Andrei V. Epimakhov
specialized segments but have in effect an overall low level of social hierarchy. Typical examples of this include tribal societies that form wide networks of interactions, not necessarily determined by economic factors, that offer cumulative complexity and scalar relationships that may be comparable to what has often been considered “chiefdom ”-level developments.
Such conceptual issues and their connections to theoretical models for societal reconstruction have been discussed in recent years for Bronze Age socio-economic developments in north central Eurasia (Koryakova 1996 , 2002; Epimakhov 2002 a; Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007 ). In spite of the various distinctions that have been illustrated for Bronze Age cul-tures in this region, there are no specialists vindicating the “state” char-acter of these societies (Gorbunov 1992 ; Epimakhov 2002 b; Zdanovich and Zdanovich 2002 ). However, the archaeological sites attributed to this region and period display a number of important distinctive ele-ments that require more systematic investigation in terms of basic stages of development and long-term economic and social trends.
Before addressing these issues, it is necessary to examine several other factors: the conventional cultural-historical interpretations of the peri-ods and territories within the region of the southern and middle Ural Mountains ; questions regarding the actual patterning of social struc-tures and processes that may be refl ected by archaeological data; and problems connected with the use of incongruent analogies, such as those from ethnographic studies, for the reconstruction of Bronze Age socio-cultural dynamics.
Archaeological Patterns
The Ur a ls are situated at the boundary of eastern Europe and western Siberia. This territory has a greater meridian extent and is character-ized by a signifi cant variety of landscape-climatic zones – ranging from tundra in the north to arid steppe in the south. The primary focus of this chapter is on the social processes and developments in the south-ern region, which can be divided into three main zones: the Cis-Urals , Trans-Urals, and forested-mountain Urals ( Fig. 5.1 ). Each of these areas has a distinct environment, which factored signifi cantly into various prehistoric social, cultural, and economic processes.
The signifi cance of this region cannot be examined exclusively through the model of cultural contact in the region, which has been traditionally seen in terms of a zone of interaction between two ancient
76 | A n d r e i V. E p i m a k h o v
language groups: the Indo-Iranian (steppe) and Finno-Ugric (forest).
Rather, because of signifi cant mineral resources – in particular, con-centrations of copper ores (Zaikov et al. 2005 ) – from the Bronze Age onward the region played an independent role in economic, social, and cultural processes within north central Eurasia. These developments are
Figure 5.1. Map of the Ural Mountains region.
refl ected through a variety of unique archaeological discoveries made in the region, which have subsequently inspired numerous questions regarding possible stimuli for social evolution .
Currently, the Bronze Age, especially in the region of the southern Urals, is the best represented of the prehistoric periods as a result of the high number of archaeological sites that have been identifi ed and the scale of scientifi c investigation carried out during the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. Even though there has been a high level of research activity in this region for several decades, some areas have received more investigation than others, and much research remains to be done.
Nevertheless, for the steppe and forest-steppe zones, the relative chro-nology for the Bronze Age is relatively well agreed upon, although its correlation with the cultural developments in the northern forest zone is fervently debated. Cultural developments in the northern forested region, contemporaneous with monuments of the Early and Middle Bronze Age of the southern part of the region, are not presently well known. Regarding this, two hypotheses have been posited: the persis-tence of Eneolithic traditions until the movement of the steppe popula-tion into this zone (Kuz’minykh 1993 ); and the existence of currently unknown materials connected with the Early and Middle Bronze Age.
More systematic approaches to these issues through the use of absolute-dating methods have been implemented recently (Chernykh et al. 2002 ; Epimakhov et al. 2005 ; Hanks et al. 2007 ) and the calibrated values of these data are presented in Figure 5.2 .
The beginning of the Bronze Age dates to between the fourth and third millennia bce and is connected to the existence of the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) cultures in the steppe zone of the Cis-Urals (Morgunova et al. 2003 ; Bogdanov 2004 ). Currently, the Yamnaya pattern is very well represented by kurgan (tumulus) burial grounds, which comprise more than 150 cemeteries and cenotaphs . Settlement sites, however, are for the most part completely absent, although recent studies have shown that the exploitation of the extensive Chernyka deposits of copper ore were initiated during this period (Chernykh 2002 , 2003, 2004 , 2005 ). As a result, an independent, regional center of metallurgy was formed that is well refl ected in the material culture recovered from mortuary excava-tions in the region.
Yamnaya burials indicate an obvious heterogeneity in the expenditure of labor on tomb construction (i.e., size of barrow and grave pit con-struction), some features of ritual activity, and the deposition of animal remains. Adult male burials are strongly represented and account for
78
Figure 5.2. Table of chronology and key cultural-historical patterns of the southern and middle Ural archae- ological cultures in the Bronze Age.
SteppeForest-SteppeForest-SteppeSteppe 6Earlyearly nomadsItkul'Itkul', early nomads 7IronAnanyinoGamayunGorokhovo etc. 8Age6epe3OBOLate 9Barkhatovo 10Final 11Bronze III?MezhovkaMezhovkaBarkhatovo 12AgeMezhovkaBelokluchyovka 13Eurasian 14metallurgicalCerkaskul' 15 networkSrubnaya-Alakul'SrubnayaCherkaskul'Alakul'-Fyodorovka- 16Late (province)IIFyodorovka-Alakul'Stubnaya 17Bronze PetrovkaEarly SrubnayaKoptyakiPetrovka 18Age 19SintashtaAbashevoSeima-TurbinoOdinivo,Sintashta 20IKrokhalyovka 21Vol'sk-Lbische? 22MiddleLetest? 23Bronze IICatakombnaya 24Age 25Circumpontic 26metallurgicalYamnayaVolosovoKysykul', Surtandy,Kysykul', Surtandy, 27Early network(Pit-Grave)GarinoLipchino? Shapkul', Lipchino? Shapkul', 28Bronze (province)Agidel'Ayat etc.Ayat etc.Eneolitic 29AgeIcultures 30 31Turganyik type 32 33
cal BCPeriodization (Eastern Europe scheme) Metallurgical networks (provinces) Territory Cis-Urals Mountain forestTrans-Urals
approximately 80% of all excavated burials. This mortality profi le sug-gests that the kurgan ceremony was used only for a certain component of the society and that the inhumation rite was probably an attribute associated with high status connected with the construction of large barrows. For the erection of the most monumental constructions, a large-scale concentration of labor resources was carried out in a short period of time – with evidence suggesting that this was done during one warm season of activity (Bogdanov 2004 ). The subsistence economy for this period appears to be complex mobile stockbreeding. The question of whether this was a local development or a transfer of tradition from the outside (e.g., eastern Europe) remains a subject of active discussion.
However, it is possible to state with a high degree of confi dence that the Yamnaya traditions represent the fi rst type of productive economy in the Urals region.
Various data (e.g., radiocarbon dating, rare combination of artifacts) support the theory that Yamnaya traditions, which are traditionally linked with the Indo-European language family before its disintegra-tion, co-existed in the Urals with indigenous Eneolithic populations.
These groups probably had local Finno-Ugric roots. The Eneolithic populations in this region had a subsistence economy based on hunt-ing and fi shhunt-ing, which refl ects deep local subsistence traditions. It is impossible to estimate the duration of the co-existence of these two differing lifeways; however, the contrast between their economic sys-tems and the variety of landscapes associated with the southern Ural Mountains (from steppe to the mountain-forest zone) appears to support this proposition.
Within the limits of the eastern European chronological system, this period corresponds with the Early Bronze Age. The fi nal phase of this archaeological pattern is relatively unclear, but attempts to coordinate the late Yamnaya and Sintashta developments, corresponding approxi-mately with the fi rst quarter of the second millennium bce , have not been easily established. However, it is likely that the break of a uniform cultural tradition took place in the steppe zone at the end of the third millennium bce , corresponding with the Middle Bronze Age of the east-ern European chronology. In any case, this cultural overlap has not been substantiated, and more archaeological data are required.
The second major cultural development, that of the Sintashta archae-ological pattern, has been traced on both sides of the Ural Mountains ; however, on the eastern side of the Urals there are numerous settle-ments and cemeteries but to the west of the Urals only mortuary sites.
80 | A n d r e i V. E p i m a k h o v
Because the spatial organization of the Sintashta fortifi ed settlements has been discussed repeatedly elsewhere (Zdanovich and Batanina 2002 ; Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007 ), only a few details need to be empha-sized here.
Sintashta settlements are supported by monumental systems of forti-fi cation, and the internal space has a very structured organization that is almost entirely occupied by standard rectangular shaped buildings. The total area of the settlements is from 0.8 to 3.6 hectares, and in every case traces of metalworking (slag, metal droplets, furnaces , etc.) have been recovered during excavation.
Cemeteries, typically up to 10 barrow constructions, contain from 1 to 30 burial pits with individual and collective inhumations. The total number of individuals recovered from Sintashta burial sites is now approximately 200–250. Of this sample, males, females, and nearly all age categories are represented – with the recovery of old adult individu-als being rare. The structure of the mortality pattern therefore differs somewhat from what one would consider a normal mortality profi le.
Complex burial rituals, such as the sacrifi ce of animals, high-value grave goods such as bronze weaponry and occasionally stone mace heads and spoke-wheeled chariots , and elaborate tomb construction, allow one to consider that these burial grounds were places of burial for only one segment of the population, most likely individuals or families of higher status (Epimakhov 2002 a, 2005 ).
On the western slopes of the Ural Mountains , along the border of the forest-steppe zone, there is evidence of the Abashevo culture (for the Urals, it is often named Balanbash ) (Sal’nikov 1967 ). Some fi nds exhibit features that resemble Sintashta metallurgy and ceramic pat-terns. According to the opinion of some researchers, the Sintashta and Balanbash developments were contemporaneous. Nevertheless, Balanbash settlements differ markedly from Sintashta as there is no clear system of fortifi cation, they are several times smaller in size, and there are no indications of standardized construction. Funeral complexes also do not contain objects that may be seen as markers of status, such as weaponry . For the Balanbash sites, however, elements of settlement hierarchy have been established – in connection with large stationary centers (e.g., Beregovskoe, Tyubyak) and smaller settlements. About 10 hoards of bronze objects are also known and their locations appear to be distributed at the borders of the Balanbash cultural zone.
In considering the Middle Bronze Age, it is also necessary to men-tion the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, with associated cemeteries and
fi nds that are widespread within a large territory of western Siberia and eastern Europe. Available archaeological evidence suggests a stable and long-functioning network of communications, which provided a distri-bution of metal from the east to the west. Of course, this does not exclude migratory processes (Chernykh and Kuz’minykh 1989 ; Chernykh et al.
2003 ), which may have taken place along the ecological zone of the forest and forest-steppe.
The next chronological phase, the Srubnaya-Andronovo, refl ects a sharp change in both the number and organization of archaeological sites. The archaeological evidence of this period is most signifi cant with regard to known Bronze Age sites and the occurrence and long-term functioning of large cemeteries, with the number of barrows in some of them exceeding 100. Reliable examples of settlement sites are not common, and the tradition of compact settlement organization ends, as settlement excavations have routinely revealed multi-purpose buildings and structures. Although the total area of sites quite often reaches 1–2 hectares, the actual number of dwellings is reduced by four to fi ve times from the previous period. Mortuary sites generally refl ect a greater emphasis on kinship or “group-oriented” activities. In terms of burial goods and ritual practices, however, there are a number of “deviations,”
including complicated tomb design, changes in corpse orientation, and the deposit of rare categories of artifacts. In the opinion of some scholars, these fi ndings are a refl ection of complex social development (Gorbunov 1992 ; Tsimidanov 2004 ). As indirect support for this hypothesis, highly specialized settlements, such as Gorny in the southeastern Urals, may serve as a vivid example of the appearance of new patterns of social orga-nization (Chernykh 2002 , 2004 , 2005 ).
Very small and modest cemeteries of the Final Bronze Age look para-doxical when compared with the large and complex elite barrows of the Early Iron Age. However, it is likely that in the steppe Trans-Urals there was a change in cultural traditions between these two periods. There is widespread evidence for a number of permanent settlements, includ-ing settlements with signifi cant occupation areas that contain small concentrations of artifacts within cultural occupation sequences. This evidence indicates that an increase of mobility associated with animal husbandry occurred in combination with other populations that contin-ued a more traditional settled way of life. Exceptions to this pattern are archaeological sites in the upland foothill areas and forest-steppe zones, where populations did not make a transition toward higher mobility or nomadic patterns of movement. The cemeteries of this period have
82 | A n d r e i V. E p i m a k h o v
not been well investigated, and their scale and organization are modest when compared with the earlier Middle Bronze Age. Alongside earthen mound mortuary constructions, fl at burials have also been encountered.
Artifact inventories from these sites are made up exclusively of ceram-ics; therefore, interpretations of the structure of the societies and their possible organization have been diffi cult. Overall, there is an impression among scholars that at this time there was a process of fragmentation of larger social collectives.
Va riations in Complexity
The k ey cultural-historical patterns discussed in the previous section represent a very diverse set of materials for archaeological interpretation;
however, in many cases there are traces of cultural continuity through time. The level of social complexity was obviously wide-ranging dur-ing the Bronze Age; moreover, it is possible to confi dently suggest that changes were varied in nature and were stimulated by a number of dif-ferent internal and external factors. In the fi rst case, it is necessary to take note of climatic changes, migrations, relationships with neighbor-ing groups, and more complete use of local resources. Among the social and cultural processes of the Urals Bronze Age, two scenarios can be distinctly identifi ed: transformational (especially in the beginning and in the last centuries of the Bronze Age) and evolutionary . In different landscape-climatic zones, these scenarios had their own specifi c char-acteristics, although variations of both models are represented in the forest and steppe ecological areas. Among the stimuli of radical cultural change, it is necessary to identify transitions within the economic sys-tems as well. Important transitions relating to the introduction of a pro-ductive form of economy occurred during the Bronze Age, the most signifi cant of which was the emergence of livestock breeding and metal-lurgy . Both, possibly, were introduced into the Cis-Urals steppe from outside this region.
Following this introduction, a clearer transition occurred between the Middle and Late Bronze Age during the development of the Abashevo and Sintashta archaeological cultures. Despite the absence of clarity on the problem of their genesis, we admit a connection between the eastern European Catacombnaya populations. For the Sintashta traditions, we see even more distant sources of infl uence. Actually, both cultures were situated in the forest-steppe and north of the steppe zone on both sides of the Ural Mountains . It should be understood that
the natural geographic boundary of the Urals was permeable in both directions.
The period of the Urals Late Bronze Age became a time of inclusion into broader systems of interaction associated with the Eurasian met-allurgical network (province) – including the Seima-Turbino phenom-enon and the Andronovo and Srubnaya families of cultures. Certainly we cannot call this a “world system” (in Wallerstein’s sense), but we must not ignore the fact of similarity of many artifacts, technologies, and ritu-als across a broad area of Eurasia. For example, weapons of the Seima-Turbino type have been found from northern China to Scandinavia (Chernykh 1992 ; Mei 2003 ). Convergent invention is highly unlikely in this and other cases. Forest populations were also involved in this system, and that is where synchronous cultures were formed. During the Final Bronze Age, we observe a transition toward a more mobile economic system although this process occurred over several centuries and extended into the fi rst millennium bce . A change in the direction of cultural communications can be distinctly recognized at this time and the possibility of an infl ow of west Siberian populations (e.g., Irmen’
or related to it) cannot be excluded as a part of larger social processes.
In spite of some changes, the subsistence system, which was based on diversifi ed animal husbandry, was stable. It is possible that variations in the structure of this economy centered on the percentage ratio of certain species in the domestic herd structure ( Fig. 5.3 ). These changes were caused by distinctive ecological niches among groups and the degree of mobility of cattle breeding.
The second economic component of social and cultural processes is metallurgical production and trade. Because stockbreeding was the primary branch of subsistence, metallurgy was not an essential infl u-ence for basic subsistu-ence production, as animal husbandry can develop successfully without any metal tools. Moreover, the majority of metal products (e.g., decorations, instruments for woodworking, weapons ) were only slightly involved in the process of food production. This situa-tion changed only during the Late Bronze Age, when metal instruments apparently became not only part of a prestige economy but also a part of the economy as a whole. Nevertheless, metal decorations and weapons were produced abundantly at this time and were technologically diffi cult objects to produce. It is also important to note that the production of metal became the stimulus for the establishment and maintenance of new channels of distant communication. Periodic changes in the system of the production centers rendered signifi cant infl uence on the course
84 | A n d r e i V. E p i m a k h o v
and direction of societal evolution. This is most obvious for the Urals (especially the eastern side) during the Late and Final Bronze Ages when central Kazakhstan and the Altai centers emerged.
The study of prehistoric social complexity in the Urals region can be greatly oversimplifi ed if one overlooks the possibility of a system of larger regional communication and networking. The extent and stability of such systems are interpreted with a wide degree of reliability; how-ever, on the basis of archaeological evidence, it is possible to argue that populations in the Urals region were included within different systems during the Bronze Age. Some of these networks may be considered as more global in nature, although the actual character and scale of such connections still need to be established. While much progress has been Figure 5.3. Long-term trend of cattle breeding based on faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites in the second and fi rst
The study of prehistoric social complexity in the Urals region can be greatly oversimplifi ed if one overlooks the possibility of a system of larger regional communication and networking. The extent and stability of such systems are interpreted with a wide degree of reliability; how-ever, on the basis of archaeological evidence, it is possible to argue that populations in the Urals region were included within different systems during the Bronze Age. Some of these networks may be considered as more global in nature, although the actual character and scale of such connections still need to be established. While much progress has been Figure 5.3. Long-term trend of cattle breeding based on faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites in the second and fi rst