<<

Ancient Civilizations from to 24 (2018) 307-330 brill.com/acss

A General Revision of the of the Tagisken North Burial Ground

Gian Luca Bonora* ismeo [email protected]

Abstract

The burial ground of Tagisken North, characterised by seven monumental mau- solea and other adjoining structures made of mud brick and rammed earth, was excavated and studied by members of the “Khorezm Expedition” (KhAEE) in the 60’s and dated to the beginning of the 1st BC (9th-8th BC). This cemetery boasts a significant amount of artefacts pertaining to the Late Andronovo period. In light of new archaeological findings and recent chronological refinements, and thanks to improved scientific cooperation within the academic world, greater accu- racy in determining the chronology of cultures through abundant and better research standards, the has now come for a general revision of the chronology of this burial ground. The radiocarbon sequence for the is notably a subject of heated debate, due to the wide range of . The differences between the chronological frames of Central proposed by Russian-Central Asian and foreign archaeologists are considerable. Calibrated dates have, of course, extended the tradi- tional leading to alternative “high” , i.e. 300-500 earlier than the traditional chronologies based on cross-cultural analogies and formal com- parisons. Steppe and Pre-Aral materials may now be unquestionably linked to artefacts from Middle Asia. In the best of circumstances, the latter may in turn be linked to historical chronologies established for the Ancient Near and Middle East. In light of this evidence, this paper proposes that the northern part of the Tagisken plateau was used as a burial ground as far back as the mid-2nd millennium BC, if not earlier, and continued to be used as such until the 13th BC.

* Via Masi 360, 44124 Ferrara.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700577-12341334Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 308 Bonora

Keywords

Tagisken North Burial Ground – Andronovo Cultural Complex – Begazy Dandibay culture – Oxus Civilisation – hub-site

The Plateau of Tagisken (44°15’55” N; 63°39’46” E) is located in the mid Syr- Darya delta, where the two of its main branches (the Zhana-Darya and the Inkar-Darya) meet, about 160 km from the city of Orda as the crow flies. In 1959 S.P. Tolstov discovered two graveyards, set a mere 200 m apart, on this plateau: the first in the northern part of the upland (Tagisken North) and the in its southern part (Tagisken South). Both areas were excavated by M.A. Itina between 1960 and 1963. The digs revealed outstanding monuments attesting the advanced building techniques and exquisite funerary architecture of the ancient stockbreeders of the region east of the . Unfortunately, most of the graves had already been plundered.1 In the northern half of the cemetery (Tagisken North), seven monumen- tal Late Bronze funerary buildings were excavated (so called mausolea). Nine more barrows (), as well as some rectangular and round-shaped mud brick buildings, and two rectangular earthen enclosures were also dis- covered nearby.2 The archaeologists S.P. Tolstov, M.A. Itina and L. Yablonskiï

1 Tolstov 1962a; 1962b; Tolstov et alii 1963; Itina & Yablonskiï 1997; 2001. 2 Such analogous rectangular or quadrangular earthen enclosures were also recognised on the Sengir Tam plateau and they were one of the main objectives of the IAEK (Italian Archae- ological Expedition in ) research in the Syr-Darya delta. One of them, labelled SNG 3-4, was partly excavated in the 2008 fall (Beardmore et alii 2008) and some others were singled out both on a plateau between Chirik Rabat and Sengir Tam and near the funerary barrow covered by slags of Kyzyl Depe, in the Balandy district. Very similar structures were identified by K.F. Smirnov and S.A. Popov in the burial ground of Shikhany, near the vil- lage of Lipovka, in the southern region (Smirnov & Popov 1968; 1969; Moshkova et alii 1967). Unfortunately, the archaeological evidences gathered on the surface of these enclo- sures (Itina 1984) and during the IAEK excavation were so scanty that it is not possible to advance concrete hypothesis about their function (possibly, a corral or fence, i.e. a closed by a palisade in reeds) and their chronology. Usually, these structures are found in association with sites of the second half of the 1st millennium BC, however their presence on the plateau of Tagisken North, close by mausoleums of the Late , seems to suggest a more earlier chronological attribution. This hypothesis finds some support in the discovery made by the writer some years ago of few potsherds of incised coarse ware on the surface of the SNG 3-4 enclosure. Later on, the structure SNG 3-4 was partially covered and consequently destroyed by a funerary barrow of the Chirik Rabat culture (second half of the 1st millennium BC).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 309 dated these funerary structures to the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.3 Their assessment was exclusively based on comparisons between pottery types and decorative patterns documented in other sites which had been previously excavated across . This chronological hypothesis put forth by the former excavators has been uncritically supported by A. Askarov and E.E. Kuz’mina4 and, more recently, Zh. Kurmankulov and other scholars repeatedly attributed the North Tagisken structures to the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.5 Only one C14 pertaining to Mausoleum 6 has been published.6 Charcoal sample LE-309 provided a radiocarbon determination of 2430±200 b.p., while the calibrated date with 1Ʃ range was 780-540 BC and calibrated date with 2Ʃ range was 950-450 BC. In my opinion, this result has never been adequately taken into account: according to this dating Tagisken North is more recent than the funerary barrow of Arzhan 1.7 The absence of animal- arte- facts at Tagisken is significant in this regard. Arzhan 1 marks the beginning of the in the and documents the oldest, or one of the oldest kurgans pertaining to the Sakā culture in Eurasia.8 Artefacts, tools and instru- ments shaped in animal-style were not found in Tagisken North, which must therefore be older than Arzhan 1. In my opinion, the C14 date published in relation to Mausoleum 6 of Tagisken North is either incorrect or the sample was contaminated. This paper focuses on the site of Tagisken North and its chronological attri- bution which, in light of recent excavations and research in Central and Middle Asia, is in need of refinement. Tagisken North was a very important site of the transitional period between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age. Its material culture and funerary architectural features highlight various cultural compo- nents which were prevalent in the steppe communities of the western and eastern Eurasian expanse (Srubnaya and Andronovo complexes), in the large cattle-breeder societies of the southern Ural region, as well as in the farming civilisation of the southern part of (the so-called BMAC or Oxus Civilisation).

3 Tolstov 1962a; 1962b; Tolstov et alii 1963, 3-90; Itina & Yablonskiï 2001. 4 Askarov 1992; Kuz’mina 2007. 5 Kurmankulov et alii 2007. 6 Hall 1997. 7 A pooled date from the analysis of three samples (LE-2312, LE-2310, LE-2311) gave a radiocar- bon determination of 2773±28 b.p., while the calibrated date with 1Ʃ range was 950-840 BC and calibrated date with 2Ʃ range was 1000-800 BC (Hall 1997). 8 Hall 1997; Zaitseva et alii 2007.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 310 Bonora

Thus, it appears that North Tagisken was a very important “hub-site” for the diffusion of ideas, technologies and material, chiefly between the north and the south, during the Late Bronze Age. came about through cultural contacts between the northern steppes and the southern valleys and highlands in association with certain innovative features. These innovations include the first use of mud bricks in architecture, the first wheel-thrown pottery north of the Amu-Darya river (documented in Mausoleum 6), the presence of brick columns in the inner corners of rectangular and square rooms suggesting hemispherical roofing, corridors and the entrances9 with arc-shaped vaults, and moreover the first and silver artefacts found in Central Asia.10 Thus a unique and distinctive, local cultural world, which would influence most of the art and architecture of Central Asia from classical Antiquity through to the high and late mediaeval period, came to be. Furthermore, most of the features of the funerary ritual, which would later become typical characters of the Sakā culture east of the Aral Sea, are found at Tagisken North. These features include: burning of the burial ground before the construction of the funerary structure; the burial structure itself, includ- ing the wooden roof placed over the burial chamber after the internment of the dead bodies; the square plan of the grave surrounded by a circle or con- centric post holes; the presence of gaps in the circular line of the post holes or recessed post holes indicating the place of access to the burial chamber; post holes in the corners of the burial chambers; reeds, bark and wooden branches used to cover the burial chamber as well as the floor around the burial cham- ber; presence of platforms (altars or tables), surrounded by a rectangular channel excavated in the ground; the positioning of the walls oriented to the north or with an inclination of few degrees; and lastly the presence of food offerings in the funerary structures, represented by parts of animals, but never by whole animal bodies.11 The fact that animal style artefacts – the art form characterised by highly stylised animal motifs merged with abstract elements, typical of the mobile communities of the 1st millennium BC throughout the whole of Eurasia – are not documented at Tagisken North, is particularly noteworthy. This is a

9 In other words, the first use of the pendentive (a triangular segment of a spherical surface, filling in the upper corners of a room, in order to form, at the top, a circular support for a dome) is here attested. 10 Gold and cornelian beads as well as massive gold rings have been found in the funerary complex number 5b, while in Mausoleum 6 only some fragment of gold have been found; in both mausolea female individuals were buried and cremated. 11 Vishnevskaya 1973; Itina & Yablonskiï 1997; Vaïnberg & Levina 1993; Kurmankulov et alii 2005; 2006; 2007; Kurmankulov & Utubaev 2016.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 311 particularly telling absence, from a historical and chronological point of view: Tagisken North may be considered a pre-Sakā cemetery, older than Arzhan I, where the earliest animal-style artefacts were brought to light by S.I. Rudenko. All these factors combined seem to infer a small chronological gap between the burial ground of Tagisken North and both the earliest Sakā barrow of Arzhan I and the early Sakā necropolis of the lower Syr-Darya and surround- ing regions such as Tagisken south, Uïgarak and Sakar-Chaga.

1 Chronology in Central Asia

Improved scientific cooperation, greater accuracy in determining the chro- nology of Steppe cultures through abundant radiocarbon dating, and better research standards12 in my opinion support a general revision of the chronol- ogy of the site of Tagisken North. Thus I wish to suggest that the plateau was exploited as far back as the middle of the 2nd millennium BC and not since the beginning of the 1st millennium BC as previously put forth by Itina and Yablonskiï, an idea more recently supported by other authors.13 The origins, regional variants and, in particular, the chronology of the Andronovo cultural complex have long been a subject of debate. Disparities between radiocarbon dating and traditional forms of have been central to the discussion. Now, thanks to new calibrated radiocarbon dating of steppe materials it may be unquestionably linked to artefacts from the and southern Central Asia (or Middle Asia). On the whole, the latter may be consequently linked to historical chronologies established for Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and the , generally speaking. In fact, recent research and fieldwork carried out in southern , , and suggests the “Middle Asian line of syn- chronisation”, based upon clusters of radiocarbon dating recently carried out on sites across the Indo-Iranian borderlands, as a useful foundation of an accepted chronology of the , from the to the Tyan Shan Mountain and beyond. Furthermore, the synchronisation between Middle Asian Bronze age complexes and the Eurasian Steppe cultures is based

12 Görsdorf et alii 1998; 2001; Zaitseva et alii 2004; Kircho & Popov 2005, 528-539; Epimakov 2007; Kuz’mina 2007, 467-476; Hanks et alii 2007; Koryakova & Epimakhov 2007; Bonora & Vidale 2008; Salvatori 2008; Panyushkina et alii 2008; Svyatko et alii 2009; Panyushkina et alii 2010; Molodin et alii 2011; Molodin et alii 2012; Epimakhov & Krause 2013; Molodin et alii 2014. 13 Itina 1992, 51; Itina & Yablonskiï 2001.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 312 Bonora upon factual evidence implying trans-regional interaction and technological transfer rooted in the prehistoric : – The discovery of and beads, of Afghan origin and Oxus Civilisation manufacture, in Sintashta14 and in other Bronze Age sites such as Alabuga, Ushkatta, Keembay, Ural-Saj, Aksayman, Borovoe, Nurtai, Rostovka, Sopka 2, located from the Urals to Siberia.15 – Oxus type vessels, imported from the south or imitating southern manu- facture, found in the settlement of Ustye16 and Shagalaly II (or Pavlovka), in stratigraphic association with Fedorovo and Alekseevka (or Dandybay) pottery.17 – An Oxus pot-stand (podstavka) in fine ware engraved with a typical Middle Asia potter’s mark (a trident) found in the settlement of Shagalaly II.18 – A mirror with an Oxus (Bactrian) type handle at the Krasnoe Znamya burial mound.19 – A wire made of two braided strands, possibly an import from the Zeravshan valley, found among the metal objects in the settle- ment of Kuisak.20 – Namazga-type double spiral-headed pin heads found in the cemetery of Petropavlovsk in northern Kazakhstan,21 in funerary barrow 3 of the Ilekshar I burial ground, in the northern part of the Western Kazakhstan region,22 in funerary fence number 27 of the Balykty graveyard, in Central Kazakhstan23 and also in Ancient , represented by a mould casting from the Tazabag’yab culture settlement of Kokcha 15a.24 – The appearance of the stepped pyramid, stepped cross or crenellation pat- terns (a basic decorative element found on Namazga, , Seistan and Oxus pottery, woven textiles, jewellery, metalwork, and even in a mural painted on the early 3rd millennium BC palace wall at Tall-i Malyan in ) on 5% of the pots pertaining to Sintashta, Potapovka and Petrovka ceramic traditions.

14 Kuz’mina 1997; 2001, 20. 15 Matyushenko & Sinitsÿna 1988, 7; Kuz’mina 2007. 16 Vinogradov 1995. 17 Malyutina 1991. 18 Bonora forthcoming 2018. 19 Sungatov & Safin 1995; Kuz’mina 2001, 20. 20 Malyutina & Zdanovich 1995, 103. 21 Orazbaev 1958, 261, fig. 30.1; Akishev 1959, tab. VII; Kuz’mina 1966, 79; 2007, fig. 33, on the right side, without number; Agapov & Kadÿrbaev 1979, 61, figs. 7-8. 22 Bаïpakov et alii 2012; Bisembaev & Duïsengali 2013, 93 and 103. 23 Tkachev 2002, vol. II, 28; Usmanova 2010, 158, fig. 163, no. 2. 24 Itina 1977, 132-133, fig. 68, no. 1.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 313

– The bones of a horse and a horse-shaped pommel on a staff discovered on brick tombs in the Middle Bronze Age Gonur cemetery.25 The horse was an exotic animal at Gonur at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, likely originat- ing from the steppe as was the pottery found in a stratified, radiocarbon- dated midden in this same site.26 – Numerous mixed complexes in southern Turkmenistan, in Central Kazakhstan, in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan combining wheel-thrown ceram- ic pots of the Namazga VI period, hand-made pottery of the Fedorovo pot- tery tradition and Andronovo metal artefacts.27 – The archaeological survey performed by V.I. Sarianidi, E. Masimov and members of the Italo-Turkmen Joint Project in the Murghab Delta demon- strates that beginning in the Late Bronze Age, hundreds of small campsites, of which only three have been excavated28 so far, existed alongside Oxus urban centres marking the non-permanent occupations of a socially dis- tinct group of mobile pastoralists. – At the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (1800-1700 BC), Andronovo miners settled the Zeravshan valley and began to mine the rich deposits at Karnak.29 The following tables are based on a long yet, due to lack of space, incomplete list of evidence of close interactions between the north and the south. They highlight the approximate chronological position of the horizons Namazga V and VI, together with the chronological framework of reference for the Early Andronovo, Andronovo and Late Andronovo cultures widespread between southern, central and northern Kazakhstan.30

Middle, Late and Final Bronze Age in southern Central Asia:

Namazga V (MBA): c. 2400-1950 BC Namazga VI (LBA - Taip – Sapalli phase): c. 1950-1780 BC Namazga VI (LBA – Gonur – Djarkutan phase): c. 1780-1600 BC Namazga VI (LBA - – Kuzali phase): c. 1600-1450 BC

25 Sarianidi 2002; Salvatori 2003; Kohl 2007, 197-198. 26 Hiebert 1994, 61-62. 27 Kadÿrbaev & Kurmankulov 1992, 231; P’yankova 1994; 1998; Vinogradova 1994; Avanesova 1996; Kuz’mina & Vinogradova 1996; Bobomulloev 1997; Kuz’mina 1997; Evdokimov & Var- folomeev 2002, 57; Gubaev et alii 1998; Salvatori 2003; Salvatori & Tosi 2008; Varfolomeev 2011. 28 Sarianidi 1975; Kuz’mina & Lyapin 1994; Cattani 2004; 2008a; 2008b; Hiebert & Moore 2004; Joint Project 2006; Rouse & Cerasetti 2014. 29 Parzinger & Boroffka 2003. 30 Modified after Salvatori 2004, 94; 2008, 76, fig. 6.1; Frachetti 2012.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 314 Bonora

Namazga VI (FBA – Takhirbay 3 phase): c. 1450-1350/1300 BC Yaz I (EIA): c. 1350/1300-1000 BC

Middle and Late Bronze Age, and Early Iron Age across the Eurasian Steppe:

Sintashta – period: c. 2200-1800 BC Petrovka culture (Andronovo Period): c. 1900-1750 BC Alakul’ culture: c. 1750-1600 BC Fedorovo (Nura culture): c. 1700-1550 BC Sargary-Alekseevka culture (Valikovaya pottery): c. 1600-1400/1300 BC Begazy-Dandibay culture: c. 1500-1100 BC : c. 1400-1100 BC : c. 1400-1000 BC Karasuk culture (Kamennolozhkaya facies): c. 1150-900 BC Late Irmen culture: c. 1000-800 BC Final Andronovo Period (Dongal culture): c. 1100-900 BC Tasmola culture (EIA): c. 900-700 BC

The area of the plateau of Tagisken has been closed to foreigners for the last twelve years. Therefore, I was unable to organise a small excavation at the site in order to obtain some organic material and provide AMS analysis for chronological purposes. In this paper I will however attempt a new chronologi- cal attribution of Tagisken North based on the comparisons between pottery shapes, decorative motifs on the ceramic vessels and analogies between metal artefacts with other sites of the Eurasian expanse where radiocarbon dating has been recently carried out in association with significant excavations per- formed with a modern, stratigraphic method.

2 Comparisons with Central Kazakhstan

There are significant analogies between certain pottery shapes found in the mud brick mausoleums of Tagisken North and those from the stone mausole- ums of Aybas Darasy31 and Begazy.32 The pottery in question consists of small jars with S-shaped wall profile, decorated both by a frieze of large cross-hatched

31 Margulan 1979, 135-147, fig. 108, 2, 4; 109, 1-4; 110, 2; Kurmankulov & Ishangaly 2007; 2008. 32 Margulan 1979, 69-101, fig. 63, 2, 4.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 315 triangles descending down the shoulder line of the vessels33 and by groups of three small button-shaped appliqués.34 Begazy, located near Aktogay, and Aybas Darasy, near Ulytau, are two typi- cal sites in the Dzhezkazgan area of Central Kazakhstan. According to the aforementioned new chronological framework they pertain to the Begazy Dandibay culture which date back to the second half of the 2nd millennium BC (1400-1100 BC). Strong analogies may also be drawn with the decorative motifs found on the pottery from two sites, Sangyru I35 and Myrzashoki,36 both located in Central Kazakhstan and both belonging to the early phase of the Begazy Dandibay culture (1500-1300 BC). This comparison concerns an incised or comb-stamped motif on the vessel body consisting of a series of horizon- tal lines hatched by rows of oblique segments, all facing the same direction, interspersed with empty sections.37 A very similar decorative pattern was also found in the site of Aybas Darasy,38 where the oblique segments are alternately aligned: a row is filled with segments aligned towards the left and the following row by segments toward the right. The site of Sangyru I is also relevant in relation to Tagisken North due to the presence of vessels decorated by small concentric double circles as well as of bottle-shaped vessels with a hemispherical body and high neck.39 The use of small concentric double circles in the burial grounds along the Inkar-Darya river is attested at least three ,40 while an elegant bottle- shaped pot represents the single find from funerary structure 7E.41 A decorative incised or comb-stamped schema consisting in large oblique triangles descending down the shoulder line of the pots presents a very inter- esting analogy. This motif is also at Tagisken North (in Mausoleum 6,

33 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 74, 429, 431, 434 (from the funerary structure 5ZH); 77, 465 (from the pit 5I); 90, 590, 591 (from Mausoleum 6); 100, 684 (from the funerary structure 7V). This decorative motive is wide spread at Tagisken North: see to this regard also fig. 43, 24; 44, 57; 46, 97, 99. 34 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 80, 490 (from the corridor of Mausoleum 6); 88, 578, 580 (from the burial chamber of Mausoleum 6). 35 Margulan 1979, 112-135, fig. 87. 36 Margulan 2001. 37 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 55, 228 (from the outer corridor of the Mausoleum 5A); 68, 360 (from the room 3 of the Mausoleum 5B); 104, 727 (from the funerary structure 7E). 38 Margulan 1979, fig. 111, 1, 2. 39 Margulan 1979, fig. 84. 40 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 71, 397 (from the funerary structure 5V); 73, 424 (from the funerary structure 5ZH); 96, 653 (from the inner corridor of the Mausoleum 7). 41 Itina &Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 104, 727.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 316 Bonora both in the corridor and the burial chamber),42 in the sites of Sarykol’, in funer- ary fence number 7,43 at Izmaylovka,44 as well as Karaoba (see hereafter). Sarykol’ is a site located in the Abay district of eastern Kazakhstan that dates back to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (1600-1450 BC). Located along the Kopa river, it is characterised by Begazy Dandibay as well as Sargary-Alekseev45 pottery. Another small jar with slightly everted rim, whose shoulder is deco- rated with alternating rectangular hatched by oblique lines, was also found at this site. A single specimen46 with this identical decorative motif was also documented at Tagisken North. One of the most important sites in the region of central Kazakhstan is Kent. Set in the depths of the Kyzylkent gorge, in the district of Karkaralin, it consists of a complex of large- and small-sized settlements situated near each other. The entire site complex covers an area of approximately 30 hectares47 and dates back to the middle and second half of the 2nd millennium BC. The material gathered from Kent is of outstanding importance: a large quantity of pottery, mainly belonging to the Begazy Dandibay cultural tradition, more than a hun- dred bronze tools and instruments, numerous bone artefacts, ornaments and tools and the earliest evidence of iron working, consisting of furnaces charac- terised by several air-ducts, were discovered here. The fragment of a narrow-necked grey ware jar characterised by an inner spout and decorated with a series of horizontal lines fashioned with a large comb-stamped tool was collected at the site and represents the sole exemplar of this kind of pottery shape found in Kent.48 A very similar find with an inner spout was found at Tagisken North, during the excavation of funerary structure 7V.49 However both fragments bear close analogies with a complete grey ware jar from the Sumbar I burial ground, located in the Sumbar valley in south- western Turkmenistan.50 In this case, the spout is not within the neck of the vessel, but outside it. According to the excavator I.N. Khlopin, this type of ves- sel was an import from the Iranian plateau. The Late Bronze Age graveyard of Sumbar I actually dates back to the 17th-16th centuries BC.

42 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 80, 491; 82, 506, 507; 83, 516, 517, 525; 94, 637. 43 Chernikov 1960; Beïsenov et alii 2014a, 64, photo 29, 7, fig. 28, 6. 44 Ermolaeva 2012, fig. 64, 1. 45 Beïsenov et alii 2014a, 62-67. 46 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 105, 754 (from the pit 7-IV, near the funerary structures 7). 47 Varfolomeev 2011; Beïsenov et alii 2014a, 82-142. 48 Varfolomeev 2013, fig. 4, 5. 49 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, 86, fig. 101, 695. 50 Khlopin 1983, 40, tab. IX, 14.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 317

A number of vessels from Tagisken North are small low jars with a hemi- spherical body, which is almost entirely adorned with small incisions, dog-tooth segments and S-shaped short lines.51 This is another decorative pattern, with several variants, typical of the Begazy Dandybai culture; it is documented as far as the final phase of the Andronovo culture in Central Kazakhstan, which is represented by the Dongal culture, dated between the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.52

3 Comparisons with Karaoba

The relationship between Tagisken North and Karaoba deserves special atten- tion. The site of Karaoba is located on a river terrace in the middle valley, about 18 km south-east of the village of Krivinka, in the district of Beskaragay in eastern Kazakhstan, approximately halfway between and (formerly Semipalatinsk). Karaoba and Tagisken are approximately 2.000 km apart, yet they share very strong and surprising analogies. The burial ground of Karaoba consist of two groups of burials: the first is composed of small-sized barrows of the Sakā period, while the second group by graves and four burnt brick structures.53 The excavation of funerary structure Mausoluem 1 – a brick mausoleum whose corners are positioned fac- ing the four cardinal points – was carried out in 2013 by V.K. Merts and other colleagues.54 A cluster of C14 dates was obtained from the organic material collected. Thus, it was established that Mausoleum 1 most likely dates back to 1400/1300 BC or 1250 BC. Hence, this mausoleum is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, which documents mud brick architecture in Central Asia. Moreover, it is highly probable that this mausoleum is contemporary to some of the funer- ary mausolea of Tagisken North. As a matter of fact, the Karaoba mausoleum has, from an architectural point of view, many similarities with the mausolea of the Begazy Dandibay culture as well as with those of Tagisken North, partic- ularly with Mausoleum 5-a. In fact, according to A.A. Tkachev Tagisken North may be considered the southernmost of the Begazy Dandybay culture sites.55

51 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 73, 427 (from the funerary structure 5ZH); 97, 655, 656 (from the inner corridor of Mausoleum 7); 106, 777 (from the Mausoleum 16). 52 Varfolomeev 2013, fig. 11, 6, 11, 12; 12, 4. 53 Merts 2006, 2013. 54 Merts 2013; 2016. 55 Tkachev 2002, 206.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 318 Bonora

However, the analogies between the necropolises of Tagisken North and Begazy Dandibay are even more stunning if we consider the pottery col- lected during the excavation: some pottery shapes and decorative motifs are identical. The first comparable pottery type found at both sites is the high-necked jar decorated by grooves on the neck and by an incised or comb-stamped schema consisting of large oblique triangles descending down the shoulder line of the pots.56 This ceramic class is documented four times in the Mausoleum 6 of Tagisken North.57 Another strong analogy consists of a class of hemispherical jars with medium-sized neck decorated by five to seven lines of grooves over the entire surface of their body. Two exemplars of this ceramic class were found at Karaoba,58 one at Izmaylovka,59 while this ceramic class is very widespread at Tagisken North.60 The same concept may be said regarding the class of hemispherical jars with medium-sized neck decorated by a single groove at the junction point between the neck and the body. One exemplar was discov- ered at Karaoba,61 while more than twenty62 were found at Tagisken North. The bodies of the four hemispherical jars from Izmaylovka are decorated with complex incised patterns.63

4 Comparisons with the Karasuk Culture

The parallels between the material culture from Tagisken North and artefacts from central Kazakhstan and eastern Kazakhstan are so strong and well- documented that these alone would suffice to establish a chronological posi- tion of Tagisken North in the third quarter of the 2nd millennium BC. However,

56 Beïsenov et alii 2014b, fig. 4, 7. 57 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 80, 491; 82, 506, 507; 83, 516, 517, 525; 94, 637. 58 Beïsenov et alii 2014b, fig. 4, 3, 5. 59 Ermolaeva 2012, colour photo 10, 5, fig. 63, 5. 60 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 64, 323, 324, 326, 327 (from the room 2 of the funerary structure 5B); 84, 531, 545 (from the burial chamber of Mausoleum 6); 86, 557, 562; 87, 570; 95, 641; 97, 658, 659 (from the walls and the inner corridor of Mausoleum 7). 61 Beïsenov et alii 2014b, fig. 4, 2. 62 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 42, 12, 13, 18 (from the inner corridor of Mausoleum 4); 55, 224 (the outer corridor of Mausoleum 5A); 63, 317; 64, 334; 68, 364 (from the rooms 2 and 3 of the funerary structure 5B); 85, 548, 553; 86, 555, 556, 558, 559, 561; 87, 566, 567, 568, 569, 572 (from the burial chamber of Mausoleum 6); 95, 642; 97, 657, 660 (from the walls and the inner corridor of Mausoleum 7). 63 Ermolaeva 2012, fig. 63, 1-4; colour photo 10, 1-3; 11, 2-4.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 319 in order to more firmly establish the chronological position of the Tagisken North burial grounds between the 15th and the 12th centuries BC, other analo- gies have been found and analysed. Thus, some comparisons may be made with the Karasuk culture prevalent in the Minusinsk Basin and dated between 1400 and 1100 BC may be presented. These analogies involve both bowls with S-shaped wall64 decorated by a frieze of cross-hatched triangles below the rim and horizontal rows of hatched triangles over the whole body,65 and small bowls66 decorated by large triangles along the wall of the pots, below the shoulder line.67 An earring with three cone-shaped gilded wooden pendants, discovered during the excavation of the funerary structure 7A of Tagisken North, bears further analogies with the Karasuk culture. A very similar artefact with trian- gular body and three pendants was found in tomb 1 of the Chazy cemetery.68

5 Tazabag’yab and Amirabad Evidence at Tagisken North

About two dozen medium and large-sized jars with S-shaped wall profiles bearing incised, impressed and comb-stamped decorations (horizontal frieze of angles and hatched triangles, horizontal and vertical zigzags) have been identified as typical pottery artefacts belonging to the Tazabag’yab culture. This culture was prevalent in the Akcha-Darya delta, south-east of the Aral Sea, in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. According to the latest research carried out by Y. Kutimov69 and subsequently confirmed by other scholars,70 a chronological dating to the 17th-15th centuries for this important archaeologi- cal culture, the earliest documented artificial irrigation in Central Asia, is well supported. The Amirabad culture is a phase subsequent to the Tazabag’yab in the cul- tural evolution of the Akcha-Darya delta, set in the north-eastern part of the Chorasmian region. At Tagisken North this cultural tradition is represented by vessels decorated with incised or impressed cross-hatched lines under the

64 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, 50, 154 (from the funerary structure 4D); 59, 277 (from Mausoleum 5A); 95, 643 (from the inner corridor of the Mausoleum 7). 65 Tsyablin 1977, 108-109. 66 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 80, 491 (from the corridor of the Mausoleum 6); 81, 502; 90, 591 (from the burial chamber of the Mausoleum 6). 67 Legrand 2006, fig. 13b and 13c. 68 Pauls 2000. 69 Kutimov 2002. 70 Salvatori & Tosi 2008; Teufer 2015.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 320 Bonora rim of medium- and large-sized jars with flat base and vertical neck.71 Quoting the afore-mentioned research by Kutimov, as well as the recent studies by M. Teufer regarding the Late Bronze Age in the cultural expanses between the Aral Sea and the Persian Gulf, the Amirabad culture can be chronologically attributed to the 13th-12th centuries BC.72

6 Evidence of Oxus Civilisation at Tagisken North

Several remarkable analogies between Tagisken North and some Middle Asia sites of the Late and Final Bronze Age are worth mentioning. The afore- mentioned evidence shows that the settled farming communities of the Oxus Civilisation likewise played an equal role in the formation of the Inner Syr- Darya culture of the Bronze Age. However, I believe their participation was of a passive as the Inner Syr-Darya community, which exploited the pla- teau of Tagisken for funerary purposes, did not imitate or import the artefacts produced by the Oxus Civilisation communities. Rather, they ingeniously re- invented or re-fashioned in their local environment certain pottery shapes or other artefacts prevalent in Middle Asia as far back as the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, if not even earlier. This concept of local invention or elabo- ration of Middle Asian cultural features may be documented in five distinct cases. Firstly, the decorative pattern composed of rows of small concentric dou- ble circles around the neck of a pear-shaped large jar is attested in one case at Tagisken North, in funerary structure 4ZH,73 and several times in the Late Bronze Age site of Adzhi Kui 9, in Margiana, which dates back to the period between 1800 and 1650 BC. While the arrangement of the decorations at Adzhi Kui appears random, the decorations on the Tagisken vase are laid out in a checkerboard pattern, documenting the local refinement of an exogenous motif. The shape of this large pear-shaped jar from Tagisken is an unicum in the burial ground of the Inner Syr-Darya delta. However, it bears striking simi- larities with well documented pottery shapes in various graveyards in northern and southern , such as the exemplars from grave 17 of Sapalli-depe

71 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 45, 80 (from the inner corridor of Mausoleum 4); 51, 177 (from the funerary structure 4ZH); 101, 693 (from the funerary structure 7V); 106, 767 (from Mau- soleum 16). 72 Kutimov 2002; Teufer 2015. 73 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 52, 183.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 321

(1900-1750 BC),74 from grave 17 of Necropolis 3 of Djarkutan (1700-1550 BC)75 and from Dashlÿ 17 or 19 (middle of the 2nd millennium BC).76 A single specimen of an elegant wheel-turned goblet on a hollow stem was discovered in the burial chamber of Mausoleum 5A of Tagisken North.77 This shape is well documented at the Oxus Civilisation sites of Bactria.78 However the Tagisken goblet is characterised by some features which distinguish it from the others and that make of it a new locally designed pottery shape: five grooves between the rim and the shoulder of the pot and a high rib (moulding) on the stem. A tall, large egg-shaped container was discovered in the burial chamber of Mausoleum 6 in Tagisken North.79 This vessel is characterised by a decoration on the shoulder composed by thin parallel grooved lines and by a chuck- or mould-made base. This technological feature associated with large jars is typi- cal of the Oxus Civilisation sites of the Late and Final Bronze Age,80 between the end of the 3rd millennium and the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, while the grooved decoration on the shoulder of large jars is a specific feature attested only at Tagisken. This is another case of local re-fashioning of exog- enous elements. Six large globular jars with flat base, very narrow and funnel-shaped neck and slightly everted rim were found in the burial chamber of Mausoleum 6 of Tagisken North.81 The shape of these pots bears close resemblance to undec- orated exemplars from the graveyard of Sapalli-tepe in southern Uzbekistan (northern Bactria), dated back to the period between 1900 and 1750 BC.82 The pots form Tagisken North are truly original on account of the exquisite incised decoration on the shoulder and body of these large jars: rhomboid-shaped motifs, rows of zigzag lines hatched by vertical segments, large triangles hatched by a mesh pattern and thin wavy lines. An elegant globular jar with a high and narrow neck, recovered from the funerary structure 7E of Tagisken North,83 is very similar in shape to a vessel

74 Teufer 2015, 271, tab. 20, 10. 75 Teufer 2015, 321, tab. 214, 2. 76 Sarianidi 1977, fig. 31, 9. 77 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 61, 293. 78 Askarov & Abdullaev 1983 (from Djarkutan and Sapalli); Teufer 2015, tab. 115, Typ 1 (from Obkuch); Sarianidi 1977 (from the round temple of Dashlÿ 3). 79 Itina &Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 92, 629. 80 Hiebert 1994; P’yankova 1994; Götzelt 1996; Teufer 2015, tab. 16. 81 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 92, 627, 630; 93, 631, 633, 634; 94, 637. 82 Teufer 2015, Tomb 85: 291-292, tab. 68, 1; Tomb 88: 292-293, tab. 69, 10; Tomb 109: 299-300, tab. 87, 5. 83 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 104, 727.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 322 Bonora from burial 69 of the Kangurttut graveyard, in Tajikistan, dated back to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (1600-1500 BC).84 While the surface of this Oxus Civilisation wheel-thrown pot from Kangurttut is not adorned in any way, the small hand-thrown jar from Tagisken North is decorated with rows of incised horizontal lines characterised by rectangular areas hatched with oblique segments in a checkerboard pattern. Thus, the concept was intro- duced to the steppe from elsewhere in the southern territories belonging to the Oxus Civilisation but the artefacts were completely re-invented and re-fashioned according to local preferences and requirements, and were chiefly adorned according to the typical decoration of the steppe ceramic production. To conclude this analysis on the analogies between the material from Tagisken North and those from the sites of southern Central Asia, I believe another class of material, i.e. the double spiral-headed pin, must be given due consideration. They began to appear across Middle Asia as far back the middle of the 4th millennium BC, if not earlier. The earliest specimen was discov- ered by I.N. Khlopin in the burial ground of Parkhay II.85 These pins have an extremely long and typology development in Middle Asia. Once they reached the Central Asian expanse, the local mobile communities began to re-elaborate the type and crafted new forms which incontrovertibly attest their desire to differentiate themselves from others and to individualise their material culture. The bispiral-headed pinheads coming from the graveyard of Petropavlovsk, a pit dwelling in the site of Kokcha 15a, the site of Balykty and from the barrow 3 of the graveyard of Ilekshar I, are excellent examples.86 The double spiral-headed pin from Tagisken North is one of the most recent from a chronological point of view.87 It documents a completely new type of pin, where the top is shaped in the form of double glasses, suggesting that the early, original motif was completely modified and then rendered obsolete.

7 Conclusions

In conclusion, in my opinion a chronological attribution of the Tagisken North necropolis between the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millen- nium BC is no longer sustainable. The radiocarbon dating from Mausoleum 6

84 Vinogradova 2008, fig. 55, Tomb 69, no. 2. 85 Khlopin 1997; 2002. 86 Kuz’mina 1966, 79; 2007, fig. 33, on the right side, without number. Agapov & Kadÿrbaev 1979, 61, figs. 7-8; Itina 1977, 132-133, fig. 68, 1; Tkachev 2002, II, 28; Usmanova 2010, 158, fig. 163, 2; Baïpakov et alii 2012. 87 Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 123, 15.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 323 suggesting a chronology dating to the 1st millennium BC may be wrong or from a contaminated sample. Even in 1997, an assessment by M.E. Hall, hypoth- esised from scanty and low-numbered samples for C14 dating, was that “the North Tagisken and Xiangbababi cemeteries are seen as being the oldest cemeteries and pre-dating the Bes-Shatyr cemetery, 5 at Chilikta and the Chirik-Rabat cemetery”.88 Today, thanks to the advancement of archaeological research, it may be stated with a fair degree of certainty that the Tagisken plateau was used as a burial site for a mobile breeders’ community as far back as the middle of the 2nd millennium BC if not earlier, and it continued to be used in this manner until approximately the 13th century BC.

Bibliography

Agapov, P., and Kadÿrbaev, M.K. (1979). Sokrovishcha drevnego Kazakhstana. : Zhalin. Akishev, K.A. (1959). Pamyatniki starinÿ Severnogo Kazakhstana. Trudÿ Instituta istorii, arkheologii i étnografii 7, pp. 3-31. Askarov, A.A. (1992). The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Transoxiana. In: A.H. Dani and V.M. Masson, eds., History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Volume I. The Dawn of Civilizations: Earliest Times to 700 B.C., Paris: Unesco Publishing, pp. 441-458. Askarov, A.A., and Abdullaev, B. (1983). Dzharkutan (k probleme protogorodskoï tsivili- zatsii na yuge Uzbekistana). Tashkent: Fan. Avanesova, N. (1996). Pasteurs et agriculteurs de la vallée du Zeravshan (Ouzbékistan) au début de l’Age du Bronze: Relations et influences mutuelles. In: B. Lyonnet, ed., Sarazm (Tadjikistan) céramiques (Chalcolithique et Bronze Ancien), Paris: Éditions de Boccard, pp. 117-131. Baïpakov, K.M., Erofeeva, I.V., Inochkin, V.A., Krivobokova, S.S., and Sdÿkov, M.N. (2012). Ural’sk: drevniï i sovremennÿï: Ocherki istorii. Ural’sk: Zapadno-Kazakhstanskiï oblastnoï tsentr istorii i arkheologii. Beardmore, R., Bonora, G.L., and Kurmankulov, Zh. (2008). Preliminary Report on the 2007-2008 IAEK Campaigns in the Syrdarya Delta. East & West 58, pp. 385-391. Beïsenov, A.Z., Varfolomeev, V.V., and Kasenalin, A.E. (2014a). Pamyatniki Begazÿ- Dandÿbaevskoï kul’turÿ tsentral’nogo Kazakhstana. Almaty: Institut Arkheologii im. A.Kh. Margulana. Beïsenov, A.Z., Varfolomeev, V.V., Merts, V.K., and Merts, I.V. (2014b). Raskopki mogil’nika Karaoba v 2013 g. In: T.S. Sadykov and M.K. Khabdulina, eds., Dialog

88 Hall 1997.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 324 Bonora

kul’tur Evrazii v arkheologii Kazakhstana. Sbornik nauchnÿkh stateï, posvyashchennÿï 90-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya vÿdayushchegosya arkheologa K.A. Akisheva, Astana: Saryarka, pp. 173-186. Bisembaev, A.A., and Duïsengali, M.N. (2013). Aktobe Olkesinin Zhadigerleri. Drevnosti aktyubinskogo kraya. Antiquities of Aktobe region. Aktobe: Universitet baspa ortalygy. Bobomulloev, S. (1997). Ein bronzezeitliches Grab aus Zardča Chalifa bei Pentžikent (Zeravšan-Tal). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 29, pp. 122-134. Bonora, G.L., (forthcoming 2018). A Podstavska Incised with a Trident-like Potter’s Mark from the Bronze Age site of Šagalaly II (Akmola Region, Kazakhstan) and its Links with Middle Asian Sites. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. Bonora, G.L., and Vidale, M. (2008). An Aspect of the Early Iron Age (Yaz I) Period in Margiana: Ceramic Production at the Site M999. In: S. Salvatori and M. Tosi, eds., The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1806), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 153-193. Cattani, M. (2004). Margiana at the End of Bronze Age and Beginning of Iron Age. In: M.F. Kosarev, P.M. Kozhin and N.A. Dubova, eds., U istokov tsivilizatsii: sbornik stateï k 75-letiyu Viktora Ivanovicha Sarianidi, Moscow: Starÿï sad, pp. 303-315. Cattani, M. (2008a). Excavations at Sites No. 1211 and No. 1219 (Final Bronze Age). In: S. Salvatori and M. Tosi, eds., The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1806), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 119-132. Cattani, M. (2008b). The Final Phase of the Bronze Age and the ‘Andronovo Question’ in Margiana. In: S. Salvatori and M. Tosi, eds., The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1806), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 133-151. Chernikov, S.S. (1960). Vostochnÿï Kazakhstan v épokhu bronzy. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka. Epimakhov, A.V. (2007). Otnositel’naya i absolyutnaya khronologiya sintashtinskikh pamyatnikov v svete radiokarbonnÿkh datirovok. Problemÿ istorii, filologii, kul’turÿ 17, pp. 402-421. Epimakhov, A., and Krause, R. (2013). Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Settlement Kamennyi Ambar. In: R. Krause and L. Koryakova, eds., Multidisciplinary Investigations of the Bronze Age Settlements in the Southern Trans-Urals (), Bonn: Habelt, pp. 129-143. Ermolaeva, A.S. (2012). Pamyatniki predgornoï zonÿ kazakhskogo Altaya (épokha bronzÿ – rannee zhelezo). Almaty: Institut Arkheologii im. A.Kh. Margulana.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 325

Evdokimov, V.V., and Varfolomeev, V.V. (2002). Épokha Bronzÿ Tsentral’nogo i Severnogo Kazakhstana. Uchebnoe posobie. Karaganda: Izdatel’stvo KarGU. Frachetti, M. (2012). Multiregional Emergence of Mobile Pastoralism and Nonuniform Institutional Complexity across Eurasia. Current Anthropology 53 (1), pp. 2-38. Görsdorf, J., Parzinger, H., Nagler, A., and Leont’ev, N. (1998). Neue 14C Datierungen für die Sibirische Steppe and ihre Konsequenzen für die regionale Bronzezeitchronologie. Eurasia Antiqua 4, pp. 73-80. Görsdorf, J., Parzinger, H., and Nagler, A. (2001). New Radiocarbon Dates of the North Asian Steppe Zone and its Consequences for the Chronology. Radiocarbon 43 (2B), pp. 1115-1120. Götzelt, Th. (1996). Ansichten der Archäologie Süd-Turkmenistans bei der Erforschung der “mittleren Bronzezeit” (Periode Namazga V) (Archäologie in Eurasien 2). Espelkamp: VML Vlg Marie Leidorf. Gubaev, A.G., Koshelenko, G., and Tosi, M., eds. (1998). The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta, Preliminary Reports 1990-1995. Rome: IsMEO. Hall, M.E. (1997). Towards an Absolute Chronology for the Iron Age of Inner Asia. Antiquity 71 (274), pp. 863-874. Hanks, B., Epimakhov, A., and Renfrew, C. (2007). Towards a Refined Chronology for the Bronze Age of the Southern Urals, Russia. Antiquity 81 (312), pp. 353-367. Hiebert, F.T. (1994). Origins of the Bronze Age Oasis Civilisation in Central Asia (American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 42). Cambridge: Peabody Museum of and Ethnology Harvard University. Hiebert, F.T., and Moore, K.M. (2004). A Small Steppe Site near Gonur. In: M.F. Kosarev, P.M. Kozhin and N.A. Dubova, eds., U istokov tsivilizatsii: sbornik stateï k 75-letiyu Viktora Ivanovicha Sarianidi, Moscow: Starÿï sad, pp. 294-302. Itina, M.A. (1977). Istoriya stepnÿkh plemen yuzhnogo Priaral’ya. Moscow: Nauka. Itina, M.A. (1984). Zagadochnÿe ogradÿ na kurgannÿkh gruppakh nizov’ev Sÿrdar’i i Yuzhnogo Priural’ya. In: M.G. Moshkova, ed., Drevnosti Evrazii v skifo-sarmatskoe vremiya, Moscow: Nauka, pp. 78-84. Itina, M.A. (1992). The Steppes of the Aral Sea Area in Pre – and Early Scythian Times. In: G. Seaman, ed., Foundations of Empire. Archaeology and Art of the Eurasian Steppes, Los Angeles: Ethnographic Press, pp. 49-58. Itina, M.A., and Yablonskiï, L.T. (1997). Saki nizhneï Sÿrdar’i (po materialam mogil’nika yuzhniï Tagisken). Moscow: Rosspén. Itina, M.A., and Yablonskiï, L.T. (2001). Mavzolei severnogo Tagiskena, Pozdniï bronzovÿï vek Nizhneï Sÿrdar’i. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura. Joint Project (2006). Joint Italian-Turkmen Archaeological Mission to the Murghab Alluvial Fan, Preliminary Report: Site 1211. Unpublished Report Submitted to the Ministry of Culture and Transport of Turkmenistan, Ashgabat.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 326 Bonora

Kadÿrbaev, M.K., and Kurmankulov, Zh.K. (1992). Kul’tura drevnikh skotovodov i metallurgov Sarÿ-arki. Almaty: Gylym. Khlopin, I.N. (1983). Yugo-zapadnaya Turkmeniya v épokhu bronzÿ. Leningrad: Nauka. Khlopin, I.N. (1997). Éneolit yugo-zapadnogo Turkmenistana. St. Petersburg: Evropeïskiï dom. Khlopin, I.N. (2002) Épokha bronzÿ yugo-zapadnogo Turkmenistana. St. Petersburg: Evropeïskiï dom. Kircho, L.V., and Popov, S.G. (2005). K voprosu o radiouglerodnoï khronologii arkheo- logicheskikh pamyatnikov Sredneï Azii V-II tÿs. do n.e. In: V.M. Masson and Yu.E. Berezkin, eds., Khronologiya épokhi Pozdnego Éneolita – Sredneï Bronzÿ Sredneï Azii (Pogrebeniya Altÿn-depe), St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, pp. 528-539. Kohl, P.L. (2007). The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koryakova, L., and Epimakhov, A. (2007). The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kurmankulov, Zh.K., and Ishangali, S.K. (2007). Predvaritel’nÿe itogi issledovaniya kom- pleksa Aÿbas Darasÿ v 2004-2006 godakh. In: Arkheologiyalÿk zertteuler zhaïlÿ esep – Otchet arkheologicheskikh issledovanijakh 2006. Almaty: Institut Arkheologii im. A.Kh. Margulana, pp. 5-7; pp. 111-114. Kurmankulov, Zh.K., and Ishangali, S.K. (2008). Mogil’nik Aÿbas Darasÿ. Polevÿe arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v 2007 godu. In: Arkheologiyalÿk zertteuler zhaïlÿ esep – Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh issledovanijakh 2007, Almaty: Institut Arkheologii im. A.Kh. Margulana, pp. 28-31; pp. 175-178. Kurmankulov, Zh.K., Zhetibaev, Zh., Tazhekeev, A., and Utubaev, Zh. (2007). Mogil’nik Tagisken. In: Svod Pamyatnikov istorii i kul’turÿ Respubliki Kazakhstan. Kÿzÿlordinskaya oblast’, Almaty: Aruna, pp. 88-90. Kutimov, Yu.G. (2002). Nekotorÿe aspektÿ razvitiya i absolyutnoï datirovki Tazabag’yabskoï kul’turÿ yuzhnogo Priural’ya (po materialam mogil’nika Kokcha 3). Arkheologicheskie Vesti 9, pp. 189-203. Kuz’mina, E.E. (1966). Metallicheskie izdeliya éneolita i bronzovogo veka v Sredneï Azii. Moscow: Nauka. Kuz’mina, E.E. (1997). The Cultural Connections between the Shepards of the Steppes and South Central Asia, and India in the Bronze Age. In: R. Allchin and B. Allchin, eds., South Asian Archaeology 1995. Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Cambridge, 5-9 July, 1995, New Delhi: Publishers, USA and Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., pp. 279-289. Kuz’mina, E.E. (2001). The First Migration Wave of Indo-Iranians to the South. Journal of Indo-European Studies 29, pp. 1-40. Kuz’mina, E.E. (2007). The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden: Brill.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 327

Kuz’mina, E.E., and Lyapin, V.A. (1984). Novÿe nakhodki stepnoï keramiki épokhi bronzÿ na Murgabe. In: V.M. Masson, ed., Problemÿ arkheologii Turkmenistana. Ashgabat: Ylym, pp. 6-22. Kuz’mina, E.E., and Vinogradova, N.M. (1996). Contacts Between the Steppe and the Agricultural Tribes of Central Asia in the Bronze Age. Archaeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia 34 (4), pp. 29-54. Legrand S. (2006). The emergence of the . Bronze Age to Iron Age in South Siberia. The Emergence of the Karasuk Culture. Antiquity 80 (310), pp. 843-859. Malyutina, T.S. (1991). Stratigraficheskaya pozitsiya materialov Fedorovskoï kul’turÿ na mnogosloïnÿkh pamyatnikakh kazakhstanskikh stepeï. In: Drevnosti vostochno- evropeïskoï lesostepi: Mezhvuzovskiï sbornik nauchnÿkh trudov, Samara: Samarskiï gosudarstvennÿï pedagogicheskiyï institut im. V.V. Kuïbÿsheva, pp. 141-162. Malyutina, T.S., Zdanovich, G.V. (1995). Kuïsak – ukreplennoe poselenie pro- togordskoï tsivilizatsii yuzhnogo Zaural’ya. In: N.N. Alervas, ed., Rossiya i Vostok: Probemÿ vzaimodeïstviya, chast’ 5, blok 1: Kul’turÿ Eneolita-Bronzÿ Stepnoï Evrazii. Tret’yaya mezhdunarodnaya nauchnaya konferentsiya, : Chelyabinskiï gosudarstvennÿï universitet, pp. 100-106. Margulan, A.K. (1979). Begazÿ-Dandÿbaevskaya kul’tura Tsentral’nogo Kazakhstana. Almaty: Atamura. Margulan, A.K. (2001). Sarÿarka. Gornoe delo i metallurgiya v epokhu bronzÿ. Dzhezkazgan – drevniï i srednevekovÿï metallurgicheskiï tsentr (gorodishche Mulÿkuduk). Almaty: Daik Press. Matyushenko, V.I., and Sinitsÿna, G.V. (1998). Mogil’nik u derevniya Rostovka vblizi Omska. : Izdatel’stvo Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Merts, V.K. (2006). Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Beskaragae. In: S.P. Grushin, ed., Altaï v sisteme metallurgicheskikh provintsiï bronzovogo veka, Barnaul: Izdatel’stvo Altaïskogo universiteta, pp. 73-82. Merts, V.K. (2013). Begazinskiï kompleks iz Karaoba (Semipalatinskoe Priirtÿsh’e). In: A.Z. Beïsenov, ed., Begazÿ-dandÿbaevskaya kul’tura Stepnoï Evrazii: Sbornik nauchnÿkh stateï, posvyashchennÿï 65-letiyu Zh. Kurmankulova, Almaty: Institut Arkheologii im. A.Kh. Margulana, pp. 270-282. Merts, V.K. (2016). Fenomen Begazÿ-Dandÿbaya v Priirtÿsh’e. Madeni Mura 4, pp. 78-87. Molodin, V., Mylynikova, L., Novikova, O., Durakov, I., Koveleva, L., Efrmova N., and Soloviev, A. (2011). Periodization of Bronze Age Cultures in the Ob – Irtysh Forest- steppe. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 39, pp. 40-56. Molodin, V., Marchenko, Z., Kuzmin, Y., Grishin, A., Van-Strydonck, M., and Orlova, L. (2012). C-14 Chronology of Burial Grounds of the Andronovo Period (Middle Bronze Age) in Baraba Forest Steppe, Western Siberia. Radiocarbon 54 (3-4), pp. 737-747.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 328 Bonora

Molodin, V.I., Epimakhov, A.V., and Marchenko, Zh.V. (2014). Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya épokhi bronzÿ Urala i Zapadnoï Sibiri: printsipÿ i podkhodÿ, dostizheniya i problemÿ. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Istoriya, filologiya 13, 3, pp. 136-167. Moshkova, M.G., Popov, S.A., and Smirnov, K.F. (1967). Raskopki v Orenburgskoï oblasti. Arkheologicheskie Otkrÿtiya 1966 goda. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 115-116. Orazbaev, A.M. (1958). Severnÿï Kazakhstan v épokhu bronzÿ. Trudÿ Instituta Istorii Akademii Nauk KazSSR 5, pp. 216-294. Panyushkina, I., Mills, B., Usmanova, E., and Li, C. (2008) Age of Lisakovsky Timbers Attributed to Andronovo Community of Bronze Age in Eurasia. Radiocarbon 50, pp. 459-466. Panyushkina, I., Chang, C., Clemens, A., and Bykov, N. (2010). First Tree-ring Chronology from Andronovo Archaeological Timbers of Bronze Age in Central Asia. Dendrochronologia 28, pp. 13-21. Parzinger, H., and Boroffka, N., eds. (2003). Das Zinn der Bronzezeit in Mittelasien I: Die siedlungarchäologischen Forschungen im Umfeld der Zinnlagerstätten (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 5). Mainz: P. von Zabern. Pauls, E.D. (2000). Mogil’niki Chazi i Mara na severe Minusinskoï kotlovinÿ (k voprosu izucheniya karasukskoï kul’turÿ). In: A.B. Nikitin, ed., Mirovozzrenie, arkheologiya, ritual, kul’tura. Sbornik stateï k 60-letiyu Marka L. Podol’skogo, St. Petersburg: Mir knigi, pp. 104-118. P’yankova, L.T. (1994). Central Asia in the Bronze Age: Sedentary and Nomadic Cultures. Antiquity 68 (259), pp. 355-372. P’yankova, L.T. (1998). Kul’turÿ stepnoï bronzÿ. In: V.A. Litvinskiï and V.A. Ranov, eds., Istoriya Tadzhikskogo naroda, Dushanbe: Akademiya Nauk Tadzhikistana. Rouse, L.M., and Cerasetti, B. (2014). Ojakly: A Late Bronze Age Mobile Pastoralist Site in the Murghab Region, Turkmenistan. Journal of Field Archaeology 39 (1), pp. 32-50. Salvatori, S. (2003). Pots and Peoples: the ‘Pandora’s Jar’ of Central Asian Archaeological Research. On Two Recent Books on Gonur Graveyard Excavations. Rivista Archeologia 27, pp. 5-20. Salvatori, S. (2004). Oxus Civilisation Cultural Variability in the Light of its Relations with Surrounding Regions: the Middle Bronze Age. In: M.F. Kosarev, P.M. Kozhin, and N.A. Dubova, eds., U istokov tsivilizatsii: sbornik stateï k 75-letiyu Viktora Ivanovicha Sarianidi, Moscow: Starÿï sad, pp. 92-101. Salvatori, S. (2008). Cultural Variability in the Bronze Age Oxus Civilisation and its Relations with the Surrounding Regions of Central Asia and Iran. In: S. Salvatori and M. Tosi, eds., The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1806), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 75-98.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access A General Revision of the Chronology 329

Salvatori, S., and Tosi, M., eds. (2008). The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands: Facts and Methodological Proposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1806), Oxford: Archaeopress. Sarianidi, V.I. (1975). Novÿe otkrÿtiya v nizov’yakh Murgaba. Arkheologicheskie otkrÿtiya 1974 goda. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 528-529. Sarianidi, V.I. (1977). Drevnie zemledel’tsÿ Afganistana. Moscow: Nauka. Sarianidi, V.I. (2002). Margush: Drevnevostochnoe tsarstvo v staroï del’te reki Murgab. Ashgabad: Turkmendowlethabarlary. Smirnov, K.F., and Popov, S.A. (1968). Rabotÿ v Orenburgskoï oblasti. Arkheologicheskie Otkrÿtiya 1967 goda. Moscow: Nauka, p. 114. Smirnov, K.F., and Popov, S.A. (1969). Sarmatskoe svyatilishche ognya. In: L.A. Evtyukhova, ed. Drevnosti Vostochnoï Evropÿ. K semidesyattiletiyu Alekseya Petrovicha Smirnova. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 210-217. Sungatov, F.A., and Safin, F.F. (1995). Issledovaniya kurgannÿkh mogil’nikov v Zaural’e v 1991 g. In: Nasledie vekov. Okhrana i izuchenie pamyatnikov arkheologii v Bashkortostane, Ufa: Natsional’nÿï Muzeï, pp. 58-64. Svyatko, S.V., Mallory, J.P., Murphy, E.M., Polyakov, A.V., Reimer, P.J., and Schulting, R.J. (2009). New Radiocarbon Dates and a Review of the Chronology of Prehistoric Populations from the Minusinsk Basin, Southern Siberia, Russia. Radiocarbon 51 (1), pp. 243-273. Teufer, M. (2015). Spätbronzezeitliche Grabfunde aus Nordbaktrien und benachbarten Regionen. Studien zur Chronologie zwischen Aralsee und Persischen Golf (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 13). Berlin: D. Reimer Verlag. Tkachev, V.V. (2002). Tsentral’nÿï Kazakhstan v épokhu Bronzÿ. ’: Izdatel’stvo TyumGNGU. Tolstov, S.P. (1962a). Po drevnim del’tam Oksa i Yaksarta. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoï literaturÿ. Tolstov, S.P. (1962b). Rezul’tatÿ istoriko-arkheologicheskikh issledovaniï 1961 g. na drevnikh ruslakh Sÿr-Dar’i. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 4, pp. 124-148. Tolstov, S.P., Zhdanko, T.A., and Itina, M.A. (1963). Rabotÿ khorezmskoï arkheologo- etnograficheskoï ékspedizii AN SSSR v 1958-1961 gg. In: S.P. Tolstov, ed., Materialÿ Khorezmskoï ékspeditsii AN SSSR VI, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSR, pp. 3-90. Tsyablin, L.P. (1977). Karasukskiï mogil’nik Malÿe Kopenÿ 3. Moscow: Nauka. Usmanova, E.R. (2010). Kostyum zhenshchinÿ épokhi bronzÿ Kazakhstana. Opÿt rekon- struktsii. Karaganda, Lisakovsk: TAiS. Vaïnberg, V.I. & Levina, L.M. (1993). Chirikrabatskaya Kul’tura (Nizov’ya Sÿr-Dar’i v drevnosti 1). Moscow: Rossiïskaya Akademiya Nauk.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 307-330 from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:46:02PM via free access 330 Bonora

Varfolomeev, V.V. (2011). Kent – Gorod bronzovogo veka. Novÿe issledovaniya v épokhu nezavisimosti. In: V.A. Baïtanaev, ed., Svideteli tÿsyacheletiï: arkheologicheskaya nauka Kazakhstana za 20 let (1991-2011). Sbornik nauchnÿkh stateï posvyashchennÿï 20-letiyu Nezavizimosti Kazakhstana, Almaty: A.Kh. Marghulan atyndaghy arkhe- ologiia instituty, pp. 85-96. Varfolomeev, V.V. (2013). Keramika superstratnogo oblika iz pamyatnikov Begazÿ- dandÿbaevskoï kul’turÿ. In: A.Z. Beïsenov, ed., Begazÿ-dandÿbaevskaya kultura Stepnoï Evrazii. Sbornik nauchnÿkh stateï, posvyashchennÿï 65-letiyu Zh. Kurmankulova, Almaty: Institut Arkheologii im. A.Kh. Margulana, pp. 167-197. Vinogradov, N.B. (1995). Yuzhnÿe motivÿ v keramicheskikh kompleksakh épokhi bronzÿ v Yuzhnom Zaural’e. In: Konvergentsiya i divergentsiya v razvitii kul’tur epokhi éneolita-bronzÿ Sredneï i Vostochnoï Evropÿ: Materialÿ konferentsii, Saratov, St. Petersburg: IIMK RAN, pp. 71-74. Vinogradova, N.M. (1994). The Farming Settlement of Kargurt-Tut (South Tadjikistan) in the Late Bronze Age. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 27, pp. 29-47. Vinogradova, N.M. (2008). Chast II. Zemledel’cheskoe poselenie i mogil’nik Kangurttut – pamyatnik épokhi pozdneï bronzÿ. In: N.M. Vinogradova, V.A. Ranov, and T.G. Filimonova, eds., Pamyatniki Kangurttuta v yugo-zapadnom Tadzhikistane (épokha neolita i bronzovÿï vek), Moscow: RAN, pp. 162-380. Vishnevskaya, O.A. (1973). Kul’tura sakskikh plemen nizov’ev Sÿr-Dar’i v VII-V vv. do n.é. (po materialam Uïgaraka) (Trudÿ Khorezmskoï ékspeditsii 8). Moscow: Nauka. Zaitseva, G.I., Van Geel, B., Bokovenko, N., Chugunov K.V., Dergachev, V.A., Dirksen, V.G., Koulkova, M.A., Nagler, A., Parzinger, G., Van Der Plicht, J., Bourova, N.D., and Lebedeva, L.M. (2004). Chronology and Possible Links between Climatic and Cultural Change during the First Millennium BC in Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Radiocarbon 46 (1), pp. 259-276. Zaitseva, G.I., Chugunov K.V., Alekseev, A.Yu., Dergachev, V.A., Vasiliev, S.S., Sementsov, A.A., Cook, G., Scott, E.M., Van Der Plicht, J., Parzinger, G., Nagler, A., Jungner, H., Sonninen, E., and Bourova, N.D. (2007). Chronology of Key Barrows Belonging to Different Stages of the Scythian Period in (Arzhan-1 and Arzhan-2 Barrows). Radiocarbon 49 (2), pp. 645-658.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24from (2018) Brill.com09/27/2021 307-330 11:46:02PM via free access