DOCSLIB.ORG

7 17 2019 Main Manuscript FINAL Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
7 17 2019 Main Manuscript FINAL Dr Supplementary Materials The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia Table of Contents S1 Description of Four Online Tables and the Online Data Visualizer ........................... 7 S2 Archeological descriptions of 523 newly reported ancient individuals .................... 12 S2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 12 S2.2 Individuals from the Forest Zone / Steppe ....................................................................... 13 S2.2.1 Individuals from the Forest Zone in the Neolithic period ........................................................ 13 S2.2.1.1 West Siberian Hunter-Gatherers .......................................................................................... 13 S2.2.1.1.1 Sosnoviy-Ostrov, Tyumen Oblast, western Siberia, Russia (n=1) ................................ 13 S2.2.1.1.2 Mergen Settlements, Tyumen Oblast, western Siberia, Russia (n=2) ........................... 14 S2.2.2 Sites from the Steppe Zone in Early to Middle Bronze Age Cemeteries ................................. 16 S2.2.2.1 Kumsay (Kyryk Oba), Kazakhstan (n=4) ............................................................................ 16 S2.2.2.2 Mereke, Kazakhstan (n=3) ................................................................................................... 17 S2.2.2.3 Dali, Bayan-Zherek Valley, Kazakhstan (n=1) .................................................................... 18 S2.2.2.4 Yamnaya Pastoralists from Samara, Russia (n=1) ............................................................... 19 S2.2.2.5 Afanasievo pastoralists of the Altai mountains and Yenisei river basin (n=26) .................. 19 S2.2.2.5.1 Saldyar-1 cemetery, Altai Mountains, Russia (n=1) ..................................................... 20 S2.2.2.5.2 Ust’-Kuyum cemetery, Altai Mountains, Russia (n=1) ................................................. 21 S2.2.2.5.3 Kaminnaya Cave, Altai Mountains, Russia (n=1) ......................................................... 21 S2.2.2.5.4 Karasuk III, Russia, cluster B, kurgans 1 and 2 (n=8) .................................................. 21 S2.2.2.5.5 Afanasieva Gora, Middle Yenisei region, Russia (n=5) ................................................ 24 S2.2.2.5.6 Elo 1, Russia (n=3) ........................................................................................................ 26 S2.2.2.5.7 Elo Bashi, Russia (n=2) ................................................................................................. 26 S2.2.2.5.8 Lower Tyumechin 1, western Siberia, Russia (n=3) ..................................................... 27 S2.2.2.5.9 Krasnoyarsk Krai, Minusinsk, Podsukhanikha II (n=1) ................................................ 28 S2.2.2.5.10 Inskoy Dol, Russia (n=1) ............................................................................................. 29 S2.2.2.6 Poltavka: Pastoralists from the Poltavka culture (n=4) ....................................................... 31 S2.2.2.6.1 Grachevka cluster, Sok River, Samara Oblast, Russia (n=1) ........................................ 31 S2.2.2.6.2 Samara River valley and steppes to the south (n=1) ..................................................... 32 S2.2.2.6.3 Zhuravlikha I, Bolshoi Irgiz River, Samara oblast (n=1) .............................................. 32 S2.2.2.6.4 Nikolaevka III, Volzhskiy region, Samara Oblast (n=1) ............................................... 32 S2.2.2.7 Potapovka culture pastoralists from the Grachevka kurgan cemeteries (n=2) .................... 33 S2.2.3 Sites from the Steppe Zone in the MLBA ................................................................................ 34 S2.2.3.1 Corded Ware Complex from the Western Steppe (n=7) ...................................................... 34 S2.2.3.1.1 Radovesice, Czech Republic (n=3) ............................................................................... 34 S2.2.3.1.2 Bílina, Czech Republic (n=3) ........................................................................................ 35 S2.2.3.1.3 Velké Žernoseky, Czech Republic (n=1) ...................................................................... 37 S2.2.3.2 Northeastern Kazakhstan, Kanai Cemetery (n=1) ............................................................... 37 S2.2.3.3 Petrovka culture, Stepnoe VII cemetery, Russia (n=3) ........................................................ 37 S2.2.3.4 Sintashta culture from Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery, Russia (n=50) ................................. 39 S2.2.3.5 Satan, Central Kazakhstan (n=1) ......................................................................................... 49 S2.2.3.6 Maitan, Central Kazakhstan (n=9) ....................................................................................... 50 S2.2.3.7 Karagash 2, Central Kazakhstan (n=3) ................................................................................ 51 S2.2.3.8 Ak-Moustafa, Central Kazakhstan (n=1) ............................................................................. 52 S2.2.3.9 Dali, Bayan-Zherek Valley, Kazakhstan (n=4) .................................................................... 53 S2.2.3.9.1 Middle to Late Bronze Age Dali 1 cemetery, burial 1, Kazakhstan (n=3) .................... 53 S2.2.3.9.2 Early Bronze Age Dali settlement, Kazakhstan (n=1) .................................................. 55 S2.2.3.10 Lisakovskiy, Northern Kazakhstan (n=2) ....................................................................... 56 S2.2.3.11 Kairan, Kazakhstan (n=10) ............................................................................................. 56 S2.2.3.12 Kyzyl Bulak, Kazakhstan (n=2) ...................................................................................... 60 S2.2.3.13 Multiple sites near Krasnoyarsk, Western Siberia (n=18) .............................................. 61 S2.2.3.13.1 Potroshilovo II cemetery, Russia (n=3) ....................................................................... 62 S2.2.3.13.2 Ust-Bir IV cemetery, Russia (n=3) .............................................................................. 62 S2.2.3.13.3 Chumysh-Perekat-1 cemetery (n=1) ............................................................................ 63 S2.2.3.13.4 Orak burial place, Russia (n=11) ................................................................................. 63 S2.2.3.14 Priobrazhenka 3, Russia (n=1) ........................................................................................ 65 S2.2.3.15 Srubnaya culture, Samara Steppes, Samara oblast, Russia (n=1) ................................... 66 S2.2.3.16 Solyanka Vodokhranilische, western Kazakhstan (n=1) ................................................ 67 S2.2.3.17 Aktogai, Kazakhstan (n=5) ............................................................................................. 67 S2.2.3.18 Kazakh Mys, Kazakhstan (n=4) ...................................................................................... 69 S2.2.3.19 Dashti-Kozy, Tajikistan (n=3) ........................................................................................ 71 S2.2.3.20 Kokcha 3, Kokcha, Uzbekistan (n=3) ............................................................................. 72 S2.2.3.21 Oy-Dzhaylau III, Kazakhstan, (n=7) ............................................................................... 73 S2.2.3.22 Taldysay, Central Kazakhstan (n=2) ............................................................................... 75 S2.2.3.23 Talapty II, South Kazakhstan (n=1) ................................................................................ 76 S2.2.3.24 Kashkarchi Burial Mound, Ferghana Province, Uzbekistan (n=2) ................................. 77 S2.2.3.25 Bylkyldak, Central Kazakhstan (n=1) ............................................................................. 79 S2.2.3.26 Shoendykol, Baianaul District, Pavlodar Region, Eastern Kazakhstan (n=3) ................ 79 S2.2.4 Sites from the Steppe Zone in the LBA .................................................................................... 81 S2.2.4.1 Chanchar, Kazakhstan (n=2) ................................................................................................ 81 S2.2.4.2 Georgievsky Bugor, Kazakhstan (n=2) ............................................................................... 82 S2.2.4.3 Guruldek, Kazakhstan (n=1) ................................................................................................ 82 S2.2.4.4 Priobrazhenka 3, Russia (n=1) ............................................................................................. 83 S2.2.4.5 Zevakinskiy stone fence, Kazakhstan (n=8) ........................................................................ 83 S2.2.4.6 Tasbas, Byan Zherek (n=3) .................................................................................................. 87 S2.2.4.7 Malaya Krasnoyarka, Ul’ken Narym, Katon Karagai, East Kazakhstan (n=1) ................... 88 S2.2.4.8 Myrzhyk, Kazakhstan (n=1) ................................................................................................ 88 S2.3 Sites from Iran/Turan ........................................................................................................ 88 S2.3.1 Sites from Mesolithic Iran/Turan .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strange Grooves in the Pennines, United Kingdom
    Rock Art Research 2016 - Volume 33, Number 1, pp. 000-000. D. SHEPHERD and F. JOLLEY KEYWORDS: Groove – Gritstone – Pennine – Anthropogenic marking – Petroglyph STRANGE GROOVES IN THE PENNINES, UNITED KINGDOM David Shepherd and Frank Jolley Abstract. This paper presents an account of grooved markings found on sandstone surfaces in the Pennine upland of Yorkshire, United Kingdom, of other single examples in Scotland and the U.S.A., and of numerous unsuccessful attempts to secure an archaeological or geological explanation for them. Of particular interest are the cases where cupules and grooves appear in juxtaposition. There is a concluding discussion of some aspects which may inform a practical aetiology. Introduction of grooved surfaces have been found in around 600 The South Pennines comprise a dissected plateau square kilometres of South Pennine upland. rising to over 400 m, underlain by Namurian rocks of The Quarmby archive (WYAAS n.d.) contained a the Millstone Grit series of the Carboniferous period, in partial reference to a similar feature found on Orkney a gentle, anticlinal form; the area did not bear moving (Fig. 8). ice during the Late Devensian (final Pleistocene). The The Orkney example was found during peat- outcrops tend to fringe the upland edges. cutting at Drever’s Slap on Eday and was reported to During fieldwork to locate and record examples of the RCHAMS and subsequently placed on the Orkney rock art (Shepherd and Jolley 2011) a number of features Historic Monuments Record (RCHAMS 1981). A were identified that did not fit within the conventional site visit by D. Fraser, Department of Archaeology, canon of rock art (Figs 1 to 4).
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing Human Networks In
    TRACING HUMAN NETWORKS IN PREHISTORIC BALTIC EUROPE : THE INFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF KRZYZ 7 AND DABKI 9 (POLAND) PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON BONE AND ANTLER WORKED MATERIAL Eva David To cite this version: Eva David. TRACING HUMAN NETWORKS IN PREHISTORIC BALTIC EUROPE : THE IN- FORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF KRZYZ 7 AND DABKI 9 (POLAND) PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON BONE AND ANTLER WORKED MATERIAL. [Research Report] Polish Academy of Sciences. 2007. hal-03285349 HAL Id: hal-03285349 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03285349 Submitted on 13 Jul 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. SCIENTIFIC REPORT – PRELIMINARY RESULTS TRACING HUMAN NETWORKS IN PREHISTORIC BALTIC EUROPE : THE INFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF KRZYZ 7 AND DABKI 9 (POLAND) PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON BONE AND ANTLER WORKED MATERIAL Eva DAVID* Recent archaeological investigations in Poland, at the Krzyz 7 and the Dabki 9 archaeological sites, open discussion about presence or extend of human networks in the Baltic Europe at the both 9th and 5th millenium BC. By networks, it is meant here transports or transferts of goods, ideas or technology that can possibly be highlighted by archaeological studies, by means of reconstructing human behaviours.
    [Show full text]
  • Germanic Origins from the Perspective of the Y-Chromosome
    Germanic Origins from the Perspective of the Y-Chromosome By Michael Robert St. Clair A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy in German in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Irmengard Rauch, Chair Thomas F. Shannon Montgomery Slatkin Spring 2012 Abstract Germanic Origins from the Perspective of the Y-Chromosome by Michael Robert St. Clair Doctor of Philosophy in German University of California, Berkeley Irmengard Rauch, Chair This dissertation holds that genetic data are a useful tool for evaluating contemporary models of Germanic origins. The Germanic languages are a branch of the Indo-European language family and include among their major contemporary representatives English, German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and Icelandic. Historically, the search for Germanic origins has sought to determine where the Germanic languages evolved, and why the Germanic languages are similar to and different from other European languages. Both archaeological and linguist approaches have been employed in this research direction. The linguistic approach to Germanic origins is split among those who favor the Stammbaum theory and those favoring language contact theory. Stammbaum theory posits that Proto-Germanic separated from an ancestral Indo-European parent language. This theoretical approach accounts for similarities between Germanic and other Indo- European languages by posting a period of mutual development. Germanic innovations, on the other hand, occurred in isolation after separation from the parent language. Language contact theory posits that Proto-Germanic was the product of language convergence and this convergence explains features that Germanic shares with other Indo-European languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguapax Review 2010 Linguapax Review 2010
    LINGUAPAX REVIEW 2010 MATERIALS / 6 / MATERIALS Col·lecció Materials, 6 Linguapax Review 2010 Linguapax Review 2010 Col·lecció Materials, 6 Primera edició: febrer de 2011 Editat per: Amb el suport de : Coordinació editorial: Josep Cru i Lachman Khubchandani Traduccions a l’anglès: Kari Friedenson i Victoria Pounce Revisió dels textos originals en anglès: Kari Friedenson Revisió dels textos originals en francès: Alain Hidoine Disseny i maquetació: Monflorit Eddicions i Assessoraments, sl. ISBN: 978-84-15057-12-3 Els continguts d’aquesta publicació estan subjectes a una llicència de Reconeixe- ment-No comercial-Compartir 2.5 de Creative Commons. Se’n permet còpia, dis- tribució i comunicació pública sense ús comercial, sempre que se’n citi l’autoria i la distribució de les possibles obres derivades es faci amb una llicència igual a la que regula l’obra original. La llicència completa es pot consultar a: «http://creativecom- mons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/es/deed.ca» LINGUAPAX REVIEW 2010 Centre UNESCO de Catalunya Barcelona, 2011 4 CONTENTS PRESENTATION Miquel Àngel Essomba 6 FOREWORD Josep Cru 8 1. THE HISTORY OF LINGUAPAX 1.1 Materials for a history of Linguapax 11 Fèlix Martí 1.2 The beginnings of Linguapax 14 Miquel Siguan 1.3 Les débuts du projet Linguapax et sa mise en place 17 au siège de l’UNESCO Joseph Poth 1.4 FIPLV and Linguapax: A Quasi-autobiographical 23 Account Denis Cunningham 1.5 Defending linguistic and cultural diversity 36 1.5 La defensa de la diversitat lingüística i cultural Fèlix Martí 2. GLIMPSES INTO THE WORLD’S LANGUAGES TODAY 2.1 Living together in a multilingual world.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Iranian Nomads in Western Central Asia
    ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 ANCIENT IRANIAN NOMADS IN. 1 ANCIENT IRANIAN NOMADS IN WESTERN CENTRAL ASIA* A. Abetekov and H. Yusupov Contents Literary sources on the ancient Iranian nomads of Central Asia ............ 25 Society and economy of the Iranian nomads of Central Asia .............. 26 Culture of the Iranian nomads of Central Asia ..................... 29 The territory of Central Asia, which consists of vast expanses of steppe-land, desert and semi-desert with fine seasonal pastures, was destined by nature for the development of nomadic cattle-breeding. Between the seventh and third centuries b.c. it was inhabited by a large number of tribes, called Scythians by the Greeks, and Sakas by the Persians. The history of the Central Asian nomads is inseparable from that of the nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe zone. Their political and economic life was closely linked, and their material culture had much in common. It should also be noted that, despite their distinctive qualities, the nomadic tribes were closely connected with the agricultural population of Central Asia. In fact, the history and movements of these nomadic tribes and the settled population cannot be considered in isolation; each had its impact on the other, and this interdependence must be properly understood. * See Map 1. 24 ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Literary sources on the ancient Iranian. Literary sources on the ancient Iranian nomads of Central Asia The term ‘Tura’¯ 1 is the name by which the Central Asian nomadic tribes were in one of the earliest parts of the Avesta. The Turas¯ are portrayed as enemies of the sedentary Iranians and described, in Yašt XVII (prayer to the goddess Aši), 55–6, as possessing fleet-footed horses.2 As early as 641 or 640 b.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Test-Booklet
    Test No: 2 Date: 12.01.2019 Max. Marks: 250 Max. Time 3 Hours ANTHROPOLOGY- ALL INDIA TEST SERIES ARCHEOLOGY, GENERAL ANTHROPOLOGY PAPER-1, CHAPTERS- 1.1 to 1.8 & PAPER-2, CHAPTERS- 1.1 to 1.3 KEY 1a. Visual Anthropology • Visual anthropologists look at the visual aspects of a culture, such as art and media, and are also interested in how anthropological data can be represented visually, • Visual anthropologists are concerned with both the visual aspects of culture and using media to present data visually. • study a wide range of cultural aspects, including art, dance, ritual, jewelry, body adornments; also intersects with archaeology in the study of prehistoric art, such as cave paintings • Visual anthropology is a subfield of social anthropology that is concerned, in part, with the study and production of ethnographic photography, film and, since the mid-1990s, new media. More recently it has been used by historians of science and visual culture. • study of all visual representations such as dance and other kinds of performance, museums and archiving, all visual arts, and the production and reception of mass media. • research topics include sand paintings, tattoos, sculptures and reliefs, cave paintings, scrimshaw, jewelry, hieroglyphics, paintings and photographs • Displaying data visually presents unique advantages that aren't always found through writing. For example, something as detailed and visually-focused as a dance is easily conveyed through a video, where the viewer can get a sometimes stronger sense of the experience • So-called "collecting clubs" included the British anthropologists Edward Burnett Tylor, Alfred Cort Haddon, and Henry Balfour, who exchanged and shared photographs as part of an attempt to document and classify ethnographic "races." • Bateson and Mead took more than 25,000 photos while conducting research in Bali, and published 759 photographs to support and develop their ethnographic observations.
    [Show full text]
  • NARTAMONGЖ 2013 Vol. Х, N 1, 2 F. R. ALLCHIN ARCHEOLOGICAL and LANGUAGE-HISTORICAL EVIDENCE for the MOVEMENT of INDO
    NARTAMONGÆ 2013 Vol. Х, N 1, 2 F. R. ALLCHIN ARCHEOLOGICAL AND LANGUAGE-HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF INDO-ARYAN SPEAKING PEOPLES INTO SOUTH ASIA The present Symposium serves a useful purpose in focusing our attention upon the difficulties encountered in recognising the movements of peoples from archeological evidence. One of the reassuring aspects of the broad inter- national approach which is experienced in such a gathering is that it serves to show the common nature of the problems that confront us in trying to re- construct the movements of the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, whether in the South-Russian steppes or the steppes of Kazakhstan; the Caucasus or the southern parts of Middle Asia properly speaking; or in Iran, Afghanistan, Pa- kistan or India. Perhaps this is why there were recurrent themes in several pa- pers, and why echoes of what I was trying to express appeared also in the pa- pers of others, notably in those of B. A. Litvinsky and Y. Y. Kuzmina. In particular, there seems to be a need for a general hypothesis or model for these movements. Such a model must be inter-disciplinary, combining the more limited models derivable from archeological, historical, linguistic, anth- ropological and other categories of data. Strictly speaking, the several hypo- theses derived from each of these categories should first be formulated inde- pendently, and then as a second stage they should be systematically compared to one another. Only when there do not appear to be serious contradictions be- tween them should they be regarded as ready for incorporation into the general model.
    [Show full text]
  • 1557 the Impact of Holocene Climate on the Development
    RADIOCARBON, Vol 52, Nr 4, 2010, p 1557–1569 © 2010 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona THE IMPACT OF HOLOCENE CLIMATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES IN SOUTHERN SIBERIA Marianna Kulkova Department of Geology and Geoecology, Radiocarbon Lab, State Herzen Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg, Russia. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]. Sergey Krasnienko Institute for the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg, Russia. ABSTRACT. Geochemical data of 10Be, 14C, 18O obtained from natural archives (tree rings, ice sheets, varves, corals) indi- cates that the climate during the Holocene was not stable. The cosmogenic isotope fluctuations are bound by the periodicity on solar activity and climatic changes. The sharpest and most abrupt climatic deteriorations are registered in the Early and Middle Holocene at 8200, 5800, 5400, 4300, and 2800 cal BP. These events are characterized by cold conditions. The impact of climate on human communities in steppe depressions in southern Siberia (Nazarovo, Minusinsk, and Turano-Uyuk) was noticeable. The differences of local landscape-climatic conditions in these depressions were connected with global climatic changes to determine the processes of occupation, development, and migrations of ancient societies during the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. The chronology of archaeological cultures was also correlated with the local and global climatic changes during the Early and Middle Holocene in southern Siberia. Here, we generalize the literature data about Holocene cli- matic changes and archaeological cultures in the southern Siberia region. INTRODUCTION Climatic fluctuations influenced the development of prehistoric societies. The Holocene period had one of the most favorable climates in human history.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Horse Bridle with Cheekpieces As a Marker of Social Change: an Experimental and Statistical Study T
    Journal of Archaeological Science 97 (2018) 125–136 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jas Early horse bridle with cheekpieces as a marker of social change: An experimental and statistical study T ∗ Igor V. Chechushkova, , Andrei V. Epimakhovb,c, Andrei G. Bersenevd a Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, 3302 WWPH, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA b Research Educational Centre for Eurasian Research, South Ural State University, Lenina av., 76, Chelyabinsk, 454000, Russia c Institute of History and Archaeology of the Ural Branch of RAS, Kovalevskaya st., 16, Ekaterinburg, 620990, Russia d Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for Chelyabinsk Region, 3rd International st., 116, Chelyabinsk, 454000, Russia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The morphological similarities/dissimilarities between antler and bone-made cheekpieces have been employed Cheekpieces in several studies to construct a relative chronology for Bronze Age Eurasia. Believed to constitute a part of the Chariot horse bit, the cheekpieces appear in ritual contexts everywhere from the Mycenaean Shaft Graves to the Bronze Bronze age Age kurgan cemeteries in Siberia. However, these general understandings of the function and morphological Experimental archaeology changes of cheekpieces have never been rigorously tested. This paper presents statistical analyses (e.g., simi- Use-wear larities, multidimensional scaling, and cluster analysis) that document differences in cheekpiece morphology, comparing shield-like, plate-formed, and rod-shaped types in the context of temporal change and spatial var- iation. We investigated changes in function over time through the use of experimental replicas used in bridling horses.
    [Show full text]
  • M. Witzel (2003) Sintashta, BMAC and the Indo-Iranians. a Query. [Excerpt
    M. Witzel (2003) Sintashta, BMAC and the Indo-Iranians. A query. [excerpt from: Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia] (to appear in : Sino-Platonic Papers 129) Transhumance, Trickling in, Immigration of Steppe Peoples There is no need to underline that the establishment of a BMAC substrate belt has grave implications for the theory of the immigration of speakers of Indo-Iranian languages into Greater Iran and then into the Panjab. By and large, the body of words taken over into the Indo-Iranian languages in the BMAC area, necessarily by bilingualism, closes the linguistic gap between the Urals and the languages of Greater Iran and India. Uralic and Yeneseian were situated, as many IIr. loan words indicate, to the north of the steppe/taiga boundary of the (Proto-)IIr. speaking territories (§2.1.1). The individual IIr. languages are firmly attested in Greater Iran (Avestan, O.Persian, Median) as well as in the northwestern Indian subcontinent (Rgvedic, Middle Vedic). These materials, mentioned above (§2.1.) and some more materials relating to religion (Witzel forthc. b) indicate an early habitat of Proto- IIr. in the steppes south of the Russian/Siberian taiga belt. The most obvious linguistic proofs of this location are the FU words corresponding to IIr. Arya "self-designation of the IIr. tribes": Pre-Saami *orja > oarji "southwest" (Koivulehto 2001: 248), ārjel "Southerner", and Finnish orja, Votyak var, Syry. ver "slave" (Rédei 1986: 54). In other words, the IIr. speaking area may have included the S. Ural "country of towns" (Petrovka, Sintashta, Arkhaim) dated at c.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Tell a Cromlech from a Quoit ©
    How to tell a cromlech from a quoit © As you might have guessed from the title, this article looks at different types of Neolithic or early Bronze Age megaliths and burial mounds, with particular reference to some well-known examples in the UK. It’s also a quick overview of some of the terms used when describing certain types of megaliths, standing stones and tombs. The definitions below serve to illustrate that there is little general agreement over what we could classify as burial mounds. Burial mounds, cairns, tumuli and barrows can all refer to man- made hills of earth or stone, are located globally and may include all types of standing stones. A barrow is a mound of earth that covers a burial. Sometimes, burials were dug into the original ground surface, but some are found placed in the mound itself. The term, barrow, can be used for British burial mounds of any period. However, round barrows can be dated to either the Early Bronze Age or the Saxon period before the conversion to Christianity, whereas long barrows are usually Neolithic in origin. So, what is a megalith? A megalith is a large stone structure or a group of standing stones - the term, megalith means great stone, from two Greek words, megas (meaning: great) and lithos (meaning: stone). However, the general meaning of megaliths includes any structure composed of large stones, which include tombs and circular standing structures. Such structures have been found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North and South America and may have had religious significance. Megaliths tend to be put into two general categories, ie dolmens or menhirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ulug-Depe and the Transition Period from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Central Asia
    Ulug-depe and the transition period from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Central Asia. A tribute to V.I. Sarianidi Johanna Lhuillier To cite this version: Johanna Lhuillier. Ulug-depe and the transition period from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Central Asia. A tribute to V.I. Sarianidi . Dubova, N.A., Antonova, E.V., Kozhin, P.M., Kosarev, M.F., Muradov, R.G., Sataev, R.M. & Tishkin A.A. Transactions of Margiana Archaeological Expedition, To the memory of Professor Viktor Sarianidi, 6, Staryj Sad, pp.509-521, 2016, 978-5-89930-150-6. halshs-01534928 HAL Id: halshs-01534928 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01534928 Submitted on 8 Jun 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. N.N. MIKLUKHO-MAKLAY INSTITUTE OF ETHNOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY OF RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES MARGIANA ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION ALTAY STATE UNIVERSITY TRANSACTIONS OF MARGIANA ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION Volume 6 To the Memory of Professor Victor Sarianidi Editorial board N.A. Dubova (editor in chief), E.V. Antonova, P.M. Kozhin, M.F. Kosarev, R.G. Muradov, R.M. Sataev, A.A. Tishkin Moscow 2016 Туркменистан, Гонур-депе, 9 октября 2005 г.
    [Show full text]