from the northeastern areas of Anatolia to the Sea of Marmara, then involvement of the populations settled in this area, with the subsequent migration, which determined the appearance of elements of this culture in Greece. It is necessary also to consider the possible involvement in this process of the Glina III-Schnekenberg culture of the Carpathian basin.1 Burials in stone boxes permit such an approach; furthermore scholars have indicated an affinity of this culture to cultures of the Caucasus, in particular to Kura-Araxian [Berezanskaya et al., 1986, p. 38; Fyodorov, Polevoy, 1973, pp. 69, 70]. These comparisons can help to solve the problem of the movement of the first Greek waves into the Balkans. R.A. Crossland considers the most reasonable to be the opinion of L.R. Palmer, who has demonstrated the existence of place-names with -ss-, -nthand -nd- formations, which are uniform for Greece and South-Western Anatolia. This permits the contention that these areas were settled by Luwians. At the same time, he points out that there are no linguistic borrowings from Luwian in Greek, just the persistence of place-names; therefore, it is impossible to speak about direct contact. Based on linguistic evidence, it is possible to speak about close connections with Phrygians, related to the Palaeobalkan group, and about the presence of Illyrians in Greece. Therefore, although the appearance of the Greeks was connected with that of Minyan ware, we must still search for their homeland in the Northern Balkans. Probably, Greeks penetrated into North-Western Anatolia, where they began to produce this ware [Crossland, 1971, pp. 846-850]. However, this testifies to the earlier presence of Anatolians in Greece; it does not contradict Mellaart’s conclusions, as there are no grounds to connect these place-names with Minyan ware. The Early Bronze Age started in Greece (Early Helladic I-II)2 from the infiltration of North Balkan components, behind which we can see both Anatolian and Palaeobalkan populations. In these periods Greek architecture has features quite close to those found in early Anatolian architecture. Fortified settlements with assembled houses attached to the defensive 1 This culture is synchronous with the late phase of the periods EH II, EM II, EC II [Parzinger, 1993, p. 270]. 2 In Thessaly the start of the Early Bronze Age is dated by the calibrated radiocarbon system to about 3100 BC (EH I); the following period EH II to 2900-2400 BC; the period EH III to 2400-2100 BC [Coleman, 1992, p. 275]. Period EH I corresponds to Troy I a-c and Cernavoda II; EH II is contemporary with EM II, EC II, Cernavoda III, classic Baden, and Coţofeni [Parzinger, 1993, p. 268]. This is somewhat later than the formation of the Bronze Age cultures of the North-Eastern Balkans. 395 wall appeared. Apsidal constructions are also characteristic (Lerna, Malthi) [Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 155-159]. Some material (for example, Argissa in Thessaly) demonstrates affinity with that from Troy I, which reflects the tendency described already of the Balkan cultural complex to displace into Anatolia. In Lerna (Argolid) the end of the Neolithic is marked by the occurrence of material similar to earlier Larissa and Rakhmani in Thessaly.1 The citadel in Lerna resembles that in Dimini [Caskey, 1971, pp. 774-785]. It is difficult to identify the route whereby this architectural tradition penetrated Greece: directly from Anatolia, or through the Balkans, where complexes of the Ezero type had formed. The latter seems more likely because apsidal constructions were obviously introduced from the north. Another component included in the architectural complex is the earlier sites of Thessaly, such as Dimini. Thus, it is possible to speak about the superimposition of Anatolian traditions on earlier Balkan traditions. Indeed, the paradox of these definitions is that the Balkan traditions (in the territorial sense) correspond to Anatolian-speaking groups and vice versa. Furthermore, there was also a third component – the local Neolithic population. Early Helladic ceramics retain a great number of Neolithic features, but are of higher quality [Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 156]. Throughout this period there was no collapses in this area, which indicates some form of orderly ethnic succession. Place-names in Greece indicate the existence of three pre-Greek language strata: pre-Indo-European and two Indo-European, namely Anatolian (Hittite-Luwian-Palaic) and Palaeobalkan. V.V. Titov is inclined to identify the last with the Pelasgians, who, in the opinion of T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov, spoke Anatolian dialects [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 900, 901; Titov, 1970, pp. 32, 38]. We can connect the pre-Indo-European stratum with the Neolithic materials, and the Anatolian and Palaeobalkan strata with the culture of Early Helladic III. Anatolians probably penetrated the area first, reflected in such materials as Larissa. They were displaced by Palaeobalkan tribes advancing from the north. Soon afterwards the Palaeobalkan tribes pen1 Earlier it was supposed that the Rakhmani horizon is contemporary to EH I. However, recent studies have demonstrated that early Rakhmani materials corresponds to the late Neolithic in Greece. Only from Middle Rakhmani is it possible to talk about the synchronisation of these materials with EH I [Hauptmann, 1986, p. 9; Parzinger, 1991, p. 370-386]. etrated Greece. We have insufficient ground for forming opinions about what language prevailed there. It is possible that the inhabitants of different regions spoke different languages. However, Crossland’s opinion about the absence of Greek contacts with Luwians and the presence of them with the Palaeobalkan populations allows us to suggest that before the coming of the Greeks the Anatolian dialects had already disappeared, and Pelasgians spoke Palaeobalkan. A great cataclysm occurred at the transition to Early Helladic III (Fig. 150). Many former centres were incinerated: Lerna, Argissa. Settlements were now smaller than previously, and on many of them life did not resume until the Mycenaean period. On some settlements (Aigina) earlier Anatolian traditions arise in architecture. Minyan ware occurs, including wheel-made pottery, which differs from the former tradition of hand-made ware, and the distinct clay anchors and apsidal constructions appear. This process did not affect all areas – in Messenia (Malthi) the former traditions were preserved [Caskey, 1971, pp. 776, 778, 785-790]. The initial distribution of Greeks on the south of the peninsula can be seen quite clearly through analysis of ceramics. In Messenia and Laconia Anatolian influences on the ceramic complexes are not felt; in Attica those from the Cyclades are more visible; in Argolid and Corinthia the traditions of the Cyclades and NorthWestern Anatolia influenced the formation of new ceramic complexes. Thus, it seems possible that the population was originally mixed, even that the proportion of newcomers was originally not large. Boeotia and Phocis were exposed to the greatest Anatolian influence [Rutter, 1986], and the quantity of the foreign component might have been especially great. Returning to the problem of Mycenaean Greeks, let us note that Near Eastern finds of objects decorated in ‘Mycenaean’ style are now known. They have no chronological priority over those from Central and Eastern Europe; it is supposed that they originate in this area [Trifonov, 1996]. It is likely that this point of view can be substantiated by the Trialeti rapiers, which are similar to Mycenaean ones [Kushnaryova, 1994, tab. 31.1-4], but there is no evidence that the Near Eastern objects are earlier. In their classic form rapiers already occur in Trialeti culture in its high phase, which is generally synchronous to the Mycenaean and Anatolian objects, but a sword quite similar to later rapiers is known from the early 396 3 2 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Fig. 150. Complexes of the end of Early Helladic – Middle Helladic period in Greece: 1 – Malthi; 2, 3, 9 – Koraku; 5, 6 – Asine; 7, 10 – Lerna; 8 – Aigina stage of Trialeti culture (2000-1800 BC), indicating the development of this type of weapon here [Picchelauri, 1997, p. 17]. Similar comparisons indicate that there might have been one more Greek infiltration of Europe in pre-Mycenaean times. Nevertheless, if we derive the Mycenaeans or Dorians from the Near East, then KMK, on the face of it, has the greatest chance to be considered as a Greek culture in the North Pontic area, but there are many factors contradicting this. Thus, the problem of the appearance of the Greeks in the Balkans is, perhaps, the most complex of those touching Indo-European migration. It is not excluded that the inconsistent evidence about their origin arises from their migrations having taken two routes – through Anatolia and the Caucasus. A similar possibility is indicated by the existence of Graeco-Anatolian as well as Graeco-Caucasian language connections. Indeed, the myth of the Argonauts is evidence of the movement through the Caucasus of the Dorian tribes: the ‘land Arg’ is a Megrelian name, included even in the self-name of the people, whilst the same name was that of one of the sacred cult areas of the Dorian tribes [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 902-909]. There are also other reasons, elucidated by V.V. Sarianidi, which indicate the possible existence of two migratory routes. Greeks of the time of Homer distinguished Achaeans and Danaeans. The latter ethnic name can be related to the Iranian river-name ‘Danu’ (Don, Dnieper, 397 Dniester, etc.), which gives rise to the suspicion that this group moved through the North Pontic area; the former corresponds to the Anatolian ‘Ahhijawa’. Similar migratory routes determine the localisation of the Greek homeland in the south-eastern part of the Pontic area [Sarianidi, 1998, pp. 160, 161]. This does not conflict with the Syro-Anatolian localisation of the Iranians who migrated into the Transurals and Central Asia, and who were neighbours of the Greeks, or with the presence of Graeco-Kartvelian isoglosses. Such a localisation is also confirmed by comparison of Mycenaean and Trialeti material, and by the movement of the Achaeans from Eastern Anatolia suggested above. However, in the event of such a localisation, all the linguistic and cultural parallels with the Kartvelians should not be explained by the migration through the Caucasus. There are reasons to suppose that the Mycenaean Greeks settled at an intermediate point before moving into Greece. As its subsequent close connections with the Mycenaeans indicate, this was Transylvania, whence objects comparable with Mycenaean ones occur from the Apa-Hajdusamson horizon [Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, p. 26]. There are three main concentrations of Mycenaean-type rapiers: Transcaucasia and mainland Greece, both already mentioned, and Transylvania. These last differ from Mycenaean rapiers in a number of respects, indicating their local production. Some rapiers have been found also in Bulgaria, but this is explained by trade, as finds of late Mycenaean ware and stone anchors along the coast indicate [Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, pp. 37, 38]. Other common features are the prevalence of swords, chariots, gold objects (probably of Transylvanian origin), spiral ornaments, daggers, models of chariots, amber, and harnesses, including bone, disc-shaped cheek-pieces. Objects of Central European types, for example daggers with a triangular blade, are present here too [Kilian, 1986, p. 150; Diamant, 1986, pp. 156, 157; Vulpe, 1995a, p. 26; Bona, 1975, pp. 172-175; Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, pp. 28, 34, 46]. Therefore, it is possible that the contacts of Mycenae with Central Europe and the Baltic region took place through this area. Furthermore, it is worthy of comment that in between Greece and Transylvania similar finds are rather exceptional. Wietenberg is the culture most likely to be identified with Greeks in Transylvania (Fig. 151). Traditionally it was dated from the mid-18th century BC to 1200 BC, and within the framework of the Cen- tral European phases Br A2 to Br D. Cremations within and outwith urns are characteristic of it, and are unknown in neighbouring cultures corresponding to its early stage, although contracted burials occur too. The source of cremation is not quite clear: earlier it had been found in the Hatvan culture situated to the north-west, but not in the Otomani which replaced it [Boroffka, 1994, pp. 6, 7, 106-110]. On ceramics meander-shaped patterns, waves, and relief and cordoned decoration are characteristic. Relief decoration occurs from this time too in the Monteoru culture – its stage Ic2, which is contemporary to the early stage A1 of Wietenberg [Boroffka, 1994, pp. 7, 212, 286; Zaharia, 1995, p. 199]. It is possible that the occurrence of relief ornamentation was connected with KMK. Contacts with KMK at this time are confirmed by a number of parallels, including the discovery of a Kostromskaya-type axe in the context of the early phase of Monteoru Ic3 [Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, p. 46]. The nature of the relief ornamentation of these cultures is, very likely, the same as in KMK, whose origin we have guessed as Transcaucasia, where may lay the roots of wave or meander ornament. At any rate, the meanders of Wietenberg ware are rather similar to those of KuraAraxian. I. Bona suggests a local origin to the forms of Wietenberg ware from the Coţofeni culture, and he is inclined to derive the types of decorations and cremation from the Zok culture [Bona, 1975, p. 177]. However, there is a considerable chronological gap between Zok and Wietenberg. In this period, for example, shell pendants, which are widespread only in the Caucasus and Asia Minor, occur in the Carpathians. There are numerous connections also with such cultures as Sintashta, Abashevo and Petrovka, but their common features are those known also in Eastern Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia [Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, pp. 27, 28]. And at this time a whole series of cultures with spiral decorations existed from Transylvania to Pannonia. The time of their formation corresponds to the end of the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in this area. If we link these cultures to the Central European chronological system, the appearance of spiral decoration corresponds to phase Br A2 (Otomani I) [Lichardus, Vladar, 1996, pp. 29, 30], which is after the formation of KMK and Sintashta. A number of cultures – Szoreg, Otomani, Tei, Monteoru, Vattina, Verbicioara – have parallels in the Balkans and in Anatolia, which is viewed as di- 398 2 1 3 5 4 7 6 8 9 10 11 Fig. 151. Wietenberg culture. 1 – Ctea; 2, 7 – Petreştii de Sus; 3 – Derşida; 4, 5 – Dindeşti; 6 – Mediaş ‘Baia de nisip’; 8 – Ocna Sibiului ‘Dealul trestiei’; 9 – Poiana ‘Intre pietrii’; 10 – Livezile ‘Racişlog-Poderei’; 11 – Oarţa de Jos. 399 rectly influencing this area [Bona, 1975, p. 179]. Spiral ornaments are characteristic of Otomani, the early stage of which (Otomani) falls into Early Bronze Age III, the later (Füsesabony) into the Middle Bronze Age [Bona, 1975, pp. 104-120, 126-131]. In the late stage of Otomani culture (Gyalavand, Füsesabony), tells are widespread, consisting of two parts (village and acropolis). They are surrounded with a ditch and a palisade lined with clay. The houses are usually small in size, not interlinked; in the acropolis a regular plan prevails [Bona, 1975, pp. 124, 125, 146, 147]. Certain connenctions with both Mycenae and Transylvania are characteristic of the culture (Balkan axes, Mycenaean swords, gold ornaments), as well as with Seima metalworking (the occurrence of spearheads with a smooth socket) [Bona, 1975, pp. 134, 135, 156]. Bona supposes that the roots of the culture are to be looked for within the BalkanAnatolian area, although it is rather difficult to define this more precisely. Influences from the NorthEastern Balkans, in particular Coţofeni, are very likely [Bona, 1975, p. 140]. Another culture of the Middle Bronze Age to show Balkan and Anatolian influences is Kantharas. Anatolian, particularly Western Anatolian influence is even more expressed in it [Bona, 1975, pp. 179, 188, 189]. The links of these cultures with Mycenae are weaker than those in Wietenberg culture, however, it is possible that both were formed under the effect of the same impulses. Thus, though we do not understand the actual mechanism yet, it is possible to surmise that, at the beginning of the stage corresponding to Central European Br A2, a bloc of cultures formed to the north of the Balkan Peninsula, whose origin was connected with a movement of populations from Anatolia and the North-Eastern Balkans. They absorbed local components, and probably some bearers also retained their local languages. Somewhat earlier, within stage Br A1, another population penetrated from Transcaucasia into the North Pontic area, which led to the formation of early KMK. This population tended to move further into Central Europe and North-Eastern Italy, although the bulk settled in the Pontic area, where in the period directly preceding that of the shaft tombs, so-called Mycenaean ornaments spread. Their source is not quite clear: the Carpathian basin is the most probable, though it is impossible to exclude completely a repeated Anatolian impulse. However, since other Anatolian features are not visible, this is not very likely; moreo- ver, the direction of distribution is obviously eastward. They occur even in the Southern Urals and the Volga area, where other signs of either Anatolian or Carpathian impulses are absent. All this points to the conclusions that the Greeks did not move through the North Pontic area and have no relation to KMK. Furthermore, the bearers of this culture spread quite far into Central Europe, replacing in some areas the former Corded Ware cultures and the Bell Beaker culture too. They were a part of that local substratum on which the tribes of ancient Europeans were superimposed. In Chapter 4 of Part II their identification with the Veneti was suggested. Taking into account their close contacts with ancient Europeans, this is to be preferred in the meantime to their identification with Greeks. Besides, as has been noted earlier, the presence of Venetic-speaking people in the North Pontic area was fixed in ancient written sources, which corresponds to the existence of KMK in this area. In this case, it is better to connect the Wietenberg culture with the Greeks – likewise, probably some other cultures with spiral decorations, despite most of their bearers speaking Thracian. In this case, cultural affinity was conditioned by extremely close physical contacts. The movement of Mycenaean Greeks to the south was probably stimulated by the activity of the ancient Europeans in neighbouring areas. Some moved south, as a result of which the Mycenaean dialect of Greek was formed, and the people speaking it started to interact both linguistically and culturally with tribes of the earlier Greek wave. Others remained in Transylvania. In the following stage B, Wietenberg culture probably got into contact with ancient European populations, reflected in the occurrence of such objects as celts and single-edged knives [see Boroffka, 1994a]. These contacts are rather poorly mirrored. Cremation was also characteristic of the earlier stage, but the appearance of channelled decoration on ceramics, which happened synchronously in many areas of Europe, may be a sign of them [Boroffka, 199, p. 7]. Finally, it is possible that one form of cordoned ware, large jars with a cordon below the rim, may also reflect these contacts. In relation to all that has been stated, the similar localisation of first the Mycenaean and then the Dorian Greeks seems most likely. The final date of Wietenberg culture corresponds quite closely to the Dorian movement to the south, about 1200 BC. At this time the Noua culture expanded in its place. In 400 Fig. 152. Cordoned ware in Greece (Tyrins). its final stage, Wietenberg remained only in the western part of its initial area [Florescu, 1995; Vulpe, 1995a, p. 201; Boroffka, 1995, p. 281]. Therefore, though the migrations of this period were provoked by the increased activity of the Urnfield culture, whose bearers spoke ancient European languages, it is possible that the final impulse for the Dorian movement to the south was the invasion of the Thracians – if, indeed, they were not occupying already empty territory. The final cycle of Greek migration was the Dorian encroachment of about 1200 BC. It was then that the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces occurred. In Greek material culture the traces of this encroachment are rather sparse, although we cannot doubt its scale. It is supposed that this event was not unexpected. In Tiryns, in a level of the period early LH III B, the rearrangement of the fortifications has been found. Soon after that, in middle LH III B, a catastrophe occurred, so severe that the population was disastrously reduced. In Messenia 90% of settlements of LH III were left. But the wave of newcomers swept across the whole of Greece, introducing with them some new features into Greece: geometric ornament, iron metallurgy, long swords, javelins, and the rite of cremation. Cordoned hand-made pottery appeared, whose earlier analogies are known in Eastern and Central Europe. It is notable that from LH III C there are already wheel-made analogies to this ware (Fig. 152) [Drews, 1993, pp. 25, 26, 63; Kilian, 1986, pp. 127, 134, fig. 1. 6; Popham, 1998, pp. 277-285]. The presence of similar ware in complexes of the Wietenberg culture has been already indicated, as well as the rite of cremation typical of this culture. All of this reinforces the reasons stated earlier favouring its possible identification with the Greeks. The success of this encroachment depended on advances in weaponry by the peoples of Central Europe in the previous period. With heavy javelins it was possible to kill very easily horses harnessed to battle chariots, thus eliminating all Mycenaean advantage. At a later time the use of javelins by the warriors of Alexander the Great at Gaugamela prevented Persian chariots from passing. Mycenaeans also lacked other effective weapons – long swords and lances [Drews, 1993, pp. 180-182]. However, fighting with a long sword on foot is less effective than on horseback. Chronologically, the distribution of long swords and lances coincides with that of cavalry, which started to spread everywhere from the 11th century BC. This does not eliminate earlier occasional use of saddle-horses in battle [Hood, 1979, p. 92]. Discussing the migration of ancient Europeans, we mentioned that they had introduced the military use of saddle-horses into the steppe from the Near East. Since, apparently, their activity in Central Europe stimulated Dorian encroachment, it is quite possible that the Dorians acquired this new method of combat and new set of weaponry precisely from them. These military factors also determined, finally, the success of Dorian encroachment and resulted in the start of the Dark Ages of Greek history. Further, this migratory stream made its way to Asia. Alongside others, its participants included the Shardana and Shekelesh, who subsequently reached Sardinia and Sicily. It is possible, although rather 401 doubtful, that Etruscans participated too [Popham, 1998, p. 287]. In the opinion of E. Zannger, these processes were much more complicated, being connected with the Trojan War. At the beginning of this period two large political-military alliances were formed. The first was headed by the Ahhijawa state with its capital in Troy, and Thrace and Lycia participated in it. The second included Mycenaean Greece and Crete. He believes that the strengthening of cities in Greece was connected with this, and that the movement of the Sea Peoples was part of this strife. After the fall of Troy the Greeks returned home, but the long war had undermined their power, promoting the Dorian encroachment [Zanger, 1994]. This interpretation is stated quite convincingly, but some parts of it give rise to doubts, in particular, taking the movement of the Sea Peoples as part of the Trojan War. It is conditioned by the suggested date of the fall of Troy – about 1186 BC [Zanger, 1994, p. 247]. As the activities of the Sea Peoples are dated to the late 13th century BC, they are viewed through the same lens. However, all Near Eastern dates have certain errors, in particular attempts to date the fall of Troy are plagued by the absence of direct evidence. Therefore, it is possible that the weakening in Western Anatolia and mainland Greece was conditioned by continuous strife, but that further migrations were stimulated by Dorian invasion. This called up a migratory wave further into Anatolia, where most of the cities were destroyed in the 12th century BC. This destruction is fixed in Troy VIh and Troy VIIa, and in cities on the bend of the Halys river; the same is observed on Cyprus at the end of LC II, in Ugarit and in Palestine. Egypt was subjected to enormous pressure from Canaan [Drews, 1993, pp. 8-21], possibly the consequence of internal instability in Anatolia. In the 13th century BC the attacks by the Kaskes on Hatuša weakened the Hittite Kingdom [Zanger, 1994, p. 184]. In the Introduction it was said that, in studying the processes of migration and ethnic contact, it is necessary to consider not only materials but also processes. This period in Greece is very important for comprehending the mechanisms of cultural transformation and well illustrates this rule. We have no doubts that Dorian tribes entered Greece then. Nevertheless, the main features introduced are more typical of the cultures of Central Europe, in particular Urnfield culture, which had stimulated this catastrophe. However, we cannot take up the task of attempting to identify the bearers of this culture with the Dorians. Most likely, these activities had pushed the Dorians out of lands they had occupied hitherto, which, according to tradition, should be localised north of the Balkans. The most reasonable region for this is Transylvania. In conclusion we turn to linguistic evidence to be convinced of the appropriateness of the suggested reconstruction. In the opinion of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, substantiating the Anatolian origin of the proto-Greek language, the separation of the Doric dialect could already have taken place in Asia Minor, and they do not eliminate its somewhat later separation in the Balkans, as the Doric dialect is very similar to Mycenaean. Indeed, the Mycenaean dialect is closer to those of East Greek (Arcado-Cypriot, Ionic, Aeolic), while Doric retains old features [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 864, 900, 957]. The model suggested here of three Greek migrations into mainland Greece corresponds reasonably to the similar linguistic situation. The first migration was carried out from Anatolia by speakers of East Greek dialects at the boundary of Early Helladic II and Early Helladic III. Another wave of Greeks advanced through either the Balkans or the North Pontic area into Transylvania, exerting influence on the transformation of KMK (to promote the existence of early KMK complexes and later ones which have Mycenaean features). Part of this population penetrated into Greece and started to interact with the East Greek speakers, stimulating a certain closeness of the Mycenaean and East Greek dialects; the rest remained in Transylvania, having only remote trade contacts with the Mycenaeans, thus leading them to preserve the old features of Doric. Subsequently, under the pressure of ancient European populations from Central Europe, this population too penetrated into Greece. Considerable enclaves probably remained along the migratory routes of the Greeks in Anatolia and on the eastern coast of the Black Sea. About the last region information is rather limited, but the Greek presence in Anatolia is clearly reflected in written sources (Ahhijawa). In addition, E. Zannger and J.G. Macqeen suppose that the population in Ahhijawa spoke an Aeolic dialect, subsequently widespread in Anatolia, and that the Greek tradition of their appearance there in the Dark Ages is incorrect. An additional argument in support of this is the preservation of ceramic traditions in this area [Zanger, 1994, p. 48; Macqeen, 1968, p. 185]. 402 Chapter 4. Indo-Europeans in the Near East 4.1. Indo-Europeans in Near Eastern written sources The description of the different migrations of Indo-European peoples enables us to localise the Indo-European homeland in the Near East, in regions of Northern Mesopotamia, Eastern Anatolia and North-Western Iran. Clearly, they should come into the field of vision of written sources. Here our discussion is about individual details indicating an Indo-European presence in the region, and our purpose is to show the possibility of similar research, whilst rejecting unfounded statements that there is no such evidence. Thus, it is necessary to accept that sources on the region of interest to us are not numerous, and for the 3rd millennium BC they are almost absent. Furthermore, it is difficult to connect the tribes mentioned in them with particular ethnic groups, for reasons which we shall discuss below. Nevertheless, it is possible sometimes. A successful example is the identification of the Tocharians with the ‘Tukri’ and the ‘Gutians’ (‘Kutians’), localised in Western Iran [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989]. This explains the eastward Tocharian migrations which took place in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, but with part of the population remaining in the Near East. The main region of Gutian settlement was, apparently, the Lesser Zab basin, and the Tukri lived in the Northern Zagros to the west of Hamadan [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989, pp. 15, 18, 23]. Indeed, the possibility cannot be excluded of considerable movements within the region because of some exacerbation of political situation. Some Tocharian migrations were probably caused by Sargon’s conquest of Gutium in the 24th BC, or by some later campaign of Naram-Sin [Yusifov, 1987, p. 24; Potts, 1994, pp. 111, 112]. After the decline of the Sargonic dynasty, the Gutian invasion of Meso- potamia commenced and the Gutian dynasty arose. This process may well not have been uniform, with the Gutians temporarily usurping power in individual towns and pillaging [Potts, 1994, pp. 119-121]. All these events could have resulted in ethnic dislocation in the Van-Urmia area. A correlation of Gutians and Tukri with the other peoples living there, the Lulubians and the Su, is therefore not clearly understandable [Yusifov, 1987, pp. 33, 38]. The Lulubians (Lulubi) inhabited Lulubum. Its localisation in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC is determined by a tablet with the inscription ‘Anubanini, mighty king, king of Lulubum’ found in the Sarpoli-i Zohab region, 140 km west of Kermanshah [Potts, 1994, p. 21]. Šimaški (Su) is placed to the north of Elam and Luristan, near the Caspian Sea [Potts, 1994, p. 34]. Now the ethnicity of this population is not clear, but the sources separate them from the Hurrians, who lived nearby and who also came into Mesopotamia from the region to the east of the Tigris [Gadd, 1971a, pp. 624, 625]. It is not impossible that they were ancient European populations.1 Solving the problem is likely to be assisted by analysis of so-called ‘banana’ names, which are not characteristic of the Sumerian, Elamite, Kassite or Semitic languages and considered to belong to the indigenous peoples of Northern Mesopotamia [Dzhakaryan, 1994, pp. 4, 5, 8]. Properly speaking, the ethnicity of the Kassites is not quite clear; for Babylonia it was a northern component. It is supposed that they were non-Indo1 In this connection, the information adduced by H. Lewy is very interesting. The stele of Nabonidus mentions the town of Baltila in the land of Subir, which was established as a temporary residence of Nabonidus. As a descendant of the Assyrian royal family, he was perfectly familiar with the tradition and, hence, the capital of the land of Subir was Baltila. Indeed, the first Assyrian kings (living, according to sources, ‘in tents’) came into Assyria from Media. Assyrian armies were called in South Mesopotamian sources the ‘host of Subartu’. Assyrians called themselves that in astrological texts of Babylonian origin. Therefore Lewy concludes that they came from Subir, supposing, however, that they were Hurrians [Lewy, 1971a, pp. 732, 733, 743-745]. But the probable Indo-European origin of many place names is not usually considered. 403 European groups who came into Mesopotamia from the Caspian area through Luristan [Hrouda, 1971, pp. 184, 185]. In this connection, information on the country of Kassiya, situated to the west of the Lower Halys in the north of Anatolia, is interesting [Macqeen, 1968, p. 174]. It is possible that the Kassites originate in this area. Judging from the location of this country we can suppose that they were North Caucasian. There is much vagueness also about the primary localisation of different Aryan groups; however, information on them starts to appear in sources from the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. It concern, above all, Syria-Cilicia and Palestine, from which it does not follow at all that Aryan ethnogenesis took place here. It is possible that the zone of their primary localisation was Northern Iran, as from the 4th to the 2nd millennium BC the cultural situation in the Eastern Mediterranean varied. We have already seen that the invasion of Indo-Aryans into the Eastern Mediterranean, the North Pontic area and the Indian subcontinent was connected with cultures of the South-Eastern Caspian. At the same time, all primary Iranian migration is linked to South-Eastern Anatolia and Northern Syria. Therefore, it is necessary to search for traces of their penetration into these areas, which resulted in the separation of the Iranian languages. It is not impossible that it can be traced in the Koruçu Tepe materials of the late Eneolithic, transitional to the Early Bronze Age, when the first tombs with wooden covers appeared in Anatolia. This settlement began to be used as a cemetery. The pottery of this site has parallels in the grey ware of Iran (Tureng Tepe) [Yakar, 1984, p. 67]. The calibrated radiocarbon dates of the Koruçu Tepe materials are from 4350 to 3950 BC [Easton, 1976, p. 150]. Indo-Europeans penetrated into Northern Syria in the second half of the 4th millennium BC (Amuq F), when early Maikop-type ceramics appear there. Curiously, the diffusion of arsenic bronzes with a high nickel content is characteristic of exactly this time, and this too is a distinct feature of Maikop metal [Yakar, 1984, p. 69]. It is possible that the distribution of the culture of North-Western Ubaid here in the first half of the 4th millennium BC (Amuq E) could also be connected with some Indo-European group.1 1 The application of calibrated radiocarbon dates has allowed this phase to be related to the 5th millennium BC [Schwartz, Weiss, 1992, p. 231]. In the following phase (Amuq G), falling in the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC, the region was invaded, probably by Semitic tribes. This period was marked too, as we have already noted, by Sumerian expansion up the Euphrates. All of this could have led to the ousting of the Indo-Europeans from these areas. But polished ware, similar to that in the KuraAraxian culture of Transcaucasia and the Khirbet Kerak ware of Palestine, had already diffused during phases Amuq H and I (early – third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC).2 The latter spread as far as the borders of Egypt. The most southerly point where similar ceramics are found is the settlement of Tell Nagila. All scholars connect the appearance of such ceramics with Transcaucasia and Eastern Anatolia. In the early 3rd millennium BC considerable connections with the Caucasus are actually found in Eastern Anatolia (Arslantepe) [Conti, Persiani, 1993, p. 405]. But as a whole, East Anatolian materials are somewhat different – similar material comes only from North-Eastern Anatolian sites. The connection with the Caucasus identified at Arslantepe is much more likely to reflect the southward displacement of Kura-Araxian populations. Contemporaneously, Anatolian and Transcaucasian types of metal object penetrate to the south: daggers with holes for the attachment of a handle, spearheads with a hook on the end of the stem, flat adzes. Some objects have a high nickel content [Ben-Tor, 1992a, pp. 109115], which, it will be recollected, was inherent to the Maikop metal complex, introduced to the Northern Caucasus from Eastern Anatolia or Northern Syria. Finally, it seems to be important that fortifications appeared in Palestine at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. On the Khirbet Kerak settlement the defensive walls consist of two rows of masonry with infilling, which was a particular feature of the Anatolian architectural tradition [Vaux, 1971, p. 215]. The quantity of these parallels is so striking that the northern origin of these peoples was generally accepted long ago. Their historical name, ‘Canaanite’, tells us nothing; it is the name of the terrain. It is supposed that these populations were Semites, living here before the appearance of the Amorites, and this is confirmed by place-names and words in the Egyptian texts [Vaux, 1971, pp. 233-237]. How- 2 According to the calibrated radiocarbon dates these phases date respectively to 2900-2400 and 2400-2250 BC [Schwartz, Weiss, 1992, pp. 236, 237]. 404 ever, this conclusion contradicts the possibility that this people had Anatolian-Transcaucasian roots. I suppose that this process was connected with a new Indo-European penetration of the region, commencing in Eastern Anatolia and enveloping more than just Palestine, and that this Indo-European population remained here for quite some time, despite the formation of a number of Semitic states (Mari, Ugarit and Ebla) about the mid-3rd millennium BC. In all probability, Khirbet Kerak ware cannot be connected with the Hurrians, who penetrated into Syria in the 2nd millennium BC, when they occupied the whole area from there to the Zagros. Palestinian bichrome and Khabur ware correspond better to this [Wilhelm, 1992, p. 28; Mallory, 1989, p. 39]. The Semite invasion of North-Western Syria is marked by the appearance there of the Syrian beakers culture, dated to the second half of the 3 rd millennium BC [Suleyman, 1982]. The states formed did not control much territory. Mari, stretching along the banks of the Euphrates for some hundreds of kilometres, exemplifies this: in depth it extended only 15 km. Beyond was the sphere of influence of cattle-breeding tribes [Margeron, 1985, p. 99], usually named ‘Amorites’ in written sources. This term has no ethnic meaning; it simply describes their western position relative to the states of Mesopotamia1 [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, p. 22]. Amorites are mentioned for the first time in Mesopotamian sources of the Agada period. Probably, their zone of action was quite broad – at this time Byblos was incinerated and Egyptian maritime expeditions to Lebanon ceased, Asian encroachments into the Egyptian Delta started, and the first Intermediate Period comes (7-10 dynasties), the beginning of which is described by Ipuver [Vaux, 1971, p. 237; Posener, 1971, pp. 532, 533]. In Palestine there is archaeological evidence of the destruction of former centres, except for Megiddo. On some settlements (for example, Byblos) the gradual adaptation of the newcomers to urban life is fixed. Then comes the Intermediate EB-MB Period. Tombs with numerous burials, typical of the Early Bronze Age, disappeared, to be replaced by single burials; many weapons are found; and sites contain a great number 1 It should not, however, be excluded that it could be an ethnic name, adapted by Mesopotamian sources. The consonance of the terms Ammuru and Gamir suggests this idea because Iranian-speaking Scythians and Cimmerians were usually connected with the latter country. of Egyptian objects, reflecting the subsequent penetration into Egypt. Archaeological parallels indicate that these populations came from the north. Indeed, among names many are Semitic, but many others are not identified [Kenyon, 1971, pp. 567-594]. A northern origin does not mean that we should think of them as Semites, although it is clear that Semites were involved subsequently in these processes. Mesopotamian rulers experienced many problems. Amorites seized control in individual cities, and fought one another (they often had Akkadian names). They caused great trouble to Akkadian rulers, who had continually to resist their recurring raids – during the 37-year rule of Šulga there was even a wall between the Tigris and Euphrates to contain their onslaught [Potts, 1994, pp. 133, 134; Gadd, 1971a, pp. 625-628]. The penetration of Mesopotamia by Semitic tribes took place much earlier. Indeed, there is a complete absence in the sources of any enmity with the Sumerians, whereas the Amorites are shown as constant and irreconcilable enemies [Gadd, 1971, p. 446]. It is possible that this reflects the different ethnic identity of the Amorites. At the same time, they are most likely to have been of multiethnic character: Amorite names recorded by the sources are more often Semitic, but among them are non-Semitic, non-Sumerian and non-Hurrian names of unknown linguistic provenance [Bottero, 1971, pp. 564, 565]. It is necessary to point out that the Amorites were not only cattle-breeders but also farmers [Yoffi, 1989]. Similarly, in Egyptian sources, the term ‘Amu’ (maybe, Amorites) was applied both to nomads and to farmers [Posener, 1971, p. 534]. Apparently, behind this term tribes speaking languages of different groups could hide: Hurrians, Semites and Indo-Europeans. A Hurrian presence in Northern Mesopotamia in the 3rd millennium BC is beyond doubt. It is possible that they were originally mentioned under the ethnic name ‘hana’. Subsequently, from the 17 th century BC, the country populated by Hurrians was called ‘Hanigalbat’ [Diakonov, 1970, p. 60]. Scholars have indicated the very early and close acquaintance of the Hurrians with the Aryans [Avetisyan, 1978, p. 4]. Already in the 3rd millennium BC among Hurrian names one can meet Indo-Iranian ones [Gorelik, 1988, p. 200]. But it is not just onomastic data that indicate an Aryan presence in the region. Later sources testify indirectly to the possible identification of Indo-Iranians and Amorites. In the astrologist Akkullan’s letter to Aššurbanipal, dated 657 BC, 405 King Amurru is identified with Iranian-language Cimmerians, and most often in late texts Amurru as a country was understood to be Syria and Palestine, although the term was used very broadly [Ivanchik, 1996, pp. 104, 105]. In the epic songs of Sargon the Ancient and of the Naram-Sin period (late 24th – 23rd century BC) mentions of the ‘Manda horde’ (Umman Manda) are to be found [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, pp. 130, 131]. This name can be linked speculatively to the Aryan term ‘Mandala’, by which, alongside other meanings, was meant ‘people’ and ‘country’. As well as to Southern Mesopotamia, the expansionism of the Akkadian kings was directed to the North, to the Purushkhanda country and to the Middle Euphrates, where this people is to be localised [Zablocka, 1989, pp. 110, 114; Drower, 1971, pp. 324326; Gadd, 1971, pp. 421-441]. The ‘Manda horde’ then figures in descriptions of the campaigns of Hattušili I (late 17th century BC) in regions from south-east of the Taurus Mountains to North-Western Syria. And it is very significant that this name was applied subsequently to just Iranian peoples: Medes, Cimmerians and Scythians [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, pp. 130, 131; Fray, 1993, p. 103]. Such a settled tradition is reflected in addition in various groups of sources, Hittite and Mesopotamian, suggesting that the term describes the Aryans’ own name for the country. It is appropriate to recollect the speculations of R. Drews, who supposed that the ‘Manda horde’ should be understood as the ‘horde from Manda’, and indicated various possible location for this country – in the Mana country, to the south-east of Urmia, and in Cappadocia [Drews, 1988, p. 227]. However, the last has insufficient basis, and the first is based on later Assyrian sources identifying the area where the Medes settled. Therefore, I suppose that the country of that name was on the Middle Euphrates in the Bronze Age. This is confirmed by the reference of Drews to the Hittite ‘Zukrashi text’, which mentions the leader from Umman Manda who took service in the second half of the 17th century BC with a prince from Aleppo. Thus, in Drews’s opinion, the name of this leader (Za-a-lu-ti) has Indo-Iranian etymology [Drews, 1988, p. 227]. The appearance of this tribal name coincides chronologically with the spread of the catacomb burials rite, whose origin is to be sought in the SouthEastern Caspian, in those cultures whose connection with the Indo-Aryans is most likely. Indo-Aryan names occur among those of rulers in Syria and Palestine. Sometimes they are distorted, but this is to be explained by the poor literacy of scribes in a multiethnic society [Wilhelm, 1992, p. 46]. Some writers even imagine that Indo-Iranians formed the principal minority in the Levant (they were assimilated only in the early 14th century BC) [Drews, 1988, pp. 60-63]. The Indo-Aryan presence in the Mitanni Kingdom is widely known. It is supposed that the Hurrians were not particularly warlike and were compelled to resort to their cattle-breeding neighbours for help. Sometimes this resulted in a nomad leader coming to power [Zablocka, 1989, p. 197]. The use of the Aryan chariot lexicon by the Hurrians, found in a text from Bogazköy, confirms this hypothesis [Kuzmina, 1994, p. 189]. However, there is other evidence of an Aryan presence too. From Mitanni many Aryan names and other words are known. In the agreement of 1370 BC between the Mitannian king Šattivaza and the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma, the Aryan gods Mithra, Varuna and Indra are mentioned. It is important to note that many gubernatorial names are, apparently, Aryan [Fray, 1993, pp. 42, 43]. There is another interpretation of the Mitannian period – that the Mitanni state was purely Hurrian and that the Aryan language traces in Hurrian remained from a language already ‘dead’ in this region [Diakonov, 1970, p. 28]. This is contradicted by sources of the 14th century BC from Arrapha, which record the escape thither from Mitanni of Agit Teššup with a large group of charioteers, amongst whom there are Aryan names [Yankovskaya, 1979, p. 28]. However, whatever our thoughts about the Aryan presence in the Near East in the Mitannian period, Aryan glosses in Hurrian allows us to speak uniquely about contacts, at least from the early 2 nd millennium BC. At the same time, the Aryans made contact with the Kassites, in whose language are found separate Aryan borrowings [Grantovskii, 1970, p. 352; Hrouda, 1971, p. 185]. In texts of the early 2nd millennium BC, Semitic names dominate, which suggests that Semites lived at this time in Syria and Palestine. However, analysis of place-names points to other conclusions. In the south of Syria they are predominantly, though not exclusively Semitic. This decreases further north. In Northern Syria the Semites were late incomers and most settlements have non-Semitic names: in the lists from Alalakh only 4 of 300 cities and villages mentioned have Semitic names, some have 406 Hurrian ones, and the remainder are of an unfamiliar language. In the tablets from Ugarit most are Semitic, but the name Ugarit itself is probably not. At this time it is most likely that the population of Syria was mixed [Drower, 1971, pp. 320, 321; Bottero, 1971, p. 566]. Another wave from Syria-Palestine is connected with the Second Transitional period, when the Hyksos appear in the historical arena. It is quite obvious that they came from the Syria- Palestine region, and their appearance in Egypt was not an isolated act of conquest. From the early 2nd millennium BC, with the disastrous decay of Egypt, tribes of Asian herders settled in the Nile Delta [Zablocka, 1989, pp. 177, 178]. In Tell Mardikh a macehead has been found, owned by a pharaoh of the XII dynasty with the strange name ‘Son of the Asiatic’ [Mattiae, 1985, p. 13; Skandone-Mattiae, 1985, pp. 92, 93]. It is not a single find. The quantity of Egyptian objects of this time discovered in Syria-Palestine is huge [Müller-Karpe, 1974, pp. 131-134]. The term ‘Hyksos’ itself, as in the case of the Amorites, has no ethnic nature and is translated as ‘rulers of foreign countries’ [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, p. 415]. The encroachment of the Hyksos had several waves. Alongside the West Semitic, I imagine that there were also Indo-European waves, above all, Aryan. In Egyptian chariot terminology, the Aryan lexicon is present as well as the Semitic [Gorelik, 1988, p. 198]. In Hyksos burials in the Gaza region, burials of horses are found. In the Gaza settlement of Tell Nagila, on the layer of the destroyed buildings of the Middle Bronze Age, there is a construction containing ceramics. It is identical with those from Sintashta. However, this ethnic component (probably Iranian) connected with Sintashta culture was, apparently, alien for Syria-Palestine. As I have mentioned above in the Chapter describing the Sintashta ceramics, Sintashta-type ware in Northern Syria dates from the 20th – 19th centuries BC. It replaced Syrian beakers. As a result of all these processes, the structure of the Eastern Mediterranean population in the 2nd millennium BC was rather mixed. This was especially true in Palestine, where, before the formation of the Jewish state, there was a great number of city–states of different ethnicities, ruled by petty kings. The written sources mention ‘Maryannu’ in the household of these rulers [Shifman, 1989, p. 54], which means that the same term was used to designate the aristocracy as that for the Aryan charioteer aristocracy of the Mitannians. The duality of power that has been noted in Palestine – the two focuses were royal and communal [Shifman, 1989, p. 54] – might have resulted from the seizure of some territory by another ethnos, which required relations between the local and alien ethnic groups to be regulated, and also between traditional rights and the arising state authority. This is confirmed indirectly by one of the reliefs of Thutmose IV, on which a charioteer ‘Maryannu’ with IndoEuropean features is represented amongst the servants1 [Lelekov, 1982, p. 34]. Analysis of the term ‘Apiru’ or ‘Habiru’, which in translation from Akkadian means ‘robbers’, introduces us to a new circle of speculations about the presence of Indo-Europeans in the Near East. Earlier historians took the word literally and saw these groups as robbers. However, it is now clear that they were the same populations as those designated by the Egyptians ‘Šasu’ [Bogoslovskaya, 1988, p. 127]. Analysis of Egyptian representations of the 14th – 12th centuries BC has demonstrated that the Šasu wore the same clothes as the Sea People, Syrians, Mitannians, Canaanites – round-necked short tunics, engirded with tassels on the skirt. The only difference is in headgear. The Sea People were mainly Indo-European: Indo-Aryans, Peleset (Philistines), Achaeans, Lycians and Sards. The Etruscans are the exception [Bogoslovskaya, 1988, pp. 128134]: their language belonged to the North Caucasian group, and is cognate with Hurrito-Urartian. Their connection with the Near East is indicated by parallels in Etruscan and Near Eastern cosmogony, as well as by the resemblance of Etruscan and Urartian bronzes [Elynitskii, 1977; Ivanov, 1988]. This last may also act as an additional ethnic indicator. The Near Eastern origin of the Etruscans is indicated also by their characteristic methods of divination using animal entrails, the flight of birds, etc. Similar methods were widespread everywhere in the Near East amongst Hittites, Hurrians and a number of Semitic groups [Bayun, 1998]. 1 The familiarity of the Aryans of Palestine with state organisation does not allow the same conclusion to be drawn relative to the Southern Urals: in Palestine they lived with other people who were already familiar with it. In addition, there was the need to rule conquered people and repel attacks by neighbours in conditions of the dense coexistence of different populations. In the Transurals, the situation was different. 407 Despite the above exception, on the grounds of such a significant ethnic indicator as dress, we can speak of the Šasu and, accordingly, of the Habiru in Syria-Palestine as Indo-Europeans. 4.2. Indo-Europeans and the Old Testament Supplementary data about Indo-Europeans in the Eastern Mediterranean can be obtained from the Old Testament, which is the fullest written source on the ancient history of Palestine. The beginnings of Jewish ethnogenesis are connected with the formation of the tribal union of Israelites and separation of part of the West Semitic tribes. This scarcely occurs before the 13 th century BC [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, pp. 276-278]. However, the Pentateuch reflects earlier Semitic tribal history. The names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were known as the names of Amorites in written sources of the 19th – 18th centuries BC. In a later period they are to be found no more [Ocherk istorii …, 1990, pp. 20, 21]. This allows us to date the verbal tradition of the biblical texts up to the Books of Kings to the 19th (18th) – 12th centuries BC, not excluding subsequent quite fundamental reworking and revision of the texts. The Hittites are mentioned in all biblical lists of the peoples inhabiting Palestine at this time (Genesis 15, 20; 23; 27, 46; 36, 2; 49, 29-32; Exodus 23, 23, 28; 33, 2; 34, 11; Numbers 13, 30; Deuteronomy 7, 1; 20, 17; Joshua 1, 4; 3, 10; 9, 1; 11, 3; 12, 8, etc.). Abraham bought a Hittite-owned cave for the burial of his wife. To all appearances, the Hittites lived in the uplands. They remained and coexisted with the Israelites after the latter’s conquest of Palestine. It is not quite clear whether there are grounds to identify this people with proper Hittites, but it seems that we can speak about their Anatolian and Indo-European origin, taking into consideration the penetration of Anatolian-Transcaucasian components into the material culture of Syria-Palestine in the 3rd millennium BC, together with ceramics of the Khirbet Kerak type. This, in turn, confirms the Hittite presence at this time in Eastern Anatolia. This paradox was already been noted in the literature [Herney, 1987, pp. 54-58]; indeed, that the Hittites never penetrated Palestine even at a later date, but the idea of an earlier movement thither of tribes from Anatolia or Syria, who were either Hittites or under Hittite dominion, has been assumed. The Anatolian cultural complex, allows nevertheless an early Hittite presence in the region to be assumed. In the Book of Genesis (Gen. 15) we discover a list of the many peoples who lived between Egypt and the Euphrates: Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Girgashites, and Jebusites. This indicates the multiethnic population of the region. It is very likely that Indo-Europeans are hiding behind some of these names. 4.3. Zoroastrianism and Judaism One more argument in favour of the localisation of Indo-Iranians in the Near East is the surprising parallels between the doctrines of Zoroaster and the Old Testament [Boyce, 1994]. The main shared idea is that of monotheism. The Iranian religion allows other, lesser deities. More often they act as a negative, which is embodied most fully in Ankareh Minu. There is no denial of these deities in biblical legends either, just a prohibition to worship them, a prohibition of spiritual contacts. The clearly expressed dualism of Zoroastrianism is present in Judaism, but in a looser form. More precisely it reveals itself later in Christianity. Also very remarkable is the similarity of the act of creation, before which there was only one substance in the world – God. Furthermore, God creates the world in stages, in seven days. The pictures of the Last Judgment are rather similar, when the souls of the dead join with flesh, as too are ideas about hell and paradise. The requirements of ceremonial purity in Judaism and Zoroastrianism, their attitude to nutrition, and rites of purification are very similar. Thus, there is talk about the unity of the basic principles of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity. This unity could not have formed separately but must be the result of borrowing. Now, there is a theory that Zoroastrianism formed about 1200 BC, providing an impulse to the appearance of Judaism, and subsequently Christianity [Boyce, 1994, pp. 12, 40]. However, it is difficultly to agree with this. We can admit the transfer of some subjects or figures, 408 for example belief in a Saviour and his wonderful Immaculate Conception. This belief could actually pass into Christianity from Zoroastrianism. It is also possible that Judaic messianic ideas arising after the Babylonian captivity could have Zoroastrian origins. But the fundamentals of Judaism could not have formed so late. The parts of the Old Testament preceding the Exodus are dated to before the 13 th century BC. Above we have already noted that the Book of Genesis could have started to be formed from the 19th – 18th centuries BC. From the standpoint of the northern steppe Iranian homeland these phenomena are difficult to be explained: infiltrations of steppe tribes into the south of Central Asia (but no further!) are identified only in the 14th – 13th centuries BC, and the Iranian (Persian) component occurs in Palestine much later. Therefore, the contacts of Aryans with Semites should have taken place very early. Already many subject lines in Genesis do not find a reflection in Zoroastrianism. Therefore, it is now difficult to say which of these two great religions was first to be formed. Probably, they were contemporary, resting on the earlier cults of the Eastern Mediterranean. We can very provisionally imagine the history of the appearance of the Iranian national religion. Having separated from the Indo-Iranian core, a group of Iranians appeared in Syria, met local cults and gradually adopted them. Subsequently, these preZoroastrian ideas were felt even in Sintashta sites, expressed in the rite of secondary burial and the cleanliness of the settlements alien to this area. In the 18th century BC, as a result of the migration of Eastern Iranians from Syria/Anatolia, these ideas were diffused into the Transurals, where they underwent no further development, and into Margiana and Bactria, where they were preserved until the appearance of Zoroaster, who probably did no more than modify them. It is now established that the territory of ‘Avesta’ covered mainly the regions of Eastern Iran, Margiana and Bactria [Fray, 1993, pp. 53, 54]. Therefore Zoroastrianism formed there and, with the acceptance Zoroaster’s sermon by Kawi Vištaspa, was adapted as the official religion. The most reasonable hypothesis is that Iranians moved from the Near East into Central Asia and Eastern Iran, bringing with them a religion having considerable Eastern Mediterranean inclusions. On the basis of these ideas, proper Zoroastrianism formed in the late 2nd – early 1st millennium BC. The existence of similar pre-Zoroastrian cults in Central Asia was convincingly demonstrated during discussion of the results of the excavation of the temple Togolok-21 in Margiana [Sarianidi, 1989; 1989a; Grene, 1989; Gaibov, Koshelenko, 1989; Livshits, Steblin-Kamenskii, 1989; Litvinskii, 1989; Piankov, 1989; Dandamaev, 1989; Ivanov, 1989; Nyola, 1989], in which all the stages of preparation of Haoma, the sacred Iranian drink, were found. Thus it is very interesting that Zoroaster originally attempted, apparently, to suppress this cult, and only later was it included in the Zoroastrian canon. It seems to me, therefore, that the identification of Eastern Iran (including Margiana and Bactria) as the home of Zoroastrianism has been established conclusively [Sarianidi, 1990, p. 153; 1998, pp. 168171]. The problem of Zoroastrianism urges us to return to the problem that Syria-Palestine could not be the homeland of the Indo-Iranians as Zoroastrianism was a purely Iranian religion. It seems probable that some Iranian tribes penetrated this area in the late 3rd millennium BC – most likely, the starting point for this migration was South-Eastern Anatolia, and much earlier Northern Iran. Already in the 18th century BC some of these tribes, under pressure from the Hurrians and the Kassites, migrated into the Transurals and Central Asia. Clear evidence of the presence of Aryan collectives in Syria-Cilicia in the 24th – 23rd centuries BC does not mean at all that these precise groups were the basis for the formation of the Iranians. Their connection with the Indo-Aryans is more likely, because it is conditioned both by the name of the country and the occurrence of catacombs in this period in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the synchronism of these events with the origination of Catacomb culture in the North Pontic area. Probably, some Iranians appeared in the 18 th century BC in Transcaucasia – the parallels to the Karasuk-Irmen cultural unit are mostly connected with this area, where also the Gamir country is localised. It is more likely that it was linked to the appearance of the Sevan-Uzerlik sites. The subsequent displacement of Trialeti culture to the south meant only cultural, not linguistic assimilation of the Sevan-Uzerlik group, which supplied the Trialeti parallels in the Central Asian cultures of the Eastern Iranians. 409 4.4. External stimulants to IndoEuropean migrations from the Near East What has been said above allows us to talk about the very early presence of Indo-Europeans in the Near East. In this connection, I am convinced that detailed studies will increase the evidence of similarities, and that these will eventually promote the reconstruction of early Indo-European history. Future analysis of Near Eastern written sources will allow us to understand the causes of some of the Indo-European migrations. Unfortunately, these sources occur only in the 3rd millennium BC, originally in Southern Mesopotamia. But later documentation describes, above all, events connected with state formation in the area. Northern and western tribes are mentioned only when they infringe the interests of these states. Furthermore, the relations between the IndoEuropean tribes themselves were not always pacific and the borders of their locations repeatedly varied, but this is not reflected in the sources. One of the important factors effecting the IndoEuropean tribes was the aridity of the climate throughout the Near East in the late 3 rd – early 2nd millennium BC [Klengel, 1985, p. 207; Gumilyov, 1993, p. 273]. This led to a certain stagnation even of some state formations, for example, Egypt. It touched pastoral and agricultural tribes to a greater extent – their economy depended directly on climatic conditions and was less subject to artificial regulation. The upshot was persistent pressure during the whole period of different tribal affiliations on the areas held by early agricultural civilisations. However, the written sources contain only feeble echoes of these severe shocks taking place outside the borders of ancient states, which perhaps exerted a permanent influence on the migratory processes, stimulating the exodus of populations from the area. We can speak more definitely about events that written sources appear to describe. The earliest is the expansion of the Akkadian kings into regions of the Middle Euphrates and the Tigris in the 24 th – 23rd centuries BC [Mattiae, 1985, p. 16; Zablocka, 1989, pp. 110, 114, 119]. I have already mentioned that, in addition to successful wars in Southern Mesopotamia and Elam, the Akkadians attacked Gutium and made war with the ‘Manda horde’, events which could have led to the migrations of some of the Tocharians and Indo-Aryans. These displacements resulted in the consequent movements of some other Indo-European tribes and stimulated the replacement of Early Bronze Age cultures by Middle Bronze Age cultures in Northern Eurasia. At the same time, the Indo-Aryans were probably a foreign population in this area. Therefore, their migration into the Northern Pontus could also have been realised directly from the Caspian. There were further catastrophes in the late 19th century BC, when Shamshi-Adad succeeded in securing areas on the Middle Euphrates and in the Euphrates – Tigris interfluve [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, pp. 60, 62; Zablocka, 1989, p. 201]. In 1742-1740 BC Kassites penetrated this terrain. In the same period a more active Hurrian infiltration of Northern Syria commenced. It is impossible to consider as coincidence that, with the complication of the political situation in the Near East, the re-formation began of cultures in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe and the rise of the circle of cultures of Middle Bronze Age II. We can see similar transformations in North-Eastern Iran and Central Asia. From the early 17th century BC Hittite kings pursued an active policy. Labarna I conquered regions in Anatolia. However, from the middle of the century under Hattušili I and Muršili I, their expansion spread into South-Eastern Anatolia and NorthWestern Syria [Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988, p. 130; Zablocka, 1989, p. 210]. This coincided with the migrations of ancient Europeans, who were not likely to have inhabited these areas. But it is possible that Hittite activities provoked other groups, for example the Hurrians, to move to the Lake Urmia zone or some neighbouring region, and to the gradual ousting of ancient Europeans to the east. But it is also not excluded that this migration had no direct connection with these events. Finally, the appearance of the Irmen-Karasuk cultures, as noted above, coincided with the crisis of the Mitanni kingdom and its defeat in battle by the Hittites, but we cannot link it to any concrete event. 410 Chapter 5. Origins and migrations of Indo-European peoples. An overview. In this book I have shown that the origins of many of Eurasian cultures were connected with the migrations of different Indo-European groups from the Near East. These migratory processes varied in scale and nature. Alongside large movements of tribes over considerable distances, small displacements took place within particular areas and contacts were made between adjacent populations. In this Chapter I shall try to bring together just the principal migrations that resulted in the distribution of the Indo-European languages. Doing so can create an illusion of a permanent process of movement of considerable masses of people, shaking the continent and often changing completely the population of different areas. Actually, the number of migrants was seldom great, and all Indo-European migrations stretched over several millennia. Thus, there were periods of relative stability for most of time – but I stress relative, as we do not consider here local collisions and movements. The starting point for all Indo-European migrations is Kurdistan. As a matter of fact, the movement of populations from there began in the Upper Palaeolithic, when we can speak about the languages of the Nostratic condition. In the Mesolithic, the people speaking the Ural-Altaic languages separated, settling originally in the Eastern Caspian, but from the Neolithic it is possible to talk about the separation of the Finno-Ugrian languages (Eastern Caspian area) from the Altaic (interfluve of the AmuDarya and Syr-Darya). The appearance in the Aceramic Neolithic of such complexes as Jarmo in Iranian Kurdistan marks the separation of the ElamoDravidian languages. The subsequent displacement of one part of these populations to the east, to Southern Turkmenistan, and another to the south-west, along the Zagros, resulted in the separation of Dravidians from Elamites. To the west, the formation of the Indo-Europeans began in Iraq and Turkish Kurdistan in the 7 th millennium BC. This is connected with such complexes as Tell Maghzalya. The farming economy appeared here very early and its distribution is connected in many respects with the migrations of the Indo-Europeans. From the 6th millennium BC, with the appearance of proto-Hassuna (Tell Sotto) and Hassuna sites, dialectal partitioning of the Indo-European languages commenced. In the 6th – 5th millennia BC Indo-Europeans penetrated into Transcaucasia (Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture?) and the Lower Don (Rakushechniy Yar). In the late 7th – 6th millennium BC the populations connected culturally with Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia came into the Balkans (Fig. 153). Probably not all cultures formed there (Karanovo I, Starčevo-Criş, Aceramic Neolithic in Thessaly, and then Vinča, Kremikovtsi, Gradeshnitsa-Kirča, etc.) were Indo-European. The possibility of a connection of the Linearbandkeramik people with proto-Indo-Europeans is not excluded, but there is no evidence to support it. The further expansion of the Balkan cultures northward resulted in the formation of the Cucuteni-Tripolie culture in the North-Western Pontus, as well as Lengyel in Central Europe. It is most likely that people speaking proto-Indo-European were amongst these migrants. The isolation of a part of these populations in the Northern Balkans resulted in the separation of the Anatolian dialects. In the last quarter of the 5th millennium BC1 new Indo-European groups advanced into Transcaucasia (Alikemektepesi, Kul-Tepe I, etc.). At almost the same time Indo-Europeans appeared in the South-Eastern Caspian (Parkhai II). It seems quite probable that the bearers of these cultures spoke languages of the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan group. However, as none of these complexes is quite identical, some of them may have been left by people who spoke other Indo-European dialects. In the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC IndoEuropean groups occur in the steppe zone of East1 All dates adduced in this Chapter are in the traditional system. For calibrated radiocarbon dates, please see the relevant Chapters. 411 Fig. 153. Indo-European migrations in the 6th – early 4th millennia BC. 1 – Indo-European migration to the Balkan Peninsula and separation of the Anatolians (6th millennium BC); 2 – Indo-European migration to the Caucasus in the 6th – 5th millennia BC; 3 – migration of Palaeobalkan populations in about 3700 BC; 4 – movement of some IndoEuropean groups to the Southern Caspian area and separation of Indo-Iranian languages. 412 Fig. 154. Indo-European migrations in the late 4th – early 2nd millennia BC. 1 – Anatolian migration from the Balkan Peninsula to Anatolia (late 4th millennium BC); 2 – Indo-Iranian migration into Syria-Anatolia and separation of the Iranians (late 3rd millennium BC?); 3 – Indo-Aryan migration to the Transurals in the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC (?); 4 – Indo-Aryan migration to the North Pontic area (second haft of the 3rd millennium BC); 5 – Indo-Aryan movement to Central Asia and the Indus valley (late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC); 6 – Indo-Iranian migration to the Altai region (mid-3rd millennium BC); 7 – Tocharian migration to Central Asia (second haft of the 3rd millennium BC). 413 Fig. 155. Indo-European migrations in the late 3 rd millennium BC – 14th century BC. 1 – Iranian migration to Transcaucasia; 2 – Iranian migration to the Transurals and their subsequent movement to Eastern Europe (3), Kazakhstan and Central Asia (4); 5 – Iranian migration to Margiana and Bactria; 6 – migrations of ancient Europeans to the Irtish area and their subsequent migration to Europe (7). 414 ern Europe, superimposed on the local, predominantly pre-Indo-European substratum. This finds expression in the formation of the Mariupol cultures. In the second quarter of the 4th millennium BC new IndoEuropean tribes penetrated into the Volga-Ural area. An extremely hypothetical connection can be made between these tribes and the speakers of Aryan dialects (Yamno-Berezhnovka sites). In the foreststeppe these processes resulted in the rise of the Khvalinsk culture. Contemporaneously, Palaeobalkan tribes (Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka types) invaded the North Pontic area, settled by the Mariupol communities. Some remained there, exerting influence upon the Mariupol substratum, and as a result of this the Sredniy Stog culture was formed, its basis largely local. Therefore, it is difficult to say anything definite about the language of the people. Most probable is the coexistence of Thracian and other Indo-European (Graeco-Aryan?) dialects. Others, together with the Mariupol people, invaded Central Europe, where their interaction with Lengyel and local pre-Indo-European Neolithic cultures resulted in the appearance of Funnel Beaker culture. Subsequently, on the basis of this, the Corded Ware cultures formed, whose area of distribution covers the vastness of the forest zone from Central and Northern Europe to the Middle Volga. The ethnogenesis of this area was participated in by populations speaking Anatolian, Graeco-Aryan, Thracian, and probably some other dialects formed in Central Europe and the Balkans from proto-IndoEuropean. Finally, some of the Palaeobalkan migrants appeared in the Balkans, partly assimilating Anatolianspeaking tribes, partly displacing them into Asia Minor. Subsequently, separate Thracian groups crossed the Bosporus, settling in North-Western Anatolia (Fig. 154). On the other hand, separate Anatolian populations could have remained for quite some time in the Balkans. A considerable part of the Anatolians occupied Western Anatolia, and as a result of this the Luwian dialect formed, spreading subsequently to the south-east. Another part (Hittite and Palaicspeaking people) penetrated far to the east, to Eastern Anatolia. A new cycle of Indo-European migrations commenced in the Early Bronze Age. About the mid-4th millennium BC Indo-Europeans in the Near East expanded to the south, up to the middle course of the Euphrates. However, already by 3300-3200 BC, Sumerian expansion into this region and then the in- vasion of western Semites had caused some of the Indo-Europeans to migrate into the Northern Caucasus (Maikop). So far, more precise identification of their ethnicity is impossible, but that they were Indo-Iranian is not excluded. The ethnos of another group appearing in the Northern Caucasus (Novosvobodnaya) is even less clear. It is possible to view them as either Indo-Europeans or North Caucasians. The latter seems to me to be preferable. Another event to exert influence on cultural genesis within the Transcaucasian – Near Eastern area was the appearance of the Anatolians in the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC. They had a huge influence on the area’s cultural features, expressed in the formation from Transcaucasia to Palestine of a number of similar cultures with Kura-Araxian features. It is certain that we cannot always regard these cultures as having been left by Anatolian-speaking people; most likely, various Indo-European tribes are hiding behind them. In this period the Aryans in Eastern Europe (PitGrave culture) forced out or gradually assimilated the former Indo-European stratum, although this process was apparently incomplete. In the North Pontic area the situation was complicated by the appearance in about the mid-3rd millennium BC of the Kemi-Oba tribes, who can be considered to be North Caucasians, but it is also possible that they spoke some Indo-European dialect. At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age a new re-formation of cultural systems commenced. In Transcaucasia a number of predominantly IndoEuropean cultures formed, whose precise ethnicity is rather difficult to identify. In Western Transcaucasia it was the Proto-Colchian culture, which it is possible to regard as Kartvelian but whose connection with the Venetic-speaking people is more likely. In Central and, subsequently, Southern Transcaucasia the Trialeti culture arose. It combines features of different Indo-European groups, but that does not give a firm basis for drawing conclusions about its ethnicity. The relation of another Transcaucasian culture (Sevan-Uzerlik) to the Iranians is most probable. The displacements in Transcaucasia and the Near East were very likely stimulated by the activities of the Hittites in Anatolia and the Akkadians in Mesopotamia. As a result of Sargon’s campaign in Gutium in the 24th century BC a segment of the Tocharians migrated through the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. It is probable that another Tocharian 415 group penetrated through Central Asia into the Sayan (Okunev culture). In the Sayan-Altai area the Tocharians meet the Aryans (Afanasievo culture), who had advanced there earlier from the Volga-Ural region, and some local Neolithic substrata, most likely speaking Altaic dialects. In the 24th – 23rd centuries BC the Akkadian kings fought also against IndoAryans in South-Eastern Anatolia and North-Eastern Syria. This was probably a stimulus to Aryan northward migrations into the steppe zone of Eastern Europe (Catacomb culture). However, in the Eastern Mediterranean the Indo-Aryan population was alien. Its genesis is to be connected, apparently, with the South-Eastern Caspian, whence direct migrations of Indo-Aryan tribes into Eastern Europe should not be excluded, although movement through the Eastern Mediterranean seems to me more likely. In Eastern Europe the Indo-Aryans found Aryan tribes. Their interplay is to be seen everywhere, but above all, in the Don area. In the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC the Aryan migration from the South-Eastern Caspian into the south of Tajikistan (Bishkent and Vakhsh cultures) was carried out (Fig. 155). The Indo-Aryan component there subsequently increased. This cannot be connected with just these two cultures. Some migratory waves into the Indus valley and far into the Indian subcontinent took place, including the coming of populations from North-Eastern Iran, which was previously the principal area of IndoAryan occupation. In the 18th century BC a number of significant events took place in the Near East connected with the activities of the Hurrians and the Kassites; and from the 17th century BC with the Hittites. The principal consequence was large-scale migration of Iranians from South-Eastern Anatolia and North-Eastern Syria (Fig. 156). Some of them displaced into Southern Transcaucasia (Sevan-Uzerlik culture), others migrated further into the Southern Transurals (Sintashta culture), the rest into Margiana and Bactria (Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex) and the South-Eastern Caspian (Sumbar culture, Hissar IIIC). As a result of migration into the Transurals, Sintashta culture formed, as did a number of Abashevo cultures between the Don and the Urals. These developed subsequently into the large Timber-Grave – Alakul cultural bloc, extending over the Eurasian steppes and forest-steppes from the Dnieper to Central Kazakhstan. During this migration the Iranians assimilated the former Indo-Iranian lan- guage substratum (and, on the Don, probably earlier Indo-European and Indo-Aryan substrata). A small number of these populations subsequently penetrated from the north into the south of Central Asia, where they met another ethnic Iranian bloc, which had developed Margiana and Bactria in the 18th – 17th centuries BC. In the 17th century BC migrations of the ancient Europeans started from the Near East (possibly from the Lake Urmia area). They were carried out by two non-contemporary streams through Iran and Central Asia into the Irtish basin. Celts and Italics moved first, exerting influence on the formation of a number of cultures from the Irtish up to the Urals (Seima-Turbino cemeteries; Krotovo, Elunino, Tashkovo and Chirkovskaya cultures). Balto-Germano-Slavic tribes (Fyodorovka culture) advanced behind them. On the basis of secondary interplay within and between these large cultural groups a number of cultures (Cherkaskul, Mezhovskaya, Suskan-Lebyazhinka, Chernozerye type) formed in the area between the Middle Irtish and the Urals. In the 15th century BC these populations moved further west, forming new cultures from the Rhine to the Dnieper: Tumulus, Trzciniec-Komarov and Sosnicja. The replacement of the entire circle of cultures was beginning in this part of the Eurasian continent. However, it is possible that this movement caused new migrations into the North-West Pontic area and the Carpatho-Danubian basin: the movement of the Mycenaean Greeks to the south, and the displacement of the Thracians into the NorthWestern Pontus (Sabatinovka culture), where they assimilated the Indo-Aryan and, probably, earlier Indo-European groups. In the 12th century BC the movement of ancient Europeans to the south (Urnfield culture) is observed. Probably, this stimulated the Dorian migration from the north of the Balkan Peninsula into Greece, and then the mass infiltration of Achaeans and Pelasgians into Asia Minor, in addition to those Achaean (Aeolic) tribes who had already lived for a long time in this area. These events smashed the Hittite Kingdom and caused waves of new migration into Syria-Palestine, described in Egyptian sources as the invasion of the Sea Peoples. Apart from Greeks and Pelasgians, Etruscans, Lycians, Shekelesh, Sards and other peoples took part in them. These waves, forming alliances with the Libyans, fell upon Egypt, which with difficulty contained their onslaughts. Some of them, nevertheless, penetrated 416 Fig. 156. Indo-European peoples in Anatolia in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC and Iranian migrations from this area. into North Africa (the Garamant people), Sicily (Shekelesh) and Sardinia (Sards); others remained in Palestine (Pelasgians or Philistines) and in SyriaCilicia (Greeks). These groups then remained there for rather a long time. As a result of these events the ethnic structure of Anatolia and Syria became extremely mixed. The last large migration of Indo-Europeans from the Near East occurred in the 14 th century BC, coinciding with the defeat of the Mitanni in their struggle with the Hittites. However, much wider areas than those mentioned in the historical sources were involved in the destructive processes connected with this: the main migrating component was Iranian, forming the cultures of the Karasuk-Irmen circle within a vast area including the Sayan, Altai, TienShan and a number of neighbouring regions. The Hurrians, who had settled in the Ob basin (Elovskaya culture), participated in this migration too. As a result of these events, Scytho-Cimmerian ethnic groups started to be form in the south of Siberia and Central Asia. At the beginning of the 1st millennium BC some of them made their way to the west, settling among the Thracian communities in the North Pontic area; others reached Central Europe. In the 8 th (9th) century the Scythians formed in Central Asia, and by the 7th century BC had penetrated via Iran into the Near East, where they interacted with Ira- nian groups living in Transcaucasia (Gamir), but already in the mid-7th century BC they were displaced into the North Caucasus and the North Pontic area. The outcome was that the huge area from the Danube to the Altai and Tien-Shan came to be occupied at the beginning of the Early Iron Age by the ethnically close populations of the Scytho-Saka-Siberian world. Finally, from the late 3rd millennium BC, IndoEuropeans spread into China, where they exerted an essential influence on the formation of Chinese civilisation. First, the Tocharians appeared in Eastern Asia, then it was the turn of the ancient Europeans. The Balto-Germano-Slavic group advanced but little to the east of the Yenisei; Celts and Italics penetrated far into China. But the influence of the Eastern Iranians, who were represented in Mongolia and Ordos by Karasuk culture, was the most potent. However, these migrations did not result in the distribution of Indo-European languages into these regions. The above description of the origins and migrations of the Indo-European peoples allows comparison to be made with the linguistic model of dialectal partitioning of the Indo-European languages and a more exact chronology for it to be drawn up (Fig. 157). Here, and throughout this Chapter, traditional dates are used exclusively. The linguistic reconstruc- 417 Fig. 157. Scheme of the dialectal partitioning of Indo-European languages (after T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov). 418 tion of the common Indo-European proto-language assumes its existence and gradual transformation over a long time in the form of groups of related dialects, from which separate languages subsequently formed. This is taken to be the condition in the first chronological stage. In the second stage two dialectal areas arise: B and A. The dialects developing subsequently into the Indo-Iranian, Greek, Balto-Slavic and German languages relate to the first area; Hittite, Tocharian, Italic and Celtic to the second. In the third, the separation of the Anatolian dialect occurs. It develops subsequently in complete isolation from other Indo-European languages. Anatolian languages show great affinity with proto-IndoEuropean. The separation of the Anatolian dialect took place at the latest in the 5th – 4th millennia BC [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. xci, xcii, 375, 390396, 863]. As a whole, this corresponds to the archaeological model suggested here. I am inclined to connect the first stage of dialectal partitioning with the North Mesopotamian complexes of the 7 th millennium BC, and the second with such complexes as Tell Sotto (6th millennium BC). The third stage dates from the mid-6th millennium BC. From the early 5th millennium BC no futher impulses from Anatolia have been found in the Balkans. Therefore, the separation of Anatolian must have taken place previously. Furthermore, from the early 5th millennium BC, perhaps somewhat earlier, the use of the plough was known in Transcaucasia and Mesopotamia – this reconstruction is based on a plough having been found on the Arukhlo I settlement [Eneolit SSSR, 1982, p. 133]. In Indo-European languages common terminology for designating arable farming is found, but this terminology probably penetrated into Hittite from the Semitic languages. The formation of this terminology falls into the third stage of the dialectal partitioning of IndoEuropean languages [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 424, 687, 688]. Therefore, that stage should be dated to the 6th millennium BC. We may not date the first stage to this time for another reason. As we have seen earlier, the character of the proto-Indo-European economy corresponds to such complexes as Tell Maghzalya. In the Hassuna period cattle and swine started to displace sheep and goats, hitherto the dominant animals in the herd [Munchaev, Merpert, 1981, p. 149]. In the fourth stage, the isolation of the TocharoCelto-Italic dialects within the framework of area A occurs. In the fifth, they divided into Tocharian and Celto-Italic, and within area B the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan and Balto-Germano-Slavic dialectal groups formed. These stages are dated to the 5 th – early 4th millennium BC. In the sixth stage the separation of the Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Graeco-Armenian and Indo-Iranian dialects took place. It was probably then too that Phrygian, Albanian and, perhaps, Thracian separated from the Graeco-Armenian-Aryan group. Dating this stage to the 4th millennium BC is based on the inclusion in Semitic languages of the term for a horse, borrowed from Indo-Iranian. The date of the ‘Palaeo-Canaanite’ language has been fixed by the archives in Ebla to the mid-3rd millennium BC; so, common Semitic should be dated not later than the 4 th millennium BC [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 880, 914]. It is possible that this borrowing became feasible with the appearance of such complexes as Amuq F in Syria or the proto-Maikop sites in Eastern Anatolia. In its turn, the superimposition of the Novosvobodnaya populations on the Maikop substratum explains the common isoglosses in the Indo-Iranian and North Caucasian languages [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 919]. This fixes the condition of the Indo-Iranian language up to the late 4th millennium BC and permits the assumption that the Maikop group was IndoIranian. The appearance of the Novodanilovka and Lower Mikhailovka sites, dated about 3700 BC, reflecting the movement of the Palaeobalkan tribes, does not conflict with the linguistic evidence. This can be confirmed also by the identification of the YamnoBerezhnovka and Khvalinsk sites with Indo-Iranians, but that demands further examination, as there is an opinion that the Finno-Ugrian languages contain no inclusions from Indo-Iranian or ancient Indian, and that borrowings so interpreted are really early Iranian [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 933]. The separation of the Hittite-Luwian dialect from Anatolian is to be dated to the late 4th millennium BC, corresponding to the occurrence of the Balkan cultural complex in Anatolia. Linguistic reconstruction connects the subsequent partitioning of the Indo-Iranian language group with the separation of the Indo-Aryans in the late 4th – 3rd millennium BC [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, p. 917]. Perhaps this was caused by the advance of Elamites into the north of Central Iran, as a result of which the populations of the South-Eastern Caspian were separated from the Indo-Iranian core. So, the early separation of Indo-Aryan dialects is confirmed 419 by the presence of Indo-Aryan inclusions in protoFinno-Ugrian, whose disintegration is dated to a time not later than the mid-3rd millennium BC – if, indeed, these inclusions are confirmed as Indo-Aryan instead of early Iranian. If they are, the date of the Lipchinskaya culture – the early 3rd millennium BC – will confirm the separation of Indo-Aryan in the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC. Somewhat later, but not beyond the late 3rd millennium BC, the separation of the Iranian dialects from the Indo-Iranian languages took place. It is possible that in Eastern Anatolia the Iranian dialect began to form much earlier, at the transition from the Eneolithic to the Bronze Age, when elements of North-Eastern Iranian culture appeared there. Such early dating of the Iranian languages is confirmed by the presence of common isoglosses in Iranian and Kartvelian. The common Kartvelian language is dated not later than the first half of the 2nd millennium BC [Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 634, 635]. That corresponds to the appearance of the SevanUzerlik group in Transcaucasia. We may regard this event, as well as the rise of the Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex, as the beginning of the dialectal partitioning of Iranian. The migrations of Iranians resulted also in further movements and the subsequent dialectal partitioning of the Indo-Aryan languages. Thus, the chronology of the division of the IndoEuropean languages obtained by linguistic analysis corresponds rather precisely to the archaeological reconstruction. Chapter 6. Causes of migrations, their geographical conditionality and forms 6.1. Causes of Indo-European migrations and their geographical conditionality Migratory processes play an important part in human history. However, they are certainly an abnormal phenomenon, and weighty causes are necessary to make any population to leave its area of residence. With the formation of farming and cattle breeding in the Neolithic, the expansion of the IndoEuropeans was connected with the rapid increase of population. In each instance there were particular concrete causes. At this stage it is not always possible to discern them. The role of ecological crises was also great; replacement by other ethnic groups took place too. This last tended to increase in weight. From the late 4th millennium BC, the policy of expansion of the first civilisations became another cause of migration. First we see Sumerian expansion into regions settled by Indo-Europeans; then Akkade, the Hurrian kingdoms, the Hittite Empire and, finally, Urartu and Assyria become more active. These actions stimulated the continuing withdrawal of populations from the area and reduced the space settled by the Indo-Europeans in the Near East. Nevertheless, many Indo-European peoples remained there even in the Early Iron Age. A very important cause, stimulating the reduction of the population of the Near East and migrations over considerable distances, was the landscape of Eastern Anatolia, Southern Transcaucasia and North-Western Iran, where most Indo-European populations lived. It is a vast, mountainous country with a number of valleys, each of which was a natural container for separate ethnic groups. With the appearance of newcomers, or with the attempt of neighbours to expand their terrain, the inhabitants of a valley were compelled either to fight or to go elsewhere. In that case there were three possible options: seizing another valley, settling on the periph- 420 ery of state formations or attempting their seizure, or distant migration. But the appearance of an external enemy was unnecessary for any of these scenarios to be realised. The demographic factor could play a part too: the population might outgrow the valley, and part be compelled to migrate. The geography of the area also conditioned the main directions of migration. Semitic, Sumerian and Elamite states were insuperable obstacles to the south and south-east. In this direction the only route was along the Eastern Mediterranean, but to the east it was constrained by the desert, and in the south by the borders of Egypt. For rather small collectives the optimum directions of expansion during the Neolithic were north (Transcaucasia) and west (Anatolia and the Balkans). In the Neolithic and Eneolithic, separate populations penetrated the steppes of Eastern Europe and into Northern Iran. In the Bronze Age the consolidation of the Anatolian-speaking and Hatti-Hurrian tribes closed the route to the west. On the other hand, the pressure from the Near Eastern states became stronger. This stimulated migrations through the Caucasus and Iran. Sometimes these were limited to Transcaucasia, but frequently the migrating collectives had to travel considerable distances. An important factor in giving an original twist to Indo-European migrations was the blockage of the route north by the Black and Caspian Seas. The migrating collectives bypassed the seas along different sides, creating the possibility of comparing cultures not directly connected with one another, for example, Starčevo-Criş and Shulaveri-Shomutepe, or Sintashta and Seima-Turbino sites. On the other hand, this geographical feature promoted contacts between different Indo-European groups, and set the geographical scope of Indo-Europeanisation of the continent. 6.2. Migratory models The above causes resulted in a diversity of migratory models. Alongside a series of migrations over small distances, we can observe rapid movements of thousands of kilometres, as was the case with the Sintashta people. Some migrations had several stages. The most striking example of this is the movement of the ancient Europeans, who went through such a number of cultural transformations during the course of it that their initial cultural attributes were compeletely changed. In the course of migration other ethnic groups, which had then been assimilated, might be involved in this process too. The number of migrants varied and is not always capable of precise definition. The quantity of archaeological sites may reflect not just this parameter, but also the degree of exploration of an area, speed of movement or rate of cultural transformation. Sintashta fortified settlements provide us with a happy opportunity: they are easily distinguishable, and the region of their location has been studied intensively using various methods. This has enabled us to conclude that the group which left the Near East did not exceed 10,000 persons. But the land it occupied had a much more numerous population. The success of assimilation was in this case conditioned by the dominant ethnos having intruded into the ethnically similar Aryan environment. When the language of the natives was different, the processes of assimilation could take much longer: in Central and Western Europe, for example, some centuries. It is necessary to pay attention, in this connection, to one circumstance. In Eurasia, the areas where Indo-Europeanisation was realised as a result of one migration are the exception. More typically, the regions where the Indo-European languages triumphed were subjected to repeated encroachments by IndoEuropean tribes. The process was easier when its speakers were in positions of power and authority. In this case their language became the lingua franca, although bilingual communities might remain for quite a long time. This superimposition of a foreign component on an ethnically and culturally similar base creates the illusion of autochthonous development. As though to confirm this, transitional types, which in many cases were actually contact types, are present. Indeed, the long coexistence of classic types (local and foreign) and contact types is quite possible. The impression of autochthonous development is strengthened when predominantly military collectives migrate or where the number of women participating in the migration is insignificant. The outcome is that where such a group penetrates, the ceramic materials are transformed far less despite the essential change of ethnic parameters – and it is archaeological practice, despite declarations of comprehensive investigation, to ascribe a particular com- 421 plex to a definite archaeological culture almost exclusively from the study of ceramics. Furthermore, the local population could make a very important contribution to a new cultural formation – the processes of cultural transformation in India are a good example. Therefore, replacement of language need not be accompanied by replacement of culture. At the same time, the infiltration of Indo-Europeans was accompanied in most cases by the distribution of Indo-European culture. These migrations had usually started from the most advanced regions of antiquity and brought the distribution of advanced economic models. Therefore, the nature of cultural transformation depended in many respects on the degree of distinction between the economy of the migrants and that of the local populations. The natural and landscape features of the regions through which the migration passed, or in which it terminated, were also important. In aggregate, these factors created a unique matrix for each separate migratory process. This makes study difficult, but in modern conditions the problems are soluble. There is one more feature of Indo-European migrations, not yet understood. Although many of their groups strayed from the general route, ancient European populations moved in the same direction, albeit at different times and at a great distance from each other. Three non-contemporary Greek populations appear in the south of the Balkan Peninsula. All this suggests that the different groups maintained frequent contacts, despite they were rather remote from each other. Knowledge of the world was more thorough than it seems to us, and in the migratory periods it was probably even greater than that of the Greeks at the beginning of the period of their rapid expansion through the Mediterranean and the Pontus. Even Greek colonisation itself may only have been possible because they developed a space about which they already knew something. The Hyksos, having come from Western Asia, maintained communications everywhere: with Syria, Central Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Crete. Egyptian objects are diffused over all of these areas. Here were the roots of the subsequent world policy of the New Kingdom [Müller-Karpe, 1974, p. 476]. I foresee objections with reference to Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources, where even in the early 2nd millennium BC information about Anatolia, for example, was scant enough. However, the form of life of the valley civilisations presupposed a certain insularity that perhaps was missing amongst their neighbours, especially at the time of the migratory phases. We can imagine the forms of these contacts in the Eastern Mediterranean, but it is not clear how they were realised through the spaces of Northern Eurasia. And we are unlikely to have the requisite tools to study this problem in the near future. Summarising this work, it would be desirable to point out again the significant role of migration in human history. This is true, however, only over large stretches of time. Everyday life and thought, operating over several decades, is not able to reflect this. However, it is sufficient to recollect how the ethnic map of the Indo-Europeans has changed over the last three centuries, an insignificant period in comparison with the archaeological era – and the events described here lasted several millennia. A particular migration, even over a considerable distance, could last from several months to several years. Therefore, it was more usual that a population have a settled residence. However, we often undervalue the ability of ancient communities to cross vast spaces in a crisis, but it is necessary to get used to this. The appearance of features of other cultures is usually explained by cultural influence; however, its realisation was impossible without direct contact. There was no other technique of communications in antiquity. In particular, it is impossible to borrow the ideas of metallurgy, pottery, cattle breeding or agriculture without a long period of training. To borrow a language without coming into direct physical contact with its speakers is even more absurd. Nevertheless, it would have been impossible for the Indo-Europeans to have spread so widely through Eurasia by the end of the Bronze Age without large-scale migratory processes, and this is contrary to concepts about the autochthonous cultural development of this or that terrain. Quite often scholars identify resemblances between artefacts from far distant areas, which they explain by comparable levels of social and economic development, etc. bringing about the independent development of typologically similar artefacts. In some cases comparable features do really arise independently: but this demands proof, not statement. The distribution of comparable artefacts by migration was, nevertheless, more typical. These migrations were the main cause of cultural genesis in antiquity. And that thesis is the main outcome of this book. 422 Conclusion By publishing this book, I well understand what responses it will excite, as my conclusions are at considerable variance not only with modern concepts about Eurasian ethnic history but also, above all, with prevailing ideas about the cultural system of this continent. However, the deficiencies in the common scheme of interpretation are quite obvious, and it has only survived for so long because of an unwillingness to investigate and discuss its accumulated inconsistencies, of which an extensive list could be compiled from the archaeological material. If we use linguistic evidence as well, it becomes impossible to discuss the common scheme intelligibly at all. The weakest spot in former schemes was the problem of the rise of new cultural developments. A number of Eurasian cultures arose from quasi nonexistence. This becomes apparent with particular clarity at the transition from one historical epoch to another, when the entire set of cultural attributes is replaced. In these cases the conventional schemes are powerless and are compelled to regard the replacement of large cultural blocs as a ‘new deck of cards’, when there is neither the necessity nor the capacity to understand the causes of particular combinations. Most surprising is that the general tendencies of development within vast spaces are frequently explained based on the materials of each individual local area. In contrast, the scheme of ethno-cultural processes in Eurasia suggested here interprets them within the framework of a unified system. The Near Eastern parallels to the archaeological complexes of Northern Eurasia presented in this book are not always synchronous or directly preceding to them. In most cases earlier parallels are adduced. Thus, in the future it will be necessary to conduct considerable work to develop this concept in detail. However, if only contemporary parallels to the Sintashta, Fyodorovka or Karasuk cultures were given, this would be a reason for supposing that the features of these cultures appeared in the Near East as a result of migration from the north. By using earlier parallels we can exclude this completely, as we are able to trace the origins and development of these cultural traditions in the Near East and Transcaucasia. In Northern Eurasia we cannot do this, unless we take into consideration the purely declarative state- ments in favour of local roots of a particular cultural formation. Not all in this scheme is perfect, but I am convinced of its fundamental accuracy. The basis of this conviction is as follows. The suggested description of historical processes coincides with the reconstruction made by T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov from linguistic material. In a number of details these reconstructions conflict with one another. This is quite natural. Archaeology is not able in every case to demonstrate clearly linguistic transformations, and linguistics cannot always reveal the chronology of ethnic contacts, especially if these contacts were repeated. It has been demonstrated above that the process of Indo-Europeanisation of the continent was not limited to migrations of separate tribes into those places where they are already described by historical sources. As a matter of fact, this is mirrored also in the linguistic model, but archaeological material demonstrates these processes much more precisely. However, despite these reservations, it is possible to talk about the basic resemblance between the two models. In those infrequent cases where it is possible to link with written sources, these have coincided with archaeological and linguistic reconstructions. An additional argument in favour of this concept is the conformity of the scheme to the Nostratic theory. However, there is one other important circumstance. I have demonstrated the solution to two problems: the origins of Sintashta culture and SeimaTurbino bronzes, as well as the connection of these bronzes with such cultures as Krotovo, Elunino, Tashkovo, Chirkovskaya. This connection was also suggested by V.I. Stefanov, and L.Y. Krizhevskaya spoke about the Near Eastern origin of both Sintashta and Tashkovo at the 12th Ural Archaeological Conference. Many scholars have substantiated the Near Eastern origins of Balkan Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures, and this question no longer gives rise to doubts. V.I. Sarianidi, in a number of highly reliable works, has demonstrated the connection of Iranians in Bactria and Margiana with the Syro-Anatolian area, and N.L. Chlenova has revealed the Near Eastern roots of Karasuk culture. L.S. Klein wrote about the East Mediterranean origin of Catacomb culture, connecting it with the Indo-Iranian ethnos. A number of scholars, above all M.V. Andreeva, have proved the Near Eastern origin of Maikop culture. For some other cultures, I have met in the literature extremely cautious indications of Near East- 423 ern parallels and the possibilities of corresponding impulses (for example, S.S. Berezanskaya and her descriptions of the origins of KMK or the problem of the art of the Okunev culture). The prudence of scholars can be well understood. Their conclusions, and in some cases suspicions, conflicted with conventional ideas: the hypothesis of Chlenova was not accepted, and the seminal investigations of Sarianidi are outside the framework of the discussion in Russian archaeology of the problem of the Aryan homeland. The Indo-European problem is a complex one, combining linguistic and archaeological evidence. In linguistics Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have suggested a system and a fundamental solution. Convincing linguistic models uniquely localising the Indo-European homeland in the Balkans, or even in the North Pontic area or Central Europe, are lacking. Often criticism of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov has been reduced to no more than a statement that archaeological evidence in favour of it is absent. As we see, this does not correspond to reality (and, by the way, did not correspond to reality before the publication of this book). There are a number of facts to prove the connections of North Eurasian and European cul- tures with the Near East, whilst convincing examples to demonstrate the reverse connections do not now exist. There is a purely historiographic tradition, not substantiated by facts. For the long years this tradition flourished it proved impossible to flesh it out with arguments, although skilled scholars attempted to do so. Therefore, hypotheses about the northern origin of the Indo-Europeans have practically nothing which can be used today in support, either linguistic or archaeological. The archaeological model suggested here is not complete in many respects. Many parallels may raise doubts, as it has not always been possible to back them up with completely identical artefacts. But in the consideration of distant migrations and subsequent cultural transformations, such complete similarity may be wanting. Nevertheless, I believe that the Indo-European problem now passes from a general plane to one of solution of the problems of the origins of separate language and cultural groups, and that the general outline of most of these problems will be solved during the next several years – provided always, of course, that sufficient scholars apply themselves to this task. 424 References Abaev, 1965. Абаев В.И. Скифо-европейские изоглоссы. М. Abaev, 1972. Абаев В.И. К вопросу о прародине и древнейших миграциях индоиранских народов // Древний Восток и античный мир. М. Abaev, 1981. Абаев В.И. Доистория индоиранцев в свете арио-уральских языковых контактов // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Abibulaev, 1959. Абибулаев О.А. Раскопки холма Кюль-Тепе близ Нахичевани в 1955 г. // Труды Азербайджанской (Орен-калинской) экспедиции. Т. 1. МИА. № 67. М.-Л. Abibulaev, 1963. Абибулаев О.А. Некоторые итоги изучения холма Кюль-Тепе в Азербайджане // СА, № 3. Abibulaev, 1965. Абибуллаев О.А. Погребальные памятники из поселения Кюль-Тепе // Археологические исследования в Азербайджане. Баку. Abramishvili, 1988. Абрамишвили Р.М. Металлургические области на территории Закавказья в эпоху поздней бронзы и раннего железа // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н.э. и их роль в горно-металлургическом производстве древнего населения (тезисы докладов). Сухуми. Agapov et al., 1983. Агапов С.А., Васильев И.Б., Кузьмина О.В., Семенова А.П. Срубная культура лесостепного Поволжья (итоги работ Средневолжской археологической экспедиции). Куйбышев. Agapov et al., 1990. Агапов С.А., Васильев И.Б., Пестрикова В.И. Хвалынский энеолитический могильник. Саратов. Agapov, 1990. Агапов С.А. Металл степной зоны Евразии в конце бронзового века. Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. М. Agapov, Kuzminikh, 1994. Агапов С.А., Кузьминых С.В. Металл Потаповского могильника в системе Евразийской металлургической провинции // Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Потаповский курганный могильник индоиранских племен на Волге. Самара, 1994. Akishev, 1992. Акишев К.А. Происхождение звериного стиля в изобразительном искусстве саков // Маргулановские чтения. 1990 (сборник материалов конференции). М. Aksay, Diamant, 1973. Aksay B., Diamant S. Cayboyu 1970 - 1971 // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXIII. Aksit, 1987. Aksit I. Ancient Treasures of Turkey. Istanbul. Akurgal, 1990. Akurgal E. Ancient civilizations and ruins of Turkey. Istanbul. Alexandrov, 1995. Alexandrov S. The Early Bronze Age in Western Bulgaria: Periodization and Cultural Definition // Bailey D.W., Panayotov I. (ed.). Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology № 22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Alexeev, 1961. Алексеев В.П. Антропологические типы Южной Сибири (Алтае-Саянское нагорье) в эпохи неолита и бронзы // Вопросы истории Сибири и Дальнего Востока. Новосибирск. Alexeev, 1961a. Алексеев В.П. О брахиокранном компоненте в составе афанасьевской культуры // СЭ, № 1. Aliev, 1972. Алиев В. Археологические раскопки на холме Кюль-Тепе II // СА, № 3. Alj-Najar, 1981. Аль - Наджар Мухаммед. Памятники культуры ранней бронзы на территории Иордании (к вопросу о начале бронзового века Палестины) // СА, № 2. Allchin, 1981. Олчин Ф.Р. Археологические и историко-лингвистические данные о продвижении носителей индоарийских языков в Южную Азию // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Allchin, 1984. Allchin B. The Harappan Environment // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Allchin, Allchin, 1982. Allchin B., Allchin R. The rice of civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambrige. 425 Alyokhin, Dyomin, 1988. Алехин Ю.П., Демин М.А. Предварительные результаты исследований 1982-87 гг. на поселении древних металлургов Колыванское I // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири (Тезисы докладов). Барнаул. Alyokhin, Galchenko, 1995. Алехин Ю.П., Гальченко А.В. К вопросу о древнейшем скотоводстве Алтая (по материалам поселения Колыванское I) // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Ч. V, кн. 1. Челябинск. Alyokshin, 1986. Алекшин В.А. Социальная структура и погребальный обряд древне-земледельческих обществ. Л.,1986. Alyokshin, 1989. Алекшин В.А. Культурные контакты древних племен Средней Азии (неолит и эпоха бронзы) // Взаимодействия кочевых культур и древних цивилизаций. Алма-Ата. Amiet, 1986. Amiet P. L’age des echanges interiraniens. 3500 - 1700 avant J.-C. Paris. An early town ..., 1981. An early town on the Deh Luran Plain. Excavation at Tepe Farukhabad. Memoris of the Museum of anthropolofy university of Michigan. № 13. An Arbor. Andreev, 1987. Андреев Ю.В. Ранние формы урбанизации // ВДИ, № 1. Andreev, 1989. Андреев Ю.В. Островные поселения эгейского мира в эпоху бронзы. Л. Andreeva Zh, 1987. Андреева Ж.В. Бронзовый век Дальнего Востока // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Andreeva, 1977. Андреева М.В. К вопросу о южных связях майкопской культуры // СА, № 1. Andreeva, 1979. Андреева М.В. Об изображениях на серебрянных майкопских сосудах // СА, № 1. Andreeva, 1989. Андреева М.В. Курганы у Чограйского водохранилища (материалы раскопок экспедиции 1979 г.) // Древности Ставрополья. М. Andreeva, 1990. Андреева М.В. Традиционные проблемы и новые пути их решения (несколько замечаний по поводу дискуссии об этнической принадлежности майкопской культуры // СА, № 4. Andreeva, 1991. Андреева М.В. Майкопские и куро-аракские сосуды в роли культурных знаков // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Andreeva, 1996. Андреева М.В. К вопросу о знаковой роли посуды из раннебронзовых памятников Кавказа (конец IV-III тысячелетия до н. э.) // ВДИ, № 1. Angelova, 1991. Angelova I. A Chalcolithic Cemetry near the Town of Targoviste // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Antipina, 1996. Антипина Е.Е. Скотоводство эпохи бронзы в степной полосе Восточной Европы // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч.1. Уфа. Antipina, 1997. Антипина Е.Е. Методы реконструкции особенностей скотоводства на юге Восточной Европы в эпоху бронзы.// РА, № 3. Antipina, 1997. Антипина Е.Е. Об организации хозяйства у населения степей Южного Приуралья в позднебронзовом веке // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Antipina, 1999. Антипина Е.Е. Костные остатки животных с поселения Горный (биологические и археологические аспекты исследования) // РА, № 1. Antonova, 1990. Антонова Е.В. Обряды и верования первобытных земледельцев Востока. М., 1990. Antonova, Litvinskii, 1998. Антонова Е.В., Литвинский Б.А. К вопросу об истоках древней культуры Переднего Востока // ВДИ, № 1. Antropologicheskiye tipi ..., 1988. Антропологические типы древнего населения на территории СССР. М. Archeologia UkSSR, 1985. Археология Украинской ССР. Т.1. Киев. Aretyan, 1973. Аретян Г.Е. Малоазийские формы в керамике Армении среднего бронзового века // СА, № 4. Aretyan, 1988. Аретян Г.Е. Индоевропейский сюжет в мифологии междуречья Куры и Аракса II тысячелетия до н. э. // ВДИ, № 4. Arheologia Asii, 1986. Археология зарубежной Азии. М. Arheologia Vengrii, 1986. Археология Венгрии. Конец II тысячелетия до н. э. - I тысячелетие н. э. М. Artyomenko, 1987. Артеменко И.И. Культуры шнуровой керамики: среднеднепровская, подкарпатская, городоцко-здолбицкая, стжи- 426 жовская // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Artyomenko, 1987a. Артеменко И.И. Комаровская культура // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Artyomenko, 1987b. Артеменко И. И. Сосницкая культура // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Askarov, 1973. Аскаров А. Сапаллитепа. Ташкент. Askarov, 1977. Аскаров А. Древнеземледельческие культуры эпохи бронзы юга Узбекистана. Ташкент. Askarov, 1979. Аскаров А. К вопросу о происхождении культуры племен с расписной керамикой эпохи поздней бронзы и раннего железа // Этнография и археология Средней Азии. М. Askarov, 1981. Аскаров А.А. Южный Узбекистан во II тыс. до н. э. // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Aurenche, 1981. Aurenche O. La maison orientale. L’architecture du proche orient ancient des origines au milieu du quatriceme millenaire. Paris. Avanesova, 1979. Аванесова Н.А. Проблемы истории андроновского культурного единства по металлическим изделиям. Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. Л. Avanesova, 1991. Аванесова Н.А. Культура пастушеских племен эпохи бронзы азиатской части СССР. Ташкент. Avetisyan, 1978. Аветисян Г.М. Политическая история Митанни в XVI-XV вв. до н. э. // ВДИ, № 1. Avilova et al., 1999. Авилова Л. И., Антонова Е.В., Тенейшвили Т.О. Металлургическое производство в южной зоне Циркумпонтийской металлургической провинции // РА, № 1. Avilova, 1975. Авилова Л.И. Культура шаровидных амфор в Польше (обзор литературы) // СА, № 3. Avilova, 1996. Авилова Л.И. Металл Месопотамии в раннем и среднем бронзовом веке // ВДИ,. № 4. Avilova, 1996a. Авилова Л.И. Проблемы датирования бронзового века Анатолии (к вопросу о радиоуглеродной хронологии региона) // РА, № 1. Avilova, Chernikh, 1989. Авилова Л.И., Черных Е.Н. Малая Азия в системе металлургических провинций // Естественнонаучные методы в археологии. М. Bader, 1961. Бадер О.Н. Поселения турбинского типа в Среднем Прикамье // МИА, № 99. Bader, 1964. Бадер О.Н. Древнейшие металлурги Приуралья. М. Bader, 1971. Бадер О.Н. Погребения на Владычинской стоянке и вопрос о фатьяновской бронзе // СА, № 1. Bader, 1976. Бадер О.Н. Новый могильник сейминского типа на Оке и вопрос о связи могильников с поселениями // Проблемы археологии Поволжья и Приуралья. Куйбышев. Bader, 1989. Бадер Н.О. Древнейшие земледельцы Северной Месопотамии. М. Bader, Khalikov, 1987. Бадер О.Н., Халиков А.Х. Балановская культура // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Bader, Popova, 1987. Бадер О.Н., Попова Т.Б. Поздняковская культура // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Bagautdinov et al., 1999. Багаутдинов Р.С., Крамарев А.И., Скарбовенко В.А. Раскопки курганов эпохи поздней бронзы в лесо-степном Ульяновском Заволжье // Научное наследие А.П.Смирнова и современные проблемы археологии Волго-Камья. Москва. Bagautdinov, 1988. Багаутдинов Р.С. Сравнительный анализ срубной и федоровской керамики из погребений с трупосожжениями // Проблемы изучения археологической керамики. Куйбышев. Bahat, 1992. Bahat D. Dolmens in Palestine // The architecture of ancient Israel from the prehistoric to the percian periods. Ierusalem. Barlett, 1982. Barlett J.R. Jericho. Guildford. Barta, 1985. Барта А. Проблемы этнической археологии в уралистике и алтаистике // УралоАлтаистика (Археология. Этнография. Язык). Новосибирск. Bartonek, 1991. Бартонек А. Златообильные Микены. М. Bashilov, Loone, 1986. Башилов В.А., Лооне Э.Н. Об уровнях исследования и познавательных задачах археологии // СА, № 3. Bayun, 1998. Баюн Л.С. Дивинация на древнем Ближнем Востоке. I // ВДИ, 1998, № 1. Behm-Blancke, 1984. Behm-Blancke M.R. HassekHöyük // Istanb. Mittgl. 34. Ben-Dov, 1992. Ben-Dov M. Middle and Late Bron- 427 ze Age dwellings // The architecture of ancient Israel from the prehistoric to the percian periods. Ierusalem. Ben-Tor, 1992. Ben-Tor A. Early Bronze Age dwellings and installations // The architecture of ancient Israel from the prehistoric to the percian periods. Ierusalem. Ben-Tor, 1992a. Ben-Tor A. The Early Bronze Age // The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, London. Berezanskaya et al., 1986. Березанская С.С., Отрощенко В.В., Чередниченко Н.Н., Шарафутдинова И.Н. Культуры эпохи бронзы на территории Украины. Киев. Berezanskaya, 1967. Березанская С.С. Тшинецко-комаровская культура на Северной Украине // СА, № 2. Berezanskaya, 1998. Березанская С.С. Могильник эпохи бронзы Гордеевка на Южном Буге // РА, № 4. Berezanskaya, Gershkovich, 1983. Березанская С.С., Гершкович Я.П. Андроновские элементы в срубной культуре на Украине // Бронзовый век степной полосы Урало - Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Berlev, Khodzhakh, 1979. Берлев О.Д., Ходжах С.И. Наконечник копья фараона Яхмеса I из Государственного музея изобразительных искусств имени А.С. Пушкина // ВДИ, № 3. Bertemes, 1989. Bertemes F. Das Frühbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld von Gemeinlebarn: kulturhistorische und paläometallurgische Studien. Bonn: Habelt. Bertemes, 1991. Bertemes F. Untersuchungen zur Funktion der Erdwerke der Michelsberger Kultur im Rahmen der kupferzeitlichen Zivilization // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Besedin, 1984. Беседин В.И. Воронежская культура эпохи бронзы // Эпоха бронзы восточноевропейской лесостепи. Воронеж. Besedin, 1986. Беседин В.И. Погребения воронежской культуры // Археологические памятники эпохи бронзы восточноевропейской лесостепи. Воронеж. Besedin, 1995. Беседин В.И. О хронологии Пепкинского кургана // РА, № 3. Besedin, 1999. Беседин В.И. «Микенский» орнаментальный стиль эпохи бронзы в Восточной Европе. // Евразийская лесостепь в эпоху металла. Воронеж. Bibikova, 1981. Бибикова В.И. Животноводство в Северной Месопотамии в V тысячелетии до н. э. (по материалам халафского поселения Ярымтепе II) // Мунчаев Р.М., Мерперт Н.Я. Раннеземледельческие поселения Северной Месопотамии. М. Bibleyskaya ..., 1990. Библейская энциклопедия. М. Bickermann, 1975. Бикерман Э. Хронология древнего мира. М. Bidzilya, Yakovenko, 1973. Бидзиля В.И., Яковенко Э.В. Рало из позднеямного погребения конца III - начала II тысячелетия до н. э. // СА, № 3. Bitkovskii, Tkachov, 1997. Бытковский О.Ф., Ткачев В.В. Погребальные комплексы среднего бронзового века из Восточного Оренбуржья // Археологические памятники Оренбуржья. Оренбург. Blajer, 1990. Blajer W. Skarby z wczesnej epoki brazu na zieiach polskich. Wroclaw. Blavatskaya, 1966. Блаватская Б.В. Ахейская Греция во втором тысячелетии до н.э. М. Blegen, 1971. Blegen C.W. The Identification of Troy // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Bobrinskii, Munchaev, 1966. Бобринский А.А., Мунчаев Р.М. Из древнейшей истории гончарного круга на Северном Кавказе // КСИА, Вып. 108. Bobrov et al., 1997. Бобров В.В., Кузьминых С.В., Тенейшвили Т.О. Древняя металлургия Среднего Енисея (лугавская культура). Кемерово. Bobrov, 1993. Бобров В.В. Андроновская культура или культурно-историческая общность? // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Bobrov, 1999. Бобров В.В. К проблеме историкоархеологического развития в начале I тыс. до н.э. на территории Южной Сибири // Итоги изучения скифской эпохи Алтая и сопредельных территорий. Барнаул. Bochkaryov, 1995. Бочкарев В.С. Культурогенез и развитие металлопроизводства в эпоху поздней бронзы (По материалам южной половины Восточной Европы) // Древние индо- 428 Bolshakov, 1990. Большаков А.О. Определение государства требует уточнения // ВДИ, № 2. Bolshov, 1991. Большов С.В. Абашевские древности и некоторые проблемы эпохи бронзы лесной полосы Среднего Поволжья // Поздний энеолит и культуры ранней бронзы лесной полосы европейской части СССР. ЙошкарОла. Bolshov, 1994. Большов С.В. Абашевская культура севера Среднего Поволжья. Автореф. канд. дис. М. Bolshov, 1995. Большов С.В. Проблемы культурогенеза в лесной полосе Среднего Поволжья в абашевское время (к вопросу о соотношении абашевских и балановских памятников) // Древние индоиранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара. Bolshov, Kuzmina O., 1995. Большов С.В., Кузьмина О.В. Новые исследования II Валоватовского могильника // Древние индоиранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара. Boltrik et al., 1991. Болтрик Ю.В., Левченко В.Н., Фиалко Е.Е. О позднеямных чертах в катакомбном погребальном обряде низовья реки Молочной // Катакомбные культуры Северного Причерноморья. Киев. Bona, 1975. Bona I. Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. Bondary, 1974. Бондарь Н.Н. Поселения Среднего Поднепровья эпохи ранней бронзы. Киев. Bongard-Levin, 1973. Бонгард-Левин Г.М. К проблеме генезиса древнеиндийской цивилизации (индоарии и местные субстраты) // ВДИ. 1979. № 3. Bongard-Levin, 1984. Бонгард-Левин Г.М. Арийское и неарийское в древней Индии // Древние культуры Средней Азии и Индии. Л. Bongard-Levin, 1988. Бонгард-Левин Г.М., Гуров Н.В. Древнейшая этнокультурная история народов Индостана: итоги, проблемы и задачи исследования // Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи. М. Bongard-Levin, Ilyin, 1985. Бонгард-Левин Г.М., Ильин Г.Ф. Индия в древности. М. Boroffka, 1994. Boroffka N.G.O. Die Wietenberg - Kultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bronzezeit in Südosteuropa. Bonn: Habelt. Boroffka, 1994a. Boroffka N.G.O. Die WietenbergKultur. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Bron- иранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н. э.). Самара. Boehmer, 1975. Boehmer R.M. Gliptik von der altbis zur spätbabylonischen Zeit. // Orthmann W. Der Alte Orient. Berlin: Propiläen. Boessneck, 1992. Boessneck J. Besprechung der Tierknochen- und Molluskenreste von Hassek Höyük // Behm-Blancke M.R. (Herausg.) Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Boettcher, 1999. Boettcher C.-H. Der Ursprung Europas. Die Wiege des Westens vor 6000 Jahren. St. Ingbert: Rohrig Un. Bogdanov et al., 1992. Богданов С.В., Кривцов Ю.А., Моргунова Н.Л. Курганы древнеямной культуры в левобережье р. Урал // Древняя история населения Волго-Уральских степей. Оренбург, 1992. Bogdanova-Berezovskaya, 1968. Богданова-Березовская И.В. Химический состав металлических предметов из могильников эпохи бронзы в Бишкентской долине // Мандельштам А.М. Памятники эпохи бронзы в Южном Таджикистане. Л. Bogoslovskaya, 1972. Богословская Н.Ф. К проблеме сложения халафской культуры // СА, № 2. Bogoslovskaya, 1988. Богословская И.В. Одежда кочевых и мигрирующих народов Ханаана по древнеегипетским изображениям XIV - XII вв. до н. э. // ВДИ, № 1. Boguski, 1992. Boguski P.J. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Chronology of Poland // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Bökönyi, 1987. Bökönyi S. Horse and sheep in East Europe in the Copper and Bronze Ages // ProtoIndo-European: The archaeology of a linguistic problem. Studies in honor of Marija Gimbutas. Washington, D.C. Bökönyi, 1989. Bökönyi S. Animal husbandry of the Koros-Starcevo complex: its origin and development // Bokonyi S. (ed.). Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Budapest. Bökönyi, 1991. Bökönyi S. Pferde- und Schaftdomestikation bzw. -haltung in der frühen Kupferzeit Eurasiens // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. II. Bonn. 429 Briard, 1981a. Briard J. Urnes et, Champs d’urnes’ en Bretagne // Lorenz H. (Herausg.) Studien zur Bronzezeit. Festschrift fur Wilhelm Albert v. Brunn. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Bryusov, 1965. Брюсов А.Я. Восточная Европа в III тысячелетии до н. э. (Этнографический очерк) // СА, № 2. Buisson, 1970. Le comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson. Le mythe oriental des deux ceants du jour et de la Nuit // Archaeologia Iranica. Miscellanea in honorem R.Girshman. Iranica Antiqua. VIII. Leiden. Bukhonina, 1984. Бухонина Т.А. Могильник эпохи бронзы Куропаткино II на р. Чаглинка // Бронзовый век Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Burfield, 1993. Burfield L.H. The Context of Statuemenhirs // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Burney, 1977. Burney C. From Village to Empire. An Introduction to Near Eastern Archaeology. Oxford, 1977. Bzhaniya, 1963. Бжания В.В. Кавказ // Неолит Северной Евразии. М. Bzhaniya, 1988. Бжания В.В. Древние рудники у перевала Аденгь // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н.э. и их роль в горнометаллургическом производстве древнего населения (тезисы докладов). Сухуми, 1988. Catling, 1971. Catling H.W. Cyprus in the Early Bronze Age // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Caneva, 1993. Caneva I. From Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age III at Arslantepe: A Lithic Perspective // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Casini et al., 1993. Casini S., De Marinis R.C., Fossati A. Stele e massi incisi della Valcamonica e della Valtellina // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Caskey, 1971. Caskey J.L. Greece, Crete, and the Aegean Islands in the Early Bronze Age // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Chairkina, 1996. Чаиркина Н.М. Зауральско-североказахстанская культурно-историческая zezeit in Südosteuropas. T. 2. Bonn. Boroffka, 1995. Boroffka N. The Wietenberg Cultur // Stoica C., Roten M., Boroffka N. (ed.). Comori ale epocii bronzului din Romania. Bucureşti. Boroffka, 1995a. Boroffka N. The Otomani Cultur / / Stoica C., Roten M., Boroffka N. (ed.). Comori ale epocii bronzului din România. Bucureşti. Boroffka, 1998. Boroffka N. Bronze- und früheisenzeitliche Geweihtrensenknebel aus Rumänien und ihre Beziehungen. In: Eurasia Antiqua. Bd. 4, 1988. Mainz am Rhein. Borukhovich, 1964. Борухович В.Г. Ахейцы в Малой Азии // ВДИ, № 3. Borzunov, 1992. Борзунов В.А. Зауралье на рубеже бронзового и железного веков. Екатеринбург. Botalov et al., 1996. Боталов С.Г., Григорьев С.А., Зданович Г.Б. Погребальные комплексы эпохи бронзы Большекараганского могильника (публикация результатов археологических раскопок 1988 года) // Материалы по археологии и этнографии Южного Урала. Труды музея-заповедника Аркаим. Челябинск. Bottero, 1971. Bottero J. Syria and Palestina c. 2160 - 1780 BC. Syria during the Third Dinasty of Ur // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Boyadziev, 1995. Boyadziev Y.D. Chronology of Prehistoric Cultures in Bulgaria // Bailey D.W., Panayotov I. (ed.). Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology № 22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Boyce, 1994. Бойс М. Зороастрийцы. Верования и обычаи. Санкт-Петербург. Bratchenko, 1976. Братченко С.Н. Нижнее Подонье в эпоху средней бронзы. Киев. Bratchenko, Konstantinesku, 1987. Братченко С.Н., Константинеску Л.Ф. Александровский энеолитический могильник // Древнейшие скотоводы степей юга Украины. Киев. Bray, Tramp, 1990. Брей У., Трамп Д. Археологический словарь. М. Brentjes, 1981. Брентьес Б. Митаннийцы и павлин // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Briard, 1981. Briard J. Urnes et «Champs d’urnes» en Bretagne // Studien zur Bronzezeit. Meinz am Rhein. 430 Chernikh, 1978. Черных Е.Н. Металлургические провинции и периодизация эпохи раннего металла на территории СССР // СА, № 4. Chernikh, 1983. Черных Е.Н. Проблема общности культур валиковой керамики в степях Евразии // Бронзовый век степной полосы Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Chernikh, 1988. Черных Е.Н. Циркумпонтийская провинция и индоевропейцы // Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи. М. Chernikh, 1991. Černych E.N. Frühestes Kupfer in der Steppen - und Waldsteppenkulturen Osteuropas // Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrucken und Otzenhausen. Bonn. Chernikh, 1993. Черных Е.Н. Каргалы - древний горнорудный центр на Южном Урале // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Chernikh, 1996. Черных Е.Н. Каргалинский горно-металлургический комплекс на Южном Урале // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч.1. Уфа. Chernikh, 1997. Черных Е.Н. Каргалы. Забытый мир. М. Chernikh, et al., 1999. Черных Е.Н., Кузьминых С.В., Лебедева Е.Ю., Агапов С.А., Луньков В.Ю., Орловская Л.Б., Тенейшвили Т.О., Вальков Д.В. Археологические памятники эпохи бронзы на Каргалах (поселение Горный и другие) // РА, № 1. Chernikh, Korenevskii, 1976. Черных Е.Н., Кореневский С.Н. О металлических предметах с Царева кургана близ г. Куйбышева // Восточная Европа в эпоху камня и бронзы. М. Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1989. Черных Е.Н., Кузьминых С.В. Древняя металлургия северной Евразии. М. Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1990. Черных Е.Н., Кузьминых С.В. Древнейшая металлургия Северной Евразии: проблема взаимосвязей производящих центров // Uralo-Indogermanica. Балто-славянские языки и проблема урало-индоевропейских связей. Ч. II, М. Chernikh, Kuzminikh, 1994. Černich E.N., Kuz’minych S.V. Die alteste Metallurgie Nordeurasiens // Journal de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne. 85. 21-39, Helsinki. область эпохи неолита // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч.1. Уфа. Chang, 1977. Chang K. The archaeology of ancient China. Yale. Chang, 1992. Chang K. China // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Chartolani, 1988. Чартолани Ш.Г. Медные горнорудные выработки в Сванетии // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н.э. и их роль в горно-металлургическом производстве древнего населения (тезисы докладов). Сухуми. Chechenov, 1970. Чеченов И.М. Гробница эпохи ранней бронзы в г. Нальчике // СА, № 2. Chechenov, 1990. Чеченов И.М. К проблеме изучения древней истории и археологии Северного Кавказа // СА, № 4. Chengyuan, 1980. Chengyuan M. The Splendor of Ancient Chinese Bronzes // The Great Bronze Age of China. New York. Cherednichenko, Pustovalov, 1991. Чередниченко Н.Н., Пустовалов С.Ж. Боевые колесницы и колесничие в обществе катакомбной культуры (по материалам раскопок в Нижнем Поднепровье) // СА, № 4. Chernai, 1985. Чернай И.Л. Текстильное дело и керамика по материалам из памятников энеолита - бронзы Южного Зауралья и Северного Казахстана // Энеолит и бронзовый век УралоИртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Chernikh et al., 1991. Cernych E.N., Avilova Z.I., Barceva T.O. The Circumpontic Metallurgical Province as a System // Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. Bonn. Chernikh, 1966. Черных Е.Н. История древнейшей металлургии Восточной Европы. М. Chernikh, 1966. Черных Е.Н. О химическом составе клада из Сосновой Мазы // КСИА, Вып. 108. Chernikh, 1970. Черных Е.Н. Древнейшая металлургия Урала и Поволжья. М. Chernikh, 1975. Черных Е.Н. Айбунарский медный рудник IV тыс. до н. э. на Балканах // СА, № 4. Chernikh, 1976. Черных Е.Н. Древняя металлообработка на юго-западе СССР. М. Chernikh, 1978. Черных Е.Н. Горное дело и металлургия в древнейшей Болгарии. София. 431 Chernikov, 1960. Черников С.С. Восточный Казахстан в эпоху бронзы // МИА, № 88. Chernish, 1996. Черныш Е.К. Юго-запад Восточной Европы // Неолит Северной Евразии. М. Chernishov, 1990. Чернышов Ю.Г. Раннеримское государство или «безгосударственная община граждан» ? // ВДИ, № 2. Childe, 1950. Childe V.G. The Prehistory of European Society. London. Chindin, 1987. Чиндин А.Ю. Относительная хронология могильников развитой бронзы // Вопросы периодизации археологических памятников Центрального Казахстана. Караганда. Chirikba, 1985. Чирикба В.А. Баскский и северокавказские языки // Древняя Анатолия. М. Chlenova, 1972. Членова Н.Л. Хронология памятников карасукской эпохи. М. Chlenova, 1973. Членова Н.Л. Карасукские находки на Урале и в Восточной Европе // СА, № 2. Chlenova, 1974. Членова Н.Л. Карасукские кинжалы. М. Chlenova, 1975. Членова Н.Л. Соотношения культур карасукского типа и кетских топонимов на территории Сибири // Этногенез и этническая история народов Севера. М. Chlenova, 1984. Членова Н.Л. Археологические материалы к вопросу об иранцах доскифской эпохи и индоиранцах // СА, № 1. Chlenova, 1999. Членова Н.Л. Центральная Азия и скифы. Москва. Chokadziev, 1995. Chokadziev S. On Early Social Differentiation in the Strumna River Basin: The Evidence from the Slatino Settlement // Bailey D.W., Panayotov I. (ed.). Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology № 22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Cilingirogli, 1984. Cilingirogli A. The Second Millennium Painted Pottery Tradition of the Van Lake Basin // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXXIV. Civinskaya, Penin, 1994. Цивинская Л.В., Пенин Г.Г. Минералогическая характеристика каменных орудий Потаповского могильника // Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Потаповский курганный могильник индоиранских племен на Волге. Самара, 1994. Clough, 1979. Mc K. Clough T.H. Bronze Age Metalwork from Rutland // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Coghlan, 1975. Coghlan H.H. Notes on the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Copper and Bronze in the Old World. 2-nd ed. Oxford. Coleman, 1992. Coleman J.E. Greece, the Aegean, and Cyprus // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Coles, Harding, 1979. Coles J.M., Harding A.F. The Bronze Age in Europe. London: Methue and Co LTD. Colquhoun, 1979. Colquhoun I.A. The Late Bronze Age Hoard from Blackmoor, Hampshire // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Colquhoun, Burgess, 1988. Colquhoun J., Burgess C.B. The Swords of Britain. München: Beck. Comsa, 1991. Comsa E. Cucuteni und nordpontische Verbindungen // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Conti, Persiani, 1993. Conti A.M., Persiani C. When Worlds Collide. Cultural Developments in Eastern Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Coombs, 1979. Coombs D. A Late Bronze Age Hoard from Cassiobridge Farm, Watford, Hertfordshire // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Coombs, 1979a. Coombs D. The Figheldean Down Hoard, Wiltshire // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Coombs, Bradshaw, 1979. Coombs D., Bradshaw J. A Carp’s Tongue Hoard from Stourmouth, Kent // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Crossland, 1971. Crossland R.A. Immigrations from the North // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. D’Anna, et al., 1993. D’Anna A., Gutherz X., Jallot L. Les steles anthropomorphes et les statuesmenhirs neolothiques du Sud de la France // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Dandamaev, 1989. Дандамаев М.А. Некоторые замечания к обсуждаемой проблеме // ВДИ, № 2. Dandamaev, Lukonin, 1980. Дандамаев М.А., Луконин В.Г. Культура и экономика древнего Ирана. М. 432 Danilenko, 1974. Даниленко В.Н. Энеолит Украины. Киев. Darvill, 1987. Darvill T. Prehistoric Britain. London. Davies, 1979. Davies D.G. Hatfield Broad OAK, Leigh, Rayne, Southchurch: Late Bronze Age Hoards from Essex // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. De Marinis, 1993. De Marinis R.C. Le statue-stele della Lunigiana // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. De Marinis, 1993a. De Marinis R.C. Le stele anthropomorfe di Aosta // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Degtyaryova et al., 1998. Дегтярева А.Д., Попова Т.М., Кизина Н.Г., Астрединов В.М. Технологические особенности изготовления металлического инвентаря погребения воинаколесничего Кондрашкинского кургана // Доно-Донецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесостепи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. Dergachov, Manzura, 1991. Дергачев В.А., Манзура И.В. Европейский компонент майкопской культуры в контексте взаимосвязей Центрально- и Восточно-Европейских общностей // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Derzhavin, 1989. Державин В.Л. Погребения эпохи бронзы из курганов у хут. Веселая Роща (по материалам экспедиции 1980 г.) // Древности Ставрополья. М. Devlet, 1997. Дэвлет М.А. Окуневские антропоморфные личины в ряду наскальных изображений Северной и Центральной Азии // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. Санкт-Петербург. Devlet, 1998. Дэвлет М.А. Петроглифы на дне Саянского моря. Москва. Dewring-Kaspers, 1986. Дюринг-Касперс Э. Маргиано-бактрийских археологический комплекс и хараппское письмо // ВДИ, № 3. Di Nocera, 1993. Di Nocera G.M. Die mittelbronzezeitliche Keramik von Arslantepe: einige vorläufige Bemerkungen // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Diakonov, 1970. Дьяконов И.М. Арийцы на Ближнем Востоке: конец мифа (к методике исследования исчезнувших языков) // ВДИ, № 4. Diakonov, 1981. Дьяконов И.М. К методике исследований по этнической истории (киммерийцы) // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Diakonov, 1982. Дьяконов И.М. О прародине носителей индоевропейский диалектов. I. // ВДИ, № 3. Diakonov, 1982a. Дьяконов И.М. О прародине носителей индоевропейских диалектов.II. // ВДИ. 1982. № 4. Diakonov, 1990. Дьяконов И.М. Люди города Ура. М. Diamant, 1986. Diamant S. Mycenaean Origins: Infiltration from the North? // French E.B., Wardle K.A. (ed.) Problems of Greek Prehistory: papers presented at the centenary conference of the British School of Archaeology at Aphens, Manchester. Diamant, Rutter, 1969. Diamant S., Rutter J. Horned Objects in Anatolia and the Near East and possible connections with the Minoan «Horns of Consecration» // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XIX. Dneprovskii, Korenevskii, 1995. Днепровский К.А., Кореневский С.Н., Эрлих В.Р. Новые погребения «новосвободненской группы» у станицы Костромской в Закубанье // РА, № 3. Dolukhanov et al., 1985. Долуханов П.М., Щетенко А.Я., Този М. Серия радиоуглеродных датировок наслоений эпохи бронзы на Намазгадепе // СА, № 4. Domanskii, 1984. Доманский Я.В. Древняя художественная бронза Кавказа. М. Dornemann, 1992. Dornemann R. Early Seconde Millennium Ceramic Parallels between Tell Hadidi-Azu and Mari // Mari in Retrospect. Winona Lake, Indiana. Draganov, 1995. Draganov V. Submerged Coastal Settlements from the Final Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age in the Sea around Sozopol and Urdoviza near Kiten // Bailey D.W., Panayotov I. (ed.). Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology № 22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Drevneyshie gosudarstva..., 1985. Древнейшие государства Кавказа и Средней Азии. М. Drevnyaya Ebla, 1985. Древняя Эбла. М. Drews, 1988. Drews R. The Coming of Greeks. Princeton. 433 Drews, 1993. Drews R. The End of the Bronze Age. Princeton. Drower, 1971. Drower M.S., Bittero J. Syria before 2200 BC // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Dryomov I., 1996. Дремов И.И. Грунтовые могильники эпохи средней бронзы Белогорское I,II // Охрана и исследование памятников археологии Саратовской области в 1995 г. Саратов. Dryomov I., 1997. Дремов И.И. Материалы из курганов у с. Березовка Энгельсского района и некоторые вопросы социокультурных реконструкций эпохи поздней бронзы Археологическое наследие Саратовского края. Охрана и исследования в 1996 году. Вып. 2. Саратов. Dryomov I., 1997. Дремов И.И. О планиграфии и стратиграфии погребений конца средней начала поздней бронзы степного Поволжья // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Dryomov I., Yudin, 1992. Дремов И.И., Юдин А.И. Древнейшие подкурганные захоронения степного Заволжья // РА, № 4. Dryomov, 1988. Дремов В.А. Антропологические данные о южных связях населения Сибири в эпохи неолита и бронзы // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и и бронзового веков Южной Сибири (Тезисы докладов). Барнаул. Dubouloz, 1991. Dubouloz J. Le village fortifie de Berry-au-Bac (Aisne) et sa signification pour la fin du Neolithique dans la France du Nord // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Dumezil, 1990. Дюмезиль Ж. Скифы и нарты. М. Dyomkin et al., 1999. Демкин В.А., Демкина Т.С., Песочина Л.С. Природные условия Восточноевропейских степей в I тыс. до н.э. // Скифы Северного Причерноморья в VII-IV вв. до н.э. Москва. Dyomkin, 1999. Dyomkin V.A. Paleoecological crises and optimum conditions in Eurasian steppes in the ancient and middle ages // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Dyomkina, Dyomkin, 1999. Dyomkina T.S., Dyomkin V.A. Microbiological characteristic of burial soil of archaeological sites: new approach in studying the complex societies’ paleoecology // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Dzhafarov, 1993. Джафаров Г.Ф. Курган эпохи поздней бронзы вблизи Сарычобана // РА, № 4. Dzhakaryan, 1994. Джаракян Р.В. Этнический состав населения к северу от долины реки Диялы (Ирак) в III тысячелетии до н. э. // ВДИ, № 2. Dzhaparidze, 1993. Djaparidze O. Über die ethnokulturelle Situation in Georgien gegen Ende des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Dzhaparidze, 1994. Джапаридзе О.М. Триалетская культура // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Easton, 1976. Easton D.F. Towards a Chronology for the Anatolian Early Bronze Age // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXVI. Edwards, 1983. Edwards M. Excavation in Azerbaijan (North-western Iran). 1. Haftavan. Period VI. Oxford. Efe, 1988. Efe T. Die Keramik II. // Demircihuyuk. Bd. III, 2. Meinz am Rhein: Zabern. Efimenko, 1961. Ефименко П.П., Третьяков П.Н. Абашевская культура в Поволжье // Абашевская культура в Среднем Поволжье. МИА, № 97. Efimova, 1999. Ефимова С.Г. Антропологическая дифференциация лесостепных и степных групп европейской Скифии // Скифы Северного Причерноморья в VII-IV вв. до н.э. Москва. Egoreychenko, 1991. Егорейченко А.А. Очковидные подвески на территории СССР // СА, № 2. Egorov, 1990. Егоров А.Б. Борьба патрициев и плебеев и Римское государство // ВДИ, № 2. Ehrenberg, 1977. Ehrenberg M.R. Bronze Age Srearheads from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire // BAR, 34. Oxford. Ehrich, Bankoff, 1992. Ehrich R.W., Bankoff H.A. Geografical and Chronological Patterns in Central and Southeastern Europe // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. 434 Elynitskii, 1977. Ельницкий Л.А. К происхождению этрусской космогонии и дивинации // ВДИ, № 2. Endrodi, 1993. Endrodi A. Erscheinung der Stelleerrichtung in Ungarn // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Eneolit SSSR, 1982. Энеолит СССР. М. Eogan, 1983. Eogan G. The Hoards of the Irish Later Bronze Age. Dublin: University College. Epimakhov, 1993. Епимахов А.В. О хронологическом соотношении синташтинских и абашевских памятников // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Epimakhov, 1995. Епимахов А.В. Погребальные памятники синташтинского времени (архитектурно-планировочное решение) // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Челябинск. Epimakhov, 1996. Епимахов А. В. Курганный могильник Солнце II - некрополь укрепленного поселения Устье эпохи средней бронзы // Материалы по археологии и этнографии Южного Урала. Труды музея-заповедника Аркаим. Челябинск. Epimakhov, 1996a. Епимахов А.В. Демографические аспекты социологических реконструкций (по материалам синташтинско-петровских памятников) // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч. 1. Уфа. Epimakhov, 1998. Епимахов А.В. Погребальная обрядность населения Южного Зауралья эпохи средней бронзы. Автореферат дис. ..к.и.н. Новосибирск. Epimakhov, 1999. Yepimakhov A.V. Complex societies and possibilities to diagnose them on the basis of archaeological data // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Epokha bronzi..., 1987. Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Erdniev, 1982. Эрдниев У.Э. Курган древнеямной культуры в Калмыкии // СА, № 1. Erkanal, 1977. Erkanal H. Die Axte und Beile des 2. Jahrtausend in Zentralanatolien. Munchen: Beck. Erlikh, 1994. Эрлих В.Р. В защиту традиции о причерноморском происхождении кимме- рийцев // ВДИ, № 3. Erlikh, 1998. Erlikh V. Relationships of North Caucasus and Central Europe: Expansion or Exchange? // Abstracts Book. 4th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Esayan, 1966. Есаян С.А. Оружие и военное дело древней Армении (III - I тыс. до н. э.). Ереван. Esin, 1976. Esin U. Tulin tepe excavations 1972. Keban Project 1972 Activities. Ankara. Esin, 1993. Esin U. The Relief Decorations on the Prehistoric Pottery of Tulintepe in Eastern Anatolia // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Evdokimov, 1983. Евдокимов В.В. Хронология и периодизация памятников эпохи бронзы Кустанайского Притоболья // Бронзовый век степной полосы Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Evdokimov, 1985. Евдокимов В.В. Поселение Шукубай II // Бронзовый век Южного Приуралья. Уфа. Evdokimov, 1987. Евдокимов В.В. Заключительный этап эпохи бронзы кустанайского Притоболья // Вопросы периодизации археологических памятников Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Evdokimov, Grigoriev, 1996. Евдокимов В.В., Григорьев С.А. Металлургические комплексы поселения Семиозерки II // Новое в археологии Южного Урала. Челябинск. Evdokimov, Loman, 1989. Евдокимов В.В., Ломан В.Г. Раскопки ямного кургана в Карагандинской области // Вопросы археологии Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Evdokimov, Povalyaev, 1989. Евдокимов В.В., Поваляев Н.Л. Оценка численности населения эпохи бронзы Кустанайского Притоболья по экологическим параметрам // Вопросы археологии Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Evsyukov, Komissarov, 1984. Евсюков В.В., Комиссаров С.А. Бронзовая модель колесницы эпохи Чуньцю в свете сравнительного анализа колесничных мифов // Новое в археологии Китая. Исследования и проблемы. Новосибирск. Evtyukhova, 1961. Евтюхова О.Н. К вопросу о погребальном обряде абашевской культуры // Абашевская культура в Среднем По- 435 волжье. МИА, № 97. Farley, 1979. Farley M. A Carp’s Tongue Hoard from Aglsbury, Buckinghamshire // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Farley, 1979a. Farley M. A small Late Bronze Age Hoard from Ellesborough, Buckinghamshire // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Fedele, Fossati, 1993. Fedele F., Fossati A. Centro cultuale calcolitico dell’Avoia a Ossimo (Valcomonica): scavi 1988-1995 // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Feyter, 1989. De Feyter T. The Aussenstadt settlement of Munhaqa. Syria // To the Euphrates and beyond. Archaeological studies in honour of Maurits N. van Loon. Rotterdam. Finno-Ugri..., 1987. Финно-угры и балты в эпоху средневековья. М. Florescu, 1995. Florescu M. The Noua Culture // Stoica C., Roten M., Boroffka N. (ed.). Comori ale epocii bronzului din Romania. Bucuresti. Fol et al., 1991. Fol A., Katinčarov R., Lichardus J., Bertemes F., Iliev I.K. Die Karanovo VI Siedlung von Drama. Ein vorläufiger Bericht // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Fol, Marazov, 1977. Fol A., Marazov I. Thrace and Thracians. London. Cassel. Formozov, 1974. Формозов А.А. Об изображении на костяном топорике из Дударкова // СА, № 2. Francfort, 1984. Francfort H.P. The Harappan Settlement of Shortugai // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Frankel, 1998. Frankel D. Migration and Ethnicity in Prehistoric Ciprys // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Fray, 1993. Фрай Р. Наследие Ирана. М., 1993. Frei, 1971. Frei B. Die späte Bronzezeit im alpinen Raum // Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Schweiz. Bd. III. Die Bronzezeit. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. French, Helms, 1973. French D., Helms S. Asvan Kale: The Third Millennium Pottery // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXIII. Fukai, Matsutani, 1981. Fukai S., Matsutani T. Telul Eth-Thalathat. The Excavation of Tell II the fifth season (1976). V. IV. Tokyo. Furmanek, Jakab, 1997. Furmanek V., Jakab J. Menschliche Skelettreste aus bronzezeitlichen Siedlungen in der Slowakei. In: K.-F. Rittershofer (Hrsg.). Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit in östlichen Mitteleuropa. Internationale Archäologie, 37. Frankfurt am Main. Fyodorov, 1992. Федоров В.К. Савромато-сарматские костяные ложечки: к вопросу об индоарийских корнях савромато-сарматской культуры // Башкирский край. Уфа, Вып. 2. Fyodorov, Polevoy, 1973. Федоров Г.Б., Полевой Л.Л. Археология Румынии. М. Fyodorova-Davidova, 1964. Федорова-Давыдова Э.А. К вопросу о периодизации памятников эпохи бронзы в Южном Приуралье // АЭБ. Т. II. Уфа. Fyodorova-Davidova, 1973. Федорова-Давыдова Э.А. К проблеме андроновской культуры // Проблемы археологии Урала и Сибири. М., 1973. Fyodorov-Davidov, 1970. Федоров-Давыдов Г.А. Понятия «археологический тип» и «археологическая культура» в «Аналитической археологии» Дэвида Кларка // СА, № 3. Gadd, 1971. Gadd C.J. The Dinasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Gadd, 1971a. Gadd C.J. Babylonia, c. 2120 - 1800 BC // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Gadzhiev, 1966. Гаджиев М.Г. Новые данные о южных связях Дагестана в IV-III тысячелетиях до н. э. // КСИА, Вып. 108. Gadzhiev, 1987. Гаджиев М.Г. Древние очаги металообработки в Дагестане // КСИА, Вып. 192. Gadzhiev, 1989. Гаджиев Д.В. Фауна с поселения Телль Магзалия // Бадер Н.О. Древнейшие земледельцы Северной Месопотамии. М. Gadzhiev, 1991. Гаджиев М.Г. Раннеземледельческая культура Северо-восточного Кавказа. Москва. Gadzyatskaya, 1992. Гадзяцкая О.С. Фатьяновский компонент в культуре поздней бронзы (Волго-Клязьминское междуречье) // СА, № 1. 436 Gaibov, Koshelenko, 1989. Гаибов В.А., Кошеленко Г.А. Тоголок-21 и проблемы религиозной истории древней Маргианы // ВДИ, № 1. Gale et al., 1985. Gale N.H., Stos-Gale Z.A., Gilmore G.R. Alloy Types and Copper Sources of Anatolian Copper Alloy Artifacts // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXXV. Galibin, 1991. Галибин В.А. Изделия из цветного и благородного металла памятников ранней и средней бронзы Северного Кавказа // Древние культуры Прикубанья. Л. Galkin, 1996. Галкин Л.Л. О роли экологических факторов в истории населения ВолгоУральского междуречья в эпоху бронзы // Вопросы археологии Западного Казахстана. Вып. 1. Самара. Gallay, 1993. Gallay A. Les steles anthropomorphes du site megalithique du Petit-Chasseur a Sion (Valais, Suisse) // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1980. Гамкрелидзе Т.В., Иванов В.В. Древняя Передняя Азия и индоевропейская проблема. Временные и ареальные характеристики общеиндоевропейского языка по лингвистическим и культурно-историческим данным // ВДИ. 1980. № 3. Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1981. Гамкрелидзе Т.В., Иванов В.В. Миграции племен-носителей индоевропейских диалектов с первоначальной территории расселения на Ближнем Востоке в исторические места их обитания в Евразии // ВДИ, № 2. Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984. Гамкрелидзе Т.В., Иванов В.В. Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы. Тбилиси. Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1989. Гамкрелидзе Т.В., Иванов Вяч. Вс. Первые индоевропейцы в истории: предки тохар в древней Передней Азии // ВДИ, № 1. Garašanin, 1991. Garašanin M.V. Der Übergang vom Neolithikum zur Frühen Bronzezeit auf dem Balkan und an der unteren Donau. Ein Rückblick nach dreißig Jahren // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Gaucher, 1981. Gaucher G. Sites et cultures de l’age du bronze dans le bassin Parisien. Paris. Gaur, 1981. Гаур Р.С. Серая расписная керамика и арийская проблема // Этнические пробле- мы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Gayduchenko, 1995. Гайдученко Л.Л. Место и значение Южного Урала в экспортно-импортных операциях по направлению Восток Запад в эпоху бронзы // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 2. Челябинск. Gebel, 1984. Gebel H.G. Das Akeramische Neolithikum Vorderasiens. Wiesbaden. Gebers, 1978. Gebers W. Endneolithikum und Frühbronzezeit im Mittelrheingebiet. Bonn: Habelt. Gedl, Szybowicz, 1997. Gedl M., Szybowicz B. Bestattungen in bronzezeitliche Siedlungen Polens. In: K.-F. Rittershofer (Hrsg.). Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit in östlichen Mitteleuropa. Internationale Archäologie, 37. Frankfurt am Main. Gedl, 1995. Gedl M. Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung in Polen // Beitrage zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Gening et al., 1992. Генинг В.Ф., Зданович Г.Б., Генинг В.В. Синташта. Челябинск. Gening, 1975. Генинг В.Ф. Хронологические комплексы XVI в. до н. э. (по материалам Синташтинского магильника) // Новейшие открытия советских археологов (тезисы). Ч. 1. Киев. Gening, 1977. Генинг В.Ф. Могильник Синташта и проблемы ранних индоиранских племен // СА, № 4. Gening, 1982. Генинг В.Ф. Структура системы археологического знания (к вопросу о методологическом анализе уровней знания в археологии) // Методологические и методические вопросы археологии. Киев. Gening, 1989. Генинг В.Ф. К вопросу об археологической интерпретации «кетской проблемы» (по материалам керамики с псевдотекстильной поверхностью и фигурно-штампованным орнаментом) // Керамика как исторический источник. Новосибирск. Gening, 1989. Генинг В.Ф. Структура археологического познания (проблемы социальноисторического исследования). Киев. Gening, Stefanov, 1993. Генинг В.Ф., Стефанов В.И. Поселения Черноозерье I, Большой Лог и некоторые проблемы бронзового века лесостепного Прииртышья // Памятники древней культуры Урала и Западной Сибири. Екатеринбург. 437 Gening, Stefanova, 1982. Генинг В.Ф., Стефанова Н.К. Черноозерье IV - поселение кротовской культуры // Археологические исследования севера Евразии. Свердловск. Gening, Stefanova, 1994. Генинг В.Ф., Стефанова Н.К. Черноозерье I - могильник эпохи бронзы Cреднего Прииртышья. Екатеринбург. Genisaretskiy, 1975. Генисарецкий О.И. Методологическая организация системной деятельности // Разработка и внедрение АС в управлении проектированием, теория и методология. М. Gennadiev et al., 1987. Геннадиев А.Н., Державин В.Л., Иванов В.К., Смирнов Ю.А. О редкой форме погребального обряда в предкавказской культуре // СА, № 2. Gerloff, 1975. Gerloff S. The Early Bronze Age Daggers in Great Britain and a Reconstruction of the Wessex Culture. München: Beck. Gerloff, 1993. Gerloff S. Zu Fragen mittelmeerländischer Kontakte und absoluter Chronologie der Frühbronzezeit in Mittel- und Westeuropa. In: Prehistorische Zeitschrift. 68. Bd, Heft 1. Berlin. Germanov, Kosintsev, 1995. Германов П.Г., Косинцев П.А. Костные остатки из поселения поздней бронзы Дружный I в Южном Зауралье // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 2. Челябинск. Gershkovich, 1986. Гершкович Я.П. Фигурные костяные пряжки культуры многоваликовой керамики // СА, № 2. Gevorkyan, 1972. Геворкян А.Ц. Химическая характеристика металла из Лчашенских курганов // СА, № 2. Gey, 1991. Гей А.Н. Майкопско-новосвободнеский феномен в структурном и динамическом аспектах // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Gey, 1991a. Гей А.Н. Новотиторовская культура (предварительная характеристика) //СА, № 1. Gey, 1991b. Гей А.Н. Энеолитический слой поселения Мысхако (Предварительные итоги работы Новороссийского отряда Северо-Кавказской экспедиции ИА АН СССР в 1990 г.) // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Gibson, 1978. Gibson A.M. Bronze Age Pottery in the North-East of England // BAR, 56. Oxford. Gimbutas, 1970. Gimbutas M. The Kurgan cultur // Actes du VII CI SPP. Prague. Gimbutas, 1992. Gimbutas M. Chronologies of Eastern Europe: Neolithic through Early Bronze Age // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Gimbutas, 1994. Gimbutas M. Das Ende Alteuropas. Der Einfall von Steppennomaden aus Südrußland und die Indogermanisierung Mitteleuropas. Budapest: Archaeologua. Gindin, 1991. Гиндин Л.А. Троянская война и Аххиява хеттских клинописных текстов // ВДИ, № 3. Ginzburg, 1972. Гинзбург В.В., Трофимова Т.А. Палеоантропология Средней Азии. М. Girininkas, 1996. Girininkas A. The Narva Culture and the Origin of the Baltic Culture // The IndoEuropeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Girshman, 1977. Ghirshman R. L’Iran et la migration des Indo-Aryens et des Iraniens. Leiden. Girshman, 1981. Гиршман Р. Иран и миграции индоариев и иранцев // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Glonti, Dzhavahishvili, 1987. Глонти Л.И., Джавахишвили А.И. Новые данные о многослойном памятнике эпохи энеолита - поздней бронзы в Шида Картли - Бериклдееби // КСИА, Вып. 192. Glumac, Anthony, 1992. Glumac P., Anthony D. Culture and Environment in the Prehistoric Caucasus: The Neolithic through the Early Bronze Age // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Glushkov, 1987. Глушков И.Г. Иконографические особенности некоторых самусьских изображений человека // Антропоморфные изображения. Первобытное искусство. Новосибирск. Glushkov, 1988. Глушков И.Г. Специфика культурно-исторического развития Обь-Иртышья в эпоху доандроновской бронзы // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири. Барнаул. Glushkov, 1990. Глушков И.Г. Технологическая гончарная традиция как индикатор этнокультурных процессов (на примере керамических комплексов доандроновской бронзы) 438 Gorbunov, 1993. Горбунов В.С. Некоторые проблемы периодизации и хронологии культур эпохи бронзы Волго-Уральской лесостепи // Хронология памятников Южного Урала. Уфа. Gorbunov, Morozov, 1991. Горбунов В.С., Морозов Ю.А. Некрополь эпохи бронзы Южного Приуралья. Уфа. Gorelik, 1988. Горелик М.В. Боевые колесницы Переднего Востока III-II тысячелетий до н.э. в циркумпонтийской зоне // Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи. М. Gorelik, 1993. Горелик М.В. Оружие древнего Востока (IV тысячелетие - IV век до н. э.). М. Gotlib, 1997. Готлиб А.И. Горные архитектурнофортификационные сооружения окуневской эпохи в Хакассии // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. СанктПетербург. Grantovskii et al., 1997. Грантовский Э.А., Погребова М.Н., Раевский Д.С. Киммерийцы в Передней Азии // ВДИ, № 4. Grantovskii, 1970. Грантовский Э.А. Ранняя история иранских племен Передней Азии. М. Graudonis, 1987. Граудонис Я.Я. Восточная Прибалтика // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Grene, 1989. Грене Ф. Некоторые замечания о корнях зороастризма в Средней Азии // ВДИ, № 1. Grigoriev, 1990. Григорьев С.А. Проблема культурных трансформаций в Урало - Иртышском междуречье // Археология волго-уральских степей. Челябинск. Grigoriev, 1994. Григорьев С.А. Древняя металлургия Южного Урала. Автореф. канд. дис. М. Grigoriev, 1995. Григорьев С.А. Металлургическое производство эпохи бронзы Южного Зауралья // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 2. Челябинск. Grigoriev, 1996. Григорьев С.А. Производство металла в Средней Азии в эпоху бронзы // Новое в археологии Южного Урала. Челябинск, 1996. Grigoriev, 1996a. Григорьев С.А. Синташта и арийские миграции во II тыс. до н. э. // Новое в археологии Южного Урала. Челябинск. Grigoriev, 1996b. Григорьев С.А. Синташтинская культура и проблемы локализации арийской прародины // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч. 1. Уфа. // Древняя керамика Сибири: типология, технология, семантика. Новосибирск. Glushkova, 1999. Глушкова Т.Н. Текстильная керамика и ткачество у петровцев // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Gobedzhiashvili et al., 1988. Гобеджишвили Г.Г., Инанишвили Г.В., Муджири Т.П. Опыт комплексного исследования памятников горного дела и металлургии Верхней Рачи эпохи бронзы // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н.э. и их роль в горнометаллургическом производстве древнего населения (тезисы докладов). Сухуми. Gokhman, 1986. Гохман И.И. Антропологические особенности древнего населения севера европейской части СССР и пути их формирования // Антропология современного и древнего населения европейской части СССР. Л. Golibin, 1983. Голибин В.А. Спектральный анализ находок из Сумбарских могильников // Хлопин И.Н. Юго-Западная Туркмения в эпоху поздней бронзы. Л. Goner, 1992. Goner R. The Chalcolithic Period // The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, London. Gopal, 1981. Гопал Л. Вклад неиндоарийских народов в индийскую культуру // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Gophna, 1992. Gophna R. The Intermediate Bronze Age // The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, London. Gorbunov et al., 1990. Горбунов В.С., Денисов И.В., Исмагилов Р.Б. Новые материалы по эпохе бронзы Южного Приуралья. Уфа. Gorbunov, 1986. Горбунов В.С. Абашевские культуры Южного Приуралья. Уфа, 1986. Gorbunov, 1989. Горбунов В.С. Поселенческие памятники бронзового века в лесостепном Приуралье. Куйбышев. Gorbunov, 1990. Горбунов В.С. Некоторые проблемы культурогенетических процессов эпохи бронзы Волго-Уралья (препринт). Свердловск. Gorbunov, 1992. Горбунов В.С. Бронзовый век Волго-Уральской лесостепи. Уфа. Gorbunov, 1992a. Горбунов В.С. Могильник бронзового века Ветлянка IV // Древняя история населения Волго-Уральских степей. Оренбург. 439 Grigoriev, 1998. Grigoryev S.A. The Sintashta Migration from Near East and some Questions of Indo-European Origins // Abstracts Book. 4 th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Grigoriev, 1998a. Григорьев С.А. Сейминско-турбинские бронзы и этническая история Евразии // Урал в прошлом и настоящем (материалы конференции). Ч. I. Екатеринбург. Grigoriev, 1999. Grigoryev S.A. The «proto-urban civilization» and the realities of the Sintashta culture // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Grigoriev, 1999a. Григорьев С.А. Древние индоевропейцы. Опыт исторической реконструкции. Челябинск. Grigoriev, 1999b. Григорьев С.А. Соотношение федоровской и алакульской культур и проблема андроновской культурно-исторической общности // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Grigoriev, 2000. Григорьев С.А. Металлургическое производство эпохи средней бронзы на Южном Урале // Древняя история Южного Зауралья. Челябинск. Grigoriev, 2000. Григорьев С.А. Эпоха бронзы // Древняя история Южного Зауралья. Челябинск. Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1990. Григорьев С.А., Русанов И.А. Экспериментальные работы по изготовлению керамики // Археология Волго-Уральских степей. Челябинск. Grigoriev, Rusanov, 1995. Григорьев С.А., Русанов И.А. Экспериментальная реконструкция древнего металлургического производства // Аркаим. Исследования. Поиски. Открытия. Челябинск. Grimm H., 1997. Schädelbestattungen und Hinweise auf Anthropophagie aus Zauschwitz, Kreis Borna (Sachsen). In: K.-F. Rittershofer (Hrsg.). Sonderbestattungen in der Bronzezeit in östlichen Mitteleuropa. Internationale Archäologie, 37. Frankfurt am Main. Grishin, 1971. Гришин Ю.С. Металлические изделия Сибири эпохи энеолита и бронзы // САИ, Вып. В 3 - 12. Gromov, 1997. Громов А.В. Происхождение и связи окуневской культуры // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. Санкт-Петербург. Gryaznov, 1966. Грязнов М.П. О чернолощеной керамике Кавказа, Казахстана и Сибири в эпоху поздней бронзы // КСИА, Вып. 108. Gryaznov, 1969. Грязнов М.П. Классификация, тип, культура // Теоретические основы советской археологии. Л. Gryaznov, 1980. Грязнов М.П. Аржан: царский курган раннескифского времени. Л. Guillermo, 1993. Guillermo A. The Uruk World System. The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago University Press. Gumilyov, 1967. Гумилев Л.Н. Роль климатических колебаний в истории народов степной зоны Евразии // История СССР, № 1. Gumilyov, 1993. Гумилев Л.Н. Ритмы Евразии. Эпохи и цивилизации. М., 1993. Gummel, 1992. Гуммель Я.И. Раскопки к югозападу от Ханлара в 1941 г. // ВДИ, № 4. Gunter, 1990. Гюнтер Р. О времени возникновения государства в Риме // ВДИ, № 1. Gurenko, 1996. Гуренко Л.В. Об особенностях погребального обряда памятников эпохи средней бронзы Волго-Донского междуречья // Древности Волго-Донских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград. Gutkov, 1995. Гутков А.И. Техника и технология изготовления керамики поселения Аркаим / / Аркаим. Исследования. Поиски. Открытия. Челябинск. Gutkov, 1995a. Гутков А.И. Технология изготовления керамики памятников синташтинского типа // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 2. Челябинск. Hahn E., 1992. Die menschlichen Skelettreste. In: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1984 - 1987 in Manching. Stuttgart. Hahn, 1993. Hahn E. Die Kelten aus antropologischer Sicht // Das keltische Jahrtausend. Meinz am Rhein. Zabern. Hansel, 1968. Hansel B. Beitrage zur Chronologie der Mittleren Bronzezeit in Karpatenbecken. Bonn. Habelt. Hansen, 1991. Hansen S. Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der Urnenfelderzeit im Rhein - Main Gebiet. Bonn. Harding, 1998. Harding A. Reformation in Barbarian Europe, 1300-600 BC // Prehistoric Europe. Oxford, N.-Y.: Oxford University Press. Harmatta, 1981. Харматта Я. Протоиндийцы и протоиранцы в Центральной Азии во II тыс. до н. э. (лингвистические данные) // Этни- 440 ческие проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Hase, 1995. v. Hase F.-W. Ägaische, Griechische und vorderorientalische Einflüsse auf das Tyrrhenische Mittelitalien // Beitrage zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Hauptman, Palmieri, 2000. Hauptman A., Palmieri A. Metal Production in the Eastern Mediterranean at the transition of the 4th/3rd millennium: Case Studies from Arslantepe. In: Yalcin Unsal (Hrsg.) Anatolian Metal I. Bochum. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 13. Hauptmann, 1986. Hauptmann H. Problems in the Chronology of the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic // French E.B., Wardle K.A. (ed.) Problems of Greek Prehistory: papers presented at the centenary conference of the British School of Archaeology at Aphens, Manchester. Hauptmann, 1993. Hauptmann H. Ein Kultgebaude in Nevali Cori // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Heinrich, 1975. Heinrich E. Architektur // Orthmann W. Der Alte Orient. Berlin: Propilaen. Heinrich, 1975a. Heinrich E. Sumerisch-akkadische Architektur von der alt- bis zur spätbabylonischen Zeit. // Orthmann W. Der Alte Orient. Berlin: Propilaen. Hennig, 1970. Hennig H. Die Grab- und Hortfunde der Urnenfeldekultur aus Ober und Mittelfranken. Kallmunze. Herney, 1987. Герни О.Р. Хетты. М. Hmelev, 1973. Хмелев К.Ф. Палеогеография речной долины Воронежа в голоцене // Пряхин А.Д. Древнее население Песчанки. Воронеж. Hochstetter, 1980. Hochstetter A. Die Hugelgraberbronzezeit in Niederbayern. Kallmunze. Hoddinott, 1981. Hoddinott R.F. The Thracians. N.-Y. Honti, 1985. Хонти Л. О связях уральских и алтайских языков // Урало-Алтаистика (Археология. Этнография. Язык). Новосибирск. Hood, 1979. Hood M.S.F. A Mycenaean Cavalryman // Excavations at Mycenae 1939-1955. Oxford. Hood, 1981. Hood S. Excavation in Chios 19381955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Oxford: Thames ans Hudson. Hoppe, 1994. Hoppe M. Die mittelbronze- und frühlatenezeitliche Siedlung am Rabenhof bei Freystadt - Thannhausen, Lkr. Neumarkt i.d. Opf. Buch am Erlbach: M.Leidorf. Hrouda, 1971. Hrouda B. Vorderasien I. Mesopotamien, Babylonien, Iran und Anatolien. München. Iliukov, 1979. Ильюков Л.С. Металлические «вилки» майкопской культуры // СА, № 4. Iliukov, 1986. Ильюков Л.С. Погребения литейщиков эпохи средней бронзы из СевероВосточного Приазовья // СА, № 2. Illich-Svitich, 1971. Иллыч-Свитыч В.М. Опыт сравнения ностратических языков. Т. 1. М. Investigations..., 1989. Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory. Oxford. Isakov, Potyomkina, 1989. Исаков А.И., Потемкина Т.М. Могильник племен эпохи бронзы в Таджикистане // СА, № 1. Ismailov, 1987. Исмаилов Г.С. Этапы развития древнейшей металлургии и металлообрабатывающего производства на территории Азербайджана // КСИА, Вып. 192. Ismailov, Bakhshaliev, 1988. Исмаилов Г.С., Бахшалиев В.Б. Горно-металлургическое производство эпохи палеометалла на территории Азербайджана // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н.э. и их роль в горнометаллургическом производстве древнего населения (тезисы докладов). Сухуми, 1988. Istoria Drevnego Vostoka, 1988. История Древнего Востока. Зарождение древнейших классовых обществ и первые очаги рабовладельческой цивилизации. Ч. 2. М. Istoria Drevney Grecii, 1991. История Древней Греции. М. Istoria Evropi, 1988. История Европы. Т. 1. Древняя Европа. М. Itina, 1962. Итина М.А. Степные племена среднеазиатского междуречья во второй половине II - начале I тысячелетия до н. э. // СЭ, № 3. Itina, 1977. Итина М.А. История степных племен Южного Приаралья. М. Ivanchik, 1994. Иванчик А.И. К вопросу об этнической принадлежности и археологической культуре киммерийцев. Киммерийские памятники Передней Азии // ВДИ, № 3. Ivanchik, 1996. Иванчик А.И. Киммерийцы. Древневосточные цивилизации и степные кочевники в VIII-VII вв. до н.э. Москва. Ivanchik, 1999. Ivanchik A.I. Eurasian steppe cultures of the first half of the I millennium BC. Chronological problems // Complex Societies of 441 Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Ivanchik, 1999a. Иванчик А.И. Современное состояние киммерийской проблемы // ВДИ, № 2. Ivanov A., 1992. Иванов А.Ю. О некоторых обрядовых и внеобрядовых характеристиках погребений со скорченными костяками // Древняя история населения Волго-Уральских степей. Оренбург. Ivanov I., 1991. Ivanov I.S. Der Bestattungsritus in der chalkolitischen Nekropole von Varna (mit einem Katalog der wichtigsten Gräber) // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Ivanov, 1983. Иванов В.В. История славянских и балканских названий металлов. М. Ivanov, 1985. Иванов Вяч. Вс. Об отношении хaттского языка к северозападнокавказским // Древняя Анатолия. М. Ivanov, 1988. Иванов В.В. Древневосточные связи этрусского языка // Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи. М. Ivanov, 1989. Иванов Вяч. Вс. О соотношении археологических, лингвистических и культурно-семантических реконструкций (на материале комплекса Тоголок-21) // ВДИ, № 2. Ivanov, 1999. Ivanov V.V. Towards possible linguistic interpretation of the Arkaim-Sintashta discoveries // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Ivanova, 1968. Иванова Л.А. О различиях керамических традиций афанасьевской и окуневской культур // СА, № 2. Jankovits, 1996. Jankovits K. Beiträge zu der Situla und Bronzepfanne mit Handgriff in Norditalien in der Spätbronzezeit // Kovăcs (Herausg.) Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpathenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Budapest: Magyar Muzeum. Jarriage, 1984. Jarriage J.F. Towns and Villages of Hill and Plain // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Jockenhövel, 1990. Jockenhövel A. Die Jungsteinzeit // Hermann F.-R. u. Jockenhövel A. (Hrsg.) Die Vorgeschichte Hessens. Stuttgart: Theiss. Jockenhövel, 1990a. Jockenhövel A. Die Bronzezeit // Hermann F.-R. u. Jockenhövel A. Die Vorgeschichte Hessens. Stuttgart: Theiss. Junghans et al., 1968. Junghans S., Sangmeister E., Schroder M. Kupfer und Bronze in der früher Metallzeit Europas. Bd. 2, Teil 2, Berlin. Kachalova, 1985. Качалова Н.К. Периодизация срубных памятников Нижнего Поволжья // Срубная культурно-историческая общность. Куйбышев. Kachalova, Vasiliev, 1989. Качалова Н.К., Васильев И.Б. О некоторых проблемах эпохи бронзы Поволжья // СА, № 2. Kahane, 1975. Kahane P.P. The Cesnola Krater from Kourion in The Metropolitan Museum of Art: An Iconological Study in Greek Geometric Art // The Archaeology of Cyprus. Recent Developments. New Jersey. Kaiser, 1997. Kaiser E. Der Hort von Borodino. Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem berühmten bronzezeitlichen Schatzfund aus dem nordwestlichen Schwarzmeergebiet. Bonn: Habelt. Kalicz, 1968. Kalicz N. Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Budapest. Kalicz, 1991. Kalicz N. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Kupferzeit im ungarischen Transdanubien // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Kalieva, Logvin, 1997. Калиева С.С., Логвин В.Н. Скотоводы Тургая в третьем тысячелетии до нашей эры. Кустанай. Kameneckii, 1970. Каменецкий И.С. Археологическая культура: ее определение и итерпретация // СА, № 2. Kantorovich, 1998. Канторович А.Р. Изображения на скифских навершиях из кургана Слоновская Близница // РА, № 4. Kantorovich, 1998a. Канторович А.Р. К вопросу о переднеазиатском влиянии на звериный стиль степной Скифии // ВДИ, № 3. Kapogrossi, 1990. Капогросси Колонези Л. Формирование государства в Риме // ВДИ, № 1. Karabaspakova, 1987. Карабаспакова К.М. К вопросу о культурной принадлежности памятников эпохи поздней бронзы Северо-Восточного Семиречья и их связь с памятниками Центрального Казахстана // Вопросы периодизации археологических памятников Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Karacharov, 1993. Карачаров К.Г. О правомерности этнических интерпретаций // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. 442 Karg, 1984. Karg N. Burhan-Höyök - Ein Weiterer Fundort im Atatürk Stauseegebiet // Istanb. Mittgl. 34. Kasay, 1971. Kasay H.Z. Pulur (Sakyol) Kazisi, 1969. // Keban Project. 1969 Activities. Ankara. Katinčarov, 1991. Katinčarov R. Die Frühbronzezeit Thrakiens und ihre Beziehung zum ägäisch-anatolischen Raum // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Kaverzneva, 1992. Каверзнева Е.Д. Шагарский могильник конца III - начала II тысячелетия до н.э. в центральной Мещере // СА, № 3. Kaverzneva, 1995. Каверзнева Е.Д. Шагарский могильник и его место в этнокультурной истории населения эпохи энеолита - ранней бронзы лесной и лесостепной зоны Евразии. // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Kazakov, 1978. Казаков Е.П. Погребения эпохи бронзы могильника Такталачук // Древности Икско-Бельского междуречья. Казань. Kazakov, 1999. Казаков Е.П. Исследования андроноидных культур в Волго-Камье и труды К.В.Сальникова // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Keban Project, 1976. Keban Project. Pulur Excavations. 1968 - 1970. Ankara. Kempinski, 1992. Kempinski A. Fortifications, public buildings and town planning in the Early Bronze Age // The architecture of ancient Israel from the prehistoric to the percian periods. Ierusalem. Kempinski, 1992a. Kempinski A. The Middle Bronze Age // The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, London. Kennedy, 1984. Kennedy K.A.R. Trauma and Disease in the Ancient Harappans // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Kenyon, 1971. Kenyon K.M. Syria and Palestina c. 2160 - 1780 BC. The Archaeological Sites // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Kerner, 1999. Кернер В.Ф. Керамический комплекс боборыкинской культуры в верховьях р. Исеть // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Kesarwani, 1984. Kesarwani A. Harappan Gateways: A Functional Reassessment // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Khachatryan, 1979. Хачатрян Т.С. Артикский некрополь. Ереван. Khalikov et al., 1966. Халиков А.Х., Лебединскиая Г.В., Герасимова М.М. Пепкинский курган (абашевский человек). Труды Марийской археологической экспедиции. Т. III. ЙошкарОла. Khalikov, 1961. Халиков А.Х. Памятники абашевской культуры Марийской АССР // Абашевская культура в Среднем Поволжье. МИА, № 97. Khalikov, 1987. Халиков А.Х. Приказанская культура // СА, № 2. Khalikov, 1987a. Халиков А.Х. Приказанская культура // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Khalikov, 1987b. Халиков А.Х. Чирковская культура // Бронзовый век лесной полосы СССР. М. Khalikov, 1991. Халиков А.Х. К вопросу об этносе носителей сейминско-турбинской культуры // Поздний энеолит и культуры ранней бронзы лесной полосы европейской части СССР. Йошкар-Ола. Khalikov, 1991a. Халиков А.Х. Переход от ранней (энеолит) к поздней (бронзовый век) стадии эпохи раннего металла в лесной полосе Восточной Европы // Поздний энеолит и культуры ранней бронзы лесной полосы европейской части СССР. Йошкар-Ола. Khalikov, 1993. Халиков А.Х. Уральцы и дравидийцы на севере центральной части Евразии // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (Тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Khalyapin, 1999. Халяпин М.В. К вопросу о культурной принадлежности памятников среднего бронзового века степного Приуралья // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Khavrin, 1997. Хаврин С.В. Могильник Верхний Аскиз I, курган 1 // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. СанктПетербург. Khavrin, 1997a. Хаврин С.В. Спектральный анализ окуневского металла // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. СанктПетербург. Khlobistin, 1970. Хлобыстина М.Д. Ранние 443 Kibbert, 1984. Kibbert K. Die Äxte und Beile im mittleren Westdeutschland II. München: Beck. Kilian, 1986. Kilian K. Mycenaens up to Date, Trends and Changes in Recent Research // French E.B., Wardle K.A. (ed.) Problems of Greek Prehistory: papers presented at the centenary conference of the British School of Archaeology at Aphens, Manchester. Kim, 1990. Ким С.Р. Виды антогонизмов в древнеримском обществе // ВДИ, № 2. Kimmig, 1993. Kimmig W. Menschen, Götter und Dämonen - Zeugnisse keltischer Religionsausübung // Das keltische Jahrtausend. Meinz am Rhein. Zabern. Kink, 1970. Кинк Х.А. Восточное Средиземноморье в древнейшую эпоху. М. Kinnes, 1993. Kinnes I. Statues-Menhirs and allied representations in Northern France and the Channel Island // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Kiriushin, 1985. Кирюшин Ю.Ф. О культурной принадлежности памятников предандроновской бронзы лесостепного Алтая // Уралоалтаистика (Археология. Этнография. Язык). Новосибирск. Kiriushin, 1987. Кирюшин Ю.Ф. Новые могильники ранней бронзы на Верхней Оби // Археологические исследования на Алтае. Барнаул. Kiriushin, 1988. Кирюшин Ю.Ф. Периодизация культур неолита и бронзы Верхнего и Среднего Приобья // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири. Барнаул. Kiriushin, Klyukin, 1985. Кирюшин Ю.Ф., Клюкин Г.А. Памятники неолита и бронзы юго-западного Алтая // Алтай в эпоху камня и раннего металла. Барнаул. Kiyashko, 1976. Кияшко В.Я. К вопросу о костяных рогатках в степных погребениях эпохи бронзы // Проблемы археологии Поволжья и Приуралья. Куйбышев. Kiyashko, 1978. Кияшко В.Я. Кавказские черты погребальных обрядов эпохи ранней бронзы в Приазовье // VIII Крупновские чтения. Нальчик. Kiyashko, 1999. Кияшко А.В. Происхождение катакомбной культуры Нижнего Подонья. Волгоград. Kiyatkina, 1968. Кияткина Т.П. Черепа эпохи минусинские кинжалы // СА, № 4. Khlobistin, 1976. Хлобыстин Л.П. Поселение Липовая Курья в Южном Зауралье. Л. Khlobistin, 1987. Хлобыстин Л.П. Бронзовый век Восточной Сибири // Бронзовый век лесной полосы СССР. М. Khlobistin, 1996. Хлобыстин Л.П. Восточная Сибирь и Дальний Восток // Неолит Северной Евразии. М. Khlobistina, 1971. Хлобыстина М.Д. Культовая символика петроглифических рисунков в культуре ранней бронзы Южной Сибири // СА, .№ 1. Khlobistina, 1973. Хлобыстина М.Д. Происхождение и развитие культуры ранней бронзы Южной Сибири // СА, № 1. Khlobistina, 1975. Хлобыстина М.Д. Древнейшие могильники Горного Алтая // СА, № 1. Khlopin, 1983. Хлопин И.Н. Юго-Западная Туркмения в эпоху поздней бронзы. Л. Khlopin, 1989. Хлопин И.Н. Могильник Пархай II (некоторые итоги исследования) // СА, № 3. Khlopin, 1994. Хлопин И.Н. Древнейшие индоиранцы в свете археологии // Сухачев Н.Л. Перспектива истории в индоевропеистике. СПб. Khlopin, Khlopina, 1980. Хлопин И.Н., Хлопина Л.И. Могильник эпохи ранней бронзы Пархай II в Туркмении // СА, № 1. Khlopin, Khlopina, 1983. Хлопин И.Н., Хлопина Л.И. Второй сезон раскопок могильника Пархай II // КСИА, Вып. 176. Khohlov, 1996. Хохлов А.А. Краниология могильников Потаповского типа в Поволжье, синташтинско и петровского - в Казахстане // Древности Волго-Донских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград. Khohlov, 1997. Хохлов А.А. К вопросу о происхождении ямно-полтавкинского на-селения пограничья лесостепи и степи Волго-Уралья // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Khohlov, 1999. Хохлов А.А. Антропология курганов 1 и 2 могильника Спиридоновка IV // Вопросы археологии Поволжья. Вып. 1, Самара. Khrekov, 1996. Хреков А.А. Раннеэнеолитический памятник лесостепного Прихоперья // Охрана и исследование памятников археологии Саратовской области в 1995 г. Саратов. 444 бронзы с территории юго-западного Таджикистана // Мандельштам А.М. Памятники эпохи бронзы в Южном Таджикистане. Л. Kiyatkina, 1982. Кияткина Т.П. Культуры Средней Азии в эпоху бронзы и данные антропологии // Культурный прогресс в эпоху бронзы и раннего железа. Ереван. Kizlasov, 1993. Кызласов Л.Р. К истории карасукской металлургии // РА, № 3. Klein, 1970. Клейн Л.С. К проверке оснований гипотезы о генетической связи ямной и катакомбной культур // СА, № 1. Klein, 1970a. Клейн Л.С. Проблема определения археологической культуры // СА, № 2. Klein, 1986. Клейн Л.С. О предмете археологии (в связи с выходом книги В.Ф.Генинга «Объект и предмет науки в археологии») // СА, № 3. Klengel, 1985. Кленгель Х. Архивы Эблы и история Сирии: проблемы и перспективы // Древняя Эбла. М. Kofanov, 1990. Кофанов Л.Л. К вопросу о времени возникновения государства в Риме // ВДИ, № 2. Kohl, 1992. Kohl Ph.L. Central Asia (Western Turkestan): Neolithic to the Early Iron Age // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Koksharov, 1991. Кокшаров С.Ф. Хронология памятников бронзового века р. Конды // ВАУ, Вып. 20. Екатеринбург. Koksharov, 1999. Кокшаров С.Ф. Металлообработка на реке Конде в бронзовом веке // 120 лет археологии Восточного склона Урала. Первые чтения памяти Владимира Федоровича Генинга. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург. Koksharov, Stefanova, 1993. Кокшаров С.Ф., Стефанова Н.К. Поселение Волвонча I на р. Конде // Памятники древней культуры Урала и Западной Сибири. Екатеринбург. Kolev et al., 1995. Колев Ю.И., Ластовский А.А., Мамонов А.Е. Многослойное поселение эпохи неолита - позднего бронзового века у села Нижняя Орлянка на реке Сок (Предварительная публикация) // Древние культуры лесостепного Поволжья. Самара. Kolev, 1988. Колев Ю.И. Опыт сравнительно-статистического анализа керамических комплексов позднего бронзового века // Проблемы изучения археологической керамики. Куйбышев. Kolev, 1991. Колев Ю.И. Новый тип памятников конца эпохи бронзы в лесостепном Поволжье // Древности Восточно-Европейской лесостепи. Самара. Kolev, 1993. Колев Ю.И. К вопросу о культурнохронологическом соотношении комплексов позднего бронзового века Волго-Камья // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (Тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Kolev, 1999. Колев Ю.И. Керамические комплексы поселений позднего бронзового века в нижнем течении р. Сок // Вопросы археологии Поволжья. Вып. 1, Самара. Kolistrkoska, 1998. Kolistrkoska Nasteva I. Elements of Material Culture in Macedonian Traces of Indo-European Migrations // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Kolotukhin, 1983. Колотухин В.А. Многослойное поселение в юго-восточном Крыму // СА, № 1. Korenevskii, 1973. Кореневский С.Н. Металлические втульчатые топоры Уральской горнометаллургической области // СА, № 1. Korenevskii, 1974. Кореневский С.Н. О металлических топорах катакомбной культуры // СА, № 3. Korenevskii, 1978. Кореневский С.Н. О металлических ножах ямной, полтавкинской и катакомбной культур // СА, № 2. Korenevskii, 1981. Кореневский С.Н. Погребение майкопской культуры из Кабардино-Балкарии // СА, № 1. Korenevskii, 1983. Кореневский С.Н. Наследство катакомбного периода в металлообработке эпохи поздней бронзы Уральской горно-металлургической области // Культуры бронзового века Восточной Европы. Куйбышев. Korenevskii, 1983a. Кореневский С.Н. О металле эпохи бронзы эшерских дольменов // КСИА, Вып. 176. Korenevskii, 1984. Кореневский С.Н. О металле Балымского клада // КСИА. Вып. 177, М. Korenevskii, 1990. Кореневский С.Н. К дискуссии об этнической интерпретации майкопской культуры // СА, № 4. Korenevskii, 1991. Кореневский С.Н. К вопросу о Майкопе на Среднем Тереке // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Вос- 445 Kosarev, 1981. Косарев М.Ф. Бронзовый век Западной Сибири. Л. Kosarev, 1984. Косарев М.Ф. Западная Сибирь в древности. М. Kosarev, 1987. Косарев М.Ф. Некоторые вопросы этнической истории Западной Сибири // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Koshelenko, 1987. Кошеленко Г.А. О некоторых проблемах становления и развития государственности в Древней Греции // От доклассовых обществ к раннеклассовым. М. Koshelenko, 1990. Кошеленко Г.А. К дискуссии о возникновении государства в Древнем Риме // ВДИ, № 1. Kosinskaya, 1999. Косинская Л.Л. Неолит севера Западной Сибири: проблема южных связей. // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Kosintsev, 1999. Kosintsev P.A. Animals in the burial rite of the population of the Urals and Povolzhiye regions at the start of the II millennium BC // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Kosintsev, 1999a. Kosintsev P.A. Evolution of herding in the forest-steppe and steppe zones in the Urals and Povolzhiye area, III-II millennia BC // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Kosintsev, 1999b. Косинцев П.А. Хозяйство ташковской культуры // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Kosko, 1996. Kosko A. The Origin of the Vistula Dnieper Development of the Community of Sub-Neolithic Cultures // The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Kosmenko, Kazakov, 1976. Косменко М.Г., Казаков Е.П. О некоторых памятниках эпохи бронзы в устье Камы // СА, № 2. Kossack, 1995. Kossack G. Mitteleuropa zwischen dem 13. und 8. Zahrhundert v. Chr. Geb. Geschichte, Stand und Probleme der Urnenfelderforschung // Beiträge zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Kostyukov et al., 1995. Костюков В.П., Епимахов А.В., Нелин Д.В. Новый памятник средней бронзы в Южном Зауралье // Древние индоиранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара. Kostyukov et al., 1996. Костюков В.П., Епимахов А.В., Нелин Д.В. К вопросу о памятниках точной Европы. Л. Korenevskii, 1992. Кореневский С.Н. К вопросу о датирующих возможностях комплекса из нижнего слоя Эшерских дольменов Абхазии // РА, № 2. Korenevskii, Petrenko, 1982. Кореневский С.Н., Петренко В.Г. Курган майкопской культуры у поселка Иноземцево // СА, № 2. Korenevskii, Petrenko, 1989. Кореневский С.Н., Петренко В.Г. Курганы у станицы Воровсколесской // Древности Ставрополья. М. Korenyako, 1998. Кореняко В.А. К проблеме происхождения скифо-сибирского звериного стиля // РА, № 4. Korfmann, 1982. Korfmann M. Tilkitepe. Tübingen. Korfmann, 1983. Korfmann M. Demircihüyük. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975 - 1978. BI. Architektur, Stratigraphie und Befunde. Meinz am Rhein. Korobkova, 1989. Коробкова Г.Ф. Мезолит Средней Азии и Казахстана // Мезолит СССР. М. Korobkova, 1996. Коробкова Г.Ф. Средняя Азия и Казахстан // Неолит Северной Евразии. М. Korobkova, Gadzhiev, 1983. Коробкова Г.Ф., Гаджиев М.Г. О культурных и хозяйственных особенностях поселения Гинчи (Дагестан) // СА, № 1. Korochkova et al., 1991. Корочкова О.Н., Стефанов В.И., Стефанова Н.К. Культуры бронзового века предтаежного Тоболо-Иртышья (по материалам работ УАЭ) // ВАУ, Екатеринбург, Вып. 20. Korochkova, 1987. Корочкова О.Н. Предтаежное и южнотаежное Тоболо-Иртышье в эпоху поздней бронзы. Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. Л. Korochkova, 1999. Korochkova O.N. On the specifics estimation of the Trans-Urals Fyodorovo complexes // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983. Корочкова О.Н., Стeфанов В.И. Поселения федоровской культуры // Бронзовый век степной полосы Урало Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Korol, 1998. Korol D. Some Common Features of Ideology of the Early Germans and Iranians // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Korpusova, 1990. Корпусова В.Н., Ляшко С.Н. Катакомбное погребение с пшеницей в Крыму // СА, № 3. 446 Kovalyova, Prokhodchenko, 1996. Ковалева В.Т., Приходченко И.А. Проблема генезиса ташковской культуры Нижнего Притоболья // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч. 1. Уфа. Kovalyova, Rizhkova, 1991. Ковалева В.Т., Рыжкова О.В. Проблема перехода от неолита к бронзовому веку в лесном Зауралье // Поздний энеолит и культуры ранней бронзы лесной полосы европейской части СССР. Йошкар-Ола. Kovalyova, Ryzhkova, 1999. Kovalyova V.T., Ryzhkova O.V. Settlements of annular layout in Lower Pritobolye (Tashkovo culture) // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Kovalyova, Ziryanova, 1998. Ковалева В.Т., Зырянова С.Ю. Историография и дискуссионные проблемы боборыкинской культуры // ВАУ, вып. 23, Екатеринбург. Kozenkova, 1996. Козенкова В.И. Культурноисторические процессы на Северном Кавказе в эпоху поздней бронзы и в раннем железном веке (узловые проблемы происхождения и развития кобанской культуры). Москва. Kozhanov, 1984. Кожанов С.Т. Колесный транспорт эпохи Хань // Новое в археологии Китая. Исследования и проблемы. Новосибирск. Kozhin, 1963. Кожин П.М. Хронология шаровидных амфор фатьяновских могильников // СА, № 3. Kozhin, 1966. Кожин П.Н. О глиняных моделях колес из Балановского могильника // СА, № 4. Kozhin, 1970. Кожин П.М. О псалиях из афанасьевских могил // СА, № 4. Kozhin, 1985. Кожин П.М. К проблеме происхождения колесного транспорта // Древняя Анатолия. М. Kozhin, 1990. Кожин П.М. О хронологии иньских памятников Аньана // Китай в эпоху древности. Новосибирск. Kozłovski, 1989. Kozłovski J.K. The neolithization of South-East Europe - an alternative approach // Bokonyi S. (ed.). Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Budapest. Kravtsov, 1992. Кравцов А.Ю. Древнеямные погребения в ямах с заплечиками в Приуралье // Древняя история населения Волго- Южного Зауралья эпохи финальной бронзы // Новое в археологии Южного Урала. Челябинск. Kotelnikova, 1999. Котельникова И.А. Погребальные комплексы с каменными конструкциями федоровской культуры // 120 лет археологии Восточного склона Урала. Первые чтения памяти Владимира Федоровича Генинга. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург. Kovalyov, 1998. Kovalev A. Migration of the Tocharians and Indo-European Homeland // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Kovalyova I., 1981. Ковалева И.Ф. Север степного Поднепровья в среднем бронзовом веке. Днепропетровск. Kovalyova, 1986. Ковалева В.Т. Боборыкинская культура (итоги изучения) // Проблемы урало-сибирской археологии. Свердловск. Kovalyova, 1988. Ковалева В.Т. Ташковская культура раннего бронзового века Нижнего Притоболья // Материальная культура древнего населения Урала и Западной Сибири. Сверодловск, 1988. Kovalyova, 1993. Ковалева В.Т. Динамика культуры и общества в Среднем Зауралье (неолит - бронзовый век) // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Kovalyova, 1995. Ковалева В.Т. Проблема этнической идентификации населения ташковской культуры // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Kovalyova, 1997. Ковалева В.Т. Взаимодействие культур и этносов по материалам археологиии: поселение Ташково II. Екатеринбург. Kovalyova, 1999. Ковалева В.Т. К.В.Сальников и проблема изучения боборыкинской культуры // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Kovalyova, Artefiev, 1993. Ковалева В.Т., Арефьев В.А. О семантике сосудов с зооморфными изображениями // ВАУ, Вып. 21. Kovalyova, Chairkina, 1991. Ковалева В.Т., Чаиркина Н.М. Этнокультурные и этногенетические процессы в Среднем Зауралье в конце каменного - начале бронзового века: итоги и проблемы исследования // ВАУ, Вып. 20. Екатеринбург. 447 Уральских степей. Оренбург. Kraynov, 1972. Крайнов Д.А. Древнейшая история Волго-Окского междуречья. М. Kraynov, 1987. Крайнов Д.А. Волосовская культура // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Kraynov, 1987a. Крайнов Д.А. Фатьяновская культура. // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Kraynov, Gadziackaya, 1987. Крайнов Д.А., Гадзяцкая О.С. Фатьяновская культура. Ярославское Поволжье. // САИ, Вып. В 1 - 22. Kraynov, Loze, 1987. Крайнов Д.А., Лозе И.А. Культуры шнуровой керамики и ладьевидных топоров в Восточной Прибалтике // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Krivtsova-Grakova, 1947. Кривцова-Гракова О.А. Абашевский могильник // КСИИМК, Вып. XVII. Krivtsova-Grakova, 1947a. Кривцова-Гракова О.А. Алексеевское поселение и могильник // Труды Государственного исторического музея. М. Вып. XVII. Krivtsova-Grakova, 1948. Кривцова-Гракова О.А. Алексеевское поселение и могильник. М. Krivtsova-Grakova, 1951. Кривцова-Гракова О.А. Садчиковское поселение (раскопки 1984г.) // МИА, № 21. Krizhevskaya, 1977. Крижевская Л.Я. Раннебронзовое время в Южном Зауралье. Л. Krizhevskaya, 1993. Крижевская Л.Я. Значение культурных связей для организации поселений и домостроительства эпохи ранней бронзы в Южном Зауралье // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Krumland, 1998. Krumland J. Die Bronzezeitliche Siedlungskeramik zwischen Elsaß und Böhem: Studien zur Formenkunde und rekonstruktion der Besiedlungsgeschichte in Nord und Südwurttemberg. Rahden/Westf.: M.Leidorf. Krupnov, 1951. Крупнов Е.И. Материалы по археологии Северной Осетии докобанского периода // Материалы и исследования по археологии Северного Кавказа. МИА, № 23, М.-Л. Krupnov, 1964. Крупнов Е.И. Древнейшая культура Кавказа и кавказская этническая общность // СА, № 1. Krušel’nyc’ka, 1995. Krušel’nyc’ka L. Jungere Bronzezeit im nordöstlichen Karpatenvorland / / Beiträge zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Kruta, 1991. Kruta V. In Search of the Ancient Celts // The Celts. Milano: Bompiani. Krutskikh, Shorin, 1984. Крутских Н.А., Шорин А.Ф. Черкаскульские могильники на севере Челябинской области // СА, № 4. Kubarev, 1987. Кубарев В.Д. Антропоморфные хвостатые существа Алтайских гор // Антропоморфные изображения. Первобытное искусство. Новосибирск. Kubishev, 1991. Кубышев А.И., Нечитайло А.Л. Центры металообрабатывающего производства азово-черноморской зоны (к постановке проблемы) // Катакомбные культуры Северного Причерноморья. Киев. Kubishev, Chernyakov, 1982. Кубышев А.И., Черняков И.Т. К проблеме существования весовых систем у племен катакомбной культуры (По материалам погребения литейщика у с. М.Терновка в Приазовье) // Культурный прогресс в эпоху бронзы и раннего железа. Ереван. Kubishev, Chernyakov, 1985. Кубышев А.И., Черняков И.Т. К проблеме существования весовой системы у племен бронзового века Восточной Европы (по материалам погребения литейщика катакомбной культуры) // СА, № 1. Kuchera, 1977. Кучера С. Китайская археология М. Kull, 1988. Kull Brigitte. Die Mittelbronzezeitliche Siedlung. In: Korfmann M. (ed.) Demircihüyük. Bd.V. Mainz am Rhein. Kultura drevnego Rima, 1985. Культура древнего Рима. Т. 1. М. Kulturen der frühbronzezeit ..., 1984. Kulturen der frühbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Beograd. Kungurov, Kadikov, 1985. Кунгуров А.Л., Кадиков Б.Х. Многослойное поселение Усть - Сема // Алтай в эпоху камня и раннего металла. Барнаул. Kungurova, 1987. Кунгурова Н.Ю. Развитие каменной индустрии в неолите Юго-Западного Алтая // Археологические исследования на Алтае. Барнаул. Kuniholm, 1996. Kuniholm P.I. The Prehistoric Aegean: Dendrochronological Progress as of 1995 // Randsborg K. (ed.) Absolute Chronology Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica. Vol. 67-1996. Munksgaard: Kobenhavn. 448 Kurochkin, 1974. Курочкин Г.Н. К интерпретации некоторых изображений раннего железного века с территории Северного Ирана // СА. 1974. № 2. Kurochkin, 1990. Курочкин Г.Н. Памятники с серой керамикой эпохи раннего железа в иранском Азербайджане // КСИА, Вып. 199. Kushnaryova, 1959. Кушнарева К.Х. Поселения эпохи бронзы на холме Узерлик-Тепе около Агдама // Труды Азербайджанской (Оренкалинской) экспедиции. Т. 1. МИА. № 67. М.Л. Kushnaryova, 1965. Кушнарева К.Х. Новые данные о поселении Узерлик-Тепе около Агдама // Труды Азербайджанской археологической экспедиции. Т. II. МИА. № 125. М.-Л. Kushnaryova, 1983. Кушнарева К.Х. К проблеме выделения археологических культур периода средней бронзы на Южном Кавказе // КСИА. М. Вып. 176. Kushnaryova, 1994. Кушнарева К.Х. Памятники триалетской культуры на территории Южного Закавказья // Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Kushnaryova, 1994a. Кушнарева К.Х. Хозяйство, связи, элементы общественного строя // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Kushnaryova, 1994b. Кушнарева К.Х. Кармирбердская (тазакендская) культура // Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Kushnaryova, 1994c. Кушнарева К.Х. Материалы к проблеме выделения кармирванкской (кызилванкской) культуры // Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Kushnaryova, 1994d. Кушнарева К.Х. Севаноузерликская группа памятников // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1963. Кушнарева К.Х., Чубинишвили Т.Н. Историческое значение Южного Кавказа в III тысячелетии до н. э. // СА, № 3. Kushnaryova, Chubinishvili, 1970. Кушнарева К.Х., Чубинишвили Т.Н. Древние культуры Южного Кавказа. Ленинград. Kušnierz, 1998. Kušnierz J. Die Beile in Polen III (Tüllenbeile). Stutgart: F.Steiner. Kuzmina O., 1992. Кузьмина О.В. Абашевская культура в лесостепном Волго-Уралье. Самара. Kuzmina O., 1999. Кузьмина О.В. Керамика абашевской культуры // Вопросы археологии Поволжья. Вып. 1, Самара. Kuzmina O., Sharafutdinova, 1995. Кузьмина О.В., Шарафутдинова Э.С. Хроника семинара «Проблемы перехода от эпохи средней бронзы к эпохе поздней бронзы в ВолгоУралье» // Древние индоиранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара. Kuzmina, 1958. Кузьмина Е.Е. Могильник ЗаманБаба // СЭ, № 2. Kuzmina, 1964. Кузьмина Е.Е. О южных пределах распространения степных культур эпохи бронзы в Средней Азии // Памятники каменного и бронзового веков. М. Kuzmina, 1966. Кузьмина Е.Е. Металлические изделия энеолита и бронзового века в Средней Азии // САИ. Вып. В 4 - 9, М. Kuzmina, 1972. Кузьмина Е.Е. Культура Свата и ее связи с Северной Бактрией (обзор работ Итальянской археологической миссии в Пакистане) // КСИА, Вып. 132. Kuzmina, 1973. Кузьмина Е.Е. Могильник Туктубаево и вопрос о хронологии памятников федоровского типа на Урале // Проблемы археологии Урала и Сибири. М. Kuzmina, 1974. Кузьмина Е.Е. Колесный транспорт и проблема этнической и социальной истории южнорусских степей // ВДИ, № 4. Kuzmina, 1975. Кузьмина Е.Е. О соотношении типов андроновских памятников Урала (по материалам Кинзерского могильника) // Памятники древнейшей истории Евразии. М. Kuzmina, 1980. Кузьмина Е.Е. Еще раз о дисковидных псалиях евразийских степей // КСИА. Вып. 161, М. Kuzmina, 1981. Кузьмина Е.E. Происхождение индоиранцев в свете новейших археологических данных // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности. М. Kuzmina, 1986. Кузьмина Е.Е. О некоторых археологических аспектах проблемы происхождения индоиранцев // Переднеазиатский сборник. М. Kuzmina, 1988. Кузьмина Е.Е. Еще раз о хронологии и этнической атрибутации памятников федоровского типа андроновской общности // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири. Барнаул. Kuzmina, 1992. Кузьмина Е.Е. Шортугай: проб- 449 лемы соотношения эпохи и материальной культуры // ВДИ, № 4 . Kuzmina, 1994. Кузьмина Е.Е. Откуда пришли индоарии? М., 1994. Kuzmina, 1996. Кузьмина Е.Е. Экология степей Евразии и проблема происхождения номадизма // ВДИ, № 2. Kuzmina, 1997. Кузьмина Е.Е. Экология степей Евразии и проблема происхождения номадизма. II. Возникновение кочевого скотоводства // ВДИ, № 2. Kuzmina, 1998. Kuzmina E. Three Chronological Methods and Three Ways of Sinchronisations of Bronze Age Sites in the Eurasian Steppe // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Kuzmina, 1999. Kuzmina E.E. The ethnic attribution methods and the Bronze Age Central Eurasian artefacts chronology // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Kuzmina, 1999a. Кузьмина Е.Е. Некоторые дискуссионные проблемы культуры степей Урала и сопредельных территорий в эпоху энеолита и бронзы // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Kuzminikh, 1977. Кузьминых С.В. К вопросу о волосовской и гаринско-борской металлургии // СА, № 2. Kuzminikh, 1983. Кузьминых С.В. Предананьинская металлообработка Волго-Камья // Бронзовый век степной полосы Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Kuzminikh, 1983a. Кузьминых С.В. Андроновские импорты в Приуралье (на примере женского захоронения из Ново-Ябалаклинского могильника) // Культуры бронзового века Восточной Европы. Куйбышев. Kuzminikh, Chernikh, 1985. Кузьминых С.В., Черных Е.Н. Спектроаналитическое исследование металла бронзового века лесостепного Притоболья // Потемкина Т.М. Бронзовый век лесостепного Притоболья. М. Kuzminikh, Chernikh, 1988. Кузьминых С.В., Черных Е.Н. К проблеме происхождения кельтов-лопаток // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири (тезисы докладов). Барнаул. Kuzminikh, Chernikh, 1988a. Кузьминых С.В., Черных Е.Н. Сейминско-турбинская и самусьская металлообработка: проблема соотношения // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири (тезисы докладов). Барнаул. Kuznetsov, 1983. Кузнецов П.Ф. Соотношение тип - металл - памятник в абашевской культурноисторической общности // Культуры бронзового века Восточной Европы. Куйбышев. Kuznetsov, 1991. Кузнецов П.Ф. Эпоха средней бронзы Волго-Уральского междуречья. Автореф. канд. дис. Санкт-Петербург. Kuznetsov, 1996. Кузнецов П.Ф. Еще раз об особенностях Потаповского могильника // Древности Волго-Донских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград, 1996. Kuznetsov, 1996a. Кузнецов П.Ф. Кавказский очаг и культуры эпохи бронзы Волго-Уралья // Между Азией и Европой. Кавказ в IV - I тыс. до н.э. Санкт-Петербург. Kuznetsov, 1996b. Кузнецов П.Ф. Новые радиоуглеродные даты для хронологии культур энеолита - бронзового века юга лесостепного Поволжья // Радиоуглерод и археология. Вып. 1. Санкт - Петербург. Kuznetsov, 1996c. Кузнецов П.Ф. Проблемы миграций в развитом бронзовом веке ВолгоУралья // Древности Волго-Донских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград. Kuznetsov, 1997. Кузнецов П.Ф. П.Д.Рау и современное состояние изучения памятников ранней и средней бронзы Поволжья // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Kuznetsov, 1999. Кузнецов П.Ф. О роли культур Южного Урала в культурогенезе эпохи поздней бронзы // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Kuznetsova, 1997. Кузнецова М.В. Возможные подходы к реконструкции сырьевой базы ткацкого производства эпохи бронзы (по материалам поселения Аркаим) // XXIX Уралоповолжская археологическая студенческая конференция. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Lal, 1981. Лал Б.Б. Индоарийская гипотеза в сопоставлении с индийской археологией // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. 450 Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1984. Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. An Idea or Pot-luck // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1990. Ламберг-Карловски К.К. Модели взаимодействия в III тысячелетии до н. э.: от Месопотамии до долины Инда // ВДИ, № 1. Lange, 1983. Lange G. Die menschlichen Skelettreste aus dem Oppidum von Manching. In: Die Ausgrabungen in Manching. Bd. 7. Wiesbaden. Lavrushin, Spiridonova, 1995. Лаврушин Ю.А., Спиридонова Е.А. Геологическая история зоны Евразийских степей в последние 10 000 лет // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 2. Челябинск. Lawson, 1979. Lawson A.J. A Late Bronze Age Hoard from Hunstanton. Norfolk // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Lazaretov, 1997. Лазаретов И.П. Окуневские могильники в долине реки Уйбат // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. Санкт-Петербург. Lazarovici, 1989. Lazarovici G. Das neolitische Heiligtum von Parta // Bökönyi S. (ed.). Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Budapest. Lebedeva, 1996. Лебедева Е.Ю. О земледелии в степях и лесостепях Восточной Европы в эпоху бронзы // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч.1. Уфа. Lelekov, 1982. Лелеков Л.А. К новейшему решению индоевропейской проблемы // ВДИ, № 3. Leskov, 1964. Лесков А.М. Древнейшие роговые псалии из Тахтемирова // СА, № 1. Leskov, 1967. Лесков А.М. О северопричерноморском очаге металлообработки в эпоху поздней бронзы // Памятники эпохи бронзы юга Европейской части СССР. Киев. Lev, 1966. Лев Д.Н. Погребение бронзовой эпохи близ г. Самарканда // КСИА, Вып. 108. Levine, 1999. Levine M. The Origins of Horse Husbandry on the Eurasian Steppe. In: Levine M., Rassamakin Yu., Kislenko A., Tatarintseva N. Late prehistoric exploitation of the Eurasian steppe. Cambridge. Levushkina, Flitsiyan, 1981. Левушкина С., Флициян Е. Химический состав металла кинжала из Вахшувара // СА, № 1. Lewy, 1971. Lewy H. Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Period // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Lewy, 1971a. Lewy H. Assyria, c. 2600-1816 BC / / Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Lichardus, 1991. Lichardus J. Das Gräberfeld von Varna im Rahmen des Totenrituals des Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI Komplexes // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Lichardus, Vladar, 1996. Lichardus J., Vladar J. Karpatenbecken - Sintasta - Mykene. Ein Beitrag zur Definition der Bronzezeit als historischer Epoche // Slovenska Archeologia XLIV - 1. Lichardus-Itten, 1971. Lichardus-Itten M. Die frühe und mittlere Bronzezeit im alpinen Raum // Urund frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Schweiz. Bd. III. Die Bronzezeit. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Ling Yung, 1990. Линь Юнь. Переоценка взаимосвязей между бронзовыми изделиями шанской культуры и северной зоны // Китай в эпоху древности. Новосибирск. Lisitsina, 1989. Лисицына Г.Н. Древнейшие палеоэтноботанические находки в Северной Месопотамии // Бадер Н.О. Древнейшие земледельцы Северной Месопотамии. М. Litvinenko, 1993. Литвиненко Р.А. Курганный могильник Возрождение II на Донетчине // РА, № 3. Litvinenko, 1998. Литвиненко Р.А. Была ли абашевская культура на Украине? // ДоноДонецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесостепи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. Litvinenko, 1999. Litvinenko R.A. On the problem of chronological correlation of Sintashta and Mnogovalikovaya types // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Litvinenko, 1999a. Литвиненко Р.А. Периодизация срубных могильников Северо-Восточного Приазовья // Древности Северо-Восточного Приазовья. Донецк. Litvinskii, 1989. Литвинский Б.А. Протоиранский 451 Lopatin, 1997. Лопатин В.А. Исследование Смеловского грунтового могильника и поселения в урочище Мартышкино // Археологическое наследие Саратовского края. Охрана и исследования в 1996 году. Вып. 2. Саратов. Lopatin, 1997a. Лопатин В.А. Смеловский грунтовый могильник (к проблеме формирования срубной культуры в степном Заволжье) // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Lopatin, 1999. Лопатин В.А. Раннесрубный компонент в керамическом комплексе Смеловского грунтового могильника // Научное наследие А.П.Смирнова и современные проблемы археологии Волго-Камья. Москва. Lopatin, Malov, 1988. Лопатин В.А., Малов Н.М. Срубные погребения в подбоях на Еруслане // СА, № 1. Lotman, 1977. Лотман Ю.М. Культура как коллективный интеллект и проблемы искусственного разума. М. Lovpache, 1991. Ловпаче Н.Г. Истоки майкопской культуры, связь ее с природой и народами Кавказа // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Loze, 1996. Loze I. Some Remarks about the IndoEuropeanization of Northern Europe (the Case of the Eastern Baltic Region) // The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Lyakhov, 1996. Ляхов С.В. Уникальное погребение эпохи средней бронзы из кургана близ пос. Сторожевка (предварительная публикация) // Охрана и исследование памятников археологии Саратовской области в 1995 г. Саратов. Lyakhov, Matyukhin, 1992. Ляхов С.В., Матюхин А.Д. Новые памятники эпохи ранней и средней бронзы из курганов у сел Новая Квасниковка и Большая Дмитриевка // Древняя история населения Волго-Уральских степей. Оренбург. MacAlpin, 1981. MacAlpin D.W. Proto-ElamoDravidian: the Evidence and its Implications. Philadelphia. MacCana, 1991. MacCana P. Celtic Heroic Tradition // The Celts. Milano: Bompiani. Macqeen, 1968. Macqeen J.G. Geography and History in Western Asia Minor in the Second Millennium B.C. // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XVIII. храм в Маргиане? // ВДИ, № 1. Livshits, Steblin-Kamenskii, 1989. Лившиц В.А., Стеблин-Каменский И.М. Протозороастризм? // ВДИ, № 1. Lloyd, 1984. Ллойд С. Археология Месопотамии. М. Lloyd, Mellaart, 1957. Lloyd S., Mellaart J. An Early Bronze Age Shrine at Beycesultan // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. VII. Lloyd, Mellaart, 1962. Lloyd S., Mellaart J. Beycesultan. V. I. London. Lloyd, Mellaart, 1965. Lloyd S., Mellaart J. Beycesultan. V. II. London. Lloyd, Mellaart, 1972. Lloyd S., Mellaart J. Beycesultan. V. III. London, 1972. Lloyd, Safar, 1945. Lloyd S., Safar F. Tell Hassuna. Excavations in 1943-1944. JNES,4. Lochner, 1997. Lochner M. Studien zur Pfahlbauforschung in Österreich. Materialien I - Die Pfahlbaustationen des Mondsees. Keramik. Wien. Verl. Der Österr. Akad. Der Wiss. Logvin, 1995. Логвин В.Н. К проблеме становления синташтинско-петровских древностей // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Logvin, Kalieva, 1986. Логвин В.Н., Калиева С.С. Терсекские памятники Тургайского прогиба // Древние культуры Северного Прикаспия. Куйбышев. Loman, 1987. Ломан В.Г. Донгальский тип керамики // Вопросы периодизации археологических памятников Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Loman, 1995. Ломан В.Г. Андроновское гончарство: общие приемы изготовления сосудов // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V, кн. 1. Челябинск. Loon, 1971. Van Loon M. Korucutepe excavations, 1969. Architecture and General Finds // Keban Project. 1969 Activities. Ankara. Loon, 1985. М.Н. ван Лоон. Конец периода ранней бронзы в Сирии: проблемы хронологии и интерпретации // Древняя Эбла. М. Lopatin, 1996. Лопатин В.А. Построечные комплексы периода становления срубной культуры степного Волго-Уральского междуречья // Охрана и исследование памятников археологии Саратовской области в 1995 г. Саратов. 452 Makarova, Nurumov, 1989. Макарова Л.А., Нурумов Т.Н. К проблеме коневодства в неолитэнеолите Казахстана // Взаимодействие кочевых культур и древних цивилизаций. АлмаАта. Makhmudov et al., 1968. Махмудов Ф.А., Мунчаев Р.М., Нариманов И.Г. О древнейшей металлургии Кавказа // СА, № 4. Makkay, 1987. Makkay J. The Linear Pottery and the Early Indo-Europeans // Proto-Indo-European: The archaeology of a linguistic problem. Studies in honor of Marija Gimbutas. Washington, D.C. Makkay, 1996. Makkay J. C-14 Chronology: Eastern Europa // Randsborg K. (ed.) Absolute Chronology Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica. Vol. 67-1996. Munksgaard: Kobenhavn. Makkay, 1996a. Makkay J. Copper and Gold in the Copper Age of the Carpathian Basin // Kovăcs (Herausg.) Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpathenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Budapest: Magyar Muzeum. Mallory, 1989. Mallory J.P. In Searh of the IndoEuropeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. London. Mallory, 1993. Mallory J.P. Statue Menhirs and the Indo-Europeans // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Mallory, 1996. Mallory J.P. The Indo-European Homeland Problem: a Matter of Time // The IndoEuropeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Mallory, 1997. Мэллори Дж. П. Индоевропейские прародины // ВДИ, № 1. Maloletko, 1988. Малолетко А.М. Культурная и этническая принадлежность пришлых скотоводов Васюганья в эпоху бронзы // Хронология и культурая принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири (тезисы докладов). Барнаул. Maloletko, 1989. Малолетко А.М. Опыт реконструкции языковой принадлежности носителей культур эпохи бронзы Западной Сибири // Методические проблемы реконструкций в археологии и палеоэкологии. Новосибирск. Malov, 1999. Malov N.M. Spears as signs of archaic leaders of Pokrovsk archaeological culture // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Malyutina, 1984. Малютина Т.С. Могильник Приплодный Лог I // бронзовый век УралоИртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Malyutina, 1990. Малютина Т.С. Поселения и жилища федоровской культуры урало-казахстанских степей // Археология волгоуральских степей. Челябинск. Malyutina, 1991. Малютина Т.С. Стратиграфическая позиция материалов федеровской культуры на многослойных поселениях казахстанских степей // Древности восточно-европейской лесостепи. Самара. Malyutina, 1994. Малютина Т.С. Федоровская культура урало-казахстанских степей. Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. М. Malyutina, 1999. Malyutina T.S. «Quasi-towns» of the Bronze Age in the South Urals and ancient Khorasmia // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Malyutina, Zdanovich, 1995. Малютина Т.С., Зданович Г.Б. Куйсак - укрепленное поселение протогородской цивилизации Южного Зауралья // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Mamardashvili, 1997. Мамардашвили М. Лекции по античной философии. М. Mandelshtam, 1968. Мандельштам А.М. Памятники эпохи бронзы в Южном Таджикистане. Л. Manning, 1996. Manning S.W. Dating the Aegean Bronze Age: without, with and beyond radiocarbon // Randsborg K. (ed.) Absolute Chronology Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica. Vol. 67-1996. Munksgaard: Kobenhavn. Marazov, 1991. Marazov I. Grave № 36 from the Chalkolithic Cemetery in Varna - Myth, Ritual and Object // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Marechal, 1965. Marechal J.R. Nouvelles conceptions sur les debuts de la metallurgie anciennes eu Europe et au Caucase // Societe Prehistorique Francaise, Seance d’Octobre. Margeron, 1985. Маргерон Ж.К. Мари - самобытность или заимствования? // Древняя Эбла. М. Margulan et al., 1966. Маргулан А.Х., Акишев К.А., Кадырбаев М.К., Оразбаев А.М. Древняя культура Центрального Казахстана. 453 Markovin, 1997. Марковин В.И. Дольменные памятники Прикубанья и Причерноморья. Москва. Marsadolov, Zaytseva, 1999. Марсадолов Л.С., Зайцева Г.И. Соотношение радиоуглеродных и археологических датировок для малых и средних курганов Саяно-Алтая I тыс. до н.э. // Итоги изучения скифской эпохи Алтая и сопредельных территорий. Барнаул. Masson, 1964. Массон В.М. Средняя Азия и Древний Восток. Л. Masson, 1977. Массон В.М. Печати протоиндийского типа на Алтын - Депе (К проблеме этнической атрибутации расписной керамики Ближнего Востока) // ВДИ, № 4. Masson, 1981. Массон В.М. Алтын-Депе. Л. Masson, 1984. Массон В.М. Формирование древних цивилизаций в Средней Азии и Индостане // Древние культуры Средней Азии и Индии. Л. Masson, 1989. Массон В.М. Первые цивилизации. Л. Masson, 1999. Masson V.M. On the migration of the steppe Bronze Age culture representatives and the processes of culture geneses in Ancient Central Asia // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Matthäus, 1981. Matthäus H. Spätmykenische und urnenfeldzeitlische Vogelplastik // Lorenz H. (Herausg.) Studien zur Bronzezeit. Festschrift für Wilhelm Albert v. Brunn. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Mattiae, 1977. Mattiae P. Ebla. An Empire Rediscovered. London. Mattiae, 1985. Маттиэ П. Раскопки Эблы 1964 1982 гг.: итоги и перспективы // Древняя Эбла. М. Mattiae, 1985a. Маттиэ П. Царский дворец G в Эбле и протосирийские архитектурные традиции // Древняя Эбла. М. Matveev Yu., 1998. Матвеев Ю.П. Катакомбноабашевское взаимодействие и формирование срубной общности // Доно-Донецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесостепи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. Matveev, 1986. Матвеев А.В. Некоторые итоги и проблемы изучения ирменской культуры / / СА, № 2. Matveev, 1993. Матвеев А.В. Ирменская культура в лесостепном Приобье. Новосибирск. Алма-Ата. Mariashev, Goryachev, 1994. Марьяшев А.Н., Горячев А.А. К вопросу типологии и хронологии памятников эпохи бронзы Семиречья // РА, № 1. Mariashev, Goryachev, 1998. Марьяшев А.Н., Горячев А.А. Наскальные изображения Семиречья. Алматы. Mariashev, Goryachev, 1999. Mariashev A.V., Goryachev A.A. The sites of Kulsaisky tipe of the Late and Final Bronze Ages in Semirechye // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Mariashev, Goryachev, 1999a. Марьяшев А.Н., Горячев А.А. Памятники кульсайского типа эпохи поздней и финальной бронзы Семиречья // История и археология Семиречья. Алматы. Markaryan, 1969. Маркарян Э С. Очерки теории культуры. Ереван. Markovin, 1973. Марковин В.И. Дольмены Западного Кавказа (некоторые итоги изучения) // СА, № 1. Markovin, 1984. Марковин В.И. Новейшие вопросы изучения дольменов Западного Кавказа в связи с проблемой их происхождения // КСИА, Вып. 177. Markovin, 1990. Марковин В.И. Ответ на статьи, присланные в связи с дискуссией о майкопской культуре // СА, № 4. Markovin, 1990a. Марковин В.И. Спорные вопросы в этногенетическом изучении древностей Северного Кавказа (Майкопская культура) // СА, № 4. Markovin, 1991. Марковин В.И. Курган Псынако I ка источник изучения спорных вопросов эпохи бронзы Западного Кавказа (культура дольменов) // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Markovin, 1994. Марковин В.И. Дольмены Западного Кавказа // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Markovin, 1994a. Марковин В.И. Каякентскохарачоевская культура // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Markovin, 1994b. Марковин В.И. Северокавказская культурно-историческая общность // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. 454 Matveev, 1998. Матвеев А.В. Первые андроновцы в лесах Зауралья. Новосибирск. Matyushenko, 1975. Матющенко В.И. Могильник у дер. Ростовка // Археология Северной и Центральной Азии. Новосибирск. Matyushenko, 1999. Матющенко В.И. Еще раз о сейминско-турбинском феномене // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Matyushenko, Sinitsina, 1988. Матющенко В.И., Синицина Г.В. Могильник у деревни Ростовка вблизи Омска. Томск. Matyushin, 1982. Матюшин Г.Н. Энеолит Южного Урала. М. Maximenkov, 1965. Максименков Г.А. Окуневская культура в Южной Сибири // Новое в советской археологии. МИА. № 130. М. Maximenkov, 1978. Максименков Г.А. Андроновская культура на Енисее. Л. Maznichenko, 1985. Мазниченко А.П. Бронзовый наконечник копья из Кустанайского музея // Энеолит и бронзовый век Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Mednikova, Lebedinskaya, 1999. Медникова М.Б., Лебединская Г.В. Пепкинский курган: данные антропологии к интерпретации погребений. // Погребальный обряд: реконструкция и интерпретация древних идеологических представлений. Москва. Medvedev, 1990. Медведев Е.М. Очерки истории Индии до XII в. М. Medvedskaya, 1977. Медведская И.Н. Об «иранской» принадлежности серой керамики раннежелезного века Ирана // ВДИ, № 2. Medvedskaya, 1980. Медведская И.Н. Металлические наконечники стрел Переднего Востока и евразийских степей II - первой половины I тысячелетия до н.э. // СА, №4. Megaw, Simpson, 1979. Megaw J.V.S., Simpson D.D.A. Introduction to British Prehistory. Leicester. Meier-Arendt, 1989. Meier-Arendt W. Überlegungen zur Herkunft des linienbandkeramischen Langhauses // Bökönyi S. (ed.). Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Budapest. Melentiev, 1976. Мелентьев А.Н. К вопросу о времени и генезисе раннего неолита Северного Прикаспия (памятники сероглазовского типа) // Проблемы археологии Поволжья и Приуралья. Куйбышев. Mellaart, 1957. Mellaart J. Anatolian Chronology in the Early and Middle Bronze Age // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. VII. Mellaart, 1967. Mellaart J. Catal Huyuk. Stadt aus der Steinzeit. Lengerich: G.Lubbe. Mellaart, 1968. Mellaart J. Anatolian Trade with Europe and Anatolian Geography and Culture Provinces in the Late Bronze Age // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XVIII. Mellaart, 1971. Mellaart J. Anatolia c. 4000-2300 BC // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Mellaart, 1971a. Mellaart J. Anatolia c. 2300-1750 BC // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Mellaart, 1975. Mellaart J. The Neolithic of the Near East. London. Mellaart, 1982. Мелларт Дж. Древнейшие цивилизации Ближнего Востока. М. Mellink, 1992. Mellink M.J. Anatolian Chronology // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Melyukova, 1989. Мелюкова А.И. Краткие сведения об истории скифов // Степи европейской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. М. Melyukova, 1989a. Мелюкова А.И. Предскифский период в степях Северного Причерноморья // Степи Европейской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. М. Melyukova, 1999. Мелюкова А.И. К вопросу о восточноевропейских кочевниках на территории Средней Европы в начале железного века. // Скифы Северного Причерноморья в VII-IV вв. до н.э. Москва. Merkevichius, 1996. Merkevichius A Basic Burial Patterns of Western and Eastern Balts in the Bronze and Early Iron Age // The IndoEuropeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Merpert et al., 1985. Мерперт Н.Я., Качалова Н.К., Васильев И.Б. О формировании срубных племен Поволжья // Срубная культурноисторическая общность. Куйбышев. Merpert, 1961. Мерперт Н.Я. Абашевские курганы северной Чувашии (раскопки 1957 - 1958 455 годов) // Абашевская культура в Среднем Поволжье. МИА, № 97. Merpert, 1966. Мерперт Н.Я. О луристанских элементах в кладе из Сосновой Мазы // КСИА, Вып. 108. Merpert, 1976. Мерперт Н.Я. Древнеямная культурно-историческая область и вопросы формирования культур шнуровой керамики // Восточная Европа в эпоху камня и бронзы. М. Merpert, 1987. Merpert N. Ethnocultural change in Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age // Proto Indo - European: The archaeology of a linguistic problem. Studies in honor of Marija Gimbutas. Washington, D.C. Merpert, 1988. Мерперт Н.Я. Об этнокультурной ситуации IV-III тысячелетий до н.э. в циркумпонтийской зоне // Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи. М. Merpert, 1988a. Мерперт Н.Я. Korfman M. Demirciuyuk. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabunger 1975-1978. B. I. Rhein, 1983 // CA. 1988, № 2. Merpert, 1991. Merpert N.J. Die neolitischäneolitischen Denkmäler der pontish-kaspischen Steppen und der Formierungsprozess der frühen Grubengrabkultur // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Merpert, 1995. Мерперт Н.Я. К вопросу о древнейших круглоплановых укрепленных поселениях Евразии // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Merpert, 1995a. Мерперт Н.Я. О планировке поселков раннего бронзового века в Верхнефракийской долине (Южная Болгария) // СА. 1995. №3. Merpert, Munchaev, 1982. Мерперт Н.Я., Мунчаев Р.М. Погребальный обряд племен халафской культуры (Месопотамия) // Археология Старого и Нового Света. М. Merpert, Munchaev, 1984. Мерперт Н.Я., Мунчаев Р.М. Археологическая поездка по Сирии // СА, № 1. Merts, Frank, 1996. Мерц В.К., Франк Д.А. Раскопки у с. Мичуринское // Сохранение и изучение культурного наследия Алтайского края (материалы научно-практической конференции). Барнаул. Mesheryakov, Morgunova, 1996. Мещеряков Д.В., Моргунова Н.Л. К проблеме происхож- дения коневодства на Южном Урале // Вопросы археологии Центрального Казахстана. Вып. 1. Самара. Metzner-Nebelsick, 1998. Metzner-Nebelsick C. Early Iron Age Pastoral Nomadism in the Great Hungarian Plain // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Meyerhof, 1982. Meyerhof L. The Bronze Age Necropolis at Kibbutz Hazorea, Israel. Oxford. Meyer-Melikyan, 1990. Мейер-Меликян Н.Р. Определение растительных остатков из Тоголок 21 // Сарианиди В.И. Древности страны Маргуш. Ашхабад. Meyer-Melikyan, 1998. Meyer-Melikyan N.R. Analysis of Floral Remains from Togolok 21 // Sarianidi V. Margiana and Protozoroastrism. Athens. Meyer-Melikyan, Avetov, 1998. Meyer-Melikyan N.R., Avetov N.A. Analysis of Floral Remains in the Ceramic Vessel from the Gonur Temenos // Sarianidi V. Margiana and Protozoroastrism. Athens. Midgley, 1992. Midgley M.S. TRB culture. The First Farmers of the North European Plain. Edinburgh. Mifi ..., 1988. Мифы народов мира. Т. 2. М. Mikeladze, 1994. Микеладзе Т.К. Протоколхская культура // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Mikhaylov, 1999. Михайлов Ю.И. Семантика зернотерок и пестов в погребальных ритуальных комплексах IX-VII вв. до н.э. Саяно-Алтайского нагорья // Итоги изучения скифской эпохи Алтая и сопредельных территорий. Барнаул. Milojcic, 1961. Milojcic V. Samos. Bd. I. Die Prähistorische Siedlung unter dem Heraion. Grabung 1953 und 1955. Bonn: Habelt. Miron, 1992. Miron E. Axes and Adzes from Canaan. Stuttgart: F.Steiner. Mishina, 1989. Мишина Т.Н. Курганы эпохи ранней бронзы Центрального Ставрополья // Древности Ставрополья. Москва. Mizrachi, 1992. Mizrachi Y. Mystery Circles // BiblAR. V 18, №4. Mochalov, 1995. Мочалов О.Д. К вопросу о происхождении керамических ареалов Волго-Уралья эпохи средней бронзы // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Mochalov, 1996. Мочалов О.Д. О возможной 456 Molchanov, 1987. Молчанов А.А. Минойский язык: проблемы и факты // Античная балканистика. М. Molodin, 1983. Молодин В.И. Погребение литейщика из могильника Сопка 2 // Древние горняки и металлурги Сибири. Барнаул. Molodin, 1985. Молодин В.И. Бараба в эпоху бронзы. Новосибирск. Molodin, 1988. Молодин В.И. О соотношении кротовской и окуневской культур // Некоторые проблемы сибирской археологии. М. Molodin, 1998. Молодин В.И. Н.А.Членова. Центральная Азия и скифы. Датировка кургана Аржан и его место в системе культур скифского мира. М., 1997 // РА, № 4. Molodin, Glushkov, 1989. Молодин В.И., Глушков И.Г. Самусьская культура в Верхнем Приобье. Новосибирск. Molodin, Pogozhaeva, 1990. Молодин В.И., Погожева А.П. Плита из Озерного (Горный Алтай) // СА, № 1. Mommsen, 1986. Mommsen H. Archaometrie. Neuere naturwissenschaftliche Methoden und Erfolge in der Archaologie. Stuttgart. Monakhov, 1984. Монахов С.Ю. Погребение культуры многоваликовой керамики близ Саратова // СА, № 1. Mongeit, 1974. Монгайт А.Л. Археология Западной Европы. Бронзовый и железный века. М. Moorey, 1974. Moorey P.R.S. Ancient Bronzes from Luristan. Oxford. Moorey, 1975. Moorey P.R.S. The Near Eastern Origin of Metallurgy. In: Coghlan H.H. Notes on the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Copper and Bronze in the Old World. 2-nd ed. Oxford. Morgunova, 1991. Моргунова Н.Л. К вопросу о полтавкинской культуре Приуралья // СА, № 4. Morgunova, 1992. Моргунова Н.Л. К вопросу об общественном устройстве древнеямной культуры (По материалам степного Приуралья) // Древняя история населения ВолгоУральских степей. Оренбург. Morgunova, 1995. Моргунова Н.Л. Неолит и энеолит юга лесостепи Волго-Уральского междуречья. Оренбург. Morgunova, 1999. Моргунова Н.Л. Этнокультурная ситация в Волго-Кральском междуречье в эпохи неолита и энеолита // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. интерпретации орнамента керамики памятников потаповского типа // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч. 1. Уфа. Mochalov, 1996a. Мочалов О.Д. О керамике полтавкинской культуры Среднего Поволжья // Древности Волго-Донских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград. Mochalov, 1996b. Мочалов О.Д. О происхождении некоторых особенностей керамики эпохи средней бронзы Волго-Уралья и Зауралья (к постановке проблемы) // Историко-археологические изыскания. Сборник трудов молодых ученых. Самара. Mochalov, 1997. Мочалов О.Д. Керамика эпохи средней бронзы Волго-Уральской лесостепи и проблема формирования срубной культуры. Автореф. дис. канд. ист. наук. Воронеж. Mochalov, 1997a. Мочалов О.Д. Потаповская керамика и проблема формирования срубной культуры волго-уральской лесостепи // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Mochalov, 1999. Мочалов О.Д. Сравнительно-статистический анализ погребальных керамических комплексов рубежа эпохи средней бронзы Волго-Уралья и Зауралья // Историкоархеологические изыскания. Сборник трудов молодых ученых. Вып. 3. Самара. Mochalov, 1999a. Мочалов О.Д. Сравнительный анализ керамики погребений приуральской абашевской культуры и керамических комплексов конца средней - начала поздней бронзы Волго-Уралья и Зауралья. О роли абашевских древностей в культурогенезе // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Mogilnikov, 1976. Могильников В.А. О восточной границе памятников с валиковой керамикой // Проблемы археологии Поволжья и Приуралья. Куйбышев. Mohen, 1977. Mohen J.-P. L’Age du Bronze dans la region de Paris. Catalogue synthetique des collections conservees au Musee des Antiquites Nationales. Paris. Moiseev, Efimov, 1995. Моисеев Н.Б., Ефимов К.Ю. Пичаевский курган // Древние индоиранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара, 1995. 457 Morgunova, Kravtsov, 1994. Моргунова Н.Л., Кравцов А.Ю. Памятники древнеямной культуры на Илеке. Екатеринбург. Mosin, 1995. Мосин В.С. Этнокультурная ситуация в Южном Зауралье и Северном Казахстане на рубеже энеолита - бронзового века // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 1. Челябинск. Mosin, 1996. Мосин В.С. Зауральская культурноисторическая область в мезолите - энеолите // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч.1. Уфа. Mosin, 1999. Мосин В.С. О раннем энеолите Южного Зауралья // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Mosin, 1999a. Мосин В.С. Южное Зауралье в каменном веке // 120 лет археологии Восточного склона Урала. Первые чтения памяти Владимира Федоровича Генинга. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург. Mottier, 1971. Mottier Y. Bestattungsitten und weitere Belege zur geistigen Kultur // Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Schweiz. Bd. III. Die Bronzezeit. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Movsha, 1969. Мовша Т.Г. Об антропоморфной пластике трипольской культуры // СА, № 2. Movsha, 1982. Мовша Т.Г. К вопросу о колесном транспорте в трипольской культуре // Культурный прогресс в эпоху бронзы и раннего железа. Ереван. Mozsolics, 1981. Mozsolics A. Der Goldfund von Varvolgy - Felsozsid // Studien zur Bronzezeit. Meinz am Rhein. Mozsolics, 1985. Mozsolics A. Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfunhorizonte von Aranyons, Kurd und Gyermely. Budapest. Mughal, 1984. Mughal M.R. The Post-Harappan Phase in Bohawalpur distt., Pakistan // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Muhly, 1980. Muhly J.D. The Bronze Age Setting // The Coming of the Age of Iron. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. Müller F., 1993. Müller F. Kultplätze und Opferbräuche. In: Das Keltische Jahrtausend. Mainz am Rhein. Zabern. Müller, 1972. Müller W. Troja. Wiederentdeckung der Jahrtausende. Leipzig. Müller, 1993. Müller D. W. Die verzierten Menhirstellen und ein Plattenmenhir aus Mittel- deutschland // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Müller-Karpe A., 1994. Müller-Karpe A. Anatolisches Metallhandwerk. Neunmünster: Wachholtz Verlag. Müller-Karpe, 1974. Müller-Karpe H. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Kupferzeit. Bd. III. München. Müller-Karpe, 1980. Müller-Karpe H. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Bd. IV. München. Munchaev et al., 1990. Мунчаев Р.М., Мерперт Н.Я., Бадер Н.О. Тель Хазна I (исследования советской экспедиции в Северо-Восточной Сирии, 1988-1989 гг.) // СА, № 3. Munchaev, 1981. Мунчаев Р.М. Куро-аракская культура // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Munchaev, 1987. Мунчаев Р.М. Кавказ на заре бронзового века. М. Munchaev, 1991. Munchaev R.M. Nordkaukasien in Neolithikum, Chalkolithikum und Frühbronzezeit // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Munchaev, 1994. Мунчаев Р.М. Куро-аракская культура // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М., 1994. Munchaev, 1994a. Мунчаев Р.М. Майкопская культура // Эпоха бронзы Кавказа и Средней Азии. Ранняя и средняя бронза Кавказа. М. Munchaev, Merpert, 1981. Мунчаев Р.М., Мерперт Н.Я. Раннеземледельческие поселения Северной Месопотамии. М. Munchaev, Merpert, 1997. Мунчаев Р.М., Мерперт Н.Я. Древнейший культовый центр в долине Хабура (Северо-Восточная Сирия) // РА, № 2. Murzin, 1990. Мурзин В.Ю. Происхождение скифов: основные этапы формирования скифского этноса. Киев. Nagovitsin, 1987. Наговицин Л.А. Новоильинская, гаринско-барская и юртиковская культуры // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Napolskikh, 1994. Напольских В.В. О времени и исторических условиях урало-тохарских контактов // Journal de la Societe FinnoOugrienne. 85. 21-39, Helsinki. Napolskikh, 1997. Напольских В.В. Введение в 458 Neugebauer, 1994. Neugebauer J.-W. Bronzezeit in Österreich. St.-Pölten - Wien: Niederösterreichisches Pressehaus. Nikitenko, 1998. Никитенко Н.И. Начало освоения железа в белозерской культуре // РА, № 3. Nikitin, 1989. Никитин В.И. Матвеевка I - поселение катакомбной культуры на Южном Буге // СА, № 2. Nikolaev, 1985. Николаев С.В. Северокавказские заимствования в хеттском и древнегреческом // Древняя Анатолия. М. Nikolov, 1984. Николов В. Ранненеолитические культуры в Западной Болгарии // СА, № 2. Nikolov, 1989. Nikolov V. Das Flußtal der Strumna als Teil der Straße von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa // Bökönyi S. (ed.). Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II. Budapest. Nikolov, 1991. Nikolov V. Zur Interpretation der spätneolithischen Nekropole von Varna // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Nikolova, 1995. Nikolova L. Burials in Settlements and Flat Necropolises During the Early Bronze Age in Bulgaria // Bailey D.W., Panayotov I. (ed.). Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology № 22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Nikulina, 1977. Никулина Н.М. Искусство эгейского мира и его связи с искусством Древнего Востока // ВДИ, № 3. Novgorodova, 1970. Новгородова Э.А. Центральная Азия и карасукская проблема. М. Novgorodova, 1978. Новгородова Э.А. Древнейшие изображения колесниц в горах Монголии // СА, № 4. Novgorodova, 1989. Новгородова Э.А. Древняя Монголия. М. Novikova, 1976. Новикова Л.А. Западные связи Северопричерноморского очага металлообработки в эпоху поздней бронзы // СА, № 3. Novikova, Shilov, 1989. Новикова Л.А., Шилов Ю.А. Погребения с лицевыми накладками эпохи бронзы // СА, № 2. Novotna, 1970. Novotna M. Die Äxte und Beile in der Slovakei. München: Beck. Novozhenov, 1989. Новоженов В.А. Колесный транспорт эпохи бронзы Урало-Казахстан- историческую уралистику. Ижевск. Narimanov, 1987. Нариманов И.Г. Культура древнейшего земледельческо-скотоводческого населения Азербайджана (эпоха энеолита VI - IV тыс. до н.э.). Баку. Nechitaylo, 1984. Нечитайло А.Л. О сосудах майкопского типа в степной Украине // СА, № 4. Nechitaylo, 1991. Нечитайло А.Л. Специфика культурных групп майкопской общности // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л., 1991. Nechitaylo, 1996. Нечитайло А.Л. Европейская степная общность в эпоху энеолита // РА, № 4. Needkam, 1979. Needkam S. A pair of Early Bronze Age Spearheads from Lighwater, Surrey // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Nekhaev, 1986. Нехаев А.А. Погребение майкопской культуры из кургана у села Красногвардейское // СА. 1986. № 1. Nekhaev, 1991. Нехаев А.А. О периодизации домайкопской культуры Северо-Западного Кавказа // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Nelin, 1995. Нелин Д.В. Погребения эпохи бронзы с булавами в Южном Зауралье и Северном Казахстане // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Nelin, 1996. Нелин Д.В. Лук и стрелы населения Южного Зауралья и Северного Казахстана эпохи бронзы // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч. 1. Уфа. Nelin, 1996a. Нелин Д.В. Материалы к югозападным связям Южного Зауралья в эпоху бронзы // Историко-археологические изыскания. Сборник трудов молодых ученых. Самара. Nelin, 1999. Нелин Д.В. К проблеме сложения варны воинов-колесничих (по материалам Южного Зауралья) // Историко-археологические изыскания. Сборник трудов молодых ученых. Вып. 3. Самара. Neolithic Cultures, 1974. Neolithic Cultures of Western Asia. L., N.-Y. Neugebauer, 1991. Neugebauer J.-W. Die Nekropole F von Gemeinlebarn, Niederösterreich. Mainz-am-Rhein. 459 ских степей. Краткий обзор источников // Вопросы археологии Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Novozhenov, 1994. Новоженов В.А. Наскальные изображения повозок Средней и Центральной Азии. Алматы. Nyola, 1989. Ньола Г. Археология и проблема происхождения зороастризма: новые перспективы // ВДИ, № 2. Obidennov et al., 1994. Обыденнов М.Ф., Шорин А.Ф., Варов А.И., Косинцев П.А. Хозяйство населения черкаскульской и межовской культур Урала эпохи поздней бронзы. Екатеринбург. Obidennov, 1986. Обыденнов М.Ф. Поздний бронзовый век Южного Урала. Уфа. Obidennov, 1987. Обыденнов М.Ф. Межовская культура в Южном Приуралье // Вопросы древней и средневековой истории Южного Урала. Уфа. Obidennov, 1996. Обыденнов М.Ф. Новые материалы о проникновении древних индо-европейцев на территорию Башкортостана (середина II тыс. до н. э.). Каменные сверленые топоры. Препринт. Уфа. Obidennov, Obidennova, 1992. Обыденнов М.Ф., Обыденнова Г.Т. Северо-восточная периферия срубной культурно-исторической общности. Самара. Obidennov, Shorin, 1995. Обыденнов М.Ф., Шорин А.Ф. Археологические культуры позднего бронзового века древних уральцев (черкаскульская и межавская культуры). Екатеринбург. Ocherk istorii..., 1990. Очерк истории еврейского народа. Иерусалим. Ocherki kulturigeneza..., 1994. Очерки культурогенеза народов Западной Сибири. Томск. Oliva, 1977. Олива П. Древний Восток и истоки греческой цивилизации // ВДИ, № 2. Oppenheim, 1990. Оппенхейм А. Древняя Месопотамия. М. Orfinskaya et al., 1999. Орфинская О.В., Голиков В.П., Шишлина Н.И. Комплексное экспериментальное исследование текстильных изделий эпохи бронзы Евразийских степей // Текстиль эпохи бронзы евразийских степей. Москва. Orlovskaya, 1994. Орловская Л.Б. Цветной металл Болдыревского ( могильника // Моргунова Н.Л., Кравцов А.Ю. Памятники древ- неямной культуры на Илеке. Оренбург. Orthmann, 1975. Orthmann W. Der Alte Orient. Berlin: Propilaen. Ortmann, 1985. Ортманн В. Керамика ранней и средней бронзы на среднем Евфрате и ее связи с керамикой Хамы и Эблы // Древняя Эбла. М. Oshibkina, 1984. Ошибкина С.В. О находках сейминского времени в Восточном Прионежье // КСИА, Вып. 177. Oshibkina, 1987. Ошибкина С.В. Энеолит и бронзовый век севера Европейской части СССР // Эпоха бронзы лесной полосы СССР. М. Osterwalder, 1971. Osterwalder Ch. Die mittlere Bronzezeit im Mittelland und Jura // Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Schweiz. Bd. III. Die Bronzezeit. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Ostmo, 1996. Ostmo E. The Indo-European Question in a Norwegian perspective: a View from the Wrong End of the Stick? // The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Otroshenko, 1986. Отрощенко В.В. Костяные детали плеток из погребений срубной культуры // СА, № 3. Otroshenko, 1996. Отрощенко В.В. Культурная принадлежность погребений Потаповского могильника в Заволжье // Древности ВолгоДонских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград. Otroshenko, 1997. Отрощенко В.В. К вопросу о покровской срубной культуре // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Otroshenko, 1998. Отрощенко В.В. К вопросу о доно-волжской абашевской культуре // ДоноДонецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесостепи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. Ottaway, 1994. Ottaway B. Prähistorische Archäometallurgie. Espelkamp. Ozdogan, 1991. Ozdogan M. Eastern Thrace before the Beginning of Troy I - an Archaeological Dilemma // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Ozerov, Bespaliy, 1987. Озеров А.А., Беспалый Е.Н. Погребение эпохи бронзы близ г. Сальска // СА, № 3. Palaguta, 1998. Палагута И.В. К проблеме связей Триполья-Кукутени с культурами энео- 460 лита степной зоны Северного Причерноморья. // РА, № 1. Palmieri, 1981. Palmieri A. Exscavations at Arslantepe (Malatya) // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXXI. Palmieri et al, 1993. Palmieri A.M., Sertok K., Chernykh E. From Arslantepe metalwork to arsenical copper technology in Eastern Anatolia. // Between the rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri dedicata (ed. Frangipane M., Hauptmann H., Liverani M., Matthie P., Mellink M.). Roma. Pamyatniki srubnoy kulturi, 1993. Памятники срубной культуры. Волго-Уральское междуречье // САИ. В 1 - 10, Саратов. Papin, Shamshin, 1999. Папин Д.В., Шамшин А.Б. Материалы переходного времени от эпохи бронзы к эпохе железа в лесостепном Алтайском Приобье // Итоги изучения скифской эпохи Алтая и сопредельных территорий. Барнаул. Parpola, 1988. Parpola A. The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cultural and ethnic identify of the Dasas // SO, vol.64, Helsinki. Parzinger, 1991. Parzinger H. Zur RachmaniPeriode in Thessalien // Germania 69, Halbband 2. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Parzinger, 1993. Parzinger H. Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittleren Taurus. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Passek, 1961. Пассек Т.С. Раннеземледельческие (трипольские) племена Поднестровья. Москва. Paszthory, Mayer, 1998. Paszthory K., Mayer E.F. Die Äxte und Beile in Bayern. Stutgart: Steiner. Patay, 1938. Patay P. Frühbronzezeitliche Kulturen in Ungarn. Budapest: Museum-Korut. Patay, 1975. Patay P. Die hochkupferzeitliche Bodrogkeresytur-Kultur // Bericht der RömischGermanischen Komission. Bd. 55. Berlin: Gruyter. Pauls, 1997. Паульс Е.Д. Два окуневских памятника на юге Хакассии // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. СанктПетербург. Pedrotti, 1993. Pedrotti A. Le statue-stele e le stele anthropomorfe del Trentino Alto Adige e del Veneto occidentale. Gruppo atesino, gruppo di Brentonoco, gruppo della Lessinia // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Pernicheva, 1995. Pernicheva L. Prehistoric cultures in the Middle Struma Valley: Neolithic and Eneolithic // Bailey D.W., Panayotov I. (ed.). Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology № 22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Pernicka et al., 1977. Pernicka E., Begemann F., Schmitt-Strecker S., Todorova H., Kuleff I. Prehistoric copper in Bulgaria. Its composition and provenance. // Eurasia Antiqua. Bd. 3. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Peroni, 1995. Peroni R. Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung in Italien // Beiträge zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Petrenko, 1989. Петренко В.Г. Скифы на Северном Кавказе // Степи Европейской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. М. Petrescu-Dimbovita, 1977. Petrescu-Dimbovita M. Depozitele de bronzuri din Romania. Bucuresti. Petrin et al., 1993. Петрин В.Т., Нохрина Т.И., Шорин А.Ф. Археологические памятники Аргазинского водохранилища (эпоха камня и бронзы). Новосибирск. Petrov F., 2000. Петров Ф. Индоевропейская эсхатологическая традиция на материале скандинавской и зороастрийской мифологии // Известия Челябинского научного Центра. Вып. 1. Снежинск. Petrov, 1983. Петров Ю.Э. Костяные пряжки раннесрубного времени на территории Среднего Поволжья // Культуры бронзового века Восточной Европы. Куйбышев. Petrovic, 1998. Petrovic N. The «Smiting God» and Religious Syncretism in the Late Bronze Age Aegean // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Peyros, 1988. Пейрос И.И. Австро-тайская гипотеза и контакты между сино-тибетскими и австоронезийскими языками // Древний Восток: этнокультурные связи. М. Peyros, Shnirelman, 1992. Пейрос И.И., Шнирельман В.А. В поисках прародины дравидов (лингвоархеологический анализ) // ВДИ, № 1. Piankov, 1989. Пьянков И.В. Тоголок-21 и пути его исторической интерпретации // ВДИ, № 1. 461 Piankova, 1974. Пьянкова Л.Т. Могильник эпохи бронзы Тигровая Балка // СА, № 3. Picchelauri, 1997. Picchelauri K. Waffen der Bronzezeit aus Ost-Georgien. Archäology in Eurasian. Bd. 4. Espelkamp: M.Leidorf. Piggott, 1965. Piggott S. Ancient Europe from the beginnings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Edinbourgh: University Press. Pigott V., 1988. Pigott V.C. The development of metal use on the Iranian Plateau // 4th USA USSR archaeological exchange “The emergence and development of ancient metallurgy”. Tbilisi. Pigott, 1992. Pigott S. Wagon, Chariot and Carriage. New York: Thames and Hudson. Piotrovskii Yu., 1991. Пиотровский Ю.Ю. Датировка археологического комплекса Майкопского кургана (Ошад) и проблемы хронологии «майкопской» культуры // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Piotrovskii, 1992. Пиотровский Б.Б. Дополнения к статье Я.И. Гуммеля // ВДИ, № 4. Pirling, 1980. Pirling R. Die mittlere Bronzezeit auf der Schwäbischen Alb. München: Beck. Pobol, 1966. Поболь Л.Д. Погребение эпохи бронзы близ дер. Борисовщина Могилевской области // СА, № 2. Podolskii, 1997. Подольский М.Л. Два окуневских памятника на ручье Узунчул // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. Санкт-Петербург. Podzuweit, 1979. Podzuweit Ch. Trojanische Gefaßformen der Frühbronzezeit in Anatolien, der Ägäis und angrenzenden Gebieten. Meinz am Rhein: Zabern. Pogorelov, 1985. Погорелов В.И. Ширяевский могильник бронзового века на Среднем Дону // СА, № 1. Pogorelov, 1989. Погорелов В.И. Ямно-катакомбные погребения Среднего Дона // СА, № 2. Polidovich, Polidovich, 1999. Полидович Ю.Б., Полидович Е.А. Прядение и ткачество в системе культуры народов Юго-Восточной Европы в эпоху поздней бронзы и раннего железного века // Текстиль эпохи бронзы евразийских степей. Москва. Popham, 1998. Popham M. The Collapse of Aegean Civilization at the End of the Late Bronze Age // Prehistoric Europe. Oxford, N.-Y.: Oxford University Press. Popov, 1999. Popov V.A. The problems of studying the Bronze epoch mining in Tuva // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Porada et al., 1992. Porada E., Hansen D.P., Dunham S., Babcock S.H. The Chronology of Mesopotamia, ca. 7000-1600 BC // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Posener, 1971. Posener G. Syria and Palestina c. 2160 - 1780 BC. Relations with Egipt // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Posrednikov, Cib, 1992. Посредников В.А., Цыб С.В. Афанасьевский могильник Нижний Тюмечин-1 // Вопросы археологии Алтая и Западной Сибири эпохи металла. Барнаул. Potapov, 1997. Потапов В.В. Погребение XII-X вв. до н.э. в волго-донских степях (к проблеме отбора источников) // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Potts, 1994. Potts T. Mesopotamia and the East. Oxford. Potyomkina, 1976. Потемкина Т.М. Камышное II - многослойное поселение эпохи бронзы на р. Тобол // КСИА, Вып. 147. Potyomkina, 1982. Потемкина Т.М. О соотношении типов раннеалакульской керамики в Притоболье // КСИА, Вып. 169. Potyomkina, 1983. Потемкина Т.М. Алакульская культура // СА, № 2. Potyomkina, 1985. Потемкина Т.М. Бронзовый век лесостепного Притоболья. М. Potyomkina, 1994. Потемкина Т.М. Роль абашевцев в процессе развития алакульской культуры // Эпоха бронзы восточно-европейской лесостепи. Воронеж. Potyomkina, 1995. Потемкина Т.М. О факторах, предшествующих сложению памятников типа Аркаим в Урало-Западносибирском регионе // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Potyomkina, 1995a. Потемкина Т.М. Проблемы связей культур населения Зауралья в эпоху бронзы (ранний и средний этапы) // РА, № 1. Potyomkina, 1995b. Потемкина Т.М. Проблемы связей и смены культур населения Зауралья 462 Pryakhin, Zibin, 1986. Пряхин А.Д., Цыбин М.В. Раскопки многослойного Семилукского городища // Археологические памятники эпохи бронзы восточноевропейской лесостепи. Воронеж. Pustovalov, 1998. Пустовалов С.Ж. О росписях на дне катакомб ингульской культуры и о проблемах этносоциальной реконструкции катакомбного общества // Доно-Донецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесостепи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. Raczky, 1991. Raczky P. New Data on the Southern Connections and Relative Chronology of the «Bodrogkeresztur - Hunyadi halom» Complex // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Rageth, 1975. Rageth J. Der Lage di Ledro in Trentino und seine Beziehungen zu den alpinen und mitteleuropäischen Kulturen // Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission. Bd. 55. Berlin: Gruyter. Ramirez, 1993. Ramirez P.B. Megalitismo, estatuas y estelas en Espana // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Rassamakin, 1987. Рассамакин Ю.Я. Энеолитические погребения бассейна р. Молочной // Древнейшие скотоводы степей юга Украины. Киев. Rassamakin, 1991. Рассамакин Ю.Я. О погребениях предкатакомбного времени в Северозападном Приазовье // Катакомбные культуры Северного Причерноморья. Киев. Renfrew, 1987. Renfrew C. Archaeology and Language. London. Renfrew, 1998. Рэнфрю К. Разнообразие языков мира, распространение земледелия и индоевропейская проблема // ВДИ, № 3. Rezepkin, 1982. Резепкин А.Д. О распространении дольменов Западного Кавказа // КСИА, Вып. 169. Rezepkin, 1987. Резепкин А.Д. К интерпретации росписи из гробницы майкопской культуры близ станицы Новосвободная // КСИА, Вып. 192. Rezepkin, 1991. Резепкин А.Д. Культурно-хронологические аспекты происхождения и развития майкопской культуры // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и в эпоху бронзы // РА, № 2. Potyomkina, 1999. Potyomkina T.M. The TransUrals eneolithic sanctuaries with astronomical reference points in the system of similar models of Eurasia // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Primas, 1971. Primas M. Der Beginn der Spätbronzezeit im Mittelland und Jura // Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Schweiz. Bd. III. Die Bronzezeit. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Primas, 1977. Primas M. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten der ausgehenden Kupfer- und frühen Bronzezeit // Bericht der RömischGermanischen Komission. Bd. 58. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Primas, 1995. Primas M. Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung in der Schweiz // Beiträge zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Prussing, 1982. Prussing P. Die Messer im nördlichen Westdeutschland (Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg und Niedersachsen) München: Beck. Pryakhin et al., 1998. Пряхин А.Д., Моисеев Н.Б., Беседин В.И. Селезни-2. Курган доно-волжской абашевской культуры. Воронеж. Pryakhin, 1972. Пряхин А.Д. Курганы поздней бронзы у с. Староюрьево // СА, № 3. Pryakhin, 1976. Пряхин А.Д. Поселения абашевской общности. Воронеж. Pryakhin, 1996. Пряхин А.Д. Мосоловское поселение металлургов-литейщиков эпохи поздней бронзы. Кн. 2. Воронеж. Pryakhin, Besedin, 1999. Pryakhin A.D., Besedin V.I. The burials with disc-shaped cheek-pieces of the Middle Bronze Age of Eurasian foreststeppe // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Pryakhin, Besedin, 1998. Пряхин А.Д., Беседин В.И. Конская узда периода средней бронзы в Восточноевропейской лесостепи и степи // РА, № 3. Pryakhin, Besedin, 1998a. Пряхин А.Д., Беседин В.И. Острореберные абашевские сосуды доно-волжского региона // Доно-Донецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесостепи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. Pryakhin, Matveev, 1988. Пряхин А.Д., Матвеев Ю.П. Курганы эпохи бронзы Побитюжья. Воронеж. 463 Rizhkova, 1999. Рыжкова О.В. Исследование поселения Иска III (ташковская культура) // 120 лет археологии Восточного склона Урала. Первые чтения памяти Владимира Федоровича Генинга. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург. Rogozhinskii, 1999. Рогожинский А.Е. Могильники эпохи бронзы урочища Тамгалы // История и археология Семиречья. Алматы. Rogudeev, 1997. Рогудеев В.В. Ранний материал срубного слоя Раздорского поселения // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Rolf, 1991. Rolf J. Die Umwelt zu Beginn des Äneolithikums in Mitteleuropa am Beispiel Böhems // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. II. Bonn. Rothmann, 1993. Rothmann M.S. Another look at the «Uruk Expansion» from the Tigris Piedmont // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Rowe, 1979. Rowe K.R. A possible Middle Helladic Fortification Wall // Excavations at Mycenae 1939-1955. Oxford. Rozen-Pshevorska, 1963. Розен-Пшеворская Я. К вопросу о кельто-скифских отношениях // СА, № 3. Rtveladze, 1981. Ртвеладзе Э.В. Бронзовый кинжал из Южного Узбекистана (Вахшувар) // СА, № 1. Rudkovskii, 1987. Рудковский И.В. Андроновский орнамент как система // Вопросы периодизации археологических памятников Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Rudkovskii, 1989. Рудковский И.В. Типы зонирования в андроновском орнаменте // Вопросы археологии Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Rutter, 1986. Rutter J.B. Early Helladic III Vasepainting, Ceramic Regionalism and the Influence of Basketry // French E.B., Wardle K.A. (ed.) Problems of Greek Prehistory: papers presented at the centenary conference of the British School of Archaeology at Aphens, Manchester. Rutto, 1987. Рутто Н.Г. К вопросу о срубноалакульских контактах // Вопросы древней и средневековой истории Южного Урала. Уфа. Восточной Европы. Л. Ribalova, 1966. Рыбалова В.Д. Костяной псалий с поселения Каменка близ Керчи // СА, № 4. Ribalova, 1974. Рыбалова В.Д. Поселение Каменка в Восточном Крыму // АСГЭ. Вып. 16. Л. Riederer, 1991. Riederer J. Die Frühen Kupferlegierungen im Vorderen Orient. In: Handwerk und Technologie im Alten Orient (Hrsg. R.B. Wartke). Internationale Tagung. Berlin. Řihovsky, 1992. Řihovsky J. Die Äxte, Beile, Meißel und Hammer in Mahren. Stuttgart: Steiner. Řihovsky, 1996. Řihovsky J. Die Lanzen, Speer und Pfeilespitzen in Mahren. Stuttgart: Steiner. Rimantiene, Chesnys, 1996. Rimantiene R., Chesnys G. The Pan-European Corded Ware Horizon (A-Horizon) and the Pamariu (Baltic Coastal) Culture // The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Washington, 1996. Rind, 1994. Rind M.M. Die vorgeschichtliche Siedlung bei Prunn, Gde. Riedenburg, Lkr. Kelheim, Niederbayern. Buch-am-Erlbach: M. Leidorf. Rindina, 1961. Рындина Н.В. К вопросу о технике обработки трипольского металла // Пассек Т.С. Раннеземледельческие (трипольские) племена Поднестровья. Москва. Rindina, 1971. Рындина Н.В. Древнейшее металлообрабатывающее производство Восточной Европы. Москва, МГУ. Rindina, Konykova, 1982. Рындина Н.В., Конькова Л.В. О происхождении больших усатовских кинжалов // СА, № 2. Rindina, Yakhontova, 1989. Рындина Н.В., Яхонтова Л.К. Медное шило из Телль Магзалии // Бадер Н.О. Древнейшие земледельцы Северной Месопотамии. М. Risin, 1990. Рысин М.Б. Датировка комплексов из Эшери // СА, № 2. Risin, 1991. Рысин М.Б. Майкопская общность и генезис культуры строителей дольменов // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Rittershofer, 1984. Rittershofer K.-F. Der Hortfund von Bühl und seine Beziehungen // Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission. Bd. 64. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Rizhkova, 1996. Рыжкова О.В. Иска III - новое поселение ташковской культуры // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч. 1. Уфа, 1996. 464 Rutto, 1992. Рутто Н.Г. Новые срубно-алакульские памятники Южного Приуралья // Приуралье в эпоху бронзы и раннего железного века. Уфа. Ruzanov, 1988. Рузанов В.Д. Применение спектроаналитических данных для выявления древних источников металла Средней Азии // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н. э. и их роль в горно-металлургическом производстве древнего населения (Тезисы докладов). Сухуми. Safronov, 1989. Сафронов В.А. Индоевропейские прародины. Горький. Safronov, 1990. Сафронов В.А. Новые пути решения майкопской проблемы // СА, № 4. Sagdulaev, 1989. Сагдулаев А.С. Некоторые аспекты проблемы происхождения среднеазиатских комплексов типа Яз I // СА, № 2. Sagona, 1993. Sagona A.G. Settlement and Society in Late Prehistoric Trans-Caucasus // Between the Rivers and over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica. Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Roma. Sallares, 1998. Салларес Р. Языки, генетика и археология // ВДИ, № 3. Salnikov, 1940. Сальников К.В. Андроновский курганный могильник у с. Федоровка Челябинской области // МИА, № 1. Salnikov, 1951. Сальников К.В. Бронзовый век Южного Зауралья // МИА, № 21. Salnikov, 1952. Сальников К.В. Курганы на озере Алакуль // МИА, № 24. Salnikov, 1957. Сальников К.В. Кипельское Селище // СА, Вып. XXVIII. Salnikov, 1959. Сальников К.В. Раскопки у села Ново-Бурино (1948 год) // СА, Вып. XXIXXXX. Salnikov, 1962. Сальников К.В. К истории древней металлургии на Южном Урале // АЭБ. I. Уфа. Salnikov, 1962a. Сальников К.В. Южный Урал в эпоху неолита и ранней бронзы // АЭБ. I. Уфа. Salnikov, 1964. Сальников К.В. Некоторые вопросы истории лесного Зауралья в эпоху бронзы // ВАУ, Вып. 6. Salnikov, 1965. Сальников К.В. История Южного Урала в эпоху бронзы. Доклад по опубликованным работам, представленным на соискание ученой степени доктора исторических наук. М. Salnikov, 1965a. Сальников К.В. Кельты Зауралья и Южного Урала // Новое в советской археологии. МИА, № 130. Salnikov, 1967. Сальников К.В. Очерки древней истории Южного Урала. М. Saltovskaya, 1978. Салтовская Е.Д. О погребениях ранних скотоводов в северо-западной Фергане // КСИА, № 154. Salugina, 1993. Салугина Н.П. Технологический анализ керамики из памятников раннего и среднего бронзового века Оренбуржья // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Salugina, 1994. Салугина Н.П. Технологическое исследование керамики Потаповского могильника // Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Потаповский курганный могильник индоиранских племен на Волге. Самара. Sanzharov, 1991. Санжаров С.Н. К вопросу о культурно-хронологическом членении катакомбных памятников Северского Донца // СА, № 3. Sanzharov, 1991a. Санжаров С.Н. Позднекатакомбные погребения из Северо-восточного Приазовья // Катакомбные культуры Северного Причерноморья. Киев. Sanzharov, 1994. Санжаров С.Н. О некоторых вопросах культурного развития и хронологии в позднекатакомбное время // РА, № 1. Sarianidi et al., 1977. Сарианиди В.И., Терехова Н.Н., Черных Е.Н. О ранней металлургии и металлообработке Древней Бактрии // СА, № 2. Sarianidi, 1969. Сарианиди В.И. Терракотовая головка с Улуг-Тепе и ее месопотамские прототипы // СА, № 3. Sarianidi, 1970. Сарианиди В.И. Древние связи Южного Туркменистана и Северного Ирана // СА, № 4. Sarianidi, 1972. Сарианиди В.И. Изучение памятников эпохи бронзы и раннего железного века в Северном Афганистане // КСИА, № 132. Sarianidi, 1974. Сарианиди В.И. Бактрия в эпоху бронзы // СА, № 4. Sarianidi, 1975. Сарианиди В.И. Степные племена эпохи бронзы в Маргиане // СА, № 2. Sarianidi, 1976. Сарианиди В.И. Печати - аму- 465 леты мургабского стиля // СА, № 1. Sarianidi, 1977. Сарианиди В.И. Древние земледельцы Афганистана. М. Sarianidi, 1978. Сарианиди В.И. Древнейшие топоры Афганистана // СА, № 2. Sarianidi, 1981. Сарианиди В.И. Древняя Бактрия: новые аспекты старой проблемы // Этнические проблемы истории Центральной Азии в древности (II тысячелетие до н. э.). М. Sarianidi, 1986. Сарианиди В.И. Месопотамия и Бактрия во II тыс. до н. э. // СА, № 2. Sarianidi, 1988. Сарианиди В.И. Вилообразные орудия Кавказа, Ирана и Бактрии // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н. э. и их роль в горнометаллургическом производстве древнего населения (Тезисы докладов). Сухуми. Sarianidi, 1989. Сарианиди В.И. Протозороастрийский храм в Маргиане и проблема возникновения зороастризма // ВДИ, № 1. Sarianidi, 1989a. Сарианиди В.И. Зороастрийская проблема в свете новейших археологических открытий // ВДИ, № 2. Sarianidi, 1989b. Сарианиди В.И. Сиро-хеттские божества в бактрийско-маргианском пантеоне // СА. 1989.№ 4. Sarianidi, 1990. Сарианиди В.И. Древности страны Маргуш. Ашхабад. Sarianidi, 1993. Сарианиди В.И. Ахейская Греция и Центральная Азия (вновь к постановке проблемы) // ВДИ, № 4. Sarianidi, 1995. Сарианиди В.И. Библейский миф об агнце и погребальные обряды Маргианы и Бактрии // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 1. Челябинск. Sarianidi, 1998. Sarianidi V. Margiana and Protozoroastrism. Athens. Sarianidi, 1999. Сарианиди В.И. Сиро-хеттское происхождение Бактрийско-маргианской глиптики // ВДИ, № 1. Sarianidi, 1999a. Sarianidi V.I. The first Indo-Iranians in Central Asia // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Sarnowska, 1969. Sarnowska W. Kultura unieticka w Polsce. T. I. Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow. Sausverde, 1996. Sausverde E. Seeworter and Substratum in Germanic, Baltic and Baltic FinnoUgric Languages // The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Savage, 1979. Savage R.D.A. Metallographic examination of two spearheads from the Watford Hoard // Bronze Age Hoards. Some Finds Old and New. BAR, 67, Oxford. Savinov, 1997. Савинов Д.Г. К вопросу о формировании окуневской изобразительной традиции // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. Санкт-Петербург. Savinov, 1997a. Савинов Д.Г. Первичные материалы и стиль Саяно-Алтайских изображений раннескифского времени // Итоги изучения скифской эпохи Алтая и сопредельных территорий. Барнаул, 1999. Savinov, 1997b. Савинов Д.Г. Проблемы изучения окуневской культуры (в историографическом аспекте) // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. Санкт-Петербург. Savrasov, 1998. Саврасов А.С. Металлообработка населения донской лесостепной срубной культуры. Автореф. дис... канд. ист. наук. Воронеж. Sazihzade, 1965. Сазыхзаде Ш.Г. Украшения периода поздней бронзы на территории Азербайджана как исторический источник / / Археологические исследования в Азербайджане. Баку. Schauer, 1995. Schauer P. Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung in Süddeutschland // Beiträge zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Schirmer, 1975. Schirmer W. Hethitische Architektur // Orthmann W. Der Alte Orient. Berlin: Propiläen. Schliemann, 1878. Schliemann H. Mykenae. Leipzig, 1878. Schmidt, Burgess, 1981. Schmidt P.K., Burgess C.B. The Axes of Scotland and Northern England. Munchen: Beck. Schmitt-Strecker et al., 1991. Schmitt-Strecker S., Begemann F., Pernicka E. Untersuchungen zur Metallurgie der Späten Uruk- und Frühen Bronzezeit am oberen Euphrat // Handwerk und Technologie in Alten Welt (Hrsg. R.-B. Wartke). Mainz. Schmitt-Strecker et al., 1992. Schmitt-Strecker S., Begemann F. Pernicka E. Chemische Zusammensetzung und Bleiisotopenverhältnisse der Metallfunde von Hassek Höyük // Behm-Blancke M.R. (Herausg.) Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie. Tübin- 466 Serge, 1984. Serge C. Oman Peninsula Eastwards during Third Millenium // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Service, Bradbery, 1979. Service A., Bradbery J. Megaliths and their Mysteries. London. Shaffer, 1978. Shaffer J.G. The Later Prehistoric Periods // The Archaeology of Afghanistan from earliest times to the Timurid period. L., N.-Y., San Francisco. Shamanaev, Ziryanova, 1998. Шаманаев А.В., Зырянова С.Ю. Вторичное использование фрагментов керамики населением ташковской культуры // ВАУ, вып. 23, Екатеринбург. Shamanev, 1998. Shamanev A. The Pre-Using of Fragments of Pottery by the Population of the Middle Trans-Urals in the Early Bronze Age // Abstracts Book. 4-Th Annual Meeting EAA. Goteborg. Shaposhnikova, 1970. Шапошникова О.Г. Об одной группе керамики из верхнего слоя Михайловского поселения // СА, № 4. Shaposhnikova, 1987. Шапошникова О.Г. Эпоха раннего металла в степной полосе Украины // Древнейшие скотоводы степей юга Украины. Киев. Sharafutdinova, 1995. Шарафутдинова Э.С. Тенденции развития посуды в культуре многоваликовой керамики // Древние индо-иранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара. Sharafutdinova, 1996. Шарафутдинова Э.С. Эпоха поздней бронзы на Кубани // Древности Волго-Донских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград. Sharma, 1984. Шарма И.Д. Прехараппская культура в Индии // Древние культуры Средней Азии и Индии. Л. Shedrovitskii, 1975. Щедровицкий Г.П. Автоматизация проектирования и задачи развития проектировочной деятельности // Разработка и внедрение АС в управлении проектированием, теория и методология. М. Shendakov, 1969. Шендаков Г.Н. О пряслицах срубной культуры // СА, № 3. Shepinskii, 1963. Щепинский А.А. Памятники искусства эпохи раннего металла в Крыму / / СА, № 3. Shepinskii, 1966. Щепинский А.А. Культуры энеолита и бронзы в Крыму // СА, № 3. Sherratt, 1997. Sherratt A. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Edinburgh. gen: Wasmuth. Schröter, 1992. Schröter P. Zur Besiedlung des Goldberges im Nördlicher Ries. Schubert, 1974. Schubert E. Studien zur frühen Bronzezeit an der mittlerem Donau // 54. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Komission. 1973. Berlin: Gruyter. Schubert, 1981. Schubert E. Zur Frage der Arsenlegirungen in der Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeit Südosteuropas // Studien zur Bronzezeit. Meinz am Rhein. Schumacher, 1967. Schumacher E. Die Protovillanova-Fundgruppe. Bonn: Habelt. Schwartz, Weiss, 1992. Schwartz G.M., Weiss H. Syria, ca. 10000 - 2000 BC // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Sedov, 1965. Седов В.В. Балто-иранский контакт в Днепровском левобережье // СА, № 4. Sedov, 1992. Седов В.В. VII Международный конгресс финно-угроведов (археологическая проблематика) // СА, № 1. Sedov, 1993. Седов В.В. Древнеевропейцы // РА, № 3. Sedov, Smirnov, 1987. Седов В.В., Смирнов К.А. Археологическая тематика VI Международного конгресса финно-угроведов // СА, №1. Seeher, 1987. Seeher J. Die Keramik I. // Demircihüyük. Bd. III, 1. Meinz am Rhein: Zabern. Seeliger et al., 1985. Seeliger T.C., Pernicka E., Wagner G.A., Begemann F., Schmitt-Strecker S., Eibner C., Öztunali Ö, Baranyi I. Archäometallurgische Untersuchungen in Nord- und Ostanatolien // Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum. 32 Jahrgang. Mainz. Selimkhanov, Torosyan, 1969. Селимханов И.Р., Торосян Р.М. Металлографический анализ древнейших металлов в Закавказье // СА, № 3. Semyonov, 1982. Семенов В.А. Памятники афанасьевской культуры в Саянах // СА, № 4. Semyonov, 1987. Семенов В.А. Древнеямная культура - афанасьевская культура и проблемы прототохарской миграции на восток // Смена культур и миграции в Западной Сибири. Томск. Semyonov, 1997. Семенов В.А. Окуневские памятники Тувы и Минусинской котловины (сравнительная характеристика и хронология) // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. Санкт-Петербург. 467 Sherratt, 1998. Sherratt A. The Emergence of Elites: Earlier Bronze Age Europe, 2500-1300 BC // Prehistoric Europe. Oxford, N.-Y.: Oxford University Press. Sherratt, 1998a. Sherratt A. The Transformation of Early Agrarian Europe: The Late Neolithic and Copper Ages 4500-2500 BC // Prehistoric Europe. Oxford, N.-Y.: Oxford University Press. Sherratt, Sherratt, 1997. Sherratt A., Sherratt E.S. The Archaeology of Indo-European: An Alternative View. In: Sherratt A. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Edinburgh. Shetenko, 1965. Щетенко А.Я. Энеолит Центральной Индии // СА, № 2. Shetenko, 1968. Щетенко А.Я. Древнейшие земледельческие культуры Декана. Л. Shetenko, 1979. Щетенко А.Я. Первобытный Индостан. Л. Shevchenko, 1986. Шевченко А.В. Антропология населения южно-русских степей в эпоху бронзы // Антропология современного и древнего населения европейской части СССР. Л. Shifman, 1989. Шифман И.Ш. Государство в системе социальных институтов в древней Палестине (вторая половина III - первая половина II тысячелетия до н.э. // Государство и социальные структуры на древнем Востоке. М. Shilov, 1975. Шилов В.П. Модели скотоводческих хозяйств степных областей Евразии в эпоху энеолита и раннего бронзового века // СА, № 1. Shilov, 1982. Шилов В.П. Проблема освоения открытых степей Калмыкии от эпохи бронзы до средневековья // Памятники Калмыкии каменного и бронзового веков. Элиста. Shilov, 1982a. Шилов В.П. Топор майкопской культуры в Калмыкии // СА, № 1. Shilov, 1985. Шилов В.П. Курган 6 урочища Бичкин-Булук и проблема хронологии начала средней бронзы Калмыкии // СА, № 2. Shilov, 1991. Шилов В.П. О «полтавкинских» погребениях Южного Приуралья // СА, № 4. Shishlina, 1989. Шишлина Н.И. Погребение эпохи бронзы с глиняной маской из Калмыкии // СА, № 3. Shmaglii, Chernyakov, 1970. Шмаглий Н.М., Черняков И.Т. Исследования курганов в степной части междуречья Дуная и Днестра (1964-1966 гг.) // Материалы по археологии Северного Причерноморья. Одесса. Shnirelman, 1980. Шнирельман В.А. Керамика как этнический показатель: Некоторые вопросы теории в свете этноархеологических данных // Проблемы теории и методики в современной археологической науке. КСИА. Вып. 201. М. Shnirelman, 1996. Шнирельман В.А. Археология и лингвистика: проблемы корреляции в этногенетических исследованиях // ВДИ, № 4. Shorin, 1981. Шорин А.Ф. Черкаскульская керамика поселений Аргазинского водохранилища // ВАУ, Вып. 15. Shorin, 1994. Шорин А.Ф. К этнической характеристике черкаскульской культуры (состояние проблемы) // РА, № 4. Shorin, 1995. Шорин А.Ф. Энеолит Урала и сопредельных территорий (проблемы культурогенеза). Автореф. ... док. ист. наук. Новосибирск. Shorin, 1998. Шорин А.Ф. О «чудских буграх» Среднего Зауралья: стратиграфия и керамические комплексы Кокшаровского холма // Урал в прошлом и настоящем (материалы конференции). Ч. I. Екатеринбург. Shorin, 1999. Шорин А.Ф. Энеолитические культуры Урала и сопредельных территорий. Екатеринбург. Shorin, 1999a. Шорин А.Ф. О новом типе неолитической керамики в материалах Кокшаровского холма // 120 лет археологии Восточного склона Урала. Первые чтения памяти Владимира Федоровича Генинга. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург. Shorin, Baranov, 1999. Шорин А.Ф., Баранов М.Ю. Кокшаровский холм: что это такое? // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Shteierman, 1990. Штаерман Е.М. К итогам дискуссии о римском государстве // ВДИ, № 3. Sidrys, 1996. Sidrys R. V. The Light Eye and Hair Cline: Implications for Indo-European Migrations to Northern Europe // The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Simonyan, 1982. Симонян А.Е. Кармирбердская культура по материалам периода средней бронзы в Армении (опыт выделения) // Культурный прогресс в эпоху бронзы и раннего железа. Ереван. Sinitsin, Erdniev, 1982. Синицин И.В., Эрдниев У.Э. Древности Восточного Маныча // Памятники Калмыкии каменного и бронзового 468 веков. Элиста. Sinyuk, 1983. Синюк А.Т. Курганы эпохи бронзы Среднего Дона. Воронеж. Sinyuk, 1992. Синюк А.Т. Древние погребения мастеров по изготовлению каменных наконечников стрел в степном Придонье // Древняя история населения Волго-Уральских степей. Оренбург. Sinyuk, 1996. Синюк А.Т. Бронзовый век бассейна Дона. Воронеж. Sinyuk, Kozmirchuk, 1995. Синюк А.Т., Козмирчук И.А. Некоторые аспекты изучения абашевской культуры в бассейне Дона (по материалам погребений) // Древние индоиранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара. Sinyuk, Pogorelov, 1993. Синюк А.Т., Погорелов В.И. Курган № 16 Власовского могильника // Погребальные памятники эпохи бронзы лесостепной Евразии. Уфа. Skandone-Mattiae, 1985. Скандоне-Маттиэ Г. Связи между Эблой и Египтом в период ранней и средней бронзы // Древняя Эбла. М. Smirnov K., 1961. Смирнов К.Ф. Археологические данные о древних всадниках Поволжско-Уральских степей // СА, № 1. Smirnov K., Kuzmina, 1997. Смирнов К.Ф., Кузьмина Е.Е. Происхождение индоиранцев в свете новейших археологических открытий. М. Smirnov, 1961. Смирнов А.П. К вопросу о формировании абашевской культуры // Абашевская культура в Среднем Поволжье. МИА, № 97. Smirnov, 1988. Смирнов А.М. К вопросу о генезисе донецкой катакомбной культуры // Медные рудники Западного Кавказа III - I тыс. до н. э. и их роль в горнометаллургическом производстве древнего населения (тезисы докладов). Сухуми. Smirnov, 1996. Смирнов А.М. Курганы и катакомбы эпохи бронзы на Северском Донце. М. Sobolnikova, 1999. Собольникова Т.Н. Прочерченно-волнистая керамика в неолите Зауралья и Западной Сибири // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Soenov, 1995. Соенов В.И. Раскопки на могильнике Большой Толгоек // Известия лабо- ратории археологии. Горно-Алтайск. Sogomonov, 1989. Согомонов А.Ю. Восточные истоки раннегреческой культуры // ВДИ,№ 4. Soloviov, 1991. Соловьев Б.С. Финал волосовских древностей и формирование чирковской культуры в Среднем Поволжье // Поздний энеолит и культуры ранней бронзы лесной полосы европейской части СССР. Йошкар-Ола. Sorokin, 1962. Сорокин В.С. Жилища поселения Тасты - Бутак // КСИА, Вып. 91. Srednyaya Asia..., 1966. Средняя Азия в эпоху камня и бронзы. М. Srivastava, 1984. Srivastava K.M. The Myth of Aryan Invasion of Harappan Towns // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. Srudzitskaya, 1987. Студзицкая С.В. Изображение человека в искусстве древнего населения урало-западносибирского региона / / Антропоморфные изображения. Первобытное искусство. Новосибирск. Stakull, 1989. Стакуль Дж. Культура Свата (ок. 1700 - 1400 гг. до н. э.) и ее северные связи / / ВДИ, № 2. Stankevich, 1978. Станкевич И.Л. Керамика Южной Туркмении и Ирана в бронзовом веке // Древность и средневековье народов Средней Азии. М. Stanley-Price, Christon, 1973. Stanley-Price N., Christon D. Excavations at Khirokitia, 1972. RDAC. Starkov, 1981. Старков В.Ф. Культуры периода раннего металла в лесном Зауралье // Вопросы археологии Урала. Свердловск. Starostin, 1982. Старостин С.А. Праенисейская реконструкция и внешние связи енисейских языков // Кетский сборник. Л. Starostin, 1985. Старостин С.А. Культурная лексика в общесеверокавказском словарном фонде // Древняя Анатолия. М. Starostin, 1988. Старостин С.А. Индоевропейско-северокавказские изоглоссы // Ближний Восток: этнокультурные связи. М. Stavitskii, 1997. Ставицкий В.В. К вопросу о происхождении чирковской культуры // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Stefanov, 1996. Стефанов В.И. Поселения алакульской культуры Южного Урала // Материалы по археологии и этнографии Южного Урала. Труды музея-заповедника Аркаим. 469 Челябинск. Stefanov, Korochkova, 2000. Стефанов В.И., Корочкова О.Н. Андроновские древности Тюменского Притоболья. Екатеринбург. Stefanov, Stefanova, 1980. Стефанов В.И., Стефанова Н.К. О соотношении кротовских и андроновских комплексов // Археология Волго-Уральских степей. Челябинск. Stefanova, 1986. Стефанова Н. К. О керамике кротовской культуры в Среднем Прииртышье // Проблемы урало-сибирской археологии. Свердловск. Stefanova, 1988. Стефанова Н.К. Кротовская культура в Среднем Прииртышье // Материальная культура древнего населения Урала и Западной Сибири. Свердловск. Stefanova, Koksharov, 1988. Стефанова Н.К., Кокшаров С.Ф. Поселение бронзового века на р. Конде // СА, № 3. Stein, 1979. Stein F. Katalog der vorgeschichtlichen Hortfunde in Süddeutschland. Bonn: Habelt. Stepi evropeyskoy ..., 1989. Степи европейской части СССР в скифо-сарматское время. М. Stokolos, 1968. Стоколос В.С. Памятник эпохи бронзы - могильник Черняки II // Труды Камской археологической экспедиции. Вып. II. Stokolos, 1972. Стоколос В.С. Культура населения бронзового века Южного Зауралья. М. Strahm, 1971. Strahm Ch. Die frühe Bronzezeit im Mittelland und Jura // Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Archäologie der Schweiz. Bd. III. Die Bronzezeit. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Stronach, 1957. Stronach D.B. The Development and Diffusion of Metal Types in Early Bronze Age Anatolia // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. VII. Studzitskaya, 1997. Студзицкая С.В. Тема космической охоты и образ фантастического зверя в изобразительных памятниках окуневской культуры // Окуневский сборник. Культура. Искусство. Антропология. СанктПетербург. Subbotin, 1995. Субботин Л.В. Гробницы кемиобинского типа Северо-Западного Причерноморья // РА, № 3. Sukhachyov, 1994. Сухачев Н.Л. Перспектива истории в индоевропеистике. СПб. Suleyman, 1982. Сулейман А. Цивилизация Эбла - культура сирийских кубков // СА, № 4 . Suleyman, 1983. Сулейман А. Раскопки памятников раннего и среднего бронзового века в городе Алеппо (Сирия) // СА, № 4. Sveshnikov, 1983. Свешников И.К. Культура шаровидных амфор // САИ. В 1-27. М., 1983. Tasič, 1991. Tasič N. Migrationsbewegungen und Periodisierung der äneolithischen Kulturen des jugoslawischen Donauraumes und Zentralbalkans // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Tatarintseva, 1984. Татаринцева Н.С. Керамика поселения Вишневка I в лесостепном Приишимье // Бронзовый век Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Tekhov, 1977. Техов Б.В. Центральный Кавказ в XIV-X вв. до н.э. М. Telegin, 1966. Телегин Д.Я. Могильники днепродонецкой неолитической культуры и их историческое место // СА, № 1. Telegin, 1991. Telegin D.J. Gräberfelder des Mariupoler Typs und der Srednij Stog Kultur in der Ukraine (mit Fundortkataloge) // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Telegin, 1996. Телегин Д.Я. Юг Восточной Европы // Неолит Северной Евразии. М. Telegin, Belanovskaya, 1996. Телегин Д.Я., Белановская Т.Д. Неолит Северо-восточного Приазовья и Подонья // Неолит Северной Евразии. М. Telegin, Mallory, 1993. Telehin D. Ya., Mallory J.P. Statue-menhirs of the North Pontic Region // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statue-stele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Teneyshvili, 1989. Тенейшвили Т.О. Древнейшие металлические изделия из Закавказья // Естественнонаучные методы в археологии. М. Teneyshvili, 1993. Тенейшвили Т.О. Древнейшие металлы в Закавказье (V - II тысячелетия до н.э.) Автореф. канд. дис. М. Terekhova, 1980. Терехова Н.Н. Исследования шлаков с поселения Хопуз - депе // Новые исследования по археологии Туркменистана. Ашхабад. Terekhova, 1990. Терехова Н.Н. Обработка металлов в древней Бактрии // Сарианиди В.И. Древности страны Маргуш. Ашхабад. 470 Terenozhkin, 1976. Тереножкин А.И. Киммерийцы. Киев. Teržan, 1995. Teržan B. Stand und Aufgaben der Forschungen zur Urnenfelderzeit in Jugoslavien // Beiträge zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Thapar, 1984. Thapar B.K. Six decades of the Indus Studies // Frontiers of the Indus civilization. New Dehli. The Jordan Valley, 1992. The Jordan Valley Survey, 1953: Some Unpublished Soundings Conducted by James Mellaart. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. V. 50. Winona Lake, Indiana. Thissen, 1989. Thissen L.C. An Early Bronze III pottery region between the Middle Euphrates and Habur: New evidence from Tell Hamman et Turkman // To the Euphrates and beyond. Archaeological studies in honour of Maurits N. van Loon. Rotterdam. Thomas, Rowlett, 1992. Thomas H.L., Rowlett R.M. The Archaeological Chronology of Northwestern Europe // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago. Thomas, Rowlett, 1992a. Thomas H.L., Rowlett E.S.-J. The Archaeological Chronology of Northern Europe // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Tikhonov, 1996. Тихонов В.В. Грунтовый могильник Калач в Саратовском Заволжье // Охрана и исследование памятников археологии Саратовской области в 1995 г. Саратов. Tikhonov, 1997. Тихонов В.В. Исследование грунтовых могильников эпохи поздней бронзы в Саратовском Заволжье // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Tikhonov, 1997a. Тихонов В.В. Охранные раскопки памятников эпохи поздней бронзы в Духовницком районе Саратовской области (предварительная публикация) Археологическое наследие Саратовского края. Охрана и исследования в 1996 году. Вып. 2. Саратов. Tikhonov, 1999. Tikhonov S.S. Some problems of the South Trans-Urals Bronze Age population study // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Titov, 1969. Титов В.С. Неолит Греции. М. Titov, 1970. Титов В.С. К вопросу о соотношении этнолингвистических слоев и культурноисторических общностей на юге Балканского полуострова // КСИА, Вып. 123. Titov, 1984. Титов В.С. Некоторые проблемы возникновения и распространения производящего хозяйства в Юго-Восточной Европе и на юге Средней Европы // КСИА, Вып. 180. Tkachov A., 1999. Ткачев А.А. Особенности стратиграфии многослойных поселений Центрального Казахстана // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Tkachov A., Tkachova, 1996. Ткачев А.А., Ткачева Н.А. Серьги андроновской культуры (проблема датировки) // Сохранение и изучение культурного наследия Алтайского края. Барнаул. Tkachov, 1995. Ткачев В.В. О соотношении синташтинских и петровских погребальных комплексов в степном Приуралье // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Tkachov, 1996. Ткачев В.В. О курганной стратиграфии полтавкинских и синташтинских погребений в степном Приуралье // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч.1. Уфа. Tkachov, 1997. Ткачев В.В. К вопросу о генезисе некоторых экстраординарных черт в алакульском погребальном обряде // Археологические памятники Оренбуржья. Оренбург. Tkachova, Tkachov, 1999. Tkachyova N.A., Tkachyov A.A. On the fortified settlements in the Ural-Irtish territory in the Bronze Age // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Tkachova, 1999. Ткачева Н.А. Миграции андроновско-канайского населения Верхнего Прииртышья и проблема сложения федоровской культуры Зауралья // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Točik, 1991. Točik A. Erforschungstand der Lengyelkultur in der Slowakei. Rückblick und Ausblick // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Todorova, 1979. Тодорова Х. Энеолит Болгарии. София. Todorova, 1995. Todorova H. The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional Period in Bulgarian Pre- 471 history // Bailey D.W., Panayotov I. (ed.). Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology № 22. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Tolstov, Itina, 1960. Толстов С.П., Итина М.А. Проблема суярганской культуры // СА, № 1. Tomilov, 1986. Томилов Н.А. Проблема этнографических критериев этнической специфики археологических памятников // Проблемы этногенеза и этнической истории аборигенов Сибири. Кемерово. Toshev, 1991. Тощев Г.Н. Западный ареал памятников катакомбной культуры // Катакомбные культуры Северного Причерноморья. Киев. Tosi, 1983. Tosi M. Excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta 1969-1970. // Tosi M. (ed.) Prehistoric Sistan. Rome. Treister, 1996. Трейстер М.Ю. Троянские клады в ГМИИ им. А.С.Пушкина (Предварительные итоги исследования) // ВДИ, № 4. Trifonov, 1987. Трифонов В.А. Некоторые вопросы переднеазиатских связей майкопской культуры // КСИА, Вып. 192. Trifonov, 1991. Трифонов В.А. Батуринский вариант предкавказской катакомбной культуры // Катакомбные культуры Северного Причерноморья. Киев. Trifonov, 1991a. Трифонов В.А. Особенности локально-хронологического развития майкопской культуры // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Trifonov, 1996. Трифонов В.А. К абсолютному датированию «микенского» орнамента эпохи развитой бронзы Евразии // Радиоуглерод и археология. Вып. 1. Санкт-Петербург. Trifonov, 1996a. Трифонов В.А. Поправки к абсолютной хронологии культур эпохи энеолита - бронзы Северного Кавказа // Между Азией и Европой. Кавказ в IV - I тыс. до н.э. СПб. Trifonov, 1996b. Трифонов В.А. Репинская культура и процесс сложения ямной культурноисторической общности // Древности ВолгоДонских степей в системе восточно-европейского бронзового века. Волгоград. Trifonov, Izbitser, 1997. Трифонов В.А., Избицер Е.В. Существуют ли энеолитические псалии? // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских сте- пей. Саратов. Trogmayer, 1975. Trogmayer O. Das Bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld Bei Tápé. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. Trubachov, 1976. Трубачев О.Н. О скифах и их языках // ВЯ, № 4. Trubachov, 1978. Трубачев О.Н. Некоторые данные об индоарийском языковом субстрате Северного Кавказа // ВДИ, № 4. Trubachov, 1987. Трубачев О.Н. Indoarica в Северном Причерноморье. *kank - uta - a gruibus fugatos / pulsos // Античная балканистика. М. Trubachov, 1999. Трубачев О.Н. Indoarica в Северном Причерноморье. Москва. Tunzi Sisto, 1993. Tunzi Sisto A.-M. Megalitismo e statue stele nella Puglia settentrionale // Casini S. De Marinis R.S., Pedrotti A. (ed.). Statuestele e massi incisi Nell’Europa dell’ eta del Rame. Bergamo. Turetskiy, 1976. Турецкий М.А. Курган 2 у с.Тамбовка (к вопросу о проникновении катакомбной культуры в Степное Заволжье) // Проблемы археологии Поволжья и Приуралья. Куйбышев. Turetskiy, 1992. Турецкий М.А. Из истории изучения памятников раннего и среднего бронзового веков Заволжья // Древняя история населения Волго-Уральских степей. Оренбург. Turetskiy, 1997. Турецкий М.А. Проблема сложения средневолжско-приуральского варианта ямной культуры Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Tylecote, 1981. Tylecote R.F. Chalcolithic metallurgy in the Eastern Mediterranean // Chalcolithic Cyprus and Western Asia (ed. J.Reade). British Museum Occasional Paper No 26. Udodov, 1988. Удодов В.С. Эпоха поздней бронзы Кулунды (к постановке вопроса) // Хронология и культурная принадлежность памятников каменного и бронзового веков Южной Сибири. Барнаул. Urban, 1993. Urban T. Studien zur mittleren Bronzezeit in Norditalien. Bonn: Habelt. Usachuk, 1998. Усачук А.Н. Трасологический анализ щитковых псалиев из погребений лесостепного Подонья // Доно-Донецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесостепи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. 472 Usachuk, 1999. Usachuk A.N. Regional peculiarities of the shield-shaped cheek-pieces // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Usmanova, 1987. Усманова Э.Р. К вопросу о биритуализме в погребальном обряде племен андроновской общности Сары-Арки // Вопросы периодизации археологических памятников Центрального Казахстана. Караганда. Usmanova, 1989. Усманова Э.Р. «Круг» и «квадрат» в андроновской погребальной символике. По материалам могильников Центрального Казахстана // Вопросы археологии Центрального Казахстана. Караганда. Vadetskaya et al., 1980. Вадецкая Э.Б., Леонтьев Н.В., Максименков Г.А. Памятники окуневской культуры. Л. Vadetskaya, 1969. Вадецкая Э.Б. О сходстве самусьских и окуневских антропоморфных изображений // СА, № 1. Vadetskaya, 1986. Вадецкая Э.Б. Археологические памятники в степях Среднего Енисея. Л. Valentin Peresheek ..., 1987. Валентин перешеек - поселек древние рудокопов. М. Varfolomeev, 1987. Варфоломеев В.В. Относительная хронология керамических комплексов поселения Кент // Вопросы периодизации археологических памятников Центрального и Северного Казахстана. Караганда. Varfolomeev, 1992. Варфоломеев В.В. Кент как поселение протогородского типа // Маргулановские чтения. Петропавловск. Varov, Kosintsev, 1996. Варов А.И., Косинцев П.А. Животноводство населения Южного Приуралья в позднем бронзовом веке // XIII Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Ч.1. Уфа. Varyonov, 1984. Варенов А.В. О функциональном предназначении «моделей ярма» эпохи Инь и Чжоу // Новое в археологии Китая. Исследования и проблемы. Новосибирск. Varyonov, 1989. Варенов А.В. Древнекитайский комплекс вооружения эпохи развитой бронзы. Новосибирск. Varyonov, 1989a. Варенов А.В. Копья иньского времени и выявление инокультурных памятников. Новосибирск. Varyonov, 1990. Варенов А.В. Реконструкция иньского защитного вооружения и тактика армии по данным оружейных кладов // Китай в эпоху древности. Новосибирск. Vasiliev et al., 1985. Васильев И.Б., Кузьмина О.В., Семенова А.П. Периодизация памятников срубной культуры лесостепного Поволжья // Срубная культурно-историческая общность. Куйбышев. Vasiliev et al., 1986. Васильев И.Б., Выборнов А.А., Козин Е.В. Поздненеолитическая стоянка Тентексор в Северном Прикаспии // Древние культуры Северного Прикаспия. Куйбышев. Vasiliev et al., 1986a. Васильев И.Б., Колев Ю.И., Кузнецов П.Ф. Новые материалы бронзового века с территории Северного Прикаспия // Древние культуры Северного Прикаспия. Куйбышев. Vasiliev et al., 1987. Васильев И.Б., Матвеева Г.И., Тихонов Б.Г. Поселение Лбище на Самарской Луке // Археологические исследования в Среднем Поволжье. Куйбышев. Vasiliev et al., 1993. Васильев И.Б., Выборнов А.А., Горащук И.В., Зайберт В.В. Поселение Ук VI и проблемы боборыкинской культуры // Археологические культуры и культурно-исторические общности Большого Урала (тезисы докладов XII Уральского археологического совещания). Екатеринбург. Vasiliev et al., 1994. Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Потаповский курганный могильник индоиранских племен на Волге. Самара. Vasiliev et al., 1995. Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Проблема перехода от эпохи средней к эпохе поздней бронзы на Урале, Волге и Дону // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Vasiliev et al., 1995a. Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Памятники потаповского типа в лесостепном Поволжье (краткое изложение концепции) // Древние индоиранские культуры Волго-Уралья (II тыс. до н.э.). Самара. Vasiliev et al., 1996. Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Доно-Волго-Уральская лесостепь на рубеже среднего и позднего бронзового века // Древности Волго-Донских степей в системе восточноевропейского бронзового века. Волгоград. 473 Vasiliev K., 1998. Васильев К.В. Истоки китайской цивилизации. Москва. Vasiliev L., 1976. Васильев Л.С. Проблемы генезиса китайской цивилизации. М. Vasiliev, 1979. Васильев И.Б. Среднее Поволжье в эпоху ранней и средней бронзы // Древняя история Поволжья. Куйбышев. Vasiliev, 1995. Васильев И.Б. К проблеме взаимодействия индоевропейских и финно-угорских культур // Древние культуры лесостепного Поволжья. Самара. Vasiliev, 1999. Vasilyev I.B. The blossom of eneolithic cultures in Volga-Urals forest-steppe // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Vasiliev, 1999a. Vasilyev I.B. Big Yamnaya-Poltavka Kurgans in the Volga-Urals area and the problems of social structure of the society // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Vasiliev, 1999b. Васильев И.Б. Взаимодействие культур в лесостепном Волго-Уралье в каменном и медно-каменном веках // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Vasiliev, 1999c. Васильев И.Б. Взаимодействие культур в лесостепном Волго-Уралье в эпоху бронзы и железа // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Vasiliev, Nepochatii, 1997. Васильев И.Б., Непочатый В.А. Полтавкинское поселение у с. Ст. Яблонка Хвалынского района Саратовской области // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Vasiliev, Pryakhin, 1979. Васильев И.Б., Пряхин А.Д. Бескурганный абашевский могильник у Никифоровского лесничества в Оренбуржье // СА. 1979. № 2. Vasiliev, Sinyuk, 1995. Васильев И.Б., Синюк А.Т. Энеолит восточно-европейской лесостепи. Куйбышев. Vasyutkin et al., 1985. Васюткин С.М., Горбунов В.С., Пшеничнюк А.Х. Курганные могильники Южной Башкирии эпохи бронзы // Бронзовый век Южного Приуралья. Уфа. Vaux, 1971. de Vaux R. Palestine in the Early Bronze Age // Edwards I.E.S., Gadd C.J., Hammond N.G.L. (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History. V. I, Part 2. Cambridge: University Press. Vermeule, Wolsky, 1990. Vermeule E.D.T., Wolsky F.Z. Toumba tou Skourou. A Bronze Age Potters’ quarter on Morphou bay in Cyprus. Boston. Viktorov, Borzunov, 1974. Викторов В.К., Борзунов В.А. Городище эпохи бронзы у села Черноозерье на Иртыше // Из истории Сибири. Вып. 15. Томск. Viktorova, Kerner, 1998. Викторова В.Д., Кернер В.Ф. «Утюжки» с неолитических и энеолитических памятников Зауралья // ВАУ, вып. 23, Екатеринбург. Vinnik, Kuzmina, 1981. Винник Д.Ф., Кузьмина Е.Е. Второй Каракольский клад Киргизии // КСИА, Вып. 167. Vinogradov A., 1981. Виноградов А.В. Древние охотники и рыболовы Среднеазиатского междуречья // Труды Хорезмской экспедиции. Т. XIII. М. Vinogradov A., Kuzmina, 1970. Виноградов А.В., Кузьмина Е.Е. Литейные формы из Лявлякана // СА, № 2. Vinogradov A., Mamedov, 1975. Виноградов А.В., Мамедов Э.Д. Первобытный Лявлякан. М. Vinogradov et al., 1986. Виноградов А.В., Итина М.А., Яблонский М.Т. Древнейшее население низовий Амударьи. М. Vinogradov et al., 1996. Виноградов Н.Б., Костюков В.П., Марков С.В. Могильник СолнцеТалика и проблема генезиса федоровской культуры бронзового века в Южном Зауралье // Новое в археологии Южного Урала. Челябинск. Vinogradov V., 1991. Виноградов В.Б. Черты майкопского феномена в истории и культуре Среднего Притеречья // Майкопский феномен в древней истории Кавказа и Восточной Европы. Л. Vinogradov, 1982. Виноградов Н.Б. Кулевчи III памятник петровского типа в Южном Зауралье // КСИА, Вып. 169. Vinogradov, 1984. Виноградов Н.Б. Кулевчи VI новый алакульский могильник в лесостепях Южного Зауралья // СА, № 3. Vinogradov, 1995. Виноградов Н.Б. Хронология, содержание и культурная принадлежность памятников синташтинского типа бронзового века в Южном Зауралье // Вестник Челябинского государственного педагогического института. Историческая наука. Челябинск, Вып.1. 474 Vinogradov, 1999. Виноградов Н.Б. Синташтинские и петровские древности бронзового века Южного Урала и Северного Казахстана в контексте культурных взаимодействий // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Vinogradov, Mukhina, 1985. Виноградов Н.Б., Мухина М.А. Новые данные о технологии гончарства у населения алакульской культуры Южного Зауралья и Северного Казахстана // Древности Среднего Поволжья. Куйбышев. Vinogradova, 1995. Виноградова Н.М. К вопросу о происхождении культуры Свата в северозападном Пакистане // СА, № 4. Vizgalov, 1988. Визгалов Г.П. Поселения с гребенчато-ямочной керамикой бассейна Конды // Материальная культура древнего населения Урала и Западной Сибири. Свердловск. Voigt, 1992. Voigt M.M. The Chronology of Iran, ca. 8000-2000 BC // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Vokhmentsev, 1999. Вохменцев М.П. Энеолитические погребения лесостепного Притоболья // 120 лет археологии Восточного склона Урала. Первые чтения памяти Владимира Федоровича Генинга. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург. Volkov, 1999. Волков Е.Н. О некоторых особенностях развития «прочерченно-накольчатых культур эпохи неолита» // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Vulpe, 1970. Vulpe A. Die Äxte und Beile in Rumänian I. München: Beck. Vulpe, 1995. Vulpe A. Stand und Aufgaben der Urnenfelderforschung im Karpatenraum // Beiträge zur Urnenfeldzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen. Bonn: Habelt. Vulpe, 1995a. Vulpe A. The Bronze Age in the Carpatho-Danubian Region. General View // Stoica C., Roten M., Boroffka N. (ed.). Comori ale epocii bronzului din România. Bucureşti. Vzaimodeystvie ..., 1984. Взаимодействие кочевых культур и древних цивилизаций. Алма Ата. Wage, 1979. Wage A.J.B. A Faience cylinder // Excavations at Mycenae 1939-1955. Oxford. Wardle, 1992. Wardle P. Earlier Prehistoric Pottery Production and Ceramic Petrology in Britain. BAR, 225, Oxford. Wardle, 1998. Wardle K.A. The Palace Civilization of Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece 20001200 BC // Prehistoric Europe. Oxford, N.-Y.: Oxford University Press. Wells, 1992. Wells P.S. The Neolithic Chronology of Central Europe // Ehrich R.W. (ed.). Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press. Whitlle, 1985. Whitlle A.W.R. Neolithic Europe: a survey. Cambrige. Whittle, 1998. Whittle A. The First Farmers // Prehistoric Europe. Oxford, N.-Y.: Oxford University Press. Wilhelm, 1992. Вильхельм Г. Древний народ хурриты. М. Winn, 1981. Winn S.M.M. Pre-Writting in Southeastern Europe: The Sign System of the Vinca Culture. ca. 4000 B.C. Calgary. Witczak, 1996. Witczak K. T. The Pre-Germanic Substrata and Germanic Maritime Vocabulary // The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe. Washington. Woole, Moorey, 1982. Wooley L., Moorey P.R.S. Ur «of the Chaldees». Ithaca. Wulley, 1986. Вулли Л. Забытое царство. М. Yablonskii, 1999. Yablonsky L.T. Archaeological mythology and ethnogenetical reality // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Yablonskii, 1999a. Яблонский Л.Т. Еще раз о происхождении скифской культуры Причерноморья по данным антропологии // Скифы Северного Причерноморья в VII-IV вв. до н.э. Москва. Yablonskii, 1999b. Яблонский Л.Т. Скифы, сарматы и другие в XXI в. н.э. // Археология России в XX веке: итоги и перспективы. Тезисы докладов конференции, посвященной 275-летию РАН и 80-летию Института археологии. Москва. Yablonskii, 1999c. Яблонский Л.Т. Модель раннего этногенеза в скифо-сакской контактной зоне // РА, № 4. Yablonskii, Khohlov, 1994. Яблонский Л.Т., Хохлов А.А. Новые краниологические материалы эпохи бронзы самарского Заволжья // Васильев И.Б., Кузнецов П.Ф., Семенова А.П. Потаповский курганный могильник индоиранских племен на Волге. Самара. 475 Yablonskii, Khohlov, 1994a. Яблонский Л.Т., Хохлов А.А. Краниология населения ямной культуры Оренбургской области // Моргунова Н.Л., Кравцов А.Ю. Памятники древнеямной культуры на Илеке. Екатеринбург. Yakar, 1979. Yakar J. Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Age Chronology // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXIX. Yakar, 1984. Yakar J. Regional and Lokal Schools of Metalwork in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Part I // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXXIV. Yakar, 1985. Yakar J. Regional and Lokal Schools of Metalwork in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Part II // Anatolian Studies. Yournal of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Vol. XXXV. Yakar, 1991. Yakar J. Prehistoric Anatolia. The Neolithic Transformation and the Early Chalcolithic Period. Tel Aviv: University. Yalcin Unsal, 2000. Anfänge der Metalverwendung in Anatolien. In: Yalcin Unsal (Hrsg.) Anatolian Metal I. Bochum. Deutsches Bergbau-Museum. Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 13. Yankovskaya, 1979. Янковская Н.Б. Аррапха убежище Шаттивасы, сына Тушратты // ВДИ, № 1. Yaylenko, 1990. Яйленко В.П. Архаическая Греция и Ближний Восток. М. Yener et al., 1994. Yener K.A., Geckinly E., Ozbal H. A Brief Survey of Anatolian Metallurgy prior to 500 BC. In: Archaeometry ’94. Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Archaeometry. Ankara. Yoffi, 1989. Йоффи Н. «Чужеземцы» в Месопотамии // ВДИ, № 2. Yosef, 1992. Bar Yosef O. The Neolithic Period // The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, London. Young, 1967. Young T.C. The Iranian migration into the Zagros // Iran. V.5. London. Yudin et al., 1996. Юдин А.И., Матюхин А.Д., Захариков А.П., Касанкин Г.И. Раннесрубные курганные могильники Золотая Гора и Кочетное и проблемы формирования срубной культуры Нижнего Поволжья // Охрана и исследование памятников археологии Саратовской области в 1995 г. Саратов. Yudin, 1997. Юдин А.И. Поселения средней бронзы степного Заволжья // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Yudin, 1999. Yudin A.I. The early Tinber Grave types of artefacts in the stage of culture formation // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Yule P., 1982. Neolitische und kupferzeitliche Siedlung in Nordostiran. München. Yurovskaya, 1973. Юровская В.Т. Классификация и относительная хронология археологических памятников эпохи бронзы на Андреевском озере у г. Тюмени // ВАУ. Свердловск. Вып. 12. Yusifov, 1987. Юсифов Ю.Б. Ранние контакты Месопотамии с северо-восточными странами (Приурмийская зона) // ВДИ, № 1. Zablocka, 1989. Заблоцка Ю. История Ближнего Востока в древности. М. Zaharia, 1995. Zaharia E. The Monteoru Culture // Stoica C., Roten M., Boroffka N. (ed.). Comori ale epocii bronzului din România. Bucureşti. Zakharikov, 1997. Захариков А.П. Формирование срубной культуры. Вариант трансформации культур степного Поволжья средней и поздней бронзы // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Zakharova, 1998. Захарова Е.Ю. Классификация знаков на керамике срубной культурноисторической общности // Доно-Донецкий регион с эпоху средней и поздней бронзы. Археология Восточноевропейской лесо-степи. Вып. 11. Воронеж. Zamarovsky, 1986. Замаровский В. Их величества пирамиды. М. Zanger, 1994. Zanger E. Ein neuer Kampf um Troia. Archäologie in der Kriese. München: Knaur. Zapotocky, 1991. Zapotocky M. Frühe Streitaxtkulturen im mitteleuropäischen Äneolithikum // J. Lichardus (Hrsg.). Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche; Symposium Saarbrucken und Otrenhausen. T. I. Bonn. Zaykov et al., 1995. Зайков В.В., Зданович Г.Б., Юминов А.М. Медный рудник бронзового века «Воровская яма» (Южный Урал) // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 2. Челябинск. Zaykov et al., 1999. Zaykov V.V., Bushmakin A.F., 476 Yuminov A.M., Zaykova E.V., Zdanovich G.B., Tairov A.D. Geoarchaeological research of historical sites of the South Urals // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Zaykov et al., 1999a. Зайков В.В., Бушмакин А.Ф., Юминов А.М., Зайкова Е.В., Зданович Г.Б., Таиров А.Д. Геоархеологические исследования исторических памятников Южного Урала: задачи, результаты, перспективы // Уральский минералогический сборник. № 9, Екатеринбург. Zaykova, 1995. Зайкова Е.В. Состав металлических изделий поселения Синташта // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 2. Челябинск. Zaytseva et al., 1999. Зайцева Г.И., Тимофеев В.И., Семенцов А.А. Радиоуглеродное датирование в ИИМК РАН: история, состояние, результаты, перспективы // РА, № 3. Zdanovich D., 1995. Зданович Д.Г. Синташтинско-микенский культурно-хронологический горизонт: степи Евразии и элладский регион в XVIII-XVI вв. до н.э. // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн.1. Челябинск. Zdanovich D., 1995a. Могильник Большекараганский (Аркаим) и мир древних индоевропейцев Урало-казахстанских степей // Аркаим. Исследования. Поиски. Открытия. Челябинск. Zdanovich D., 1997. Зданович Д.Г. Синташтинское общество: социальные основы «квазигородской» культуры Южного Зауралья эпохи средней бронзы. Челябинск. Zdanovich S., 1983. Зданович С.Я. Происхождение саргаринской культуры (к постановке вопроса) // Бронзовый век степной полосы Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Zdanovich S., 1984. Зданович С.Я. Керамика сарагаринской культуры // Бронзовый век Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Zdanovich, 1973. Зданович Г.Б. Керамика эпохи бронзы Северо-Казахстанской области // Вопросы археологии Урала. Вып. 12, Свердловск. Zdanovich, 1983. Зданович Г.Б. Основные характеристики петровских комплексов урало-казахстанских степей (к вопросу о выделении петровской культуры) // Бронзовый век степной полосы Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Zdanovich, 1984. Зданович Г.Б. Относительная хронология памятников бронзового века Урало-Казахстанских степей // Бронзовый век Урало - Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Zdanovich, 1985. Зданович Г.Б. Щитковые псалии Среднего Приишимья // Энеолит и бронзовый век Урало-Иртышского междуречья. Челябинск. Zdanovich, 1988. Зданович Г.Б. Бронзовый век Урало-Казахстанских степей. Свердловск. Zdanovich, 1989. Зданович Г.Б. Феномен протоцивилизации бронзового века Урало-Казахстанских степей. Культурная и социальноэкономическая обусловленность // Взаимодействия кочевых культур и древних цивилизаций. Алма-Ата. Zdanovich, 1995. Зданович Г.Б. Аркаим. Арии на Урале или несостоявшаяся цивилизация / / Аркаим. Исследования. Поиски. Открытия. Челябинск. Zdanovich, 1997. Зданович Г.Б. Аркаим - культурный комплекс эпохи средней бронзы Южного Зауралья // РА, № 2. Zdanovich, 1999. Zdanovich G.B. Southern TransUrals region in the Middle Bronze Age // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Zdanovich, 1999. Зданович Г.Б. Гармонизация пространства Страны Городов // XIV Уральское археологическое совещание. Тезисы докладов. Челябинск. Zdanovich, Batanina, 1995. Зданович Г.Б., Батанина И.М. «Страна городов» - укрепленные поселения эпохи бронзы XVIII-XVI вв. до н.э. на Южном Урале // Аркаим. Исследования. Поиски. Открытия. Челябинск. Zdanovich, Batanina, 1999. Zdanovich G.B., Batanina I.M. Fortified centers of the «Country of towns» in Southern Trans-Urals region // Complex Societies of Central Eurasia in III-I Millennia BC. Chelyabinsk. Zdanovich, Shreber, 1988. Зданович Г.Б., Шрейбер В.К. Переходные эпохи в археологии: аспекты исследования на материалах СКАЭ - УКАЭ // Проблемы археологии уралоказахстанских степей. Челябинск. Zdanovich, Zdanovich D., 1995. Зданович Г.Б., 477 Зданович Д.Г. Протогородская цивилизация «Страна городов» Южного Зауралья (опыт моделирующего отношения к древности) // Россия и Восток: проблемы взаимодействия. Материалы конференции. Ч. V., кн. 1. Челябинск. Zdanovich, Zdanovich S., 1980. Зданович Г.Б., Зданович С.Я. Могильник эпохи бронзы у с. Петровка // СА, № 3. Zeibert, 1993. Зайберт В.Ф. Энеолит УралоИртышского междуречья. Петропавловск. Zelixon, Kremenetskii, 1989. Зеликсон Э.М., Кременецкий К.В. Палеография района Джебел Синджара // Бадер Н.О. Древнейшие земледельцы Северной Месопотамии. М. Zherebilov, Bespalii, 1997. Жеребилов С.Е., Беспалый Е.И. Некоторые особенности об- сидианового импорта Южной России в эпоху камня - бронзы // Эпоха бронзы и ранний железный век в истории древних племен южнорусских степей. Саратов. Zikov et al., 1994. Зыков А.П., Кокшаров С.Ф., Терехова Л.М., Федорова Н.В. Угорское наследие. Екатеринбург. Ziryanova, 1999. Зырянова С.Ю. К вопросу о датировке боборыкинской культуры и ее месте в кругу неолитических культур Среднего Зауралья // 120 лет археологии Восточного склона Урала. Первые чтения памяти Владимира Федоровича Генинга. Ч. 2. Екатеринбург. Zyablin, 1977. Зяблин Л.П. Карасукский могильник Малые Копены 3. М. List of illustrations Fig. 11. Anatolian analogies to the Sintashta architecture: 1 – Tüllintepe; 2 – Heraion; 3 – Demircihöyük; 4 – Pulur. Fig. 12. Anatolian analogies to the Sintashta architecture: 1 – Alişarhüyük; 2, 3 – Aphrodisias; 4, 5 – Gözlü Kale. Fig. 13. Transformation of architectural traditions in Central and Eastern Anatolia: 1, 2, 4 – Beyçesultan; 3 – Alişarhüyük. Fig. 14. Rogem Hiri. Fig. 15. Analogies to the Sintashta fortified settlements in the Balkan Peninsula and Greece. 1 – Lerna, 2 – Yunacite, 3 – Kastri; 4 - Panorm. Fig. 16. Sintashta burial rite. 1, 4 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 2 – Sintashta; 3 – Kamenniy Ambar. Fig. 17. Sintashta burial rite. 1, 3-5 – Sintashta; 2 – Bolshekaraganskiy. Fig. 18. Barrow. Fig. 19. Grave chamber. Fig. 20. Secondary burial. Fig. 21. Chariot burial. Fig. 1. Reflection of cultural transformations in archaeological evidence: a – actual situation; b – archaeological fixation. Fig. 2. Sintashta fortified settlements: 1 – Stepnoe; 2 – Chernoryechye III; 3 – Chekotai; 4 – Ustye; 5 – Rodniki; 6 – Sarim-Sakla; 7 – Kuysak; 8 – Olgino; 9 – Iseney; 10 – Zhurumbay; 11 – Kizilskoye; 12 – Arkaim; 13 – Sintashta; 14 – Sintashta II; 15 – Andreevskoye; 16 – Bersuat; 17 – Alandskoye. Fig. 3. Sintashta architecture. 1 – Arkaim; 2 – Sintashta; 3 – gates of the Sintashta settlement; 4 – house of the Sintashta settlement. Fig. 4. Fortified settlement. Fig. 5. Gate. Fig. 6. Fortified wall. Fig. 7. Sintashta house. Fig. 8. The fortified settlement of Shilovskoye in the Don area. Fig. 9. Neolithic and Eneolithic architecture of the Near East. 1 – Tell Maghzalya; 2 – Hassuna; 3 – Haçilar; 4 – Mersin. Fig. 10. Chattal Höyük. 478 Fig. 22. Transcaucasian and Near Eastern parallels to the Sintashta burial rite. 1 – Alaca Höyük; 2 – Khanlar; 3 – Ur; 4 – Lchashen. Fig. 23. Stone artefacts of Sintashta culture and their analogies in the Caucasus and the Near East. 1-5, 8, 10 – Sintashta cemetery; 6 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 7 – Sintashta settlement; 9 – Arkaim; Caucasian and Near Eastern parallels: 11 – Nahal Mishmar; 12 – Tell Abu Mattar; 13, 14, 17, 18 – Demircihöyük; 15 – Susa; 16 – Chegem I. Fig. 24. Metal artefacts of Sintashta culture. 1, 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16 – Sintashta cemetery; 5, 18 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 4, 6, 10, 13, 19, 20 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 17 – Arkaim. Fig. 25. Parallels to metal artefacts of Sintashta culture in the Caucasian and Near Eastern cultures. 1 – Esheri; 2 – Kul-Tepe; 3 – Chmi; 4 – Kumbulta; 5 – Ur; 6, 8 – Gaza; 7 – Grozniy; 9 – Alaca Höyük; 10 – Tell edDab’a; 11 – Kirovakan, 12 – Tell Asmar, 13, 14 – Kish. Fig. 26. Metal artefacts, casting moulds and tuyeres of Sintashta culture. 1-4 – Arkaim; 5, 9 – Tyubyak; 6, 11 – Kamenniy Ambar; 7, 8, 10, 12 – Sintashta. Fig. 27. Metal artefacts, casting moulds and tuyeres from Anatolia. 1 – Malatya-Arslantepe; 2 – Kültepe (Karum); 4, 3, 8, 9 – Alaca Höyük; 5 – Ikiztepe; 6, 10 – Bogazköy; 7 – Hanyeri; 11 – Calicaköyü; 12 – Kaş. Fig. 28. Connections of metal artefacts of Sintashta culture and metal of different areas of the Circumpontic zone with types of archaeological sites. Fig. 29. Correlations of different types of artefact of the Sintashta culture and those of different areas of the Circumpontic zone. Fig. 30. Correlations of different types of alloys of the Sintashta culture and those of various areas of the Circumpontic zone. Fig. 31. Locations of slag found in the Volga-Ural region. Fig. 32. Locations of metal of the TK group. Fig. 33. Correlations of arsenic-contains in ores and slag of Sintashta culture. Fig. 34. Types of furnaces found in Sintashta settlements. 1, 3, 4 – Arkaim; 2 – Sintashta. Fig. 35. Furnace. Fig. 36. Metallurgical furnaces of the Anatolian settlement of Degirmentepe: 1 – furnaces 1, 2 (a – plan, b – cross section); 2 – furnace 4 (a – plan, b – cross section). Fig. 37. Ceramics of Sintashta culture. 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 20 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 5, 6, 8, 9, 16-19, 21, 22 – Sintashta cemetery; 12 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 14 – Arkaim. Fig. 38. Ceramics from the cemetery and settlement of Sintashta. Fig. 39. Scheme of vessel making. Fig. 40. Analogies to the Sintashta ceramics in the Caucasian and Near Eastern cultures. 1-4 – Tell Hadidi-Azu; 5, 6, 15, 17, 18 – Tell Mardikh; 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 – Uzerliktepe; 8, 16, 19, 20 – Hama; 11, 12 – Yanik Tepe. Fig. 41. Probable origin of the Sintashta herringbone decoration from the Transcaucasian anthropomorphic ornaments. Fig. 42. Different components of the Sintashta ceramic complex. I – Near Eastern forms; II – Transcaucasian forms; III – East European forms. Fig. 43. Bone and clay artefacts of Sintashta culture: 1, 2, 5 – Kamenniy Ambar V; 3 – Bolshekaraganskiy; 4, 6-9 – Sintashta. Analogies to bone and clay artefacts in the Caucasus and Near East: 10 – Arich; 11-13, 17 – Demircihöyük; 14 – Djemokent; 15, 16 – Hama. Fig. 44. Structures of the herd of Sintashta culture and its comparison with herds of Eastern Europe and Transcaucasia. Fig. 45. Abashevo metal artefacts and ceramic forms of the Middle Volga (8-12); Volga-Ural (1318, 21) and Don-Volga (19, 20, 22) Abashevo cultures. Fig. 46. Map of the distribution: Don-Volga Abashevo (a), Middle Volga Abashevo (b), Volga-Ural Abashevo (c) Sintashta (d) and Petrovka (e) cultures. Fig. 47. The reconstruction of harness. Fig. 48. Sintashta charioteers and chariot. Fig. 49. Petrovka culture. 1 – Petrovka II; 2, 15-17 – Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery; 3, 4-6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 22-24 – Kulevchi; 7, 10-13, 19, 21, 25 – Berlik; 9 – Kamishnoe II. Fig. 50. Timber-Grave culture. 1 – Lipoviy Ovrag; 2 – Aknazarovskiy cemetery; 3 – Ismagilovo; 4 – Spiridonovka IV; 5 – Mosolovskoye; 6 – Staro-Yabalakli; 7 – Maslovskoe II. Fig. 51. Alakul culture. 1 – Mirnii II; 2, 3 – Agapovka; 4, 7 – Tsarev Kurgan; 5 – Novonikolskoe I; 479 6, 8 – Verkhnyaya Alabuga; 9 – Kamishnoe I; 10, 12 – Alakul; 11 – Baklanskoe. Fig. 52. Alakul dwelling. Fig. 53. Locations of the Timber-Grave (a) and Alakul (b) cultures. Fig. 54. Bishkent culture. Tulkhar cemetery. Fig. 55. Indo-Aryan cultures and migrations of the Indo-Aryan tribes. 1 – Parkhai; 2-4 – Shah Tepe, Tureng Tepe, Yarim Tepe; 5 – Tepe Hissar; 6 – Tigrovaya Balka; 7 – Tulkhar; 8 – Quetta; 9 – Jhukar; 10 – Harappa, cemetery H, 11 – Kalibangan; 12 – sites of Grey Painted Ware culture; 13 – Tell Brak; 14 – Chaghar Bazar. Fig. 56. Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex. Fig. 57. Complexes of Grey Ware culture of Iranian Early Iron Age I. Fig. 58. Sumbar cemetery. Fig. 59. Indo-European cultures in Iran. 1-9 – Sialk III; 10-18 – Hissar III. Fig. 60. Cemetery of Parkhai II. Fig. 61. Iranian cultures and migrations of Iranian tribes: a – sites of North-Western Iran and Central Asia, b – sites of Grey Ware culture in Iran, c – migration of the Iranians, d – migration of the Medes and Persians. 1 – Dashli 3; 2 – Sapalli; 3 – Jarkutan; 4 – Namazga VI; 5 – Hissar III C; 6 – sites of Grey Ware culture of Northern and Western Iran. Fig. 62. Okunev culture. 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16 – Chernovaya VIII; 3 – Uybat V; 6, 9 – Verkhniy Askiz I; 4, 10 – Minusa depression; 5 – Altai; 11, 13, 14 – Pistakh; Fig. 63. Okunev culture. 1 – Chebaki; 2, 3, 4 – Uybat III; 5, 6 – Sayan canyon; 9, 11 – Sulekskie devki; Parallels to Okunev drawings: 12, 13 – Saymali-Tash (Tien Shan); 14 – Anatolia; 15 – Margiana. Fig. 64. Seima-Turbino sites: a – cemeteries; b – single finds. 1 – Klepikovo; 2 – Elunino; 3 – Ustyanka; 4 – Sopka 2; 5 – Rostovka; 6 – Satiga; 7 – Kaninskaya cave; 8 – Turbino; 9 – Sokolovka; 10 – Berezovka-Omari; 11 – Seima; 12 – Reshnoe; 13 – Nikolskoe; 14 – Borodino hoard. Fig. 65. Seima-Turbino artefacts. 1, 6, 9 – Seima; 2 – Irbitskoe; 3 – Novo-Pavlovka; 4 – Rostovka; 5 – Borodino hoard; 7 – Cigankova Sopka; 8 – Novaya Usman; 10 – Krivoe Ozero; 11 – Panovo. Fig. 66. Seima-Turbino artefacts. 1, 2, 16 – Seima; 3, 14 – Reshnoe; 4, 6-8, 17 – Rostovka; 5, 9, 11-13, 15 – Turbino I; 10 – Sokolovka; 18 – Bazyakovo III. Fig. 67. Seima-Turbino warriors. Fig. 68. Ceramics from the Seima-Turbino cemeteries. 1-3, 7 – Rostovka; 4, 5 – Reshnoe; 6, 8 – Turbino. Fig. 69. Distribution of sites of the Elunino (a), Krotovo (b), Tashkovo (c), Chirkovskaya (d) cultures, the Leushi type (e), cordoned ware of the Kama area (f), the Zaymishe phase of Prikazanskaya culture (g). Fig. 70. Krotovo culture. 1 – Preobrazhenka III; 2 – Chernozerye VI; 3, 5 – Saranin II; 4 – Sopka 2. Fig. 71. Tashkovo culture. Tashkovo II. Fig. 72. Ceramics of Chirkovskaya culture. 1, 3-5 – Galankina Gora; 2 – Kamskiy Bor II. Fig. 73. Near Eastern analogies to Seima-Turbino metal artefacts. 1 – Kish (mid-3rd millennium BC); 2 – Kul Tepe (late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC); 3 – Hama J; 4 – Gaza (18 th – 17th centuries BC); 5 – Sachkhere (second haft of the 3rd millennium BC); 6 – Boghazköy (16th – 15th centuries BC); 7 – Beyçesultan; 8 – Ikiztepe; 9 – Egypt (16th century BC). Fig. 74. Unětice culture. Fig. 75. Bronze artefacts of the Langquaid horizon: 1 – Flonheim; 2 – Nitriansky Hrádok; 3-4 – Rederzhausen; 5-12 – Langquaid. Fig. 76. End of the Early Bronze Age in the Alpine region. Fig. 77. Seima-Turbino traditions in Northern France. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Essone; 3 – Mulan; 6, 11 – Tiais; 9 – Paris; 10 – Butini. Fig. 78. Wessex Kulture. 1 – Totland; 2 – Arreton Down; 3, 6, 8 – Ebnal; 4 – Akeley; 5 – Wangford; 7 – Hartington; 9, 16 – Harlyn Bay; 10 – Darowen; 11 – Amesbury; 12 – Beedon; 13 – Stanton Harcourt; 14 – Farway; 15 – Kervellerin; 16 – Mottistone. Fig. 79. Fyodorovka culture. 1, 4, 5 – Pavlovka; 2 – Bierik-Kol; 3, 6 – Putilovskaya Zaimka; 7 – Alipkash; 8 – Sokolovka; 9 – 11 – Smolino. Fig. 80. Fyodorovka dwellings. Fig. 81. Fyodorovka cremation burial. Fig. 82. Ceramics of Fyodorovka culture. 1 – Kuropatkino; 2, 3 – Priplodniy Log; 4 – 6, 9 – Smolino; 7, 8 – Putilovskaya Zaimka; 10 – 480 13 – Pavlovka. Fig. 83. Cordoned ware of Fyodorovka culture and its transformation into Mezhovskaya forms. 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14 – Kizilskoe; 2, 3, 7, 9 – U Spasskogo Mosta; 5, 6, 8, 12, 15 – Miasskoe. Fig. 84. Cemetery of Chernozerye I. Fig. 85. Analogies to Fyodorovka culture in the SouthEastern Caspian area and Transcaucasia. 1 – Kirovakan; 2, 4 – Sumbar cemetery; 3 – Gözlü Kale; 5 – Kizyl Vank; 6, 7 – Uzerliktepe; 8, 9 – Demircihöyük. Fig. 86. Andronovo materials in the Ukraine. Fig. 87. Cherkaskul culture. 1 – Kamensk-Uralskii; 2 – Shartash; 3, 11 – Lipovaya Kurya; 4 – Sigaevo III; 5, 6, 9, 10 – Berezki V G; 7 – Kungur; 8 – Priplodniy Log. Fig. 88. Cherkaskul culture. Ceramics. 1, 6 – Priplodniy Log; 2 – 5 – Berezki V G. Fig. 89. Fyodorovka-Cherkaskul ceramics of the Miasskoe settlement. Fig. 90. Mezhovskaya culture. 1 – Argazi; 2 – Yukalekulevskoe; 3, 5, 6, 9 – Priplodniy Log; 4 – Novo-Kizganovo II; 7 – Berezki V; 8 – Zhukovskaya. Fig. 91. Fyodorovka-Cherkaskul ceramics of the Yazyovo settlement. Fig. 92. Suskan-Lebyazhinka cultural type. 1 – Ilyichyovka; 2 – Lebyazhinka; 3, 4 – Derbedeni hoard; 5, 6, 8, 9 – II Lebyazhinka settlement; 7 – Popovo Ozero. Fig. 93. Pozdnyakovo culture. 1, 7-9 – Korenec; 2 – Volosovo; 3, 5 – Borisiglebovskoe; 4 – Sadoviy Bor; 6 – Zasechye; 10 , 11 – Fefelov Bor. Fig. 94. Sosnicja (1-6) and Komarov (7-9) cultures. 1 – Zdvizhovka; 2 – Hodosovichi; 3, 6 – Pustinka; 4, 5 – Kvetun; 7 – Kavsko; 8, 9 – Komarov. Fig. 95. Distribution of sites of the Chernozerye type (a), Cherkaskul and Mezhovskaya cultures (b), Suskan-Lebyazhinka type (c), Prikazanskaya culture (d), Pozdnyakovo culture (e), Sosnicja culture (f), Trzciniec–Komarov culture (g), Tumulus culture (h). Fig. 96. Artefacts from the Bühl hoard. Fig. 97. Metal artefacts of the Middle Bronze Age from Northern Europe: 1, 2 – Virring; 3 – Nordborg. Fig. 98. Ceramics of phase A2/B1 in Southern Germany. Fig. 99. Ceramics of phase A2/B1 in Southern Ger- many. Fig. 100. The Late Bronze Age in England. 1 – Bowton Fen; 2 – Burvel Fen; 3-6 – Cottesmore; 7-11 – Twing. Fig. 101. The Kivutkalis settlement and Late Bronze Age bronze artefacts from the Eastern Baltic area. Fig. 102. Bronzes of the Urnfield period. 1 – Ridschtadt-Erfelden; 2, 4, 5 – Poljanci; 3 – Biez. Fig. 103. Urnfield culture in the Alpine region. Fig. 104. Bronze artefacts from Hungarian hoards. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 – Marok; 3, 6, 7 – Balatonkiliti. Fig. 105. Bronze artefacts from the hoard of Donja Bebrina (Croatia). Fig. 106. The Middle Bronze Age of Northern Italy. 1, 2 – Aqua Petrarca. Fig. 107. The Late Bronze Age of the North-West Pontic area. Noua culture: 1 – Ostrovec settlement; 2 – Rišešti; 3 – Ostrovec cemetery. Sabatinovka culture: 4, 8 – Ingul hoard; 5 – Chervonoe; 6 – Sabatinovka; 7 – Zhuravlinskiy hoard. Belozerka culture: 9 – Kardashinka I; 10 – Zavadovka; 11, 12, 14 – Kirovo; 13 – Babino IV. Fig. 108. Sargari-Ivanovskoe antiquities (1-10) and their North Caucasian analogies (11-14). 1 – Bishkul IV; 2, 3, 5, 10 – Petrovka II; 4, – Sargari cemetery; 6 – Ivanovskoe; 7 – Sargari settlement; 8 – Alexeevka; 9 – Novonikolskoe I; 11, 13 – Verkhnegubinskoe; 12 – Harachoy; 14 – Tarki. Fig. 109. Karasuk culture. Cemetery of Malie Kopyoni III. Fig. 110. Irmen culture. 1, 6, 10 – Ordinskoe; 2 – Kirza; 3, 4 – single finds; 5, 8, 9 – Irmen I; 7 – Krasniy Yar I. Fig. 111. Elovskaya culture. 1-5 – Elovskiy I,II cemeteries; 6-8 – Elovskoe settlement. Fig. 112. Metal artefacts of the Karasuk-Irmen cultural bloc (24-44) and their analogies in the Near and Middle East (1-23), and in Central Europe (45-57). 1, 8 – Troy II; 2, 3 – Megiddo (18 th – 15 th centuries BC); 4 – Boghazköy (16th – 15th centuries BC); 5, 11, 16 – Crete; 6 – Shandar (Northern Iran); 7 – Yakke-Parsan 2 (Khorezmia); 9 – Psikhro (Crete); 10 – Elisos (Aegean); 12 – Karmirberd (Transcaucasia); 13 – Dalversin (Fergana); 14 – Mingechaur (Azerbaijan); 15 – Talish; 17 – Alişar Höyük (Anatolia); 18 – Gözlü Kale (Anatolia); 19 – Hissar II 481 A; 20 – Giyan Tepe IV; 21, 22 – Sialk B; 23 – Luristan; 24, 42 – Hun Shan (North-Eastern China); 25 – Mongolia; 26, 38 – Ordos; 27 – Krasnoyarsk; 28 – Semipalatinsk; 29 – Poylova, Krasnoyarsk area; 30 – Krivaya, Minusa depression; 31 – Talmenskoe Barnaul area; 32 – Iudina, Krasnoyarsk area; 33 – Tomsk; 34 – Minusa depression; 35 – Kanay (Eastern Kazakhstan); 36 – China; 37 – Lyaoyan (North-Eastern China); 39 – Okunev Ulus (Minusa depression); 40 – Krasnoyarsk area; 41 – ‘Mogilnik po doroge iz sovkhoza v Saragash’ (Minusa depression); 43 – Zherlik (Minusa depression); 44 – Ust-Tes (Minusa depression); 45 – Smilowo (Silesia); 46 – group Götting Morög (Austria); 47 – Biskupin (Poland); 48, 52, 54, 55 – cemetery of Hallstatt (Austria); 49 – Salling Gerret (Denmark); 50 – Komlod (Hungary); 51 – Hungary; 53 – Dyula (Hungary); 56 – BeierdorfWelatitz group (Austria); 57 – Dobova (Yugoslavia). Fig. 113. Ceramics of the Karasuk-Irmen cultural bloc (17-26) and their analogies in the Near and Middle East (1-16), and in Central Europe (27-32). 1 – Northern Syria; 2, 3, 15 – Hissar III; 4, 9 – Mari; 5, 8 – Kish; 6 – Sialk; 7 – Hissar I; 10, 14, 16 – Ur; 11 – Shah Tepe; 12 – Luristan; 13 – Auchin-Depe (Southern Turkmenistan); 17 – Ordos; 18, 24, 26 – Hun Shan I (North-Eastern China); 19, 21, 23 – Dandibay (Central Kazakhstan); 20 – Verkhne-Karasukskiy cemetery; 22 – Nemir (Southern Siberia); 25 – Abakan cemetery; 27 – Ravensbruck (Austria); 28, 31 – Hallstatt cemetery; 29 – Donnerkirchen (Hallstatt culture); 30 – Opole-Nova (Lausitz culture); 32 – Zeitlarm (Bavaria, Hallstatt culture). Fig. 114. Scythian culture. 1 – Kostromskaya; 2 – Verkhnii Rogachik; 3, 12 – Zavadskaya Mogila; 4 – Starshaya Mogila; 5 – Nagornoe; 6, 9 – Zhabotin; 7 – Goryachevo; 8 – Zolotoi Kurgan; 10 – Stepnoi; 11 – Chastie kurgani; 13 – Sukhino; 14 – Grishentsi; 15 – Gvardeyskoe; 16 – Krasnoznamenka; 17 – Vasilievka; 18 – Makeevka; 19 – Zhurovka; 20 – Kelermes. Fig. 115. Scythian warrior. Fig. 116. Migrations of Scytho-Cimmerian tribes: a – initial localisation of the Cimmerians and the Gamir country; b – Elovskaya culture; c – Irmen culture; d – Karasuk culture; e – sites of the Bien type; 1 – Cimmerian migration to Central Asia; 2 – Cimmerian migration to Eastern Europe; 3 – Scythian migration to the Near East and the Pontic area. Fig. 117. China. Indo-European influences. 1 – Dasikuncuni; 2, 7 – Anyang; 3, 5 – Bayfu; 4, 6 – Chaodaogou; 8 – Dakhunci; 9, 10 – Lyuczyahe; 11, 13 – Linjeyuy; 12 – Tsaotsyauan. Fig. 118. Anyang chariot burial. Fig. 119. Distribution of Nostratic languages: a – initial localisation of Nostratic languages (Zarzi), b – proto-Dravidian and Dravidian cultures, c – proto-Elamite and Elamite cultures, d – proto-Finno-Ugrian languages, e – protoAltaic languages, f – migrations of protoDravidians, g – migrations of proto-Elamites, h – migrations of proto-Finno-Ugrian people, i – migrations of proto-Altaic people. Fig. 120. Elamo-Dravidian cultures. 1-6 – Jarmo; 711 – Sialk I; 12-15 – Merghar; 16-25 – Indus civilisation. Fig. 121. North Mesopotamian settlements: a – protoIndo-European settlements of the 8th – 7th millennia BC; b – proto-Elamo-Dravidian settlements of the 8th – 7th millennia BC; c – settlements of the Tell Sotto type; d – settlements of the Hassuna culture. 1 – Cayönü Tepesi; 2 – Nevali-Chori; 3 – Tell Maghzalya; 4 – Küllitepe; 5 – Telul et-Talafat; 6 – Tell Sotto; 7 – Yarim Tepe I; 8 – Nineveh; 9 – Umm Dabaghiyah; 10 – Tell Hassuna; 11 – Ali Aga; 12 – Tell Khan; 13 – Karim Shakhir; 14 – Jarmo; 15 – Tepe Sorab; 16 – Tepe Guran. Fig. 122. Proto-Indo-Europeans in Northern Mesopotamia. 1, 2, 4, 5 – Tell Maghzalya; 3, 6-8 – Tell Sotto. Fig. 123. Neolithic and Eneolithic settlements in Anatolia and the Balkans. 1 – Cayönü Tepesi; 2 – Mersin; 3 – Chattal-Höyük; 4 – Haçilar; 5 – Dimini; 6 – Sesklo; 7 – Nea Nikomedeia; 8 – Sitagroi; 9 – Karanovo; 10 – Veselinovo; 11 – Krivodol; 12 – Bubanj; 13 – Pločnik; 14 – Butmir; 15 – Vinča; 16 – Starčevo; 17 – Polyanica Tell; 18 – Ezero; 19 – Gumelnitsa; 20 – Bojan; 21 – Hamangia; 22 – Tartaria; 23 – Tirpeshti; 24 – Karbuna; 25 – Floreshti; 26 – Solonchene; 27 – Usato- 482 vo; 28 – Vladimirovka; 29 – Kolomiyshina; 30 – Tripolie. Fig. 124. Eneolithic of the Northern Balkan and North-West Pontic areas. Gumelnitsa culture: 1 – Polyanica Tell; 2 – Drama Tell; 9 – Timishoare; 10 – Ruse; 12 – Ozernoe; 14 – Slivnitsa; 15 – Bolgrad; 16 – Tartaria (Vinča culture); 17 – Nagornoe II; Cucuteni-Tripolie culture: 3 – Solonchene; 4-6 – Karbuna hoard; 7, 8 – Gorodnitsa II; 11 – Petreni; 13 – Luka Vrublevetskaya; 18 – Stena; 19 – Nezvisko; 20 – Krutoborodinci; 21 – Trayan-Djalul Viey. Fig. 125. Neolithic and Eneolithic sites of the Caucasus: a – Neolithic sites; b – Eneolithic sites. 1 – Nizhnyaya Shilovka; 2 – Kistrik; 3 – Verkhnyaya Lemsa; 4 – Darkvetskiy Naves; 5 – Anaseuli; 6 – Kobistan; 7 – Choh; 8 – Tetramitsa; 9 – Arukhlo; 10 – Shulaverisgora; 11 – Imirisgora; 12 – Khramis Didigora; 13 – Shomutepe; 14 – Baba-Dervish; 15 – Ginchi; 16 – Alikemektepesi; 17-19 – settlements of the Mill steppe; 20 – Kul Tepe I; 21 – Khaytunarkh; 22 – Tekhut; 23 – Shengavit; 24 – Nalchik cemetery. Fig. 126. Eneolithic of Transcaucasia. 1 – Shulaverisgora; 2, 3 – Imirisgora; 4, 5, 8-10 – KulTepe I; 6 – Tekhut; 7, 11 – Alikemektepesi. Fig. 127. Azov-Dnieper culture. 1, 5 – Poltavka; 2, 6 – Nikolskiy cemetery; 4, 7 – Mariupol cemetery. Fig. 128. Sites of the Novodanilovka type: 1, 3, 6 – Voroshilovograd; 2 – Yama; 4, 5 – Chapli; 7 – Lyubimovka; 8 – Novodanilovka. Sites of the Lower Mikhailovka type: 9 – Mikhailovka: 10 – Konstantinovka; 11 – Ankermeni; 12 – Tarasovka. Fig. 129. Lengyel culture. 1 – Bučani; 2 – TešetičeKžieviče; 3 – Zimno; 4 – Kostyanec; 5 – Listvin. Fig. 130. Funnel Beaker culture. 1 – Büdelsdorf. Fig. 131. Fortified settlements of North-Western Anatolia and Greece. 1 – Troy; 2 – Dimini. Fig. 132. Anatolia and the Balkan Peninsula in the Transitional period from the Eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age: a – Balkan sites and Anatolian sites with European features; b – area of the Novodanilovka, Lower Mikhailovka and Sredniy Stog sites; c – direction of the movement of Paleobalkan tribes; d – direction of the movement of Anatolian tribes. 1 – Pulur; 2 – Norşuntepe; 3 – Arslantepe; 4 – Alişar Hüyük; 5 – Alaca Hüyük; 6 – Ikiztepe; 7 – Ahlatlibel; 8 – Beyçesultan; 9 – Troy; 10 – Lerna; 11 – Dimini; 12 – Sitagroi; 13 – Karanovo; 14 – Kojadermen; 15 – Cernavoda; 16 – Salcuţa; 17 – Kotofeni; 18 – Suvorovo; 19 – Usatovo; 20 – Mikhailovka. Fig. 133. Early Bronze Age Caucasian cultures: a – Kura-Araxian culture; b – Maikop culture. 1 – Arslantepe; 2 – Pulur (Sakyol); 3 – Norşuntepe; 4 – Pulur; 5 – Geoy Tepe; 6 – Yanik Tepe; 7 – Uchtepe; 8 – Kul-Tepe I; 9 – Kul-Tepe II; 10-14 – Lchashen, Arich, Shengavit, Erevan hoard; 15 – Mingechaur; 16 – Sioni; 17-20 – Shulaverisgora, Imirisgora, Trialeti, Berikldeebi; 21 – Kvatskhelebi; 22 – Sachkhere; 23 – Lugovskoe; 24 – Serzhenyurt; 25 – Ginchi; 26 – Chirkeyskoe settlement; 27 – Derbent; 28 – Velikent; 29 – Rassvet; 30 – Miskhako; 31 – Krasnogvardeyskoe; 32 – ‘Na uch. Zissermana’; 33 – Ulskiy aul; 34 – Maikop; 35 – Yasenovaya Polyana; 36 – Novosvobodnaya; 37 – Kostromskaya; 38 – Meshoko; 39 – Vorontsovskaya cave; 40 – Veseliy; 41 – Ust-Jegut; 42 – Kislovodsk; 43 – Pyatigorsk; 44 – Chegem; 45 – Nalchik; 46 – Galyugay; 47 – Bamut. Fig. 134. Maikop culture. 1, 3, 4 – Bamut; 2 – Aul Kubina. Fig. 135. Maikop culture. 1, 10 – Bamut; 2, 12, 16 – Novosvobodnaya; 3, 11 – Maikop; 4, 13 – Krasnogvardeyskoe; 5, 14 – Ust-Jegut; 6 – Makhashevskaya; 7 – Chegem; 8 – ‘Na uch. Zissermana’; 9 – Krasnodar area; 15 – Kislovodsk. Fig. 136. Kura-Araxian culture. 1 – Pulur; 2 – Shengavit; 3 – Trialeti. Fig. 137. Early Bronze Age of Eastern Europe. Kemi-Oba culture: 1 – Kersonovka; 2, 3, 9 – sites and burials of Crimea; 4 – Simferopol; 5 – Sioni (Switzerland); 6 – KemiOba; 7 – Mamay; 8 – Kazanki. Pit-Grave culture: 10 – Linyovka 3; 11, 17 – TamarUtkul VIII; 12-14 – Mikhailovka; 15 – Shpakovka; 16 – Raygorodok; 18 – Uvak. Fig. 138. Usatovo-Sofievka antiquities of the NorthWest Pontic area. 1, 5, 7 – Usatovo; 2 – Nerushay; 3, 4, 6 – Sofievka. Fig. 139. Globular Amphorae culture. 1 – Uvicla; 2 483 – Dovgoe; 3, 4 – Suemtsi; 5 – Barby; 6 – Böhlen-Zeschwitz; 7, 9 – Zörbig; 8 – Umashkovci. Fig. 140. Corded Ware cultures. 1-7 – Corded Ware culture of Northern Europe; 8, 9, 11, 12 – Fatyanovo culture; 10, 13, 14 – Balanovo culture. Fig. 141. Dolmen at Anastasievka. Fig. 142. Middle Bronze Age Caucasian cultures: a – North Caucasian culture, b – sites of Dagestan, c – Proto-Colchian culture, d – Dolmen culture, e – Trialeti culture, f – SevanUzerlik group. Fig. 143. Trialeti culture. 1, 9, 11 – Trialeti; 2 – Martkopi; 3 – Maskheti; 4, 5 – Kirovakan; 6 – Metekhi; 7 – Angekhakot; 8 – Arich; 10 – Sisian; 12 – Aygashet; 13 – Kirgi; analogies to Trialeti ware: 14, 15 – Gözlu Kale. Fig. 144. Sevan-Uzerlik group. 1, 2, 5, 9 – Lchashen; 3 – Zolakar; 4 – Uzerliktepe; 6 – 8, 10 – Arich. Fig. 145. Proto-Colchian culture. Fig. 146. Catacomb culture. 1 – Novofillipovka; 2, 6 – Voroshilovograd; 3, 5, 8, 9 – Frunze; 4 – Privolye; 7 – Velikaya Kamishevakha. Analogies to arrowheads of the Catacomb type in the Near East and Transcaucasia: 10 – Trialeti; 11, 12 – Negada, El-Fayum; 13 – Jerico. Fig. 147. Multi-Cordoned Ware culture. 1 – Krivoy Rog; 2 – Kamenka; 3, 5 – Tekstilshik (Donetsk); 4 – Babina Gora; 6, 8 – Ribakovka hoard; 9 – Kislitsa; 10 – Prokazino; 11 – Chapaevka; 12 – Dudarkov; 13 – Susa (analogy to KMK ceramics); 14, 16, 17 – Berislavl hoard; 15 – Kolontaevka hoard. Transcaucasian analogies to axes of the late Catacomb period: 18-20 – Svanetia; 21 – Sukhumi hoard. Fig. 148. Early Bronze Age of Middle Europe. 1-6 – Unterwölbing; 7-16 – Straubing; 17-29 – Adlerberg. Fig. 149. Mycenaean ornaments in Eastern Europe. 1, 2 – Yabalakli; 3 – Ilyichyovka; 4 – Petryaevskiy; 5 – Privetnoe; 6 – Yubileynoe; 7 – Pasekovo; Fig. 150. Complexes of the end of Early Helladic – Middle Helladic period in Greece: 1 – Malthi; 2, 3, 9 – Koraku; 5, 6 – Asine; 7, 10 – Lerna; 8 – Aigina Fig. 151. Wietenberg culture. 1 – Ctea; 2, 7 – Petreştii de Sus; 3 – Derşida; 4, 5 – Dindeşti; 6 – Mediaş ‘Baia de nisip’; 8 – Ocna Sibiului ‘Dealul trestiei’; 9 – Poiana ‘Intre pietrii’; 10 – Livezile ‘Racişlog-Poderei’; 11 – Oarţa de Jos. Fig. 152. Cordoned ware in Greece (Tyrinth). Fig. 153. Indo-European migrations in the 6th – early 4th millennia BC. 1 – Indo-European migration to the Balkan Peninsula and separation of the Anatolians (6th millennium BC); 2 – Indo-European migration to the Caucasus in the 6th – 5th millennia BC; 3 – migration of Palaeobalkan populations in about 3700 BC; 4 – movement of some Indo-European groups to the Southern Caspian area and separation of Indo-Iranian languages. Fig. 154. Indo-European migrations in the late 4th – early 2nd millennia BC. 1 – Anatolian migration from the Balkan Peninsula to Anatolia (late 4th millennium BC); 2 – Indo-Iranian migration into Syria-Anatolia and separation of the Iranians (late 3rd millennium BC?); 3 – Indo-Aryan migration to the Transurals in the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC (?); 4 – Indo-Aryan migration to the North Pontic area (second haft of the 3rd millennium BC); 5 – Indo-Aryan movement to Central Asia and the Indus valley (late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC); 6 – Indo-Iranian migration to the Altai region (mid-3rd millennium BC); 7 – Tocharian migration to Central Asia (second haft of the 3rd millennium BC). Fig. 155. Indo-European migrations in the late 3 rd millennium BC – 14th century BC. 1 – Iranian migration to Transcaucasia; 2 – Iranian migration to the Transurals and their subsequent movement to Eastern Europe (3), Kazakhstan and Central Asia (4); 5 – Iranian migration to Margiana and Bactria; 6 – migrations of ancient Europeans to the Irtish area and their subsequent migration to Europe (7). Fig. 156. Indo-European peoples in Anatolia in the late 3rd – early 2nd millennium BC and Iranian migrations from this area. Fig. 157. Scheme of the dialectal partitioning of IndoEuropean languages (after T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov). 484 Index Abashevo – 9, 12, 29-31, 37, 42, 50-53, 55, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69-71, 73-82, 84, 86, 90-93, 95, 96, 100104, 106-109, 111-119, 121, 125-136, 138, 140, 142, 146, 147, 186, 193, 195, 201-203, 206, 207, 210, 213, 222, 223, 233, 234, 248, 250, 255-257, 262, 269, 272, 304, 342, 386, 390, 393, 398, 416 Abu Hureyra – 325 Acemköy – 395 Achaean, Achaeans – 42, 393, 394, 397, 398, 407, 416 Achaemenid Empire, Achaemenids – 10, 161, 175, 176 Acigöl – 395 Adlerberg – 135, 217, 390 Aegean – 39 Aeolic – 402, 416 Afanasievo – 153, 186, 187, 191, 192, 206, 211, 224, 230, 231, 287, 290, 294, 305, 365, 381, 416 Afghani – 183, 185, 304 Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) – 156, 158, 313, 375 Agada – 405 Agapovka cemetery – 59 Agrab, Tell – 171 Ahhijawa – 394, 398, 402 Ahlatlibel – 356, 365, 395 Ai Bunar – 331 Aigina – 41, 396 Aji-Kui – 172 Akkade, Akkadians – 410, 415, 420 Alaca Höyük – 57, 58, 67, 114, 121, 303, 354, 356, 358, 363, 365, 395 Alakul – 10, 11, 20, 48, 52, 53, 58, 86, 115, 126, 132, 136-138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 161, 176, 229, 235, 237-239, 242, 245, 247, 248, 255, 257, 261, 268, 283, 285-288, 381, 390, 391, 416 Alalakh – 172, 180, 385, 406 Alandskoye – 23, 33 Albanian – 151, 159, 349, 355, 356, 419 Aleppo – 406 Alexandria – 341 Alexandrovsk – 343 Alexeevka – 50, 161 Algashi – 93 Ali Aga – 323 Ali Kosh – 319, 322 Alikemektepesi – 104, 153, 334-336, 340, 341, 358, 360, 411 Alişar – 37, 174, 208, 291, 298, 303, 328, 353, 363 Altaic – 156, 158, 223, 224, 232, 271, 273, 305, 313, 314, 316, 411, 416 Amangeldi – 143, 247 Amarna, Tell – 392 Amirabad culture – 281, 286 Amiranis-Gora – 50, 364 Amorites, Ammuru, Amurru – 404, 405, 407, 408 Amuq – 81, 82, 93, 358, 359, 362, 363, 404, 419 Ananyino – 195, 255, 258 Anaseuli – 333, 340 Anatolian, Anatolians – 151, 153, 154, 157, 159, 313, 324, 337, 338, 349, 355-357, 363, 364, 371, 395397, 408, 411, 415, 419, 421 Anau – 168, 317, 319 Andreevskaya culture – 212, 227 Andronovo – 13, 65, 101, 135, 143, 153, 166, 176, 191, 212, 225, 226, 235, 244, 256, 258, 259, 273, 291 Anyang – 287, 289, 305 Anza – 326 Aosta – 372 Apa-Hajdusamson – 135, 398 Aphrodisias – 33 Ai – 37 Apiancha – 333 Arada – 37 Arcado-Cypriot – 402 Argissa – 326, 396 Arich – 39, 99, 294, 377 Arkaim – 20-25, 32, 35-37, 43, 64, 71, 76, 81, 84, 86, 95, 102, 118, 124, 135 Armenian, Armenians – 151, 154, 301, 313, 342, 356, 377, 411, 419 Armorican culture – 213, 262, 267, 268 Arrapha – 406 Arslantepe – 32, 93, 183, 243, 344, 347, 354, 358, 404 Artik – 301 Arukhlo – 324, 332, 335-337, 419 Aruktau – 162, 164 Aryan, Aryans – 9, 10, 64, 115, 131, 137, 146, 147, 151, 153, 154, 162, 169-171, 175, 180, 183, 185, 224, 272, 231, 303, 341, 342, 356, 385, 394, 404407, 409, 411, 415, 416, 419, 421, 424 Arzhan – 296 Arzawa – 356, 357 485 Asagi Pinar – 328 Aşikli Höyük – 322 Asmar, Tell – 71, 182 Askiz – 225 Assyria, Assyrian – 64, 71, 296, 298, 357, 403, 420 Astrabad culture – 177, 178 Astrabad hoard – 10 Atasu – 245 Aunjetitz-Wieselburg – 389 Austro-Asian family – 171 Austronesian languages – 225 Avestan – 161 Ayat – 27, 60, 117, 147, 212, 227, 248, 317 Azov-Dnieper culture – 63, 338, 339, 351 Baalberg – 152, 351, 353 Baba-Dervish – 82 Babino III – 30, 102 Babylon, Babylonia – 17, 309, 325, 403 Bactro-Margianan archaeological complex (BMAC) – 10, 11, 95, 96, 161, 165, 171, 174-177, 180, 183, 185, 224, 229, 231, 242, 248, 303, 416, 420 Baden – 152, 155, 159, 338, 345, 346, 352, 372, 373 Bakhmutino, Bakhmutino type – 67, 69, 386 Balanbash – 70, 77, 79, 84, 106, 109, 113, 118, 126, 127 Balanovo – 29, 51, 62, 64, 67, 92, 99, 101, 106, 111, 112, 114, 117, 135, 206, 212, 223, 233, 371 Baleni – 275 Balimskaya-Kartashikhinskaya – 255 Balkhan culture – 314 Baltic, Balts – 117, 151, 153, 154, 159, 223, 233, 237, 270-273, 279-282, 285, 300, 304, 309, 376, 416, 417, 419 Bampur – 180 Bamut – 336, 358 Baniabic – 365 Barashki – 237 Barsov Gorodok – 237 Basyanovo type – 227 Bayindirköy – 69 Bderi, Tell – 38 Bedeni – 58, 114 Begazi – 281, 287, 294 Beit Mirsim, Tell – 38 Beleni – 259 Bell-Beaker culture – 136, 215, 217, 221, 267, 278, 371-373, 375, 400 Belozerka – 283, 295, 296, 300, 301 Beregovskoye I – 29 Berezhnovka – 132, 140, 142, 156 Berezovka – 59, 60 Berikldeebi – 360, 363 Berislavl – 386 Berlik – 50 Berry-au-Bac – 41 Beth Shan – 37 Beyçesultan – 32, 36, 37, 100, 174, 352, 354, 356, 363 Bien type – 287, 288, 294 Bikovo – 152 Bikovskie barrows – 141 Binja-Bičke – 155 Bishkent culture – 164-166, 168, 171, 178, 180, 185, 224, 229, 344, 416 Bishkul – 143, 237, 245, 247, 285 Bistrovka – 290, 294 Boborikino culture – 223, 227, 316 Bodrogkeresztur – 346, 351 Bogazköy – 37, 237, 298, 392, 395, 406 Boldirevo – 381 Boleraz – 155, 352 Bolshekaraganskiy cemetery – 43, 46, 47, 50, 55, 70, 86, 115, 140, 238 Bolsherechenskaya – 296 Bolshoy Log – 285 Bondarikha – 283 Borisovka – 281 Borodino – 63, 134, 213, 217, 390 Botai – 9, 27, 60, 103, 189 Bouqras – 325 Brak, Tell – 172 Bronocice – 338 Bubanj – 346 Budakalosz – 338 Bug-Dniester culture – 328 Buguli – 237 Bühl hoard – 135, 259 Bullendorf – 215 Burhan-Höyök – 96 Burla – 294 Büyük Güllücek – 352 Byblos – 165, 354, 384, 405 Camerton-Snowshill – 221 Can Hasan – 322 Canaanite – 404, 407, 419 Carchemish – 362 Catacomb culture – 53-55, 58, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69-71, 74, 78, 84, 86, 88, 92, 99, 101-105, 107, 109, 111, 114, 115, 117, 119, 126, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137, 140, 142, 162, 165, 168, 189, 192, 221, 227, 242, 247, 304, 342, 380-386, 388, 393, 394, 409, 416 Çayboyu – 95 486 Cayönü Tepesi – 320, 322, 326 Celtic, Celts – 151, 153, 154, 159, 237, 268-270, 273, 275, 278, 300, 301, 309, 376, 416, 417, 419 Cernavoda – 345, 346, 395 Chaghar Bazar – 119, 180 Chamer-group – 135, 262, 390 Chao-dao-gou culture – 231 Chattal Höyük – 31, 57, 81, 155, 156, 322-324, 326328, 332, 335, 340, 376, 383 Cherkaskul – 247, 248, 250, 252-259, 261, 268, 281, 283, 284, 416 Chernogorovka – 299 Chernogorovka-Novocherkassk type – 299 Chernovaya – 187 Chernozerye – 207, 242, 245, 250, 252, 268, 283, 416 Chirkovskaya – 62, 112, 132, 136, 193, 195, 198, 201, 203-205, 212, 222, 256, 416, 423 Chistolebyazhye – 132 Choh – 95, 335 Chuera, Tell – 123, 155, 191 Cigankova Sopka – 203 Cimmerian, Cimmerians – 283, 294-296, 299-301, 405, 406, 417 Cnori – 58 Corbasca – 388 Corded Ware cultures – 29, 51, 62, 73, 74, 101, 106, 111, 112, 135, 152, 153, 155, 159, 213, 219, 223, 265, 267, 268, 271-273, 369, 371-373, 386, 400, 415 Cordoned Ware cultures – 213, 242, 281, 283, 285, 286, 304 Coslogeni – 275, 281 Coţofeni – 265, 346, 352, 395, 398, 400 Criş (Körös) – 326, 328, 335, 411, 421 Cucuteni – 326, 328, 337, 345-347, 353 Cudeyde – 208 Dakhovskaya – 107, 388 Damboli – 176 Danaeans – 397 Dandibay – 281, 294 Dardic – 171 Darion – 328 Darkvetskiy naves – 333 Dasa – 175 Dashli – 10, 62, 165, 168, 171, 172, 174, 185, 210, 344 Degirmentepe – 83, 84 Demircihüyük – 33, 35, 37, 64, 91, 95, 99, 124, 125, 242, 352, 354 Derbedeni hoard – 253 Dereivka – 152, 341, 342, 347 Deverel-Rimbury type – 267, 270 Dihili Tash – 346 Dimini – 40, 157, 328, 329, 354, 396 Dinkha – 177, 178 Divnogorsk – 388 Dnieper-Azov culture – 54, 109 Dnieper-Donets culture – 63, 153, 159, 338, 340 Dolinskoe – 358 Dolmen culture – 107, 374 Don Catacomb culture – 109, 130, 131, 385 Donets Catacomb culture – 109, 130, 242, 381, 382, 385 Dongal – 287, 295 Doric, Dorian, Dorians – 393, 397, 400-402, 416 Drama – 329, 347, 348 Dravidian, Dravidians – 161, 162, 167, 171, 180, 316, 317, 319, 411 Dudarkov – 388 Durankulak – 331 Eastern Caspian culture – 314 Ebla – 38, 64, 93, 95, 405, 419 Ekaterininka – 237 Elamite, Elamites – 167, 168, 183, 317, 319, 388, 403, 411, 419, 421, Elamo-Dravidian – 156, 313, 317, 319, 320, 375, 411 Elovskaya – 210, 226, 287, 291, 294, 303, 417 Elshanka – 316 Elunino – 193, 195, 198, 201, 203-206, 211, 212, 222, 224, 290, 416, 423 Emporio – 33, 64, 93, 96, 239, 354 Encrusted Pottery culture – 265 Erh-li-kang – 305, 306, 309 Erh-li-tou – 305, 306 Ertebölle culture – 158, 159 Esheri – 374 Etiyokuşu – 395 Etruscans – 280, 376, 402, 407, 416 Ezero – 42, 152, 346, 347, 352, 363, 372, 391, 396 Faskau – 296 Fatyanovo – 29, 30, 51, 62, 64, 67, 73, 92, 99, 101, 102, 106, 111, 112, 117, 135, 223, 256, 271, 371 Filatovka – 53, 108, 142 Finnish, Finns – 223, 233, 272, 273, 317 Finno-Permic – 231, 317 Finno-Ugrian – 10, 117, 118, 128, 146, 147, 154, 158, 161, 185, 223, 224, 227-233, 255, 271, 272, 301, 303, 304, 315-317, 319, 341, 342, 368, 411, 419, 420 Finno-Volga – 317 Flonheim – 217 487 Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) – 41, 51, 62, 152, 155, 159, 271, 272, 338, 349, 351-353, 369, 371, 374, 415 Füsesabony – 215, 222, 265, 400 Fyodorovka – 53, 58, 86, 88, 92, 99, 128, 138, 143, 147, 153, 161, 176, 213, 225, 226, 235, 237-239, 242-245, 247, 248, 250, 252, 254-256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 265, 267-270, 279, 280, 283-290, 294, 301, 306, 309, 416 Galyugay – 358 Gamayun culture – 254 Gamir (Gimir) – 295, 296, 303, 405, 409, 417 Gandhara – 169, 170 Garamant people – 417 Garino culture – 62, 80, 146, 212, 223, 254 Garni – 363 Gata – 388 Gawra Tepe – 35, 172, 174, 175, 191, 237, 358, 376 Gaza – 165, 176, 407 Gedikli – 57 Gelveri-Güzelyurt – 352 Gemeinlebarn – 219 Gemetyube II – 100 Geoy Tepe – 334, 335, 358, 363 Germanic, Germans – 151, 153, 154, 159, 237, 269273, 279-281, 285, 300, 301, 309, 376, 416, 417, 419 Ghaligay – 169 Ghassul – 384 Gimirri, Gimirraia – 295 Ginchi – 101, 239, 335-337, 340, 360 Giyan Tepe – 165, 178, 180, 182, 191, 208, 291, 388 Glazkovskaja culture – 60, 206, 207, 210, 211, 223, 224, 228, 232 Glina II – 388, 391, 395 Globular Amphorae culture – 99, 152, 155, 156, 159, 362, 369, 371, 374 Gluboke Mashuvke – 41 Golitsino – 344 Gonur – 171, 172, 174 Gorbunovskiy peat bog – 65 Gordeevka – 283 Gordion – 58 Gorniy – 137, 142 Gorodok-Zdolbitsa – 29, 73, 369 Gothic – 300 Gözlü Kule – 376 Gradeshnitsa-Kirča – 328, 411 Greek, Greeks – 151, 154, 157-159, 237, 283, 295, 303, 313, 336, 342, 349, 355, 386, 390-398, 400402, 411, 415-417, 419, 422 Grey Ware culture – 177, 178, 182, 183 Grozniy – 336 Gudabertka – 191 Gumelnitsa – 40, 157, 328, 335, 345-347, 351, 352, 391 Gumla – 169 Gumtransdorf-Drassburg – 389 Guran, Tepe – 317, 319 Gutian, Gutians (Kutians), Gutium – 230-232, 403, 410, 415 Gyalavand – 400 Habiru, Apiru – 407, 408 Habuba – 81, 362 Haçilar – 31, 33, 35, 57, 322, 326-328, 383 Hajdusamson – 215 Halaf – 31, 55, 57, 172, 322-326, 333-335, 337, 340, 344, 347, 360, 373, 376 Halava – 93, 165, 182 Hallstatt – 268, 269, 283, 295 Hama – 93, 99, 119, 135, 183, 209 Hamangia – 328, 329, 332 Hamito-Semitic – see Afro-Asiatic Hamman et-Turkman, Tell – 112 Hanigalbat – 405 Harappa – 162, 168, 169, 171, 176, 247, 319 Hasanlu – 176, 182, 237 Hassek Höyük – 81, 104, 243 Hassuna – 31, 63, 95, 174, 227, 323, 325, 328, 332335, 337, 338, 340, 341, 360, 362, 411, 419 Hatti, Hattic, Hattians – 225, 395, 421 Hatuša – 37, 172, 237, 402 Hatvan – 278, 282, 398 Havtavan – 100 Hazar Merd – 314 Hazna, Tell – 38, 99 Hayasa – 303 Heraion – 33, 354 Hissar – 71, 119, 120, 134, 168, 169, 171, 174-177, 180-183, 291, 317, 362, 416 Hittite, Hittites – 37, 64, 118, 120, 121, 136, 151, 153, 156, 169, 176, 191, 237, 243, 267, 298, 303, 349, 356, 357, 363, 376, 385, 396, 402, 406-408, 410, 415-417, 419, 420 Horoz Tepe – 57, 356 Hotvan – 265 Hsia – 305, 309 Hsiavangan – 307 Huns – 118 Hurrian, Hurrians – 180, 225, 226, 228, 294, 303, 374, 376, 385, 403, 405-407, 409, 410, 416, 417, 420, 421, Hyksos – 114, 151, 165, 209, 392, 407, 422 488 Iberian – 375 Ikiztepe – 81, 208, 352, 354 Ilipinar – 352, 353 Illyrian – 159, 276, 277 Inberen – 207 Indo-Aryan, Indo-Aryans – 10, 11, 118, 151, 154, 156, 160-162, 168-171, 175, 180, 181, 183, 224, 227-229, 237, 303, 304, 317, 384-386, 393, 404, 406, 407, 409, 410, 416, 419, 419, 420, Indo-European, Indo-Europeans – 10, 11, 39, 104, 115-117, 121, 147, 151, 152-160, 180, 186, 189, 223, 224, 227-234, 237, 271-273, 276, 278, 281, 287, 301, 303, 305, 308, 313, 314, 316, 317, 320326, 328, 332, 336-338, 340, 345, 349, 351, 356, 357, 362, 364, 367-369, 371, 373-377, 379, 380, 385, 396, 397, 403-405, 407, 408, 410, 411, 415, 417, 419-422, 424, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Iranians – 9-11, 13, 28, 104, 105, 116, 118, 120, 143, 146, 147, 151, 153-155, 157, 159-162, 168, 183, 185, 223, 224, 226, 230, 231, 233, 303, 304, 308, 313, 325, 341, 342, 362, 368, 371, 385, 405, 406, 408, 409, 415, 416, 419, 420, 423 Ingul hoard – 213, 254, 281 Ionic – 402 Iranian, Iranians – 10, 117, 118, 127, 128, 130, 138, 140, 142, 143, 146, 147, 151, 153, 154, 156, 158, 161, 175-178, 180, 183, 185, 223, 224, 228, 229, 268-270, 273, 283, 285-287, 295, 300, 301, 303, 304, 376, 381, 383, 385, 397, 398, 404, 406, 408, 409, 415-417, 419, 420 Irmen – 226, 252, 284-288, 290, 291, 294-296, 301, 303, 376, 409, 410, 417 Iska III – 27 Išuva – 303 Italic, Italics – 151, 153, 154, 159, 268, 269, 273, 278, 280, 300, 301, 309, 376, 416, 417, 419 Ivan Bugor type – 54, 109, 112 Ivanovka – 341, 342 Ivanovskoe – 11, 281, 285, 287 Iznik – 394 Jangar – 338 Jarkun – 171 Jarmo – 317, 319-321 Jeitun – 180, 317, 319 Jemdet Nasr – 81, 96, 210, 319, 348 Jemshidi – 182 Jericho – 35, 38, 57, 62, 383 Jhukar – 169, 174 Jorwe – 319 Kafirian – 171 Kalach – 140 Kalantir – 204 Kalibangan – 319 Kamenka – 30, 107, 121, 390 Kamenka-Liventsovka group of KMK – 30, 31, 39, 43, 54, 92, 103, 104, 386 Kamenniy Ambar – 43, 46, 48, 50, 69, 70, 118, 124, 133 Kamishenka – 291 Kamishli phase – 210 Kaneš – 135 Kaninskaya cave – 198, 203, 269 Kantharas – 400 Kapulovka – 213, 343 Karanovo – 152, 157, 326-329, 335, 345-348, 352, 353, 411 Karaoglan – 395 Karasuk – 191, 192, 225, 226, 238, 284, 286-291, 294-296, 298, 301-303, 306, 309, 376, 409, 410, 417, 423 Karatas-Semayük – 35, 36 Karbuna – 331, 344 Kardashinka – 254, 283 Kargali – 127, 142, 365 Karmanovo – 253 Karmirberd culture – 39, 96, 239, 379 Karmirvank culture – 239 Karnak – 120 Kartvelian, Kartvelians – 10, 154, 156, 228, 301, 313, 325, 336, 373, 375, 395, 398, 415, 420 Karum – 135, 356 Kaskes – 402 Kassite, Kassites – 136, 225, 403, 404, 406, 409, 410, 416 Kastri – 40, 375 Kayakent-Kharochoevo culture – 178, 285, 286 Kaygorodok – 294 Kelleli – 171, 174, 248 Kelteminar – 166-168, 210, 223, 314, 316, 340, 341 Kemi-Oba culture – 62, 155, 365, 367, 368, 371-373, 375, 383, 394, 415 Kenkazgan – 127 Kent – 286, 287 Kereš – 157 Ket, Yenisei languages – 225, 226, 228-230, 271, 273, 304 Kfar Monash – 81 Khabur ware – 177, 180, 405 Khafajeh – 119, 172, 337 Khan, Tell – 323 Khanlar – 57 489 Khapuz-Tepe – 167, 210 Kharkov-Voronezh culture – 386 Khaytunarkh – 335 Khirbet Kerak – 155, 354, 356, 359, 363, 404, 405, 408 Khirokitia – 322, 376 Khodzhali-Kedabek culture – 296 Khotnitsa – 332 Khovu-Axi – 291 Khvalinsk – 54, 62, 63, 101, 152, 156, 336, 341-344, 351, 365, 368, 372, 381, 415, 419 Kinzerskoe – 239 Kipel – 237, 247 Kirkuk – 298 Kirovo – 102 Kisapostag – 265 Kish – 57, 71, 165, 209, 298, 337 Kisikul – 27, 60, 80 Kistrik – 334 Kizilkaya – 327 Knossos – 41, 120 Koban – 296 Kobjakovo culture – 283 Kokca – 167 Koksharovo hill – 316 Koksharovo-Yuryino type – 227 Kolivanskoe – 187 Kolontaevka – 78, 111, 386, 388 Komarovo – 336 Kondrashkino – 108 Kondrashkinskiy – 84 Koptyaki – 212, 248 Korchazhka – 289, 291 Korkino – 247 Koruçu Tepe – 34, 237, 362, 404 Koshkino – 223, 227 Kostolac – 352 Kostromskaya – 65, 398 Koszider hoard – 265 Koysug – 342 Kozhumberdi – 143, 245, 247 Krasniy Yar – 67 Krasnomayatsk – 213, 254, 281 Krasnoznamenka – 302 Kremenchug – 30 Kremenik-Anzanbegovo – 328 Kremikovtsi – 328, 411 Krivoye Ozero – 43 Krotovo – 9, 60, 63, 132, 133, 138, 193, 195, 198, 199, 201-207, 210-212, 222, 242, 245, 247, 248, 250, 268, 272, 294, 416, 423 Kuban-Dnieper culture – 155 Kuban-Terek culture – 156 Kuchanians, Kuchanian kingdom – 232 Kulsay type – 288 Kültepe – 65, 71, 119, 135, 323, 335, 395 Kul-Tepe I – 62, 63, 100, 165, 187, 189, 334-337, 340-342, 358, 363, 411 Kul-Tepe II – 96 Kum-Tepe – 93, 239, 346, 352, 354, 375 Kunda culture – 271 Kura-Araxian culture – 34, 39, 50, 57, 62, 63, 82, 91, 99, 100, 102, 111, 155, 156, 165, 168, 191, 210, 225, 237, 267, 294, 336, 337, 353, 356, 360, 363, 364, 376, 379, 382, 383, 395, 398, 404, 415 Kurban Höyök – 104 Kuropatkino – 247 Kushi – 230 Kuşura – 35, 36, 81 Kuysak – 20, 27, 29, 33, 81 Kvatskhelebe – 337, 363 La Tene – 269 Lagash – 122 Langqaid hoard – 135, 217, 219, 390 Larissa – 396 Lausitz culture – 218, 262, 269, 274, 276, 295 Lbishe – 63 Lchashen – 58, 377, 383 Lebous – 375 Lebyazhinka – 258 Lemsa – 333 Lengyel – 41, 51, 155, 159, 329, 331, 349, 351, 352, 411, 415 Lerna – 40, 391, 396 Leuna-Göhlitysch – 373 Leushi type – 193, 195, 205, 207 Libyans – 416 Lindenstruth – 261 Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture – 157, 159, 328, 329, 335, 349, 411 Lipchinskaya culture – 132, 212, 227, 304, 317, 384, 420 Lipovaya Kurya – 252 Liventsovka – 30, 67, 102, 388 Loboykovka hoard – 245, 258, 283 Longshao – 305 Lopatinskiy cemetery – 62, 101 Lori Berd – 39, 377 Los Millares – 375 Lugavskaya culture – 287, 291, 296 Lukka – 357, 394 Lulubi, Lulubians, Lulubum – 403 490 Lutry – 372 Luwian, Luwians – 151, 349, 355-357, 394-396, 415, 419 Lužanky – 155 Lyavlyakan culture – 167, 210, 224, 228-230 Lycian, Lycians – 151, 407, 416 Lydian – 151 Madjarovce culture – 135, 215, 217, 261 Maghzalya, Tell – 31, 62, 153, 320-323, 325, 335, 344, 411, 419 Mahmutlar – 356 Maikop culture – 39, 53, 57, 82, 95, 104, 152, 153, 155, 156, 165, 180, 181, 323, 343, 347, 358-360, 362-364, 367, 374, 375, 404, 415, 419, 423 Maitanni – 385 Malie Kopyoni – 291 Malinovka – 65 Maliq – 346, 349 Malokizilskoye – 65, 96, 117, 233 Malokizilskoye II – 381 Malokrasnoyarka – 243, 283, 285 Malthi – 41, 396 Mana – 406 Manching – 269 Mardikh, Tell – 38, 93, 135, 40 Mari – 60, 165, 174, 175, 405 Maritsa – 352 Mariupol – 109, 157, 336, 338-343, 351, 368, 394, 415 Marlik – 177 Martkopi – 58, 376 Matveevka I – 102 Medes – 176, 177, 183, 406 Megiddo – 38, 165, 354, 405 Megrelian – 397 Melnichniy Log – 187 Meotian, Meotians – 385 Merghar – 319 Mersin – 31, 33, 91, 96, 322, 328 Mesar – 354 Meshoko – 39, 358 Mezhovskaya – 128, 213, 248, 250, 252-256, 258, 259, 265, 267, 268, 283-287, 416 Miasskoe – 237, 252 Michaliè – 354 Michelsberg – 351 Michurinskoe – 203 Middle Dnieper culture – 29, 51, 73, 109, 259, 371 Mikhailovka – 30, 31, 39, 43, 63, 70, 80, 81, 102-104, 152, 156, 342-346, 351, 355, 362, 365, 367, 372, 375, 415 Milluvanda – 394 Mingechaur – 91, 363 Minoan – 39, 41, 42, 122, 376 Min-Shunkur – 244, 247 Miskhako – 358 Mitanni, Mitannian, Mitannians – 10, 38, 105, 137, 151, 171, 175, 180, 181, 237, 298, 303, 385, 406, 407, 410, 417 Moesians – 276 Mohenjo Daro – 81, 162 Mondsee-group – 135, 262, 353 Mongols – 118 Monteoru – 247, 281, 282, 398 Mosolovskoye – 142 Mukhin II – 344 Multi-Cordoned Ware (Mnogovalikovaya) culture (KMK) – 9, 30, 53, 54, 62, 63, 65, 67, 69, 70, 74, 78, 86, 88, 92, 96, 99, 102, 103, 107, 108, 111, 114, 121, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 143, 213, 219, 221, 222, 259, 270, 278, 280, 281, 385, 386, 388-390, 393, 397, 398, 400, 402, 424 Mundian language – 171 Mundighak – 174, 180, 319 Munhaqua – 96 Mycenae, Mycenaean, Mycenaeans – 41, 52, 63, 107, 108, 121, 122, 134, 209, 213, 214, 217, 221, 274, 296, 376, 390-394, 396-398, 400-402, 416 Nagila, Tell – 93, 135, 404, 407 Nagirev – 265 Nahal Mishmar – 81, 208 Nakh-Dagestan – 225 Nalchik cemetery – 336, 341, 358, 372 Namazga – 119, 134, 165-169, 171, 174, 176, 177, 180, 183, 191, 238, 242, 248, 268, 319 Narva culture – 271, 272 Natufian culture – 55, 322, 340, 384 Nea Nikomedeia – 326 Nešite, Nešili – 357, 364 Nevali Chori – 57, 321-323, 344, 372 Nikiforovskoye Lestnichestvo – 86, 113, 238 Nikolskiy – 339 Nikolskoe – 208 Nineveh – 323 Nippur – 392 Nitra culture – 389 Nitriansky Hrádok – 215, 218 Nizhnespasskoe – 237 Nizhnyaya Shilovka – 227, 334 Norşuntepe – 82, 347 North Caucasian culture – 55, 69-71, 101, 156, 189, 375, 388 491 North Caucasian languages, North Caucasians – 151, 154, 157, 225-228, 324-326, 336, 357, 367, 368, 373-376, 393, 407, 415, 419 Nostratic – 154, 313, 314, 317, 321, 322, 325, 411, 423 Noua – 213, 247, 275, 281, 282 Nova Zagora – 152 Novaya III – 257 Novo-Baybatirevo – 112 Novo-Burino – 237 Novocherkassk – 299 Novodanilovka – 62, 156, 342-344, 346, 351, 355, 362, 365, 372, 375, 415 Novoilyinskaya – 62, 254 Novokamenskoye – 69 Novosvobodnaya culture – 155, 156, 186, 358, 362, 364, 365, 367, 368, 371, 372, 374, 375, 415, 419 Novotitarovo – 155, 187, 189, 230, 368, 394 Nowa Gerekwia – 218 Nur – 287, 295 Obitochnoe – 287, 295 Odaile-Podari – 215 Odino – 211 Oggau-Loretto – 389 Okunev culture – 63, 168, 187, 189, 191, 192, 199, 206, 207, 211, 224, 225, 230, 231, 287, 290, 294, 305, 416, 424 Olgino – 64, 134 Omsk hoard – 193 Ordinskoe – 290 Osetian – 300 Otomani – 215, 217, 222, 265, 282, 398, 400 Otzaki-Mogula – 35 Ovčarovo – 328 Ozernoe – 191 Painted Grey Ware culture – 169, 170 Palaeobalkan – 151, 313, 349, 355, 371, 393, 395, 396, 415, 419 Palaic, Palaics – 151, 349, 357, 364, 396, 415 Pamirian – 183, 185, 229, 304 Panorm – 40 Paridimi – 353 Parkhai II – 166, 172, 178, 180, 181, 183, 344, 362, 411 Pa-Sangar – 314 Pashkin Bor – 193, 207 Pavlovka – 237, 239, 242, 245, 247, 248 Pavlovsk – 92, 130, 131, 385 Pelasgic, Pelasgians – 349, 355, 393, 396, 416, 417 Peleset (Philistines) – 407, 417 Pepkino – 101, 107, 195, 234, 269 Pereyminski 3 – 235, 274 Perjámos – 388 Permic – 231 Persians – 176, 177, 183 Petro-Svistunovo – 342 Petrovka – 9, 20-22, 27, 35, 46, 48-50, 55, 57, 58, 60, 63, 69-71, 78, 79, 83, 84, 88, 90-92, 101, 115, 117, 125, 127, 129-138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 176, 201, 204, 245, 247, 259, 268, 285, 393, 398 Pevets culture – 346 Philia – 356 Phrygian – 151, 301, 349, 355, 395, 419 Pichaevo – 53 Piliny – 265 Pirak - 176 Pit-Grave culture (Yamnaya) – 9, 30, 39, 52, 53, 55, 58, 67, 69, 77, 80, 92, 101, 102, 104, 109, 111, 112, 114-117, 130, 132, 151-154, 156, 157, 159, 168, 186, 187, 189, 192, 230, 231, 242, 304, 341, 352, 365, 367, 368, 371-373, 380, 381, 385, 415 Planerskoye – 30 Pochapi – 73, 369 Pokrovsk – 20, 46, 49, 54, 59, 60, 67, 107, 108, 115, 129, 131-133, 135, 137, 138, 140-142, 209, 247, 254, 258, 259 Polada culture – 135, 278, 280 Polatli – 395 Polimyat stage – 193 Poliohni – 356 Poltavka culture – 9, 43, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 67, 69, 77, 80, 86, 88, 90-92, 104, 111, 112, 114-116, 125, 130, 132, 133, 136, 138, 140, 141, 146, 147, 203, 245, 304, 368, 380, 381 Polyanica – 41, 328, 329 Potapovka – 9, 12, 52, 53, 55, 58, 60, 62, 69-71, 73, 77, 88, 90, 92, 101, 106, 107, 116, 125, 132, 137, 140, 141, 390, 393 Potchevash culture – 28 Pozdnyakovo culture – 256 Predkavkazskaya culture – 55 Prikazanskaya culture – 65, 248, 253-256, 267, 283 Priplodniy Log – 281 Privolnaya – 70 Proto-Colchian culture – 96, 99, 114, 278-280, 379, 415 Proto-Tigridian – 325 Pšeničevo-Babadag – 281 Pulur – 33, 62, 165, 291 Purushkhanda – 406 Quenstedt – 349 Rakhmani – 396 492 Rakushechniy Yar – 338, 340, 411 Ramadello – 372, 373 Ras-Shamra – 134, 172, 209 Razdorskoye settlement – 86 Rederzhausen – 217 Repino – 54, 106, 108, 111, 341, 342, 365, 368 Reshnoe – 201-203 Rhône culture – 213, 268 Ribakovka – 386 Rišešti – 281 Rivnač – 265 Rogem Hiri – 37, 38 Rome, Romans – 123, 237, 269 Rostovka – 60, 67, 77, 78, 107, 127, 131, 132, 135, 165, 193, 198, 201, 203-205, 210, 211, 224, 231, 244, 252 Rudna Glava – 331 Ruguja – 342 Russkoye Tangirovo – 70, 74 Rutkha – 296 Sabatinovka – 10, 213, 247, 281-283, 416 Sachkhere – 155, 209 Saka – 273, 295, 299, 417 Sakrim-Sakla – 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 37, 124 Salcuţa – 329, 346, 352 Samara – 152, 339, 341 Samarra – 57, 325, 328 Samodian, Samodians – 223, 233 Samsat – 362 Samtauro – 101 Samus – 60, 205, 225, 257, 289 Samus-Kizhirovo – 205, 225, 252, 257 San Sebastian de Carabandal – 373 Sapalli – 10, 165, 168, 171, 172, 174, 185, 229, 344 Sarazm – 176 Sards – 407, 416, 417 Sargari – 11, 143, 161, 229, 281, 285-288, 290, 304 Sarichoban – 296 Sarmatian – 9, 100, 303 Sarnovo – 337, 351 Šasu – 407, 408 Satiga – 193, 203 Saygatino – 193 Saygatinskiy – 16 Schnekenberg – 388, 391, 395 Scythian, Scythians – 9, 10, 13, 14, 118, 147, 177, 226, 269, 270, 273, 287, 294-296, 298-304, 303, 309, 376, 385, 392, 405, 406, 417 Seima – 67, 106, 107, 116, 127, 132, 134, 135, 193, 195, 201, 203-207, 212, 213, 219, 221, 222, 224, 244, 256, 261, 262, 267, 269, 274, 276, 280, 306, 307, 309, 400 Seima-Turbino – 59, 60, 62, 63, 70, 77, 78, 84, 106, 112, 117, 127, 131-136, 138, 141, 165, 186, 192, 193, 195, 198, 201, 203-205, 207-213, 215, 217219, 221-226, 228, 230-232, 243, 247, 252, 254259, 261, 262, 267-270, 272, 275, 278, 281, 286, 287, 289-291, 301, 305, 306, 308, 309, 416, 421, 423 Selenkahiyeh, Tell – 166, 174, 183, 383 Selezni-2 – 107 Selkup people – 226 Semiozerki II – 132 Semirechye – 143, 286 Semitic, Semites – 10, 95, 104, 151, 154-156, 158, 228, 325, 357, 403-409, 415, 419, 421 Serata-Monteoru - 259 Sereginskoe – 358 Seroglazovo culture – 227 Sesklo – 35, 40, 157, 326, 329, 354 Sevan-Uzerlik group – 58, 96, 99, 100, 105, 111, 114, 301, 303, 304, 377, 379, 409, 415, 416, 420 Shagarskaya culture – 101, 112 Shah Tepe – 10, 168, 177, 180, 189, 334 Shahr-i Sokhta – 180, 319 Shang – 305-309 Shanidar cave – 314, 322 Shapkino – 351 Shapkul – 212, 227 Shardana – 401 Shehem – 38 Shekelesh – 401, 416, 417 Shengavit – 363 Shikaevka – 314 Shilovskoye – 29, 33, 111, 116, 124 Shimshara, Tell – 317, 320 Shirak – 363 Shiryaevo – 53 Shomutepe – 335 Shortugai – 168, 247, 319 Shulaveri-Shomutepe – 63, 95, 156, 227, 324, 332334, 336, 373, 411, 421 Sialk – 180, 183, 317, 319, 362, 388 Sibri – 176 Šimaški – 403 Sind, Sindian – 385 Single Burials culture – 371, 373 Sino-Tibetan – 225 Sintashta – 9, 12, 20-23, 27-33, 36-39, 41-44, 47-55, 57-60, 63-65, 67, 69-71, 73-86, 88, 91-93, 95, 96, 99-109, 111-138, 140-143, 145-147, 151, 165, 172, 175, 176, 180, 183, 186, 195, 198, 202, 204, 205, 493 207, 210, 212, 214, 222, 223, 228, 232, 233, 235, 237-239, 242, 247, 248, 254-256, 259, 262, 267, 283, 294, 301, 303, 304, 307, 308, 323, 353, 358, 359, 375, 376, 379, 380, 386, 388, 390, 391, 393, 398, 407, 416, 421, 423 Sion – 372 Sioni – 362 Sitagroi – 152, 328, 345, 346, 352 Skakun – 78, 388 Slatino – 332 Slavic, Slavs – 151, 153, 154, 159, 237, 269-273, 276, 279-282, 285, 300, 301, 309, 376, 416, 417, 419 Slonovaya Bliznitsa – 298 Smelovskiy – 140, 247 Sobachki – 339 Sokolovka – 203 Sokolskoye – 106, 108, 109 Sol-Iletsk type – 245 Solnce – 43, 48 Sopka 2 – 60, 198, 199, 203, 204, 210, 211, 231 Sorab, Tepe – 317 Sosnicja – 259, 262, 268, 269, 304, 416 Sosnovaya Maza – 252, 253, 285, 286 Sosnoviy Ostrov – 237 Sotto, Tell – 323, 324, 328, 333, 411 Sredniy Stog II – 54, 62, 63, 101, 152, 156, 336, 339, 341-345, 351, 365, 415 Staraya Yablonka – 132 Starčevo – 157, 326, 328, 335, 411, 421 Staroyuryevo – 107, 108 Stepanakert – 344 Stepanovo – 205 Stepnoe – 21 Stonehenge – 219 Storozhevka – 209 Straubing – 135, 217, 267, 278, 280, 388, 390 Stžižuv – 391 Su – 403 Subartu – 403 Subir – 230, 403 Sumbar – 95, 166, 172, 177, 178, 180, 182, 185, 224, 242-245, 268, 416 Sumer, Sumerian, Sumerians – 57, 151, 167, 168, 191, 226, 298, 309, 319, 325, 362, 403-405, 415, 420, 421 Suplevac – 346 Surtandi – 9, 27, 60, 80, 341 Susa – 81, 182, 191, 232, 291, 319, 337, 388 Susiu de Sus – 275 Suskan – 256, 258 Suskan-Lebyazhinka type – 248, 253, 255, 256, 258, 259, 267, 268, 273, 284, 416 Suvorovo – 152, 342 Suvorovskaya – 189 Suyargan culture – 167, 210, 224, 229 Svata culture – 169, 170 Svodin – 41 Syežeye – 152, 339 Szigetszentmarton – 338 Szoreg – 398 Tachin Tsarng – 365 Tagarskaya culture – 299, 306 Tagisken – 169, 238 Takhirbay – 176 Taktalachuk – 257 Talish – 165, 291 Tall-i Bakun – 319 Tamar-Utkul – 381 Tambovka – 140 Tas-Hazaa – 187 Tash-Kazgan – 76, 79, 208 Tashkovo – 27, 28, 43, 60, 78, 80, 103, 131-133, 136, 193, 195, 198, 201-207, 210, 212, 222, 228, 233, 252, 270, 416, 423 Tavşali – 394 Taya, Tell – 172 Tazabagyab – 101, 166, 229 Tei – 398 Tekhut – 334, 342, 358, 360 Tell as-Sawwan – 325 Tell ed-Dab’a – 57, 71 Tell ed-Duweir – 38 Tell el-Ajjul – 38, 57, 69, 208 Tellul eth-Thalathat – 227 Tenteksor – 63, 338, 340 Tepe Farukhabad – 96, 182 Tepechik – 81, 82, 347 Terremare culture – 278-280 Tersek – 103 Tešetiče-Kžieviče – 41 Thermi – 39, 208, 354 Thracian, Thracians – 151, 153, 158, 159, 269, 276, 282, 283, 295, 296, 299, 301, 349, 355, 356, 368, 385, 393, 394, 400, 401, 415, 417, 419 Tibeto-Burman family – 171 Tigrovaya Balka – 168, 169, 172, 229 Til Barsip – 57, 114 Tilki-Tepe – 63, 96, 334, 335, 340, 344, 347, 358 Tilla – 172 Timber-Grave (Srubnaya) – 9-11, 13, 20, 21, 29, 52, 53, 58, 65, 86, 88, 92, 99, 101, 106-108, 115, 125127, 130-138, 140-143, 146, 161, 166, 203, 229, 494 234, 245, 247, 254-259, 267, 268, 273, 283-285, 299-301, 304, 381, 384, 390, 391, 416 Tiryns – 41, 401 Tiszapolgar – 265, 346, 347, 351 Tocharian, Tocharians – 151, 153, 154, 159, 230-232, 271, 273, 301, 305, 309, 313, 337, 403, 410, 415417, 419 Togolok – 171, 172, 409 Toyre-Tepe – 95 Trakhtemirov – 107, 108 Trialeti – 57, 58, 62, 81, 96, 99, 104, 114, 124, 134, 185, 209, 237, 239, 290, 296, 301, 302, 376, 377, 379, 383, 391, 392, 396, 398, 409, 415 Tripolie – 156, 326, 331, 332, 343-348, 351, 367, 369, 371 Tripolie-Cucuteni culture – 41, 42, 329, 331, 345, 411 Troy – 35-37, 42, 55, 80, 81, 93, 95, 159, 166, 174, 185, 207, 208, 239, 291, 354-357, 363, 372, 375, 391, 392, 394-396, 402 Truevskaya Maza – 365 Trushnikovo – 281, 285 Trzciniec-Komarov culture – 218, 259, 261, 262, 265, 268-271, 274, 282, 416 Tsarev Kurgan – 67 Tukri – 230, 232, 403 Tulkhar – 162, 164, 165, 168, 169, 172, 174, 185, 186, 210, 211, 229 Tüllintepe – 31, 82, 95, 174, 353 Tumulus culture – 213, 215, 259, 262, 265, 268, 269, 274, 416 Turbino – 65, 106, 107, 127, 132, 193, 202, 204, 210, 272 Tureng Tepe – 10, 177, 180, 319, 404 Turgai – 176 Turks – 118, 231 Türme – 375 Tyubyak – 29, 70, 116 Ubaid – 182, 325, 335, 404 Uchen culture – 305-307 Uchtepe – 58 Ugarit – 384, 402, 405, 407 Ugric, Ugrian – 28, 117, 147, 223, 226, 231, 233, 248, 273, 284, 303, 304 Ugro-Samodian – 254 Uioara de Sus – 275 Umm Dabaghiyah – 31, 323 Umm Hamad Esh Sherki, Tell – 93 Umman-Nar – 165 Unětician, Unětice culture – 136, 214, 215, 217-219, 221, 222, 373, 278, 389, Universitetskaya – 339 Unterwölbing – 135, 219, 388-390 Ur – 55, 57, 120, 123, 124, 135, 165, 166, 182, 208, 243, 298, 325 Ural-Altaic – 223, 313, 314, 317, 320, 411 Uralic – 154, 223, 231, 314-316, 319 Urartu, Urartian – 225, 296, 376, 407, 420 Urefti – 248 Urnfield culture – 159, 267, 274, 275, 277, 278, 280, 295, 393, 401, 402, 416 Uruk – 60, 81, 96, 122, 172, 337, 362 Usatovo culture – 104, 152, 155, 345, 346, 348, 367, 368, 372, 375 Usmanovskoye – 146 Ust-Byur’ – 191 Ust-Gayva – 67, 203, 213 Ust-Jegut – 358 Ust-Labinskaya – 342 Ustye – 22, 140 Utyovka VI – 52, 90, 107, 108, 381 Uvak – 247 Uybat – 187, 189 Uzerliktepe – 39, 82, 99, 104, 238, 301, 377 Vadastra – 337 Vakhsh culture – 168, 171, 178, 180, 229, 344, 416 Vakhshuvar – 165 Valentin Peresheek – 228 Varna – 329, 332, 344-346 Varpul stage – 193 Vattina – 398 Vatya – 265 Vedic – 161, 170, 171, 175 Veneti, Venetic – 151, 159, 278-280, 400, 415 Verbicioara – 398 Veremie – 347 Verkhne-Yanchenko – 69, 386 Verkhniy Askiz – 191 Veselinovo – 152, 352 Veseliy – 358 Veterov culture – 135, 217, 219, 261, 278 Vetlyanka – 52, 53, 106, 146, 247 Vikhvatintsi – 344 Vila Nova de S.Pedro – 375 Villanova – 280 Vinča – 41, 155, 157, 328, 329, 331, 332, 353, 376, 411 Vishnyovka – 80, 91, 205, 212 Vlasovo – 52-54, 62, 86, 108, 142 Volosovo – 62, 80, 112, 146, 147, 206, 212, 223, 254, 256 Volosovo-Danilovo – 102 Volvoncha – 193, 207, 237 495 Voronezh culture – 109 Vorovskaya Yama – 127, 128 Vounous – 96, 356 Vovnigskiy – 339 Vučedol – 346, 352 Vvedenka – 108 Wessex culture – 135, 221, 262, 268 Wietenberg – 265, 282, 398, 400, 401 X YuAO – 27 Yagodina culture – 346 Yahya, Tepe – 180, 208, 319 Yamno-Berezhnovka – 342, 365, 368, 381, 415, 419 Yangshao – 305 Yanik Tepe – 334, 352 Yarikkaya – 352, 354 Yarimburgaz – 353 Yarim-Tepe – 62, 81, 95, 172, 237, 323, 324, 332, 335, 340, 344, 383 Yasenovaya Polyana – 39, 358 Yaz I – 161, 281 Yazyovo – 255 Yin – 305-307, 309 Yincirli – 395 Yortan culture – 69 Yueh-chih – 232 Yunacite – 42 Yurtik – 62, 254 Yverdon – 372 Zagarinka – 287 Zaman-Baba – 167-169, 172, 189, 224, 344 Zambuijal – 375 Zardcha-Khalif – 176 Zarembovo – 155, 369 Zarzi – 314 Zavadovka – 258, 283 Zavyalovo – 296 Zawi Chemi Shanidar – 175, 322 Zaymishe – 254 Želiz-Železovce – 155 Zincirli – 172 Zitelisopeli – 335 Zok – 265, 398 Zopi – 324, 335-337 Zürich-Mozartstrasse – 214 496