Ancient interactions: east and west in Eurasia

McDONALD INSTIUTE MONOGRAPHS

Ancient interactions: east and west in Eurasia

Edited Katie Boyle, Colin Renfrew & Marsha Levine

Published :

ld Istitt for Archaeological Research U.ivsit of Cambridge wig Street Cambridge 2R (0)(1223) 339336

OistribHted Oxbow Books United Kingdom: Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford, 1 1HN, UK

Tel: (0)(1865) 241249; Fax: (0)(1865) 794449; http:/ /www.oxbowbooks.com/

USA: The Oavid Bro'-vn Book , .. 511, Oak\/ille, 06779, USA.

Tel: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468

ISN: 1-902937-19-8

ISSN: 1363-1349

2002 McOonald Istitt for Archaeological Researcll

rights reserved. No parts of this pHblication reprodHced, stored in retrieval system, or tsmittd, in form or means, electronic, mhil, photocopying, recording or otherwise, withoHt tlle prior peImission of the McOonald InstitHte for Archaeological Research.

Edited for the InstitHte Chris Scarre (Se1'ies Editor) and Oora . (Production Editor).

Cover illllstti: compaTison tn un and Altai art (see . 202) and reliej m ! EUTasia sling the discussed in the text. (Slmded reliej m Maproom44 Ltd, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.)

Printed d bOllnd Short Rlln Press, Bittern Rd, Sowton Indllstrial Estate, Exeter, 2 7LW, UK

i i

J I , -"- J - .

13

CONTENTS tiuts Figures

., ( .. . .

v viii

1

1

Tables kw!dgmll.ts

Chapter 1 strlis d ltti: Some 1trdutr Qustis COLJN RENFH.EW

Part 1 West / the Uals Cltr 2 lttiv Revo!utiol1s: utr-gths, FarmeIs d stock-Idss i tlle Ntllwstr

ti VEL DOLuKH.6,NOV

Cl1tr 3 Discussi S of the rs risig from the Study of Neo!it!lic d El1eo!itllic Cultures il1 the Azov Black Sea Rgi 25

DMYR! . TELEGIN

Cl1tr 4 Aspects of ti Steppe Dv!t (4550-3000 ) i the Light of the New Cultural-h!gil Mode! 49

RI RASSAMAKJN

Cli 5 Dmstitig the Exotic: the tt of uuti-ri! hg with Steppe d Forest-steppe uitis 75 JOJ-lN CHAPMAN

Chaptel' 6 Two Studies i Df of the igrti t 93 V ALENTIN DERGACJ-IEV

Cl1apter 7 tw the Steppe d the Sw: Cultural Dv!mts the si Littora! P!ail1 of Suth Dgllst, Russia, . 3600-1900 113

ILI L. KOHL, . GADZHJEV & RA ADAN .

Part II East / the Urals Clt 8 New lithi al1d Early rz Age Radiocarboll. Dates for NOIth Kazakhstal1 d

South Siberia 131 MARSHA LEV1NE & ALEXSANDR IOSLENKO

Cl1t 9 z Age i from Cell.tral Asia: r!ii Notes 135 NIKOLA US , JAN CrERNY, JOACJ-IIM Luz, HERMANN PAHZJNGER,

ERNST RNJ & GJ[ WEISGERBEH

lt 10 rz Age Exploitation d Political Dis of the st Eurasial1 Steppe Zone 161 MICHAEL FRACI 11.1 Jf

Chapta 11 1ttil1 t\,ll. Northwest Cllina d t! Asia Durig the Sd illil1 Arcllaeologica! Perspective 171

SHUlCHENG LI

lteJ' 12 Eurasian Steppe 'Nomadic World' of the First illl1iu 1831ht Problems within the Study of 1ron Age Nomadic Groups

BRYAN . HANKS

111

mdfrachetHighlight

299

CiLapte 13 The Date of Pazyryk 199 J.P. MALLORY, F. GERARD MCCORMAC, PAULA J. REIMER & LNID S. MARSADOLOV

Cltr 14 The Iron Age Cultures in ijig and theil' Steppe Connections 213 JIANjUN ! & COLlN SHELL

Part III Where East Meets West

237Cltl' 15 BrOl1ze Age Interaction between the Eurasian Steppe and Central Asia FRII HIEBERT

Chapter 16 The 'Country of Towns' of Suth Trans-Urals and S Aspects of Steppe ssiiltil1 in the Bronze Age 249

GENNADY . ZOANOVICH & DMII . ZDANOVICH

Cltr 17 Bet\Neen Steppe al1d Forest: Iron Age Societies of the Urals 265 LUOMILA KORYAKO\IA

Clt 18 Bio-archaeology and tl1e Proto-Indo-European Lexicon: the Kurgan Hypothesis Revisited 293 MARfN JONES

Cltr 19 Wandering Weed: the Ju of Buck\Nheat (Fagopyrum sp.) as Indicator of u vt in Eurasia

LILIANA JANIK

Clt1' 20 Analysis of -hrs Variation in Modern Populations at the European-Asian Border 309 PATRZJA MALASPlNA, ANOREY 1. KOZLOV, FULVIO CRUCIANI, PIERO SANTOLAMAZZA, NEjAT AKAR, DJI, KOVATCHEV, MARIANA . , JUR PARIK, R-1RD VILLEMS, ROSANA SCOZZARI & ANOREA NVLL

Cltr 21 What -hrsl DNA Analysis Contribute to the Understal1ding of PIehistory? 315 TATIANA ZI:RjAL, R. SPENCER WELLS, Rl:SLAN RUZJBAIEV, NADIRA YULDASIlJ:VA, WEIDONC , SUL!NC ZHU, JILJ)I"! , QI.NFANC SHU, RUOFU D, HUANM!NC YANG & CHRIS TYLER-SMJH

Index COMPJLED DORA 327

iv

1Bronze Age Exploitation and Political Dynamics

Chapter 10

Bronze Age Exploitation and Political Dynamicsof the Eastern Eurasian Steppe Zone

when attention is given to progressively smaller re-gional zones and shorter-term temporal changes, thecultural approach by nature still assumes asimilarity of world-view, lifestyle, and ideologyamong the individuals who comprise the culturegroup. Archaeologists have discussed the normaliz-ing character of this approach for decades, and cur-rent archaeological theory is working toward a morepeopled past by addressing agentive decision-mak-ing in light of socially-defined power structures. HereI am concerned with a related yet separate issue:broadly stated how the variability and malleabil-ity of individual or group strategies within a widerand more diverse social field is rooted in the devel-opment of symbolic and economic discourses of com-munication.

The decision to change social practices is not aninstantaneous event, yet it is an action that must, atsome level, be initiated in some way. Accordingly,archaeologists are left with a complicated paradox:how to discuss the conditions that may have moti-vated a group (or individual) to change their way oflife, while not loosing sight of the processual time-scale that is inherent in the socialization of behav-iour and ideology. By better discerning the factorsthat might have engendered new social strategies, Ihope to understand the link between the motivationsof individuals and groups as they are situated in awider context.

This paper addresses the evidence for the de-velopment of regional economic interaction and thechanges in geographic distribution of Eneolithic andBronze Age societies; two contributing factors to thebroader political arena of the eastern steppe zoneduring the third and second millennia BC. As early asthe late third millennium BC, developing metallurgi-cal specialization spurred intensification in the re-gional exchange of copper resources, and by the mid

Michael Frachetti

Archaeology and changes of Genre de Vie

Nomadism has become a highly problematic con-cept which, depending upon ones position, can beunderstood in terms of some degree of mobility anda productive subsistence economy based on herding(Khazanov 1994, 16), or as a more complex social,economic, and political way of life (cf. Salzman &Galaty 1990; Ginat & Khazanov 1998). The dissatis-faction continues when scholars search for criteriawith which to define the origins of nomadism. Con-cerning prehistoric Eurasian nomadism, are we sim-ply looking for the origins of mobile pastoralism orfor the induction of a more holistic genre de vie thatcharacterizes the ideology and politics of popula-tions such as those of Bronze Age Inner Asia? Ethno-graphic studies of peoples of Eurasia and the greaterNear East show the variety and diversity that existsamong nomadic societies, to the point that one findsdifficulty in formulating an approach to the topicwithout oversimplifying the social and ecologicalconditions that may have shaped these complex so-cieties in the past. In fact, current research has yet tobring us very close to answering the question: howand why did mobile pastoralism and regional inter-action come to define the economy and politics ofthe Eurasian steppe?

Traditionally, the prehistoric development ofpastoral nomadic societies of the eastern Eurasiansteppe zone (Fig. 10.1) is presented in terms of stagesof culture change, whereby one society or culturegroup demonstrates a particular set of social andeconomic traits and subsequently changes in responseto either environmental or other pressures. This ap-proach has been replaced by an ecologically- andregionally-focused consideration of the trajectory anddevelopment of various groups, viewing socialchange as more unique and contextual. Yet, even

2Chapter 10

second millennium BC specific corridor regions suchas the Djungarian gate and Semirechye (Tian Shanpiedmont valleys) were inhabited for the first time.These foothill steppe areas are well situated for ver-tical l transhumance, a pastoral form of subsistenceeconomy consisting of seasonal movements to high-altitude pastures (dzhailau) during summer monthswith returns to low-altitude camps in the winter.This pastoral strategy was practised in other uplandregions of the steppe at least the early third millen-nium BC (Kuzmina 1986).

Yet, as compared with the western regions ofthe Eurasian steppe, the social and economic devel-opments of pastoral societies during the third andsecond millennia BC in the regions of the Altai Moun-tains, Djungaria, and Semirechye have received rela-tively little attention (but see Maryashev et al. 1999)beyond the observations that there is a ubiquitousceramic style and an apparent increase in both metalproduction (Chernykh 1992) and regional interac-tion between Xinjiang (Western China), the Altai,Djungaria, and Central Asia (see Chen & Hiebert1995). Additionally, there are few current syntheticarguments concerning the origins and developmentof Chalcolithic societies such as the Afanasev in theAltai (but see Kuzmina 1998 for a clear summary ofthe out of circum-pontia hypothesis), which may proveto be a vital link for understanding this region inlater periods.

Here, I argue that the increased specializationof transhumant pastoral exploitation of the easternsteppe zone in the thirdsecond millennia BC was astrategic response to changing power dynamics dur-ing a period of increasing political complexity withinthe broader steppe region. Changes in social life ways,such as an increase in mobile pastoral production orrelocation to, and exploitation of, new ecologicalniches can be seen as a form of political strategy,whereby relations of power between groups may berenegotiated. Such strategies are well-documentedethnographically in pastoral nomadic societies whoseinteractions are organized and motivated by seg-mented status structures, trade roles or economic par-ticipation, and other regional or local dynamics (Barth1964; Swidler 1973; Irons 1974; Rowton 1981; Harth1985; Barfield 1993). In his article entitled Nomad-ism as political adaptation, William Irons argues:

It is certainly reasonable to suggest that some ofthese groups [Near Eastern, North African, CentralAsian nomadic tribes] have maintained a nomadicresidence pattern in order to enjoy the political andmilitary advantages of nomadism despite the factthat their economy required only the more limited

mobility of a semi-sedentary pattern of subsistence(1974, 635).

I propose that a shift toward more specialized pasto-ral herding, as well as population movement intonew areas in the eastern steppe zone, occurred withinthe increasingly complicated political arena of thelate third and early second millennium BC. This po-litical atmosphere was fuelled both by an increase inregional economic interaction for example themovement of copper, and by a reorientation in thesocial value, or power, that was attributed to andwas derived from, specialized forms of production(i.e. herd management) (Hastorf 1990, 1489). Spe-cifically, the shift from a mixed subsistence strategy(hunting and limited animal domestication) to a pre-dominately (agro) pastoral form of production was away by which social groups could maximize theirpolitical or social power within a region of increas-ing interactive complexity. Accordingly, specializedherd management in the foothill zones of the easternsteppe developed in tandem with negotiations of tradeand the political control of the regional corridors thatfacilitated the transfer of human, animal, and materialresources namely Djungaria and Semirechye.

This model has an apparent concentration oneconomic factors. The intention of this discussion isnot to overemphasize pastoral production, coppertrade, or any other economic condition as the driv-ing force behind interactive complexity. On the con-trary, I suggest that the development of economicand social status is more a result of a groups abilityto control communication and symbolic forms ofpower and legitimacy. Unfortunately, the currentcorpus of archaeological material only allows for asynthetic discussion of certain expressions of thispower, and increased metallurgical sophistication isa good example of a major factor that contributed topolitical development in the eastern steppe zone.Future work that focuses on other forms of socialdiscourse is necessary to round out our understand-ing of the development of steppe exploitation as it isrelated to concomitant social and political change.

Vainshtein (1980) supplies an ethnographicstudy of pastoral nomads in Tuva (Southern Siberia)and, using detailed accounts of herd dynamics, sug-gests that a pastoral nomadic economic-culture typeremained stable through historical political changes an argument which might seem to undermine themodel I propose here. Vainshtein, however, discussespolitical events such as the Mongolian invasion inthe Tuva area (Vainshtein 1980, 5054), when impor-tant elements that helped to solidify pastoral exploi-


tation and domestic production on the steppe, suchas horse riding or established trade systems acrossEurasia, were already dominant factors. Thus, theeconomic-culture type of pastoral nomadism hadalready undergone many hundreds of years of reit-eration and support, such that it could effectivelyadapt to new, intruding political forces without asubstantial reorganization of the everyday life-waysof pastoral groups. Vainshteins ethnographic casealso diverges from the model presented here in thenature of the political dynamics discussed. His ob-servations refer to political change from outsidesources (e.g. Mongols and others) whereas the modelproposed here outlines conditions within the cul-tural and economic system of the Early Bronze Agethat spurred a distinctive form of political strategy.Ideal agents for such a change may be small lineagesegments within a regionally dispersed social net-work that could neither mobilize power through thesource side or production side of economic relations(Saitta & Keene 1990) nor capitalize on discursiveforms of power, such as genealogical status (Bacon1958) or important loci within the local landscape(Humphrey 1996). In an atmosphere of increasedregional trade and interaction, such a group couldprofit politically and economically by attempting tocontrol the areas between resource and productioncentres. In such a way, semi-mobile pastoral groupsmay have focused their pastoral exploitation in pre-viously unsettled areas of the eastern steppe, such asDjungaria and Semirechye, so as to increase the valueof the products they controlled (i.e. make their herdsa restricted resource: Lees & Bates 1974) as well asincrease their political power by controlling and re-stricting access to trade corridors necessary for themovement of important trade commodities such ascopper.1 Thus, a transition to specialized verticaltranshumance (the proposed pastoral technique forthese foothill steppe zones) could have been moti-vated by the desire to gain political power within abroader social arena. At present, sufficient archaeo-logical data has neither been collected nor synthe-sized from these areas to unquestionably substantiatethis model; nevertheless I hope to establish two pointsthat help characterize the conditions of increasinginteractive complexity that contributed to the devel-opment of Bronze Age pastoral specialization in theeastern steppes.1. The geographic range of the copper trade and the

complexity of material production increased fromthe third to second millennium BC, setting thestage for changing social roles and increased po-litical complexity.

2. The corridors between copper ore deposits andcopper production sites became increasingly oc-cupied during the second millennium BC, sug-gesting a reorientation of the strategies varioussocial groups (even if part of the same culturalmilieu) used to gain power and affect politicalinteraction of the Middle and Late Bronze Age.

Outlining these two factors is the first step towards amore comprehensive discussion of political dynam-ics of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age of the easternsteppe zone.2 This paper is primarily concerned withthe changes that fluoresced in the eastern steppezone during the early and middle Bronze Age (22001500 BC). The root of these developments, however,must be set earlier in the late fourth and early thirdmillennia BC. In fact, later Bronze Age societies of thesecond millennium BC demonstrate certain affinitieswith those groups that occupied the northeasternsteppe and Minusinsk basin during the late Eneo-lithic and Early Bronze Age, namely the Afanasevand Okunev culture groups (Savinov 1997). A briefexamination of this earlier data will help to situatechanges in steppe exploitation within a broader tem-poral and regional scale.

The eastern steppe zone: 35002000 BC

The eastern steppe region discussed here is borderedby the forest-steppe zone to the north, by the IshimRiver to the west, by the Yenisei River and AltaiMountains to the east, and by the Tian Shan Rangein the south (Fig. 10.1). From around 3500 BC, thesteppe zone east of the Urals was inhabited by Eneo-lithic societies, namely the Botai-Tersek (Kislenko &Tatarintseva 1999; Brown & Anthony 1998) andAfanasev (Vadetskaya 1980; 1986). The economy ofBotai-Tersek culture groups was based primarily onhunting and fishing (Kislenko & Tatarintseva 1999),and horse management (Brown & Anthony 1998).Significantly, Botai provides evidence for early horsedomestication, though the evidence of horse ridingis still debated (Anthony 1998; Levine 1999; Kislenko& Tatarintseva 1999). Of greater interest for the de-velopment of the eastern steppe is the reason whyhunting and fishing groups would have wanted orneeded to ride the horse a question that may leadus to examine the political dynamics of societies inthe Altai and Minusinsk Basin, such as the Afanasevand Okunev cultures.

The Afanasev culture is primarily known fromburial data (Kiselev 1937; Vadetskaya 1980; Khlo-bystina 1972; 1975). Afanasev cemeteries normallyconsist of numerous tumuli (anywhere from 3 to

4Chapter 10

more than 50), circular or rectangular in shape. Usu-ally 27 individuals (sometimes more) are interredunder the mound in cists sometimes lined with slabstones (Gaul 1943; Vadetskaya 1986). The bodies arefrequently oriented toward the southwest, lying in aflexed position, with pointed bottom ceramic vesselsand other grave goods. These goods include stoneobjects such as arrowheads, bone, horn and shellornaments, and copper ornaments. This array ofgrave-goods is found in varying degrees and quanti-ties in most Afanasev burials. The occurrence ofcopper objects in the graves has lead many Russianscholars to think that the Afanasev were the firstmetallurgists in the eastern steppe zone (Okladnikov1959, 22; Chernykh 1992, 182). Furthermore, the metalresources of the Altai may have been an impetus forthe early settling of Afanasev groups in the Minu-sinsk basin. However, to date no copper productionsites have been found in association with Afanasevarchaeological contexts.

The Yenisei River valley and the Minusinsk ba-sin are considered to be the central areas of interac-

tion for Afanasev groups, though Afanasev burialssuch as Bertek 33 have been located high on theUkok Plateau (Molodin 1992). Additionally, Afanasevtype pottery sherds have been found in areas such asSarazm (Lyonnet 1996), a Chalcolithic site in theZerefshan valley, some 1000 kilometres to the southof the Minusinsk basin. Without other concrete evi-dence, however, this connection is dubious. Therealso appears to be continuity of the Afanasev mate-rial package reflected in the Keermuqi culture in theDjungar (Zhungeer) basin in Xinjiang (Chen &Hiebert 1995, 269). The identification of Afanasevtype burials across the northern steppe (Kiselev 1937;Vadetskaya 1980; Khlobystina 1975) and possibly inthe Tobol River drainage such as Ubagan I andVerkhnyaya Alabuga (Mallory 1989, 226 on Potem-khinas finds) excites the possibility of a wider rangefor the Afanasevans across the steppe. In additionto their emerging extent of interaction, Afanasevgroups are typically believed to be of Caucasianphysical morphology (Christensen et al. 1996, citedin Anthony 1998), which has been the cornerstone of

CaspianSea

AralSea

Atasu

Tamgaly

0 150 km

N

Volga

Ural

Emba

Amu Darya

Syr Darya

Turga

i

Sar

y-S

u

To bol

Irtysh

Ishim

Irtysh

ObYenisey

C H I N A

I R A N

TURKMENISTAN

K A Z A K H S T A N

UZBEK

ISTAN

K Y R G Y S T A N

A F G H A N I S T A N

TAJIKISTAN

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Mountain range

Country borderKey

Lake Balkhash

dak del

Ak-MustafaMirchik

Lake Alakol

ALTAI MOUNTAINS

MINUSINSKBASIN

Katun

Kulsai

Lake Ysyk Kul

TIAN SHAN RANGE

DJUNGARIASEM

IRECHE

YEIli

LepsiKoksy

dak del

Figure 10.1 Eastern Eurasian steppe zone.


the argument that they were associated with Yam-naya groups in the Volga region (Kuzmina 1998).Given the variability and plasticity of human popu-lations, however, (cf. Mays 1998) craniometrics andbiological distance studies should not be over vali-dated. In the light of this, the origin of Afanasevgroups is still a wide open question. Furthermore,recent radiocarbon dates from the Altai suggest thatAfanasev contexts predate the Yamnaya (Grsdorfet. al 1998; Bokovenko & Mitjaev 2000), which fur-ther problematizes the claims for western origins ofthe Afanasev groups.

There is little in the way of new synthesis con-cerning the social organization of the Afanasev cul-ture. At this stage, scholars believe that Afanasevgroups represented the first mobile pastoralists onthe steppes (Khazanov 1994, 91). In addition, theAfanasev economy is typically considered the firstdomestically productive economy on the easternsteppes (Okladnikov 1959; Vainshtein 1980; Khaz-anov 1994, 91). Contemporary societies such as theBotai-Tersek culture are documented as hunter/fish-ers (Kislenko & Tatarintseva 1999); additionally theirdiet may have relied heavily on horse- meat (Anthony1998). Bones of sheep and cattle, horses, and wildgame, however, are found in Afanasev burials(Vadetskayas findings, in Chilov 1975). TheAfanasev subsistence economy might best be char-acterized as a mix or transition economy betweenhunting/fishing and semi-mobile pastoralism. Thismay lend support for a local development of theAfanasev, whereby local Neolithic hunter/fishergroups may have adopted diffused ceramic and do-mestication techniques. This stirs up the classic mi-gration versus diffusion debate, in which I shall notengage here. The early Afanasev social organizationwas probably decentralized, with groups of proto-pastoralists interacting in localized zones such asthe Minusinsk Basin.

The later stages of the Early Bronze Age arebetter documented in the eastern steppe zone, and itis during this period (c. 26002000 BC) that character-istic features of a more complex material culturefluoresce. The Okunev society is another ambigu-ously defined culture group, distinguished fromthe Afanasev by little more than slight differencesin ceramic form. Okunev ceramics are typically flatbottomed, and have a stronger resemblance to theubiquitous handmade ceramic style that pervadesthe eastern steppe in the Andronovo period (c. 20001300 BC) (Savinov 1997). The typological horizon be-tween the development of the Afanasev and Okunevsteppe cultures in the Minusinsk Basin and the de-

velopment of the later Andronovo type is very thin.Though the ceramic styles of the Okunev are morecomparable to later Incised Coarse Ware (ICW) (for-mally and ambiguously Andronovo ceramics),Okunev monuments exhibit a greater similarity toAfanasev material culture. In Okunev burial mounds,individuals are often buried together, with ceramicvessels, copper, bone, and lithic objects (Vadetskaya1986; Lazaretov 1997). A notable difference fromAfanasev burials is that Okunev monuments havestone fences surrounding the tumuli, which are usu-ally large and rectangular, while the graves are clus-tered under stone cairns (Lazaretov 1997). LikeAfanasev monuments, Okunev burial forms showsimilarities to the Xinjiang steppes and Djungar ba-sin (Chen & Hiebert 1995, 269). Though Okunev buri-als reveal a greater quantity and quality of copperand bronze artefacts, which indicates a richer met-allurgy than that of the Afanasev (Chernykh 1992,184; Gryaznov 1969; Vadetskaya 1986) a topic towhich we will return below. Given this suite of simi-larities and differences, we may speculate that dur-ing the late third millennium BC, regional interactionbetween fragmenting Afanasev and Okunev groupsgenerated a social system whereby a similar mate-rial cultural package and social practices were ex-changed and mutually employed by various distinctbands or tribes (Khlobystina 1973a), over a wideningand differentiating geographic range.

In summary, there is considerable overlap be-tween the various archaeological assemblages, as wellas some noted divergences. Traditionally, this hasbeen cause to define different culture groups. Per-haps a more fruitful way of handling this paradox ofsimultaneous overlap and disparity is to look to-ward possible socio-political motivations for separa-tion and delineation of a previously cohesive andcommunicative social and cultural complex. I havesuggested that there existed conditions of increasingregional interaction and intensified exploitation, sug-gesting that the Early Bronze Age was a period ofincreasing political complexity. Attention will nowturn to two of the regional conditions that contrib-uted to increased interaction and social communica-tion: 1) metallurgy and 2) geographic control.

Exploitation of copper and bronze

Chernykh (1992, 235) rightly notes that the use ofmetallurgical studies for the recreation of social com-plexity is problematic. However, because copper de-posits are limited in the eastern steppe zone(Chernykh 1992, 6) and metal production centres are

6Chapter 10

neither evenly nor frequently distributed in the re-gion, copper/bronze artefacts represent a sociallyactive technology that demanded conscious plan-ning and negotiation to produce and distribute. Com-pared to the limited variation of other Early BronzeAge artefact assemblages such as ceramic vessels orlithics, copper and bronze metallurgy demonstratesa more creative and socially intertwined develop-ment over time. The proliferation of copper con-sumption, from small personal decorations found inAfanasev burials to the elaborate assemblage of cop-per and bronze items from Middle Bronze Age andlater Fedorovo (Andronovo) archaeological contexts,suggests that the focus of symbolic power rapidlydeveloped in tandem with metallurgical technologyduring the second millennium BC.

In the Eastern Steppe zone, substantial copperdeposits are localized in the Altai mountains andMinusinsk basin (Chernykh 1992) as well as alongthe Ili River in Xinjiang (China) (Mei & Shell 1998).Additionally, isolated copper deposits are foundNorth of Lake Balkash in Kazakhstan (Chernykh1992). Presumably, these ores were known since atleast the early third millennium BC, though currentlyit is difficult to securely provenience the copper andcopper alloy artefacts to specific deposits (Chernykh1992). The assumption here is that groups such asthe Afanasev and Okunev exploited those ore de-posits that were regionally closest an idea whichtakes little imagination.

The metallurgical progress of the eastern steppecan best be understood, stylistically at least, as chang-ing from simple to more complex. The metallurgicalconsumption of Afanasev groups was limited tosmall decorative copper objects of fairly simple form(Chernykh 1992, 183). The range of objects in Okunevcontexts is slightly wider and more elaborate in-cluding knives, awls, nails, and bracelets. The chemi-cal composition of most metal artefacts from Okunevburials is essentially pure copper (Cu), with onlytrace elements such as Antimony (Sb), Arsenic (As),Lead (Pb), Silver (Au) and others (Kavrin 1997, 162).The Okunev artefacts, which are considered slightlylater in date than those of the Afanasev, alreadyshow a more stylized form, and a few bronze arte-facts have been found, for example the bronze spear-head found at the site of Moiseikha (Chernykh 1992,184). Thus, in the late third and early second millen-nium BC there is evidence for increased metallurgicalexploitation in the areas of the Altai and YeniseiRiver Basin.

By the mid second millennium BC, copper andbronze artefacts became even more prevalent both

in terms of stylistic variation and geographic range(Chernykh 1992; Khlobystina 1973a,b; Kuzmina 1988;1986, 35). Andronovo sites across the steppes exhibita highly developed system of trade and metal pro-duction (e.g. Rogochinski 1999). Highly stylized castsand technically proficient metal artefacts are fre-quently found in burial and settlement contexts ofthe mid second millennium BC (Kuzmina 1986), andevidence for regionally specialized production ofmetal is apparent in East-Central Kazakhstan (Kadir-baev & Kurmankulov 1992). Thus, within the greaterEurasian Metallurgical Province (EAMP) as proposedby Chernykh (1992), we can begin to differentiatebetween regions which contain dense ore sourcessuch as the Altai, and those that appear to be operat-ing as highly developed smelting and casting cen-tres, like at the sites of Atasu, Ak-Mustafa, andMirchik (Fig. 10.2) in East-Central Kazakhstan(Kadirbaev & Kurmankulov 1992).

Various regions of metallurgical specialization(Chernykh 1992) contributed to a more elaboratenetwork of political and economic interactions, whichmay have spurred the exploitation of new ecologicalniches like those along the Tian Shan foothills.Andronovo burials exhibit a consistent range of cop-per artefacts, found in broad geographical distribu-tion, suggesting a complex movement of copperacross the steppe (Chernykh 1992). In the easternsteppe zone, however, the regions between theYenisei River and Central Kazakhstan do not seemto cash-in in terms of metallurgical development.Recent excavations in the Semirechye area of south-eastern Kazakhstan do not exhibit the same highlydeveloped metallurgy as that of surrounding areas.Instead, the bulk of copper and bronze artefacts foundin sites along river valleys of the Tian Shan (Fig.10.2) such as Kulsai, Uzunbulak I (Goryachev &Maryashev 1998; Maryashev & Goryachev 1999),and Oi-Dzhailyau (Maryashev & Goryachev 1993)resemble earlier, less elaborate ornaments and jew-ellery forms, similar to those artefacts found inAfanasev and Okunev archaeological contexts. Yetbased on the ceramic types and burial styles, thesesites are chronologically contemporary with mid-late Bronze Age Andronovo cultures (Fedorovo andAlakul c. 1500 BC). Thus, to the north, south, eastand west of the Semirechye region, the developmentof a network of copper production and extractionwas progressing while, apparently, those living atthe cross-roads of this network were not using cop-per to the same extent or for the same purposes.Though, if we assume that those groups living alongthe Tian Shan range were still involved in this me


tallurgical network, they must have attained anddemonstrated their political position through eco-nomic and symbolic techniques other than the ma-nipulation of copper and bronze. The ability to controlthese conduits of trade would provide these groupswith the ability to control certain other resources,such as horses, cattle or other domesticates essen-tially creating a new form of symbolic power thatcould be used to negotiate with other populationsinvolved in economic and social relationships. Thecontrol of herds as a form of social and politicalpower is well documented ethnographically (Bacon1958; Vainshtein 1980; Khazanov 1994); this charac-teristic aspect of mobile pastoral society may wellhave its roots in the Bronze Age.

Geographic control and pastoralism

During the second millennium BC, the Andronovoculture became widespread, with regional variationsapparent across the Eurasian Steppes (Kuzmina

1986). By 1500 BC copper producing sites such asAtasu (Fig. 10.2) were in operation north of LakeBalkash (Kadirbaev & Kurmankulov 1992), south atsites such as Tamgaly (Rogochinski 1999), and in theYenisei River Valley (Kuzmina 1986). The Semirechyeregion has, to date, however, only revealed sites asearly as the mid-late Bronze Age (Kuzmina 1986,pic. 31; Maryashev & Goryachev 1993). Thus, cur-rent evidence suggests that the areas surroundingthe Tian Shan foothills were settled before pastoralgroups had begun to exploit the river valleys andfoothills of the Tian Shan (Semirechye) and DjungarMountains, as well as areas along the northern rimof the Tarim basin. The exploitation of these moun-tain steppe zones during the mid to late Bronze Agewould suggest a shift from a mixed subsistence strat-egy to more intensified pastoral specialization, asagricultural potential of this high altitude ecology(9001500 m) is lower than that of the open steppesof Central Eurasia. The pertinent question is whyspecific groups moved into this zone, which is inter-

Atasu

Tamgaly

0 150 km

N

Sar

y-S

u

Ishi

m

Irtysh

Ob

Yenisey

C H I N A

K A Z A K H S T A N

K YRGY STAN

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Lake Balkhash

Ak-MustafaMirchik

Lake Alakol

ALTAI MOUNTAINS

MINUSINSKBASIN

Katun

Kulsai

Lake Ysyk Kul

TIAN SHAN RANGE

DJUNGARIASEM

IRECHE

YEIli

LepsiKoksy

dak del

Figure 10.2. Eastern steppe zone showing the principal areas and sites mentioned in text.

8Chapter 10

estingly located between metal sources and estab-lished metal production complexes. Would such amove into these natural corridors cause a shift in theway pastoral groups gained power in relation totheir neighbours to the north, south, east and west?The river valleys of the Semirechye region andDjungaria represent natural passageways from therich metal resources of the Tian Shan and Altai Moun-tains, and the central steppe zone. Recent studies inriver valleys such as the Koksy in Kazakhstan haveshown that these valleys contain Bronze Age rock-art and burial monuments (Maryashev & Goryachev1993). The inhabiting groups who controlled theseconduits may have marked the landscape with thesetypes of monuments, to communicate their positionin monitoring the movement of resources throughthese valleys. This proposition stems from analo-gous rock-art monuments from later periods in thesame locations, which clearly depict caravans andscenes of trade (Maryashev pers. comm.). If thesevalleys were used as trade corridors during the IronAge and later, it is at least reasonable to think thatthey were exploited during the Bronze Age as well especially in light of the developing metallurgicalnetwork of the second millennium BC.

If indeed certain groups moved into these val-leys in order to ascertain power by monitoring trade,they would have been exposed to an ecological nichethat is most successfully exploited by pastoraltranshumance. The ecological conditions of thesemedium-sized river drainages, which extend fromthe Tian Shan range toward Lake Balkash, are wellsuited for vertical pastoral transhumance. There-fore, in order to further benefit politically from theirrole as trade mediators in this region, pastoral groupsmay have increasingly specialized their pastoral tech-niques, so as to more successfully occupy these foot-hill steppe drainage systems. It is at least plausiblethat the development of a social framework fororganizing status and power in terms of herd man-agement and regional control was instigated by trans-humant groups who sought to renegotiate their socialand economic position during the mid to late secondmillennium BC. Future work will necessarily have tolook more closely at the consistencies and differ-ences in the archaeological record at Bronze Agesites in Djungaria, the Semirechye, Xinjiang and theAltai Mountains.

Conclusions

The model I have proposed suggests that specializa-tion toward a mobile pastoral life-way can be moti-

vated by broader political and economic relationships.This proposition naturally implies that agents em-ploy strategies that aim to improve their social posi-tion and that enable them to effectively exploit theirliving context at the same time. Additionally, agentsneed not be individuals who engender change sin-gle-handedly strategies can have effects and beaffected by conditions operating at a variety of socialscales, whereby a change in genre de vie couldseamlessly accommodate changing regional politi-cal and economic factors as well as those politicaldynamics that are generated from within socialgroups. I have discussed two archaeological obser-vations concerning change during the Bronze Age inthe eastern steppe zone of Eurasia. The increasingmetallurgical interaction and the movement of pas-toral groups into new ecological niches both suggestthat there was a developing network of politics andeconomy at the regional scale. The strategic move-ment into specific corridors engendered specializa-tion of pastoral exploitation, which may have ledsocieties to actively choose a more mobile, trans-humant lifestyle. As noted, I propose this modelwith the hope that archaeologists will be able todiscuss the political factors which may have playedan important role in the changes in economic exploi-tation and social organization that form the basis for,and come to characterize Inner Asian societies inlater epochs.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Drs Fredrik Hiebert, GregoryPossehl, Brian Spooner (University of Pennsylvania),and Dr David Anthony & Dorcas Brown (HartwickCollege) for their helpful comments and discussionsconcerning this paper. I also thank Dr AlexeiMaryashev and Dr Kurmankulov (Institute of Ar-chaeology, Almaty-KZ) for their insights into theregional archaeology of Central and Eastern Kazakh-stan. Finally, I thank the organizers of the 2000 Cam-bridge Symposium for encouraging the exchange ofideas between scholars from around the world.

Notes

1. Nomadic monitoring of textile trade, as well as othercommodities, is well documented for later archaeo-logical epochs and ethnographically (Allsen 1997).

2. Another aim of this paper is to reorient the forumthrough which archaeologists discuss the prehistoricexploitation of the Eurasian Steppes. In Western Eu-rope and the USA the circulation of the latest archaeo-logical research from archaeologists working across


Central Asia is rather informal, such that a substantialamount of information sharing comes from personalcontacts, regional conferences, and collaborative vis-its rather than through wide publication circulation.To be sure, the corpus of current research concerningthe eastern steppe region is, at present, not completeenough to completely substantiate the model pre-sented here. However, a general survey of the famil-iar archaeological conditions of the steppe throughoutthe Bronze Age will help to demonstrate why theabove model pastoral nomadism as political strat-egy might explain the changes in steppe exploita-tion which evidently occurred in the secondmillennium BC.

References

Allsen, T.T., 1997. Commodity and Exchange in the MongolEmpire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anthony, D. & D. Brown, 1991. The origins of horsebackRiding. Antiquity 65, 2238.

Anthony, D., 1998. The opening of the Eurasian steppe at2000 BCE, in Mair (ed.), vol. 1, 94113.

Arslanova, F.K., 1973. Pamiatniki andronovskoi kulturyiz vostochno-Kazakhstanskoi oblasti [Sites de la civi-lization dAndronovo dans la region de Kazakhstanoriental]. Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 4, 16068.

Bacon, E., 1958. Obok: a Study of Social Structure in Eurasia.(Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 25.) NewYork (NY): Wenner-Gren Foundation.

Barfield, T., 1989. The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empiresand China. Cambridge (MA): Basil Blackwell.

Barfield, T., 1993. The Nomadic Alternative. Englewood Cliffs(NJ): Prentice Hall.

Barth, F., 1964. Nomads of South Persia. New York (NY):Humanities Press.

Bates, D. & S. Lees, 1977. The role of exchange in produc-tive specialization. American Anthropologist 79, 82441.

Bokovenko, N.A. & P. Mitjaev, 2000. Mailinovyj Log. EinGrberfeld der Afanasevo-Kultur. Eurasia Antiqua6, 1333.

Brill Olcott, M., 1981. The settlement of the Kazakh no-mads. Nomadic Peoples 8, 1223.

Brown, D. & D. Anthony, 1998. Bit wear, horseback ridingand the Botai Site in Kazakhstan. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 25(4), 33147.

Chen, K. & F. Hiebert, 1995. The late prehistory of Xinjiangin relation to its neighbors. Journal of World Prehis-tory 9(2), 243300.

Chernikov, S.S., 1960. The Eastern Kazakhstan expedition,1952, in Contributions to the Physical Anthropology ofthe Soviet Union, ed.??. (Peabody Museum of Ar-chaeology and Ethnology Russian translation se-ries 1.) Cambridge(MA): Harvard University Press,12634.

Chernykhh, E.N., 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: theEarly Metal Age. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Chilov, A., 1975. Pastoral economic models in the stepperegions of Eurasia in the Eneolithic and early BronzeAge. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia 1, 515.

Christensen, A.F., B.E. Hemphill & S.I. Mustafakulov, 1996.Prehistoric Bactrian Relationships to Russian andCentral Asian Populations: a craniometric assess-ment. Unpublished paper delivered to the Societyfor American Archaeologist annual meeting (1996),New Orleans.

Cribb, R., 1991. Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

David, T., 1985. Les socits pastorales du Kazakhstanoccidental et leurs rapports avec lAsie centrale au1er millnaire avant J.C, in LArchologie de la bactrianeancienne, ed.??. Paris: Centre National de RecherchesScientifiques, page nos??.

Debaine-Francfort, C., 1988. Archologie du Xinjiang, desorigins aux Han, Ire partie. Palorient 14(1), 529.

Debaine-Francfort, C., 1989 Archologie du Xinjiang, desorigins aux Han, Ilme partie. Palorient 15(1), 183213.

Dergachev, V., 1989. Neolithic and Bronze Age culturalcommunities of the steppe zone of the USSR. Antiq-uity 63, 793802.

Francfort, H.P. (ed.), 1990. Nomades et sdentaires en Asiecentrale. (Apports de larchologie et de lethnologie.)Paris: CNRS.

Frank, A.G., 1993. Bronze Age world system cycles. Cur-rent Anthropology 34, 383429.

Gaul, J.A., 1943. Observations on the Bronze Age in theYenisei valley, Siberia, in Studies in the Anthropologyof Oceania and Asia, eds. C. Coon & J. Andrews.Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum of Archaeol-ogy and Ethnology, 14986.

Ginat, J. & A.M. Khazanov (eds.), 1998. Changing Nomadsin a Changing World. City??: Academy Press.

Ginzburg, V.V., 1956. Drevnee neselenie vostochnykh itsentralnykh raionov Kazakhskoi SSR [Ancient Set-tlements in the southern and central regions ofKazakhstan Republic]. Institut Ethnographii, Trudy33(1), 23898.

Goryachev, A.A. & A.N. Maryashev, 1998. Nouveaux sitesdu Bronze Rcent au Semireche (Kazakhstan).Palorient 24(1), 7180.

Grsdorf, V-J., H. Parzinger, A. Nagler & N. Leontev1998. Article title??. Eurasia Antiqua 4, 7380.

Gryaznov, M.P., 1969. The Ancient Civilization of SouthernSiberia. London: Barrie & Rocklift.

Harth, K., 1985. Pastoral politics. Government and Opposi-tion 20(3), 5668.

Hastorf, C., 1990. One path to the heights: negotiatingpolitical inequality in the Sausa of Peru, in The Evo-lution of Political Systems, ed. S. Upham. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 14676.

Humphrey, C., 1996. Shamans and Elders: Experience, Knowl-edge, and Power among the Duar Mongols. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Irons, W., 1974. Nomadism as a Political Adaptation: theCase of the Yomut Turkmen. American Ethnologist 1,63557.

10

Chapter 10

Jettmar, K., 1981. Cultures and ethnic groups west of Chinain the second and first millennia BC. Asian Perspec-tives 24(2), 14562.

Kadirbaev, M.K. & Ch. Kurmankulov, 1992. Kultypadrevnik skotovodov i metallurgov Sari-Arki. Almaty:Akademiia NAUK of the Republic of Kazakhstan(Institute of Archaeology).

Kavrin, S.V., 1997. Spektralinii analiz Okunevskogometalla, in Okunevskie Svornik: kultypa, iskusstvo,antropologiia, eds. D.G. Saminov & M.L. Podoliskie,St Petersburg: Akademiia NAUK, 1617.

Khazanov, A., 1994. Nomads and the Outside World. Madi-son (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.

Khlobystina, M.D., 1972. Les problmes Palosociologiquede lEnolitique de la Sibrie Meridionale. SovetskayaArkeologiya 2, 3240.

Khlobystina, M.D., 1973a. Certain particularits de la civili-sation dAndronovo dans les steppes de Minoussinsk.Sovetskaya Arkeologiya 4, 5062.

Khlobystina, M.D., 1973b. Origines et dveloppment de lacivilization du premier Age du Bronze dans la Sibriede sud. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia 1, 2438.

Khlobystina, M.D., 1975. The oldest necropoli in the AltaiMountains. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia v. 1, 1734.

Kislenko, A. & N. Tatarintseva, 1999. The Eastern Uralsteppe at the end of the Stone Age, in Levine et al.,183216.

Kiselev, S., 1937. Les tumuli du type dAfanassievo dansla rgion de Minoussinsk. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia 2,7194.

Kojine, P.M., 1971. Chronologie relative des spultures dela ncropole dOkounev-Oulousse. SovetskayaArkeologiia 3, 319.

Korenianko, V.A., 1990. O sotsiologischeskoi interpretatsiipamiatnikov bronzovogo veka (pogrebeniia dandy-bai-begazinskogo tipa) [On sociological interpretationof Bronze Age sites (burials of the Dandybai-Begazytype)]. Sovetskaia Arkeologiia 2, 2840.

Kossarev, M.F., 1972a. Certains problmes de lhistoireethnique de la Siberie occidentale a lAge du Bronze.Sovetskaya Arkeologiia 2, 8195.

Kossarev, M.F., 1972b. Sur les causes et les consquencessociales des anciennes migrations en Sibrieoccidentale. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia 4, 1927.

Kouznetsova, E.F., N.F. Pchenitchnaia & E.N. Souleimenov,1988. Etudes physico-chimiques: des matirespremires et production metallurgique a lAge duBronze au Kazakhstan central. Paleorient 14(1), 4955.

Kuzmina, E.E., 1986. Drevneichnie Skotovodi ot Urala doTyan-Shana [Ancient Cattle-Breeders of the Urals andTian Shan]. Frunze: Akademia Nauk Kirgizskoi SSR.

Kuzmina, E.E., 1988. Kulturnaia i ethnicheskaia atributsiiapastusheskikh plemen Kazakhstana i srednei Aziiepokhi bronzy (Lidentite culturelle et ethnique destribus pastorales du Kazakhstan et de Asie centrala lage du bronze.). Vestnik drevnei istorii 185(2), 3559.

Kuzmina, E.E., 1998. Cultural connections of the Tarim

Basin people and pastoralists of the Asian steppesin the Bronze Age, in Mair (ed.), vol. 1, 6393.

Lattimore, O., 1940. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. Boston(MA): Beacon Press.

Lazaretov, I.P., 1997. Okunev mogilniki v doline reki uibat,in Okunevskie Svornik: kultypa, iskusstvo, antropologiia,eds. D.G. Saminov & M.L. Podoliskie. St Petersburg:Akademiia NAUK, 1964.

Lees, S. & D. Bates, 1974. The origins of specialized no-madic pastoralism: a systemic model. American An-tiquity 39(2), 18793.

Levine, M., 1999. The origins of horse husbandry on theEurasian steppe, in Levine et al., 5-58.

Levine, M., Y. Rassamakin, A. Kislenko & N. Tatarintseva,1999. Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe.(McDonald Institute Monographs.) Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Lyonnet, B., 1996. Sarazm (Tadjikistan) Ceramiques:Chalcolithique et Bronze Ancien. Paris: De Boccard.

Mair, V. (ed.), 1998. The Bronze Age and Early Iron AgePeoples of Eastern Central Asia, vols. 1 & 2. Philadel-phia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Museum Pub-lications.

Mallory, J.P., 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Lan-guage, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames andHudson.

Maryashev, A.N. & A.A. Goryachev, 1999. PamyatnikiKulsaiskogo tipa epoki pozdnei i finalinoi bronzisemirechiya, in Istoriya i Arkeologiia Semirechiya [His-tory and Archaeology of the Semirechye], eds. A.N.Maryashev, J.A. Motov, A.E. Rogochinski & A.A.Goryachev. Almaty: Institute of Archaeology, 4456.

Maryashev, A.N. & A.A. Goryachev, 1993. Voprosytipologii i kronologii pamyatnikov epoki bronzisemirechiya. Rossiyaskaya Arkeologiia 1, 520.

Maryashev, A.N., J.A. Motov, A.E. Rogochinski & A.A.Goryachev (eds.), 1999. Istoriya i ArkeologiiaSemirechiya [History and Archaeology of the Semirechye].Almaty: Institute of Archaeology.

Mays, S., 1998. The Archaeology of Human Bones. London:Routledge.

Mei, J. & C. Shell, 1998. Copper and bronze metallurgy inLate Prehistoric Xinjiang, in Mair (ed.), vol. 2, 581603.

Molodin, V.I., 1992. Studies in the Bertek river valley onthe Ukok plateau. Altaica 1, 2334.

Novgorodova, E.A., 1978. The oldest designs of carts (chari-ots) of Mongolia and the Altai. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia.v. 4, 192206.

Okladnikov, A.P., 1959. Ancient Population of Siberia and itsCultures. Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum Pub-lication.

Potekhina, I.D, 1983 Anthropological characteristics of theStredny-Stog-II population. Sovetskaya Archeologiia1, 14454.

Potemkina, T.M., 1979. On the inter-relation of Alek-seevskoe and Zamaraaevskoe sites in the Transuralsforest steppe zone. Sovetskaya Archeologiia 2, 1930.

11

Bronze Age Exploitation and Political Dynamics

Potemkina, T.M., 1983. Alakulskaia kultura [The Alakulculture]. Sovetskaia Arkheologiia 2, 1333.

Rassamakin, Y., 1999. The Eneolithic of the Black SeaSteppe: dynamics of cultural and economic devel-opment 45002300 BC, in Levine et al., 59182.

Rogochinski, A.E., 1999. Mogiliniki epoki bronzi urochizhaTamgaly, in Istoriya i Arkeologiia Semirechiya [Historyand Archaeology of the Semirechye], eds. A.N.Maryashev, J.A. Motov, A.E. Rogochinski & A.A.Goryachev. Almaty: Institute of Archaeology, 743.

Rowton, M., 1981. Economic and political factors in an-cient nomadism, in Nomads and Sedentary Peoples,ed. J.S. Castillo. (1st edition 30th International Con-gress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa.)Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 2536.

Saitta, D. & A. Keene, 1990. Politics and surplus flow inprehistoric communal societies, in The Evolution ofPolitical Systems, ed. S. Upham. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 20324.

Salzman, C. & J.G. Galaty (eds.), 1990. Nomads in a Chang-ing World. (Series Minor XXXIII.) Naples: InstitutoUniversitario Orientale.

Sarianidi, V., 1975. The tribes of the steppe during theBronze Age in Margiana. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia v. 2,2028.

Savinov, D.G., 1997. Problemi izucheniia Okunevskoikultypi v istoriograficheskom aspekte, in OkunevskieSvornik: kultypa, iskusstvo, antropologiia, eds. D.G.Saminov & M.L. Podoliskie. St Petersburg: AkademiiaNAUK, 719.

Semenov, V.A., 1982. Pamyatniki Afanaievskoi kultypi vSayanak [Afanasev culture monuments in the SayanMountains]. Sovetskaya Arkeologiia 4, 21921.

Sinor, E. (ed.), 1963. Aspects of Altaic Civilization.Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.

Swidler, N., 1973. The political context of Brahuisedentarization. Ethnology 12, 299314.

Vadetskaya, E.B., 1980. Afanasevskii kurgan v. s.Vostochnogo na Enisee. Kratikie Soobbshcheniia 161,1017.

Vadetskaya, E.B., 1986. Arkeologicheskie Pamyatniki b StepyakSrednego Eniseya. Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk CCCP.

Vainshtein, S., 1980. Nomads of South Siberia: the PastoralEconomies of Tuva, edited and with an introductionby C. Humphrey. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Zaibert, V.F. et al., all names?? 1984. Keramicheskiekompleksy eneoliticheskogo poseleniia Botai [Ce-ramic complexes from the Eneolithic settelment ofBotai]. Kratkie Soobscheniia 177, 8190.

Documents

Ancient interactions: east and west in Eurasia