From Scale to Practice: A New Agenda for the Study of Early Metallurgy on the Eurasian Steppe

28 Pages·0.59 MB·English

by  Hanks B., Doonan R.

JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356
DOI10.1007/s10963-009-9031-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
From Scale to Practice: A New Agenda for the Study
of Early Metallurgy on the Eurasian Steppe
Bryan Hanks • Roger Doonan
Publishedonline:1December2009
(cid:1)SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC2009
Abstract Thispaperevaluatesconventionalscholarshipsurroundingearlymetallurgyin
the Eurasian steppe zone, with a particular focus on prehistoric developments in a region
includingnorthernKazakhstanandtheSouthernUralMountainsoftheRussianFederation.
Traditionally, the emergence of metallurgy in this region has been viewed either as
peripheraltocoredevelopmentsinMesopotamia,EuropeandtheNearEast,oraspartofa
much larger zone of interaction and trade in metals and metal production technologies.
Such views have deflected scholarship from pursuing questions concerning metallurgical
production,consumption,trade andvalue, andtheirconnection tolocaldiachronic socio-
economicchange.Thispaperexaminesthesekeyissuesthroughrecentresearchprograms
inthestepperegion,andinsodoingoffersanimportantcomparativecasestudyforearly
metallurgy.Itissuggestedthatinordertodevelopabetterunderstandingofearlymining,
metallurgy and socio-economic change in the central steppe region, new theoretical and
methodological approaches are needed that highlight the unique characteristics of early
mining communities and their relationships to micro-regional resources and concomitant
local, in addition to long-distance, trade dynamics. These issues are discussed in light of
current field research by the authors and their Russian colleagues on the Middle Bronze
Age Sintashta development (2,100–1,700 BC) in the Southern Ural Mountains.
Keywords Metallurgy (cid:1) Central Asia (cid:1) Sintashta culture
Introduction
The emergence of early metal production, including mining, smelting and exchange, can
beseenasakeyelementinthedevelopmentofmorecomplexsocialandpoliticalordersin
B.Hanks(&)
DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityofPittsburgh,Pittsburgh,PA,USA
e-mail:[email protected];[email protected]
R.Doonan
DepartmentofArchaeology,UniversityofSheffield,Sheffield,UK
e-mail:r.doonan@sheffield.ac.uk
123
330 JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356
the ancient world (Yener 2000; Maddin 1988; Tylecote 1987; Levy 2003; Linduff 2004).
Metal production marked an important transition towards increasing regional and inter-
regional trade and the innovation and diffusion of new technologies, and routinely pro-
vided the material setting for wealth accumulation among emerging elite factions within
early societies (Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Chapman 2003; Kristiansen 1998, 73). Such
conditionshavebeenseenascontributingtothedevelopmentof earlyrankedsocietiesin
Eurasia (Kristiansen 1984; Koryakova 1996, 1998) and the rise and expansion of early
statesandempiresfromthe4thtoearly2ndmillenniaBCintheNearEast(Gilman1981;
Sherratt and Sherratt 1991).
Traditionalinterpretationsofearlycopperminingandbronzemetallurgicalproductionin
Eurasiahaveeitheremphasizedtheconnectionwiththeexpandinginfluenceofurbancores,
andtheirexploitationofmetalindustriesandothervalue-ladencommoditiesinperipheral
regions, or the emergence of elites and their control over metal production and exchange
within societies (Shennan 1986; Kristiansen 1984). Since the 1980s, studies of these
developments have drawn intently on various theoretical elements of Wallerstein (1974)
WorldSystemsmodel,particularlyitsstressoncorecontrolandperipheralexploitation,asa
way of modeling wide scale socio-political relationships and resource exploitation within
prehistoricEurasia(Christian1998;Rowlandsetal.1987).Suchstudiesalsohavecharac-
terizedCentralAsiaandmuchofthevastEurasianstepperegionaseitherasemi-periphery
or peripheralzoneof exploitationbyearly statesand empiressituated tothesouth.Other
scholars,however,havearguedthatgreateremphasismustbeplacedonunderstandinghow
technologicaldevelopmentsarticulatedwiththeemergenceofcomplexsocialformationsin
theregionsthathaveconventionallybeenviewedasperipheral(Linduff2004;Kohl1987;
Yener2000;Hanks2009;HanksandLinduff2009).Forexample,Kohlhasarguedthatwhat
has been seen as a Bronze Age ‘World System’ during the late third and early second
millenniaBCwasnotcomprisedofasinglecoreregionexploitingperipheralzones.Rather,
muchofCentralAsiaatthistimecompriseda‘patchworkofoverlapping,geographically
disparatecoreregionsorfociofculturaldevelopment,eachofwhichprimarilyexploitedits
own immediate hinterland’ (1987, 16). As Kohl suggests, one of the key elements in this
modelisthatoftransferabletechnologies,suchastheknowledgeandexpertiserequiredfor
metal production, which could not be constrained by single socio-political entities (1987,
17).Inthiscase,theappearanceofwidespreadminingandmetalsproductionintheEurasian
stepperegionshouldbeviewedalsointermsoflocalizedsocial,technologicalandpolitical
formationsbasedontheexploitationofregionalresourcesandthedevelopmentofnetworks
oftradeandinteraction.
InconsideringthecharacterandroleofmetallurgyintheEurasianstepperegion,andits
connectiontotrajectoriesofprehistoricsocial,politicalandtechnologicaldevelopment,the
work of Evgenii Chernykh and colleagues at the Institute of Archaeology, Russian
Academy of Sciences, in Moscow has provided an immense contribution to scholarship.
Thisworkhasincludedtheanalysisofmorethan120,000metalobjectsandnearly1,700
calibratedradiocarbondates(Chernykh2009,115)fromthesteppearea.Thesedatahave
led to the formulation of what Chernykh has termed ‘metallurgical provinces’ (e.g., Car-
patho–Balkan metallurgical province, Circumpontic metallurgical province, Eurasian
metallurgical province), which reflect specific geographical regions of metallurgical pro-
duction, trade and consumption and similarities in the use of regional base metals and
technologies(seeChernykhandKuz’minykh1989;Chernykh1992;Chernykhetal.2000).
Whilethesestudieshaveemphasizedtheregionalnatureoftheproductionanduseofmetal
objects they have also brought to light more wide-ranging geographical distributions of
specific forms of metal objects, such as the Seima–Turbino trans-cultural phenomenon.
123
JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356 331
Thispatternrepresentsseveralhundredmetalobjectsandmoldsthathavebeendiscovered,
with the majority coming from five major burial grounds situated within the forest and
forest-steppe zone of Eurasia (Chernykh and Kuz’minykh 1989; see Koryakova and
Epimakhov 2007, 39 for up to date discussion). The discovery of such widespread tech-
nologyandmaterialobjectshasstimulateddebateamongscholarsastowhatkindofsocial
process(e.g.,trade,migration,warrior-metallurgicalspecialists,etc.)mayhaveledtosuch
a pattern. The Seima–Turbino phenomenon is a good example of the tension that exists
between the detailed technological analysis of material artifacts and the modeling of the
social processes that can lead to the diffusion of objects and technology both temporally
andspatially.Fortunately,recenttrendsinthescholarshipoftheEurasianstepperegionare
pushing our understanding of the relationship between metallurgical production and con-
sumption and social complexity in new directions.
Forexample,severalrecentpublicationshaveprovidedexcellentoverviewsinEnglish
and German on the role of metals and their connection with social and technological
change in the steppe region for the Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages (Anthony 2007;
Kohl 2007; Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007; Parzinger 2006). In addition to the publi-
cation of these important surveys, several international research projects have focused on
the relationship between social, political and technological processes by examining in
greater detail diachronic changes in settlement, subsistence and craft specialization in
Central Asia and north central Eurasia. For example, the investigation of the Bactria-
MargianaArchaeologicalComplex(BMAC),northoftheKopetDagMountainsinCentral
Asia, has fueled great interest in the emergence of a unique civilization geographically
situatedbetweenthenorthernboundaryoftheNearEastandtheEurasianstepperegion.Its
relationship and possible influence on steppe social, cultural and technological develop-
ments in the third to second millennia BC has been actively discussed in recent years
(Anthony2007;Hiebert1994,2002;Kosarevetal.2004;Sarianidi2005).Frachetti(2002,
2004, 2008), and Colleagues, through the Dzhungar Mountains Archaeology Project in
southeastern Kazakhstan, have highlighted the role that Late Bronze Age mobile pasto-
ralists may have played in controlling the movement and trade of metal commodities.
Anthony and colleagues, through a large multi-disciplinary project in the Samara Valley
region, have also investigated key developments connected with Late Bronze Age met-
allurgy, settlement patterns, and social organization (Anthony et al. 2005; Popova 2006).
The work of Peterson et al. (2006, 2009), in conjunction with the Samara Bronze Age
Metals Project, has focused more specifically on the importance of technological shifts
regarding metal industries and the transformation of ‘value’ surrounding the manufacture
and trade of metals and metal objects within the north-central Eurasian steppe region.
In addition to these recent projects, important research undertaken by the Russian
AcademyofSciencesattheBronzeAgeminingandmetalproductioncomplexofKargaly,
situated in the southwestern Ural Mountains region of Russia, has revealed the extensive
exploitation of copper deposits that are distributed within an estimated 500 sq. km zone.
Thisprojecthasprovidedavaluablecasestudyforexaminingdiachronicdevelopmentsin
mining activities from the Early Bronze Age (Yamnaya culture, 4th millennium BC)
throughtowhatappearstobethehighestlevelofextraction,connectedwiththeSrubnaya
culturephase(1,700–1,400BC)andthenasubstantialdeclineafter1,400BC(DiazdelRio
etal.2006).Anumberofdetailedinvestigationsofminingandquarrying,oreprocessing,
metallurgical production, settlement and mortuary patterns for this period have been
publishedinrecentyearsasaresultofthisimportantinternationalproject(Chernykhetal.
2000; Chernykh 2002a, b, 2004a, b; see Kohl 2007, 170–178 for good overview in
English).
123
332 JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356
Interestingly, an intensive palynological study at Kargaly has revealed a probable
connectionbetweenoverexploitationoflocaltimberresourcesandwhatisinterpretedasa
c. 1,400 BC decline in large scale smelting activities (Vicent et al. 2006). Chernykh has
postulated that an overexploitation of locally available timber led to a greater focus on
extractionandtradeofcopperoresoutoftheKargalyregion(Kohl2007,174),ratherthan
thecontinuationoflocalizedsmelting.Thismodelofa‘community’ofspecialistminersis
further supported by the recovery of approximately 2.3 million animal bones from an
approximately1,000 sq mexcavatedareaintheGornysettlement,whichissituatedwithin
the Kargaly mining complex. Analysis of the bones indicates that 99.8% of them come
from domesticated animals and approximately 80% from domesticated cattle (Antipina
2004). Such an intensive concentration of faunal remains certainly lends support to
Chernykh’s model (1997) that the settlement of Gorny was occupied by a community of
specialist miners that traded copper ores for cattle, which then were used both for sub-
sistence and the utilization of bone elements such as long bone fragments for picks and
wedgesforshaftminingandtheextractionofcopperores.Theresearchatthesettlementof
Gorny and the larger Kargaly complex has generated many questions about the nature of
base metals exploitation, metal production and trade during the Late Bronze Age period,
particularly with regard to socio-economic organization.
AnotherimportantarchaeologicaldiscoveryinthesouthernUralMountainsregionare
sitesconnectedwiththeMiddleBronzeAgeSintashtaculture,whichhasbeenAMSdated
to 2,100–1,700 BC (Hanks et al. 2007) (Fig. 1). The Sintashta archaeological pattern,
whichhasalsobeenlabeledthe‘Sintashta–Petrovka’,‘Sintashta–Arkaim’and‘Countryof
Towns’byvariousauthors,hasbeenperceivedinternationallyasoneofthemostcomplex
andenigmatic prehistoric developments withinthe CentralEurasian stepperegion (Boyle
et al. 2002; Jones-Bley and Zdanovich 2002; Chernykh and Kuz’minykh 1989, 1992;
Kuz’mina1994,2000,2002;Lamberg-Karlovsky2002;Levineetal.2003;Mallory1989).
Unfortunately, even though considerable field research has been focused on this devel-
opment,numerousquestionsstillremainunansweredregardingsocialorganization,metal
productionandscaleofinter-regionalandintra-regionaltrade.Theemergenceanddecline
of the Sintashta archaeological pattern is a particularly important case study in terms of
someofthemajorchallengesconfrontingmoredetailedunderstandingsoftherelationship
between prehistoric metal production and societal developments in the broader Eurasian
steppe zone. The remainder of this paper will investigate several of these issues, and
discusswaysinwhichbothnewtheoriesandmethodsneedtobeappliedtoachievemore
comprehensive understandings of the relationship between metals production and con-
sumption, and societal change.
The Sintashta Development (c. 2,100–1,700 BC)
The Sintashta archaeological pattern, because it reflects a distinct transition in social,
economic, and political organization connected with the postulated development of more
intensivecopperminingandbronzemetalproduction,hasgreatlyintriguedscholarssince
its early identification in the 1970s and subsequent research in the 1980s and 1990s.
Completelynewformsofnucleated,fortifiedsettlementsappearatthistimeinconjunction
with increasingly elaborate cemeteries that have yielded early spoke wheeled chariot
technology, large-scale animal sacrifice, and complex tomb construction (Anthony and
Vinogradov 1995; Beryozkin 1995; Gening et al. 1992; see Kohl 2007; Koryakova and
Epimakhov 2007 for good recent overviews). Based on these factors, scholars have
123
JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356 333
Fig.1 Map of southeastern Ural Mountains region indicating sites associated with Sintashta culture
developments
suggestedthattheSintashtapatternmustrepresenttheemergenceofcomplexhierarchical
societies indicative of ‘chiefly’ leadership and territorial control (Anthony 2007; Kor-
yakova 1996, 2002; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005; Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002).
Moreover,becauseoftheuniquenatureoftheSintashtapattern,ithasalsobeenintensively
discussed in relation to early Indo–Iranian language (Grigor’yev 1999, 2000; Lamberg-
Karlovsky 2002; Renfrew 1987) and the territorial expansion of steppe pastoralist groups
into Central Asia and northwestern China (Di Cosmo 2002, 29).
As a result of these important developments, most scholars agree that the Sintashta
cultural developments provided the foundation for the later emergence of the so-called
Andronovo ‘cultural horizon’. The Late Bronze Age Andronovo horizon comprises a
number of quite characteristic regional archaeological patterns including the Late Petro-
vka, Fyodorovka, Alakul’, and Sargary–Alexeyevka (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007,
126). Unfortunately, the nature of the Andronovo development has too often been con-
nected with theories of migration, and this has overshadowed important social, economic
and technological developments—including transitions in metallurgical technology, min-
ing and the exploitation of new sources of copper ores, and growth in regional trade and
123
334 JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356
exchange relationships between communities. More specifically, the chronological and
spatialtransitionsconnectedwiththeSintashta,PetrovkaandAlakul’–Fyodorovkapatterns
inthesouthernUralsandnorthwesternKazakhstan,whichdatefromapproximately2,100–
1,500 cal.BC,representaparticularlyimportantdevelopmentalstage.Forexample,based
on recent radiocarbon dating (Epimakhov et al. 2005; Hanks et al. 2007), the Petrovka
archaeological pattern would seem to represent a crucial chronological and spatial link
betweentheearlySintashtadevelopmentandlaterAndronovosubculturesinthesouthern
Urals region and Kazakhstan.
While Petrovka sites share a number of similar archaeological patterns with Sintashta
cemeteries and settlements, they nevertheless contain a number of important new char-
acteristics. These include linear rather than circular settlement planning, the presence of
childburialswithinhousefloors,ageneraldeclineintherichnessofgraveconstructionand
furnishing, and the production of bronze objects with different elemental compositions.
Overall, the chemical composition of the Petrovka metal objects, which are frequently
made of pure copper, some with tin bronze and a few with tin-arsenic alloys, is different
from that of Sintashta artifacts, and is more closely related to later Alakul’ metal pro-
duction (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007, 83).
Degtyarevaetal.(2001)havesuggestedthatthenewformsofmetallurgyconnectedwith
Petrovka sites were strongly linked to the exploitation of ores from the Mugodzhary
Mountains of north central Kazakhstan and that for this reason the expansion of the
archaeological pattern extended eastwards across present day northern Kazakhstan. It has
beenestimatedthattheKenkazganminesofnorthcentralKazakhstanproduced30–50,000
metric tonsofsmeltedcopperinthe Bronze Age (Chernykh1992, 212).Suchproduction
would clearly have had an important impact on stimulating regional socio-economic
developmentsandtheemergenceofnewtradenetworkswithintheterritoryofpresent-day
northernKazakhstanduringtheLateBronzeAge.Nevertheless,thesedevelopmentsappear
tohavepost-datedtheinitialemergenceoftheSintashtapatternintheMiddleBronzeAge.
Sintashta Settlement Patterning
The relative chronology established for Sintashta settlement sites is based on previous
excavationsatSintashta,Arkaim,KuisakandUstye,coresamplingatthesitesofBersuat,
Isinei, Alandskoe and Stepnoye, and the analysis of data from aerial photographs
(Zdanovich1988;1997a,b;ZdanovichandZdanovich2002).Unfortunately,eventhough
agreatdealofarchaeologicalexcavationhasbeenundertakenatsitessuchasArkaimand
Ustye, the only rather detailed publication on settlements to date is on the excavations at
Sintashta (Gening et al. 1992).
Based on initial studies, and relying heavily on air photo interpretation, three general
categories of settlement planning have been ranked chronologically, with oval shaped
settlements (Alandskoe, Bersaut, Isinei—I, Kizilskoye, Rodniki and Stepnoye) being the
earliestandrounded(Arkaim,Sintashta,Sarym–Sakly,Kuisak,KamennyiAmbar(Olgino)
and Zhurumbai) and rectangular shaped settlements (Chekatai, Konoplyanka, Andreevs-
koe, Chernorech’ye, Sintashta II, Ust’ye, Bakhta and Karnysty) representing the final
phases of Middle Bronze Age fortification construction (Zdanovich and Batanina 2002).
ManySintashtasettlements indicate from onetofourconstructionhorizons(Fig. 2),with
someoftheexcavatedsitesyieldingevidenceofreconstructionafterphasesoffireand/or
destruction (e.g., Kamennyi Ambar, Alandskoe, Sintashta and Bersaut) (Zdanovich and
Batanina 2002, 123). Therefore, the relationship between circular and rectangular con-
structionfeaturesatthesemayhavemoretodowiththegrowthandexpansionofspecific
123
JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356 335
Fig.2 AirphotointerpretationsoftwoSintashtafortifiedsettlements:leftSarym–Sakly;rightAndreevs-
koe.Shadedareasrepresentbanksandsmallovaldepressionsarehouseunits(redrawnandadaptedfrom
ZdanovichandBatanina2002)
settlements than with chronological patterning. This has been supported by a recent geo-
physicsstudyoftheOl’ginosettlement,whichrevealedthatratherthanbeinga‘rounded’
settlement plan it comprised two distinct phases of construction that included a smaller
oval settlement and a secondary extension that was more rectangular.
The regional distribution of Sintashta settlements in the southeastern Urals varies but
manyarespacedatadistanceof40–60 km(Fig. 1).Asaresult,severalRussianscholars
have suggested that the territorial zone of the settlements is limited to a radius of
approximately 20–30 km (Epimakhov 2002a, b, 2005; Zdanovich and Batanina 2002). It
alsohasbeensuggestedthatfortifiedandnon-fortifiedsettlementhierarchiesmayexistin
these zones (Zdanovich 1989), although in recent years archaeological evidence has not
been published to support this hypothesis. Currently, the most widely accepted model
suggeststhatSintashtasettlementsfunctionedasindependentsocio-economicandpolitical
entities with shared cultural customs and technologies (Epimakhov 2002a, 142–143).
Nevertheless, this view may be challenged in coming years as there are several Sintashta
settlements that are grouped closer together than 40–60 km and there has been little
discussion of this. For example, in the Karagaily–Ayat River valley, the Sintashta settle-
mentsofKonoplyanka,ZhurumbaiandOl’ginoaresituatedapproximately8 kmfromeach
other along the river. In the far north of the settlement distribution pattern, the sites of
Stepnoye and Chernorech’ye are approximately 21 km apart. The proximity of such pat-
terning,anditsconnectiontolocalizedresourceshasnotbeeninvestigatedsystematically
and future field research must seek to explain such relationships.
Sintashta Cemeteries
ExcavationsofSintashtacemeterieshaveproducedsubstantialevidenceofcomplexritual
patterns; including animal sacrifice, spoke wheeled chariots, and weaponry (stone and
bronzearrowheadsandbronzespearheads).ManyscholarshaveusedtheuniqueSintashta
mortuarypatternstoargueforhierarchicalrankingwithinSintashtasocieties(e.g.,Anthony
2007; Koryakova 2002; Kristiansen and Larsson 2005; Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002).
However,otherscholarshavesuggestedthatsocialstratificationisnotsoclearlypatterned
123
336 JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356
when considering all factors such as spatial layout, tomb elaboration, and grave goods
(Vinogradov2003;Epimakhov1998,2002b).Forexample,theinclusionofitemsingraves
relating to a metallurgical occupation (form molds, hammer stones, etc.) is often widely
distributedacrossageandsexcategoriesinSintashtacemeteries(Epimakhov2002a,144).
Chariotburials,whicharetypicallyinterpretedashighstatuswarriorsorchieftains,areoften
foundasperipheralburialswithinmortuarycomplexes(groupedinhumationburials).The
distinct lack of external goods in burials also suggests that unequal access to foreign
‘prestige’ items cannot be easily linked to the emergence and solidification of social
authoritywithinthesecommunities.Unfortunately,detailedbioarchaeologicalanalysesof
Sintashtahumanremains,includingphysicalandchemicalmethods,havenotbeenunder-
takeninordertoobtainmorespecificdataondifferencesinhealth,diet,anddivisionoflabor
by sex and age in recovered mortuary samples. The total numbers of recovered human
remainsfromSintashtasiteshavealsobeenquitelowwhencomparedwiththedemographic
estimatesofthesettlements(discussedbelow),asonly200–250knownSintashtaskeletons
havebeenrecoveredwithintheregionthusfar(Epimakhov2009).
Sintashta Demography
Demographic reconstructions of Sintashta settlements have proven to be problematic, as
they have been based on the available mortuary data, noted above, combined with esti-
mates of the number of households situated within the fortified area of the settlements.
Epimakhov (2002a, 141) has estimated that approximately 640 people could have inhab-
itedthefortifiedareaofasettlementwithperhapsnomorethan1,000beingsupportedby
thecalculatedsubsistencevalueofthesurroundingterritoryofa20–30 kmradius(Masson
1980,180).However,suchestimateshavenotbeenbasedonreliablepaleoenvironmental
data or systematic site catchment studies.
As the inhabitable area of the fortified settlements is rather small, with most having
diameters of 120–150 m, it seems highly probable that additional domestic structures
would be situated outside the enclosed zones. This is particularly the case for the man-
agement of livestock, as there appears to be no evidence for animal enclosures or stalls
within the fortified settlements. Unfortunately, little systematic investigation of the areas
externaltothe fortificationshasbeenundertaken—even incaseswherealargeportionof
the fortified area of the settlement has been excavated (e.g., Arkaim and Ust’ye). In fact,
muchoftheinvestigationofsettlementpatterninghasbeenbasedonaerialphotoanalysis
andthepartialexcavationofthefortifiedareasofthesettlements.Testpittingoraugering
in areas external to the fortifications has not been routinely undertaken. The use of other
non-invasive survey techniques, such as geophysics, has been confined primarily to
electricalresistanceinthenon-excavatedportionofthefortifiedareas,andarecentlarge-
scale fluxgate magnetometer survey undertaken at the Kamennyi Ambar (Ol’gino) set-
tlementin2005byHanksandMerrony(Merronyetal.2009).Withoutadditionaldataon
settlement activities, or domestic structure distribution in the immediate area around the
fortified settlements, the relationship between demographicestimates basedon household
size and number and the total number of human remains recovered from cemeteries is
completely indeterminable at this time.
Sintashta Subsistence
The socio-economic pattern of the Sintashta settlement sites has been viewed as a stock-
breeding subsistence pattern, with main domesticates of horse, cattle and sheep/goat, and
123
JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356 337
the addition of either domesticated or feral pigs (Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002, 254).
However,duringpreviousexcavationsofthesesettlements,littleornosoilscreeningand/
orhydro-flotationofsoilshasbeenconducted.Therefore,therecoveryoffaunalandfloral
evidence hasbeenstronglybiased.Thisisparticularlyimportantwhenoneconsidersthat
Panicum miliaceum (sowing millet) and Hordeum vulgare (Turkestan barley) were
recoveredattheSintashtasettlementofArkaim,andcharredmillethusksfromadomestic
floor context at the settlement of Alandskoe (Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002, 255).
Additionally, the probable contribution of fish, small mammals, and domesticated and/or
wildplantspeciesintheSintashtasubsistencepatternhasbeenwellestablishedrecentlyby
Gayduchenko(2002).Nevertheless,becauseofalackofconsistencyinsoilscreeningand
flotationmethodsinpreviousexcavations,theexactcharacteroftheSintashtasubsistence
pattern (and its variability between sites) is at present a completely open question.
Sintashta Metallurgy
As outlined above, there are a number of important questions surrounding the settlement
patterning, demography and subsistence/productive economy theorized for Sintashta
communities. However, the issue of metallurgy is one that has greatly influenced most
interpretations both of the emergence of the Sintashta pattern and of variously proposed
models for its social complexity and organization. Archaeological research has revealed
that each of the Sintashta house structures within the fortified zones of the settlements
contains one or more well (cistern) features, and cupola shaped furnaces, which are
believed to be connected with smelting activities (Gening et al. 1992; Zdanovich and
Zdanovich 2002; Zdanovich 1997a, b). Other objects connected with metallurgy, such as
pestles,slagandmetaldroplets,arealsoroutinelyrecoveredfromhouseholdcontexts.The
rather ubiquitous nature of these finds within the settlements, and between different set-
tlement sites, suggests that metallurgy was not a specialized activity undertaken by dif-
ferentindividualsor groupswithincommunities,or,byextension,byspecific settlements
and their communities in the larger region (Epimakhov 2002a, 143).
Nevertheless, while there is evidence for metallurgical activities within the household
contexts, there has been general debate over the actual scale of production at Sintashta
sites. Some scholars have suggested a rather high level of specialized community pro-
duction (Vinogradov 2004; Zdanovich 2002), while others have arguedfor a much lower
level that is more representative of household production for local utilitarian items and
weaponry (Grigor’yev 2000; Chernykh 2004a, b). What is clearly lacking at this stage in
Sintashtascholarshipisadetailedcomparisonofvariationinoreprocessing,smeltingand
refiningpracticesbetweenSintashtasettlements.Therecoveryofmetallurgicalprocessing
materials(slags,droplets,hammerstones,tuye`res,crucibles,etc.)isknown,buttheactual
totalnumberanddensityofsuchitemswithinsettlementshasnotbeenpublishedandmuch
of this information remains unavailable to outside scholarship. For example, Vinogradov
(2004) has discussed the significant amount of such materials from Ust’ye, a settlement
withSintashta,PetrovkaandSrubnayaperiodactivities(MiddletoLateBronzeAge).Such
materialsappeartobemuchmoresubstantialthanwhathasbeenrecoveredfromsitessuch
as Arkaim (for example, see comparison of Kargaly and Arkaim by Chernykh 2004a, b)
and at Ol’gino, where recent excavations have produced very little evidence of slag and
otherprocessingdebris.Unfortunately,itiscurrentlyimpossibletobettersubstantiateany
model in the absence of published data for comparison.
123
338 JWorldPrehist(2009)22:329–356
Sintashta Mining
OneofthemostimportantproblemssurroundingSintashtametalproductionisthelackof
evidence for mining or quarrying near the settlements. This has led to great speculation
overwhetherSintashtasocietieswereexploitinglocalizedoreresourcesfortheirneedsor
were trading for unprocessed ore and/or partially processed metals (ingots) for on-site
refining.Unfortunately,systematicfullcoveragesurfacesurveysandsitecatchmentstudies
have not been previously undertaken in the micro-regional zones surrounding the settle-
ments. This is not to say that geological surveys and spectral analyses of slags and ores
havenotbeendoneandrecentpublicationshavefocusedontheseissues(Grigor’yev2000;
Zaikov et al. 2002).
Nevertheless, the key problem is that most of the identified prehistoric mines are sit-
uated either in the far western, northern or southern zones of the Sintashta settlements
distribution(seedistributioninFig. 1).MostoftheseminesrevealsubstantialLateBronze
Ageactivities,whichmayhaveobliteratedevidenceforexploitationoforematerialduring
the previous Middle Bronze Age phase. For example, it has been estimated that nearly
6,000 tons of ore, bearing approximately 2–3% copper, were mined from the site of
Vorovskaya Yama—one of the nearest confirmed Bronze Age mines to the Sintashta
settlements (Grigor’yev 2002, 84; Zaikov et al. 1995). However, differentiating between
Middle and Late Bronze exploitation of sites such as these is extremely problematic.
Moreover, spectral analyses of metals from Sintashta sites have not provided conclusive
evidenceofspecificzones(ores)ofexploitation.Ingeneral,objectsmadeofpurecopper,
arsenicalcopperandarseniferousbronzehavebeenrecoveredfromSintashtasites.Objects
comprisingstanniferous bronzeare relatively rare (primarilyornaments)and are believed
to have been imported into the region (Zaikov et al.2002). This, combined with the now
wellrecognizedproblemsofregionaloresourcing(compositionalspectralanalysisorlead-
isotope analysis) and recycling for prehistoric and early historic metallurgical production
inEurasiaingeneral(e.g.,Cernych2003,53–55;Kohl2007,167),suggestthatscholarship
hasonlyjustbeguntoscratchthesurfaceoftheproblemssurroundingoreexploitationand
exchange between Sintashta populations (see Hanks 2009 for detailed discussion).
Moreover, Grigor’yev’s research has indicated something quite interesting. He states
that, ‘the smelting of ores from ultra basic ore-bearing rocks and serpentine, that contain
insignificantlevelsofcopperisacuriousparadoxofSintashtametallurgy.Agreatnumber
of ore deposits of other types that are rich in copper are present in the Urals, but no
evidence hassurfacedfortheuseof suchpureoresby theSintashtametallurgists’ (2000,
143). This information is important for several reasons. First, it suggests that sites of
regional ore exploitation identified by geologists as highly ‘probable’ for early mining,
based on higher levels of copper within ore-bearing strata, may not have been those
principallyexploitedbySintashtaminers.Second,itispossiblethatSintashtacommunities
exploitednear-surfaceexposedore-bearingrocksthatprovidedonlyephemeraldepositsof
copper. Such a pattern would suggest a lower level of production in some areas, and by
certain communities, and that the recognition of such quarrying, or mining, would be
difficult without better-localized surveys. This would certainly seem to correlate with
Grigor’yev’s findings noted above. Third, it is obvious that ore resources were highly
variablewithintheSintashtaregionandthatthedistributionofsettlementswouldneedto
be linked with specific ore deposits or to develop trading networks and strategies for
obtaining ores or partially processed metals for their needs. In any case, much more
emphasisneedstobeplacedonunderstandingtherelationshipofsettlementstotheirlocal
catchment zones.
123