Late prehistoric exploitation of the Eurasian steppe

221 Pages·2016·17.66 MB·English

by  Levine M.

Physical map of Eurasia showing the present-day extent of the steppe!forest steppe zone. (Map created by David
Redhouse, based on Present Landscapes data from the Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ArcAtlas.)
MCDONALD INSTITUTE MONOGRAPHS
Late prehistoric exploitation of
the Eurasian steppe
By Marsha Levine, Yuri Rassamakin,
Aleksandr Kislenko & Nataliya Tatarintseva
With an introduction by
Colin Renfrew
Publication of this volume is supported by a grant from the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, New York.
PuNisiied by:
McDonald Institute for Arclueological Research
University of Cambridge
Downing Street
Cambridge
CB2 3ER
(0X1223)339336
Distributed by Oxbow Books
United Kingdom: Oxbow Books. Park End Place, Oxford, 0X1 IHN.
Tel: [phone]; Fax: (0X1865) 791449
US/1; The David Brown Book Company, P.O. Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA.
Tel: [phone]; FAX: [phone]
ISBN: 1-902937-03-1
£> 1999 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Edited for the Institute by Chris Scarre (Series Edita/) and Dora A. Kemp (Production Editor).
Chapters 3 and 4 translated from the Russian by Sarah Wright. Frontispiece map by David Kedhouse.
Film produced by Gary Reynolds Typesetting, 13 Sturtun Street, Cambridge, CB1 2QG.
Printed and bound by Short Run Press, Bittern Rd, Sowton Industrial Estate, Exeter, EX2 7LW.
Cover illustration: Kazakh herdsman at Sergeevka with physical map of Eurasia. (Pholo: Л1. Levine. Majr based on
Present Landscapes data from ESRL Inc.)
Contents
Contributors V
Figures vi
Tables viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Colin Renfrew
Chapter 2 The Origins of Horse Husbandry on the Eurasian Steppe 5
Marsha Levine
Chapter 3 The Encolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: Dynamics of Cultural and Economic
Development 4500-2300 ac 59
Yuri R ач^ам akin
Chapter 4 The Eastern U ral Steppe atthe End of the Stone Age 183
Auxsandr Kislenko it Naialiva Tatarintceva
Contributors
1. AlEXSANTIR KtSI FNKO
Centn1 'Arkaim', General Post-Office P/O 283, Cheliabiask 454899, Russia.
2. Marsha I evinf
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Downing Street, Cambridge, UK, CB2 3ER.
3 Yuri Rassamakin
Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Pr. Geroew Stalingrada 12,254655 Kiev - 210.
Ukraine
4. Colin Renfrew
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Downing Street, Cambridge, UK, CB2 3ER.
5. Матаіпга Tatarivtseva
Centre 'Arkaim', General Post-Office P/O 283, Cheliabiask 454899, Russia.
V
Figures
2.1. Map showing locations ofErh-shih and Ch'ang-an, Dereivka, Molyukhov Bugor and Botai. 7
2.2. Metapodial used as tool from Dereivka. 17
2.3. Mandible used as tool from Dereivka. 18
2.4. Radiograph of horse skull (8-9 years old). 19
2.5. M.K. Kozhakhmetov and E.Z. Zakir'yanov. 21
2.6. Milking at Botai aul. The foal must be present in order for the mare to let down her milk. 27
2.7. Attritional Assemblage Model. 29
2.8. Map showing location of Thornhill Farm. 29
2.9. Thornhill Farm age structure: adjusted & unadjusted. 30
2.10. Thornhill Farm and Kesteren age structure. 30
2.11. Carnivorous Husbandry Model. 31
2.12. Horse growth rate. 31
2.13. The age structure of Shavardak's herd. 32
2.14. Life Assemblage Model. 32
2.15. Family Group Model. 32
2.16. Jaurens age distribution. 32
2.17. Pooled Palaeolithic sites age distribution. 32
2.18. Bachelor Group Model. 33
2.19. Stalking Model. 33
2.20. Dereivka age structure: adjusted and unadjusted. 36
2.21. Kesteren and Dereivka age structure. 37
2.22. Plan of Botai, showing location of Site 31. 38
2.23. Engraved phalange from Botai 31. (Photo: G. Owen.) 39
2.24. Carved human figurine. (Photo: G. Owen.) 40
2.25. Plan of excavation, F-X-Ch-T, the part of Site 31 from which came the osteological material discussed here. 41
2.26. Botai bone concentration. 43
2.27. Botai age structure: adjusted and unadjusted. 44
2.28. Botai, Dereivka And Thornhill Farm age structure. 44
2.29. Horse skeleton with sites of interest. 45
2.30. Drawing of skeletons in grave. 47
2.31. Ak-Alakha 5, Kurgan 3, Horse 1, thoracic vertebrae 14-18, lumbar vertebra 1. 48
2.32. Ak-Alakha 5, Kurgan 3.14th thoracic vertebra from Horse 4 (7-10 years old), caudal view. 49
2.33. Ak-Alakha 5, Kurgan 3, Horse 4, thoracic vertebrae 10,11,13-18. 49
2.34. Radiograph of Ak-Alakha 5, Kurgan 3.14th thoracic vertebra from Horse 4 (7-10 years old), lateral view. 50
2.35. 11 th-18th thoracic vertebrae from a 23-year-old Exmoor pony. 51
2.36. 14th thoracic vertebra from a 23-year-old Exmoor pony. 51
2.37. Pazyryk pad saddle. (Rudenko 1970,130.) 52
2.38. Kazakh frame saddle. (Margulan 1994,98.) 52
2.39. Botai caudal thoracic vertebrae. 53
3.1. The Skelya culture in relation to other sites. 63
3.2a. The Kvityana and Dereivka cultures in relation to other sites. 64
3.2b. The Lower Mikhailovka culture in relation to other sites. 65
3.3. The system of the latest Eneolithic Pontic cultures and the sites of the Zhivotilovo-Volchanskoe type. 66
3.4. Classification of the Eneolithic burials of the Pontic steppe. 72
3.5. Development of burial rituals. 73
3.6. Skelya culture pottery from Strilcha Skelya. 74
3.7. Skelya culture pottery from the Lower Don. 75
3.8. Flint, obsidian (7) and stone (2-4) objects of the Skelya culture. 76
3.9. Skelya culture burials. 78
3.11. Prestige objects from élite burial (no. 2), Krivoi Rog cemetery. 78
3.12. Skelya-type pottery from Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements. 79
3.13. Imported pottery from Skelya culture burials (1-3) and the settlement ofSvobodnoe (6-10). 80
VI
3.14. Sceptres from Skelya culture burials. 81
3.15. Copper objects from Skelya culture burials. 82
3.16. Copper axe from Petro-Svistunovo (1) and analogies from Varna 1, Burial 40 (2) and Burial 5. 83
3.17. Ceremonial weapons and sceptres. 84
3.18. Skelya culture: flint 'knife' - Kut, Kurgan 8, Burial 7. 84
3.19. Kvityana culture: types of burials. 85
3.20. Kvityana culture: Vinogradnoe, Kurgan 3, Burial 12. 85
3.21. Kvityana culture: pottery from the kurgans (1-6) and settlement (7). 86
3.22. Kvityana culture: the objects from burials. 88
3.23. Dereivka culture: pottery from settlements. 89
3.24. Clay objects from Dereivka and analogies. 90
3.25. Lower Mikhailovka culture: burial types. 91
3.26. Lower Mikhailovka culture: Vinogradnoe, Kurgan 24, Burial 30. 91
3.27. Lower Mikhailovka culture: diagram showing the typical construction of a kurgan. 91
3.28. Lower Mikhailovka culture: the objects from burials. 93
3.29. Zhivotilovo-Volchanskoe type: Lower Don group, Koisug. 94
3.30. Zhivotilovo-Volchanskoe type: Samara group. 95
3.31. Tripolye vessels from Samara group. 96
3.32. Late Tripolye painted vessel from the northeast Azov area: Vishnevatoe, Kurgan 2, Burial 4. 97
3.33. Zhivotilovo-Volchanskoe type: Molochnaya group. 98
3.34. Zhivotilovo-Volchanskoe burial from Vishnevatoe (East Azov area): Kurgan 2, Burial 4. 99
3.35. Pre-Maikop Kuban culture stroke-ornamented pot with applied clay bosses. 100
3.36. Imported objects from Mariupol-type cemeteries. 101
3.37. 1) Supply routes of the Bulgarian and east Serbian Chalcolithic and Proto Bronze Age Copper.
2) Distribution of copper and new technology in the steppe area from the different production centres. 105
3.38. Khvalynsk culture: burials, pottery and sceptres. 106
3.39. Khvalynsk culture: objects from burials of the Khvalynsk cemetery. 107
3.40. Kuban (Zakubanskaya) culture: clay objects from the settlement ofSvobodnoe. 109
3.41. Kuban (Zakubanskaya) culture: flint, serpentinite, shell and bone objects from settlement Svobodnoe. 110
3.42. Connections between the Early Eneolithic cultures. Ill
3.43. Pivikha culture: pottery fragments (after Kruts 1977, figs. 60 & 61). 113
3.44. Connections between Tripolye culture and steppe area (period B2/C1, Cl and C2). 115
3.45. Repin culture: burials (1 & 2), pottery from burials (3-7) and settlement (8-11). 118
3.46. Konstantinovka culture: pottery from the settlement of Konstantinovka. 119
3.47. Konstantinovka culture artefacts. 120
3.48. Konstantinovka culture: burial assemblage with Maikop objects (Khutor Zhukovsky, Kurgan 2, Burial 1). 121
3.49. Connections between the Middle (1), Late and Final (2) Eneolithic cultures. 124
3.50. Yamnaya culture: burials with 'psalia' and wheels. 126
3.51. Clay plastic art and models from Tripolye settlements. 138
3.52. Aleksandrovsk cemetery: burial N46 from Kurgan 1 with 'psalia’. 140
3.53. 'Psalia'from Early Eneolithic burials. 141
3.54. Antler adzes from Dereivka (1-11) and analogies from the late Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements (12-15). 146
3.55. 'Psalia'from Dereivka (1-5), Mayaki (6) and Vulkaneshty (7). 148
3.56. Lower Mikhailovka culture (?): complex from Novonikolaevka, Kurgan 7, Burial 6. 150
3.57. Early Bronze Age burial from Kuban area with wagons. 153
3.58. Catacomb burial with wood 'plough'from Balki. 155
3.59. Early Catacomb burial with wheel segment: Vinogradnoe, Kurgan 24, Burial 34. 156
4.1. Political map of the area discussed. 184
4.2. Geological map of the area discussed. 185
4.3. Site plans and reconstructions. 186
4.4. The distribution of central Kazakhstan Stone Age sites according to micro-region. 188
4.5. Stone Age sites on the plains of the central Asian interfluve and in some adjacent territories. 189
4.6 Vinogradovka X settlement: plan and stratigraphy. 190
vii
4.7. Roshchinskoe settlement. 191
4.8. Roshchinskoe settlement artefacts. 192
4.9. Atbasar pottery and stone tools: 2-33 Zhabai-Pokrovka I. 193
4.10. Genesis of the Atbasar and Botai cultures. 194
4.11. Makhandzhar culture sites. 197
4.12. Makhandzhar pottery. 198
4.13. Artefacts from the Kazakhstan Tobol region (1-20) and reconstruction of a dwelling from Solenoe Ozero 1. 199
4.14. Makhandzhar artefacts from Solenoe Ozero 2. 200
4.15. Botai-Tersek culture sites. 202
4.16. Plan of Botai showing the location of structures and excavated areas. 203
4.17. Plan and stratigraphy of the central part of Botai settlement. 204
4.18. Plan and stratigraphy of excavations carried out in the southwestern part of Botai. 205
4.19. Botai settlement reconstruction. 205
4.20. Botai culture plans. 206
4.21. Sawn human skull from Botai (occipital bone). 207
4.22. Trepanned human skull from a pit in dwelling 44, Botai. 207
4.23. Botai dwellings reconstructed. 207
4.24. Botai dwelling reconstructed. 207
4.25. Plan and profile of Dwelling no. 32, Botai. 208
4.26. Experimental reconstruction of a Botai dwelling. 209
4.27. Bone tools from Botai. 209
4.28. Ground stone objects from Botai. 209
4.29. Bifacially retouched blade from Botai. 210
4.30. Tool made from a horse mandible, Botai. 210
4.31. Ural-Irtysh material culture and chronology. 211
4.32. Location of trepanned human skull, Botai, excavation XV, square V-88, dwelling 44, pit 10. 210
4.33. Map of various Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures showing general locations in relation to each other. 212
4.34. Map of Eneolithic and Bronze Age sites. 213
Tables
2.1. Dereivka radiocarbon dates. 14
2.2. Dereivka and Molyukhov Bugor taxon list according to Bibikova. 16
2.3. Dereivka central metapodials. 17
2.4. Informants' background information. 21
2.5. Number of horses per household. 22
2.6. Herd population structure. 22
2.7. Shavardak's herd: population structure. 23
2.8. Reproduction. 23
2.9. Riding. 24
2.10. Milk, meat and fat. 25
2.11. Fatty acid composition of some animals (% by weight). 26
2.12. Usual cause of death. 26
2.13. Age at death. 28
2.14. Tooth size comparison: New Forest pony, Palaeolithic and Dereivka (measurements to 0.1 mm). 35
2.15. Botai radiocarbon dates. 39
2.16. Tooth size comparison: Palaeolithic, Dereivka, Botai and Thornhill Farm (measurements to 0.1 mm). 42
2.17. Description of thoracic 11 to 19 abnormalities: Ak-Alakha horses and Exmoor ponies. 48
3.1. Comparative table of periodization systems. 61
3.2. The author's periodization of the cultures. 77
3.3. System of cattle breeding in the light of the forms of economy. 131
3.4. Classification and typology of cattle breeding. 131
3.5. Main species of domestic and wild fauna. 135
3.6. Palaeobotanical finds in Eneolithic and early Bronze Age steppe and forest-steppe sites. 144
viii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Colin Renfrew
This volume seeks to re-open and widen the debate guages', sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Founda­
on one of the key themes in the prehistory of Europe tion. The Sloan Foundation's current objective is to
and of Asia, namely the occupation and use of the examine areas of knowledge which seem to lie to­
Eurasian steppe lands by different groups of people, wards the limits of the knowable, and such may well
and their impact upon each other and on the lands to be felt to be the case when the prehistory of lan­
the east, to the west and to the south. It has often guages is under discussion. In the long term the
been suggested that Europe in the Neolithic, Bronze intention is to bring the three disciplines of historical
and Iron Ages was profoundly influenced by people linguistics, prehistoric archaeology and molecular
and ideas from the steppes. Certainly the influence genetics jointly to bear upon the subject. But each of
of these upon China, from the Shang period on­ these fields has its own autonomy, and to bring them
wards, is well attested. For South Asia the arrival of into conjunction too rapidly carries with it the risk of
Indo-European speech is generally ascribed to the circular arguments. The intention here, then, is to
arrival from the north of Indo-Aryan groups, per­ focus upon the prehistoric archaeology, upon the
haps at the end of the Harappan civilization, or per­ history of exploitation, and to clarify issues in these
haps earlier. domains in the hope that this will bring about a
As we shall see, the picture has been confused much more appropriate context for the discussion of
considerably by assumptions about the development linguistic questions. Molecular genetic data may soon
of a pastoral nomad economy, and by myths about be in a position to throw light on the early popula­
the early activities of hypothetical nomad pastoralist tion history of the area, and this may in turn bear
warrior horsemen. Too often it is assumed that any upon and perhaps illuminate linguistic questions.
exploitation of the Eurasian steppe in later prehis­ At least three major language families have their
tory must have involved an economy in which horse development and history closely linked to the ex­
riding played a major role. 'Later prehistory' in this ploitation of the steppes. The first of these is the
context may be taken to mean the period which fol­ Altaic family which as usually classified involves
lows the end of the Pleistocene period around 10,000 several sub-families, namely Turkic, Mongolian and
years ago, which implies the Neolithic, Bronze Age Tungus, sometimes with the inclusion of Ainu, Japa­
and Iron Age cultures of the area and their hunter- nese and Korean (Ruhlen 1991, 127). But the Altaic
gatherer predecessors from about 10,000 bp onwards. family as a whole is an entity whose real existence,
Instead it seems appropriate to consider the wider in the sense of implying a genetic relationship be­
question of the different modes of exploitation of the tween its sub-families, has been widely questioned.
Eurasian steppe, including issues of horse domesti­ Is it justifiable to think that there was ever a single
cation, and to establish the subsistence base of the Proto-Altaic language? We shall not in this volume
various cultures of the area, noting the extent of be considering that matter further. But there is no
geographical variation and the way things changed doubt that an improved understanding of the his­
through time. It will be seen that the picture is too tory of exploitation of the steppe would open the
varied and complicated to be subsumed under a sin­ way to considering more effectively the origins and
gle, embracing concept such as 'nomad pastoralism'. development of the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus
linguistic families or sub-families.
The linguistic background The second major language family whose his­
tory intersects with that of the Eurasian steppe is the
This volume, and the Symposium which is to follow Uralic. The current distribution of the speakers of
it, arise from a project on 'The Prehistory of Lan­ the Samoyed, Ugric and Finnic sub-families lies in
1
Colin Renfrew
the main to the north of the steppe (although the The question of the domestication of the horse
Plain of Hungary with its Magyar speech lies at the has, for no good reason in my view, become linked
western end). Those northerly latitudes became in­ with the question of Indo-European origins. More
habitable only with the retreat of the ice sheets at the than a decade ago Anthony (1986) made claims for
end of the last glaciation, and it is clear that the the very early domestication of the horse, and sought
ultimate origins of the Uralic family may well lie in to apply these to the Indo-European question, influ­
the areas which are now steppe lands. encing Mallory and a number of Indo-European lin­
It is theories and assumptions about the origins guists (e.g. Lehmann 1993) in the process. But as
of the Indo-European language family which have Levine (1990) has argued, the high proportion of
had most influence upon archaeological thinking horse bones at the site of Dereivka is an indication of
about the steppe lands. The extent of the Indo-Euro­ the use of the horse as a food resource. There is no
pean language family was well defined in the earlier indication that it was ridden for military purposes
part of the nineteenth century, although the discov­ until very much later. Yet the work of Anthony in­
ery of the Anatolian and Tocharian sub-families came duced Jared Diamond (1991,244) to make the sweep­
about only with archaeological research in the first ing claim:
quarter of the twentieth century. The suggestion of With horse domestication the steppe peoples be­
the western steppes as the original Indo-European came the first to put together the economic and
homeland was made by Otto Schrader in 1896 military package that came to dominate the world
(Schrader 1890), on linguistic grounds — that is to for the next 5000 years.
say using the methods of linguistic palaeontology,
and by studying the distribution mainly of plant and The key element of the package in question here is
animal species which found a place in the recon­ that of the nomad pastoralist warrior horseman which
structed Proto-Indo-European vocabulary. His ap­ did indeed become influential around 1000 вс, but
proach very much guided V. Gordon Childe in his not by 3000 вс as Diamond implies. He has, how­
archaeological study The Aryans (Childe 1926) which ever, subsequently adopted the language /farming
in its turn influenced Marija Gimbutas in her pro­ hypothesis for Indo-European origins (Diamond
posal that the so-called Kurgan culture of the Ukrain­ 1997), and presumably abandoned file notional as­
ian steppe lands at the beginning of the European sociation with the domestication of the horse. But as
Bronze Age could be regarded as the locus of the I have sought to show (Renfrew 1998), the great
first Indo-European speakers (Gimbutas 1970). In weight of evidence demonstrates clearly that the
this she has been followed by many later workers horse was not ridden for military purposes until
(Mallory 1989). very much later (see Kuzmina 1994). This was pre­
Generally the reason given for this alleged ex­ ceded by the military use of the horse-drawn chariot,
pansion of speakers of Proto-Indo-European is that seen widely in Europe and the Near East from c.
these were nomad pastoralist warrior horsemen. The 1600 вс, and first documented a few centuries earlier
two integral parts of the argument are: (i) the nomad than this in the European steppe (Anthony &
pastoral economy, and (ii) the warlike character of Vinogradov 1995). If these arguments are correct, as
these mounted horsemen. But, as the papers in this I believe them to be, it is time to abandon defini­
volume suggest, neither component of the theory is tively the notion that pastoral nomad warrior horse­
well established. An alternative view, that the com­ men, or indeed any horsemen at all, had anything to
ing of Proto-Indo-European speech to Europe is to do with the dispersal in Europe of the Indo-Euro­
be correlated with the dispersal or diffusion of early pean languages or of Proto-Indo-European.
farming from Anatolia (Renfrew 1987), is not the It may be remarked in passing that it is a differ­
primary focus of discussion here. But it does in addi­ ent matter with the Indo-Aryan sub-family of the
tion make the point, now generally accepted, that Indo-European family. There the exploitation of the
the coming of fanning to the Ukraine was from the steppe lands will indeed have had a significant role.
west, from Greece and the Balkans, which had in­ The Hymns of the Rig-Veda, the earliest texts to
deed learnt the skills of fanning and obtained the survive in Vedic Sanskrit, refer frequently to horses
domesticated plants and animals from Anatolia. It drawing chariots, but not to horse-riding. There are
further stresses that a mobile pastoral economy must plenty of arguments to link the development and
have been preceded by an agricultural one, whose southward spread of Proto-Indo-Aryan with chang­
immediate origins lie to the west of the Ukraine and ing adaptations on the Eurasian steppe (Kuzmina
thus ultimately in Anatolia. 1994), but that is clearly considerably later than the
2