--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just uploaded
> Early Nomads
> Cultural trends of nomadic groups in the Bronze Age
>
Re that:
Everyone knows that the people in the Yamnya culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya
spoke PIE. So today we will learn about its successor the Sintashta culture.
Koryakova, Epimakhov
The Urals in the Bronze and Iron Ages
pp. 90-98
'Social Contrasts
In Sintashta society, there was a sophisticated system of fortifications at the settlements that was organized into regular blocks of houses. These astonishing sites had clear regular planning; all details had been thoroughly thought out. This planning would not have been possible without some organizing power and societal knowledge adequate to follow that power. Many interpretations have been suggested in relation to the Arkaim site military fort, proto-city, proto-town, and ceremonial and religious center. The latter hypothesis appears reasonable if we bear in mind that the set of artifacts found in the site was not typical for intensive everyday use. It is not easier to accept the interpretation put forward by those researchers who regard sites such as Arkaim as administrative and ceremonial centers, where people (about one to two thousand), apart from some craftsmen and aristocracy, gathered periodically to perform rituals (Berezkin 1995). It is difficult to imagine how such a number of people could live all at once within such a close and limited space over a long period of time. However, it is also possible that so far we simply do not have appropriate historical or ethnographic models for this interpretation. In any case, it appears that some of the fortresses were one-layer settlements (Arkaim) and others (Kuisak), have traces of reconstruction and were resettled two or more times. In Zdanovich and Batanina's opinion (2002: 137), the defence function of the fortifications was of primary significance. However, we still do not know who the enemies were. Some scholars (Medvedev 2002a; Pyankov 2002) also support a mythological meaning for the settlements. In particular, they pointed out the similarity between Arkaim and cult complexes such as Dashly 3, Kuldug-tepe in Afghanistan and temple-fortress Koy-Krylagan-Kala in Chorasmia, on the one hand, and between them and the Avestan town Var that was built by Yitna21 in order to save people, on the other.
Nevertheless, a proto-type for circular fortified settlements, containing central squares and houses siding on a wall, is known in the Early Bronze Age in Anatolia, the Aegean, and South-Eastern Europe (Korfmann 1983; Merpert 1995a, 1995b; Yakar 1985). According to Kuzmina (1994), similar fortresses of a circular layout dating from the second quarter of the second millennium bc have been discovered in other regions (e.g., the Crimea and the Don Valley) and could stem from the idea of a military camp, which existed in the steppes for a long time.
It is interesting to take Korfmann's interpretation of Demircihüyük in Anatolia, which demonstrates a striking similarity with Arkaim:
The construction of row houses at Demircihüyük offered the residents the advantage of modest expenditure in construction and additional insulation in the winter. Such collective architectural planning had its disadvantages. Its disadvantages lay in the fact that, should any one house need repair, the roofs of all would be affected; this also was true, for example, in the event of fire. Cooperative effort at Demircihüyük is apparent not only in the domestic architecture but also to an even greater degree in the conception of the embanked fortification wall. The existence of an architectural tradition that is, of an established building pattern, postulates the affluence as well. This architectural system implied that both material and labor stood in reserve for anyone who for any reason was unable to contribute his share toward the renovation of his dwelling. Overall, as well as the the importance of wealth, communal solidarity must have been valued (Korfmann 1983).22
There is no doubt that continuity of this architectural tradition, which lasted for at least two hundred years, is evidence for a stable and strong social organization.
However, it is not easy to recognize any differences between the fortified settlements in size or complexity. Differences in form are explained by chronology (Zdanovich & Batanina 1995), but the idea of chronology does not seem to us seriously grounded because the great majority of settlements have not yet been studied. For the time being, there is also not enough evidence about the "agricultural neighborhood" some groups of open settlements as satellites of the fortresses. According to preliminary observation, they did exist, but we must be cautious until excavations produce results and these results are analyzed. There is no doubt that the basic part of economic activity (pasturing and mining) not to mention hunting, fishing, and gathering occurred outside the fortification. It is probable that ceramic fragments found in various parts of the Arkaim Valley document this activity as well.
The analysis of mortuary remains produces further controversial ideas. On the one hand, funeral sites of the Sintashta cultural continuum show that burial practices were associated with a new system of prestige and its symbolic expression had been established. This system was based on communal ritual, but with visible symbolism relating to some individuals as well. Animal sacrifices (mostly cattle and horses) became an essential part of this rite and most of them were connected with a specific person or persons. Researchers distinguish three kinds of animal sacrifices: those that were represented by whole animals, those that were for the owner's destination, and those connected with communal rituals. The first were placed under the funeral chamber's roof, the second were usually next to the grave (in a special pit), and the third "were concentrated in special places within the funeral area (Gening et al. 1992; Sinuk & Kozmirchuk 1995; Zdanovich & Gaiduchenko 2002). The burials differ by the number and kinds of sacrificed animals. Some people were accompanied by one or two animals or their parts; others were buried with a number of animals (Gening et al. 1992). Indexes of a biomass of sacrificed animals and consumed amount of meat calculated by Gaiduchenko and Zdanovich (2000) correlates with the age, sex, and social position of the buried persons. D. Zdanovich (2005:15) notices that child burials were accompanied by about 25 times less animal matter than adult male burials, possibly because a child's buriel would attract fewer mourners thus less meat was consumed. Female burials were given a smaller amount of animals compared with males. The biggest sacrifices connected with some distinguished persons included up to twelve animals (Stepnoye 74, Sintashta and Khripunovo cemeteries). The funeral of such persons could attract hundreds of people. Another relevant fact is that male burials containing weaponry objects, chariots, and harness elements indicate a military makeup. We also can refer to such objects as stone maces and bone "spades" (Plate 2.62), which were definitely of prestige character.
At first glance, the burial grounds that have been studied look homogeneous in terms of wealth differentiation. No cemeteries can be determined as a separate necropolis of the high social stratum. Burials are undoubtedly characterized by some variation in the number and composition of grave goods, but this variation is not striking. We cannot see clear property stratification, although most scholars believe in the existence of an elite (Bochkarev 1995a; Vasily'ev et al. 1992). Attempts to confirm this statement (Epimakhov 2002b; Zdanovich 1997a) have resulted in the conclusion that: (1) an elite was not materialized during "a lifetime" (there are no traces of its existence in the settlements, and the traces are not numerous in the ritual); and (2) Sintashta funeral rituals represent, first of all, sex and age gradations, and less visibly social positions.
Despite this, the rather stable presence of charioteer graves in the communal cemeteries testifies to the fact that the people, who definitely had a different status, shared the same living conditions with other members of society. Interesting results relating to the male and female social roles were obtained from the excavation and anthropological examination of the Bestamak cemetery in western Kazakhstan. Logvin (2002) writes, that the uniform standard of internment in single male and female burials suggests that men and women of the Bestamak community had much in common in public status. At the same time, an analysis of grave good composition allowed him to distinguish the social group, which is represented by burials of men owning the axe-adzes, indicating higher status than other members of the community (Fig. 2.21).
As stated earlier, a relatively high level of metallurgy and metalworking is well documented. Pieces of slag, ore, drops of metal, and metalworking tools are found in some burials (Epimakhov 1996).
Meanwhile, simple demographic calculations (Epimakhov 2002a) demonstrate that only a third of the dead were honored with the privilege of being buried under kurgans. It is important to note that all age-sex groups were found and the level of mortality is near normal.23 Therefore, the rest of society was buried in a different way.
Because not all the deceased members of this society are accessible to archaeological investigation, a reconstructed societal structure based on funeral sites can only be incomplete and skewed. However, all conclusions about the level of Sintashta society must rely on the results of mortuary sites.
At the same time, the Sintashta burials that produce an abundance of sacrificed animals and grave goods, are distinctive compared with other steppe and forest-steppe Bronze Age sites. Although the number of luxury goods is limited, scholars interpret some goods (maces, battle-axes, spearheads, chariots) as markers of power. Such objects found at the sites of the European Neolithic and later Iron Age are considered signs of social power and features of a chiefdom level (Bradley 1991; Kristiansen 1991).
A simple conclusion can be drawn from this situation: the elite part of society can be distinguished only if we regard some categories of goods, amount and sophistication of animal sacrifice, and the central locality of graves as markers of social status. D. Zdanovich (1997), "who has analyzed the funeral ritual of Sintashta society, states that although the society "knew" the institute of elite, elites were not dramatically distinguished from others, at least from the evidence of the kurgan burials. We think that the Sintashta elite's main function was administrative and organizational, including and perhaps, first of all, ceremonial activity, which seems to have been of great significance in Sintashta society.
It is difficult to determine the number and proportion of societal strata in Sintashta society. Yet, we can state that ranking, as a characteristic of complexity, is visible especially in regard to the specialization of economic activity. One also can suppose that part of the population could have had easier access to material resources, as it has been described in some theoretical works (Carneiro 1981; Kristiansen 1991; Tainter 1988), but again archaeological representation of such social characteristics is not univocal.
The specific attributes of the Sintashta archaeological complex can be characterized by the following: (1) systemic character of site localizations; (2) highly organized settlements with elaborated fortifications and sectional architectural planning; (3) complex burial sites with a high concentration of the remains of sophisticated ritual practice comprised of several variations in the association between human bodies and animals; and (4) the significant presence of metal objects, weaponry, wheeled transport of rather advanced construction for that time, and an eclectic set of ceramics.
Social complexity is usually connected to specialized production, the monumental character and variation of architecture, settlement hierarchy, increase in the size of the society, and the stratification of funeral ritual. The Sintashta society was much more complex than aboriginal post-Eneolithic society based on nonproductive economies.24 Although the settlement sizes do not correspond to the Near Eastern proto-urban standards, they are comparable with some towns of the Asia Minor, some of which, like the Troy II, were not more than 2 ha (Masson 1989). Although at present level of our knowledge it is unlikely possible to measurably assess the level of the Sintashta society, one cannot deny that such a concentration of population within rather compact territory (60000 km2) is outstanding against the usual steppe landscape occupancy.
Some social groups existed that were partly or fully involved in different fields of economic production, including crafts and the management of settlement planning and construction, as well as the organization of religious ceremonies. It is worth mentioning that an emphasis on ritual activity points to a close connection among leadership, hierarchy, and religion (Wason & Baldia 2000: 224).
It appears that the Petrovka society was slightly different from that of Sintashta. At least this seems evident for the Urals area. The size of settlements and, consequently, their demographic capacities, are somewhat comparable. There are differences in the scale of structural complexity between the various rectangular settlements, that is to say, we deal with gradual cultural simplification. It is hardly possible to rank the population using only materials from the settlement. The burial grounds, however, show the process of societal changes.
One can see that the new order determines the formation of the funeral site Pottery prototypes were also well established During the Sintashta time, only a portion of the dead were buried under "kurgan" mounds, during the Petrovka periods, the situation was different The individual graves of children arranged in the kurgan's periphery become more numerous. The number of grave goods accompanying the children becomes fewer. The same tendency, although not in such an expressive manner, is seen in adult burials. In other words, during the Petrovka period, the labor investment in the funeral practice definitely decreases.
The Petrovka series of burials do produce some prestige goods, especially, weapons (which are, however, less numerous). Nevertheless, it seems that some sort of "individualization" takes place: the number of individual adult graves rises and grave goods are more specifically attached to the individual. One can suppose that a kin component (not only by blood but also by marriage) of social relations comes to play a more significant role in the Petrovka societies.
The probable ethnic attribution of the Sintashta sites has been the center of scholarly interest practically from the first publications (Gening 1977; Smirnov & Kuzmina 1977). Gening and Kuzmina thoroughly explored the Indo-Iranian hypothesis. The list of arguments can be added when comparing the hierarchy of sacrificed animals used in Sintashta funeral rituals with an analogous list reconstructed from written sources such as the Rig Veda and Avesta (Zdanovich 2005). The Sintashta funeral rituals of offering exactly correspond to the Indo-Iranian hierarchy of ritual significance of three basic animals horse, bull, and sheep. The dog (wolf) burials do not contradict this attribution. The location of this kind of animal between the grave bottom (underworld) and daily surface (living world) does not look accidental. The mediating functions of a dog between the worlds of the living and dead are well known (Kerberos, four-eyed dog of the Avesta). Jones-Bley (2002), who examined the Indo-European burial ritual as it is presented in the Rig Veda and Avesta, compared it with archaeological materials and concluded, "The Sintashta burials include all the elements that go into the main body of Indo-European burial and also includes what has been regarded as an aberration, that of excarnation" (Jones-Bley 2002: 78).
The Origin and Ultimate Fate of the Sintashta Cultural Core-Tradition
We think that the historical fate of the Sintashta population is closely connected to its genesis. In general, the following model can represent, in some sense, the origin of Sintashta society.
At the end of the Middle Bronze Age, a destructive shift ushered in the transformation of the Circumpontic metallurgical network that had functioned with large-scale connections between the southern and northern cultural areas. This destruction concerned not only the Catacombnaya cultural formation, whose heritage is somewhat reflected in Sintashta sites, but also the entire eastern European steppe-forest-steppe. Some scholars explain the displacement of the bearers of the Catacombnaya tradition from the northern Caucasus to the Pontic steppes by migrational processes which swept over the Circum-Pontic and Aegean area at the turn of the third and second millennia bc (Chernykh 1989: 24; Zdanovich 2005: 17).
Destruction does not mean that all cultural prototypes were abolished, if the point is not to annihilate the bearers of tradition. In extreme situations, the system of social priorities is changed, and some prototypes, which were on the periphery of social consciousness, are generated or are culturally selected. It is worthwhile to refer to the climatic factor as well. Specialists state that in the early second millennium bc, the area of the Sintashta culture experienced maximum aridity, spread of saline soils and deforesterization (Lavrushin & Spiridonova 1999; Zdanovich & Zdanovich 2002). This factor could push the mechanism of migration and produce radical change in social and economic strategies.
Despite the different origins of its initial components, the Sintashta culture that formed in the South Trans-Urals, introduced new traditions of settlement, funeral architecture, and the rapid development of metallurgy. We can suppose a synchronic appearance of Mnogovalikovaya Ceramic, Abashevo, and Sintashta cultures resulting from the destruction of the old cultures of the Middle Bronze Age. The spasmodic character of metallurgical development, building construction, and woodworking is well represented. The remains of chariots, the production of which could have taken place locally, are evidence of this.
All of these cultural occurrences are connected with the southern part of the Circumpontic and adjacent areas, namely, the Caucasus and Balkans. The very characteristic attribute of the Sintashta and Petrovka cultural tradition sophisticated system of animal offering and sacrifice - has no parallels in local cultures, but its closest forms (indeed, not identical) can be found also in the Catacombnaya culture sites (Gei 1999; Sinuk 1996; Zdanovich 2005).
The genesis of the Petrovka core-tradition is clearly connected with that of Sintashta. No one doubts this. The questions under discussion are about the degree of the contribution of aboriginal groups of central and northern Kazakhstan in the formation of regional variants as well as the chronological relationship between them and the partial synchronization of the Kazakhstan sites with those of Sintashta.
The Petrovka culture is also closely connected with the Alakul culture (see Chapter 3). Here, however, there is some disagreement between scholars. Most scholars share the hypothesis suggested by G. Zdanovich (1973) and developed by Vinogradov (1982) about the Petrovka origin of the Alakul tradition. However, some archaeologists do not rule out their separation and prefer to put an equal sign between the terms "Petrovka" and "Early Alakul" (Vinogradov 1983). An alternative position is held by Potyemkina (1995), who thinks that the Alakul culture was primarily based on the Eneolithic groups of the Trans-Uralian forest-steppe, yet the Petrovka elements played a secondary role. Grigory'ev (2000a) claims that the Alakul prototypes originated with the Cis-Urals Sintashta variant.
Hence, we should confess that there is no common opinion about the taxonomic level of all the antiquities described earlier or about the interpretation of some sites. It can be explained by the series of real similarities between Petrovka and Alakul materials, on one side, and by the fact that many sites are of a mixed character. Additionally, the images of both cultures were formed, above all, on the burial materials and, especially, on the pottery.25 The investigation of settlements always complicates an analysis that is reflected sometimes in such a concept as the "Sintashta-Petrovka" culture.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that the Petrovka and Sintashta sites are distinctive. Their synchronic character is proved for the Urals. In central and northern Kazakhstan, Sintashta sites are not known, and, thus, the Petrovka materials do in fact indicate the beginning of the real Bronze Age in this area.26
As we stated earlier, the chronological position of the Petrovka culture is well established by aerial photography analysis and the stratigraphy of some settlements and cemeteries. The excavation of the Usty'e settlement (Vinogradov 1995a) confirms these observations. Kurgan 10 of the Krivoye Ozero cemetery produced the same stratigraphy demonstrating the later position of the Petrovka complex in relation to the Sintashta complex. Tkachev (1998), who studied the Cis-Urals materials, came to a similar conclusion.
When investigating the correlation between the Petrovka and Alakul cultures, we have less expressive evidence. As Matveyev (1998) states about the cemeteries of the Middle Tobol area, the Petrovka features gradually played out during the early stages of the Alakul culture. The stratigraphy of the Troitsk-7 cemetery confirms this statement (Kostukov & Epimakhov 1999).
Summing up, the many elements of the Sintashta cultural complex have no local roots in the southern Trans-Urals; their parallels lead us to the west and southwest. However, these elements have got a systemic character here, in the Uralian land.
22. G. Zdanovich thinks that people abandoning the settlement set them on fire deliberately. It is also probable that the fire traces could be from wildfire.
23. In Bolshekaragansky kurgan 25, only 50 percent of the dead were children.
24. In the Eneolithic (the third millennium bc), the southern Urals was included into the Trans-Uralian and northern Kazakhstan Eneolithic subarea (Zaibert 1993), which was a part of large area of cultures with geometrical pottery ornamentation. This area stretched from the Ob' River and Aral Sea up to the Baltic Sea. Large permanent settlements and small seasonal camps, occupied by the horse-hunters and fishers, characterize the Trans-Uralian Eneolithic culture.
25. The burial pottery appears to be of a standard type, perhaps because of a rigid selection required by ritual prescriptions.
26. There are single complexes of the Yam-naya culture, but they are currently seen as very modest.'
Wrt the the roundhouses and their function, cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulou
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian_Tulou
General description of the geographical and ethnic situation of the area in which they were built:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian
On their purpose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakka_architecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakka_people
'One theory of the Hakka people's origins suggests they were related to the Xiongnu nomadic people, who had a considerable, sometimes dominating presence in northern China from the Han Dynasty (202 BC-AD 220) period to the Southern and Northern Dynasties (420-589)[3]. However, the more commonly held view is the Hakka are a subgroup of the Han Chinese.'
BTW the Wikipedia article of the Yamnaya culture says:
'It {the culture] is said to have originated in the middle Volga based Khvalynsk culture and the middle Dnieper based Sredny Stog culture. In its western range, it is succeeded by the Catacomb culture; in the east, by the Poltavka culture and the Srubna culture.'
whereas Epimakhov and Koryakova see the Catacomb culture as parallel to Yamnaya and the Sintashta culture as intermediary between the Yamnaya culture and the Poltavka and Srubnaya cultures.
Here more from Wikipedia on Sintashta:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta-Petrovka
Torsten