05 Part 4 (1.0) - Iron - Int PDF

Part IV
Interpretations of Eurasian Archaeology

The Iron Age
151
Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age
152
Historical and Archaeological Sources Relating to the Migration of Nomadic Peoples

Toward Central and Southern Europe During the Imperial Age
(1st - 5th centuries AD)
Paolo de Vingo
University of Turin
Archaeology Specialization School
Torino
Abstract
The ever-growing interest in the history of the Eurasian populations is due to the leading role that they played in the fate and
events of the European lands, particularly from the 3r century
onward. Starting from that date, it became increasingly difficult for Roman political authority to supervise and manage its
frontier territories; this promoted new cultural contacts and relationships that were of basic importance to the historical and
political pattern of the infant Europe. The concept of limes itself, was no longer interpreted as a barrier or an impassable
frontier, but as a permeable fabric which opened the way for
new populations to enter into the European ethnographic frame.
The analysis of such channels of transmission and acquisition
is a still an unexplored field of research and study, and it is
likely that it will reveal the level of amalgamation and interpenetration that existed between the different cultures.
were well-developed activities. During the second half of the

3rd century AD, Germanic and Alanic raids increased in frequency, partly as a consequence of their large scale developments, thereby absorbing a range of objects that affected both
female and male clothing as well as their daily life (Ajbabin
1995: 156170). The Huns settled in the northern Caucasus
region after the second half of the 4 th century AD, yet there is
no agreement as to the nature of their origins and ethnic features. Ammianus Marcellinus stated that the Huns subjugated
the Alans who were settled along the Don River, and the Goths
led by Ermenric during the reign of Emperor Valens (AD 364378) (Ammiano Marcellino XXXI.3). Zosima (Zosimus IV.20)
and Paolo Orosio (Paolo Orosio XXXIII.10) argued that during AD 376, they had forced a component of the Goths and
their allies to cross the Danube and settle in the Roman provinces. Depopulation and repopulation processes in the areas
inhabited by Hun ethnic groups brought about the birth of a
Hunnic reign that remained unchanged until the first half of
the 5th century AD. In addition, these transitions led to the occurrence of a number of major historical procedures. Indeed,
the migrations of Vandals, Alans, Swabians, Gepids, Rugi, and
Lombards towards western regions resulted in the decline of
the Roman Empire defenses, and the inception of Germanic
rule in those areas that were already under the control of Roman political influence (Godlowski 1994: 13351337).
Keywords
Migrations, nomadic populations, Black Sea, Europe
Introduction
This report provides a detailed and exhaustive outline of the
population movements that occurred in areas of southern and
western Europe that were under the control of the Roman Empire. These population movements are particularly clearly illustrated in the region selected for this study. The historical
and archaeological sources will be examined as a component
of a multidisciplinary research system, thereby enabling the
most exhaustive analysis. The first Germanic tribes appeared
on the northern coast of the Black Sea during the first half of
the 3rd century AD (Wolfram 1990 55-61). The quick succession of events resulted in a dramatic change to the ethnic structure of the peoples who had previously settled in the region.
Jordanes has argued that the Germans initially settled on the
northern banks of the Meotide in an area that was under the
control of the Bosphorus Cimmerian Kingdom (Jordanes 140142). Here they partly coexisted with scattered groups of Alans
and Sarmatians, who had established their own villages and
lived in unfired clay houses with rock-cut floors. Archaeological surveys of these settlements have indicated that agriculture, cattle breeding, metalworking, and ceramic production
Geographical perceptions of Europe

The study of the European division of territory should be considered the first basic step towards an understanding of the
socio-political relations that existed within the various nomadic
populations of the 1st to the 6th centuries AD (Godlowski 1994:
12931298). In addition, is it also possible to gain an understanding of the influences that they had on the exploitation of
the lands, woods, and animals as well as their contacts with the
Romans. Two different geographical perceptions of Europe
exist; in the first, Europe is regarded as a peninsula and its
entire hill-covered western region is considered to be distinct
from the western regions of Eurasia. Its coastal strip overlooks
two great bodies of waterthe Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. During their various migrations westwards, Asi-
153
atic tribes would have had the choice of two major waterways.
A western route existed that involved travelling through presentday Ukraine and Byelorussia, and through the woody planes of
Western Europe. The other, less comfortable route ran along
the lower Danube Valley and into the wide Hungarian plain.
Following this perception Europe is considered to be a mountain peninsula, associated with proper circular passageways
surrounded by the sea and the mountains, or solely by mountain ranges (Cunliffe 1994: 1257). The second, more conventional, but limited, perception envisages the European mainland as a sequence of wide lands running east to west and, starting from the Mediterranean basin, expanded backwards to the
north. The front line is comprised of a mountain barrier formed
by the Pyrenees, Cvenes, Alps, Dinaric Alps, and Balkan Mountains. Beyond these mountain ranges lay a mild Europe composed
of hills, ridges and valleys, behind which is situated the forested
European western plain that disappeared into a sea of islands and
the unknown (ibid.). This theory dictates that all northward communication routes crossing the various mountain ranges were of
major importancethe Pass of Carcassonne toward the west and
the Atlantic Ocean; the Rhne towards the confluence of the main
central and western European rivers; the Alpine passes towards
the Danube and the North; and finally the land stretching throughout Slovenia from the upper Adriatic Sea to the Trans-Danubian
region and the Hungarian plain.
the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. At an advanced stage, the Roman
frontier was not the result of a precise political strategy formulated by the Romans, but rather as a temporary stabilization of
a zone of contact between two opposing elements. From the
middle of the 2nd century AD, changes in military equilibrium
occurred that were a detriment to Roman supremacy; the artificial division had totally disappeared by the 5th century AD. It
is necessary to examine this issue with a perception of Europe
that goes beyond the Roman frontiers. In addition, it is important to analyze the interactions that occurred between the Romans and nomadic cultures, as these variables may prove crucial to understanding the nature and extent of cultural contribution originating from both groups. Indeed, the substantial
quantity of durable goods provided by the Roman World in
conjunction with the labor force (principally slaves) from among
the nomadic populations, may have acted as a catalyst of diversified needs, sharing a common denominator. It would be a
mistake, therefore, to regard the Roman frontier as simply a
symbol of military defense and permanent conflict. Indeed, an
examination of other social activities may help us to understand how the different ethnic groups interacted with each other
until the collapse of this politically unstable situation. It was
within this context of instability that a series of mass migrations occurred that would leave an indelible mark on the history of infant Europe (Cunliffe 1994: 12591260).
Several populations lived and migrated within the European

configuration that stems from these two different geographical
perceptions. The western European regions were the target for
successive waves of peoples coming from the east and north
the Goths, Cimmerians, Alans, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns,
Avars, Bulgarians, Magyars and Mongolswho all played a
crucial role in the history of Europe between the 8th century
BC and AD 13th century (ibid. 12581259).1 This picture also
includes a populationthe Gothswho would have at least initially occupied the northern European plains from the Pannonian
moors and bogs to the wide Byelorussian plain (Vaccaro 1996:
34). Their evolution is quite clear, and initially they would have
lived in the north surrounded by the Baltic and North Seas, and
by the steppe peoples of the east. At times of overpopulation
their only expansion route would have been southwards through
the hills and valleys to the plains of Moldavia, the Ukraine, the
lower Danube, and the Crimea. As a result of pressure from the
Huns, they were finally pushed towards the Carpathian region
and the heart of the western Roman Empire (Italy, Aquitania,
the provinces of Narbonne, and Tarragona). Eventually, they
came to occupy the entire Iberian Peninsula that was under
control of Visigoth kings, headquartered in Toledo until the
Islamic conquest in 719 AD (ibid.).
Historical and ethnographic outline

Of the populations that played a leading role during the first
five centuries of the Roman Empire, a major contribution was
made by the ethnic groups living on the steppes along the Black
Sea, and on the plains of northern and central Europe. Despite
the differences in lifestyle and cultural practices, two elements
were common to these groups; an economy based on cattle
breeding and constant migrations.2 In some cases, in certain
regions the tribes adopted a semi-permanent lifestyle. The
steppes not only represented an environment of relative isolation, but also an established route that enabled easy contact
with the nomadic populations that lived beyond the middle and
lower Volga region and the Urals, to the Chinese border
(Leciejewicz 1994: 7374).
The Alans and the Sarmatians were part of the Indo-European
Iranian group (Ajbabin 1995: 156). It is recorded in the Chinese Annals that during the 1st century AD, these tribes ruled a
nomadic confederation based in the Asian steppes (Artamov
1962: 43). They occupied the lands between the Don River and
Aral Sea and the region north of the Caucasus; it was from
here that they set out on their migrations towards the southern
regions (Erdlyi 1991: 283). It is possible to gain a partial confirmation of the precise location of the Alans in the texts of
Roman chroniclers who date the first contacts with such peoples
to the first half of the 1st century AD. Lucanus stated that they
were located in the northern Caucasus (Kulakovsij 1899: 11
13), while Flavio Giuseppe recorded that they were along the
Tanais (Don) River, and around Lake Meotide (Flavio Giuseppe
VII.7-4). The geographical distribution pattern, however, did
not imply that these peoples shared historical developments,
but rather favored the possibility of diverse developments that
To summarise, during the first six centuries AD, three population groups originating in the Russian steppes, and the northern and southern European plains, came into contact. This resulted in the development of a politically unstable situation.
The main area of contact for the three groups throughout the
majority of time followed an east-west axis that coincided with
the Rhine and Danube valleys. Indeed, the Roman border developed along this line, apart from a few local exceptions in
154
Migration of Nomadic Peoples Toward Central and Southern Europe
led to non-uniform results. In AD 135, as a consequence of the

forays and sacks that were undertaken by these peoples, the
pro-praetor of Cappadocia, Flavio Arriano, organized an expedition against them. A report written by one of the officers of
this expeditionthe Impresa contro gli Alani records that the
boundaries of the territory occupied by these populations were
between the northern Caucasian spurs, the Meotide area and
the river Tanais (Arriano fr. 25). Excavations undertaken in
this region have produced a number of cemeteries containing
kurgans that were considered to have belonged to the Alans.
The kurgans are generally constructed over graves that have a
long entrance (dromos) and an inhumation room, and contain
artifacts dating to the 1st2nd centuries AD (Kuznetsov 1984:
2022). It is thought that up until the second half of the 4th
century AD, the Alans who lived in the vicinity of the Sea of
Azov followed a generally nomadic lifestyle. This assertion is
confirmed in the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus who notes
that The Alansbeing a nomadic people,wander through
extended regionsThey build no huts, neither they grow the
lands, and they live in bark-covered carts used to cross the
boundless steppes By driving their draught animals and
flocks, they graze them; they have the utmost care towards their
horses (Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI.2, 12-25).
tained oblong huts arranged in parallel rows. Farming was well

developed; barley, millet, and oats appear to have been sown
and then harvested during late summer (Vaccaro 1996: 35).
Nomadic cattle breeding, however, also played a major role in
the economy. Seasonal moves in search of better climatic and
geographic conditions were necessary to obtain fodder for the
livestock. The communities were clearly aware of this need
and used their knowledge of the land to mark the best routes
for their cattle moves and establish the most suitable sites for
their various seasonal settlements (Fodor 1998: 4344).
The appearance of a new ethnic group brought about the territorial and demographic fragmentation 8 of the Alanic tribes
throughout different areas, thereby causing at least partial disruption to the previous distribution pattern. Indeed, Germanic
populations interrelated with isolated Alanic and Sarmatian
groups, resulting in the development of sedentary mixed villages that were scattered along the northern shores of the Black
Sea. Attacks originated from this sedentary base on the troops
garrisoned to defend and supervise the fortifications located
along the Black Sea (Ajbabin 1995: 158). A second group of
Alanic tribes moved toward the southern Crimea, while a third
nucleus maintained its semi-nomadic status and confined the
routes of its periodic moves to a narrow strip of land limited by
the Dniester River in the west and the Danube in the east
(Ajbabin 1995: 156157). The first of these demographic fragmentations, which had parallels with the Gothic migration from
the Baltic regions, resulted in the occurrence of the most significant events, both historically and culturally. Archaeological surveys have attested to the existence of a series of villages
that are likely to stem from the Cernjachov Culture, while excavations have identified the remains of subterranean dwellings with unfired clay roofs. On the basis of these archaeological remains, it has been suggested that the population followed
a semi-nomadic lifestyle and devoted themselves to farming,
cattle breeding, metalworking and pottery manufacture
(Magomedov 1987: 6275). Excavations in Koblevo,
Furmanovka, and Bolsaja Korenicha have uncovered a number of cemeteries with distinct gravesinhumation burials for
the Alanic and Sarmatian peoples, and cremation burials for
the Germanic peoples. These findings confirm that there was a
substantial coexistence of different funerary rites and customs
at this time (Ajbabin 1995: 158). During the second half of the
3rd century AD, a series of artifacts spread among the Alanic
tribes that inhabited the Crimea, and the mixed settlements scattered along the northern coasts of the Black Sea. These artifacts may be considered an indicator of both a sedentary
lifestyle, and the acquisition of manual skills that precipitated
an increase in the production of oval-shaped arched buckles,
miniature bells, and harnesses for horses, knives, carnelian
necklaces, amber, and polychromatic glass pots. The use of
dark clay vessels, double-cone ware of the Germanic tradition,
various forms of Roman amphorae, or local imitations was also
common (Ajbabin 1995: 158).
From the first half of 3rd century AD (Wolfram 1990: 5561),

several groups of Germanic tribes appeared on the northern
coast of the Black Sea (Kazanski 1991: 2839). Their appearance caused moves that greatly changed the ethnographic profile of this region (Ajbabin 1995: 156). Jordanes reports that
one of these migrations consisted of Gothic tribes that would
then come to occupy the entire area to the north and northwest
of the Black Sea (Jordanes: 72). Here they created two separate cultures that developed as a consequence of the differences
existing between the Greuthungi, or eastern Goths (Ostrogoths),
and the Tervingi3 or western Goths (Visigoths). The two new
cultures became known as the Cernjachov Culture and was located near Kiev, and the Sintana-de-Mures Culture, based in
Transylvania.4 The Cernjachov Culture developed during the
second half of the 4th century AD5: its formation was a complex phenomenon, strongly inspired by the Wielbark Culture. 6
The impact of the Wielbark Culture can be clearly seen in handmade pottery, the morphology of certain metalwork pieces and,
above all, in the burial rites (Kazanski 1991: 1828). Some
important influences also came from the local Sarmatian and
Dacian substrata, as well as from the old centers of archaic
cultures that had lived along the North Sea coast (Heather 1998:
18-30). The Cernjachov Culture was characterized by large
cemeteries with typical double burials. The settlements contain artifacts indicative of several forms of craftworking including ironwork, fine wheel-thrown pottery with a variety of
morphologies, glass objects decorated with a checkered pattern,7 objects from everyday womens costumes, and personal
ornaments including bone combs, necklaces with pendants indicating Eastern traditions, and amulets (Godlowski 1994:
13241325). The typical characteristics of these settlements
are illustrated in the sites of Lepesovka in Volinia, and Velikaja
Snitinka in the Ukraine. Clearly lacking in defenses, these sites
displayed a close relationship with the waterways, and con-
The appearance of the Huns in the northern Caucasus (Heather

1998: 97108) at some time after the second half of the 4 th
century AD, disrupted the earlier system of territorial organi-
155
zation.9 The precise origins of the Huns and their ethnic composition have been the subject of numerous unresolved conflicting opinions. The most reliable theory is that they had descended from the Turkic peoples and initially settled on the
Cilician frontier. There is no evidence, however, to suggest the
straightforward correlation between the Hunnish and Turkish
languages (Derfer 1986: 72116). Following this theory, it is
assumed that they had moved from the Cilician frontier via the
steppes to the west at some time between AD 155 and 160
(Gumilev 1960: 220). According to Ammianus Marcellinus,
during the 4th century the Huns had subjugated the Alanic tribes,
that were settled on the Don River, and the Goths, led by
Ermenric (Ammiano Marcellino XXXI.2,12; XXXI.3,1).
Zosima (Zosimus IV.20) and Paolo Orosio (Paolo Orosio
VII.3310), however, recorded that in AD 376, the pressure on
Gothic and Alanic populations forced them to cross the Danube
and occupy Roman territory (Kazanski 1991: 6687). The
Huns that were established within Roman territory continued to practice a primitive form of nomadic cattle breeding
(Randers-Pehrson 1983: 4145). It is worth noting the coexistence of a double burial custom. The excavations of
Novogrigorovka uncovered the remains of a number of
graves covered with stones of various sizes and earth, and
that contained the remains of human and animal cremations,
in addition to armament, including swords, arrowheads, and
horse harnesses (Ambroz 1981: 19). A number of kurgans
that contained Eastern burials have been found in the Odessa
region where the deceased was associated with disarticulated animal bone and horse harnesses (Michajlov 1993:
109110). On the basis of the variety in burial rites, it is
probable that different ethnic groups coexisted within the
Hunnic population. By the early 5 th century AD, the Huns
living on the northern coast of the Black Sea began to exploit
the Crimean steppes for seasonal grazing10 (Ajbabin 1993: 209).
Some burials have been found to contain personal objects ascribed to these nomadic peoples. Indeed, excavations in the
cemetery of Belajus produced a very rich burial dug into the
floor of an old funerary chamber and covered with stone slabs.
The burial containing the remains of a nomadic adult male and
his equipment, and the skull, ribs and lower limbs of a horse
were recovered from immediately below the slab roof. It is
probable that the horse remains are associated with a ritual characteristic of Asiatic origin11 (Rvsz and Nepper 1998: 5556)
and Baltic (Jaskanis 1991: 3940) nomadic populations. The
human skeleton was positioned on the bottom of the grave in
the Mongolian-like north-south orientation. A gold earring was
found near the skull, a silver buckle dated to the 5th century
was recovered from near the pelvis, and a horse bit and harness
were situated on the mans knees (Ajbabin 1993: 160).
decreasing and by AD 420, large portions of Pannonian lands

were under their control. A formal treaty that was signed in AD
433, further strengthened the Hunnish control (Whittaker 1994:
418419). In AD 451, the defeat of Attila the Hun at Campus
Mauriacu was not only the most significant military event of
the 5th century,12 but it also represented the end of Hunnish supremacy. This process was accelerated in the succeeding few
years as a consequence of the death of Attila (Kolendo 1994:
435436). Jordanes (Jordanes, 118120) reports that following their defeat in the battle of the River Nedao, Pannonia, the
Huns were forced to withdraw towards the northern regions of
the Black Sea (Heather 1998: 109129). Prisco di Panion refers to the Hunnic tribes that led a nomadic life in this region
during the 5th century AD as the Akatziri (Prisco di Panion,
tomo XI, 823), while Procopius of Caesarea designates the tribes
that abandoned the Danubian lands and returned to the Crimea
as the Utiguri (Procopio di Cesarea I.12, 7). The appearance
of Attila resulted in a reduction of their lands and a fragmentation of the Huns into distinct groups. These processes finally
resulted in the emergence of a number of different tribesthe
Rugi in southern Austria, the Heruli in southern Moravia, the
Swedish, Alans, and the Vandals in Pannonia (Whittaker 1994:
420421).
Military events
By the second half of the 4th century AD, the Huns advance
resulted in a wave of immigrations. The Cernjachov Culture
inhabitants of settlements in the Ukraine moved southwards
along the shores of the Black Sea and westwards into Dacia.
The Ostrogoths, who decided to keep their independence, in
conjunction with the western Alans and some Visigoths, joined
the flow of refugees that moved along the Mesian frontier.
During the winter of AD 375-376 the Emperor Valens, in an
attempt to settle the situation allowed them to cross the Danube
attempting to establish a portion of them in Thrace, and recruiting the remainder into the army. This type of solution had
proved successful in the past,13 but in this case it did not provide the expected result as the influx of refugees substantially
increased during the following two years. In AD 378, when the
Emperor Valens organized a military expedition to restore order, he was forced to fight against a combined army of Gothic,
Alanic, and Hunnic warriors; he suffered a dramatic defeat at
Adrianopolis14 (Cunliffe 1994: 12901291). The new Emperor
Theodosius, attempted to settle the situation in a diplomatic
manner by lavishing privileges and generous gifts on the main
leaders of each tribe. The majority of the Goths settled in Thrace
and Mesia in AD 382 (Whittaker 1994: 406407), between the
Balkans and the southern shore of the Danube, whereas the
smallest communities of Huns and Goths were given lands in
Pannonia. This agreement was beneficial for both parties as
new settlers acted as a potential barrier against further tribal
movements. In addition, the dramatic decimation of the Roman army was somewhat reversed by the introduction of new
soldiers15 (ibid., 12911292). The solution, however, proved
to be successful for only a short period of time. As insurrections and migrations of individual groups combined into a single
force, the situation evolved into a veritable kaleidoscope of
different tribes uniting according to their needs, and moved
By the 5th century AD, the upper regions of Pannonia and the
Noricum had become favorite migration routes for entire populations, and they were crossed by the Vandals in AD 401, by
the Alaric and the Visigoths during the following year, and by
the Radagaisus in AD 405. In AD 408 the Huns and their allies,
the Scythians, increased their attacks on the lower Danube; they
were eventually defeated and the captives were reduced to slavery. The Hunnic pressure, however, did not show signs of
156
community generally extending as far as the Rhine and Scandinavia

(Godlowski 1994: 1325).
into new lands. The existing unstable political situation was

slowly shattered as new population waves began moving
throughout central and Western Europe.
9. During the late 4th century AD, the Huns moved towards the Danube,
destroyed some Cernjachov Culture villages scattered on the steppes
along the north Black Sea coast. The Hunnic tribes that had settled in
this area made incursions into the Danubian provinces of the Roman
Empire (Ajbabin 1995: 159).
Acknowledgements
The text was translated by Sonia Ligorati and I am gratefulfor her
careful and professional work.
10. During the winter the cattle were bred in the sheltered valleys or at
the southern mouths of rivers where the snow was never deep enough
to prevent the animals from grazing. As soon as spring drew, near the
cattle would have been moved to high pastures and forested plains (Fodor
1995: 43).
Endnotes
1. With regard to the said nomadic populations it is necessary to consider the questions concerning the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, and
their different links with the Roman World.
2. Nomadic peoples began cattle breeding during the second half of the first
millennium BC. This form of economy then spread throughout the Eurasian
steppes and forest steppes and, finally to the vast territory that lies between
modern China and the mouth of the Danube (Fodor 1995: 43).
11. Horse burial was typical of graves belonging to the middle classes
and the Hungarian elite populations. One of the best horses would be
selected, and then sacrificed and skinned. The skull, and bones of the
lower limbs remained within the hide,which was then laid next to the
deceased. The horses tail was removed (Rvsz and Nepper 1998: 55).
3. Constantine paid great attention to the situation in Thrace and Mesia

and engaged himself in a number of battles against the Tervingi that,
facing starvation and cold, were forced to sign a treaty in AD 332. The
treaty enabled them to trade with the Romans and to receive financial
aid and food in exchange for royal hostages and military service in the
Roman army. This event, which the historical sources refer to as a Roman victory, marked the beginning of the Gothic integration into Roman culture (Whittaker 1994: 409).
12. The major importance of the battle of Campi Catalaunici was that it
enabled the examination of the Roman military organization. Roman
soldiers were lower in number compared to the Visigothic foederati. The
victory was not a Roman military success, despite the unquestioned strategic genius of the magister militum Ezio I. The Visigoths victory should
be regarded as a defense of personal interests and retrieval of conquered
lands and rights from the Hun invasion (Kolendo 1994: 436).
13. The presence of foreign populations within the Roman Empire had
a practical purpose that involved the defense of its frontiers against population movements. A secondary aim was to recover the lands destroyed
by the numerous forays caused by garrisoning new troops. This plan
stemmed directly from the difficult task faced by Rome in its attempt to
preserve and maintain control along the frontiers of an immense empire
(Kolendo 1994: 436).
4. These two cultural spheres cover a very wide region that comprised
the entire forest-steppes and steppes of the Ukraine west of the Dnieper,
the large territories located to the east of this river, Moldova, and part
of Walachia and Transylvania.
5. The loss of the Dacian province and Aurelians decision to leave
Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains, coincided with the appearance of these two cultures. Rome never intended, however, to relinquish
control of the fertile planes of Walachia and the Banat that stretched
between the Carpathian Mountains and the Danube. A substantial amount
of evidence exists that pertains to the Roman presence and Diocletians
battles against the Goths and Sarmatians on the lower Danube. Several
historical accounts indicate that great attention was paid to Lower Mesia
and the limes Scythicus in Dobrudja (Whittaker 1994: 408).
14. The defeat of Adrianopolis proved that the loss of frontier lands was
not the result of exterior military pressures but rather of inner political
instability. Although this battle was one of the major military defeats
suffered by the Roman army, and despite the huge number of foreign
settlements in the Empire, none of these elements were responsible for
the deterioration of the frontier (Whittaker 1994: 407).
15. Note that the military recruitment was not generalized as the newly
acquired armies were put under the command of warriors of the same
ethnic group and armed according to specific customs. This strategy made
the situation more complex and forced the Romans to adapt to completely
new fighting techniques. The gradual development of a military organization that counted a very small number of Romans became a major factor
from the 4th century AD onwards (Kolendo 1994: 438439).
6. The evidence obtained from archaeological surveys indicates that the

phase of Gothic settlement identified in the vicinity of the Baltic coasts
may be recognized as the Wielbark Culture. This culture started its expansion in the early Imperial Age in the region crossed by the lower
Vistola. At the beginning of the 1st century AD, both the burial rites and
the material culture changed. The Wielbark Culture was characterized
by cemeteries that contained both inhumation and cremation burials,
and weapons were lacking and tools are rare (Godlowski 1994: 1310).
Personal ornaments recovered from female inhumations usually included
snake-headed armbands, buckles, and Almgren-type fibulae that were
used to fasten clothing or cloaks (Vaccaro 1996: 34).
References
Ambroz, K. A. 1981. Vostonoevropejskie i sredneaziatskie stepi v
pervoj polovine VIII v, pp. 1930 in Ribakov B. A., Archeologija
SSSR, Stepi Evrazii v epokchu srednevekovja, Moscow: Nauka (The
steppes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia in the first half of the
8th century. Archaeology USSR, the Eurasian steppes in the
Middle Ages).
7. A glass-making workshop was recovered from a Cernjachov Culture

settlement in Komarov, along the middle Dniester River.
8. The spread of the Wielbark Culture, and the appearance of the
Cernjachov Culture, resulted in the collapse of the border that, before
the Imperial Age, had separated central and Eastern Europe. Despite
the peculiarity of the Cernjachov Culture, its links with central Europe
were so close as to suggest that it was a component of a single cultural
Artamov, M. I. 1962. Istoriya Chazar. Leningrad: State Hermitage (The history of the Chazari).
157
Ajbabin, A. 1995. Gli Alani, i Goti e gli Unni, pp. 16570 in Dal
mille al Mille. Tesori e popoli dal Mar Nero. Milano: Electa (The
Alans, the Goths and the Huns. From the year one thousand to
the year one thousand. Treasures and peoples of the Black Sea)
Vol. III, Medioevo (secoli V-XV). Torino: Einaudi (The

Barbaricum: Requirements of early Medieval evolution. History of Europe, Vol. III, The Middle Ages (5th15th centuries)).
Magomedov, B. V. 1987. Chernjakhovskaja kultura SeveroZapadnogo Prichernomorja, (La culture de Tchernjahov dans les
rgions du nord-ouest de la mer Noire). Kiev: Naukova Dumka (The
Cernjakhov Culture in the northern and western regions of the
Black Sea area).
Cunliffe, B. 1994. Lorganizzazione della frontiera come fattore

di destabilizzazione, pp. 125792, in Guilame, J. and Settis, S.
(eds.), Storia dEuropa 2. Preistoria e antichit. Torino: Einaudi
Editori (The frontier organization as disrupting element. European history 2. Prehistory and ancient times).
Melucco Vaccaro, A. 1996. Goti, pp. 3440 in Romanini, A.

M. (ed.), Enciclopedia dellArte Medievale, VII. Roma: Nuove
Arti Grafiche Ricordi (The Goths. Encyclopedia of Medieval Art, Vol. 7).
Derfer, G. 1986. O yazike gunnov, Zarubezhnaja tjurkologija,

pp. 72116 in Drevnie tjurkskie jazyki i literatury. Moscow (The
language of the Huns, foreign Turkology. Turkish old languages
and literature).
Michajlov, B. D. 1993. Pogrebenie gunnskogo vremeni v

Severnoj Tavrii, pp. 10910 in Materialy po archeologii, istorii
i etnografii Tavrii, fasc. III. Simferopol (The late Hun Empire in northern Tavria. Tavrian archaeological, historical and
ethnological materials).
Erdlyi, I. 1991. Alani, pp. 2834 in Romanini, A. M. (ed.),

Enciclopedia dellArte Medievale. Roma: Nuove Arti Grafiche
Ricordi (The Alans. Encyclopedia of Medieval Art).
Fodor, I. 1998. Economia e Societ, pp. 437 in Fodor, I., Rvzs,
L., Wolf, M., Nepper, I. M. and Govi, C. M. (eds.), Gli antichi
Ungari. Nascita di una Nazione. Ginevra-Milano: Skira (Economy
and Society. The ancient Hungars. The birth of a nation).
Randers Pehrson, J. D. 1983. The Steppes of Asia, pp. 3453 in

Randers Pehrson, J. D. (ed.), Barbarians and Romans. The birth
struggle of Europe, A.D. 400-700. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Godlowski, K. 1994. I Barbari nellet imperiale romana, pp. 1292

337 in Guilame, J. and Settis, S. (eds.), Storia dEuropa 2. Preistoria
e antichit. Torino: Einaudi Editori (The Barbarians in the Roman
Imperial age. European History 2. Prehistory and ancient times).
Rvsz, L. and Nepper, I. 1998. Il patrimonio archeologico degli

Ungari conquistatori, pp. 5566 in Ambrosio, F. (ed.), Gli antichi
Ungari. Nascita di una nazione. Bologna: Skira, Ginevra-Milano
(The archaeological heritage of the Hungarian conquerors. The
Hungarians. Birth of a nation).
Gumilev, L. N. 1960. Gunny. Moscow: Nauka (The Huns).

Heather, P. 1998. The Goths. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whittaker, C. 1994. Le frontiere imperiali, pp. 369424 in

Carandini, A., Ruggini, L. C. and Giardina, A. (eds.), Storia di
Roma. 3. Let tardoantica. Crisi e trasformazioni. Torino: Einaudi
Editori (The Imperial frontiers. The history of Rome 3. The
late Roman time. Crises and transformations).
Jaskanis, D. 1991. Prima fase dellAltoMedioevo (VI-VII), pp.

3949, in Jaskanis, D. and Kaczynski, M. (eds.), I Balti. Alle
origini dei Prussiani, degli Iatvinghi, dei Lituani e dei Lettoni. Dal
V secolo al XIV secolo. Firenze: Cantini (First stage of the early
Middle Ages. The Balts. At the origins of the Prussians, the
Iatvinghs, the Lithuanians, the Latvians. The 5th14th centuries).
Wolfram, H. 1990. Histoire des Goths. Paris (History of the Goths).
Kazanski, M. 1991. Les Goths (Ier-VII aprs J.-C). Paris: Editions

Arranchie (The Goths).
Literary sources
Ammianus Marcellinus Le storie. Volume I (Libri XIV-XXII),
pp. 57-591, Volume II (XXIII-XXXI), pp. 5931101, translation and commentary by A. Salem, Torino 1994: Tea (The
Histories).
Kolendo, J. 1994. I barbari del Nord, pp. 42541 in Carandini,

A., Ruggini, L. C. and Giardina, A. (eds.), Storia di Roma. 3.
Let tardoantica. Crisi e trasformazioni. Torino: Einaudi Editori
(The Northern Barbarians. The History of Rome 3. The late
Roman time. Crises and transformations).
Arriano Limpresa contro gli Alani. Translation and commentary

by A. C. Ross and G. Wirrth, Leipzig 1968 (The undertaking
against the Alans).
Kulakovsij, J. A. 1899. Alany po svedenijam klassicheskikh i

vizantijskikch pisatelej. Kiev (The Alans according to the sources
of Classical and Byzantine writers).
Kuznetsov, V. A. 1984. Ocherki istorii alan. Ordzhonikidze (Essays on the history of the Alans).
Flavio Giuseppe La guerra giudaica. Volume I (Libri IIII), pp.

5661, Volume II (IVVII), pp. 9676, translation and commentary by G. Vitucci, Forl 1974: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore
(The Judaic war).
Leciejewicz, L. 1994. Il Barbaricum: Presupposti dellevoluzione

altomedievale, pp. 4183 in Ortalli, G. (ed.), Storia dEuropa,
Jordanes Storia dei Goti. Translation and commentary by E.

Bartolini, pp. 15168, Torino 1991: Tea (History of the Goths).
158
Prisco di Panion Storia bizantina. Translation and commentary

by V. V. Latyev, pp. 82327 San Pietroburgo 1900 (Byzantine
History).
Paolus Orosius Le Storie contro i Pagani. Volume I (Libri I-IV),
pp. 6-452, Volume II (V-VII), pp. 8536, translation and commentary by A. Lippold, Verona 1976: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore
(Histories against the Pagans).
Procopio di Cesarea De Bellis, Opera Omnia, Libri IIV,
Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana,
volume I, II3, 40, Lipsiae 1962 (Wars).
Vaccaro, Melucco A. Goti, pp.3440, in Enciclopedia dell'Arte
Medievale, VII, Roma 1996.
Zosimus New History. Translation and commentary by R. T.
Ridley, pp. 7201, Camberra 1982.
159
Early Iron Age Pastoral Nomadism in the Great Hungarian PlainMigration or Assimilation?
The Thraco-Cimmerian Problem Revisited
Carola Metzner-Nebelsick
Institut fuer Praehistorische Archaeologie
Frei;e Universita/t
Berlin
Abstract
Preliminarily, this article focuses on a crucial aspect of the Early
Iron Age material culture (9 th to 7th centuries BC) in the
Carpathian Basin and Central Europe, specifically Eastern inspired horsegear types, harness equipment, and weapons traditionally referred to as Thraco-Cimmerian. The supposedly
northern Caucasian and Pontic origin of these items has traditionally been connected with the idea of an aggressive invasion of Eastern mounted warriors. The article argues in favor
of a far more complicated model of mutual cultural contacts,
with regular patterns of exchange and communication, between
communities of sedentary stockbreeders in the northern
Caucasus and Pannonia. The main part of the article examines
the eastern area of the Carpathian Basin, i.e. the Great Hungarian Plain, which forms the most western part of the Eurasian
Steppe belt. It is proposed that the fundamental changes in the
cultural appearance of this area in the 9th century BCwhich
led to the formation of the so-called Mezo=cst Groupwere
mainly due to anthropogenic changes of the environment during the earlier Urnfield period (13th11th centuries BC). Local
populations adjusted to the new conditions by adopting a steppeoriented lifestyle as mobile pastoralists as a result of intensive
contacts across the Carpathian Mountain range. The Mezo=cst
Group was the second important agent in transmitting Eastern
cultural concepts and aspects of material culture to the West.
Presumably relations between the steppe oriented group and
the sedentary communities of the Late Urnfield and Hallstatt
periods on the Eastern Alpine Fringe and in Transdanubia,
tended to be antagonistic. Thus the interface between East and
West reveals a complex pattern of conflict, exchange, and familial ties.
ranges that lie within the heart of southeastern Europe. Its eastern half that lies in Hungarian, Slovakian, and Rumanian territory is the southwestern outlier of the Eurasian steppe belt (Breu
1970-89; Horvth, Glavac and Ellenburg 1974).
Kristiansens (1989) examination of the late Neolithic Single
Grave and Corded Ware Cultures and Anthonys (1990) article
Migration in archaeology: the baby and the bathwater have
called the processual anti-migrationist approach towards phenomena of cultural change into question. This has led to a climate in which scenarios where migration of social groups, be
it in the form of a drawn out process of immigration or a more
sudden event in the sense of invasion, are again being considered as valid explanations in prehistory.1 In central and southeastern European prehistoric research, the migrationist approach
was by and large never abandoned, and is still seen as a plausible model in very recent contributions (Falkenstein 1997).2
This is especially true if we look at this region during the Early
Iron Age in the first half of the first millennium BC, which is
the subject of this article.3
A summary of previous research

Traditionally, Central European research has seen the transition from
the Bronze to the Iron Age connected with a migrationist theory originally proposed by Paul Reinecke in 1925 and embellished by Ion
Nestor (1934a; 1934b) Gallus and Horvth (1939), and Friedrich Holste
(1940). They saw the presence of a series of equestrian bronzes and
weapons in central and southeastern European graves and hoards that
showed East European steppe bound analogies as a reflection of the
invasion of mounted warriors. These putative invaders were identified with the historic Cimmerians, who were thought to have caused
major disruptions in the cultural development of the Carpathian Basin and beyond into Central Europe, despite the fact that there is no
written evidence for such an incursion. Herodotus records that the
Cimmerians were expelled from their native lands by the Scythians
and decided to flee along the coasts of the Black Sea into the land
of the Medes (Herodotus IV: 11). Accounts of their activities in Anatolia and northern Assyria are abundant and reports of their attacks against Urartu and Assyria are to be
found in Akkadian written sources (Ivantchik 1993), which
record events from the late 8th century to the middle of the
7th century BC (Metzner-Nebelsick 2000a).
Keywords
Early Iron Age, Thraco-Cimmerian-Problem, Hungarian Plain,
migration, horsegear
Introduction
The cultural transmission on the interface between the steppe
and forest zone in Eurasia must be seen within the context of a
complex pattern of communication involving pastoral nomadism, migration, acculturation and conflict. In this paper I would
like to demonstrate this with a case study focusing on the
Carpathian Basin, the lowland plain encircled by the mountain
160
Early Iron Age Pastoral Nomadismin the Great Hungarian Plain
fig. 89) mostly with a traditionally western ring base. Therefore, they prove to be mostly imitations of the eastern parallels, as reign knobs with ring bases had been produced in southeastern and central Europe since the 13th century BC (MetznerNebelsick 1998: 388, fig. 25). These forms, thus, cannot be
seen as evidence of an invasion of mounted warriors as the
Cimmerian Model implies. The horsegear finds, moreover,
are dated within a period of more than 150 years (MetznerNebelsick 1994; 2000a). This disqualifies them as an indicator
for a single and sudden influx.7 It should be argued instead,
that a local traditions of horse breeding and a local production
of horsegear types must have existed in the Carpathian basin
(Httel 1981). It surely formed the basis for this almost immediate translation of new forms and construction principles, such
as the uniplane system for rein guidance, into a local aesthetic
concept leading to the creation of something specifically
Danubian. This flexibility is a reflection of the mobility and
intensive exchange pattern of the communities involved.
In contrast to the foreign so-called Cimmerian objects, the

local element of the material culture of the Carpathian Basin
was attributed to the Thraciansfirst by Reinecke and more
explicitly and with a wider range of artifacts in 1934 by Nestor.
The link postulated between the horsegear dominated hoards
and grave inventories in the Carpathian Basin and Central Europe and the Cimmerian expulsion allowed scholarship to date
the finds to the turn of the 8th 7th centuries BC and, henceforth, referred to as Thraco-Cimmerian. Furthermore, the proposed short term invasive character of this event justified the
postulation of a short lived Thraco-Cimmerian horizon
(Milojcic;: 1959) that was used as an important chronological
benchmark in early Iron Age research.4 The term ThracoCimmerian is still in vogue, although many scholars now simply use Cimmerian when referring to the eastern component.
Thus, the word Cimmerian has become more or less a synonym for a model that assumed an invasion of nomadic riders
into the Carpathian Basin and beyond. According to this model,
the decline of the Urnfield Culture at the close of the Late
Bronze Age and the emergence of the Early Iron Age Hallstatt
culture of in the 8th century BC was at least partly caused by
these supposedly disastrous events. More differentiated approaches have recently been put forward by Kossack (1980;
1986; 1994; 1998), Patek (1989/1990; 1993) and the author
(1994; 1996; 1998). The migrationist approach however, still
enjoys widespread currency (Chochorowski 1993; Kemenczei
1984; Romsauer 1998; 1999).
The contexts of the so called Thraco-Cimmerian finds within

hoards also demonstrate typically western characteristics. Moreover recent research demonstrating complex and recurrent patterning in the composition of hoards have shown conclusively
(Hansen 1994; Hnsel and Hnsel 1997; Metzner-Nebelsick
1996: 291 f.; Nebelsick 1992: 414, fig. 3; Sommerfeld 1994)
that we are dealing with the product of ritual deposition, that is
material sacrifice. The composition of hoards with Pontic-Caucasian horsegear such as the 9 th century deposit from Vetis% in
Transilvania (Bader 1977), which contains Carpathian socketed axe types and horsegear, reflects traditional modes of sacrifice already apparent in the same region in the 12th century
BC (Metzner-Nebelsick and Nebelsick 1999). Other hoards
show a different pattern involving an equestrian, a male and a
female component (Nebelsick 1992) like in Srengrad near the
Danube in eastern Croatia (Vinski-Gasparini 1973: 131,
pl.130B), or is sometimes supplemented by toolsprobably
with a sacrificial aspectas in Haslau-Regelsbrunn in lower
Austria (Mller-Karpe 1959, pl. 143A).
A closer look at the material evidence as well as the overall

archaeological record shows, however, that the historical paradigm of a disastrous invasion of Easterners falls short of a convincing explanation for cultural change at the beginning of the
Iron Age in southeastern Europe.
The material evidence

As I have shown on different occasions (1994; 1996; 1998),
the new Carpathian horsegear types occurring at the end of the
Bronze Age are hardly ever real eastern imports. Similarities
between Early Iron Age bridles and bits in southeastern Europe and the Ukraine as well as Ciscaucasian contexts are obviousmost prominent is the uniplane system (i.e., the strap
holes all face in the same direction) that represents a new way
to bridle a horsebut many other so-called Thraco-Cimmerian
horsegear types have specific features that do not occur east of
the Carpathians (Fig. 1). These types are definitely modeled on
eastern prototypes but were clearly changed into local variants. Some are clearly confined to central and southeastern
Europe, whereas others show a distribution both east and west
of the Carpathians. The angled sidepieces (Fig. 2), originally
referred to as type Kamyshevacha (after Terenozhkin 1976: 49,
fig. 19),5 can also be found in a traditionally central European
construction with a biplane system for the application of the
straps. This clearly shows the ability of the local horse riding
elite to adopt new forms of horsegear while at the same time
keeping their traditional bridling technique.6 If we look at the
horsegear ornaments, such as reign knobs, a similar phenomenon becomes apparent. In the west, eastern prototypes have
been altered into local forms (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996: 297 f.,
The Mezo=cst Group

Leaving the hoards aside, another cultural phenomenon, which
has been and is most ardently identified with an eastern intrusive population, was the so-called Mezo=cst Group. It was first
described by the Hungarian archaeologist Patek (1974; 1989/
1090; 1993). The Early Iron Age graves of the Mezo=cst Group
can be dated from the 9th to the early 7th centuries BC (Patek
1993; Metzner-Nebelsick 1998). They are located in the loess
and forest steppe area of the Great Hungarian Plain (Fig. 3). This
group, that scholarship also refers to as Pre-Scythian, has so far
mainly been defined on the basis of a specific burial rite.
Mezo=cst graves are always inhumations, usually in supine,
but also occasionally in crouched position. Their predominant
orientation is west-east (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998). They are
found on slight elevations such as sand dunes or abandoned
tell settlements and form little cemeteries, rarely having more
than 10 graves. Fairly often they are found alone. They hardly
ever contain more than two vessels, usually a large pot, a cup,
161
or a bowl (Fig. 4). In many graves cattle or sheep bones indicate that large portions of meat were included. Stones or querns
next to the deceased are also a typical grave good, i.e., in
Mezo=cst 27 (Fig. 5, Metzner-Nebelsick 1998: 378, fig. 14) as
well as richly ornamented bone plates associated with female
graves (Fig. 6) (Patek 1989/90, pl. 2829).
a horse riding warrior elite emerges sometime around 900 BC.

The ideological importance of the warrior and his horse is especially evident in the cemeteries of Serzhen-Yurt in northern
Ossetia (Kozenkova 1992) and in Fars at Adygei (Leskov and
Erlich 1999), horses sometimes were buried next to their riders.
Horse burials are not found in the Pre-Scythian graves of the northern Pontic steppe zone or in the Carpathian Basin at that time.
Before we go into a more detailed analysis of the Mezo=cst

burials it should be emphasised again that this archaeological
group has been traditionally seen as representing mounted warriors and their hangers-on who invaded the areas beyond the
Carpathian Mountains causing major disruptions in the cultural development of the Carpathian Basin (Kemenczei 1975:
70; 1981: 41; 1984: 86, 95; Chochorowski 1993).
In Serzhen-Yurt, as in contemporary graves with different types

of bits and cheekpieces such as in the recently published FarsKlady Cemetery in Adygei in the Kuban region (Leskov and
Erlich 1999) or Klin-Yar in Kabardino-Balkaria (Berezin and
Dudarev 1999), to name just a few, the horsegear belongs to
riding equipment (i.e., a single bit and two cheekpieces). So
far only one chariot grave drawn by two horses with PreScythian horsegear of the Novocherkassk type has been discovered in a kurgan in Kabekhubl Uashkhitu (Erlich 1994). This
extraordinary find might be seen as an reflection of Near Eastern
forms of warfare.9
The material evidence of the Mezo=cst Group as well as the

overall archaeological record, however, reveals a much more
complicated picture.
Indeed, it is clear that the rite of inhumation marks a substantial break with the funeral tradition of the Carpathian Basin.
This was a key argument for the proposed population shift (see
above, recently, Romsauer 1998; 1999; Romsauer and Veliacik
1998). From the Middle Bronze Age until the 10th9th centuries
BC, cemeteries with cremation burials and a distinctive pottery style have been in continual use in northeastern Hungary
and parts of Slovakia. Late Bronze Age so-called Kyjatice cemeteries such as Szalja in Hungary (Kemenczei 1984: 135, pl.
71) or Radzovce in Slovakia are typical examples (Furmnek
1990).
Before we turn back to the Mezo=cst Group, it should also be

mentioned that the most prominent horsegear type for the PreScythian era in the Ukrainian steppes as well as the northern
Caucasusthe aforementioned Novocherkassk bridle10 of the
9th and 8th centuries BC, does not occur west of the Carpathian
Mountains. Here, horsegear of that period reflects the PonticCaucasian role models mentioned before and can be attributed
to wagon as well as riding sets.
If we try to envisage those mainly horse riding elites of the
northern Caucasus regions in the Early Iron Age in their social
contexts, a picture of sedentary stockbreeders and pastoralists
emerges. An aggressive warrior component is an integral part
of their social system. The location of the cemeteries in the
vicinity of the hilly slopes of the Caucasus promontories and
the existence of contemporary settlements like in Serzhen-Yurt
or Bamut (Kozenkova 1977, pls. 27) in northern Ossetia or in
Krasnogvardeyskoe II in the Kuban region (Sharafutdinova
1989), make it difficult to see these groups as nomads. The
situation in the open steppe area further north and east towards
the Caspian Sea (Nogayskiye Steppe) or to the west in the northern Pontic steppe area and parts of Moldova is rather different.
Surely, such a change in funeral ritual primarily reflects new

religious concepts not necessarily linked to the influx of new
groups of people. Moreover, a comparison between the
inhumations in the Carpathian basin and contemporary
inhumations in the various eastern regions postulated as the
homeland of the putative invaders shows obvious differences
in their grave good assemblages.
One of the most striking facts about the Mezo=cst Group is the
absence of weapons in the graves. The only exception is a miniature bone axe from a grave from Mezo=cst itself (Fig. 7).
This only serves to underline the taboo against sepulchral armament that stands in strange contrast to the burial customs of
the hypothetical homelands of the newcomers, where weapons
play an important role in funerary status representation.
Central Europe at the transition from the Late

Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age
Within the central and southeastern European cultural frame
work, riding sets in graves and hoards, although rare, reflect
something new in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. In the
local tradition the use of bridled horses was connected with
draught animals used for war chariots or four-wheeled wagons
in ceremonial and funeral contexts (Pare 1992). There are only
a few graves of the Late Bronze Age, i. e. , in the Early Urnfield
period, containing horsegear that was composed of a single
bridle or cheek piece, making it likely that a riders horsegear,
and not the harness for a wagon with two horses, was deposited in the grave.11 Therefore, it is not suprising that the majority of late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age horsegear and reign
ornaments of Pontic Caucasian influence found in graves sym-
The North Pontic steppes and the Northern Caucasus

in comparison
In the northern Pontic steppe and forest steppe zone, weapons
in graves are an ubiquitous feature (Terenozhkin 1976;
Dubovskaja 1998). This is also true in the northern Caucasus,
especially in the area of Adygei in the Kuban region, in the
Kislovodsk area of Kabardino-Balkaria, and in northern Ossetia
where weapons such as bimetallic daggers, iron and bronze
spearheads, and different types of iron or bronze axes as well
as horsegear are regularly found in graves from inhumation
cemeteries.8 Judging from the material evidence in these graves
162
transhumance communities or semi-nomadic pastoralists, there

are a series of archaeological indications to support this model.
bolizes the traditional Central European set for two horses (Pare
1992).12 These graves containing horsegear, and dating to the
9th and 8th centuries BC, belong the to cultural context of the
new Hallstatt elite ofthe eastern Alpine and Pannonian region
of modern Austria, western Slovakia, Hungary, and Croatia.
Surprisingly, in the eastern Carpathian Basin, home of the
Mezo=cst Group, they are almost absent in graves (Fig.7).13
One of those rare examples, an iron bridle from Mezo=cst (Patek
1993: 42, fig. 29) has direct parallels in Moldova (Lapushnyan
1973: 108, fig. 6) but not in the northern Pontic or Ciscaucasian
region. Judging from the material evidence, the northern Pontic
or Ciscaucasian cultural groups were not responsible for the drastic
funerary behaviour changes in the eastern Carpathian Basin.
The spatial analysis of the small cemeteries and single graves

of the Mezo=cst Group seem to cover a chronological period
of at least 200 years. The burials also seem to suggest a picture
of rather small groups of people without a canonical funeral
ritual for all members of the population. They seem to have
practiced a mobile way of life, where regular cemeteries were
not always maintained in one particular place (Fig. 8). A further piece of evidence for a pastoral ideology of the Mezo=cst
Group may be the frequent presence of large cuts of mutton
and beef that survive as animal bones in the graves. Direct evidence for settlement sites is still scarce. A very recent example
of a well with Mezo=cst pottery from Kompolt in Eastern Hungary (Matuz et al. 1998) is the only known site to date; settlement structures are still not traced.
The Mezo=cst Group: a pastoral society?

If we look at the eastern Carpathian grave ensembles of the
12th and 9th centuries associated with Kyjatice and Gva ceramics,14 we find the same dislike of weapons in graves that is
characteristic of the Mezo=cst burials. Thus, the Mezo=cst burial
rite is best seen as a reflection of a long-standing local tradition. Another traditional element is represented by occasional
pins as costume accessories in graves, for example, from the
Urnfield cemetery of Szalja (Kemenczei 1984, pl. 71-87) and
Mezo=cst Group inventories (Patek 1980; 1989/1990; 1993:
19ff). Although horsegear very rarely occurs in Mezo=c st
graves, it is a regular feature of the few contemporary hoards
of areas such as Prgy, Fgd, Sarkad, Vetis%, or Szanda.15
In my view the most convincing argument for the pastoral nomadic or semi-nomadic and transhumant character of the
Mezo=cst Group is supplied by its pottery. One of the main
characteristics of this group is the typologically diverse character of the vessels in the graves (Patek 1989/1990; 1993;
Metzner-Nebelsick 1998). What we see instead is a collection
of pots whose forms are rooted in different ceramic traditions,
among them many imports as shown in the diagram (Fig. 9).
This probably reflects modes of exchange between Mezo=cst
communities with other sedentary as well as mobile groups.
The question remains. Which role did this group, and the new
eastern and eastern inspired artifacts as horsegear types, play
in the process of cultural change at the beginning of the Iron
Age? If we envisage eastern Hungary today, many of us might
imagine a rather romantic scenario of herding cattle and horses
that roam the vast Puszta steppe country. Although most of this
land is now intensively farmed, this was not always the case.
Before the great dike building programs at the end of last century, due to their low relief the steppes and meadows of the
Great Hungarian Plain were endangered by constant flooding
(Breu 19701989, map 181; Hnsel and Medovic; 1991, pl. 1)
a fact underscored by the disastrous spring floods of the Tisza
River in eastern Hungary in the year 2000. This made large
scale cultivation a rather daunting enterprise leading to the use
of the land by partly mobile pastoralists and transhumance populations. The predominant natural vegetation type of the Great
Hungarian Plain are various kinds of forest steppes which differ from the steppe formations of the northern Pontic region,
but also from the neighbouring deciduous forest areas to the west
(Breu 197089). These environmental conditions were the ecological as well as economical background for centuries of occupation of the plain by pastoralists either semi-nomadic or transhumant.
Longer distance contacts can be detected by the same type of vessel

found in an isolated inhumation grave of the Mezo=cst Group in
Zelizovce in Slovakia (Ozdni and Neviznsky 1996), with direct
parallels in a warrior grave in Carevbrod, found in the steppe environment of the Bulgarian lower Danube (Hnsel 1974: 213, fig. 11). The
weapon assemblage and horsegear in this grave stands in contrast to
those of the Mezo=cst, yet shows close links with grave assemblages
of the Ukrainian steppes as well as the northern Caucasus.
Artifactspottery as well as jeweleryfrom Mezo=c st
graves also indicate contacts with the segmented societies
of southwestern Hungary and northeastern Croatia, as the
Dalj Group of the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period (MetznerNebelsick 1996; 1997). The ceramic production of these
groups shows a homogeneity, foreign to the diversity of
ceramic production of the Mezo=cst Group. Despite the typological diversity, it is possible to see undeniable similarities between Mezo= cst pottery and the ceramic styles of
the preceding Late Bronze Age cultural groups of northern
Hungary and Slovakia as shown in Figure 10.
It would seem that the Mezo=cst population had strong ties to the
preceding Late Bronze Age groups of Gva and Kyjatice; that is
where their descendants who changed burial customs along with
their way of life for reasons to be explained. It is also conceivable
that only a part of the sedentary Late Bronze Age society became
transhumant or adopted a mobile lifestyle, while maintaining close
contacts to sedentary farming communities, living in more mountainous regions on the slopes of the Carpathian Mountains.
The Mezo=cst phenomenon, in my opinion, is the most convincing explanation as the reflection of pastoral nomads and transhumant pastoralist who, through their mobile way of life, helped to
transmit eastern ideas and cultural concepts from the Eurasian
steppe belt to the west. Besides the natural steppe vegetation, which
offers best conditions for stock breeding by sedentary as well as
163
grazing that prevented reforestation in hilly locations by down

trodding young shoots. As a result of the erosion process, sedimentation in the plain was intensified, and because of the low
relief of the region this led to recurrent flooding. A research
project in the Kis-Mohs-Lake Basin north of Miskolc in northeastern Hungary, recently published by Willis e. al. (1998), supports this theory. Here pollen analyses show a remarkable degradation impact coinciding with the depletion of beech trees between 1200800 BC, which is the period of intensive metal production. There is also a drastic decrease of settlements after 800
BC. Both the massive deforestation in the plain since the Neolithic,
and intensive grazing turned larger parts of the eastern Carpathian
Basin into the steppe environment, as it would be under natural
vegetation conditions even today.
On a small regional scale, this interaction model of close contacts between sedentary and mobile pastoral populations can
so far only be convincingly applied in western Slovakia.16
Putting the puzzle together: man and the environment

in the Hungarian Plain: a model
I have argued that the ecological and environmental conditions
in the Great Hungarian Plain in the Early Iron Age were of a
predominantly steppe character that favored a subsistence strategy based on the stock breeding of gregarious animals, such as
cattle, sheep or horses. In view of the vast Neolithic as well as
Early and Middle Bronze Age tell settlements (Kovcs 1988;
Meier-Arendt 1992), or the aforementioned Late Bronze Age
cremation cemeteries that had been used for many generations,
this was not always the case. But when and why did these proposed fundamental changes happen?
Pastoral nomadism and transhumant pastoralism that were practiced in the Transcarpathian steppe and mountain regions provided, at least for parts of the overall population, a better way
of coping with this changing environment. Additionally, in parts
of the eastern Carpathian Basin old power structures, presumably depending upon metal production and distribution, collapsed and this intensified a situation of crisis. Traditional religious concepts concerning death were also no longer maintained. Instead a new concept of the afterlife prevailed and, as
a result of the political crisis, the formation of the Mezo=cst
Group with its pastoral ideology reflects the emergence of new
political power structures in the eastern Carpathian Basin. At
this point, the undeniable eastern contacts most apparent in the
existence of prestigious artefacts, such as horsegear, probably
played a decisive role. A closer look at those contacts may help
us to understand the role of the Mezo=cst Group within the
cultural network of the Early Iron Age in southeastern and central Europe, and place it into a wider European perspective.
As far as our period in question is concerned, recent pollen

analysis in the area of Lake Balaton in Transdanubia have shown
that there was a steady climatic deterioration after ca 1400 BC
until 800 BC (Gyulai 1996). A worsening of the climatic conditions with lower average temperatures and a higher rainfall
level could, however in my opinion, not be the sole cause for
such unfavourable conditions that forced formerly sedentary
groupsdependent mainly on crop cultivationto change their
subsistence strategy and become transhumant, semi-nomadic
pastoralists or pastoral nomads. The change of the subsistence
strategy and the appendant drastic change of the cultural identity in the Great Hungarian Plain was certainly multifactorial.
One factor, or maybe the most important, will have been the
radical change of the environment caused by massive erosion
due to deforestation and, as a consequence, sedimentation and
intensified flooding after 1000 BC.
Conclusion
Looking back, since the 13th century BC there is a long tradition of intensive contacts between the eastern Carpathian Basin and the Ukrainian forest steppe (Klochko 1993; Sava 1998).
This devalues the accepted traditional view of a sudden eastern influx represented by eastern inspired horsegear and weapons referred to as Thraco-Cimmerian or Cimmerian. That those
contacts were very intensive and formed a communication network between East and West can, among other things, be demonstrated by the distribution of clay figurines in settlements
dating from 1200600 BC (Fig. 12). They symbolise the pastoral ideology of their producers, but in their contextual meaning as part of rituals in connection with hearths within settlements, they also reflect the close intercultural contacts on a
ritual and ideological level between communities or tribal entities on both sides of the Carpathians.
If we take into account the vast quantity of Early Urnfield bronze

hoards of the BzD/HaA1 period in the eastern Carpathian Basin (Hansen 1994), we might see themapart from the religious motivation of these findsas a reflection of an enormous
labor input involved in their production. We have to imagine the
immense amount of wood needed, not only in the mines, but above
all during the processes of metal production, before an unknown
percentage of this production went out of use for religious purposes in the form of ritual offerings in hoards.
Case studies in mountainous mining areas in Bulgaria and
Serbia have shown (Horvth 1974: 58 f.; 229 f.; 589), that
erosion caused by intensive metal producing activities can be
very substantial. Looking at the archaeological record of the
Late Bronze and Iron Age in the eastern Carpathian Basin, I
think it is possible to sketch the following model of an artificial change in the environmental conditions (Fig. 11).
Obviously these tribal entities or polities were part of a communication network. Between southeastern Pannonia and in
the Northern Caucasus this probably also involved intermarriage. A special Carpathian earring type, which also occurs in
grave contexts of the Kuban region and the central Northern
Caucasus (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996; 2000b), serves to illustrate this. Intensive communication including the domestic as
As a result of over-exploitation of forest resources through deforestation in the course of mining and metallurgic activity in
the Carpathian Mountains during the Early Urnfield period,
land degradation and erosion began on the mountain slopes.
This process might have been reinforced by intensive cattle
164
well as a ritual level is expressed by the same motifs on locally

produced pottery deposited in the Dalj Group graves located in
Northeast Croatia (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996: 290, fig. 6), or in
Fars in the Kuban region (Leskov and Erlich 1999: 142, fig. 50).17
Perhaps the closest parallels in grave goods composition patterns between the assemblages in the northern Caucasus and
the west can be observed in southwestern Hungary at PcsJakabhegy Tumulus 1 (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998: 392, fig. 26).
These belong to the oldest graves within a large tumulus cemetery in the forefield of a fortified hillfort settlement (Marz
1978; 1996). It contained a northern Caucasian dagger type
Kabardino Pyatigorsk (after Kozenkova 1975)an iron spearhead and axe, again with North Caucasian parallels, locally
made horsegear of northern Caucasian/north Pontic inspiration,
that functioned as tokens of wealth and status. The iron knife
and bronze pearl as part of the belt, can be regarded as typical
for the Hallstatt Culture. Local components include the remains
of a set of locally made pottery, the cremation ritual, and the
erection of a tumulus with a central grave, whereas in the northern Caucasus, inhumations in flat graves were the almost exclusive burial rite of that time (Kozenkova 1977; 1989; Berezin
and Dudarev 1999).
The evidence also indicates that these polities were connected by institutionalized modes of exchange involving gifts such as horses and
their prestigious bronze gear, as well as the knowledge of how to use
it. Examples of horses as prestigious gifts were recorded impressively
in the Iliad. Agamemnon offersAchilles among other precious goods,
12 horses as compensation for his theft of Achilles concubine (Iliad
XIX: 246 f.). Other examples of the high value of horses were recorded in theAssyrian Annals (Starr 1990, Nrs. 6566; Ivantchik 1993,
Nr. 32, 911; 33, 34) or in several later sources that reached from the
Alpine Celts (Dobesch 1980: 122 f., 141 f.)18 to Native Americans of
the North American Plains (Hassrick 1989).
Among the innovations developed in the east, the military advantage of a new way of riding cavalry horses with a new type
of horsegear was most important. As we have seen, despite the
obvious scarcity of horsegear in Mezo=cst graves, its presence
in contemporary hoards in the area, proves that horses had a
significant meaning within the social and religious cosmos of
the Mezo=cst people. The mobility of this group probably helped
to convey eastern ideology and technical know-how to the west.
The eastern horse riding elites within the social hierarchy of
mobile and sedentary stockbreeders in the northern Caucasus,
as well as in the Upper Dnieper region, may also have functioned as a superstructure in transmitting new military riding
techniques into the Carpathian Basin.
The integration of eastern imports or eastern inspired artifacts in

graves of the early Hallstatt period in Central Europe were an
important facet of status representation during the 8th century
BC.20 It was fashionable to portray oneself as an easterner or, lets
say, in a Cimmerian or rather Pre-Scythian mode (Kaus 1988/
1989). It was a period when the uniform expression of status that
became canonical in the late 8th and 7th centuries BC, had not yet
been found. Another contemporary cremation grave in PcsJakabhegy, Tumulus 75, shows this very clearly (MetznerNebelsick 1997). By contrast, the grave goods of this other chieftain belong to a locally rooted eastern alpine weapon set.
As mentioned above, eastern or eastern inspired horsegear types also

occur in similarly structured hoards (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996: 292,
fig. 7; Nebelsick and Metzner-Nebelsick 1999: 86) on the western
edge of their distribution in the EastAlpine fringe (Mller-Karpe 1959:
pl. 143A), Bohemia ky;tlicov 1991: pl: 5558), Moravia (Podborsky
197, pl. 35) and Silesia (Seger 1907; Mller-Karpe 1961: pl. 61).
Furthermore, they represent an almost regular feature of the Late
Urnfield and Early Iron Age in the male social elite graves. These
new, but locally rooted warrior elite, chose the eastern or eastern inspired prestige goods, especially horsegear, probably in connection
with eastern horses, to symbolize their power; rarely were eastern
weapons used as sepulchral status symbols although they were in
vogue at that time. Obviously different networks of communication
and mechanisms of exchange between polities of a similar social organization can be observed (Fig. 13). Interestingly, it seems that the
northern Caucasus and areas of northeastern Croatia in the Middle
Danube had especially close contacts with each other, whereas the
Pontic steppe area seems to have functioned as a corridor (MetznerNebelsick 2000b).
These graves of the social elite can only highlight the remarkable contrast of the burial customs as well as the social structure between the segmented societies in the western Carpathian
Basin and eastern alpine fringe zone and the Mezo=cst Group
in the eastern Carpathian Basin, which I have tried to illustrate
here in summary form.
In the west, eastern inspired artifacts and real imports are embedded into local patterns of status representation within graves. By
contrast, in the eastern Carpathian Basin the assimilation processes of the local population groups towards a steppe orientated
new pastoral lifestyle could be shown. In this region, the transformation of formerly sedentary communities into a mobile, or
partly mobile pastoral society, may have led to a presumably antagonistic relationship between those communities and the adjacent sedentary segmented polities of the Late Urnfield and Hallstatt
culture on the Alpine fringe and in Transdanubia.21
The immigration of foreign populations on a large scale could not be
recognized in either of these differently organized western and eastern cultural landscapes. Single contacts between people, or mobile
groups like pastoralists, or perhaps mobile warrior bands who may
have had destabilizing effects on the social system of sedentary communities, must be seen within a structured mode of communication
networks. Even wars and aggression between different tribal or ethnic groupsthat are always present in history but rarely detectable in
the archaeological record of gravesform part of these structures.
This is most impressively shown by the distribution of a typical

Carpathian horsegear ornaments with perforated cross-shaped
decor. A cluster of finds may be observed in southeastern Pannonia,
another in the northern Caucasus, and especially in the Kuban
region. Astonishingly enough they are almost absent in the eastern Carpathian Basin, home of the Mezo=cst Group (MetznerNebelsick 1996: 299, fig. 9).19
165
12. This tradition reflects a funeral custom of status representation beyond death. It does not mean that horses were not ridden in Central
Europe. The deceased male and rarely female of the social elite were
however, portrayed as a wagon driver and not a horse rider.
Acknowledgement
This article is based on lectures held at the EAA meeting in Gothenburg,
Sweden in 1998, and at the University of California at Berkeley, in
1999. I would like to thank Dr. J. Davis-Kimball and Dr. P. Biehl for
their kind invitation to hold the Berkeley talk. I would also like to
thank my husband L. D. Nebelsick for support in editing this text.
13. Mezo=cst graves with horsegear: Fzesabony regdomb, Gr. 3

(Metzner-Nebelsick 1998, fig. 5); Mezo=cst, Group 52 (Patek 1993, fig.
29); Senica (Nevizansky; 1985, pl. 1); Posadka (Dusek 1961).
Endnotes
14. In Hungarian and Slovakian literature, these ceramic styles are referred to as cultures (Kemenczei 1984), and are regarded as preceeding
the invasive Mezo=cst; see Gva for new interpretation (Szab 1996).
1. For a compilation of the recent discussion of the phenomenon of

migration in prehistoric societies; see Chapman and Hamerow 1997 with
older literature.
15. Kemenczei 1981; 1988; Gyucha 1996; Bader 1977; Metzner-Nebelsick

1994, fig. 17a-b.
2. For recent trends in German archaeology that stand in contrast to the

prevailing Anglo-American approach, and place an emphasis on processes of acculturation and transmission as motor for cultural change,
see Hrke 1997 with further literature and special emphasis on the Migration Period; also Symposium Schleswig 1995.
16. The Mezo=cst burials of Zuran (Poulk 1995) are located only a few
kilometers away from the typesite of the late Urnfield cemetery at Podoli.
17. Further examples include strap ornaments (Metzner-Nebelsick 1996:
299, fig. 9); see also Metzner-Nebelsick 2000b.
3. A more comprehensive version of this article is published in German

(Metzner-Nebelsick 1998).
18. Livius tells in his work about Roman history (Ab urbe condita libri)
about Roman Senate gifts to the Celtic King Cincibilus, 170 BC. Among
the gifts were horses including equipment and their agasones, i.e., grooms
and trainers (Livius, 43; 5, 110).
4. For the so-called Cimmerian Problem see, for instance, Sulimirski

1959. Current Russian and Ukrainian research focuses on the evaluation
of the historical as well as chronological meaning of Terenozhkins cultural phases, i. e., the older Chernogorovka and the younger
Novocherkassk (i. e., Leskov and Erlich 1999; Machortych 1994;
Machortych and Ievlev 1992; Dubovskaja 1998), that are traditionally
identified with the Cimmerians (Terenozhkin 1976). A critique of
Terenozhkins system has recently been put forward by Dubovskaja
(1998), who sees Chernogorovka not only as an assemblage of types
and a chronological phase within the Pre-Scythian era, but also as a cultural group with a distinctive burial custom and ceramic style. According
to Dubovskaja, its character is nomadic. The North Caucasian Kuban
Culture has been dealt with in a variety of publications mainly by
Kozenkova (1977; 1989; 1998). For further references see also
Machortych 1994; Beglova et al. 1997; Berezin and Dudarev 1999; Leskov
and Erlich 1999.
19. Note the hoard of Sarkad in the Comitat of Bks as an exception

(Gyucha 1996).
20. For further examples see Frg (Tomedi 1994); Predmerice (Werner
1961; Metzner-Nebelsick 1998, fig. 29); Stillfried (Kaus 1988-1989).
21. This contrast became increasingly apparent in the following later
Hallstatt Period that involved the so-called Scythian/Vekerzug groups
of the late 7th and 6th century BC) (Chochorowski 1985; Terzan 1998).
References
Anthony, D. 1990. Migration in archaeology: the baby and the
bathwater. American Anthropologist 92/4: 895914.
5. Types VI and VII by Metzner-Nebelsick (1994: 387, fig. 1).

6. For details concerning typology and construction of horsegear see
Httel 1981; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994; for a compilation of Russian and
Ukrainian horsegear, see Dietz 1998.
Bader, T. 1977. Bronzedepotfunde Kreismuseum Satu Mare. Inventaria

Archaeologica R70. Bucharest: Bucharest Academy of Science
(Bronze Hoards from the Regional Museum of Satu Mare).
7. T he protagonists of the migration model, Kemenczei and

Chochorowski, also recently argued for a chronologically differentiated
approach (Kemenczei 1981; Chochorowski 1993). Nonetheless both hold
on to the invasion model.
Beglova, E. A., Orlovskaya, and L. B., Sorokina, I. A. 1997.

Protomeotskie drevnosti v Zakubane. Pamyatniki predskifskogo
i skifskogo vremeni na yuge vostochnoi Evropy. Materialy i
issledovaniya po Arkheologii Rosii1(Moskva) 1: 7180 (ProtoMeotian antiquities in the Trans-Kuban Region Material and
XX in Russian Archaeology).
8. Beglova et al. 1999; Berezin and Dudarev 1999; Kozenkova 1992;

Leskov and Erlich 1999; Lovpache 1985; Tov 1989.
9. Other contexts with double sets of bits and cheekpieces, exclusively of
the classic Novocherkassk type, may indicate that horsegear for wagons
i.e., chariots, were deposited, e.g., in Fars/Klady, Kurgan 46 in the Kuban
region (Leskov and Erlich 1999, fig. 42), or Butenki and Nosachiv in the
Ukrainian forest steppe zone (Terenozhkin 1976, fig. 38; Kovpanenko 1966).
Berezin, J. B. and Dudarev, S. L. 1999. Neue prskythische Funde

aus der Umgebung von Pjatigorsk, Nordkaukasus. Eurasia Antiqua
(Berlin) 5: 179216 (New Pre-Scythian Finds from the Pyatigorsk
Area, Northern Caucasus Eurasian Antiquities).
10. Triple looped sidepieces with splayed and flattened lower finals, bits
with double-ring ends.
Breu, J. (ed.) 1970-1989. Atlas der Donaulnder. Vienna:

sterreichisches Ost- und Sdosteuropa Institut (Atlas of the
Danube Countries).
11. Mikuovce in Slovakia (Pivovarova 1965); Wrschach in Austria

(Modrijan 1953), and Beftofte in Denmark (Thrane 1963).
166
Gyulai, F. 1996. Umwelt und Pflanzenbau in Transdanubien

whrend der Urnenfelder-, Hallstatt, und Latnekultur., pp. 27
136 in Jerem, E. and Lippert, A. (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur.
Akten des internationalen Symposiums Sopron 1994 (Archaeolingua 7) Budapest (Environment and Plant Cultivation in
Transdanubia during the Urnfield-, Hallstatt-, and Latne Culture. The Eastern Hallstatt Culture. Proceedings of the International Symposium in Sopron 1994).
Chapman, J., and Hamerow, H. 1997. Migrations and Invasions

in Archaeological Explanation. (BAR International Series 664).
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Cheben, J. 1997 (1999). Zchrannvy; vy;skum v Pate. Rettungsgrabung in Pata. Archeologick vy;skumy a nlezy na Slovensku v
roku 1997, (Nitra): 6566.201. (Rescue excavation in Pata).
Chochorowski, J. 1985. Die Rolle der Vekerzug-Kultur (VK)
im R ahmen der skythischen Einflsse in Mitteleur opa.
Prhistorische Zeitschrift (Berlin) 60, 204-71. (The role of
the Vekerzug Culture within the Framework of Scythian influences in Central Europe).
Hnsel, A., Hnsel B. (ed.) 1997. Gaben an die Gtter. Schtze

der Bronzezeit Europas. Ausstellungskatalog. Berlin 1997.
Bestandskataloge, Berlin: Museum fr Vor- und Frhgeschichte 4
(Gifts to the Gods. Treasures of the European Bronze Age. Exhibition Catalogue. Inventory Catalogues of the Berlin Museum
for Prehistoric Archaeology).
Chochohorowski, J. 1993. Ekspancja kimmeryjska na tereny Europy

s;rodkowej. Krakw: Uniwersytet Jagiellon;ski. (The Cimmerian
Expansion into Central Europe).
Hnsel, B. 1974. Zur Chronologie des 7. bis 5. Jahrhunderts v.

Chr. im Hinterland von Odessos an der westlichen Schwarzmeerkste.
Prhistorische Zeitschrift 49, 193217 (The Chronology of the
7th to 5th Centuries BC in the Hinterland of Odessos on the Western Black Sea Coast).
Dietz, U. L. 1998. Sptbronze- und frheisenzeitliche Trensen im

Schwarzmeergebiet und im Nordkaukasus. Prhistorische Bronzefunde
XVI, 5. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (Late Bronze Age and Early
Iron Age Horse Gear in the North Pontic Area and in the Northern
Caucasus. Prehistoric Bronze Finds.).
Hnsel, B. and Machnik, J. (ed.) 1998. Das Karpatenbecken

und die osteuropische Steppe. Nomadenbewegungen und Kulturaustausch in den vorchristlichen Metallzeiten (4000-500 v. Chr.).
Sdosteuropa Studien 20/Prhistorische Archologie in
Sdosteuropa 12. Mnchen: VML Rahden/Westfalen. (The
Carpathian Basin and the East European Steppe: Nomadic
Movements and Cultural Exchange in the Pre-Christian Metal
Ages [4000-500 BC]).
Dobesch, G. 1980. Die Kelten in sterreich nach den ltesten Berichten

der Antike. Das norische Knigreich und seine Beziehungen zu Rom im
2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. H. Wien, Kln, Graz: Bhlaus Verlag (The
Celts in Austria in the oldest records of Antiquity. The Noric Kingdom and its Relations to Rom in the 2nd Century BC).
Dubovskaja, O. 1998. Zur ethnischen und kulturellen Einordnung
der Novocerkassk-Gruppe.Antiqua 3, 277328 (Concerning the
Ethnic and Cultural Classification of the Novocherkassk Group).
6, 5982. (Questions concerning the Prehistoric Development of

Southwestern Slovakia).
Hnsel, B. and Medovic; P. 1991. Vorbericht ber die

jugoslawisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen in der Siedlung von
Feudvar bei Mo_orin (Gem. Titel, Vojvodina) von 1986-1990.
Berichte der Rmisch-Germanischen Kommission 72: 48-201.
(Preliminary Report about the Yugoslav-German Excavations
of the Settlement of Feudvar near Mosorin [Parish of Titel,
Voyvodina] between 19861990).
Erlich, V. R. 1994. U istokov ranneskifskogo kompleksa. Moskva:

Gosudarstvennyi muzei Vostoka. (About the Origins of the Early
Scythian Complex).
Hrke, H. 1997. Wanderthematik, Archologen und politisches

Umfeld. Archologische Informationen 20, 6171 (The Topic
of Migration, Archaeologists and Political Milieu).
Falkenstein, F. 1997. Eine Katastrophentheorie zum Beginn der

Urnenfelderzeit.pp. 54961 in Becker, C. et al (eds.), ;c%. Festschrift
fr Bernhard Hnsel (Internationale Archologie Studia honoraria 1).
VML Espelkamp (A Catastrophe Theory for the Beginning of the
Urnfield Period. ;c%. Studies in Honour of Bernhard Hnsel).
Hansen, S. 1994. Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen der lteren

Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rho netal und Karpatenbecken. Universittsforschungen zur Prhistorischen Archologie 21 Bonn:
Habelt. (Studies about Metal Deposition in the Early Urnfield
Period between the Valley of the Rhne and the Carpathian Basin.
University Studies of Prehistoric Archaeology).
Dusek, M. 1961. K otzkam pravekho vy;voja juhozpadho Slovenska.

St udijn Zvesti Archeologickho stavu Slovenskej Akadmie Vied
Furmnek, V. 1990. Radzovce osada ludu popolnicovy;ch pol.

Bratislava. (Radzovce a Site of the Urnfield People).
Hassrick, R. B. 1989. The Sioux. Life and Customs of a Warrior

Society. Norman: Oklahoma University Press/London.
Gallus, S. and Horvth, T. 1939. Un peuple cavalier prscythique

en Hongrie. Budapest: Dissertationes Pannonicae II.9. (A PreScythian Equestrian People in Hungary).
Herodotus (Godley, A. D. translator) 1920. Herodotus: Vol. I:

Books I. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press (1990 reprint).
Gyucha, A. 1996. Kora vaskori leletek Sarkad hatrbn. Bks

Megyei Mzeum Kzlemny (Bkscsaba). 16: 67127 (Early
Iron Age Finds from the Site of Sarkad).
Holste, F. 1940. Zur Bedeutung und Zeitstellung der

sogenannten thrako-kimmerischen Pferdegeschirrbronzen. Ein
167
Urnengrab aus Steinkirchen, Landkreis Deggendorf. Prhistorische

Zeitschrift 27, 732 (Concerning the Meaning and Dating of
the So-Called Thraco-Cimmerian Horse Gear Bronzes. An
Urngrave from Steinkirchen, District of Deggendorf ).
Kossack, G. 1998. Towards Translating the Past. Harding, A. and

Hnsel, B. (eds.). Georg Kossack Selected Studies in Archaeology. Rahden/Westfalen: VML.
Kovcs, T. 1988. Bronze Age Tell Settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain 1 Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Mzeum.
Horvth, I. and Glavac, V., Ellenberg, H. 1974. Vegetation

Sdosteuropas. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag (Vegetation of
Southeast Europe).
Kovpanenko, G. T. 1966. Nosachevskii kurgan VIII-VII vv. do n. e.

Archeologiya 20, 17479 (The Nosachevskii Kurgan of the 8th to
7th Century BC).
Httel, H. -G. 1981. Bronzezeitliche Trensen in Mittel- und

Osteuropa. Prhistorische Bronzefunde XVI, 2. Mnchen: Beck
Verlag (Bronze Age Horse Gear in Central- and Eastern Europe.
Prehistoric Bronze finds).
Kozenkova, V. I. 1975. K voprosu o rannei date nekotorykh kinzhalov

tak nazyvaetogo Kabardino-Pyatigorskogo tipa. In: Frako-skifskie
kulturnye svyazi. Thracica1, 91102 (About the Question of the
Early Dating of Daggers of the so-called Kabardino-Pyatigorsk
Type. Thrako-Scythian Cultural Contacts).
Ivantchik, A. I. 1993. Les Cimmriens et le Proche Orient. Orbis Biblicus

et Orientalis 127. Editions Unbiversitaires Fribourg, Suisse/Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht Gttingen (The Cimmerians and the Near East).
Kozenkova, V. I. 1977. Kobanskaya kultura. Zapadnyi variant.

Archeologia SSSR Svod Archeologicheskikh istochnikov V 25.
Moskva: Akademiya Nauk (The Koban Culture. The Western
Variant).
Kaus, M. 1988/1989. Kimmerischer Pferdeschmuck im Karpatenbecken - das Stillfrieder Depot aus neuer Sicht. Kimmerischer
Pferdeschmuck im Karpatenbecken - das Stillfrieder Depot aus
neuer Sicht. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft
118/119, 24757 (Cimmerian Horse Gear Ornaments in the
Carpathian Basin the Stillfried Hoard reconsidered).
Kozenkova,V. I. 1989. Kobanskaya kultura. Vostochnyi variant. Archeologia

SSSR Svod Archeologicheskikh istochnikov V 25. Moskva: Akademiya
Nauk (The Koban Culture. The Eastern Variant).
Kemenczei, T. 1975. Zur Verbreitung der sptbronzezeitlichen

Urnenfelderkultur stlich der Donau. Folia Archeologica (Budapest)
26: 45-70 (Concerning the Distribution of the Late Bronze Age
Urnfield Culture East of the Danube).
Kozenkova, V. I. 1992. Serzen-Jurt. Ein Friedhof der spten Bronzeund frhen Eisenzeit im Nordkaukasus. Materialien zur Allgemeinen
und Vergleichenden Archologie 48. Ph. v. Zabern: Mainz.
(Serzhen-Yurt. A Late Bronze Age Early Iron Age Cemetery in
the Northern Caucasus).
Kemenczei, T. 1981. A Prgy koravaskori kincslelet. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae 1, 29-41 (The Early
Iron Age Hoard of Prgy).
Kozenkova, V. I. 1998. Materialnaya osnova byta kobanskich

plemen. Zapadnyi variant. Svod Archeologicheskikh istochnikov
Rossii. V 2-5. Moskva: Akademiya Nauk. (The Material Basis of
the Way of Life of the Koban People. The Western Variant).
Kemenczei, T. 1984: Die Sptbronzezeit Nordostungarns. Acta

Archaeologica Hungarica 51. Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad. (The
Late Bronze Age of Northeast Hungary).
Kristiansen, K. 1989. Prehistoric Migration the Case of the

Single Grave and Corded Ware Cultures. Archaeology 8, 211
25.
Kemenczei, T. 1988. Der Pferdegeschirrfund von Fgd. Acta

Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariacae 40, 6581.
Klochko, V. 1993. Weapons of the Tribes of the Northen Pontic Zone in
the 16th10th Centuries BC. Poznan;: Baltic-Pontic Studies 1.
Kytlicov, O. 1991. Die Bronzegefe in Bhmen. Prhistorische

Bronzefunde II,12. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag (Bronze Vessels in Bohemia. Prehistoric Bronze Finds).
Kossack, G. 1980. Kimmerische Bronzen. Bemerkungen zur

Zeitstellung in Ost- und Mitteleuropa. Situla (Ljubljana) 20/21:
109143. (Cimmerian Bronzes. Remarks on their Dating in
East and Central Europe).
Lapushnyan, V. L. 1973. Issledovanie mogilnika u s. Selishte.

Archeologicheskie Issledovaniya v Moldavii 1970-71 gg., 100
13 (The Investigation of a Cemetery in the Village of Selishte).
Leskov, A. M. and Erlich, V. R. 1999. Mogilnik Fars/Klady.
Pamyatnik perekhoda ot epokhi pozdnei bronzy k rannemu
zheleznomu veku na Severo-Zapadnom Kavkaze. Moskva:
Gosudarstvennyi muzei Vostoka (The Fars/Klady cemetery. The
monument of transition from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age
in the Northwest Caucasus).
Kossack, G. 1986. Zaumzeug aus Kelermes. In: Hallstattkolloquium Veszprm 1984. Mitteilungen Archologischen Institutes
Budapest Beiheft 3, 12539 (Horse Gear from Kelermes).
Kossack, G. 1994. Neufunde aus dem Novocerkassker Formenkreis
und ihre Bedeutung fr die Geschichte steppenbezogener Reitervlker
der spten Bronzezeit. Il Mare Nero 1, 1954 (Recent Discoveries
from the Novocherkassk Typological Group and Their Significance
for the History of the Steppe-Horsemen of the Late Bronze Age).
Lovpache, N. G. 1985. Mogilniki v uste reku Psekupsa. Voprosy

archeologii Adygei 16-53. Maikop (Cemeteries at the Mouth of
the River Psekups. Questions in the Archaeology of Adygey).
168
Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpatenlndischen

Kulturgruppen der spten Bronze- und frhen Eisenzeit mit der
osteuropischen Steppenkoine (Farewell to the ThracoCimmerians? New Aspects of the Interaction between Carpathian
Cultural Groups of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age and the
East European Steppe World).
Machortych, S. V. 1994. Kimmeriitsy na severnom Kavkaze. Kiev:

Akademiya Nauk (Cimmerians in the Northern Caucasus).
Machortych, S. V. 1998. Neues ber die Beziehungen der Kimmerier
zur Karpaten-Donau-Welt, pp. 43749 in Hnsel, B. and Machnik
J. (eds.) (New Aspects of the Cimmerians relation towards the
Carpatho-Danubian World).
Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 2000a. Kimmerier, in Beck, H., Steuer,

H. and Timpe, D. (eds), Reallexikon der Germansichen Altertumkunde16 (Cimmerians).
Machortych, S. V. and Ievlev, M. M. 1992. ber die

Anfangsperiode der Geschichte der Kimmerier. Acta Archaeologica
Carpathica 31. 10821 (About the Early History of the
Cimmerians).
Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 2000b. Wo sind die Frauen der Kimmerier?

Ein Beitrag zum Kulturkontakt zwischen Kaukasus, nordpontischen
Steppen und Karpatenbecken am Beispiel der Frauentrachten des 9.
und 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr, in Chochorowski, J. (ed.),
Gedenkschrift fr Tadeusz Sulimirski. Krkw. (Where are the
Cimmerian Women? A Contribution to the Question of Cultural Contact between the Caucasus, the North Pontic Steppes,
and the Carpathian Basin, Demonstrated by Female Costume
Accessories of the 9th to 8th Centuries BC. Studies in Memory
of Tadeusz Sulimirski).
Marz, B. 1978. Zur Frhhallstattzeit in Sd-Pannonien. Zur

Frhhallstattzeit in Sd-Pannonien. Janus Pannonius Mzeum vknyve
23, 14564 (The Early Hallstatt Period in South Pannonia).
Marz, B. 1996. Pcs-Jakabhegy - Ausgrabungsergebnisse und
die Fragen der Frhhallstattkultur in Sdostpannonien, pp. 255
65 in Jerem, E. and Lippert, A. (eds.), Die Osthallstattkultur.
Akten des internationalen Symposiums, Sopron 1994. Budapest:
Archaeolingua 7
Metzner-Nebelsick, C. and Nebelsick, L. D. 1999. Frau und Pferd

- Ein Topos am bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit Europas.
Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 129: 69
106. (Woman and Horse A Stereotype at the Transition of the
Bronze to the Iron Age in Europe).
Matuz, E. D., Szab, J. J., and Vaday, A. 1998. Preszkta kt

Kompolton. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae
Hungariae, 4164 (A Pre-Scythian well in Kompolt).
Meier-Arendt, W. (ed.) 1992. Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen
in Tellsiedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Ausstellungskatalog Frankfurt a. M. 1992. (Bronze Age in Hungary. Research in Tell Settlements along the Rivers Danube and Tisza. Exhibition Catalogue).
Milojcic; , V. 1959. Zur Chronologie der jngeren Stein- und

Bronzezeit Sdost- und Mitteleuropas. Germania 37: 6584 (The
Chronology of the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Period in Southeast and Central Europe).
Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1994. Die frheisenzeitliche Trensenentwicklung zwischen Kaukausus und Mitteleuropa. , pp. 383447 in
Schauer, P. (ed.), Archologische Untersuchungen zum bergang
von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus.
Kolloquium Regensburg 1992. Regensburger Beitrge zur
Prhistorischen Archologie 1. University Regensburg/Habelt
Bonn (The Development of Early Iron Age Horse Gear between
the Caucasus and Central Europe. Archaeological Research Concerning the Transition of the Bronze to the Iron Age between
North Sea and Caucasus).
Modrijan, W. 1953. Der urnenfelderzeitliche Grabfund aus

Wrschach im Ennstal und die steierischen Schwerter der Periode
Hallstatt A. Festschrift W. Schmid. Schild von Steier 2, 2448
(A Grave from the Urnfield Period from Wrschach in the Enns
Valley and the Styrian Swords of the Hallstatt A Period. Studies
in Honour of W. Schmid).
Mller-Karpe, H. 1959. Beitrge zur Urnenfelderkultur nrdlich
und sdlich der Alpen. Rmisch-Germanische Forschungen 22.
Berlin: W. de Gruyter. (Contributions to the Urnfield Culture North
and South of the Alps).
Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1996. Die Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit in

Sdostpannonien, pp. 285314 in Jerem, E. and Lippert, A. (eds.), Die
Osthallstattkultur. Akten des internationalen Symposiums, Sopron 1994.
Budapest: Archaeolingua 7 (The Urnfield- and Hallstatt Period in Southeast Pannonia. The Eastern Hallstatt Culture).
Mller-Karpe, H. 1961. Die Vollgriffschwerter der Urnenfelderzeit in

Bayern. Mnchner Beitrge zur Vor- und Frhgeschichte 6. Munich
(The Metal-hilted Swords of the Urnfield Period in Bavaria).
Nebelsick, L. D. 1992: Figrliche Kunst der Hallstattzeit am
Nordostalpenrand im Spannungsfeld zwischen alteuropischer Tradition und italischem Lebensstil, pp. 40132 in Spindler, K. and
Lippert, A. (eds.), Festschrift zum 50jhrigen Bestehen des Instituts
fr Ur- u. Frhgeschichte der Leopold-Franzens-Universitt
Innsbruck. Universittsforschungen zur Pr-historischen
Archologie 8. Habelt Bonn (Figurative Art of the Hallstatt Period at the Northeast Alpine Fringe between Old European Tradition and Italic Lifestyle. Studies in Honour of the Fiftieth
Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1997. Vom Hort zum Heros., pp. 939 in

Hnsel, A. and Hnsel, J. (eds.), Gaben an die Gtter. Schtze
der Bronzezeit Europas. Berlin: Ausstellungskatalog 1997.
Bestandskataloge Museum fr Vor- und Frhgeschichte Berlin 4
(From Hoard to Hero. Gifts to the Gods. Treasures of the European Bronze Age).
Metzner-Nebelsick, C. 1998. Abschied von den ThrakoKimmeriern? pp. 36422 in Hnsel, B. and Machnik, J. (eds.),
169
Anniversary of the Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology of the

Leopold-Franzens-University Innsbruck).
Romsauer, P. 1998. Vernderungen in den Siedlungsstrukturen und

in der Besiedlungsstrategie whrend der ersten Hlfte des 1.
Jahrtausends v. Chr. unter stlichen Einflssen., pp. 6316 in Proceedings of the XIII Congress IUPPS Forl, Italia 1996. Vol. 4.
A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni (Changes in Settlement Patterns and Settlement Strategies during the First Half of the First Millenium BC
under Eastern Influences).
Nestor, I. 1934a. Zu den Pferdegeschirrbronzen aus Stillfried a. d.

March, N.-. Wiener: Prhistorische Zeitschrift 21, 10830
(About the Horse Gear Bronzes from Stillfried on the March,
Lower Austria).
Nestor, I. 1934b. Ein thrako-kimmerischer Goldfund aus Rumnien.
Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua 9, 17586 ( A ThrakoCimmerian Gold Find from Romania).
Romsauer, P. 1999. Zur Frage der Westgrenze der Mezo=cst-Gruppe,

pp. 16776 in Jerem, E. and Poroszlai, I. (eds.), Archaeology of
the Bronze and Iron Age. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference Szzhalombatta, 37 October 1996.
Archaeolingua: Budapest (Concerning the Question of the Western Frontier of the Mezo=cst Group).
Neviznsky, G. 1985. Bronzovy; depot tvz. trcko-kimmerskho

horizontu zo Santovky. Archeologick Rozhledy 37, 601606. (A
Bronze Hoard of the So-Called Thraco-Cimmerian Horizon from
Santovka).
Romsauer, P. and Veliacik, L. 1998. Der Umweltanteil an der

Siedlungsstrukturgestaltung whrend der Urnenfelder- und
Hallstattzeit in der Westslowakei. Przegla$d Archeologiczny 46,
5972 (The Contribution of Environmental Influences on
Settlement Structure during the Urnfield and Hallstatt Periods in Western Slovakia).
Ozd&ni, O., Neviznsky, G. 1996. Hrob mezo=cstskej kultry zo

Slovensk Archeolgia 44, 25364 (A Grave of the
Mezo=cs;at Culture from Z eliezovce).
Zeliezoviec.
Pare, C. F. E. 1992. Wagons and Wagon-Graves of the Early Iron

Age in Central Europe. Oxford Monographs 35. Oxford.
Sava, E. 1998. Die Rolle der stlichen und westlichen Elemente

bei der Genese des Kulturkomplexes Noua-Sabatinovka (Nach den
Materialien des Prut-Dnestr-Zwischenstromlandes). In: Hnsel, B.,
Machnik, J. (ed.), 1998: 267312. (The Role of Eastern and
Western Elements in the Genesis of the Noua-Sabatinovka
Cultural Complex. [Material from the Area between the Prut
and Dniester Rivers]).
Patek, E. 1974. Prskythische Grberfelder in Ostungarn. In: Symposium zu Problemen der jngeren Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa
pp. 33762 in Symposium zu Problemen der jngeren
Hallstattzeit in Mitteleuropa (Bratislava 1974). Veda Bratislava
(PreScythian Cemeteries in East Hungary. Symposium about
problems of the later Hallstatt Period in Central Europe).
Seger, H. 1907. Depotfunde aus der Bronze- und Hallstattzeit.

Schlesiens Vorzeit Bild und Schrift (Breslau). 4: 943. (Hoard
Finds from the Bronze and Iron Age).
Patek, E. 1980: Einige Daten zu den Anfngen der Frheisenzeit in

Ungarn. Situla 20/21, 153163. (Some Dates Pertaining to the
Beginning of the Early Iron Age in Hungary).
Sharafutdinova, E. S. 1989. Dvusloinoe poselenie Krasnogvardeiskoe pamyatnik epokhi pozdnei bronzy nachala
rannego zheleza na Kubani, pp. 4673 in Meoty predky Adygov.
Maikov (The Two-Phase Settlement of Krasnogvardeiskoe, a
Monument of the Late Bronze Age and the Beginning of the Early
Iron Age in the Kuban. The Meotians, Ancestors of the
Agygeyans).
Patek, E. 1989/1990: A Szab Jns Gyo=zo= ltal feltrt preskita

sranyag. A Fzesabony-Mezo=cst tpus temetkezsek jabb emlkei
Heves megyben. Agria 25/26, 61118 (The Pre-Scythian Graves
Discovered by Szab Jns Gyo=zo=. New Monuments of the
Fzesabony-Mezo=cst Type in Heves County).
Patek, E. 1993. Westungarn in der Hallstattzeit. VCH Weinheim
(Western Hungary in the Hallstatt Period).
Sommerfeld, C. 1994. Gertegeld Sichel. Studien zur monetren

Struktur bronzezeitlicher Horte im nrdlichen Mitteleuropa.
Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 19. De Gruyter Berlin. (The
Sickle as Tool Money. Studies of the Pre-monetary Structure of
Bronze Age Hoards in Northern Central Europe).
Pivovarov, Z. 1965. K problematike mohy;l v luzicej kultre na

Slovensku. Slovensk Archelgia 13, 10762 (Problems concerning the Tumulus Graves of the Lusatian Culture in Slovakia).
Podborsky; , V. 1970. Sdmhren in der Sptbronzezeit und an
der Schwelle zur Eisenzeit. University of Brno (Southern
Moravia in the Late Bronze Age and at the Threshold of the
Iron Age).
Starr, I. (ed.). 1990. Queries to the Sungod. Helsinki: State Archives of Assyria IV. Vol. 4.
Sulimirski, T. 1959. The Cimmerian Problem. London: Bulletin
of the Institute of Archaeology 2, 4564.
Poulk, J. 1995. Zu rn in der Geschichte Mitteleuropas. Slovensk

Archeolgia 43, 27105 (Zu rn in the History of Central Europe).
Symposium Schleswig 1995. 46. Internationales Sachsymposium.

Die Wanderung der Angeln nach England. Studien zur
Sachsenforschung 11, 1998. Oldenburg: Issensee Verlag (The
Migration of the Angles to England).
Reinecke, P. 1925. Ein neuer Goldfund aus Bulgarien. Germania

9, 504 (A New Gold Find from Bulgaria).
170
Tov, A. A. 1989. Protomeotskii mogilnik Chishko bliz Tauikhabl

v Teuchezhskom raione, 3645. Maikop: Meoty predki Adygov.
(The Proto-Meotic Cemetery near Tauikhabl in the Region of
Teuchezhskoe. The Meotians, Ancestors of the Adygeyans).
Szab, G. V. 1996. A Csorva-Csoport s a Gva-kultra kutatsnak

problmi nhny Csongrd megyei leletegyttes alapjn. A Mra
Ferenc Mzeum vknyve Studia Archaeologica 2, 9109
(The Csorva-Group and Research Problems of the Gva Culture
with Reference to Recent Find from Csongrd County).
Trogmayer, O. 1983. A Szegedi nagytaj bronz- s koravaskor nak

nkany krdsro=l. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica Supplement 5,
411 (Some Questions Concerning the Bronze and Iron Age in
the Szeged Region).
Terenozhkin, A. I. 1976. Kimmeriitsy. Kiev: Akademiya Nauk

(Cimmerians).
Terzan, B. 1998. Auswirkungen des skythisch geprgten Kulturkreises
auf die hallstattzeitlichen Kulturgruppen Pannoniens und des
Ostalpenraumes, pp. 51160 in Hnsel, B. and Machnik, J. (eds.)
(Effects of the Scythian Influenced Cultural Region on the Cultural Groups of the Hallstatt Period in Pannonia and in the East
Alpine Region).
Vinski-Gasparini, K. 1973. Kultura polja sa zarama u sjevernoj

Hrvatskoj. Zadar: Filozofski Fakultet. (The Urnfield Culture in
Northern Croatia).
Willis, K. J., Smegi, P., Braun, M., Bennett, K. D. and Tth,
A. 1998. Prehistoric land degradation in Hungary: Who, How
and Why? Antiquity 72, 10113.
Thrane, H. 1963. De frste Broncebidsler i Mellem- og Nordeuropa.

Aarbger Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1963: 5099. (The First
Bronze Horse Gear inCentral and Northern Europe).
Werner, J. 1961. Pferdekopfzepter der Hallstattzeit aus Predmerce

bei Hradec Krlov. Pamtky Archeologick 52, 38489 (A Horse
Head Sceptre of the Hallstatt Period from Predmerce near Hradec
Krlov).
Tomedi, G. 1994. Der bergang von der Bronzezeit zur Eisenzeit

am Beispiel von Frg, Tumulus K, pp. 36582 in Schauer, P.
(ed.), Archologische Untersuchungen zum bergang von der
Bronze- zur Eisenzeit zwischen Nordsee und Kaukasus.
Kolloquium Regensburg 1992. Regensburger Beitrge zur
Prhistorischen Archologie 1. University Regenburg/Habelt Bonn
(The Transition of the Bronze to the Iron Age by the Example of
Tumulus K in Frg. Archaeological Research Concerning the
Transition of the Bronze to the Iron Age between the North Sea
and the Caucasus).
171
Fig. 1. Distribution of Type I cheekpieces. (after Metzner-Nebelsick 1994: 440 f.)
172
Fig. 2. Distribution of angled cheekpieces, Types VI and VII. (after Metzner-Nebelsick; VI = Type Kamyshevacha (after Terenozhkin 1976; Metzner-Nebelsick 1994: 443) f.; updated)
173
Fig. 3. Distribution of the Early Iron Age burials of the Mezo=cst Type (arter Metzner-Nebelsick 1998: fig 1; 411 with additions, after Romsauer 1999: 168, fig. 1).
Mezo=cst
174
Fig. 4. Algyo=, Comitat Csongrd, southeastern Hungary: Grave 83 containing grinding stone with animal
bones and pottery above the head of the deceased. (Trogmayer 1983, 96, fig. 17)
175
Fig. 5. Cemetery plan and selection of graves from the Mezo=cs;at Cemetery, Comitat Borsod-Abauj-Zempln, Northeast Hungary.
(after Patek 1993)
176
Fig. 6. Bone plates from Mezo=cs;at type graves from Fzesabony-Ketto=-shalom and Sirok,
Akasztmly, Northeast Hungary. (after Patek 1989/90, pl. 28)
177
Fig. 7. Combination diagram of grave goods from

the Mezo=cs;at cemetery. (after Patek 1993: fig. 10-11)
178
Fig. 8. Number of Mezo=cs;at burials per site.
179
Fig. 9. Pottery imports in graves of the Mezo=cs;at Group. The vessels symbolize the types pottery and the arrow denote the
area of origin to the destination in Mezo=cs;at graves.
180
Fig. 10. Vessels from the cremation cemeteries of Szalja, northeastern Hungary, and Radzovce, Slovakia
(left), and their equivalents from inhumation graves of the Mezo=cst group (right). (after Kemenczei 1984;
Furmnek 1990; Patek 1989/90)
181
Fig. 11. Model of commonly accepted ecological changes and their cause in the Carpathian Basin between 1200-1000 BC.
182
Fig.12. Distribution of clay figurines belonging to the Urnfield and Hallstatt Period from settlement contexts. (Metzner-Nebelsick 1998, fig. 27; 413)
183
Fig. 13. Model of interaction between cultural groups of the northern Caucasus, the Ukrainian steppe zones and central and
southeastern Europe between 1000700 BC.
184
Intercultural Relations among Eurasian Pastoral Nomads

The Case of Northern Fennoscandia
Kjellke Aronsson
SvenDonald Hedman
Mid Sweden University
stersund, Sweden
Abstract
The relationship between pastoral nomadism in Fennoscandia
and Siberia are discussed within a context of a largescale division of labor, economic specialization and interaction in
Eurasia. Nomadic communities became important components
of extended systems of interrelated sociocultural units in the
Eurasian territory. Long distance contacts were established and
the taming and training of domesticated reindeer became meaningful in an environment of newly established economic and
social networks. Settlement patterns changed as a result of a
new strategy for resource utilization and new modes of transportation. Reindeer exploitation for transport influenced the
human settlement pattern because of the requirements for domesticated reindeer pasture. Studies of changes in settlement
patterns in Swedish Lapland, in conjunction with information
derived from pollen analysis, have indicated that this transition took place during the first millennium AD. Archaeological finds have demonstrated that long distance contacts between Fennoscandia and Siberia existed in the first millennium
BC; it is possible that elements of reindeer herding traditions
can be traced back to the time of these contacts. It also seems
obvious that some mythological motives of the preChristian
Saami society can be related to the belief systems of the nomadic horse breeders of the eastern steppes.
tion, a brief review of the current academic debate concerning

reindeer pastoral nomadism will also be provided.
Reindeer Pastoral Nomadism

Two principal views are recognized in the debate on reindeer
pastoral nomadism in Fennoscandia. A number of scholars are
of the opinion that the transition from hunting and fishing to
pastoral nomadism was a relatively late phenomenon occurring during the last 400 years (Vorren 1980: 253 and 261;
Lundmark 1982: 171, 1989: 37; Mulk 1988: 255, 264). The
transition is considered to have arisen as a result of changes to
the prevailing huntingfishing societies, influenced by the intervention of the Scandinavian states. The increase of reindeer
herding is thought to have resulted from a scarcity of game,
which may have been due to external factors including taxation and trade. The second theory argues that the societies of
northern Fennoscandia cannot be analyzed as isolated units until
the 1500s and 1600s (Baudou 1988a: 1920). This latter viewpoint considers that relations with the outside world had already resulted in an economic transition from hunting and fishing to reindeer pastoral nomadism by as early as the Iron Age
(Aronsson 1991: 113).
Anthropologists have highlighted the similarities between the
reindeer herding techniques of Scandinavia and western Siberia (Vainshtein 1980: 130144). It would appear that the inhabitants of these regions not only interacted with neighboring
farming communities but that they also had established long
distance eastwest contacts. Archaeological artifacts retrieved
from excavations in Scandinavia and western Siberia have
added further support for the existence of these long distance
contacts. It is possible that reindeer herding may have been
one element of these long distance interrelations, but to date
no archaeological evidence has been discovered which proves
this assertion. Archaeologists working in the early 1900s were
already aware of these problematic issues (Tallgren 1937).
Keywords
Pastoralism, nomadism, reindeer, settlement, interaction,
Lapland
Introduction
The introduction and spread of pastoral nomadism in Eurasia
can be analyzed within the context of large scale division of
labor, economic specialization, and interaction. Herding domesticated animals enabled new strategies for resource utilization, developing economic and social interactions, and nomadic communities to become an important component of extended systems of intercultural relations. A further important
aspect of the transition from hunting to herding domesticated
animals, was the strong influence that livestock requirements
for pasture had on human settlement patterns. In the following
paper the transition from an economy based on hunting and
fishing to one that concentrated on pastoral nomadism is discussed within the context of northern Fennoscandia. In addi-
Reindeer herding equipment mainly consists of organic materials including bone, wood, and leather, generally not preserved
in the acidic podsol soils of northern Fennoscandia. Occasionally, certain organic materials are recovered under exceptional
preservation conditions, such as permafrost and peat. The pau-
185
city of archaeological artifacts indicative of reindeer herding

makes it necessary to turn to other potential indicators of this
economic practice; analyses of settlement pattern changes and
palaeoecological studies have been used for this purpose.
related sociocultural units had their own centers and peripheral areas. Koryakova (1997a: 156157) referred to a number
of interrelated cultural worlds that provided the context for
Eurasian nomadism:
1. The Hellenistic and Roman World
2. The world of the Celts
3. The Third World of Europe (ProtoGermanic
northern cultures of Europe)
4. The ThracianDacian Carpathian World
5. The world of Eastern Europe (ProtoBaltic and
ProtoSlavic) forest cultures
6. The world of FinnoPermian cultures west of the
Urals
7. The nomadic Iranian World in the Eurasian steppes
8. The world of the Ugrian and Iranian cultures in
the TransUral and western Siberian foreststeppe
9. The world of the Ugrian and Samodian forest cultures of western Siberia
Some researchers class pastoral nomads, herders, herd following hunters, and similar groups into a single category in which
some form of deliberate conservation of the particular animal
species was practiced. The transition from hunting to pastoralism is explained as an internal social evolution that arose as a
consequence of the local scarcity of game. Researchers who
support this theory regard the possibility of identifying the transition from hunting to pastoralism in the archaeological record
to be extremely limited (Ingold 1980: 118, 128133). It may
be argued, however, that a scarcity of game cannot entirely be
used to explain this transition. Throughout the long history of
the northern Eurasian hunters it is probable that scarcities of
game would have frequently arisen, and it is notable that reindeer hunters of North America never became reindeer herders.
It would seem unlikely that a temporary scarcity of game would
have resulted in a large-scale adoption of reindeer pastoralism,
and this traditional explanatory model has received criticism
(Olsen 1987). It is necessary to examine other possibilities for
an economic transition, and attention must be directed toward
the interaction of the Saami (Laplander) society with the outside world. Khazanov (1984) discusses the economic relationships between nomadic societies and the outside world in
great detail; his research is of major relevance in understanding the economic transition processes within the context of Fennoscandia.
Northern Fennoscandia can be regarded as the westernmost

component of the FinnoPermian World, situated in close
proximity to the Proto-Germanic tribes. Not only related to the
FinnoPermian cultures, the area was also inhabited by northern European cultures. In addition, longdistance contacts with
Siberia would have existed. During the 8th and 7th centuries BC
and onward, the economic and cultural changes that occurred
in northern Fennoscandia were mainly related to links with
Ananino Culture (800200 BC) metallurgical centers to the east
(Baudou 1988a: 1516; 1988b: 234236). The forms of economic specialization that would have existed in northern
Fennoscandia included metallurgy, cattle breeding, hunting, and
fishing. Reindeer herding had probably been introduced to Siberia during the first millennium BC, but true reindeer nomadism is considered to be a much later phenomenon (Vainshtein
1980: 142143). During the 1st century AD the Roman writer,
Tacitus, describes northern hunting populations that he refers
to as Fenni. His description of the Fenne as hunters may
be considered evidence that reindeer nomadism had not yet
been established in Fennoscandia (Aronsson 1991: 10, 102).
The reindeer hunters of Eurasia would have had frequent contacts with cattle breeders, agriculturists, and metallurgists. It is
interesting to note that this situation did not occur in North
America; the reindeer hunters were not exposed to other economic groups. In contrast to North America, different froms of
contacts and interactions established between Eurasian societies seem to have played an important role in influencing the
transition from hunting to pastoralism. Metallurgical centers
in Siberia became a vehicle for long distance economic exchange and sociocultural interaction throughout northern
Eurasia; influence was not solely restricted to technology. Social organization and ideological belief systems were affected
over vast areas. The Saami preChristian beliefs, for example,
included the Ruto motif, a mythological rider on horseback
relating to the world of the dead. Obviously not a native motif,
it may be traced to influences from belief systems of the nomadic horse breeders of the eastern steppes. A fuller discussion of the northern Eurasian background of the Saami Ruto
cult is found in the works of Mebius (1968), Pettersson (1985),
and Rnk (1985).
The end of the first millennium BC saw a decrease of southern

Ural settlement sites in the steppes, and a concomitant increase
in the number of foreststeppe zone settlements. By the middle
of the first millennium AD, the adoption of iron metallurgy in
the foreststeppe had been completed, and this technology was
widespread throughout the western Siberian forest zone
(Koryakova 1997b: 171). Possibly a parallel development occurred in northern Fennoscandia. Hunting and fishing culture
settlement sites were concentrated along the coastline and
around inland rivers and lakes; animals of the areas were the
principle natural resources exploited. At the beginning of the
first millennium AD, the settlement patterns changed and an
expansion occurred into the forest zone and Scandinavian mountain ridge. Considerable debate pertaining to the settlement pattern change has occurred in Nordic archaeological research,
and two main views are recognized. The first viewpoint considers the change to have arisen as a consequence of an inter-
Eurasia at the end of the first millennium BC and

the beginning of the first millennium AD
The end of the first millennium BC was an era that saw an
increased influence of state societies and the rise of contact
with peripheral areas. At this time within Eurasia, large inter-
186
nal development among hunting and fishing societies, leading

to an increase in reindeer hunting. In addition, climatic changes
may have contributed to the expansion of settlement (Mulk
1988: 71). Other researchers have suggested that increased economic interaction with neighboring societies was a decisive
factor that contributed to the intensified exploitation of inland
resources (Baudou 1988a: 19).
Fennoscandia may have been influenced at an early stage by

Siberian reindeer herding, but the later stages are obviously
the results of independent developments in Fennoscandia. This
assumption is not contradicted by the archaeological finds, but
it is not possible to find support in the contemporary historical
sources due to the paucity of materials.
Changes in settlement patterns in Lapland

Archaeological investigations in the Arjeplog area of Swedish
Lapland have been undertaken over a number of years with the
results demonstrating that an obvious change in settlement patterns occurred during the first millennium AD. Until ca. AD
400, the settlements were mainly located on the shores of rivers and lakes, the waterways were important for transport and
communication, and fish was a significant source of food. After this date it appears that nearly all settlement sites disappeared from the shores (Bergman 1995: 201), and a new settlement pattern was established. These newer settlements were
located some distance from the river and lakes shores, and were
situated in forests, near mires and small fresh water streams
(Fig. 2). The physical remains of the settlements consisted of
hearths, similar in morphology to those found in modern nomadic tents and huts of the area (Fig. 3). The preferred locations also correspond to the historically attested settlement sites
of the reindeer herding Saami. A hypothesis is that the change
was related to a new system of resource utilization in which
reindeer pasture grounds had gained importance. The choice
of settlement locations also indicates that transport via waterways was of less importance than during earlier periods. The
new economic strategy included increased interaction with
neighboring farming communities. Hunting of wild reindeer
as well as small furbearing animals was important for exchange
between the Saami society and the outside world (Aronsson
1991: 113; Storli 1993: 1619).
Eastwest contacts
In Scandinavia during the latter part of the late Iron Age (500
1050 AD), an increased economic interaction took place that
strongly influenced the northern cultures. Earlier, farreaching
contacts with the outside world had been of importance. Bronze
production was introduced during the Ananino period, and
knowledge of iron working spread westwards from the eastern
cultures. During the first centuries AD, iron replaced stone technology in northern Fennoscandia. It is possible to identify an
eastern origin for iron metallurgy that paralleled the spread of
this technology in southern regions (Baudou 1988a: 1516).
The long distance contacts with the east later declined, and
new contacts were established to the south and southeast with
political and commercial centers in the Baltic region (Baudou
1988b: 235). This change is particularly obvious during the
Viking period (8001050 AD) (Fig. 1).
Developments in the North Sea and North Atlantic areas also
influenced economic developments in Fennoscandia. Around
AD 892, the Norseman Ottar related to King Alfred of England
that the Saami possessed tame reindeer decoys and that he was
the owner of 600 reindeer. From this evidence it must be concluded that reindeer herding was established at that time
(Aronsson 1991: 10, 102). The recovery of reindeer sledges
from burial excavations supports the theory that the Saami were
using reindeer not only as hunting decoys but also as draught
animals (Schanche 1997: 179).
A parallel change has been observed in the mountain area where

a settlement expansion is recognized from approximately
AD 500 and onward (Mulk 1988). Storli (1993) has argued
that this expansion is related to the introduction of reindeer
pastoralism. Those scholars who favor the theory that the
transition to reindeer pastoralism was a late phenomenon
arising as a result of a scarcity of game during the 1600s do
not agree, and argue that the expansion was related to intensified hunting (Mulk 1993). Storlis theory that reindeer
pastoralism was established during the Viking Age is much
stronger than the alternative theories. The dwelling sites
are located in the reindeer summer pasture grounds
(Aronsson 1993). The main part of the settlements and the
wild reindeer pit traps reveal different geographical distribution patterns (Storli 1993: 1718). The pit trap systems
are usually situated in the valleys where reindeer migrate
between the summer and winter pasture grounds.
The theory that domesticated animals were first integrated into

hunterfisher societies for transport purposes is of importance
when analyzing the early development of reindeer herding
(Lundmark 1989: 3132). Apparently, specific historical conditions of economic and social interaction made taming and
training animals a meaningful social practice. The domesticated
reindeer was introduced into the new economic and social networks that were established.
To summarize, during the first millennium BC long distance
eastwest contacts were of importance for the northern
Fennoscandia cultures. Bronze artifacts related to the Ananino
Culture, are the most obvious evidence of these relations; ironworking techniques also spread from east to west. It is possible, but not proven, that some Siberian reindeer herding techniques also reached Fennoscandian cultures during the first
millennium BC, and earlier researchers have observed common traits between reindeer herding cultures. Fennoscandian
reindeer herding seems to be related to reindeer herding of both
southern and western Siberia (Vainshtein 1980: 142143). The
transition from hunting and fishing to reindeer herding in
Radiocarbon dates obtained from pit traps in Lapland have indicated that most of the traps predate AD 500 (Forsberg 1989:
7). To date, these hunting remains appear to belong to an earlier period than the settlement expansion into the forests and
mountains under discussion occurred.
187
herding traditions can be traced back to the time of these

longdistance eastwest contacts.
Results obtained from a survey of ancient remains in Swedish

Lapland further highlight this situation. Differences in the settlement sites distribution patterns from the Stone, Bronze and Early
Iron Ages (c. 5000 BCAD 500), the pit systems and the nomadic style settlements with the remains of hearths indicative
of tent and hut sites, can be recognized (Figs. 46). The change
in distribution pattern from the older settlements to the younger
nomadic style settlements is obvious; it is probable that this
change occurred as a result of a new strategy for resource utilization in addition to a new mode of transportation. The exploitation of reindeer for transport probably also influenced the
human settlement pattern because of the requirements of pasture for the tame reindeer.
In comparison to Inner Asia, maritime adaptations, and riverine and lake resources were of great importance in northern
Fennoscandia. The shift in settlement patterns that occurred
after AD 400, represented a break in a long tradition of resource utilization and a new strategy was established. In
Fennoscandia, the scarcity of game probably resulted in intensified utilization of maritime resources and the development of
agriculture; it seems likely that east-west contacts also played
a role in the transition to reindeer pastoralism. Currently it appears that the reindeer herding tradition was the result of east
west contacts rather than an independent western development.
Archaeological finds indicate that these contacts may have been
of importance during the early stage of the transition from hunting and fishing to reindeer pastoralism. The Late Iron Age and
Medieval (5001500 AD) developments in the Baltic and North
Sea area were, however, decisive for the later stages. This viewpoint corresponds with archaeological, palaeoecological, ethnographical and historical data.
Palaeoecological investigations
Studies of modern pollen deposits associated with seminomadic settlements and reindeer pens have demonstrated that
even smallscale changes in forest vegetation can be detected
through pollen analysis. Smallscale clearances at the settlement area, trampling and fertilization by reindeer, reindeer grazing, the collection of plants for fuel and food, and the occurrence of waste from the dwellings are all factors that can cause
changes to the local vegetation. Even on a small scale, this
form of human impact can result in the development of an herb
rich type of vegetation.
References
Aronsson, K-. 1991. Forest reindeer herding A.D. 11800. An
archaeological and palaeoecological study in northern Sweden (Archaeology and Environment 10). Ume: University of Ume.
Pollen studies undertaken in the forest zone of northernmost

Sweden provide evidence for smallscale human interference
with the forest, and the trampling and manuring of the soil by
small herds of reindeer during the last 15002000 years. The
early smallscale interference may be related to a combination
of reindeer herding with a food extracting economy specific to
seminomadism (Aronsson 1994). This form of seminomadism has been widespread throughout northern Eurasia
(Khazanov 1984: 40-44). A more obvious cultural influence
on the forests of Lapland is related to the expansion of true
reindeer nomadism occurring during the last 400 years. It
should be noted that pastoralism comprises a number of different forms of nomadism (Aronsson 1991: 6-7).
Aronsson, K-. 1993. Comments on Sami Viking Age Pastoralism or The Fur Trade Paradigm Reconsidered. Norwegian Archaeological Review 26, 202.
Aronsson, K.. 1994. Pollen evidence of Saami settlement and
reindeer herding in the boreal forest of northernmost Sweden
an example of modern pollen rain studies as an aid in the interpretation of marginal human interference from fossil pollen data.
Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 82, 3745.
Baudou, E. 1988a (published 1997). Samer och germaner i det
frhistoriska Norrland. En kritisk versikt ver 10 rs forskning.
Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 14, 923. (Saamis and Germanic
speaking peoples in prehistoric Norrland. A critical review of ten
years of research. Journal of Settlement History).
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the introduction of reindeer herding to Lapland arose within a context of farreaching economic and cultural changes throughout Fennoscandia and
the surrounding world. Technological innovations such as
the development of metallurgy, in addition to economic and
social interaction brought about changes in the hunting culture. Longdistance contacts between Fennoscandia and
Siberia resulted in the spread of a number of cultural elements. There is, however, nothing to indicate that the
Ananino Culture in Fennoscandia was reindeer herding, but
metallurgy and other cultural traits, such as the production
of bronze items spread from the east. Long distance east
west contacts between Siberia and Fennoscandia continued
after the end of the Ananino period, but came to an end in
the Late Iron Age. It is likely, however, that some of the
eastern elements involved in the Fennoscandia reindeer
Baudou, E. 1988b. Norrlands frhistoria, pp. 22849 in

Burenhult, G., Baudou E. and Malmer M. (eds.), Lnkar till vr
forntid en introduktion till Sveriges arkeologi. Stockholm: Bokfrlaget
Bra Bcker. (The Prehistory of Northern Sweden. Links to our
prehistory An introduction in Swedish archaeology).
Bergman, I. 1995. Frn Dudden till Varghalsen. En studie av
kontinuitet och frndringar inom ett fngstsamhlle i vre norrlands
inland 5200 f. Kr 400 e.Kr. (Studia Archaeologica Universitatis
Umensis 7). English Summary. Ume: Ume universitet,
Arkeologiska institutionen. (From Dudden to Varghalsen. A
study of continuity and change in a hunting society in the inland
of northern Sweden 5200 BP 400 AD).
188
Forsberg, L. 1989. Economic and Social Change 6000 B.C.

1000 AD, pp. 129 in Broadbent, N. D. (ed.), Readings in Saami
History, Culture, and Language (Miscellaneous Publications 7).
Ume: Center for Arctic Cultural Research, Ume University.
Mulk, I-M. 1993. Comments on Sami Viking Age Pastoralism

or The Fur Trade Paradigm Reconsidered. Norwegian Archaeological Review 26, 2834.
Olsen, B. 1987. Stability and Change in Saami Band Structure
in the Varanger Area of Arctic Norway, AD 13001700. Norwegian Archaeological Review 20, 6580.
Ingold, T. 1980. Hunters pastoralists and ranchers. Reindeer economies and their transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pettersson, O. 1985. The god Ruto, pp. 15768 in Bckman, L.

and Hultkrantz, . (eds.), Saami Pre-Christian Religion. Studies
on the oldest traces of religion among the Saamis. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Khazanov, A. M. 1984. Nomads and the outside world (Cambridge

Studies in Social Anthropology 44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koryakova, L. N. 1997a. Introduction, pp. 1567 in Koryakova,
L. N. and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.), The Culture of Trans-Uralian Cattle
and Horse Breeders at the Turn of the Era. Ekaterinburg:
Ekaterinburg Press.
Rnk, G. 1985. The North-Eurasian background of the Rutocult. Some phenomenological reflections, pp. 16978 in Bckman,
L. and Hultkrantz, . (eds) Saami Pre-Christian Religion. Studies
on the oldest traces of religion among the Saamis. Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Koryakova, L. N. 1997b. The Gaevo cemetery in the context of

the evolution of the Sargat society, pp. 16572 in Koryakova, L.
N. and Daire, M. -Y. (eds.), The Culture of Trans-Uralian Cattle
and Horse Breeders at the Turn of the Era. Ekaterinburg:
Ekaterinburg Press.
Schanche, A. 1997. Graver i ur og berg. Samisk gravskick og religion 1000 f. Kr til 1700 e.Kr. Avhandling til graden Doctor artium.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap.
Universitet i Troms. (Graves in fields of rubble-stones and
mountains. Saami burial traditions and religion 1000 B.P. to 1700
A.D.).
Lundmark, L. 1982. Uppbrd, utarmning, utveckling. Det samiska

fngstsamhllets vergng till rennomadism i Lule lappmark (Arkiv
avhandlingsserie 14). English Summary. Lund: Arkiv fr studier i
arbetarrrelsens historia. (Collection, impoverishment, development. The transition of the Saami hunting society to reindeer
nomadism in the Lule lappmark area).
Storli, I. 1993. Sami Viking Age Pastoralism or The Fur Trade

Paradigm Reconsidered. Norwegian Archaeological Review 26, 1
20.
Tallgren. A. M. 1937. The Arctic Bronze Age in Europe. Eurasia
Septentrionalis Antiqua 11, 1 46.
Lundmark. L. 1989. The Rise of Reindeer Pastoralism, pp. 31

44 in Broadbent, N. D. (ed.), Readings in Saami History, Culture,
and Language (Miscellaneous Publications 7). Ume: Center for
Arctic Cultural Research, Ume University.
Vainshtein, S. 1980. Nomads of South Siberia. The pastoral economies of Tuva (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 25).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mebius, H. 1968. Vrr. Studier i samernas frkristna offerriter.

English Summary. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell (Studies in
Saami Pre-Christian Sacrificial Rites).
Vorren, . 1980. Samisk bosetning p Nordkalotten, arealdisponering og resursutnytting i historisk kologisk belysning,
pp. 23562 in Baudou, E. and Dahlstedt, K. -H. (eds.), Nordskandinaviens historia i tvrvetenskaplig belysning (Ume Studies
in the Humanities 24). Ume: Ume universitet (Lappish Settlement in the Arctic Region, the Use of Land and resources in Historic Ecological Terms. The history of Northern Scandinavia an
interdisciplinary Symposium. Acta Universitatis Umensis).
Mulk, I-M. 1988 (published 1997). Sirkas ett fjllsamiskt

samhlle i frndring 5001500 e.Kr. Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift
14, 6174. (Sirkas - a mountain Saamish hunting society in transition 500-1500. Journal of Settlement History).
189
Fig. 1. East-west contacts: 1 - Late Neolithic; 2 - Bronze Age; 3 - Viking Age; 4 - a borderline between east and west can be recognized during the Early Iron Age in the midSweden region. Swedith Lapland is situated north of this border-line. (after Baudou 1988b)
Fig. 2. Distribution of settlements from the hunting culture during the Bronze
Age (black dots), and from nomadic settlements during the Late Iron Age (triangles). The city of Arjeplog in Swedish Lapland is marked on the map. (investigations by Hedman)
190
Intercultural Relations among Eurasian Pastoral Nomads: Northern Fennoscandia
Fig. 3 (left). An example of the remains of a hearth inside a nomadic tent.

(investigation by Hedman)
Fig. 4 (below). Example of distribution and concentration of settlement sites

from hunting and fishing cultures during the Stone and Bronze Age in Swedish Lapland (black dots). (investigations by Aronsson in the Gellivare area, north of the
Arctic Circle in Swedish Lapland)
191
Fig. 5. Example of distribution and concentration of pit traps (black dots). (investigations by Aronsson in the Gellivare area north
of the Arctic Circle in Swedish Lapland)
192
Intercultural Relations among Eurasian Pastoral Nomads: Northern Fennoscandia
Fig. 6. Example of distribution and concentration of nomadic style settlements with remains of hearths inside tents (black
dots). (investigation by Aronsson in the Gellivare area north of the Arctic Circle in Swedish Lapland)
193
A Comparative Study of the Early Iron Age Cultures

in the Southern Volga and the Southern Urals Regions
Maria A. Otchir-Goriaeva
Kalmyk Institute
Elista, Russia
Abstract
This paper summarizes the results of a complex study of the
ancient Greek sources concerning the Sauromatians, and more
than 500 Scythian period (6th4th century BC) archaeological
sites from the lower Volga and southern Ural regions were included in the analysis. The results of the study enabled the author to criticize the ancient Greek sources which infer that the
Sauromatians were present in the lower Volga region. The ancient authors stated that the Sauromatians had lived in the west,
in the vicinity of the Black and Azov Seas in the lower Don
River region. Conclusions reached in this paper indicate that
by placing the Sauromatians in the lower Don region, the fact
that a genetic connection existed between the Sauromatians
and the Sarmatians is negated. This finding in turn indicates
that there were fundamental socio-chronological divisions
within the Sarmatian Culture. A comparative study of the archaeological sites of the lower Volga and the southern Urals,
which included funerary rituals and the principal artifacts of
the mortuary inventoryceramics, arrowheads, daggers, and
swordsreveals that these sites cannot be considered to be a
single archaeological culture. In conclusion, the author reviews
the findings of the present study in conjunction with data obtained from the research of other scholars which has been found
to confirm the results of the present investigation.
The Sauromatian, the first stage of the Sarmatian Culture, is

named after the tribe known to us from Herodotus and other
Greek authors. These tribes allegedly were the eastern neighbors of the Scythians. It is difficult to postulate particulars concerning Sauromatian-Sarmatian connections on the basis of
ancient texts. According to the earlier manuscripts, the
Sarmatians were a new tribe coming from the east; later references indicate that Sauromatian is the earlier name for the
Sarmatians. M. I. Rostovtsev, an expert in ancient literature,
postulated that none of the ancient authors who wrote about
the Sarmatians ever mentioned the role of females in the society. Their prominent role, according to the Greeks, was one of
the basic features of the Sauromatians. In the written sources,
the Sarmatians acquired the characteristic Sauromatians features only after the original documents had undergone literary
interpretation (Rostovtsev 1925: 127). Because the transition
occurred in the textual information, Rostovtsev considered the
Sauromatians to be a distinct tribe that had inhabited the Azov
Sea area and disappeared after the Sarmatian invasion.
Smirnov assumed that the Sauromatians were various ethnic
groups, descendants of Bronze Age steppe tribes that were essentially nomadic, and that they had developed in the eastern
Don steppes, along the left bank of the Volga River, and in the
southern Urals during the 8th7th centuries BC (Smirnov 1964:3).
Smirnov justified this broad definition of Sauromatians by the
fact that Classical sources had not given a general name to the
Scythians eastern neighbors until the 3rd2nd centuries BC
(Smirnov 1964: 194). Thus, the genetic link between the
Sauromatians and Sarmatians was made only on the basis of
archaeological monuments and the Early Sarmatian Culture
(Prokhorovskaya) that had developed in the southern Ural region (Moshkova: 1974).
Keywords
Early Iron Age, Sauromatians, Sarmatians, ceramics, weaponry
Introduction
Russian archaeologists, beginning in the late 1940s, have associated the Early Iron Age sites of the lower Volga and the southern Urals with the Sarmatian Culture (Fig. 1). At this time the
leading Sarmatologists, B. N. Grakov and K. F. Smirnov, developed the fundamental periodization for the Sarmatian culture. It has been stated that the Sarmatians inhabited the southern Russia steppes for over a thousand years (Grakov I947:
100-120; Smirnov 1961, 1964, 1964; Davis-Kimball et al.,
1995). According to their periodization, the Sarmatian Culture
has four chronological stages that have been given various
names as noted below. The evolution of the culture is characterized by the changes that appeared in the Sarmatian mortuary ritual and in the aggregation of grave goods. The cultures
and chronologies are listed in Table 1.
As all nomadic monuments from the Don to the Urals were known
as the Sauromatian Archaeological Culture, the Sarmatians were
assumed to have descended from the Sauromatians. Antiquities
dated to 6th4th centuries BC in the lower Volga and the southern
Urals were considered to belong to the Sarmatian cultural period,
and were distinct from the synchronous Scythian Culture in the
Eurasian steppes. The Eurasian steppes generally were divided
into the eastern and western regions; the central section was al-
194
A Comparative Study of the Early Iron Age Cultures in the Southern Volga and the Southern Urals Regions
carried out an art critical analysis of the Animal Style artifacts

(Chezhina 1983:16-30), and slightly later I performed a comparative study of funeral rites and the principal grave inventories (Otchir-Goriaeva 1987: 3553; 1988b; 1990: 8192; 1996:
4145). In addition, members of the joint Soviet-Italian Computer Program (Zhelezchikov and Babarunova 1991: 127151)
whose results not only confirmed but also added to my previous conclusions, conducted a second funerary ritual analysis.
It should be noted that these results confirm Raus theories.
The complex Soviet-Italian study serves as a model in the development of the archaeological cultural theory. Moreover, the
comparative methodology, separating specific features, will be
useful for future archaeological investigations in each region.
legedly a vast Sauromatian-Sarmatian area and, according to the

new conception supporters, was characterized by a specific unity
and continuity of culture.
In spite of the fact that Greek authors never considered the
Sauromatians to have lived west of the southern Urals, the assumption of a Sauro-Sarmatian generic connections has two
principal propositions: (1) antiquities from the lower Volga region and those from the southern Urals form a common archaeological culture with only local variations and, (2) this
culture can be named Sauromatian due to the cultural unity of
monuments.
Although these propositions appear to reveal a harmonious
conception of the Sarmatian Culture, their origins may be revised. A special study of Greek texts permits me to argue that
the Sauromatians settled in the lower Don in the vicinity of the
Azov and Black seas. The antiquities of the lower Volga
region and the southern Urals bear no relation to those of
the Sauromatians. These areas could have been inhabited
by tribes dating to the Scythian period in the 6th 4th centuries BC that were overlooked by Greek authors and, for
this reason, were not mentioned in their manuscripts. Thus,
the thesis concerning Sauromatian-Sarmatian genetic linkage loses its archaeological foundation (Otchir-Goriaeva
1988a: 95-99). This point of view seems current only to the
younger generation of Sarmatian investigators although M.
I. Rostovtsev first argued the point at the beginning of the
20 th century. As noted above, it was subsequently challenged
in the 1940s-1960s.
Following is a review and summary of the results obtained

during the comparative analyses of the lower Volga and the
southern Ural sites (Fig. 2) and their associated artifacts.
Funerary rites
Of the total number of burial complexes, 326 were used for the
mortuary ritual comparative analysis; 222 belonged to the lower
Volga region and 104 to the southern Urals (Otchir-Goriaeva
1987: 35-53). The mortuary ritual includes a set of interrelated
features characterized by (1) burial structures, (2) condition
and orientation of the deceased and, (3) grave inventory. In
total, thirty features were noted, mapped, and calculated to determine the percentages for both the lower Volga and southern
Urals (Fig. 2). This allowed me to determine the features that
were common, as well as specific, to both regions. Thus, two
types of burials were noted. Type II burials are found in both
the regions: these are single burialsvery rarely are they collective and/or simultaneous burialsfound in grave pits under
earthen, stone or earth-stone mounds. Only very rarely did they
have rectangular-shaped wooden burial structures within the
pit. The fire ritual mortuary procedure is characteristic in both
regions. The prevalent orientation of the deceased in the grave
was supine with the head oriented to the west. Burials of Type
II are the only type found in the lower Volga region.
The next question concerns the cultural unity of the lower

Volga and the southern Urals antiquities and is important
as it is enfolded within the general problem discussed above.
In 1929, Rau presented all the necessary arguments to resolve this problem. He pointed out the sharp discrepancies
between the contents of quivers sets from the Northern
group of monuments, as he referred to those from the southern Urals, and Southern group from the lower Volga. The
Northern peoples manufactured only heavy quiver sets while
the Southern sets are represented by light and elegant trilobed arrowheads. Typical of the former group are the diametrical heavy arrowheads with pins that are not known in
the lower Volga. The localization of portable stone sacrificial tables resembling the massive arrowheads that, in Raus
opinion, confirmed the existence of an autonomous SamaraUral cultural region (Rau 1929).
In the Southern Urals, Type II burials alternate with Type I.

The burial structures of several mounds in the south are unique.
They have chamber graves of Type I with wooden, round or
rectangular structures beneath the mound that show traces of a
funeral feast held on the ancient ground level or in the dromos.
Sometimes a saddle horse or guard accompanied the deceased
in the burial. Burials of this type are collective and sometimes
are reused. Earthen mounds are the most characteristic although
some are partially built from stone. Type I burials account for
30.7% of the total sites in the southern Urals (Fig. 3).
Subsequent investigators in favor of the above-mentioned fundamental conception ignored Raus conclusions. Decades later,
as new information was accumulated, the problem arose again
and some investigators began to assume that these cultures differed from each other (Shilov 1966: 34; 1975: 124); others
still believed that local distinctions were of minor importance (Smirnov 1977: 124139; 1979: 7478; Zhelezchikov
1980a: 15). In order to resolve these questions, it was necessary to conduct a scrupulous comparative study of the lower
Volga and southern Urals antiquities. In 1983, E. F. Chezhina
Specific to the lower Volga burials is the paucity or complete absence

of mortuary gifts, and almost completeexcept for one complexabsence of the inventory associated with the priestess. The later burials
account for 14.5% of the total and can be considered specific to the
southern Urals group (Fig. 4). Some significant differences are also
observed in the animal bones, some of which are remnants of funeral
feasts. In the southern Urals, burials containing animal bones are twice
that of the lower Volga. Moreover, the southern Urals burials contain
195
horse as well as sheep bones, whereas in the lower Volga sheep bones
are prevalent.
a very simple pot-shape that spread to all the Eurasian steppe

archaeological cultures.
Pottery
Several ornamental types found in the southern Ural region are

not represented in the lower Volga. B. F. Zhelezchikov conducted an analysis of 166 southern Urals vessels spanning the
Scythian epoch and identified 20 ornamental elements
(Zhelezchikov 1980b: 75; table 54). In contrast, seven types
are known for lower Volga vessels. Thus, although there is a
common ceramics type in both the southern Urals and the lower
Volga, two unique traditions were present. Simple shapes, rough
texture, and plainalmost primitiveornamentation characterize the Volga ceramic complex. In contrast, the Urals pottery
has a more variegated shape and is elaborately ornamented
(Otchir-Goriaeva 1990: 8192).
It is important to study a large number of graves that provide a

variety of artifact categories in order to compare the two site
groups. Pottery is one such category, for it is believed that the
hand-made pottery of a specific population group is one of the
most reliable ethno-cultural criterions. The lower Volga pottery is categorized into fourteen types that differ from each
other in the following categories: (1) maximum diameter level,
(2) body form and, (3) bottom shape. In this study, all the pottery types are flat-bottomed. The clay used in the lower Volga
pots is coarse. Nearly all the pots are lopsided, frequently asymmetrical with uneven rims and bottoms; they characteristically
have thick walls and particularly heavy, massive bottoms.
Arrowheads
Ornamented pottery from the lower Volga types comprises
38.5% of the total pots. The seven principal ornamentation types
are (1) pearls, (2) pricked-pits, (3) finger-pinches, (4) nail impressions, (5) drawn ornamentation, (6) rim thread, and (7)
hollow tube pricks. Combinations of different ornamentation
on a single pot are very rare. The most popular designs are
stick pricks, finger-pinches, and drawn designs.
The majority of the Scythian epoch burials contained armamentbronze arrowheads, swords, daggers, and spears. Although some similar shapes are noted, armaments from different regions are quite original. Arrowheads (here identified as
quiver sets) represent one of the most specific and reliable
sources of information. Seventy-four lower Volga and 60 southern Urals quiver sets were analyzed in the comparative study
to determine types specific to each region. Eleven types identified from the lower Volga burials are not found in the southern
Urals; the most frequent types are both the bronze trilobed arrowhead with narrow arched head and the iron trilobed arrowhead. Sixteen arrowhead types were detected in the southern
Urals that were not found in the Volga region (Fig. 6). Compared to the Volga types, more are found in the southern Urals,
although several types are represented by only a few examples.
The morphological categories are unique and include bilobed
arrowheads with two cast holes in the haft (Fig. 6: 1). Massive
arrowheads were cast with tracery ornamentation (Fig. 6: 9);
in addition, three types of shafted arrowheads are noted (Fig.
6: 10, 11, 15). Four so-called diverse types were found both in
the lower Volga and in the southern Urals. Originally they were
classified as being the same type, but details, proportions, and
quantity differentiate them from common types.
From the southern Ural sites, 99 pots divided into two groups
were used for comparative analyses based upon the following
criteria: (1) if the shape of the pot were different from those
from the Lower Volga and; (2) those which were of identical
shape (Fig. 5). Pots with round bottoms represent the first group
of 32 specimens. Until recently these were considered rare in
the Scythian period complexes (6th4th centuries BC) because
a round-bottom vessel was assumed to be a sign of the subsequent Prokhorovskaya (Early Sarmatian) ceramics in the southern Urals. However, research of the past few years indicates
these were an integral part of the southern Urals material culture during the Scythian epoch (Pshenichnyak 1983: 100-101;
Zhelezchikov 1980b: 73-74).
In addition to the round bottom vessels, 46 different types of
flat bottom vessels peculiar to the southern Urals region are
known. The 2nd 5th , and 10th types of lower Volga pottery belong to an identical shape group. Quantitative analysis of the
southern Urals ceramics reveals that the overwhelming majority, 78 vessels, belonging to the first group differ from the lower
Volga pottery, and only 21 vessels are included in the group
that are similar.
In order to investigate the uncharacteristic types of arrowheads

and their developmental trends, correlation tables were made.
The southern Urals quivers were classified into three groups.
The first group is the most numerous and comprises the majority of the quiver sets. A secondary set of nine types are distinct
from the general arrowhead type; two main types are noted,
Type II 2 and Type II 2-1. The first has a triangular head and a
hollow shaft, while the second has a triangular head and a pin
on the shaft. The third and most numerous group include two
new types, Type 3 and Type 4, that are similar in shape to the
two main types of Group II. They have, however, a very sharp
point, and are larger and heavier; Types 3 and 4 can be traced
to a later date. They are the prevalent types in the classical
Prokhorovskaya Culture quiver sets. The first group of southern
Ural arrowheads includes 17 diverse types. Four discrete types
make up the second group; the third group includes three unusual
types in addition to the common ones. These data indicate that
However, the southern Urals pottery types have degrees of identity. The lower Volga Type 10 and the southern Ural Type 2 are
each a local shape, popular along the border of the two regions.
The lower Volga Type 5 and southern Urals Type 3 are not
common for either region in spite of their similarity in shape.
The ornament on the southern Urals type, moreover, is not found
in the lower Volga region and, consequently, the Urals ceramic
type is unique. There is no doubt about the similarity between
Type 2 lower Volga vessels with the Type 1 vessels from the
southern Urals (Fig. 5). Represented by ten vessels, they have
196
Animal Style and decoration
specific arrowhead types had always played an important role in

the development of southern Urals quiver sets (Fig. 7a).
Animal style decoration is noted in the data obtained by E. F.

Chezhina who conducted an analysis of art objects of the Lower
Volga and the southern Urals. Chezhina identified two discrete
stylistic and thematic groups. The most popular image, specifically a local style in the lower Volga, was a short-nosed
fabulous beast frequently appearing as an image carved on
fangs. In addition, artifacts depicting camels and animals in
combat were widespread, although they are never encountered
in the lower Volga region. Distinctive art features of the lower
Volga are richness of ornamentation and the use of intricate
geometrical patterns in conjunction with zoomorphic elements.
In the lower Volga, two quiver set groups were noted. The correlation of arrowheads in every quiver set made it possible to
determine the types of arrowheads prevailing during different
periods (Fig. 7b). Two distinct groups of arrowheads reflect
the development of quiver sets for different time periods. Thus,
all types of bilobate arrowheads and massive trilobate arrowheads have been placed in the first group. In the second group,
although iron arrowheads were found, the small fine bronze
arrowheads are still dominant. Eight types of uncharacteristic
arrowheads represent the first chronological group from the
southern Urals. The second chronological group is composed
of common arrowheads belonging to the types of the first group,
plus nine additional types including four that are uncharacteristic for the southern Urals (Otchir-Goriaeva 1996: 51). During all stages, the basic arrowhead has an arched head; the main
types are the ones with a triangular or arched head and a protruding shaft. Arrowheads become smaller and more graceful
over time.
The image of a wolf was most widespread in the southern Urals

where the decorative art is characterized by simplicity of technique, larger and less complicated designs, unity of surface
design, and expressiveness of contour. Whereas in the lower
Volga, preference was given to bone carving, in the southern
Urals, art objects are characterized by the wide used of bronze
(Chezhina 1983: 1630).
Common comparisons
These analyses lead to the conclusion that each region had its
own pattern of quiver set development and dynamics. Whereas
in the lower Volga nearly all types become less massive and
more intricate over time, the southern Ural arrowheads do not
show the same trend. An additional modification was implemented in which the arrowheads become narrower and longer
although the weight was essentially the same. This modification seems to have been advantageous if the comparison is made
between the southern Urals arrowheads and those from the
lower Volga. This change may have been instrumental in the
migrations of Prokhorovskaya tribes to the West. It must be
emphasized that the difference in arrowheads within the two
regions, not only in the diversity of types but also the developmental trend, is of primary importance.
The results of the comparative study of funerary rituals, ceramics, armament, animal style, and developmental trends had
lead to some general conclusions on culture and history of the
tribes under consideration. I have attempted to group the archaeological data into several groups that represent cultural
orientation, social status indices, ideology, economy, and contacts with neighboring regions. The grouping is rather rough
but, nonetheless, effective and they have enabled me to determine that the lower Volga and southern Urals sites were independent and unique.
There is no doubt that both groups belong to the vast cultural
domain of the Eurasian steppes during the Scythian epoch.
This suggests the existence of common cultural features within
the groupsalthough the sites under comparison manifest certain distinctive traits within the nomadic tradition. These traits
can be observed in artifacts that reveal spiritual characteristics such as the Animal Style, ceramic ornamentation, and specific funerary rituals.
Swords and daggers

The distinction between swords and daggers in the two regions is equally important. They are represented by two types:
(1) swords with a bar pommel decorated by cast ornamentation in which two opposed birds of prey with coiled beaks compose the haft and guard and; (2) swords with a zoomorphic
pommel representing pairs of animal or bird heads (Fig. 8).
The latter are analogous to numerous swords and daggers from
Siberia and Central Asia. Other types of swords from the southern Urals have features that are characteristic of regions to the
east and are not found in the lower Volga.
In addition to the distinctive forms, ceramics ornamentation

varies considerably. In the lower Volga, vessels are decorated
with nail imprints, finger nips, etc., all rather simple patterns.
In contrast, the southern Ural vessels are much more varied.
Here, patterns include stamped designsherringbone, pressed
U-shaped motifs, arches and triangles, and unevenly hatched
geometric designs. The incised ornamentation in both regions
has its own peculiarities. In the lower Volga, the ornamentation is an isolated motif while in the southern Urals, the design
is represented in friezes of complex compositions.
Especially important is a group of swords with zoomorphic

pommels representing birds feet with claws. This group belongs to a large series of swords used in the European Scythian
Culture. Although quite popular in the southern Urals, they were
not widely found in the lower Volga. Spearheads are extremely
rare in the southern Urals as only four have been noted as compared to nineteen found in the lower Volga (Otchir-Goriaeva,
1988b: 10-13).
Burials in the southern Urals

Certain features discovered during the analysis of mortuary rites
may represent religious and cultic belief systems. Characteristic in the southern Urals are single and collective cremations,
197
with varied mortuary offerings, performed on the ancient ground

level. The varied burial structures within the mounds are noteworthy, including a stone ring surrounded by rocks and a massive tombstone in the center of the mound. Radially placed
logs oriented to the center of the mound indicate the originality
of the burial ritual. Other complexes of special interest are those
with the deceased placed in a diagonal position directly on the
earth, and located next to priestess burials. These features, not
found in the lower Volga, identify the southern Urals burials.
culiarities in the art such as images of a long-nosed beast with

exposed fangs representing a wolf motif, reminiscent in its detailing as well as the treatment of the entire image of AsiaSiberian and Ananyin cultural motifs. Stone plaques are a distinctive feature of the southern Urals culture; they measure
threefour feet in height and have zoomorphic ornamentation.
Representations of wild mountain goats in the southern Urals
are similar to those from central Eurasian and the Minusinsk
steppes (Chezhina 1983: 1630).
Cultural orientation in the lower Volga
Mortuary rituals specific to the southern Urals reveal influence

from the East. Similar diagonal tombs and radially wooden
structures located in the mound were found in regions as diverse as south of the Aral Sea to western Mongolia (Moshkova
1972: 7679; Vishnevskaya 1973: 6869).
The Eurasian steppe cultures have been divided into the eastern and western complexes, each identified by its historical
monuments. The lower Volga monuments are culturally oriented to the Scythians near the Black Sea and, in my opinion,
were rather closely connected to the northern Caucasus. Quiver
sets in the lower Volga often have laurel-leaf or trapeziumshaped heads as well as being bilobed; these are also specific
to Scythian quiver sets.
Worth mentioning among other southern Ural findings is a series of pear-shaped vessels with a gently curved profile and a
rounded bottom that are analogous to objects from the Ouigarak
tomb. Common traits are also observed in vessels with a cylindrical spout. A. Kh. Pshenichnyuk, who conducted the excavation of the well-known Filippovka Tsar Kurgan in the southern Urals, noted that the grave inventory and funeral ritual resembled those features found in synchronous eastern and southern sites. i.e., the Issyk Kurgan in Kazakhstan and the Pazyryk
kurgans in the Altai (Pshenichnyak 1989: 13)
Analogous sets of bronze bridle decorationszoomorphic and

round plaques with a ribbed edges, and elongated rhomboidshaped forehead plaquesare significant (Molchanovka, Kurgan
2). Characteristic elements, such as zoomorphic cruciform plaques
(Khoshaoutovo, Kurgan 1) representing a deer head with
branched-antlers and plaques in the form of a pair of fanged wild
boar heads (Krivaya Luka VIII, Kurgan 5) have direct analogies
with those from the Scythian Black Sea region. Bronze-cast beast
of prey (Three Brothers, Kurgan 25) are considered either Greek
products from north of the Black Sea or locally made under GreekScythian artistic influence (Zasetskaya 1979: 4244; Chezhina
1984: 64). Typically Scythians had scale armor and bronze helmets. Nearly all-lower Volga mirrors belong to the types that were
popular among the Scythians.
Development and wide distribution of hafted and oversized

arrowheads with hooks at the base are characteristic of eastern
tribes; they are also typical of the Urals arrowheads cast in
both bronze and iron, and bone-hafted. Two types of arrowheadstrilobed and quatralobedhave large shafts and hooks at
the base. Quiver set development in the southern Urals is essentially discrete from that of the lower Volga. At the same
time the former is parallel to that of Central Asia, as indicated
by two forms of arrowheadsone with long sockets and the
other with internal sockets (Medvedskaya 1972: 7587).
Lower Volga contacts with neighboring regions

From an archaeological point of view, contacts with the northern Caucasus appear to be rather close as exemplified by lower
Volga spearheads that certainly are of northern Caucasus origin. Influence from the Caucasus is also noted in sword shapes.
Finds from the right bank of the Volga and in the Kalmyk steppes
include trilobed and quatralobed arrowheads carved from bone,
typical of those from the Caucasus (Kozenkova 1982: 1317).
Polished vessels from lower Volga burials have analogous counterparts in the northern Caucasus. The contacts between the
two regions are further emphasized by gold earrings in the rich
Sazonkin Bougor burial that features images of two horsemen
in chariots. Similar earrings or temporal bone pendants were
found in a female tomb in Akhalgory, East Georgia (Smirnov
1934: 73). Other analogous earrings are from Tomb 6 on the
lower terrace of Vany town in western Georgia (Lordkipanidze
1977: 159175).
Kazakhstan, the Altai, and southern Siberia are the principal

areas where the round groove buckles with a rectangular or
trapezium-shaped frame and a rigid hook-clasp predominated.
Zoomorphic buckles with the same type of clasp are also characteristic in these regions. Among the southern Ural artifacts
are a series of such clasps that have zoomorphic representations: a standing camel, two fighting camels, a combat scene (a
beast of prey tearing another animal apart), and two heraldic
floppy-eared griffins.
Southern Ural contacts with populations in neighboring regions

Eastern motifs are also found among the imported artifacts.
According to data presented by T. V. Savelyeva and K. F.
Smirnov, the southern Urals has about twenty kurgan tombs
containing goods imported from the Near East and
Achaemenid Iran. They include a silver rhyton, a gold
torque, a chalcedony Achaemenid stamp seal in a gold
frame, a bone comb engraved with a hoofed animal, sev-
Cultural orientation in the southern Urals

Traits in the southern Urals monuments indicate a different
cultural orientation and certainly must have been influenced
by eastern Siberian cultures. Chezhina noted a number of pe-
198
eral kinds of beads, small Phoenician glass vessels, and

Near Eastern type vessels made of red clay. One of the southern Ural kurgans contained an alabaster Egyptian vessel
bearing Egyptian hieroglyphs and cuneiform inscriptions
in four languages that translated Artaxerxes the Great Pharaoh (465424 BC) (Savelyeva and Smirnov 1972: 106
115). The gold jug, silver rhytons with handles representing mountain goats, and the silver rhyton with a bovine
protome must have been brought from the Near East. Similar items can be observed among art objects of Achaemenid
Iran.
References
Chezhina, E. F. 1983. Khudozhestvenhye osobennosti zverinogo
stilya Nizhnego Povolzhya i Yuzhnogo Preeuralya v skifskuyu
epochu. Archeologicheskii Sbornik Gosudarstvennyi Ermitage 23,
1630 (Artistic pecularities of the Animal Style of the Lower
Volga and Southern Urals. Archaeological Collections of the State
Hermitage).
Chezhina, E. F. 1983. Izobvazheniya svernouvshegosya v koltsi
khishnika v iskusstve Nizhnego Povolzhya i Yuzhnogo Preeuralya
v skifskuyu epokhu. Archeologicheskii Sbornik Gosudarstvennyi
Ermitage 25, 614 (Curled up predatory images in the art of the
Lower Volga and Southern Urals during the Scythian period.
Archaeological Collections of the State Hermitage).
Social and economic development

The existence of complex burial structures with various grave
inventories, accompanied by saddle horses and guard warriors
suggest a greater degree of social stratification among the southern Ural tribes than is found in the lower Volga population. In
addition, some investigators have assumed that, assisted by the
climatic and geographic environment, and as revealed by
dromos tombs with subsequent burials, the southern Ural tribes
had become partially settled. This way of life is similar to that
found in the Ural steppes further to the east and among the
forest tribes (Moshkova 1974: 49).
Davis-Kimball, Jeannine, Bashilov, Vladimir A, and Yablonsky,

Leonid T. 1995. Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron
Age. Berkeley, California: Zinat Press.
Grakov, B. N. 1947. Pereczhitki matriarhata u sarmatov. Vestnik
Drevnei Istorii 3, 10020 (Matriarchial survivals of the
Sarmatians. Journal of Ancient History).
Kozenkova, V. I. 1982. Tipologia i khronologicheskaya klassifikatsiya
predmetov koubanskoi koultury - vostochnyi variant. Svod
archeologicheskih istochnikov B25 (Typological and chronological classification of the artefacts of the Coban Culture - the eastern variant. Collection of Archaeological Sources).
Conclusions
The data reviewed above demonstrate the originality of the sites
that belong to each of the nomadic groups compared in this
study. As the specifics indicate, the lower Volga populations
were influenced by European Scythians while the southern Ural
peoples, being more numerous and with a richer and more varied material culture, had wider and more varied contacts. Being the western-most outpost of the Asiatic sphere, the southern Ural cultures focused on the principal traditions of eastern
nomadic cultures.
Lordkipanidze, O. 1977. Vanskoye gorodishe: raskopki, istoriya,

problemy - statya vtoraya. Arkheologicheskiye raskopki T. III, 159
75 (Vany settlement: excavations, history and problems - second paper. Archaeological exavations).
Lukashev, S. A. 1986. K voprosu o migratsii prokhorovskikh
plemyon Yuzhnogo Preeuralya v Nizhneye Povolzhye, pp. 6682
in Skripkin, A. S. (ed.), Drevnyaya i srednevkovaya istoriya Nizhnego
Povolzhya. Saratov: Saratovskii gosudarstvennyi univesitet (On
the migration of the tribes of the Prochorov Culture of the Southern Urals towards the Lower Volga region. The Ancient and
Medieval History of the Lower Volga region).
Of paramount importance, in my opinion, is the fact that the

southern Ural populations, being an autonomous and complex
union, became a melting pot in which the new Prokhorovskaya
Culture was formed. The principal distinctions between the
lower Volga and the southern Ural sites are in the main development trends. M. G. Moshkova and K. F. Smirnov carried out
detailed studies to prove that the Prokhorovskaya Culture developed from sites in Samara-Ural regions during the
Scythian epoch in the late 5th century BC, and especially in
the 4 th century BC (Moshkova 1974; Moshkova and Smirnov
1977: 265274).
Medvedskaya, I. N. 1972. Nekotorye voprosy khronologii

bronzovyh nakonechnikov strel Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana.
Sovetskaya Archeologiya 3, 7587 (Some issues relating to the chronology of the Bronze Arrow Heads of Central Asia and
Kazakhstan. Soviet Archaeology).
Recent investigators have shown that the southern Urals region had a number of 5th4th century BC sites that combine
traits of both the Sauromatian and Prokhorovskaya cultures
(Pshenichnyak 1983; Tairov 1988: 141160). It is also noteworthy that in the lower Volga, Prokhorovskaya cultural features were identified dating to the 3rd century BC; this development occurred as the result of migrations into the region from
the southern Urals. Moreover, tribes from the north could have
Moshkova, M. G. 1972. Savromatskiye pamyatniki severovostochnogo Orenbourzhya. Materialy i issledovaniya po archeologii

SSSR 153, 4979 (Sauromatian Archaeological sites of the Northeastern Orenburg Region. Materials and Investigations of Soviet
Union Archaeology).
Moshkova, M. G. 1974. Proiskhozhdenye rannesarmatskoi
Prokhorovskoi koulturya. Moscow: Nauka (The Origins of the
Early Sarmatian Prochorov Culture).
199
- Uralskogo otdeleniya (Exavations of the Tsars Barrow in the

Southern Urals).
Moshkova, M. G. (ed.), 1994. Statisticheskaya obrabotka

pogrebalnix pamyatnikov Aziatskoi Sarmatii. Vyp. 1 Sauromatskaya
epoha. Moskva: Nauka (Statistic work on the burial customs of
the Asian Sarmatians).
Rau, P. 1929. Die Graber der fruhen Eisenzeit im unteren

Volgagebiet: Studien zur Chronologie der skythisen Pfeilspitze.
Pokzovsk: Izvestiya Tsentralnogo Museya (The Graves of the Early
Iron Age in the Lower Volga region. Chronological study of
Scythian arrowheads).
Moshkova, M. G. and Smirnov, K. F. 1977. Retsenziya na knigu

- V. P. Shilova Ocherki po istorii drevnikh plemyon Nizhego
Povolzhya. Sovetskaya Archeologiya 2, 26574 (Book review - V.
P. Shilovs Essays on the Ancient History of the Lower Volga
Tribes. Soviet Archaeology).
Rostovtsev, M. I. 1925. Skifiya i Bospor. Leningrad (Scythia

and Bosporus).
Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1987. Pogrebalnyi obryad naseleniya

Nizhnego Povolzhya I Yuzhnogo Preeuralya VI-IV vv do ne, pp.
35-53 in Tsutskin E. V. (ed.), Arkheologicheskiye issledovaniya
Kalmykii (The Burial Rite of the Population of the Lower Volga
and Southern Urals during the VI-IV centuries BC. Archaeological investigations of Kalmykia Elista).
Savelyeva, T. N. and Smirnov, K. F. 1972. Blizhnevostochnye

drevnosti na Yuzhnom Urale. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 10615
(Near-Eastern Antiquities from the Southern Urals. Journal of
Ancient History)
Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1988a. O rasseleniyi savromatov. Vestnik

Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta Ser. 2 (N16), 959
(On the localisation of the Sauromatians. Leningrad State
University Publications).
Shilov, V. P. 1966. Otchet o raskopkah Astrakhanskoi expeditsii

Leningradskoe otdelenie Instituta Archeologii AN SSSR v 1966.
Arkhiv Institut Archeologii Akademii nauk SSSR RI N 4625 a-b
(Field report of the exavations Astrachan Expedition of the
Leningrad Institute of Archaeology for 1966. Archives of the
Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences SSSR).
Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1988b. Savromatskaya koultura

Nizhnego Povolzhya VI-IV vv do ne. Avtoreferat kandadtskoy
dissertacii. Leningrad (The Sauromatian Culture of the Lower
Volga during the VI-IV centuries BC. Ph.D. Dissertation).
Shilov, V. P. 1975. Ocherki po istorii drevnikh piemen Nizhnego

Povolzhya. Leningrad: Nauka (Essays on the Ancient History of
the tribes of the Lower Volga).
Smirnov, K. F. 1979. Kochevniki Severnogo Prikaspiya i Yuzhnogo
Preeuralya skifskogo vremeni, pp. 748 in Etnographiya i
arkheologiya Srednei Azii. Moskva: Nauka (Scythian Period Nomads of the Northern Caspian and Southern Urals Regions. Ethnography and Archaeology of Central Asia).
Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1990. Klassifikatsiya keramiki iz

pogrebenii skifskoi epochi Nizhnego Povolzhya, pp. 8192 in
Markovin V. I. (ed.), Voprosy arkheologii yuga Vostochnoi Evropy.
Elista: Kalmytskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (Classification of
the Ceramics from Scythian period Lower Volga Burials. Problems in the Archaeology of South-eastern Europe).
Smirnov, K. F. 1977. Savromaty i sarmaty, pp. 12439 in

Muncheav, R. M. (ed.), Problemy arkheologii Evrazii i Severnoi
Ameriki. Moskva: Nauka (Sauromatians and Sarmatians. Problems of Eurasian and South American Archaeology).
Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1992. Savromatskaya problema v skifosarmatskoi arkheologii. Rossiskaya Archeologia 2, 3240

(Sauromatian problems relating to Scytho-Sarmatian Archaeology. Russian Archaeology).
Smirnov, K. F. 1964. Sauromaty - Rannya istoriya i koultura

sarmatov. Moscow: Nauka (Sauromatians - Early history and
culture).
Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1993. Osobennosti kolchannych naborov

Kochevnikov Niznego Povolzya i Yuzhnogo Urala, pp. 728 in
Marchenko I. I. (ed.), Kubanskaya arkheologicheskaya konferenziya
II. Krasnodar: Kubanskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (Distinctive features of the quiver sets of the Nomads of the Lower Volga
and Southern Urals. Kuban Archaeological Conference).
Smirnov, K. F. 1961. Vooruzheniye sauromatov. Materialy i

issledovaniya po archeologii SSSR 101 (Sauromatian Armament.
Materials and Investigations of Soviet Union Archaeology).
Smirnov, K. F. and Petrenko, V. G. 1963. Savromaty Povolzhya i
Yuzhnogo Preeuralya. Svod archeologicheskih istochnikov D 19
(Sauromatians of the Lower Volga and Southern Urals. Collection of Archaeological Sources). Moskva: Nauka.
Otchir-Goriaeva, M. A. 1996. Nakonechniki strel kochevnikov

Niznego Povolzya. Rossiskaya Archeologia 6, 4154 (The arrowheads of the Lower Volga Nomads. Russian Archaeology).
Pshenichnyuk, A. Kh. 1983. Koultura rannikh kochevnikov
Yuzhnogo Urala. Moskva: Nauka (The Early Nomadic Culture
of the Southern Urals).
Smirnov, Ya. I. 1934. Akhalgoriiski klad. Tiflis (The Achalgory

Hoard).
Pshenichnyuk, A. Kh. 1989. Raskopki tsarskogo kourgana na

Yuzhnom Urale: Preprint doklada. Ufa: Bashkirskii nauchnyi tsentr
Tairov, A. D. and Gavrilyuk, A. G. 1988. K voprosu o

formirovanii rannesarmatskoi - Prokhorovskoi koultury, pp. 141
200
60 in Zdanovich, G. V. (ed.), Problemy arkheologii UraloKazakhstanskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (The Development of the Early Sarmatian
Culture - Prochorov Culture. Problems of the Archaeology of
the Ural-Kazakhstan Steppes).
Zhelezchikov, B. F. 1980a. Ranniye kochevniki Yuzhnogo

Preeuralya. Avtoreferat kandidatskoi dissertatsii. Moscow (Early
Nomads of the Southern Urals. Ph.D. Dissertation Abstract).
Zhelezchikov, B. F. 1980b. Ranniye kochevniki Yuzhnogo
Preeuralya. Dissertatsiya kandidata istoricheskih nauk. Moscow:
Institut Archeologii Akademii nauk SSSR RII N2261 (Early
Nomads of the Southern Urals. Ph.D. Dissertation. Institute of
Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union).
Vasilyev, I. B. and Vybornov, A. A. 1986. Nizhneye Povolzhye v

epokhu kamnya i bronzy, pp. 320 in Skripkin, A. S. (ed.),
Drevnyaya i srednevekovaya istoriya Nizhnego Povolzhya. Saratov:
Saratovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet (The Lower Volga Region during the Stone and Bronze Ages. Ancient and Medieval
History of the Lower Volga).
Zhelezchikov, B. F. and Barbarounova, Z. A. 1991. Pogrebalnyi

obryad sauromatskoi koultury kak obyekt kompleksnogo issledovaniiya
formalizovanno-statisticheskimi metodami. Doklad, prochitannyi
na III seminare Antichnaya tsivilizatsiya i varvarskii mir.
Gelendzhik (Statistical Analysis of the Burial Rites of the
Sauromatian Culture. Paper, presented at Seminar III of the Ancient civilisation and the Barbarian World conference).
Vishnevskaya, O. I. 1973. Koultura sakskih plemyon nizovyei SyrDaryi v VIIV vv do ne po materialam Ouigaraka. Moscow: Nauka
(The Culture of the Saka tribes of the Low Syr-Daryi during the
VIIV centuries BC).
Zasetskaya, I. P. 1979. Bronzovye blyashki s izobrazheniyem svernouvshegosya v kroug khishnika iz savromatskogo pogrebeniya.
Soobcheniya Gosudarstvennyi Ermitage 44, 424 (Bronze plaques
displaying curled up, imaginary predators from a Sauromatian
burial. Reports of the State Hermitage).
Table
Table 1. Sauro-Sarmatian dating and cultural identification
201
Fig. 1. Lower Volga and southern Urals archaeological sites.
Fig. 2. Comparative table of funeral rite features in the lower Volga and the southern Urals. 1- earthen mounds; 2- stone mounds; 3- undermound rectangular-shaped wooden structures ; 4- burials on the ancient gound level; 5- fires in the mound, 6- traces of funerary feasting;
7- secondary burials into Bronze Age kurgans; 8- secondary burials into Sauromatian period kurgans; 9- collective burials; 10 - single burials;
11- mounds with rocks on the surface ; 12 - cenotaphs; 13 - stone structures in earthen mounds; 14 - earthen mounds built partially of stone;
15 - under-mound round wooden structures; 16 - burials accompanied by saddle-horse burials ; 17 - burials accompanied by guard burials;
18 - repeated burials; 19- chamber graves; 20 - Group I graves; 21 - Group II graves; 22 - head orientation of the dead to the west; 23 diagonal position of the deceased; 24 - cremation burials; 25 - priest inventory burials; 26- burials with scarce or complete absence of
inventory; 27 - burials not containing animal bones; 28 - burials containing horse bones; 29 - burials containing sheep bones; 30 - burials
containing ritual substances ( ochre, etc).
202
Fig. 3. Correlation of burial structure features in the lower Volga and southern Urals. 1 - repeated burials; 2- chamber graves; 3- graves of
Type I; 4 - collective burials; 5 - under-mound round wooden structures; 6- burials accompanied by saddle-horse burials; 7 - burials
accompanied by guard burials; 8 - traces of funerary feasting; 9 - rectangular-shaped wooden under-mound structures ; 10 - earthen
mounds; 11 - earth and stone mounds; 12 - kurgans not containing wooden under-mound structures; 13 - stone mounds; 14 - simple
burials (as compared to repeated burials); 15 - graves of Type II; 16 - single burials.
Fig. 4 . Correlation of grave good categories in the lower Volga and southern Urals burials . 1 - daggers and swords; 2 - quivers; 3- bridle bits
and psalia; 4 - buckles and vorvorks; 5 - arrowheads; 6 - whetstones; 7- knives; 8 - vessels; 9- spearheads; 10 - horse bridle plaques; 11- bone
spoons; 12- boars fang pendants decorated in Animal Style; 13 - bronze wheels as amulets; 14 - mirrors; 15 - sacrifical altars with three-four
feet; 16 - divining stones; 17 - beads; 18 - small vessels; 19 - shells.
203
Fig. 5. Ceramic types in the lower Volga and southern Urals.
Fig. 6. Arrowhead types not found in the lower Volga region.
204
Fig. 7a. Correlation of arrowhead types in the southern Urals.
Fig. 7b. Correlation of arrowhead types in the lower Volga.
205
Fig. 8. Dagger and sword types decorated with Animal Style from the southern Urals.
1 - Vinnovka; 2 - Bolshoy Tolkay; 3 - Verchny Avzyan; 4 - Mykachevo ; 5 - Petrovka; 6
- Voskresenka; 7, 12 - Talachevo; 8 - Kunakbaevo; 9 - Orenburg; 10 - Bachmutino; 11
- Belebey; 13 - Byasovka; 14 - Urshek. (drawings by R. Ismagilov)
206
Iron Age Ceramics of the Transurals

Svetlana Sharapova
Institute of History and Archaeology
Urals Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Abstract
A formal typological approach to the study of artifacts is a traditional aspect of Russian archaeology. This methodology also
prevails in the study of pottery where stylistic parameters are
based on the analyses of decoration and morphology. This paper attempts to apply the concept of style to materials recovered from Iron Age sites in the Transural region. The study is
based on a formal typological methodology that is supported
by statistics. A summarized description of the basic ceramic
types encountered in these sites and the results obtained from
the current research are provided.
Dmitriev, V. Tchernetsov, K. Salnikov and others during the

1920s and 1930s. They described several aspects of the archaeological material recovered from Iron Age kurgans and undertook extensive settlement and cemetery excavations. P. Dmitriev
first proposed that the culture of the ancient population which
had inhabited the area from the Transurals as far as the Irtysh
River had developed in close association with Sarmatian tribes.
V. Tchernetsov and K. Salnikov offered an alternative point of
view, and proposed an Ugrian origin for the Transuralian population (Mogilnikov 1992: 274).
Key words
In the period between the 1960s and 1980s some basic results
were obtained through a series of broad field investigations
undertaken by V. Gening, V. Mogilnikov, V. Victorova, V.
Stoyanov, L. Koryakova, N. Matveeva, and others. Subsequently, the systematization and interpretation of the archaeological materials was undertaken. Archaeological sites of the
early Iron Age are identified as Nosilovo, Baitovo, and
Vorobievo (Stoyanov 1969). The archaeological investigation
of Iron Age ceramics had therefore been initiated. A series of
common features among the Transuralian Iron Age ceramics
was illuminated, including the technology associated with their
manufacture, the shape and types of decoration. Ceramic vessels were vertical-ellipsoid, spherical (globular), or horizontal-ellipsoid in shape, with a round or slightly sharpened base.
As a rule, the neck was well defined. The majority of vessels
were hand-made using the band-braid technique, and were fired
in open fires. Usually the ornamentation covered the neck,
throat, and shoulder of the vessel and is characterized by several consistent decorative techniques as well as a minimal set
of decorative patterns and compositions.
Transural, Iron Age, ceramics, decoration, style
Introduction
Potsherds are one of the most numerous classes of artifacts to
be recovered from archaeological excavations. In some cases
the type of decoration apparent on pottery is the main criterion
for the identification of archaeological cultures. Therefore, the
subject of the paper will focus on a review of Iron Age ceramics from the Transural region. With regard to the geographical
distribution of these ceramics, the primary zone of concentration lies within the vast forest-steppe territory.1 The archaeological dimension, which relates to Transuralian antiquities, is
characterized by a great diversity of cultural traditions, reflected
in the ceramic artifacts. In addition, several lines of development are apparent in these artifacts.
Initially, the ceramics of the Transurals and western Siberia
were not a subject of special study, although they were grouped
within the archaeological exploration of the regions antiquities. Such explorations were initially undertaken by local amateurs at the end of the 19th century, and these individuals were
interested in excavating kurgans as well as gathering information relating to finds, the location of settlements and the kurgans
themselves. Research was continued by archaeologists and
semi-professional specialists at a later date. This particular
branch of science was developed within the Archaeological
Committee and was systemized by A. Spitsin. Material collated by V. Tolmatchev enabled the development of an archaeological map of the eastern slope of the Ural mountains and the
forest-steppe zone. As a rule this research was not systematic
and it generally represented the collection of oral facts. Planned
investigations of the archaeological sites of the Transurals and
western Siberian forest-steppe zone were undertaken by P.
The ceramics were analyzed following several approaches. The

most common approach involves a formal typological method
that concentrates on the morphological features of the shape of
a vessel and its decoration (Gening 1973; 1992; Koryakova
1988). Technological analyses and, by extension, experimentation identified that the manufacture of pottery had been specific to different regions, and was discrete to the various cultures (Bobrinsky 1978; Gloushkov 1996). These approaches
corresponded with ceramic types that had been identified by a
subjective perception. Furthermore, the classification scheme
of ceramics, which was based upon the concept of type and
typological method commonly used in Russian archaeology,
has not seriously changed since the 1960s (Stoyanov 1969).
207
The classification of different types of ceramics to each time

period was based on the analysis of materials recovered from a
number of archaeological sites. To make the following discussion more precise and comprehensible a short description of
the original ceramic types will now be provided.
tifs are less varied. The basic decorative patterns include horizontal angular lines and zigzags, while belts of horizontal lines,
finger pinches, and festoons cover the shoulders of the vessels.
The ornamentation is generally made using an incised technique, and in some cases by comb stamping. Sargat ceramics
were usually decorated with festoons, and vertical or horizontal angled lines that were either incised or made using a smooth
stamp. In some cases finger pinches and pit-pricked elements
are also included. Non-decorated vessels are found among both
the Gorokhovo and Sargat ceramic types. Despite their differences, the Sargat and Gorokhovo ceramics also display a number of similarities; they share common morphological features
including straight, broad necks, while curved necks are quite
rare. In addition, the vessel rims have been found to be flat,
sharp or round.
Description of the original ceramic types

By the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron
Age, inhabitants of the settlements were making use of ceramics that were decorated with comb-stamps (Nosilovo Type) (Fig.
1: 45, 8). These sites were located in the middle and lower
Iset River basin and middle Tobol River region. Sites that contained ceramics which were decorated with pit-pricked ornamentations (Baitovo Type) are partially synchronous; they date
to the 7th4th centuries BC (Fig. 1: 3, 6, 7, 9) and have been
recovered from the Ishym and Tobol regions. The majority of
vessels were constructed from a strong, sandy temper with a
microscopic sand admixture. Vessels of both the combed and
pit-pricked decorated types have straight, broad necks, and flat
rims. The ornamentation covers the neck and upper body of
the pot. The so-called pit and pearl type of decoration is sometimes found in combination with angular depressions that are
considered a typical decoration of the Baitovo Type. The same
design with an added horizontal band of sloping or vertical
lines, achieved by using a comb-stamping technique, is typical
of the Nosilovo Type. One of the most remarkable elements of
shoulder decoration is the so-called rocking design that was
undertaken using the same technique.
Sites with ceramics of the Kashino Type have been discovered

in the middle basin of the Tura and Iset Rivers (Fig. 4: 6-8). In
the absence of an absolute chronology a relative scale has been
developed which dates this type of ceramic to the end of the
Iron Age. These vessels have spherical or horizontal-ellipsoid
bodies; straight, broad necks, and flat rims. The temper contains mica, a mineral which has not been found in the analysis
of vessels from the Tobol River basin. Ornamentation was primarily achieved using the comb-stamped technique although
some vessels were decorated with a smooth-stamped pattern.
In general, the decoration comprises horizontal angular lines,
zigzags, and columns of horizontal lines on the neck and upper
body, but in some cases the only decoration consisted of a horizontal line. In the relative chronology that has been constructed
for the pottery types, the Prygovo Type follows the Kashino
ceramics, and dates to the latter half of the first millennium
AD. It has been found in the same geographical regions as the
Kashino Type ceramics (Fig. 4: 15). In the majority of cases,
the vessels have straight necks with very large diameters and
flat rims. The inclusions consist of sand, grog (crushed sherds)
or mica. The ornamentation generally covers the neck of the
pots, and the basic decorative patterns comprise one to three
lines of horizontal zigzags and bands of sloping lines made by
comb stamping. In general, the top (more so than the base) of
the decorative composition was restricted to one or more combstamped or incised lines. The external aspect of the rim may
display a simple ornamentation. In addition to the basic decorative motifs, smooth- and cord-stamped techniques created
parentheses, zigzags, or lines.
Two types of ceramic talcum temper and comb-stamped decoration (Itkul and Vorobievo) have been dated to the 6th4th centuries BC (Fig. 2). These styles were concentrated in the upper
and middle Iset and the middle Tobol River basins. In addition
to the occurrence of talcum inclusions in the temper, a number
of vessels retrieved from the Tobol River basin contain a small
concentration of talcum and sandy clay. Both vessel types are
characterized by comb-stamped ornamentation. The majority
of the Itkul pots have straight, broad necks, and usually flat
rims. The basic decorative patterns comprise bands of vertical,
horizontal, and sloping comb-stamped lines, but the rocking
ornamentation only occurs on rare occasions. The Vorobievo
pots have high and thick straight necks, and their flat rims are
decorated using a comb-stamped technique. Horizontal angle
lines and a band of sloping lines, sloping columns, wave-shapes,
and rocking designs are the basic decorative patterns identified among this type of ceramics.
Objectives of the research

The Gorokhovo Type received its name from the archaeological culture that was identified after excavations of the eponymous fortress (Fig. 3: 14). This culture covered various territories that had previously been occupied by the populations
that used the Itkul and Vorobievo types of ceramics during the
5th - 2nd centuries BC. The Sargat Type of ceramics has been
extensively studied (Fig. 3: 57), and since the population of
the Sargat Culture occupied the vast forest-steppe zone, ceramics of this type were recovered from throughout the region.
Gorokhovo ceramics differ from the Sargat Type as they are
much cruder and the use of talcum temper and decorative mo-
In spite of the variations apparent among the Iron Age ceramics, many researches also noticed that a degree of similarity
existed between the different types of pottery, as well as the socalled ornamental and morphological continuity (Koryakova
1993: 14). Ornamental diversity, however, is too complex to
be determined simply from a definition of type and the associated archaeological culture. This paper attempts to offer a new
approach and add a different perspective to the previous traditional methodologies used in the analysis of ceramics. By using statistics, and formal typological and technological evaluations, stylistic analyses were undertaken (Sharapova 1998;
208
Results of the analysis
1999). This research encompasses all of the above-mentioned

ceramic types, their ornamentations, the techniques used in their
manufacture as well as developmental characteristics. The two
main points of tradition and style are considered (Sharapova
1998). Tradition includes a system of various components, i.e.
technology, shape, and ornamentation (Koryakova 1988: 92),
while style is a complex concept with many definitions. The
classical definition connects style with information exchange,
while anthropologists and archaeologists use the term style primarily within the context of decoration (Rice 1987: 245).
So that all types of Transuralian Iron Age pottery mentioned

above could be included in the analysis, a coefficient of correlation of two parametersrxywas calculated. A certain similarity in the basic decorative patterns of the ceramics under
study, including horizontal corner lines, sloping lines, and columns, various combination of the so-called pit and pearl decoration, angle impressions, and pricked ornamentation was identified. The majority of these characteristics form the basis of
the ornamentation apparent in all of the different pottery types.
The conclusions indicate that ceramic types are more related
through decorative techniques as opposed to decorative patterns.
A number of decorative techniques may be indicative of style.
Three elements of pottery ornamentation, decoration, design,

and style have been discerned which enable the informative
role of ceramics to be identified (Pavlu 1996: 95). He suggested
that decorative style complements the preceding ones and result in pottery ornamentation. These elements parallel the material, social, and psychological components of a culture. With
references to the Transuralian ceramics, we are dealing with
the style of a single group as opposed to an individual. Therefore, the definition for the style of ancient ceramics that we are
using is style that is a form of non-verbal communication, a
certain aggregate of specific features as a result of human activity. It is possible to assume that there were two basic ceramic cores primarily associated with the geographical zones
of the Ural Mountainsthe forest-mountains and the foreststeppe zones. These cores determined the ceramic traditions of
the ancient populations. A variability of decoration and its classification in time and space are the basic elements of stylistic
development. A study of the Iron Age ceramics recovered from
a number of different sites excavated by the Transuralian (Urals)
archaeological expedition during the 1960s to the 1990s was
undertaken. Statistical data was obtained from eight archaeological sites, although the majority came from the type-site.
The overall sample comprised 1908 vessels of different types.
Taking into account strong decorative and technological traditions, as well as the stratigraphic position of ceramic types, the
following basic decorative styles were notedpit-pricked, comb/
comb-cord-stamped, and incised. These styles predominantly
determine the character of Transuralian Iron Age ceramics. Each
of the styles included different pottery types and lines of development that were apparent among the cultural groups, such
as the Nosilovo-Baitovo, Itkul-Kashino-Prygovo and
Gorokhovo-Sargat. Decorative style could not be isolated, but
a deep intercommunication and certain constancy within the
cultures has been inferred. Various traditions, which are reflected in archaeological ceramic types, were integrated by style.
Decorative style reflects the component of each cultures cognitive symbolism, and is a source of information about the
cultures principal features. Style, like types, are merely descriptive classification (Washburn and Crowe 1988: 38) within
particular cultures, such as among those of the Iron Age
Transuralian populations.
The results obtained from the technological analyses supported a
number of the previous findings. The chemical composition and
temper was found to be consistent for those ceramic types that
had a small amount of r. It is evident, therefore, that a single source
of clay was used to make the pottery from a given culture.
Comparison of the collection under study was undertaken using a calculation of the factor of difference r:
(Y
Using the results obtained from the pottery analysis, in conjunction with information derived from radiocarbon dating, it
is possible to discuss the relative chronology of the ceramic
types included in the study (Fig. 7). A number of specific local
features were included to support the findings. It is important
to remember, however, that this is not a strict evaluation based
only upon the archaeological sites and their ceramic types, but
also their technical development as noted above.
where r - factor of difference, i - # of signs, k, l - ## of collections, Y ki , Y li frequency of i in collections k,l, D i dispersion of distribution of i (Koryakova 1988: 109).
The factor of difference was computed according to the differences apparent in the pottery decoration and decorative patterns (Fig. 5), and was undertaken in two sections. The first
part assumes the analysis of all types of ceramics within themselves, while the second assumption is based on the analysis
of the specific types of pottery that were recovered from different archaeological sites. In addition, a relative frequency of
each element of ornamentation and its combination was analyzed, and all decorative patterns were combined into 20 groups
of relative elements. In total, 45 elements of decoration and
81 combinations were processed within one system of analysis. This method enabled an objective characterization of the
pottery to be undertaken (Fig. 6).
Ceramic collections recovered from sites of the more western

areas are clearly characterized by the consistency of combstamped and predominantly incised decoration. Pottery associated with settlements from the eastern area differs to that of
the western region since incised and pit-pricked ornamentation prevails. This tendency for a predominance of pit-pricked
ornamentation was first noticed in Sargat ceramics by
Koryakova (1988: 110), whereas comb-stamped decoration
increases in the Iset River basin as well as a predominance of
pit-pricked decoration in the Tobol River basin. The pit-pricked
209
Koryakova, L. N. 1993. Kulturno-istoricheskije obschnosti Urala i

Zapadnoj Sibiri: Tobolo-Irtyshskaja provintsija na rannej i srednej
stadijakh zheleznogo veka. Novosibirsk: Institut Arkheolologii i
Etnographii (Cultural and Historical communities of the Urals
and Western Siberia: Tobol and Irtysh province on the Early and
Middle stages of the Iron Age).
decoration is considered to be the earliest form of decoration

and descended from Bronze Age traditions. Pit ornamentation
disappeared and was replaced by predominantly incised decoration in both the Tobol and Iset River basins. At a later stage
incised decoration combined with cord-stamped types became
the basis for a new comb-cord-stamped group. Ornamental
development also occurred as a linear process, and this is revealed in the ceramics of the Kashino and Prygovo Types. The
Sargat tradition of ornamentation coupled with the local stable
comb-stamped techniques (mainly of Itkul ceramics) became
a particular feature of the Kashino Type (Victorova 1967;
Koryakova 1988). The Prygovo pottery, which has the same
genetic link, was the latest modification of these ceramics.
Mogilnikov, V. A. 1992. Lesostep Zauralja i Zapadnoj Sibiri, pp.

274-312 in Rybakov, B. A., Stepnaja polosa aziatskoj chasti SSSR v
skifo-sarmatskoe vremya. Arkheologija SSSR. Moscow: Nauka
(Transuralian and Western Siberian forest-steppe. The Asiatic
belt of the steppe of the USSR in the Scytho-Sarmatian period).
Pavlu, I. 1997. Pottery Origins. Praha: Vydavatelstvi Univerzity
Karlovy.
Conclusions
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that we have only traced a
number of the tendencies found in stylistic development. As
mentioned above, various ornamental traditions apparent in the
ceramic types have been integrated into decorative styles, and
these styles then reflect the main components of each culture.
Style does not negate type, but by tracing the development of
ceramics through time and space and noting their principal local features it is possible to understand why and how they occurred, as well as the foundations for such occurrences.
Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery analysis. A sourcebook. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.
Sharapova, S. V. 1998. The Iron Age pottery decorative styles in the
Transurals. 4th Annual Meeting of the European Association of
Archaeologists, Geteborg. pp. 1467 in Abstracts book.
Sharapova, S. V. 1999. Keramika i osnovnyje ornamentalnyje stili
rannego zheleznogo veka zauralskoj lesostepi, pp. 1468 in
Grigoriev, S. A., Botalov, S. G., Gutsalov, S. Yu. and Mosin, V. S.,
XIV Uralkoje Arkheologicheskoje soveshchanie. Tezisy dokladov.
Tchelyabinsk: Rifej (Ceramics and the basic ornamental styles
of the Iron Age of the Transuralian forest-steppe. 14th Urals Archaeological Conference. Lecture reports).
Endnote
1. See map in publication of Korakova et al. in this volume.
References
Bobrinsky, A. A. 1978. Goncharstvo Vostochnoj Evropy. Moskva:
Nauka. (Pottery-making in Eastern Europe).
Stoyanov, V. E. 1969. Panniij zheleznyj vek zapadnosibirskoj

lesostepi. Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences, Urals
State University (The Early Iron Age of the Western Siberian
forest-steppe).
Gening, V. F. 1973. Programma statisticheskoj obrabotki keramiki

iz arkheologicheskikh raskopok. Sovetskaja arkheologija 3, 11436 (Program for the statistical analysis of ceramics from archaeological excavations. Soviet Archaeology).
Victorova, V. D. 1967. Arkheologicheskaja karta bassejnov rek

Tury i Tavdy. Dissertation of Candidate of Historical Sciences,
Urals State University (Archaeological map of the Tura and Tavda
rivers basins).
Gening, V. F. 1992. Drevnyaja keramika: metody i programmy

issledovanija v arkheologii. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (Ancient ceramics: methods and program for research in archaeology).
Washburn, D. K. and Crowe, D. W. 1988. Symmetries of Culture. Seattle-London.
Gloushkov, I. G. 1996. Keramika kak arkheologicheskij istochnik.

Novosibirsk: Izdatelstvo Instituta Arkheologii i Etnographii SO
RAN (Ceramics as an archaeological record).
Koryakova, L. N. 1988. Rannii zhelezny vek Zauralya i Zapadnoi Sibiri
(Sargatskaya kultura). Sverdlovsk: Uralsky Universitet (The Early Iron
Age of the Transurals and Western Siberia (Sargat Culture)).
210
Fig. 1. Pottery types. Nosilovo (1, 4, 5, 8) and Baitovo (2, 3, 6, 7, 9).
Fig. 2. Pottery types. Vorobievo (14) and Itkul (511).
Fig. 3. Pottery. Gorokhovo (14) and Sargat (57) types.
Fig. 4. Pottery types. Prygovo (15) and Kashino (68).
211
Fig. 5. Factors of differences according to technique of pottery decoration (A) and decorative patterns (B).
212
Fig. 6. Basic decorative patterns found on Transuralian ceramics.
213
Fig. 7. A relative chronology of ceramic types that were studied.
214

05 Part 4 (1.0) - Iron - Int PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

05 Part 4 (1.0) - Iron - Int PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

05 Part 4 (1.0) - Iron - Int PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part IV

Interpretations of Eurasian Archaeology

Historical and Archaeological Sources Relating to the Migration of Nomadic Peoples

were well-developed activities. During the second half of the

Geographical perceptions of Europe

Several populations lived and migrated within the European

Historical and ethnographic outline

Migration of Nomadic Peoples Toward Central and Southern Europe

led to non-uniform results. In AD 135, as a consequence of the

tained oblong huts arranged in parallel rows. Farming was well

From the first half of 3rd century AD (Wolfram 1990: 5561),

The appearance of the Huns in the northern Caucasus (Heather

decreasing and by AD 420, large portions of Pannonian lands

Migration of Nomadic Peoples Toward Central and Southern Europe

community generally extending as far as the Rhine and Scandinavia

into new lands. The existing unstable political situation was

3. Constantine paid great attention to the situation in Thrace and Mesia

6. The evidence obtained from archaeological surveys indicates that the

7. A glass-making workshop was recovered from a Cernjachov Culture

Vol. III, Medioevo (secoli V-XV). Torino: Einaudi (The

Cunliffe, B. 1994. Lorganizzazione della frontiera come fattore

Melucco Vaccaro, A. 1996. Goti, pp. 3440 in Romanini, A.

Derfer, G. 1986. O yazike gunnov, Zarubezhnaja tjurkologija,

Michajlov, B. D. 1993. Pogrebenie gunnskogo vremeni v

Erdlyi, I. 1991. Alani, pp. 2834 in Romanini, A. M. (ed.),

Randers Pehrson, J. D. 1983. The Steppes of Asia, pp. 3453 in

Godlowski, K. 1994. I Barbari nellet imperiale romana, pp. 1292

Rvsz, L. and Nepper, I. 1998. Il patrimonio archeologico degli

Gumilev, L. N. 1960. Gunny. Moscow: Nauka (The Huns).

Whittaker, C. 1994. Le frontiere imperiali, pp. 369424 in

Jaskanis, D. 1991. Prima fase dellAltoMedioevo (VI-VII), pp.

Wolfram, H. 1990. Histoire des Goths. Paris (History of the Goths).

Kazanski, M. 1991. Les Goths (Ier-VII aprs J.-C). Paris: Editions

Kolendo, J. 1994. I barbari del Nord, pp. 42541 in Carandini,

Arriano Limpresa contro gli Alani. Translation and commentary

Kulakovsij, J. A. 1899. Alany po svedenijam klassicheskikh i

Flavio Giuseppe La guerra giudaica. Volume I (Libri IIII), pp.

Leciejewicz, L. 1994. Il Barbaricum: Presupposti dellevoluzione

Jordanes Storia dei Goti. Translation and commentary by E.

Migration of Nomadic Peoples Toward Central and Southern Europe

Prisco di Panion Storia bizantina. Translation and commentary

A summary of previous research

Early Iron Age Pastoral Nomadismin the Great Hungarian Plain

In contrast to the foreign so-called Cimmerian objects, the

The contexts of the so called Thraco-Cimmerian finds within

A closer look at the material evidence as well as the overall

The material evidence

The Mezo=cst Group

a horse riding warrior elite emerges sometime around 900 BC.

Before we go into a more detailed analysis of the Mezo=cst

In Serzhen-Yurt, as in contemporary graves with different types

The material evidence of the Mezo=cst Group as well as the

Before we turn back to the Mezo=cst Group, it should also be

Surely, such a change in funeral ritual primarily reflects new

Central Europe at the transition from the Late

The North Pontic steppes and the Northern Caucasus

Early Iron Age Pastoral Nomadismin the Great Hungarian Plain

transhumance communities or semi-nomadic pastoralists, there

The spatial analysis of the small cemeteries and single graves