The emergence of the Scythians: Bronze Age to Iron Age in South Siberia

The Minusinsk Basin is located where China, Mongolia, Siberia and Kazakhstan meet. Enclosed, but broad, and rich in copper and other minerals, the valley offers missing links between the prehistory of China and that of the greater Russian steppes. In the late Bronze Age the material from Minusinsk was important for the origins of bronze metallurgy in China, and in the Iron Age the area was a focus for the development of that equestrian mobility which was to become the elite way of life for much of the Eurasian steppe for more than a millennium.

We are privileged to publish the following two papers deriving from research at the Institute for the History ofMaterial Culture at Saint Petersburg, which give us the story so far on the archaeology of this remarkable place. In The emergence of the Karasuk culture Sophie Legrand discusses the people who occupied the Minusinsk Basin in the Bronze Age, and in The emergence of the Tagar culture, Nikolai Bokovenko introduces us to their successors, the horsemen and barrow-builders of the first millennium BCE.

The emergence of the Karasuk culture

Sophie Legrand*

Keywords: Bronze Age, Siberia, Minusinsk Basin, Andronovo culture, Karasuk culture, burial mounds, horses, pastoralism

Introduction

The Minusinsk Basin includes the middle valley of the Yenisei River and the upper valley of the river Chulym (Figures 1 & 2). It is surrounded on three sides by wide belts of high mountains — the Kuznetsky Alatau and the Abakan range to the west, the western Sayan to the south and the eastern Sayan to the east. The mountains are covered with dense forest, but the basin itself is steppe land. In the north-west corner of the basin is the ‘Tom-Chulym corridor’, a belt of wooded steppe that in ancient times linked the territory of groups of the Minusinsk area and those of the Altay and Kazakhstan. The Minusinsk groups could communicate with the rest of the world only by traversing those few difficult mountain passes. They were thus relatively isolated even from their nearest neighbours (Gryaznov 1969: 11).

The Bronze Age of the area divides into two main cultural phases: the Andronovo culture that characterised the valley from the seventeenth century BCE, and the Karasuk culture that succeeded it in the fourteenth century BCE. Geochemical analyses on deposits from

* University of Paris I (Email: siberiarcheo@hotmail.com)

Received: 14 June 2005; Accepted: 27 February 2006; Revised; 18 May 2006 antiquity 80 (2006): 843-879

Figure 1. Location map, showing the location in Asia.

Kutudjekovo Lake in the Minusinsk Basin revealed climatic changes between the Andronovo and the Karasuk periods (Kulkova 2003: 255-74; cf Bokovenko: Figure 2, below). In the Andronovo period, the climate was semi-arid and slightly cool. From the beginning of the Karasuk period and later, the climate became more humid and cooler. Under arid climatic conditions the vegetation reacts quite sensitively to humidity, so the vegetation density increases as the humidity increases. This was the case in the Minusinsk Basin.

There is some settlement evidence for the Andronovo and the Karasuk periods, but the main focus of study has been on burial forms and practices. Russian scholars who excavated Andronovo and Karasuk sites have observed similarities as well as differences between the two (Teploukhov 1929: 43-4; Kiselev 1951: 135; Komarova 1952: 27; Khlobystina 1970: 125; Novgorodova 1970: 174; Vadetskaja 1986: 61; Grjaznov 1981: 31). But even though they continued the material cultural traditions of Andronovo, economic and social changes mark the emergence of the Karasuk, which appear to move from a sedentary to a more mobile mode of life. The aim of this paper is to assess the degree of these changes and seek their cause.

Settlements

Six settlement sites of the Andronovo period have been identified and investigated in the Minusinsk Basin. Only at one site, Klyuchi in the Yenisei valley (Maksimenkov 1978: 469), were the remains of walls belonging to structures of some size identified, and they were probably pens for livestock rather than dwellings. The associated finds — pottery and animal bones — were insufficient to establish the nature of the buildings (Grjaznov 1969: 90).

Figure 2. The Minusinsk valley, showing the location of excavated sites of the Bronze Age (Andronovo and Karasuk cultures).

Among domesticated animals, those of cattle were the most numerous, followed by sheep and horses in small quantities.

For the Karasuk period there is evidence from seven villages including Tunchuch (Sebas’tjanova 1977), Kopenskoe and Torgazhak (Savinov 1996). The settlements had large, rectangular, wattle-and-daub semi-subterranean dwellings, ranging from 3-260m² in plan. The preservation of wooden beams and pillars at Torgazhak indicated buildings with roofs up to 3m high and the sophisticated architecture suggested permanent settlement, as opposed to nomadic or seasonal occupation. A large number of bones of domesticated animals have been collected on these sites, with average proportions of 50 per cent sheep, 23 per cent cattle, 16 per cent horses, and 11 per cent goats. In addition to pottery vessels, many bronze, bone, stone and pottery artefacts have been found: bronze jewellery (bracelets, finger-rings), bronze knife blades, awls, nails, bone stamps, arrow heads and cheek-pieces, stone mortars, pestles, and clay crucibles.

Cemeteries

For the cemeteries we are better equipped to compare and contrast the two periods and I will here make use of the research carried out by G.A. Maksimenkov (1978: 52-86) on 228 tombs at 21 cemeteries and by myself on 2462 tombs from 121 cemeteries. Isolated from cemeteries of more ancient groups, Andronovo burials are located near lakes and rivers, mostly on the riverbanks of the Yenisei, in the south-west and centre of the Middle-Yenisei region (Figure 1). Usually, cemeteries include between 10 and 60 tombs. Thirty-seven cemeteries have been excavated so far, and up to now, no Andronovo sites have been found south of Abakan city.

By contrast, the distribution of the Karasuk burials was much more widespread — across the entire Middle-Yenisei region. One hundred and twenty one cemeteries have been excavated so far. Unlike the Andronovo funerary sites, most of the Karasuk cemeteries are vast clusters from several hundred to over a thousand tombs situated on the edges of rivers and lakes. There are also quite small cemeteries of no more than 5 to 15 tombs, but these are usually located at the foot of the mountains. The Karasuk cemeteries are separated from those of previous cultures, apart from those of Andronovo culture. Except for three isolated Andronovo sites in the extreme north-west of the region, the Karasuk people continued to use Andronovo locations to bury their dead.

Funerary structures

In the Andronovo period, the burial structure consisted of an enclosure, circular or square, marked by a kerb made from stones placed edge-on (up to 70cm in height) or as walls made of bedded flat slabs (Figure 3). In some cases, the enclosure was covered by a low mound, rarely higher than 1.5m. Four variations of enclosure can be distinguished: circular ones with upright slabs or bedded slabs; or rectangular ones with upright slabs or bedded slabs. In this period, the most widespread enclosure type has a circular wall built with upright stone slabs.

In the Karasuk period, a stone-walled enclosure was invariably used. The four types of enclosures known in the Andronovo are still found but in different proportions, with rectangular upright-slab enclosures now dominating (Figure 4). Oval-shaped enclosures are also introduced. The enclosures were covered in two ways: either the whole enclosure was covered with a low mound or the space inside the surrounding wall was filled with earth and then covered with a layer of stone slabs. Unlike in the Andronovo period, there is a correlation between the type of walling and the ground plan of the enclosure (Figure 5). Upright stones are employed almost exclusively in rectilinear enclosures, either square or rectangular (97.5 per cent), while the majority of slab-built enclosures are circular (59.9 per cent).

The use of particular structures in the Karasuk period would seem to be geographically as well as chronologically sensitive. Rectangular enclosures now dominate in almost all areas of the Minusinsk Basin, except in the western and south-eastern areas where the square shape is more prevalent. The frequency of square enclosures is less widespread in the northern area, but increases in use to the south. This explains the fact that square enclosure types dominate in the cemeteries of the post-Karasuk period in the south of the region. Circular enclosures, characteristic of Andronovo culture, are more customary in cemeteries of the north-western and western areas. Along the Yenisei to the south and south-east, the frequency of circular

Figure 4. Relative numbers of burial types belonging to the Andronovo and Karasuk cultures. CV — Circular with upright slabs; CH — circular with horizontal bedded slabs; SV— square with upright slabs; SH — square with bedded slabs.

enclosures decreases. From that we can assume that the Andronovo tradition remained stronger in peripheral areas that were isolated from ‘population centres’ concentrated on the banks of the Yenisei in the mid-section of the Minusinsk Basin. In Andronovo type cemeteries, the great majority of the enclosures stand alone, and it is rare to find them adjacent to one another. The average size of the tombs is between 5 and 10m in diameter. In the very few that average between 22 and 30m in diameter, only adults were buried (but unfortunately, the sex is not often known). Each enclosure usually contains a single tomb, and when they contain two or three tombs, only infants are buried there. It is interesting to note that infants are buried either inside an enclosure but in a cemetery separate from adult ones, or were buried between enclosures for adults.

In contrast, the Karasuk cemeteries are mostly organised in clusters of 2 to 20 enclosures adjacent to one another. Isolated burials occur but are less common. Adults are placed centrally, while sub-adults were interred on their immediate periphery and infants even further beyond the periphery. However, although the rectangular, square and oval burial structures are most often clustered, the circular ones are mostly isolated, continuing the

Andronovo burial practice (Figure 6). The smaller circular mounds, with a ground plan from 1 to 7m² mostly contain infants or sub-adults. The ones ranging from 7 to 30m² are less numerous, but still very common, and contain mostly males and females. The largest burial structures, from 40 to 100m², are rare. They usually contain a single tomb, always that of a male. We can suppose that the largest funerary structures, given the labour and energy expenditure necessary to build them, are those of high status persons. As in the Andronovo period, most of the funerary structures contain a single burial. However, funerary structures

with two tombs or three tombs are found more often than before. In those tombs not only infants but also adults are buried.

Tombs

In the Andronovo cemeteries, the graves are rectangular, always built in the centre of the enclosures, and sometimes lined with stout logs. Among those using stone, the most

widespread type is a cist tomb, with a pit

faced with slab stones; less frequent are tombs lined with horizontally bedded stone slabs, but there are also hybrids, using both vertical and horizontal slabs (Figure 7: 1), and the rarest types are unlined. The great majority of the tombs are built at a depth of 1.5m, but some tombs are erected above ground level and are built up with bedded slabs.

In the Karasuk period, pits lined with stout logs no longer exist and cists using bedded stone have almost disappeared. Cists built as a pit faced with stone slabs (and covered with one or more stone slabs) remain the most widespread type in all areas of the Minusinsk Basin (Figure 7: 2). The relative frequency of the four stone types is shown in Figure 8. The Karasuk tombs are not as deep as Andronovo ones, at about 80cm deep. Only 5 per cent of the Karasuk tombs are built above ground level and those are mostly infant burials. They are covered with slab stones piled up in the shape of a circular mound.

It is undeniable that the different types of Karasuk tombs are geographically variable. Slab stone cists (FD) are the most represented type in all areas of the Minusinsk Basin. Cists with two sides of stone bedding (FH), more common in the cemeteries of Andronovo culture, are more numerous in Karasuk cemeteries located in the north, north-west, and west of the Basin, where the Andronovo tradition was stronger. Unlined pits, characteristic of the post-Karasuk period, are mostly found in cemeteries located in peripheral zones, outside the ‘population centres’ of the Yenisei riverbanks. Cists with two sides of stone bedding are more numerous in Karasuk cemeteries located in the north, north-west, and west of the Basin where the Andronovo tradition was stronger. Simple pits, also characteristic of the post-Karasuk period, are mostly found in cemeteries located in peripheral zones, outside the ‘population centres’ of the Yenisei riverbanks.

Burial practices

In the Andronovo period, inhumation is the most widespread treatment of dead. It is rare to find cremated remains in cemeteries (9 per cent) and this kind of treatment seems to have been only applicable to adults. The great majority of burials are individual. In the rare multiple burials, tombs contain both male and female skeletons. Eighty-six per cent of the

dead were laid on their left side and in foetal position. Only 14 per cent of the dead in the foetal position were placed on their right, and placement on the right side was mostly applied to infant burial. Heads were oriented to the south-west, or less often to the west or west-south-west. This variation can be related to the position of the rising sun throughout the year. In the Karasuk period cemeteries contain only inhumations. As before, most of the burials (80 per cent on average) are individual. Only 20 per cent are multiple and most of those were associated with interment of infants. As in the Andronovo period, a large majority (84 per cent) of the dead were placed on their left sides, fewer on the right side (including infants) with legs slightly drawn up. A new burial posture was introduced, in which the dead were deposited in a stretched position, lying on their backs (9 per cent). This mode is continued into the post-Karasuk period.

The position of the head was reversed in the Karasuk so as to orient it to the north-east, east or east-north, the feet following the position of the setting sun throughout the year. Occasionally the head is oriented to the south-west, west or west-south-west, following Andronovo custom. In the post-Karasuk period, burial returned to the south-western or western orientations.

Furnishing

In the Andronovo period the deceased was buried very simply, and there were generally no artefacts except pottery vessels. Only occasionally some small bronze artefacts — beads,

ear-rings (double ring of bronze wire), plaques, buttons, needles, knives — were found beside the skeleton (Figure 9). One potteryvessel was always placed in the tomb (more rarely two to three in the same tomb), facing the head of the deceased, or more rarely behind it. In some cases, birch-bark and wooden vessels have been preserved and found near the pottery vessel (Gryaznov 1969: 92). In a few cases, ribs and scapula of sheep or cattle were found near the pottery vessels.

During the Karasuk period, animal bones were always placed in tombs, close to pottery vessels, or at the feet of the dead. Most of the time, only one animal offering was placed in the tomb, and less often, two, three, and more rarely four to seven. Four kinds of bone were preferred: ribs, scapula, tibia and humerus. The quantity of animal offerings deposited in the tomb depended on the age and gender of the deceased. In the tombs of infants or sub-adult individual burials, one animal offering was usual. In adult burials two animal offerings were more common, and three or more animal offerings were deposited in particular male burials. In multiple burials, the quantity of animal offerings deposited was equal to the number buried. Sheep bones are found in the great majority of Karasuk tombs, cattle bones less often, and horse bones even more rarely. Sheep offerings were found without distinction in infant, sub-adult, male and female burials. Cattle offerings were found in the majority of male tombs, many fewer in female tombs and rarely in sub-adult tombs. Unfortunately, horse bones have been found in too small a quantity to make any generalisations.

One pottery vessel is generally placed near the head (more rarely two to five pottery vessels in a same tomb) in Karasuk tombs. Female burials usually contained jewellery (Figure 10) and hair ornaments (Figure 11), and awls and knives (Figure 12: 1-4). Bone combs and bronze pendants were usually found under or near the skull. Single or several earrings (double rings of bronze wire) are found at each side of the skull. On the chest were usually found ornaments such as cylindrical bronze beads, white beads in argillite or ornamental bronze plaques. Sometimes, there were bronze bracelets on the wrists, bronze finger-rings

and bronze wire round the neck. Rarely, a knife with ring or lobed pommel is placed near the faunal remains. Male burials contain earrings and less often finger-rings; clothing ornaments including buttons and plaques; and ‘simple’ bronze knives placed near the faunal remains as in female burials, and more rarely (as the burials are mostly robbed), richly decorated knifes with zoocephalic or ring pommels placed at the waist (Figure 12: 5-9). Child burials contained fewer artefacts than adult tombs: some bronze jewellery, clothing ornaments and simple knives near the faunal remains.

During the Karasuk period, copper and bronze metallurgy developed to an unprecedented degree. Numerous copper alloy objects have been found in cemeteries and settlements, and mines and workshops have been investigated. Pottery moulds replaced the two-part stone moulds used by Andronovo artisans, and multiple copies of the same object were produced. At this time, the Minusinsk Basin became a production centre for prestige objects that were distributed widely inside and outside the region (Legrand 2004: 143-4).

Changes in pottery

Andronovo vessels were divided by G.A. Maksimenkov (1978: 63) into two forms: domestic and ceremonial, both coil-built (Figure 13A). The domestic type (Figure 13A: 4-6) consists of vessels of very simple form with the upper part, or the whole surface, covered with zigzags, chevrons or hatched triangles. The ceremonial pottery (Figure 13A: 1-3) consists of vases with carinated profiles, large shoulders and flat bases. The surface is covered with an intricate pattern ofgeomet-ric ornament. Although G.A. Maksimenkov claims that only ceremonial pottery can be found in tombs, this is not entirely so since the so-called domestic pottery can also be found in tombs and ceremonial pottery is also found in settlements.

In the Karasuk period, pottery technology improved, but only one type of vessel is identified. It is still coil-made, but has an abundant sandy temper and is made thin-walled by hammering (Novgorodova 1970: 33). The surface is black to grey, and rarely red. It is burnished or smoothed and can be decorated with incised or stamped patterns. Vessels are globular or lens-shaped and of various sizes, seldom carinated, and in most cases have a rounded base (Figure 13B). Karasuk pottery from the earliest phase

imitates Andronovo features such as a carinated profile, flat base, and dot-line, stamped motifs (triangles, rhomboids etc.) that cover the whole surface (Figure 13C). Pots with vertical straight sides imitating wooden or birch-bark Andronovo vessels are occasionally found. These features disappeared through time from the Minusinsk Basin, but remained in greatest proportion in the north-west and western part of the region. Most characteristic of the Karasuk culture are globular or lens-shaped bowls with a rounded base, undecorated or with motifs only applied to the upper part of the vessel such as double or triple, parallel lines, and ‘dimples’. These characteristic vessels are widespread throughout the Minusinsk Basin, but are found in large numbers in cemeteries located on the Yenisei riverbanks.

Discussion

Several significant trends may be observed in the transition from the Andronovo to the Karasuk culture, and call for interpretation. The observed rise in humidity during the Karasuk period would have increased the volume of grazing possible and supported larger flocks, so feeding a larger population. The faunal remains suggest that ovicaprids became the basis of the animal economy, and this in turn implies transhumance to the nearby mountains and seasonal mobility, as sheep stripped pastures surrounding the villages. The horse began to be of increasing importance as a means of transport, not only for traction but also as a

Figure 13C. Karasuk pottery similar to Andronovo.

mount. This is attested to by the increased quantity of horse bones found in settlements (one third of the quantity of sheep bones), suggesting that the Karasuk people possessed a considerable stock of horses (Gryaznov 1969: 103). Moreover, in Karasuk settlements such as at Kamennyj Log and Torgazhak, bone cheek-pieces with three holes (a type found on early Scythian models) have been excavated (Figure 14: A). The representation of a rider on a horse carved on a slab-stone from an enclosure in the Karasuk cemetery of Krest-Khaja (Figure 14: B) also suggests that the riding of horses was widespread. The increase in the number of sites suggests an increase in population, so that by the end of the Karasuk period the population had multiplied by a factor of ten. Such a demographic explosion might have several explanations. Perhaps the arrival of Andronovo people in the Minusinsk Basin that began in the seventeenth century BCE did not stop with the emergence of the Karasuk culture. The latest anthropological analyses corroborate this fact: A.V. Gromov found similarities between Karasuk skulls recovered from cemeteries located in the north part of the Minusinsk Basin (above Abakan city) and Andronovo skulls of the High-Ob region and between Karasuk skulls of south cemeteries (below Abakan city) and Andronovo skulls of north Kazakhstan (Gromov 1995: 148; 2002: 26). DNA testing might be able to offer a correlation to this model, but it has yet to be attempted here. We may distinguish at least two contact zones: the north-west corner of the Basin by the ‘Tom-Chulym corridor’, the traditional route of contact and communication, and in the south-west by the Askiz

River. The Minusinsk Basin, encircled by mountains, forms a natural shelter that would protect the local population from disruption by outsiders.

The role of metallurgy was prominent in the Karasuk economy and it exploited numerous and abundant local sources in the Minusinsk Basin. Progress in metal casting (use of moulds of pottery or metal, and no longer of stone) may have promoted mass production and thus expanded the output and the capacity for off-site and long-distance distribution (Legrand 2004: 144). The high increase in population may also have stimulated the metallurgical industry. In addition, increased mobility must have been a decisive factor in its widespread distribution.

These new resources and opportunities will, in turn, have led to a modification in the social structure. Funerary enclosure clusters built next to one another formed small family cemeteries. Adults were placed in central funerary units while sub-adults were placed in funerary units to their immediate periphery and infants to the external periphery. As the analysis of grave goods showed, the place of each member is clearly defined inside the family group according to age and gender. Infants were no longer buried in separate cemeteries but in adult ones, and were now surrounded by enclosures. We can suppose that the more elaborate attention accorded to children, and thus the raising of their social status, also implies an increase in hierarchy.

The difference observed in the arrangement and architecture of funerary enclosures, and in the graves goods of the Karasuk cemeteries, gives evidence for hierarchical social order based on a patriarchal system. The rare big circular burial enclosures 40 to 100m in diameter, with elaborate cist tombs in the centre, grave goods consisting of two of three vessels, several animal offerings, bronze knives, and so on, were those of elite males.

Conclusion

The comparative analysis shows that the Karasuk culture continued many traditions typical of the Andronovo. This suggests hereditary and cultural links between the two cultures. It shows that this transformation did not result from the arrival of a new culture group, but from changes in the local economy and way oflife that occurred in the particular geographic and climatic context of the Minusinsk Basin. There was an increase in the farming of sheep, the use of horses, in the number of sites and in burial investment. From this we can deduce that the Karasuk culture expresses a rise in pastoralism, population, male hierarchy and mobility that occurred together.

By the end of the Bronze Age, important socioeconomic changes can also be observed in peripheral regions of the Minusinsk Basin (Tom River region, High Ob region) and more widely in other regions of the steppe zone. It would be interesting to compare the situation in the Minusinsk Basin with those in its vicinity in order to gain an understanding of the transformations in different geographical areas at the same time.

Many points still have to be further researched in order to complete our understanding of the emergence of the Karasuk culture, particularly in order to understand the degree and types of social complexity in Karasuk society. Moreover, it is crucial to study changes that occurred at the end of the Final Bronze Age (eleventh-tenth centuries BCE) in the Minusinsk Basin in order to estimate the role of Karasuk society in the emergence of the Tagar culture (Bokovenko, below).

References

Bokovenko, N.A. & S. Legrand. 2000. Das karasukzeitliche Graberfeld Anchil Chon in Chakassien. Eurasia Antiqua 6: 209-48.

Bokovenko, N.A. 1997. Novyj tip pogrebal’nykh

kompleksov karasukskoj kul’tury. Novye issledovanija arkheologov Rossii i SNG. Saint-Petersburg: 29-31.

Gryaznov, M.P. 1969. South Siberia. Geneva: Nagel Publishers.

—1981. Innokul’turnye traditsii na primere andronovsko-karasukskikh sopostavlenij. Preemstvennost’ i innovatsii v razvitii drevnikh kul’tur. Saint-Petersburg: 31-3.

Gromov, A.V 1995. Naselenie juga Khakassii v

epokhu pozdnej bronzy I problema proisrozhdenija karasukskoj kul’tury. Antropologija Segodnja 1: 130-50.

—2002. Antropologija naselenija okunevskoj kul’tury juzhnoj Sibiri. Avtoreferat kandidatskoj dissertatsii. Saint-Petersburg: GNIUK RIII.

Khlobystina, M.D. 1970. Kamenskij mogil’nikna Enisee I Ust’-Erbinskaja gruppa karasukskikh pamjatnikov. Sovietskaja Arkheologija 1: 121-9.

Kiselev, S.V. 1929. Materialy arkheologicheskoj

ekspeditsii v Minusinskij kraj v 1928 g. Ezhegodnik Gosudarstvennnogo muzeja im. Mart’janova 4:

47-81.

—1951. Drevnjaja istorija Juzhnoj Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka.

Komarova, M.N. 1952. Tomskij mogil’nik-pamjatnik istorii drevnikh plemen lesnoj polosy zapadnoj Sibiri. Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR 24: 7-50.

Kotozhekov, K.G. 2000. Spatbronzezeitlicher

Grabfund aus der Necropole Podkuninskie. Eurasia Antiqua 6: 281-95.

Kulkova, M.A. 2003. Applications of geochemistry to paleoenvironmental reconstruction in Southern Siberia. Impact of the environment on human migration in Eurasia. NATO Science Series IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences — Vol. 42: 255-74.

Kyzlasov, L.R. 1971. Karasukskij mogil’nik Khara Khaja. Sovetskaja Arkheologija 3: 170-88.

Lazaretov, I.P. 1995. Kamenolozhskie pogrebenija mogil’nika Arban I (K kharakteristike pogrebal’nogo obrjada). Juzhnaja Sibir’ v Drevnosti. Saint-Petersburg: 39-46.

—2000. Spatbronzezeitliche Fundstellen in

Sudchakassien. Eurasia Antiqua 6: 249-80.

Legrand, S. 2004. Karasuk metallurgy: technological development and regional influence, in K.M. Linduff (ed.) Metallurgy in Ancient Eastern Eurasia from the Urals to the Yellow River: 139-56. Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.

Maksimenkov, G.A. 1978. Andronovskaja kul’tura na Enisee. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.

Novgorodova, E.A. 1970. Tsentral’naja Azia I karasukskajaproblema. Moscow: Nauka.

Pauls, E.D. 2000. Mogil’niki Chazy i Mara na severe Minusinskoj Kotloviny (k voprosu izuchenija karasukskoj kul’tury), Mirovozzrenie Arkheologija Ritual Kul^:tura: 104-18. Saint-Petersburg.

Pavlov, P.G. 1999. Karasukskij mogil'nik TjortAba. Saint-Petersburg: Avery Press.

Savinov, D.G. 1996. Drevnieposelenija Khakasii.

Torgazhak. Saint-Petersburg: Tsentr ‘Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie’.

Sebas’tjanova, E.A. 1977. Raboty u stantsii Askiz. Arkheologicheskie otkrytie 1976goda: 241-2.

Teploukhov, S.A. 1929. Opyt klassifikatsii metallicheskikh kul’tur Minusinskogo kraja. Materialypo etnografii, 3(2): 98-112.

Vadetskaja, E.B. 1986. Arkheologicheskiepamjatniki v stepjakh srednego Eniseja. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.

Zjablin, L.P. 1977. Karasukskij mogil ’nik Malye Kopjony 3. Moscow: Nauka.

The emergence of the Tagar culture

Nikolay Bokovenko*

Keywords: Iron Age, Scythians, Siberia, Minusinsk, Tagar culture, horse riding, barrow burial, kurgans, pyramids, mummification

Introduction

The early nomads of Eurasia, whom ancient writers called Scythians and Sakas, occupied the great Eurasian Steppe from the beginning of the first millennium BCE. The Scythian culture is well known from the excavations of numerous rich, elite barrows north of the Black Sea, but their theatre of action actually stretched from Hungary to the Great Wall of China. In the steppe zone of Central Asia a number of cultures of the Scythian-Saka type appeared at this period, for example, the Aldy-Bel’, Maiemir, Tasmola and Tagar cultures. The Tagar culture, which succeeded the Karasuk culture in southern Siberia (Legrand, above) belongs to the earliest stages of the Scythian group, and is dated to the ninth-eighth century BCE (Sementsov etal. 1998; Vasiliev et al. 2002; Bokovenko et al. 2002).

This paper studies the sequence of the Tagar culture in the Minusinsk basin in southern Siberia. It is a sequence which shows how mobile horsemen emerged from their Bronze Age background to dominate their region and spread their culture many thousands of miles westwards into Europe.

Early investigations

The earliest archaeological discoveries in southern Siberia dating to the Scythian period are associated with the Russian incursion into the Siberian steppes in the early eighteenth century. The Russian emperor, Peter the Great, sent the first academic expedition headed by D.G. Messerschmidt (1721) to Siberia and ordered the investigation of barrows. In 1722, the first barrow to be scientifically excavated on the Yenisei River belonged to the Tagar culture. Subsequent expeditions, headed by G.F. Miller (1733-1744) and P.S. Pallas (1770) conducted scientific excavations, made artefact collections and described outstanding monuments from different periods.

The nineteenth century was characterised by extensive studies of local enthusiasts such as P.K. Frolov, N.M. Martyanov, D.A. Klementz and others who supplemented the archaeological collections of local museums. In the 1920s, professional archaeologists (S.A. Teploukhov, S.V. Kiselyov, M.P. Gryaznov and so on) explored many more archaeological sites of the Sayan and Altai mountains and elaborated their cultural chronological system (Teploukhov 1929; Kiselev 1951; Gryaznov 1968; 1969; Chlenova 1967; 1992).

* Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dvortsovaya nab., 18, 191186, Saint-Petersburg, Russia. (Email: sakasiberia@hotmail.com)

Received: 14 June 2005; Accepted: 27 February 2006; Revised: 18 May 2006

Climate and resources

The Minusinsk Valley is located in the southern area of the Krasnoyarsk district and the Republic of Khakasia (Figure 1). The bottom of the valley, originally covered with bunchgrass steppe vegetation, is at a height of 300—350m and surrounded by the high Sayan mountains. The modern climate is continental with a mean annual temperature of about 0°C.

In 2001/2 a joint expedition by the Institute for the History of Material Culture and Dutch scientists carried out environmental investigations in the region, targeting the lakes of Kutuzhekovo and Shushenskoe in the Minusinsk valley and the two White Lakes in the Uyuk valley in Tuva. They used pollen analysis and geochemical methods to study lake deposits, along with archaeological and radiocarbon data. The results of these investigations testify to climatic development in that region during the first millennium BCE, continuing changes that began in the Bronze Age. A cool phase occurred during the eleventh-ninth centuries BCE, when increasing humidity reached a maximum, followed by a warming trend (Figure 2). Both the pollen record and the geochemical data show a pronounced shift to humid climatic conditions at the start of the early Iron Age (Kulkova 2003). The significant increase in humidity and the slight temperature rise in the steppe that occurred about the first millennium BCE probably became widespread. This has been well traced from western Central Asia to western Siberia (Levina 1996), and probably stimulated movement of some nomads across long distances. This change in climate was progressive, not static, as assumed by Khazanov (1984/1994).

By the end ofthe second millennium BCE the natural conditions ofthe steppe-like valleys of the Sayan and Altai mountains in central southern Siberia were most favourable for sheep breeding. Sheep pasturing was limited territorially in the Minusinsk valley as compared to, for example, the Kazakh steppe where people could migrate about 1000km with their cattle. Seasonal migrations in the Sayan and Altai mountain regions were mostly vertical. Just at the beginning of the first millennium BCE, significant progress in horse breeding can be traced (new forms were invented and more reliable types of bronze bridles were made) and became the basis for a society of horsemen (Bokovenko 2000).

The increased resources and opportunities for growth coincided with social stratification, and the emergence of a structured system of authority, as will be seen from the material culture (below).

Chronology

After the excavation of the royal barrow Arzhan 1 in Tuva by M.P Gryaznov, it became clear that the Scythian period in Central Asia started at least as early as the seventh century BCE (Gryaznov 1984). Dendrochronological and radiocarbon dating now indicate that Arzhan dates to the end ninth- beginning eighth century BCE (Zaitseva et al. 1996). The St. Petersburg Radiocarbon Laboratory Database has recently produced about 440 radiocarbon measurements for 105 sites located in Khakasia and Tuva, resulting in the dating of many sites in Asian territories to the pre-Scythian and initial Scythian periods (tenth-eighth century BCE) (Bokovenko et al. 2002) (Figure 3).

Gryaznov (1968) proposed four phases for the Tagar culture which are still accepted today, but with a new chronology as follows:

Chronological phase	Period
Bainovo	end 10th-8th century BCE
Podgornovo	8th-6th centuries BCE
Saragash	6th-3rd centuries BCE
Tes	2nd-lst centuries, BCE-lst century CE

These phases are used as a framework to describe the cultural sequence that follows. Currently, most of our information comes from burials.

Funerary rites

Even today the Tagar burial grounds are quite visible because of the presence of vertical stone slabs around the kerb forming the enclosures or mounds. Graves in the earliest dated cemeteries are not numerous, but, by contrast, cemeteries belonging to the subsequent period contain hundreds of mounds and diverse burial monuments. A characteristic feature of the Tagar burial tradition, as in the Karasuk culture that preceded it, is that the dead were buried in square or rectangular enclosures made of vertically standing stone slabs, covered

B.C.

□ ARROWS

Ns	Lab. index	14C age BP	Error	Cat age, BC				Material	Monument	Position of the material in the site	Region
				1o		20
1	Le-5254	2950	30	1252	1080	1258	1040	wood	Khystaglar	barrow 1, fence B, grave 1	Khakasia
2	Le-5256	2950	70	1260	1038	1382	934	wood	Khystaglar	barrow 1, fence A, grave 1	Khakasia
3	Le-5146	2950	90	1264	1016	1392	922	wood	Arzhan	barrow 12, dedro sample D-36,20-rings	Tuva
4	Le-5257	2640	30	1006	930	1111	908	wood	Khystaglar	barrow 1, fence B, grave 1	Khakasia
5	Le-5133	2840	35	1012	926	1111	908	wood	Boi'shaya Erba	barrow 4, grave 2	Khakasia
6	Le-2444	2810	40	966	908	1038	840	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,15-35 rings	Tuva
7	Le-2452	2790	40	990	852	1008	834	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,48-60 rings	Tuva
8	Le-5135a	2780	40	984	846	1000	832	wood	Boi'shaya Erba	barrow 4, grave 2, 20 outside rings	Khakasia
9	Le-1698	2770	40	974	840	992	826	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,1-250 rings	Tuva
10	Le-2310	2800	50	1000	854	1111	822	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26, central rings	Tuva
11	La-5446	2880	120	1380	1340	1320	820	teeth	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26b, horse	Tuva
12	Le-5135B	2730	25	900	832	906	820	wood	Boi’shaya Erba	barrow 4, grave 2, 30 inside rings	Khakasia
13	Le-51956	2750	30	906	844	928	818	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,18 middle rings	Tuva
14	Le-2311	2770	50	980	836	1006	814	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26, middle -rings	Tuva
15	Le-2312	2750	50	920	828	992	810	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26, outside rings	Tuva
16	Le-2449	2740	40	904	834	982	810	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,36-60 rings	Tuva
17	Le-5195a	2700	20	840	814	898	808	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,12 outside rings	Tuva
18	Le-5192	2700	30	894	810	900	806	wood	Shaman Gora	barrow 1, grave 2, bottom	Khakasia
19	Le-5141	2790	80	1008	832	1158	802	hoof	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 31	Tuva
20	Le-5393	2820	100	1115	840	1260	800	bone	Kazanovka-3	barrow 2, fence G, grave 2	Khakasia
21	Le-5195e	2680	40	892	802	900	798	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26, 20 inside rings	Tuva
22	Le-5184	2670	25	826	806	890	798	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26, 30 rings	Tuva
23	Le-5137	2665	30	826	802	894	796	wood	Kazanovka-2	barrow 3, fence A	Khakasia
24	Le-4772	2680	50	896	802	912	792	wood	Arzhan-2	barrow 7	Tuva
25	Le-5255	2710	70	908	806	1008	782	charcoal	Khystaglar	barrow 1, fence A, grave 1	Khakasia
26	Le-5143	2660	50	892	794	906	778	wood	Arzhan-4	barrow 12	Tuva
27	Gin-8425	2610	30	808	790	814	772	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,10 outside rings	Tuva
28	Le-5390	2720	80	930	802	1113	768	wood	Khystaglar	barrow 1, fence A, grave 1	Khakasia
29	GIN-8618	2620	40	816	784	892	562	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26, 20 last rings	Tuva
30	Le-5391	2620	40	816	784	892	562	bone	Kazanovka-3	barrow 2, fence A, sk B	Khakasia
31	Le-4769	2610	40	812	776	836	554	wood	Arzhan-4	barrow 12	Tuva
32	Gin-8619	2600	40	810	770	828	552	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26,10 lag	Tuva
33	Le-5388	2670	80	914	780	1008	536	bone	Kazanovka-2	barrow 1, fence D	Khakasia
34	Le-5194	2570	50	795	777	816	526	wood	Arzhan	elite barrow, camera 26, middle peg	Tuva
35	Le-5144	2590	90	832	532	902	414	wood	Arzhan-4	barrow 12. dend. D-36, 30 rings	Tuva

Figure 3. Radiocarbon dates from early Tagar monuments and the princely mound Arzhan 1. Note: camera = chamber.

with a pyramidal burial mound. Occasionally the stones were arranged in horizontal rows with vertical stones set at the corners of enclosures and along their perimeters.

A general trend in the Tagar burial tradition was that the enclosures and the graves they contained increased in size and depth over time (Figure 4). The stone cists were gradually replaced with timber frames that had strong multi-layered floors. The number of bodies buried in each stone cist also increases through time. In the early period the dead were buried in a supine position with their heads consistently oriented to the south-west, and only occasionally to the north-east. In the case of the collective graves, the orientation varied.

Figure 5. Mounds and graves oftheBainov phase: 1 —Novoselvo, 2 — Khyzyl Khaya (Vibat), 3 — Tepsei VII, 4—Kazanovkall, 5— Tumannyil.

In the Bainov phase the burial enclosure is small, still based on the Karasuk pattern with walls up to 1m high constructed of stone slabs, and sometimes with taller slabs 1 to 2m high at the corners (Figure 5). Each enclosure contains one tomb, also built from slabs of stone, and each tomb contains a single skeleton. As in the earlier period, one or two vessels were placed at the head of the deceased person and the same four pieces of meat (from sheep rather than oxen) were laid at the feet. In the male graves, one or two vessels with liquid were usually set at the head and some pieces of beef or more rarely mutton or horsemeat were left at the feet. In a male burial, a dagger and a battle-axe were usually placed adjacent to the body, a knife on the left side of the belt, and a quiver with arrows placed at the feet (Chlenova 1967: Table 1). A knife or a small bag with toilet articles including a mirror and a comb were attached to women’s belts. Women’s clothes were decorated with numerous beads and pendants. Complex sets of beads decorated the clothing; headdresses adorn the hair of the deceased.

In the Podgornovo phase, the burial enclosures continue to be small and are frequently attached to each other (Figure 6). They contain 1-2 tombs in the centre. The tomb itself is often a timber chamber rather than a stone cist. Multiple tombs contained two to three deceased, but single burials are more common. From that time on in the Tagar culture, numbers of bodies were successively buried in a tomb, and entrances provided for the purpose.

The Saragash phase saw the further elaboration of burial ritual and of the construction of the burial superstructures. Enclosures of 2-300m² composed of 8 to 20 stones housed two or more semi-square collective graves (Figure 7). Side by side within the vaults up to 200 people were buried in succession through a special entrance. Some individual graves were built, presumably for men and women of high rank. Children were buried either separately in small stone boxes or in collective graves with the women. Accompanying artefacts are approximately the same as in the earlier stage, except that the pottery, tools, and armament display some changes in form. The general trend was to decrease the size to that of a miniature. At the same time numerous bronze and gold plaques in the shape of stags were sewn on the clothing of the dead. The pottery of this period is usually undecorated.

Social stratification is especially apparent in the burial of this period. Barrows of about 20m in height are located in the Salbyk Valley in the centre of the Minusink basin and exemplify this trend. The pyramidal Bolshoi Salbykskii Mound excavated by S.V. Kiselev had a pyramidal embankment 11m high. The enclosure-sill was constructed from immense stone slabs that were placed vertically. The slabs weighed up to 50 tons each and measured 6m in height. The length of each side was 70m. An entrance made of vertically set stone slabs was placed on the eastern side. The square grave at this site, measuring 5 x 5m in depth, had been completely robbed at the time of the excavation, but the remains of seven skeletons, some fragments of gold foil, and a bronze knife survived. The immensity of the

Figure 7. Mounds and graves of the Saragash phase: 1 — Sulfatnoe, 2 — Shalginov II, 3 — Medvedka I, 4 — Dal’ni.

mound and the labour expended to construct the stone slab sill implies that an elite person, a chief of the confederation of Tagar tribes was buried there (Kiselev 1951: 189; Gryaznov 1968: 191; Vadetskaya 1986: 95).

The tombs of the Tes’ phase show considerable variety, but it is possible to define several types of funeral rite (Figure 8). The burials are generally covered by huge kurgans with monumental enclosure-kerbs built of stone. In the centre lies a large tomb, 30 to 50m² in plan and up to 3m deep. The tomb has an elaborate timber structure of two storeys, roofed with logs and a thick layer of birch-bark. The chamber might contain the remains of several dozen bodies (Kuzmin 1987). Skulls are trepanned, evidently in order to remove the brain (Figure 9: D). In all cases the tombs had been set on fire (Gryaznov 1969).

It is evident that these pyramid burials also involved the mummification of the body. The process of mummification can be reconstructed (Figure 9; B). The skeletal remains (skulls and separated bones), were exposed for some period of time then were buried in crypts (Tagarski Ostrov, Malaya Inya, Buzunovo, Kop’evo etc.). An attempt was then made to recombine the parts of the body, not always successfully (Tepsei VIII). The spine, hands and vertebrae were fastened with thin rods, to reconstitute the shape of the body (Medvedka II, Mayak, Sabinka etc.). Meanwhile the head was modelled in clay and fastened to the reconstituted body. The whole mannequin was then painted, clothed and provided with a mask (Kuzmin & Varlamov 1988). Similarly complex operations are found in burials in the Altai (at Bashadar, Pazyryk, and Ukok) (Grjaznov 1950; Rudenko 1960; Polos’mak 2001)

and in Tuva (at Urbjun, Balgazin etc.) (Grach 1980). Although the mummies themselves did not always survive, traces of mummification have been discovered in various mounds in south Siberia dating from the first millennium BCE.

By the end of the first millennium BCE the ritual did not include the burial of mummies, but rather of dolls, filled with grass that are traced especially to the Tashtyk culture. They were dressed in clothing; their heads were covered with the painted masks; and a small sack containing burnt bones was put inside the body (Vadezkaya 1999). Smaller tombs constructed in the same way stand one against the other, each containing a single tomb constructed of slabs. There are also many tombs, particularly children’s graves, which are located within various sections of the barrows.

If we compare the tombs belonging to the successive phases of the Tagar culture we can readily observe the close affinities between them in tomb structure, grave furnishings and funerary ritual. This implies the development of an indigenous cultural group over a period of ten centuries during which there were no abrupt changes in the economic, domestic or social patterns and no sudden displacements of large numbers of people. However, penetration of small groups of the population is not excluded.

Grave goods

The material culture of the Tagar Period is extremely varied with thousands of bronze artefacts of very fine quality placed in the burials. These artefacts testify to a highly developed bronze-casting industry stemming from very old traditions. Weapons are represented by

Figure 9. Mummification ofthe Tes’phase: A — Stepnovka, B — steps ofmummification, C— a small grave with the separate bones from skeletons (Novye Mochagi), D — mask (Novye Mochagi).

three main categories: daggers, battle-axes and arrowheads (Figure 10). Daggers may have guards at right angles to the blade and roller-shaped handles, or butterfly-shaped guards and pommels in a variety of forms such as roller-shaped, ring-shaped, or zoomorphic. By the end of the Tagar Culture the form of the guards had degenerated. The earliest battle-axes have a head, are round in section, and contain a polyhedral or mushroom-shaped butt on a long sleeve. Later, the sleeve became shorter and the butt was often made in the form of an animal figurine such as a goat or a stag. Sometimes the sleeves were decorated with a rather fine depiction of an animal (Chlenova 1967: Table 8: 10-11; Bokovenko 1995: 304). The earliest arrowheads have two points on a hollow shaft, often with a tenon. The later arrowheads, dating to the sixth-fourth centuries BCE, are tetrahedral or trilobed, and stemmed. Variations in form are achieved through modifying the shape of the fins and the impact point of the arrowhead. The classification of arrowheads has been elaborated in much detail (Chlenova 1967: Table 12: 12). Bone arrowheads are trilobed or tetrahedral and occasionally bullet-shaped but generally ofthe simpler standard forms that were already well developed during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age.

Utilitarian implements are numerous and versatile. The blades of practically all Tagar knives are the same, and the differences are manifest mainly in the shape of their handles. The handles may be ring-shaped, with an arch, with small or large holes, openwork, loopshaped, insert-type. They have zoomorphic forms and can be decorated with various incised

motifs (Bokovenko 1995: 306, 313). Artefacts related to the bronze casting industry are represented mainly by bi-valve stone and clay moulds (Grjaznov 1969). Numerous devices such as clamps, nozzles, and pouring gates used in casting as well as technologically complex and highly artistic bronze artefacts such as bridles, cauldrons and art works indicate a highly specialised and developed bronze industry.

Figure 11. Horse harness: pendants (1-14), and cheek-pieces and bits (15-30).

Items of horse harness are extremely numerous as well. Although almost all of them are accidental finds, their diversity and the high quality of production point to the great value that the Tagar society placed on this category of object (Figure 11). Around the ninth-eighth century BCE, bronze bridle bits replaced the three-holed bridle bit, carved from horn and used at an earlier date. These bits were cast with a stirrup-shaped end where an additional

hole into the strict frame-shaped cheek pieces was cast. These were used to break horses. In the sixth-fifth centuries BCE, stirrup-shaped bits were replaced with those that had a single ring into which the two-holed cheek pieces were inserted (Bokovenko 1986: 18; Chlenova 1992: 215; Bokovenko 2000: 309). The total bridle system including the various strap connecting pieces, pendants, and cheek pieces continued to be refined. The abundance and diversity of horse-harness items and the numerous petroglyphs illustrating horses are evidence of the great role that horse breeding played in the Tagar society.

Vessels were made of clay, carved from wood, or were cast from bronze (Figure 12). As wooden objects withstand time poorly, they are found only rarely, but include small tables,

round, ellipsoid, and square wooden trays, cauldron-shaped vessels, and scoops. The colour of pottery was dependent upon the firing methods. The predominance of greyish-yellow shades indicates that the vessels were unevenly fired in an open fire without a special oxygen supply. At the end of the Tagar Period vessels with ring-shaped bases and cauldron-shaped vessels were predominant. A great number of bronze cauldrons on conical bases have also been found in the Minusinsk Basin. They vary in size from small, containing up to five litres in capacity, to extremely large ones that have a capacity of several hundred litres. Classification of the cauldrons is based on the typology of the handle (Bokovenko 1981: 42-52). Herodotus mentions cauldrons in connection with sacrifices (Herodotus IV: 60-61), but these containers were probably poly-functional.

Toilet articles were stored either in small leather bags or in wooden chests (Figure 13). Numerous carved and figured combs made of bone are known. Some wooden combs survived in the Dalnii Mound. A particularly interesting item used for combing hair is decorated with a compass ornament and a zoomorphic figure on one of the ends. Bronze awls and beads from glass, carnelian, and paste are typical finds. Headdresses and the clothing worn by the deceased were decorated with semi-spherical bronze plaques sometimes covered with gold foil. Breastplates, diadems, and pendants with zoomorphic heads and other ornaments were included in the burial. Mirrors of three types were used (Bokovenko 1995: 312). One type had a rim around the edge, the second was disc-shaped manufactured in different sizes, and the third had a side handle often decorated with a beautiful animal figurine.

Art

Artefacts made in the animal style are widely represented in the Yenisei River region. Miniature sculptures are made in the form ofnumerous and diverse animals including deer, feline beasts of prey, goats, griffins, horses and boar (Figure 14). Animal art is represented in engravings, in cast bas-relief figures, and in three-dimensional hollow sculptures. All of them are executed at a high technological level indicating high aesthetic standards in the Tagar Culture (Zavitukhina 1983: 35).

Petroglyphs of the Scythian Period are found on practically all the rocks and stones that form the Tagar mound enclosure kerbs. The motifs depict either single themes or complex compositions referring to scenes of everyday life, ritual, and hunting (Bokovenko 1998). The Scythian-Siberian style spread across vast territories from India to China (Francfort et al. 1990). On the whole, the works of art from the Minusinsk Basin provide convincing evidence that the content and mode of execution was superior to those found on objects of arts of the neighbouring areas.

The symbolic images on objects and petroglyphs on stone slabs of tombs reflects the existence of a widespread religious system (Figure 15). The rock cut images of the Scythian period from the Yenisei region testify to shamanistic rituals, where the people with characteristic attributes of the shaman are shown. (Khyzyl-Khaja, Bojary etc.) (Kilunovskaja 1998). But the archaeological evidence also indicates the influence of other religious practices. Okunevo, Pazyryk and Tagar cultural material is infused with Buddhist ideas, while including shamanistic funeral ceremonies such as at Pazyryk (Sorokin 1978; Kuzmin

1992). It is possible to assume that the system of religious art amongst the peoples of Central Asia in the Scythian period reflected in rock art represented a synthesis of shamanism and a northern variant of Dualism, as well as an eastern variant of Zoroastrism (Boyce 1979). All this can be termed the ‘Sajano-Altay’ religious system (Bokovenko 1996).

Figure 14. The animal style of the Tagar culture: 1 — Kobyak, mound 5, grave 2; 2 — Bateni; 3 — Cheremshino, mound 1, grave 2; 4 — Minusinsk Basin (afterZavitukhina 1983); 5 — Tigrizskoe; 6 — Dalni, mound 1, grave 1; 7 — Barsuchikha I, Bolshoi kurgan, grave 2 (after M. Zavitukhina 1983); 8 — Minusinsk Basin (after Zavitukhina 1983); 9 — (A— Prigorsk I, mound 1, grave 1; B — Kolok, mound 9, grave 1; Kolok, mound 10, grave 1); 10 — Pit (Gryaznov 1969); 11— Krasnoyarsk area, Bellyk, Minusinsk Basin; 12 — Trifonova; 13 — Iudina; 14 — Minusinsk Basin.

Discussion

Continuing the traditions of the Karasuk culture, the Tagar peoples still practised a mobile pastoralism associated with the movement of animal on winter pastures. The large

number of bronze sickles, which were used to mow wild cereals, indicates that agriculture played some part in the economy. However, the emphasis was now on sheep rather than cattle.

The continuity of culture from the preceding Karasuk period and throughout the first millennium BCE implies that the people of the Minusinsk basin were undergoing development of their own rather than pressure from immigrants. The increasing size and complexity of the burials implies social changes.

Burial rites and art reflects contact over a wide region of Eurasia, and China. Although this society was highly mobile, as it used mobile troops — horsemen, it also had deep and enduring roots in its own region.

In conclusion, it is possible to say that the Tagar culture, which developed out of the traditions of previous Bronze Age cultures, created a unique culture with a complex local development and a long reach. In the first millennium BCE its separate elements penetrated nearby regions and on into China, and even further into Europe.

Acknowledgements

The Russian Foundation for Humanities, Grant 03-01-00099a, and INTAS 03-51-4445 supported a part of this research. This paper was first given at the Hsu Seminar in Early Chinese Studies at the University of Pittsburgh in April 2005.

References

Bokovenko, N.A. 1981. Bronzovye kotly epohi rannih kochevnikov v aziatskih stepya. Problemy zapadno-sibirskoj arheologii. Epoha zheleza. Novosibirsk:

42-52.

—1986. Nachalnii etap kultury rannikh kochevnikov Sayano-Altaya. Leningrad: Nauka.

—1995. The Tagar Culture in the Minusinsk Basin, in J. Davis-Kimball, V.A. Bashilov & L.T. Yablonsky (ed.) Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age: 296-314. Berkeley (CA).

—1996. Problema rekonstruktsii religioznykh sistem

nomadov Tsentral’noi Asii v skifskuju epokhu, in A. Yu. Alekseev, N.A. Bokovenko & V.JU. Zuev (ed.) Zhrechestvo i shamanism v skifskuju epokhu: 39-41. Saint-Petersburg.

—1998. Naskal’noe iskusstvo skifskoi epokhi Eniseaya. Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po pervobytnomu iskusstvu. Kemerovo: 86-7.

—2000. The Origin of Horse Riding and the

Development of Central Asian Nomadic Riding Harnesses, in J. Davis-Kimball, E.M. Murphy, L. Koryakova & L.T. Yablonsky (ed.) Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements in the Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age: 304-10. BAR International Series 890.

Bokovenko, N.A., G.I. Zaitseva, B. van Geel, L.M. Lebedeva & V.A. Sementsov. 2002. K probleme khronologii rannetagarskikh pamyatnikov Eniseya, in Yu. Piotrovsky (ed.) Stepi Evrazii v drevnosti I srednevekove. The State Hermitage kniga 2: 19-22. Saint-Petersburg.

Boyce, M. 1979. Zoroastrians. Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London.

Chlenova, N.L. 1967. Proiskhozdehie I rannaya istoriaya plemen Tagarskoi kultury. Moscow:

Nauka.

—1992. Tagarskaya kultura, in M.G. Moshkova (ed.)

Arsheologiaya SSSR. Stepnaya polosa aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoe vremaya: 206-24. Moscow: Nauka.

Francfort, H., D. Klodzinski & G. Mascle. 1990. Petroglyphes archaiques du Ladakh et du Zanskar. Arts Asiatiques XLV: 5-27.

Grach, A.D. 1980. Drevnie kochevniki v tsentre Azii. Moscow: Nauka.

Gryaznov, M.P. 1950. Pervii Pazyrykskii kurgan.

Leningrad: Hermitage-Art.

—1968. Tagarskaya kul’tura, Istoriaya Sibiri, volume 1.

Leningrad: Nauka: 187-96.

—1969. South Siberia. Geneva: Nagel Publishers.

—1984. Der Grofikurgan vonArzan in Tuva, Sudsibirien. Munchen: Verlag C.H. Beck.

Khazanov, A.M. 1984/1994. Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2nd edition; Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.

Kilunovskaya, M.E. 1998. Shamanisticheskie motivy v naskal’nom iskusstve Sayano-Altaiskogo nagor’ya.

Mezhdunarodnaya konferenstiya po pervobytnomu iskusstvy. Kemerovo.

Kiselev, S.V. 1951. Drevnjaja istorija Juzhnoj Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka.

Kulkova, M.A. 2003. Applications of geochemistry to paleoenvironmental reconstruction in Southern Siberia, in E.M. Scott, A.Yu. Alekseev &

G. Zaitseva (ed.) Impact of the environment on human migration in Eurasia. NATO Science Series IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences, volume 42: 255-74.

Kuzmin, N.Ju. 1987. Kvoprosu o formirovanii

rannetesinskikh kul’turnykh traditsii. Istoricheskie chteniyay pamyati Mikhaila Petrovicha Grjaznova. Omsk: Universitet press.

—1992. Genezis Sayano-Altaiskogo shamanizma po

archeologicheskam istochnikam. Severnaya Evrasiaot drevnosti do srednevekov'ya. Saint-Petersburg:

Nauka.

Kuzmin N.Ju. & O.B. Varlamov. 1988. Osobennosti pogrebal’nogo obryada plemen Minusinskoi kotloviny na rubezhe er: opyt rekonstruktsii. Metodicheskieproblemy archeologii Sibiri: 146-55. Novosibirsk: Nauka.

Levina L.M. 1996. Etnokulturnaya istoriya Vostochnogo Priaralya. I tysyacheletie do n.e. — I tysyacheletie n.e. Moscow: Nauka.

Polos’mak N.V. 2001. Vsadniki Ukoka. Novosibirsk: Infolio press.

Rudenko S.I. 1960. Kul^ftura naseleniya Tsentral nogo Altaya v skifskoe vremaya. Moskva-Leningrad:

Nauka.

Sementsov, A.A., G.I. Zaitseva, J. Gorsdorf,

A. Nagler, G. Parzinger, N.A. Bokovenko,

K.V. Chugunov & L.M. Lebedeva. 1998. Chronology of the burial finds from the Scythian monuments in Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Radiocarbon 40(2): 713-20.

Sorokin, S.S. 1978. Otrazhenie mirovozzreniya rannikh kochevnikov Azii v pamyatnikakh material’noi kul’tury Kul^ftura Vostoka. Drevnost i srednevekov e. Moscow: Nauka.

Teploukhov, S.A. 1929. Opyt klassifikatsii metallicheskikh kul’tur Minusinskogo kraja, Materialypo etnografii, 3(2): 98-112.

Vadetskaja, E.B. 1986. Arkheologicheskiepamjatniki v stepjakh srednego Eniseja. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.

—1999. Tashtykskaya epokha v drevnei istorii Sibiri.

Saint-Petersburg: Petersburgskoe vostokovedenie. Vasiliev, S.S., N.A. Bokovenko, K.A. Chugunov, V.A. Dergachev, A.A. Sementsov, I.Yu. Sljusarenko & G.I. Zaitseva. 2002. Tree-rings, “wiggle matching” and statistics in the chronological study of Scythian age sites in Asia. Geochronometry_y 21: 143-9.

Zaitseva, G.I., S.S. Vasilev, L.S. Marsadolov, A.A. Sementsov, V.A. Dergachev & L.M. Lebedeva. 1996. Primenenie metodov matematicheskoi statistiki dlya korrelyastii

dendrokhronologicheskikh I radiouglerodnykh dannykh (na osnove bol’shikh kurganov Sayano-Altaya). Radiouglerod i archeologiya 1: 33-8. Saint-Petersburg.

Zavitukhina, M.P. 1983. Drevnee iskusstvo na Enisee. Skifskoe vremaya. Leningrad, Iskusstvo.

879