Social archaeological approach to nomadism:

Scythian Epoch nomads in Tuva, Russia

Eugenia Ellanskaya

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements

of the BA Archaeology and Anthropology degree,

University College London in 2013

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Note: This dissertation is an unrevised examination copy for

consultation

only and it should not be quoted or cited without permission

of the

Head of Department

Abstract

The focus of this research is preliminary reconstruction of

social organization of prehistoric nomads, using categories of

mortuary variability. In choosing pastoral nomadism, I

consciously target the archaeological research gap, generally

reluctant to study archaeological cultures, whose visibility

threshold is assumed. The paper introduces the phenomenon of

nomadism and issues its studying involves, with a focus on the

Scythian-type Eurasian variant. Confining my study to the

Scythian Epoch (8-5th c. BC) in the Republic of Tuva, Russia,

poses an interesting case for a non-Russian reader as the

least known part of the Eurasian nomadic world in the 1st

millennium BC. With the prevailing research executed in

Russian, I hope to unveil an important niche in the

interconnected membrane of Eurasian nomadism. Using the

existing theoretical templates of Scythian-type society I

testify it against the available archaeological data. The

purpose of this paper is therefore to secure a platform for

studying nomadic social organization and demonstrating the

unforeseen social complexity of this unique phenomenon in

social evolution. I will be doing so by looking at the kurgan

site hierarchy and the mortuary variability in age, gender and

status which show evidence for chiefdom organization with

primary processes of early class formation.

Key Words: nomadism, Scythian Epoch, mortuary variability,

social organisation, Tuva

Contents

Preface.................................................4

Acknowledgements........................................6

1. Nomadism: the invisible culture......................7

2. Scytho-Siberian nomadic world.......................11

3. Social archaeology..................................15

4. The Genesis of Eurasian nomadism: pastures and horses.......................................................19

5. Case study..........................................23

5.1 Social organization of nomads in Scythian Epoch Tuva24

5.2 Arzhan kurgans and the Valley of the Kings........26

5.3 Reconstruction of social organisation.............36

5.4 Classification of Scythian Epoch cultures: evidence for mortuary variability...............................40

5.5 On tripartite social stratification...............48

6. Conclusion and new discoveries......................50

Bibliography..............................................56

List of Illustrations

Figures

Figure 1. Examples of Scythian triad components.

Figure 2. Scythian deer symbolism.

Figure 3. Plan of looted Arzhan 1.

Figure 4. The Turan-Uyuk basin - the Valley of the Kings.

Figure 5. Plan of Arzhan-2.

Figure 6. The layout of undisturbed main burial of Arzhan-2.

Figure 7. Comparative bronze horse bridles from Arzhan-1.

Figure 8. Comparative bridle elements from Arzhan-1.

Figure 9. Fatal injuries in Arzhan-2 supplementary burials.

Figure 10. Saglyn tomb in Sagly-Bazhy II, kurgan 4.

Figure 11. Arzhan-2 female cranium with post-mortem destruction of the vault

Figure 12. A typical ‘sleeping’ body positioning on the left side n-2 female cranium with post-mortem destruction of the vault

Figure 13. Kopto complex of Aldy-Bel’ Culture

Maps

Map 1. Map of Eurasia showing the spread of Scythian-type sites

Map 2. Location of the Tuva Republic in context

Map 3. Map of Arzhan-1 chiefdom site hierarchy

Map 4. Digital elevation model (DEM) of the Turan-Uyuk

territory of the Russian

Map 5. Kyzyl-Kuragino kurgan necropolises in the valley of River Eerbeck

Tables

Table 1. Summary of successive Scythian Epoch cultures in Tuva

Table 2. The possible tripartite stratigraphy of early

Scythian society

Preface

Eurasian nomadic phenomenon of the Great Steppe, linking the

Black Sea and the Ordos Desert, is one of the six world

cradles of prehistoric nomadism. Its mortuary uniformity

across thousands of kilometres of Eurasia, addressed by

Chapter 2, has given rise to a striking cultural connectivity

of the Scytho-Siberian nomadic world, determined by a

fundamental shift to mounted horse-riding and nomadic

pastoralism at the turning point from Bronze to Iron Ages.

Chapter 1 introduces the research issues, which nomadism has

traditionally created as a perishable archaeological

‘culture’. Whilst adapting archaeological theory and

methodology towards nomadism remains an active goal wherever

its manifestations are more subtle, Eurasian kurgans offer a

significant tangible contribution to our understanding of

ancient nomadic worldview, social organisation and cosmology.

Mortuary evidence and its variability is therefore the most

prominent subject matter for social reconstructions of nomadic

societies with no emic written records.

Frequently determined as a static entity, lacking social

complexity and stratification in the eyes of historians and

researchers, nomadism demands analysis at the level of local

complexity and social dynamics, of which Tuva is one example.

Moving away from nomadic studies relying on modern

ethnographic parallels, biased by their entanglement with the

industrial world, Chapter 3 acknowledges the uniqueness of

ancient nomadism in the conventional social evolution.

Considering the lack of common awareness and knowledge about

nomadism, a substantial part of my paper is dedicated to

introductory theory. Despite the existence of great

contemporary publications on such prominent Eurasian nomadic

sites as Filippovka (Aruz et al. 2000), Pazyryk (Kubarev &

Shulga 2007) and Kelermes (Jacobsen 1995) there are few

attempts to address the uniqueness of this type of research as

part of nomadic archaeology. I have found straight-in approach

to be guiding many of these studies, where a focus on

materials and artefacts underplays the broader significance of

the very nature of nomadic research. Therefore I have

considered it necessary to dedicate a substantial part of the

paper towards acknowledging the issues and role of nomadism

within the existing theoretical frameworks. Given the

limitations of fragmentary and outdated publications, lack of

systematic surveys and kurgan looting, I have been unable to

apply sophisticated quantitative methodologies, such as

cluster analysis, identifying correlation of artefact

assemblages with statuses of particular graves. Neither have I

been able to conduct a frequency distribution of artefact-

types per grave, which requires reliable dating,

unavailable/fragmentary as yet. None of this however should

cause pessimism towards the possibility of preliminary

analysis at this stage. With the availability of systematic

data, employing detailed palaeoanthropological assessment of

human remains, which can be expected from the current project,

Kyzyl-Kuragino, a move towards a detailed study of ranking

with reconstructions of nomadic artefact value system should

be made possible as part of advanced research. The current

analysis opens up a preparatory platform for research into

unparalleled ancient nomadic sociality, by demonstrating the

potential of mortuary variability approach, given the

available data.

Acknowledgements

I have been privileged to work with the current research

project on Scythian Epoch Tuva, Kyzyl-Kuragino-2012, which has

greatly enhanced my understanding and unparalleled personal

experience of the region and its subject matter. I would like

to express my deepest gratitude to the directors of Tuvan part

of the project - Vladimir Semenov and his wife Marina

Kilunovskaya (pupils of prominent Soviet archaeologists

Mikhail Gryaznov and Dmitry Savinov) both from the St.-

Petersburg Institute for the History of Material Culture

(Russian Academy of Sciences), for their commitment to decades

of research in this difficult and isolated region. Without

them much of the local archaeology would have today remained

shrouded in myth. I would also like to thank them for leading

me towards getting my research off the ground (!) and

providing materials and help whenever they could.

Special thanks also go to Konstantin Chugunov, the co-director of Arzhan-2

excavation, for dedicating his precious time to giving me a personal tour

across the Scythian collections of the State Hermitage in St.-Petersburg and

answering my questions, and to Sergey Popov and the staff of the Institute for

the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences in St.-Petersburg,

for granting me access to the oldest archaeological archive and library in

Russia. May I thank my supervisor Tim Williams, for agreeing to undertake

guidance in research so conceptually opposable to his own work with

urbanism, while remaining a committed and enthusiastic advisor throughout.

Finally, God bless Franz Joseph Och for creating Google Translate and getting

me through the only complete publication of Arzhan-2 excavation Der

skythenzeitliche Fürstenkurgan Arzan 2 in Tuva (Cugunov &

Parzinger 2010), published entirely in German.

…In our country there are no towns and no cultivated land ...One thing there is for

which we will fight – the tombs of our forefathers. Find those tombs and try to wreck

them, and you will soon know whether or not we are willing to stand up to you.

(Herodotus 4.125)

1. Nomadism: the invisible culture

Nomads have been traditionally exposed to vast historical and

academic prejudice. Since the initial literary evidence in

sources of antiquity their reputation has been oscillating

between that of exaggerated barbarism and idealized noble

savagery (Khazanov 1975:16). Much of this attitude has been

guided by the unstable nature of this cultural phenomenon

(Cribb 1991:9). One certainty about nomadism is its heavy

engagement with pastoralism (ibid.), but its ethnographic

variations demonstrate that ‘pure’ nomadism is extremely rare

and thus avoids straightforward definition (Koryakova

2000:14). The fluidity and dynamism of this social phenomenon

upsets our expectations and rigid understanding. Consequently,

nomadic impact cannot conventionally be defined as an

archaeological ‘culture’ (Cribb 1991:65).

In Gordon Childe’s definition, such ‘cultures’ are

distinguished from each other by complexes of “certain types

of remains - pots, implements, ornaments, burial rites and

house forms - constantly recurring together”, where “we assume

that such a complex is the material expression of what today

we would call ‘a people’” (Childe 1929). Since Childe’s

verdict towards futility of nomadic archaeology, thorough

studies aiming at social reconstruction and understanding of

prehistoric nomads have often been overlooked as inaccessible,

with the major emphasis of archaeological research made

instead into sedentary polities (Cribb 1991:65). In tailoring

archaeological criteria towards a culture-specific

understanding, Koryakova identifies nomadism by the presence

of “a portable house, a good saddle with stirrups, light

equipment, and extensive animal breeding with annual herding”

(Koryakova 2000:14). Of these, the specialised activity of

nomadism – herding – requires virtually no tools (Cribb

1991:66), disguising nomadic archaeological impact.

Unsurprisingly, mainstream research has justified its neglect

by the assumed visibility threshold of nomadic material

culture, lying in its assumed portability, the use of

perishable materials and insubstantial settlements required to

sustain mobility (Childe 1936:81).

Nomadic material complexes, if prominent at all, are often

indistinguishable from their sedentary neighbours, and

therefore may not constitute an independent ‘culture’ in

Childean sense (Cribb 1991:65). With many nomadic groups

entering into relationships of trade and economic dependence

with sedentary societies (Rosen 2008:123), these distinctions

often appear blurred indeed. As a consequence, studies

attempting to identify nomadic cultures by certain material

complexes have been largely unsuccessful, rendering nomadism a

‘culture’ invisible for archaeology (Cribb 1991:67; Koryakova

2000:13). Today the ‘perishable’ nomadic remains in

idiosyncratic Animal style from Scythian Epoch Siberian

kurgans Arzhan-1, Arzhan-2 and Pazyryk constitute some of the

most glamorous prehistoric collections in the State Hermitage

in St.-Petersburg (2003). In fact, the aesthetic value of

Scythian gold treasures overshadows both public and academic

interest in the nature of Scythian society per se.

Denying nomadic ‘culture’ archaeologically means neglecting a

significant fraction of prehistoric politogenesis1. Eurasian

Scythians have set the trends for a long tradition of nomadic

incursions inundating Europe (Alekseev 2000:47). Their model

of nomadic civilization has been appropriated by such

prominent later revivals as Hunnu Empire, Mongols and Turkic

kaganat (Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:20). The active role of

nomadic dynasties in the political rule of Parthia and Kushan

Empire and military engagements in the Near East are

symptomatic of their impact (Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:14).

In this sense, the epigraph to this paper represents both the

curse and blessing of nomadism, as the limitation of material

culture, hindering archaeological research, has simultaneously

created the (in)-famous elusive nomadic force (Gryaznov

1969:131).

Historical assumptions of nomads as alien, barbaric, and

therefore ‘cultureless’ have made them synonymous with onsets

of dark ages (Mellink 1964). The nomadic appearance on the

political arena from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age

is as sudden as the rapid fundamental transformation from

semi-sedentary cattle-breeding to a nomadic way of life in the

beginning of the first millennium BC (Abetekov et al.

1994:24). Economic transformation to nomadic pastoralism based

on “wealth on the hoof” has epitomized a cognitive and social

1 A notion in political anthropology after a Soviet anthropologist Leo Kubbel, explaining the genesis of political subsystems of a society, which can lead to potential state formation, or an analogous entity of social complexity (Kubbel 1988).

shift equivalent to the origins of property and, therefore,

inequality in human society (Ingold 1986:5).

The Eurasian nomads have produced rich chains of spatially and

dimensionally differentiated necropolises, reflecting nomadic

semiotic system, cosmology (Koryakova 2000:14) and design

excellence. The 20th century discoveries of these monumental

burial landscapes have activated research into reconstructions

of nomadic past (Gryaznov 1969). The elite kurgans reach up to

20 m in height in Europe and 120 m in diameter in flatter

Asian ones (Abetekov et al. 1994:26). The most splendid of

these aristocratic mausoleums, both in complexity and

artefacts, are the deep catacombs of European Scythia,

monumental complexes in Tagisken and Uygarak in Kazakhstan,

frozen Pazyryk tombs of the Altai, Tuvan Arzhan-1 and 2

(ibid.). Since their discovery their mortuary variability has

been one of the primary insights into dynamic nomadic

constructions of rank, status and social roles (Hanks

2000:19).

Map 1. Map of Eurasia showing the spread of Scythian-type

sites (Adapted from Aruz et al. 2000:xiv).

The recognition of uniqueness of nomadic phenomenon in a

conventional linear model of social evolution has paved a way

for a special branch of nomadic archaeology (Rosen 2008:116).

Earliest evidence for nomadism can be traced back to the

Neolithic (Khazanov 1984:8). Yet the sudden emergence of

pastoral ideologies of ‘real’ nomadism in the 1st millennium BC

demands diligent studying. The progress of nomadic research

since antiquity has invested much effort to divorce nomadism

from its entanglement with domineering sedentary prehistory,

where it acted as a poorly understood, static hindering force

(Khazanov 1984).

Following the expansion of field research into nomadic

sociality in the mid-1950-70s, nomadism has been acclaimed as

a fundamental all-encompassing Cognitive Revolution of the

steppes (Gryaznov 1969:131), in its impact much like the

Childean Neolithic Revolution. Simultaneously, nomadism has

become a deus ex machina for existing theoretical and historical

gaps (Rosen 2008:117). But much is yet to be understood about

the intrinsic complexity of the nomadic burial ritual, burial

variability and its social implications (Koryakova 2000:19).

Nomadic adaptation represents an evolution no less complex

than that of the sedentary polities (Rosen 2008:115). In his

nonpareil study of nomadic social history, Anatoliy Khazanov

claims that nomadism is as paradoxical and unique, as it is

globally widespread and impactful (Khazanov 1984:3). In this

light, analysis of social dynamism and complexity of a

fragment of the nomadic world in the territory of modern day

Tuva would contribute at least a fraction to the understanding

of this truly magnificent and underestimated cultural

phenomenon.

2. Scytho-Siberian nomadic world

The use of nomenclature ‘Scythian’ is possibly one of the most

heated debates amongst researchers, disguising conflicting

readings of the subject. With the first major discoveries of

what came to be known as a polity ‘Scythia’ made in the Black

Sea region and the Caucasus (Kisel’ 2010), many researchers

are still reluctant to stretch the notion towards the remote

Asian locales in the Altai and Tuva, which show striking

similarity of artistic styles, way of life and burial rite

alongside similar/older chronology (Semenov 2002:207). The

most careful terminology acknowledges the existence of

Scythians, both Asian and European, irrespective of their

inter-relationship (Aruz et al. 2000). As a head of the

Eastern European and Siberian department at the State

Hermitage in St.-Petersburg, Andrei Alekseev claims two

certainties of the Scythian identity: 1) predominantly

Europeoid morphology [with an influx of Asian genetic markers

in Altai Scythians], and 2) ancient Iranian language (Alekseev

2000:41). As an acclaimed fact amongst the majority of

Scythologists today, the latter has provided an understanding

of Scythian social organisation within well known Iranian

templates (see Chapter 5.1).

What we designate today by ‘Scytho-Siberian’ has in the

earliest literary sources (Avesta2, Yast XVII prayer to Asi)2 Avesta is a sacred book of Zoroastrianism containing its cosmogony, law, and liturgy, the teachings of the 6th c BC Iranian religious

been referred to as ‘Tura’ with fleet-footed horses, a

homogenously perceived threat to the settled Iranians

(Abetekov et al. 1994:23) and with emic ‘Scolotai’, meaning

‘archers’ (Grote 1869:249). The use of the name ‘Saka’ and

‘Ishkuzai’ for the 7th century BC Eurasian nomads, in Assyrian

sources (Abetekov et al. 1994:23) and in reliefs of the

Achaemenidian Empire, is related to their impact in the

political arena of the Near East (Alekseev 2000:42). The

Greeks used the term ‘Skythai’ for nomads living between

Thracia and River Tanais, with whom they shared peaceful

mercenary relations through Greek colonies in Crimea and Azov

(ibid.). The derivative term Scythian has contagiously spread

across to Ordos to designate archaeologically the most general

affinity of material culture and mortuary ritual.

What is objectively symptomatic of the archaeological unity of

the Scytho-Siberian world is the tripartite set of burial

criteria – the so-called ‘Scythian triad’ (Mannai-ool

2010:53). Following its original identification it has become

a hallmark for truly Scythian archaeology in northern Black

Sea region, historicised by Herodotus (Herodotus 4). This

region, known as the Pontic Scythia, was seen as the ethno-

political centre of early Eurasian nomads, bearing relatively

coherent political structure and territory, where the first

major kurgan structures were first discovered (Yablonsky

2000:3). Ambiguous is the relatively comprehensible perception

of Scythia in antiquity confining it to the west of the River

Tanais (present Don) (Herodotus 4.21), yet occasionally

reformer Zoroaster (Zarathushtra) (2013)

implying Scythian origins in the heart of Asia (Semenov

2002:207). The Scythian triad (Figure 1), since then appearing

increasingly across the Scythian kurgans of Eurasia, is a

recurring complex of goods consisting of: 1) horse harness, 2)

distinct weapons (‘akinak’ knives, battleaxes, chekans,

klevets, bow and arrows), and 3) aesthetic artefacts decorated

in idiosyncratic Animal style (Kilunovskaya & Semenov

1995:20).

Figure 1. Examples of Scythian triad components. Left to right: 7th c. BC Curled-up

golden panther of unknown Siberian provenance (2003), golden deer, akinaks and

horse harness from Arzhan-2 (Cugunov & Parzinger 2010).

Undoubtedly, the European Scythians have achieved an enviable

sense of political and geographical coherency in the preceding

decades thanks to Rostovtseff (1913; 1922), Minns (1913),

Artamonov (1947; 1948; 1949), Grantovsky (1960), Dumezil

(1962), and, most importantly, Khazanov (1975). These works

tend to assume the existence of a coherent country. While the

western part of the Scytho-Siberian world has been extensively

historicised by Herodotus’ Histories Volume IV, the discovery

of strikingly similar archaic forms of the stylistically

complete Scythian Triad in Tuva (Mannai-ool 2010:53) in the

1970s (Gryaznov 1980) and in 2000 (Chugunov 2011) has made it

clear that the European and Asiatic nomadic worlds have been

sharing mutual historicity, unity of material culture and

artistic styles (Mannai-ool 2002:52). Archetypal material

culture in Altai and Tuva, far beyond the classical Scythia,

has challenged the existing ideas of Scythian identity and its

confines.

The stylistic forms of already developed Tuvan Scythian triad

along in the 9th – 8th c. BC (Marsadolov 2000:49) versus 7th c.

BC for the oldest Kuban and Crimean kurgans (Rice 2003:212),

make it a viable archetype for Pontic Scythian style (Semenov

2002:207). In studying the Tuvan elite burial complex of

Arzhan-1, Semenov (2002:207) brings up the competing views

placing Arzhan either as the oldest example of Eurasian

Scythian monuments or denying its affinity to the Scythian

world altogether due to distance and age. Asiatic burials are

contemporaneous or even earlier than the European ones, as

seen from radiocarbon and dendrochronological dating, as well

as from the archetypal forms of Scythian animal style (Figure

2) in the indigenous ‘deer stones’ (Semenov 2010:54). The

existence of these archaic forms indicates vernacular

trajectories of stylistic evolution, which by Early Iron Age

arrived at quintessentially Scythian forms, analogous to the

European. The deer symbolism accelerates significantly during

the Scythian Epoch, crowned by elaborate golden cultic stags

of Filippovka kurgans in the Urals (Korolkova 2000:69),

artefacts from Pazyryk in the Altai and Arzhan-2 in Tuva

(Gryaznov 1969:134).

Figure 2. Scythian deer symbolism. Left to right: anthropomorphic deer stone from

Arzhan-1 (Semenov 2002, Scythian style elements (Yanin 2006) with noticeable

affinity of deer symbolism and protruding anthropomorphic stones, placed in both

cases at the top of the kurgan structure, Filippovka stag (Aruz et al. 2000).

This dialogue of nomadic cultures should indicate the dynamism

of social processes across the Great Steppe, which can be seen

as long-term development of culturally-bound nomadic societies

during the Scythian Epoch (Grach 1980). Non-uniform social

processes against the backdrop of analogous identity (Abetekov

et al. 1994:24) and their co-existence within the temporal and

typological confines should elucidate the unsuitability of

traditional social classifications, assuming rigid succession

in social formation of a culture. As a classical challenge of

archaeology the dialogue of Scythian-type cultures illustrates

how political and environmental triggers have made peoples

with a very similar way of life sustain a distinctly

centralised state-like polity in the active politogenesis of

the Near East in one case, and early class formation in an

isolated context of chiefdoms in the other. In many ways, the

causality behind nomadic centralisation and increasing

complexity has been provoked by contact with neighbouring

‘settled’ states rather than out of intrinsic necessity (Bacon

1958; Khazanov 1984; Lattimore 1940). Although Greece, Near

East and China have all interacted with Scythians, the

isolation of Tuva might explain its historical overshadowing

by the more politically active and proximal Pontic nomads.

Historically, the possibility of using the term ‘Scytho-

Siberian world’ has been determined by the contagious spread

of advantageous mounted and wheeled horse-riding, facilitating

rapid diffusion of artistic styles, technology and ideology

(Rolle 1989:101). Although it might no longer be possible to

reconstruct a coherent inter-relationship and genealogy of

these complex tribes, whose lack of writing and coinage leaves

any understanding to inferences from biased etic historical

records (Rice 2003:9), the similarity of the Black Sea and

Siberian cultures is a sound evidence for mutual historicity

across the steppe corridor (Alekseev 2000:42).

Pan-Scythian narratives of genetic and political unity are

long abandoned. Yablonsky warns of the dangerous disparity

between the ethnic terminology and archaeological reality of

the tribal entities we call ‘Scythians’ (Yablonsky 2000). It

is important to divorce our understanding of this world from

its historical myth and understand the continuity, rather than

unity, of these polyethnic cultures represented

archaeologically across Eurasia. Tribes of southern Siberia

demonstrate this over large geographical expanses while

maintaining distinctive local styles (Gryaznov 1969:134). As

with many constituents of the nomadic world, it is important

to analyze their individual variability, which manifests the

sheer dynamism of the nomads (Mannai-ool 2002:52). Eastern

Scythian-type cultures offer a much overlooked material in

Scythology, contributing to manifold manifestations of

Eurasian nomadism. Most importantly the challenge of Tuvan

Scythian material is a warning against mechanical

oversimplifications of historical processes and early class

formation, assumed as a one-off territorially bound event.

The temporal dimension of the so-called Scythian Epoch covers

roughly 8 – 4th c. BC. The 8th c. frontier corresponds to the

transition from Bronze Age pastoral-agricultural emi-sedentary

economies to complete pastoral nomadism within the mountain-

steppe regions of Central Asia, south Siberia, Kazakhstan and

Middle Asia (Grach 1980:256). The 3rd c. confines are

necessarily rigid, due to the potential dissemination of the

Scythian culture within a larger framework of early nomads, of

which Hunno-Sarmatians are clearly archaeologically distinct

(ibid.).

In applying the term Scythian Epoch we should also remember

that a certain proportion of the population, such as Tagar

culture in middle Yenisei, have maintained a degree of

sedentism (ibid.). As much as the nomadic ‘Revolution’ is

fundamental for the steppe peoples, it is also unrealistic for

it to replace all existing socio-economic modes. Yet the

mobile cultural membrane, which this transition has created,

has led to an unforeseen level of conceptual, cultural and

ethnical communication within the Great Steppe. In using the

term ‘Scythian’, we acknowledge a kaleidoscopic profusion of

distinct societies across Eurasia, which contributed to the

dialectic of mutual socio-economic processes defining the

Scythian Epoch in Eurasia.

3. Social archaeology

Social archaeology is one of the most revealing approaches to

understanding the nature and mechanisms of social relations of

a given community (Renfrew and Bahn 2008:177). Social

organization is a common criterion for classification of past

societies and indeed should be instrumental for the nomadic

social phenomenon. The traditional four-fold classification,

suggested by Elman Service following a uniform social

evolution (hunter-gatherer - segmentary society - chiefdom –

state), has been useful for detecting the qualitatively

different structural reorganizations of past societies (Kradin

2000:27) and tailoring relevant methodological approaches

(Renfrew & Bahn 2008:178). However, it has also been

recognised as an artificial theoretical construct, neglecting

the possibility of long-term dynamic complexity and

territorial dialectics in social formation. The latter

particularly dictates assumptions that a given society is

subject to distinct mechanics of social organisation, as

regular throughout the entire social canvas as it is all-

encompassing within particular cultural and temporal confines.

The static assumptions of four-fold social types entail

particular scale, form of leadership, settlement pattern,

ritual, architecture and economy (ibid.). Consequentially,

understanding of transition between these categories often

suffers a dual assumption:

1) A necessary unilinear temporal evolution of the

categories from ‘savagery’ to ‘civilization’, and

therefore the latter’s superiority, as epitomized by the

influential savagery-barbarism-civilization model, by the

19th century banker-come-archaeologist John Lubbock

(Parker Pearson 1999:72). In Spencer’s definition,

discourse into social evolution assumes “a change from an

incoherent homogeneity to a coherent heterogeneity”

(Spencer 1864:584). Hereby is a construct based on

analogy between inequality and complexity, where the

societies leaning towards egalitarianism and therefore

simplicity become inevitably trapped in stages of early

social evolution in prehistory (ibid.). Indubitably, many

of these categories persist to this day, and we cannot

assume that an umbrella category of ‘chiefdom’ is static

and representative across thousands of years. Extreme

modern ethnographic examples of co-existence of the

‘primitive’ categories, Australian Aborigines or Pygmies

(Barnard 2004), alongside ‘civilized’ urban alternatives

suggests a-temporality with a degree of deliberate

ethical choice behind their social organisation.

2) Conventional categorisation assumes projection of rigid

boundaries between the categories in real ethnographic

and archaeological examples. It becomes almost

unthinkable for a given society to possess a combination

of criteria from different categories. Consequentially,

archaeological material does not always match up to these

categorical expectations (Parker Pearson 1999:73).

Transitional social forms are overlooked, while the truly

dynamic processes of social formation are deemed

unorthodox. This problem is particularly acute when

applied to nomads.

Following the fourfold model, pastoral nomadism would have to

fall into what comes across as an odd and inconvenient

minority group of ‘segmentary society’ category, of which

multi-community integration through kinship ties is expected

(Renfrew & Bahn 2008:179). This theoretical affinity is based

on the assumed scale of nomadic society larger than that of

hunter-gatherers, yet lacking the ranking of a stratified

chiefdom with the relevant social categories and power

hierarchy (ibid.). Indeed pastoral nomadism differs

substantially from mobile hunter-gatherers in their motivation

and logistics for mobility and the nomadic drive for

acquisition of land for pasture, rather than symbolic

association with landscape locales (Cribb 1991:21). Nomadic

mortuary variability is evocative of social differentiation

unlike a segmentary society. The inadequacy of most social

models lies in Edmund Leach’s disarming retort, cited in

Parker Pearson (1999:73), of over fifty known chiefdom types,

whose reduction to a single category is only too absurd. The

key case study used in this paper is a humble example that

should sufficiently demonstrate the incompetence of

conventional social categorisation and the truly rich

potential for social dialectics across Scythian-type

societies.

Rosen indicates the uniqueness of nomadism outside the

conventional linear social evolution (Rosen 2008:116), which

can never be seen in isolation. It is not a statically frozen

‘civilization’ which attained existence and then failed to

grow (Toynbee 1946:574), and therefore it should not be

considered as a dead-end of social transformations as has been

infamously seen by antiquity and 20th century sociologists

(Lenski 1984:132). It is frequently intertwined with sedentary

communities both in terms of physical exchange and occasional

ideological affinity. The degree of interaction can determine

the rate of social transformations and cultural responses,

resulting in the nomadic social variability across Eurasia

(Grach 1980:256). Again in this affinity, one should not stick

with assumptions that “nomads needed sedentary societies far

more than sedentary societies needed nomads” (Kurtz

2008:1721). Nomads have been provoked by and provoked back the

formation of ‘civilized’ states (Kradin 2008:107) and have

sometimes ‘evolved’ within sedentary socio-economic

frameworks, seen in the stylistic/structural affinity of Iron

Age Eurasians with Bronze Age sedentary pastoral Andronovo

culture (Gryaznov 1969:91; Savinov1994:170). Indeed, genetic

sequences constructed for Tuvan steppes have linked the new

epoch with an influx of ancient cattle-breeders from Volga and

the Urals (Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:20).

Sedentary Bronze Age Eurasian heritage determines some aspects

of nomadic cosmology and ritual. Semenov indicates the

affinity of Eurasian kurgan planning, its radial core-

periphery structure, with a static spatial world model typical

for the sedentary Iranian societies, as opposed to a dynamic

coreless world perception, expected from a nomadic society

(Semenov 2008:209). It is important to not only abandon static

vision of nomadism, but divorce it from another research vice,

placing it at the savagery end of the unilinear social

development (Kradin 2008:108). We should not fail to

acknowledge the true potential for dynamism and variation

within and between each particular category.

Following the records of antiquity, nomads have received

attention in so far as they fit into historical schemata of

agricultural civilizations, which resulted in the common place

denial of class society to nomads (Khazanov 1984:10). Wherever

class is assumed in nomadic context, there is only negligible

analysis of nomadic social functioning, which is often seen as

static (Khazanov 1975:32). A variety of perspectives on

nomadic impact on the human career has placed them at various

focal points as egalitarian primitive communists or slave-

owning feudalists by Marxist researchers, and as one of the

driving components towards statehood by Adam Smith and

Immanuel Kant (Khazanov 1984:10; Kradin 2008:2). Khazanov

identifies the mid-1950-70s as the period of vast fieldwork

into nomadism with a substantial increase in the number of

scholars, who have at last advanced detailed reconstructions

of nomadic socio-political organization, functioning and

development, alongside older approaches of ecological

determinism (Khazanov 1984).

Looking at nomadic societies, which lack indigenous written

tradition, the ‘bottom-up’ perspective of reconstructing

sociality from kurgans becomes a solid basis for understanding

of how these societies worked (Renfrew & Bahn 2008:177). The

‘top-down’ perspective, providing general constructs of scale

and internal organization of a given society (ibid.), can act

as a theoretical deviation point guiding our expectations

against the nature of archaeological evidence. With regards to

the Scythian type nomadic culture, our understanding of the

social organisation can therefore be inferred from ‘top-down’

perspectives of social theory, on one hand, and the ‘bottom-

up’ perspectives of archaeology of concrete kurgans, on the

other.

Kurgans bear evidence of nomadic understanding of power and

hierarchy, entailing assumptions of social umbrella

structures, larger than the band or a nuclear family (Abetekov

et al. 1994:26). The deviation of kurgan burials with

elaborate subterranean structures from simple pit-grave is

alone indicative of status elevation with significant labour

input and acknowledgment of hierarchy (Rakita n.d.:4).

Implications of labour input and status manifested in the

scale, structure and contents of kurgans, is key (Grach

1980:256). The complexity of implicated funerary ritual,

valuable material contributions of gold and bronze, human and

animal sacrifice are symptomatic for many Scythian-type

burials (Mannai-ool 2010:53). The burial variability of

kurgans is instrumental for reconstructions of social

organization and status (Binford 1971). At least for some of

these, such as Tuvan Arzhans, we can infer social indicators

of a complex chiefdom (Semenov 2002:230). For the purposes of

social implications, the existence of elite Scythian

structures bears two-fold implications:

1) the possibility of managing and subordinating social stratum

for purposes of impactful monumental construction with a large

labour investment;

2) manifestation of social stratification in elaboration of

grave construction and grave goods related to emergence of

new power distribution in a society of unfurling social

complexity.

Conventional associations between funerary complexity and

social complexity (Rakita n.d.:4) should assume relative

funerary simplicity of nomadic mortuary practices. However,

these structures demonstrate structural and artefactual

elaboration of striking complexity (see Chapter 5).

Understanding of burial variability amongst kurgans shows a

dynamic and complex understanding of social differentiation

amongst nomads (Hanks 2000:19). This dynamism should be

acknowledged, both contemporaneously, across different

regions, and in the longue duree.

Kurgan necropolises manifest ideological re-organization of

space and the need to demarcate territory in a context of

unfolding complexity of mobile steppe societies, lacking

sedentary territorial markers such as fortifications (Rosen

2008:122). Kurgans pose no direct physical obstruction to

penetration into the territory of a particular chiefdom, which

entails nomadic understanding of territoriality, dictated

instead by metaphysical ideological regulations associated

with kurgan complexes. In studying the monumentality and

structure of some of these constructions, we can infer social

hierarchy with a specific mythologized consciousness (Semenov

2002:230), binding a given nomadic society.

4. The Genesis of Eurasian nomadism: pastures and horses

Ad verbatim reiterations of the challenging nomadic phenomenon

appear in a variety of sources of antiquity: Herodotus 4.46,

Diodorus IX.94.2, Shih Chi (Chapter 10) and Ammianus

Marcellinus XIV.4.3.5. It is clear that by the first

millennium BC a complex nomadic world co-existed alongside

cradles of civilization in the Near East, Mediterranean, China

and India (Marsadolov 2000:49). As an alternative post-

Neolithic line of development (Kradin 2000), pastoral nomadism

has segregated some time after the first civilizations,

traditionally confined for one reason or another to world’s

zones of aridity, such as steppes and semi-deserts (Khazanov

1984:87). Based on socio-economic criteria, we can identify

North Eurasian type, Eurasian steppe type, Middle Eastern

type, Near Eastern type, east African type and high inner

Asian type (ibid.). Of these the Eurasian steppe type is a

significant constituent, which can be sub-divided into further

variations. It is significant both due to its scale, spreading

from the Danube to Mongolia (Yablonsky 2000:4), its historical

impact and availability of etic records. One of the centres of

early pastoral nomadism in the Great Steppe is the basin of

River Yenisei in the mountain-steppe zone of Central Asia –

modern Republic of Tuva (Semenov 2010:54). Here, pastoralism

has emerged as an element of a distinct Eurasian socio-

economic phenomenon at the turning point of the second and

first millennia BC. By about 8th century BC, it became

characterised as Scythian nomadic culture (Kilunovskaya &

Semenov 1995).

It has been a misleading practice to involve anything mobile

under the umbrella term of ‘nomadism’. Much of traditional

research has not distinguished between ‘true’ nomads and

hunter-gatherers, whose motives and patterns of mobility

differ substantially, or between nomads and the ethnic-

professional gypsy groups, mobile horticulturalists and

transhumanists (Khazanov 1984:15). Nomadic form of mobility is

defined in conjunction with its economic behaviour as “a

distinct from of food-procuring economy in which extensive

mobile pastoralism is the predominant activity and in which

the majority of the population is drawn into periodic pastoral

migrations” (Khazanov 1984:7).

However, nomadic social phenomenon was not an unforeseen food-

procuring practice. Nomadism could have gradually crystallized

out of a range of activities in a context of division of

labour, where herding as a seasonal activity has lured more

and more tribes to take on the economic advantages of

specialised pastoral nomadism (Gryaznov 1969:131). It is

misleading to take on board the tripartite social theory

assuming the direct development of pastoral nomadism out of

hunting (Khazanov 1984:85). Correlation of such factors as the

reproductive and adaptive advantages of sheep livestock

(rather than cattle) (Rolle 1989:100), the need for bigger

pastures and climatic desiccation could have led to a

formation of specialised communities of pastoralists,

segregating out of a range of socio-economic modes (Khazanov

1984:88). Many groups would have become isolated, abandoning

other economic alternatives (Gryaznov 1955), hindered by

livestock growth and expansion into unfurling ecological zones

(Khazanov 1984:88). Under pressures of warfare efficiency and

arid environment, local Bronze Age communities would have

recognised the benefits of nomadism, leading to an all-

encompassing fundamental turn to a new way of life in early

Iron Age (Gryaznov 1969:132).

The use of pastoralism in conjunction with nomadism has been

common throughout. Pastoralism in many ways determines the

social, political and cultural aspects of nomadism beyond its

economic benefits (Khazanov 1984). The economic, social,

ritual and ideological realms of nomadic life are inevitably

determined by their access to and control of pastures (Rolle

1989:32). Indeed, elite kurgans in Chapter 5 stand in frequent

spatial correlation with pastures, which clearly extend their

importance beyond the confines of this life (Koryakova

2000:16).

The south Russian steppes are considered home to the first

tribes of horse-breeders in history of animal husbandry

(Tsalkin 1970:248). Here mounted steppe nomadism, which has

come to characterise nomadic horse-back warfare historically,

has emerged at 700 BC at the latest (Anthony 2006:2). Although

horse-back riding existed before the first millennium, it was

the culmination of horse-riding experience over previous

millennia that led to a development of organized horse cavalry

under central commandment that marked the nomadic force

(ibid.). It was the horse-powered ability to control twice

bigger herds over large territories which made large-scale

pastoral economies possible (Anthony 2006:3). Horse-aided

mobility with bulk transport such as wagons and chariots,

rather than pedestrian migration with limited carrying

capacity, has also enabled nomadic material culture to grow

and achieve the beyond utilitarian excellence it is renowned

for (ibid.). As a bulk and rapid transport, which can be

organized into cavalry to extract loot and fund tribal

alliances, horse power became a crucial component of Eurasian

nomadism as it completely revolutionized the economic return

of herding (ibid.). The role of horses has inevitably come to

be cosmological, as well as practical and economical, as we

shall see in the mass horse burials in elite kurgans. Clearly,

the animal of utility has been gradually elevated to a sacred

domain, acting as a macabre transport into the afterlife

(Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:62).

In looking at the pretext for nomadism in Tuva, we should

consider the Bronze Age cultures, which were already

‘pregnant’ with ideas of Scythian Epoch nomadism and share

many symbolic aspects of its ideology (Anthony 2006:9). The

preceding Eneolithic period in the Eurasian steppes

constituted a vast variety of cultures, such as Europeoid

sedentary hunter-pastoral Afanasievskaya Culture and Mongoloid

Okunev Culture, relying on hunting-gathering, fishing, stock-

farming and agriculture, and semi-nomadic Karasuk Culture

(Gryaznov 1969:45). The end of the second millennium BC has

witnessed a rapid expansion of related Bronze Age cultures of

Srubnaya (Timber-Grave) and Andronovo in the southern Urals

(Anthony 2006:6). By introducing cattle and sheep herding in

many areas of Central Asia, Kazakhstan and the Urals, these

cultures have for the first time established multi-ethnic far-

reaching ties with a similar material culture and mortuary

practices across Eurasian steppes (ibid.), anticipating the

Scythian politogenesis.

Yet they still lacked the rapid connectivity of mobile

societies of Iron Age. Clearly, the known affinity of

Andronovo Cultures with urban cluster of Bactria (Anthony

2006:7) has been a stimulating factor in the Bronze Age

processes of sedentarisation and borrowing of styles. Yet in a

context of settling economies, it became necessary to

distribute the exploited land between members of existing

kinship groups, leading to conflict, conquest (ibid.), and the

need for alternative solutions.

An understanding of zigzag trajectory of social development

elucidates meaningful historical and technological expertise

of the preceding millennia, making nomadism possible. The

accumulation of experience in horse-riding and new techniques

of control, such as saddles, bits and bridling, bronze

arrowhead moulds and compound bow (Anthony 2006:10) have

empowered pastoral economies, making it a viable alternative

in a quest for territory.

About 9th century BC, some tribes have moved to a completely

nomadic way of life based on two pillars: pasture-reliant

sheep for subsistence and horses for transport. By early Iron

Age, the Eurasian steppe peoples have achieved nomadism as it

is known around the world: a perishable portable dwelling,

mobile transport and herding (ibid.). The onset of nomadism

took hold rapidly of a mosaic layout of Bronze Age tribes, who

either saw the advantage of a new pattern of stock-farming or

reacted to the raids of the elusive new forces by submitting

to a similar way of life (Gryaznov 1969:131). Inevitably, it

led to a reformulation of social order and the emergence of

social stratification, where the disparity in land tenure is

expressed in the fact that a rich man possesses a larger

quantity of livestock and wanders quicker (with more horses)

in order to occupy more convenient pasture plots (Khazanov

1984:123). Although some ancient nomads have practiced

agriculture and incorporated wheat and grain into their diet,

it is generally associated with less powerful groups (Anthony

2006:10). The extent of investment into warfare specialisation

and leadership to organize the protection of large mobile

herds in a new eco-system has segregated nomadism to the

domain of the most powerful socially differentiated Scythians

(Anthony 2006:11).

5. Case study

5.1 Social organization of nomads in Scythian Epoch Tuva

Map 2. Location of the Tuva Republic in context (Anon 2010).

Amongst Soviet academics, the Tuva Republic (Map 2) has become

known as the ‘crown of Asia’, confined by taiga to the north

and deserts of Central Asia to the south (Obruchev 1965). Tuva

is defined by such prominent topographic features as River

Yenisei (Ulug-Khem) and Sayan Mountains. Despite its isolation

from all ancient civilizations, Tuva has accumulated a great

diversity of ancient cultures since the Neolithic

(Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:19). This diversity resonates in

the rapid ecological succession of taiga, steppes, desert and

glaciated mountainous areas (ibid.). Prehistorically, it has

been exposed to a wide-ranging migration influx from both

Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which can be seen both

genetically: in Bronze Age ties with Andronovo Culture, and,

artistically, in affinity of rock imagery with the Ganges,

Yinshan Mountains and Middle Amur region (ibid.). By the end

of the Bronze Age, this melting pot of cultures has

crystallized into a coherent Scytho-Siberian superethnos

(ibid.), with artefactual manifestations of the well-formed

Scythian triad in the first prominent Scythian-type monument

of Arzhan-1 (Figure 2).

Based on their scale, mortuary allocation and implied labour

investment for their construction, the traditional Soviet

research (Grach 1980; Khazanov 1975) distinguished the

following categories in the Scythian kurgans: ‘Royal’ kurgans,

Middle-strata and Lower subordinated strata. Each category is

potentially heterogeneous. The tripartite social division,

with its assumptions of elite, middle and lower castes is

predominantly determined by the reliance of Soviet research on

mortuary differentiation of scale and elaboration of entire

kurgan structures, is seen by many as a manifestation of

Iranian social templates in Avesta. Here the Avestan affinity

is evocative for socio-economic and religious functioning of

all Iranian tribes (ibid.). Meanwhile the Iranian background

of Tuvan cultures can be deduced from affinity of site plans

(Semenov 2002), the linguistic implications of local

hydronyms, using a common Iranian root <Khem>, Iranian

influences in the Animal style itself (wild boar motif

associated with chthonic Iranian mythology) and specific

Iranian mourning rites such as the cutting of horse tails, as

seen from the layer of horse tails at the bottom of Arzhan-2

main burial (Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:68).

The emic legend, tracing the European Scythian origins to the

first man to inhabit their land – Targitaus – a mythical

father to the three fraternal tribes of Lipoxais, Arpoxais and

Coloxais (Herodotus 4.5), is another pretext for assuming a

tripartite social division amongst the Scythians. Symbolically

one of the sons, Coloxais, was initiated by a divine fire to

reign above all others, privileged to access the golden

objects proceeding from the heavens: a plough, a yoke, a

battle-axe and a bowl (ibid.). The symbolism of heavenly fire

in this myth stands in unison with the known Zoroastrian

understanding of sacred fire as a talisman, establishing the

primordial tripartite social organisation (Avesta Vendidad

Fargard II Myth of Yima; Dumezil 1941:225).

5.2 Arzhan kurgans and the Valley of the Kings

Figure 3. Plan of looted Arzhan-1 (Cugunov & Parzinger 2010). Originally 120 m in diameterand 4 m high, seen as the first prominent manifestation of a new Scythian epoch in thecultural melting pot of Tuva. 1. Central burial (four adult foot phalanges, turquoise beadsand fragments, golden leaf plaque, bronze fragments, 15-20 horse tails etc.), surrounded by6 burials (5 male, 1 empty) in sable furs and imported textiles with akinaks and arrowheadsand 6 richly-decorated horse burials to the east; 2. 30 horse burials laid in three rows, craniaoriented towards the central burial (fragments of bits, bridles, bronze Animal style disc, atleast three distinct cheek-piece types); 2-3. Three horse burials; 3. 30 horse burials, craniaoriented towards the central burial (bronze bits etc.); 5. 15 horse burials crania orientedtowards the central burial (bronze bits, bronze cheek-pieces, horn cheek-pieces, bridles); 10.2 horse burials; 13. Mixed horse and male (60+) bones (fragments of gold, horse harness);17. 8 horse burials (bronze horse harness); 20. About 18 horse burials (bronze horseharness; golden tail plaques); 26b. 11 horse burials (bronze bits, cheek-pieces; ornaments);31. 2 elderly male burials, 10 horse burials, heads oriented towards the central burial (horseharness; golden tail plaques); 34a. 5horse burials (unique horse harness; fragments of deerstone); 37. 13 horse burials, crania oriented towards the central burial (unique bronze horseharness); 68. 2 horse burials (Gryaznov 1980:25).

The structure of Arzhan-1, implying unfolding social

differentiation, contains artefacts conforming to a well-

formed Scythian triad, classifying it to new Scythian-type

kurgan within indigenous Tuvan cultures (Semenov 2010:56).

Discovered in the 1970s by Mikhail Gryaznov and Mongush

Mannai-ool, this enormous elite kurgan in pasture-rich Turan-

Uyuk basin has dramatically empowered the first wide-ranging

unification of Eurasian nomads as the oldest known Early

Scythian Epoch kurgan in Central Asia (Kilunovskaya & Semenov

1995:45), offering the only known analogy to Scythian horse

cheek-pieces type and boar fang plaques beyond the Black Sea

(Grach 1980:27).

Arzhan-1 is one of the largest distinct kurgans in the east-

west oriented clusters of the Turan-Uyuk basin (Gryaznov

1980). The basin (Figure 4) is known as the Valley of the

Kings. It is the highest of the local basins, truncated by

Yenisei (ibid.). Its unique micro-climate (ibid.) would have

made a desirable and rare locale for winter camps, which,

judging from the unparalleled scale of local individual

kurgans, ranging from 30-120 m in diameter, has been

successfully appropriated by the privileged few. Turan-Uyuk

appears as a suitable analogue of a privileged royal sepulchre

of the European Scythia, Gerrhi, described by Herodotus

(4.71). Within these kurgans, three (1, 2, 8 on Figure 4) are

outstanding and unique in the region. They stand out as

solitary stone-kurgans (rather than chains of earth-kurgans),

bearing the largest diameters. They are also some of the

shallowest kurgans represented, disguising timber structures,

overlaid by flat platforms. A current addition to this

category can be seen in green points 9, 10 and 11(Arzhan-2)

(Cugunov & Parzinger 2010:13).

Figure 4. The Turan-Uyuk basin - the Valley of the Kings (Adapted from Gryaznov 1980). 1.

Single stone-kurgan (80 m diameter, 1.5 m height); 2. Single stone-kurgan Arzhan-1 (120 m

diameter, and 3-4 m height); 3. No data; 4. Multiple earth-kurgan chain of 6 mounds (40-50

m diameter, 1.5-3.5 m height); 5. Multiple earth-kurgan chain of 11 mounds (30-40 m

diameter); 6. Multiple earth-and-stone kurgan chain of 3 (50-75 m diameter, 2-6.5 m height);

7. Two chains (13 and 12 kurgans in each) of multiple earth-kurgans (up to 8 m height); 8.

Single stone kurgan (105 m diameter, 1 m height) (Gryaznov 1980); 9-10. Arzhan-type

unexcavated stone-platform; 11. Arzhan-2 (80 m diameter, 2 m height) (Cugunov &

Parzinger 2010:13).

It is difficult to judge whether the exceptional

characteristics of these structures render them more elite

than the rest of the Uyuk kurgans. Indubitably, when

considering the heights of other kurgans, some of which would

have reached up to 8 meters in height (Gryaznov 1980:12), we

cannot deny the phenomenological impact of their monumentality

as a more compelling manifestation of elite power. Instead, we

could view the exclusivity of the flat platforms as suitable

axis mundi for communal ritual. Funerary ritual is not only a

symbolic representation of the deceased’s role(s) in society,

but also a public event, dictating community ethos and

relationships (Renfrew & Bahn 2008:199) through a coherent

orchestration of emic semiotics.

The similarity of these structures can be found in cultic

radial structures of Sintashta and Arkaim in the Urals

(Savinov 1994:171), representing a cosmological centre and

cardinal directions (Semenov 2002:213). The appearance of

these structures in the 9-7th c. BC in Tuva could therefore

demonstrate the need for a new world model, with a fundamental

transformation in social organisation. Considering limitations

of published data and lack of systematic surveys, Arzhan-1 and

Arzhan-2 are currently the most representative of these

unusual structures, recorded by Gryaznov (1980) and Cugunov &

Parzinger (2010). Comparative analysis of the two shows

deviation in Arzhan-2 (Figure 5) from the original symmetrical

pattern, with their affinity lying in scale, flatness and

nature of central burial, which allow assumptions of their

elite status (Chugunov 2009:48).

Figure 5. Plan of Arzhan-2 (Cugunov & Parzinger 2010), originally 80 m in diameter and 2 mhigh. Grab 5: decentralised main wooden burial of elite couple; Grab 1: 30-35 y. o. femaleon stones (iron knife); Grab 2: unknown on a wooden floor (gold fish figures/ornaments,bird of prey lid, wooden fragments – horse harness?); Grab 3: child in wooden deck in thebackfill of main burial (amber beads) and younger burial of 23-25 y. o. male on stones(ceramic pot, polychrome beads, arrowheads); Grab 7: 18-20 y. o. female in a cist (bronzeknife; bone arrowheads;); Grab 8: 40-45 y. o. male in a cist (bronze knife/decoration, tinpectoral/trims); Grab 11: 3-9 month-old baby in a wooden deck (gold spiral wire); Grab 12:16-19 y. o. female in a cist (bronze knife; bronze mirror/awl; tin earring/decorations;diorite/calcite/carnelian/turquoise/amber beads); Grab 13: joint cist burial of 18-19 y. o.female (bronze knife/awl/needle/mirror/arrowhead, wooden comb, glass/turquoise/bonebeaded necklace) with 45-50 y. o. female (bronze knife/broach/decoration, goldearrings/feline plaques, wooden comb, deer tooth pendant, carnelian/turquoise beads,felt/wool textiles and carpet) in cists; Grab 13B: 20-25 y. o. female in a cist (bronzeknife/awl/mirror, gold earrings, wooden comb, turquoise/carnelian/glass beads, fur); Grab

14: joint 21-25 y. o. male and 45-50 y. o. male in a cist (bronze knives/bridle); Grab 16: 14horses in a wood/stone pit (bronze/gold horse-harness); Grab 20: two 22-25 y. o. males in acist (bronze pick-axes/knife/ belt, golden earrings, wooden-horn-leather bow and arrows,textile); Grab 22: 20-21 y. o. female in a cist (bronze ornaments/needle, gold head-dress,golden ibex/earrings, turquoise/amber/glass beads, wood-iron knife); Grab 24: 50-59 y. o.male in a cist (bone arrowheads,); Grab 25: 28-30 y. o. male in a cist (bronze knives, bronze-wood battleaxes, bronze/wood ladle, gold earrings, glass beads, bronze quiver with woodenarrows); Grab 26: 23-25 y. o. male in a cist ((bronze knife/axe/belts, whetstone, bronzequiver with wooden arrows) (Cugunov & Parzigner 2010).

Arzhan-1 (Figure 3), on the other hand, bears a symmetrical

radial plan of larch timber network: about 70 trapeze-shaped

chambers covered by timber ‘roof’, with a square central

burial, covered by stone slab-roof, bearing the wealthiest

artefacts in the whole structure (Gryaznov 1980:9). Of 70,

only 13 chambers consist of horse/human burials (ibid.).

Judging by the size of the majority of Arzhan-1 rocks (20-50

kg, 20-40 cm long), it is possible to make assumptions of

significant labour investment, presumably male with aid of

animal transportation, as indicated by stones’ provenance

(Grach 1980:45) beyond the Turan-Uyuk basin. The manipulation

of larch logs reaching up to 85 cm in diameter (Gryaznov

1980:9), should have been similarly laborious. Considering the

implicated spontaneity behind the building of trapeze-

chambers, showing no major signs of log treatment (Gryaznov

1980) and only a rough idea of uniformity, these significant

labour requirements are striking. Given the common sense

spontaneity of a funerary event, Arzhan-1 could have been

built in 7-8 days by 1500 people (Gryaznov 1980:45).

Due to looting, Arzhan-1’s osteological evidence is largely

distorted. The interpretation of the four phalanges in the

central grave being a senile male and a gracile female

(Gryaznov 1980:15) would have been a dubious speculation

without the analogous intact Arzhan-2 ‘couple’, rendering

original interpretation prophetic (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The layout of undisturbed main burial of Arzhan-2(Cugunov & Parzinger 2010:29)fills in the visibility gaps for looted Arzhan-1. ‘Skelett 1(male)’: golden headdress, goldendeer/horse plaques, golden neck-ring/earring/clothes-plaques, about 250 000 golden beadsdecorating the trousers, wooden/gold/amber/turquoise beads, akinak-dagger with goldenelements, gold-plated iron knives and golden cases, golden plate, awl, bronze mirror, goldenquiver with arrows, wooden bow, 312 large boar plaques, 244 smaller boar plaques, 17feline plaques, gold boot-strip, gold- and silver-plated arrowheads; ‘Skelett 2 (female)’:golden headdress, horse plaques, golden feline plaques, Turquoise beads/golden ornamentsfor headdress, tear-drop turquoise beads, golden hair pin with a miniature deer,

golden/turquoise/amber earring, turquoise/amber/gold beads,Gold/amber/turquoise/pyrite/glass clothes beads, Golden feline clothes plaques, goldenbracelet, golden knife, bronze broach & pin, golden sheep plaques, 116 gold beads, leatherbag, golden bootstrips, golden sleeves, golden pectoral, golden cup, wood/gold comb(Cugunov & Parzinger 2010).

It is difficult to confirm the artefactual differentiation

between the burials of Arzhan-1, considering sample distortion

by looting. But detailed artefact reports from Arzhan-2 show

no major differentiation between the genders of the royal

couple, both associated with expensive ornamentation, funerary

mirrors and weapons (knives), with only indication of gender

differentiation seen in association of the male with

particular types of weapons: akinak, bow and arrows (Figure

6). The age and gender specifications of the nearest eight

accompanying burials in Arzhan-1, all presumably older male,

are interpreted by Grach (1980) as ‘noblemen’ and lack

significant inventory other than bronze weapons, which is

symptomatic of their protective role. The forty+ age criteria

of all but one of these males (Gryaznov 1980:15) is also

contrary to expectations of natural state of age/gender

proportions in a household/family (Bettina 2001:53). Similarly

the 21 deceased in Arzhan-2 definitely do not represent a

natural distribution of sexes in the population: 11 men, 7

women, 2 children and 1 undetermined, with average age of men

- 34.8 y. o., women – 24.1 y. o. (Cugunov & Parzigner

2010:271)

Instead, we can assume the specific social roles of this

category as selected based on gender/age criteria. Herodotus

mentions the subsidiary ‘royal’ burials of servant, horseman,

body-guard, messenger, cook and cupbearer, who maintain elite

status (Herodotus 4.71), as reflected in rich imported textile

in these burials. The symbolic maintenance of eight male

burials in Arzhan-2, barring two baby burials and women

(Figure 5), supports the intentional selection of an elite

subsidiary category. The outstanding nature of baby burials

(Grab 3, 11) as the only wooden graves, other than that of

elite couple, horse burials and 1 unknown, could show the

significance of organic/alive material in defining rank and

symbolic elements. Although babies, chiefs and horses appear

heterogeneous, they can all be seen as parts of a liminal

sacred domain, marked by their mediating nature between

heaven/earth (chiefs-kings), life/death (horses as transport

to afterlife) and spiritual/physical (babies as incomplete

beings). Wood contrasts with inorganic/dead stone-cists of

others, including the potentially sacrificed adults. Gold,

rather than bronze, in baby burials can also be symptomatic of

hereditary social ranking, rather than achieved status.

The individuals represented in Arzhans allow assumptions of

politically/socially binding criteria beyond nuclear family.

Understanding of kin affinity could hereby be pseudo-

geneological, as in Pontic Scythia, socially-bound with ethno-

mythical ancestor Targitaus (Herodotus 4.5). Such mythical

kinship could have been instrumental to centralisation of

otherwise mobile and large units in Scythia - a viable

template for unfurling complexity in Tuva. The breaking down

of kinship ties, determined by the mobility across territories

larger than that controllable by kin, is seen in particular in

the European Scythian tradition of blood-brotherhood

(Herodotus 4.70), pseudo-kinship, exploring new social and

economic potential. Blood-brotherhood does exist amongst

hunter-gatherers as part of individual incorporation of

strangers (van Gennep 1965:26) and group initiations,

integrating into a new social category bound by age/gender,

entering ‘social puberty’ (van Gennep 1065:65). However, the

latter is dictated by compelling automatic belonging to a

social category, rather than individual agency in a society

developing new socio-economic relationships (Khazanov

1975:109). The Pontic Scythian betrothal achieved significant

cultic elevations within the indigenous pantheon of gods

(Khazanov 1975:107), signifying increasing ideological

importance of other than kin ties - a possible line of

development for Arzhan society.

Further evidence for beyond immediate kin network comes from

what appears as ethnographically distinct types of horse

harness (Figure 7) in Arzhan-1 chambers 34a and 37 in Figure

3, which can be representative of subordinating/sympathetic

regions contributing to the rite (Gryaznov 1980:45):

Figure 7. Comparative bronze horse bridles from Arzhan-1(Adapted from Gryaznov 1980).

Having combined this collage at random, at least four types of bridles can be distinguished:

1. round-shaped; 2. shovel-ended; 3. Combined; 4. shovel-shaped hatched. These images do

not reflect the claimed uniqueness of horse harness in chamber 37 (apart from a single

shovel-shaped hatched bridle), which is represented by the right half of the figure.

Figure 8. Comparative bridle elements from Arzhan-1 (ibid.). This time within the visible

variations in shape, left bottom corner stands out as flattened and oval-ended,

corresponding to chamber 37.

Tributary hypothesis is akin to Scythian tradition of

conveying the ‘royal’ corpse to subordinating tribes for 40

days, collecting tribute (Herodotus 4.73). The fact that these

horses, of which there are about 160(!) inside the kurgan, were

old stallions (Gryaznov 1980:46) supports this hypothesis

against that of ‘royal’ cavalry. A major indication of the

scale of Arzhan-1 funerary event is the estimated 300 horses

deposited outside the kurgan, which could have catered for about

10,000 people (Gryaznov 1980:44), a ‘chiefdom’ scaled society

(Renfrew & Bahn 2008:180). Whether this explains a one-off

funerary feast or an accumulation of periodic inter-tribal

gatherings, the presence of significant amount of animal bones

cannot be accidental: public consumption of food and drink has

always been a special feature of periodic ritual meetings

(Renfrew & Bahn 2008:206). Genetic analysis of horse bones

from Arzhan-2 has demonstrated ten haplotype variations, and

therefore genetic differentiation as separate herds (Cugunov &

Parzinger 2010:253), with strontium-isotope analysis for one

of the geldings, indicating Altaic origins (Chugunov

2007:269), supporting Arzhan-1 tributary hypothesis. The

drastic differentiation of spatial allocation and accompanying

inventory within the Arzhan kurgans demonstrates the

subordination of certain social stratums to the needs of an

elite couple, who can afford to be buried with prestigious

non-utilitarian items, excess of expensive golden

ornamentation and far-reaching imported materials.

Furthermore, Arzhan-2 graves 24, 22 and 25, both female and

male (Figure 9), bear distinct evidence of fatal skull

fractures, delivered with blunt objects (Cugunov & Parzinger

2010:299), signalling evidence for possible human sacrifice,

unrelated to otherwise apparent male-specific military roles.

This stands in tune with Herodotus’ description of honourable

human sacrifice during Scythian funerary procedure (Herodotus

4.72). Interestingly, ritual killing of elite retainers, seen

in Royal Sumerian cemetery of Ur and Anyang in China, is

conventionally associated with ultimate power of a dead ruler

in early states (Renfrew & Bahn 2008:215).

Figure 9. Fatal injuries in Arzhan-2 supplementary burials: Left to right: 20-21 y. o. Female(Grab 22) and 50-59 y. o. Male (Grab 24) (Cugunov & Parzinger 2010:291-301).

5.3 Reconstruction of social organisation

The Scythian social organisation is thought to reflect

patrilineal chiefdoms at an early stage of class formation

(Khazanov 1975; Grach 1980). However, reconstruction of

kinship in past societies is extremely difficult (Bettina

2001). Joint gender burials of one male and one female, seen

to represent a husband and wife, are frequently taken as

evidence for patrilineal/patriarchal society (Bettina

2001:55). The age/gender distribution within Aldy-Bel’ and

Saglyn (Grach 1980) in does correlate with expectations of

household sample (Figure 10), as opposed to unnatural

age/gender specific criteria in accompanying burials of

Arzhans.

Figure 10. Saglyn tomb in Sagly-Bazhy II, kurgan 4 (Grach 1980). The age/genderdistribution is seen as indicative of a family unit, with children often placed at the feet ofadults, or in a wooden deck outside for infants. The positional alignments of all individualsrepresented shows no differentiation, which either implies relative equality or sacredsignificance of north-western orientation prevailing over social differences.

Patriarchal relationship and, therefore, dominance of male

would be expected in the semiotic significance of

differentiated positions of both genders. Such demarcations of

dominance can be expected in the consistency of distinct

positional arrangement of gender, the gender-preferential

location of funerary inventory and evidence for sacrifice of

the female (Bettina 2001:55). There are no striking gender

differentiations in Arzhan-2 layout of the ‘royal’ couple,

even though the strontium-isotope analysis indicates strong

deviation of the female from the rest of those buried in

Arzhan-2, suggestive of north Altaic origin (Chugunov et al.

2007:270). The latter is also indicative of inter-tribal

diplomacy via kinship ties. Despite the widespread

assumptions, the detailed palaeoanthropological assessment in

Arzhan-2 of the 30-35 y. o. female (Skelett 2) and 40-49 y. o.

male (Skelett 1) in Figure 6 shows the post-mortem nature of

cranium destruction, with no clinically significant deviations

(Cugunov & Parzinger 2010:282). The only significant

pathological indication in Skelett 2 is that of benign

meningial process with inflammation (Cugunov & Parzinger

2010:297). All seven females in Arzhan-2 are significantly

younger than men (some are over 50), with average female age

being 15-24 years, i.e., the first half of reproductive

period, which is suggestive of their death due to

complications at birth (Cugunov & Parzinger 2010:271). It is

only for the female in Grab 22, that inference of violent

death can be made (Figure 9).

Figure 11. Arzhan-2 female cranium with post-mortem destruction of the vault (Cugunov &Parzigner 2010:283).

Based on ethnographic cross-comparisons, it is highly likely

that Scythian marriage model was based on one of the two known

variants: 1) archaic kidnapping and reconciliation or 2)

marriage via agreement and buyout of a bride (Grach 1980:52).

A basic family unit, arranged by either of these mechanisms,

has traditionally constituted a larger network of a three-

generation patriarchal family (ibid.). According to known

ethnographic variations in the region, with the emergence of

new economic relationships, patriarchal family segregates into

smaller scale 2 generation unit of a couple of elders with

their married sons (ibid.). Appearance of grandchildren in the

latter would then signify a start of a new family unit

(ibid.). Archaeologically, this is represented by the two

generations of kin and children in Sagly-Bazhi II (Figure 10),

a typical small scale family, unlikely to be buried at once,

as indicated by dromos-entrance typical for Saglyn burials

(Chapter 5.4).

Scythian patriarchal societies do not show explicit evidence

of rudimentary patriarchal subordination of women, which

involves sacrifice of a wife or a concubine to accompany the

dead. With the existing anthropological evidence, the wife’s

sacrifice hypothesis appears here mythical. The lack of

distinction in topographical funerary arrangement of

female/male adults in sleeping positions, heads facing west

and north-west, shows no differentiation. However, artefactual

differentiation has demonstrated some distinct gender roles,

with association of particular weapon kits and portable wooden

vessels with males and clay domestic vessels, anthropomorphic

pendants, amulets and minor fertility deities with female

(Grach 1980:58). This appears as a gender differentiation

between military roles enabling mobility for men and household

reproductive role for women.

Meta-analyses of matriarchal societies indicate lower level of

production rates and social differentiation (Winslow 1970).

Patriarchal society, on the other hand, is associated with the

development of private property, economic segregation of

family units and exploitation (ibid.). It is only on this

basis that reasons for patriarchal structure can be assumed,

with the existence of inventory-less burials and possible

sacrifice, symptomatic of exploitation. However, there is no

stark dominance of males visible.

A reliable archaeological hallmark, distinguishing the Tuvan

Scythian culture within the Saian-Altai, is the orientation

and position of burials (Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:19). A

Scythian burial is never cremated as in later Hunno-Sarmatian

tradition (Grach 1980:32) and contains the bodies positioned

predominantly on their left side in a ‘foetus’/’sleeping’

position, head oriented to the west or north-west

(Kilunovskaya & Semenov 1995:19):

Figure 12. A typical ‘sleeping’ body positioning on the left side, heads pointing to the west onstone pillows, from the later variant of Scythian Epoch Saglyn Culture (Sagly-Bazhy II,kurgan 13) (Grach 1980). The retention of structural element of dromos in the moundstructure permitted multiple re-burial of kin.

5.4 Classification of Scythian Epoch cultures: evidence for mortuary variability

In the 1960s, kurgans Aldy-Bel’ I, Orta-Khem II and III,

Temir-Sug II, Khem-chik Bom III and V and Chinge I and II (Map

3) along River Yenisei, some 50 km south from the elite burials

of Turan-Uyuk basin, were first recognised as identifiable

Scythian kurgans, which came to define the local Early

Scythian component - the Aldy-Bel’ Culture (Grach 1980:24).

Identified as ‘middle-class’, when compared in scale and

contents to later discoveries of Arzhans, these clusters

consist of 36 kurgans with an overall of 127 burials (ibid.).

Map 3. Map of Arzhan-1 chiefdom site hierarchy (Semenov 2010) with distribution of Adly-Bel’ kurgans from Table 1(i.e, Kopto, Aldy-Bel’, Khemchik-Bom, Chinge I and II, etc.) in thesouthern chain along River Yenisei and elite burials of Turan-Uyuk basin to the north.

Chronologically, the successive stages of Scythian Epoch

cultures in Tuva begin with the earliest Arzhan-1 tribal

centre (Map 3) of 9-8th century BC (Semenov 2010:57). Following

incorporation of diverse cultures, such as Okunev, and

migrations to the Altai have transformed into Aldy-Bel’

Culture, followed by Uyuk and Saglyn Cultures. These are

summarised and characterised in Table 1 to the degree of

detail that the fragmentary reports by Grach (1980), Semenov

(2010) and Semenov & Kilunovskaya (1995) allow.

Table 1. Summary of successive Scythian Epoch cultures in Tuva, using classification bySemenov (2010) based on fragmentary evidence of accessible published material.

Date 9-8th century

BC

7th century BC–

5th century BC

6th century BC 5-4th century BC

Scythian

Epoch

cultures

of Tuva

Arzhan-1

Chiefdom

Aldy-Bel’

Culture

Uyuk Culture Saglyn Culture

Mega-

structures

Other

structures

Represente

d by

kurgans

(not

complete)

Mega:

Arzhan-1

Mega:

Arzhan-2, 8chains ofadjacent unex-cavated andpen-dingroyal kurgans(4-13 kurgansin each chain)

Other:Aldy-Bel’ IBashadarChinge I & IIKhemchik BomIII & VKoptoKoptu-Aksy

Other:

Rankdifferentiatiedcomplexes (feware known):

Doge-BaaryKosh-Pei

Mega:

not found yet,

but expected (Mongolia?)

Other:

Aldy-IshkinArgalykty VIIIAtamanovkaBai-Dag IBegreCha-Hol’CherbiChinge IIDagan-Teli IDuzherlig-Hovuzu IHaiyrakan

Kuilug-Khem IOrta-Khem I,II & IIIPosh-DagSaryg-Bulun(mummified)Temir-Sug I &II TuektaUst-Hadynyg IZubovka

Hemchik-Bom IHemchik-Bom IVHovuzhukMazhylyk-Hovuzu I, II, IIIKazylganKok-El’Kuilug-Khem I &IIMazhylyk-Hovuzu I, II, III & IVOrta-Khem IIOrukOzen-Ala-BeligPosh-DagSagly-Bazhi II, IV & VISenekSuglug-Khem I & IITemir-SugTuran I, II, III, IV & VUlug-Oimak I & IIUlu-Horum temple moundUrbun IIIUspenskoeUyukUyuk I & II

Assumed

social

organisati

on

Socially differentiatedchiefdom

Socially differentiatedchiefdom

Individual status

Socially differentiated chiefdom

Collective status

Socially differentiated chiefdom

Collective status:

Egalitarianisation: Family mausoleums, but evidence for exploitation

Reasons

for change

Onset of wide-spread nomadicpastoralism

Migration westwards to Altai + migrational influx of Okunev-derivedCulture and Semirechie (Zhetysu), Kazakhstan

Elaboration of collective-type Aldy-Bel’ burials

Pazyryk influence (inter-marriage?)

Egalitarisation of the steppes as a result of nomadic migrations, due to Persian attacks

Topography Turan-Uyuk

basin

Turan-Uyuk basinDeforested river valleys

River Bii-Khem Ubsu-Nur basinSagly river valley, Khemchik valleyCentral Tuva

of Ulug_Khem, Khemchik and Kaa-Khem

Burial

type

Surface kereksur-kurgan

Superstructure:Soil/stone embankment, with a circular enclosure and radial “rays”

Subterranean structure:

Timber-cage network with radial alignments

Mass horse burials in elite kurgans

The use of vertical stoneslabs

Kurgan-mound (individualised)

Double (occasionally triple) kurgans divided by a north-south axis

Superstructure:round/oval plan with a circular enclosure “cromlech”stone mound

Subterranean structure:

Individual rectangular stone slab burial or wooden chamber

Collective (upto 7 bodies) extra timber burials with stone elementsand tree-trunkdeck-coffins for young children

Mass horse burials only (!) in elite kurgans

Kurgan-mound (collectivised)

Superstructure: earth mound with rubble flooring and sometimes stone ‘shell’

Subterranean structure: deep timber pits with parallel orientation of floor timbers andtimber ‘roof’ (archaic stone slab burials for peripheral non-kin and juvenile burials)

Evidence of intentional (ritual?) burning, covered by soil, which could have brought the temperature to 120o (Dogee-Baary cluster)

Kurgan (collectivised) flat

Family cemeteries

Superstructure: disappearsRound plan with occasional (!) enclosure Occasional truncation of Aldy-Bel’ burials (Chinge II)

Subterranean structure:increasingly collective burials in single timber chamber

Structure same as Uyuk, but

1) square-shaped,2) shallower pits (1.8- 2.3 m deep),3) larger overall area, 4) orientation of burial floor against roof timbers is perpendicular,5) stone “pillows”

Significant modelling of the burial chamber asa house for the dead:log-cabin with clayinterlayer insulation; appearance of “doors” ,hearth

Horse (and dog) crania only

Orientatio

n and body

Curled up foetus

Curled up foetus

Curled up foetus position, laid on

Curled up foetus position on their left side

positionin

g

position

South-eastern orientation ofcaches containing cheek-pieces and horse bones

position, laidpredominantly on their left side

Central burialchamber individual,

Central -head oriented west,

adjacent bow-arrangement ofburials (younger individuals) to the south/west/north of the central burialare oriented head west/north-west/north

the left side

Head facing westHeads facing north-west/east/south-west

Fan-like orientation west, north-west, north-east, east

Peripheral (south-east of main burial) bodies on their right (!) side, without inventory, heads facing north-east

Symptomati

c

artefacts

1) Animal style disc (curled-up predator)2) Horse tails(central burial)

160 horses

Horse harness:BitsCheek-piecesCranial plaques Gold tail ornamentsBridles

3) Arrowheads,akinaks

Deer stone

1) Golden earrings with a conical pendant (unique Scythian -type, same as Black Sea);

knife (F)mirrors (F/M)comb (F)bead necklaces, golden necklaces and jewellerycurled-up predator scenes; hoofedanimals on ‘tip-toes’, morphing animal contours

1) Golden jewellery; Gold-plated iron jewellery; medal and disc-shaped mirrors; golden plaques (panthers/eagles/griffins) sewn onto clothing; belt ornaments

Craft specialisation ingold and animal style, epitomisedby 3-4 mm golden beads with 1 mm loops; twisted wire golden chains

2) No evidence?

3) Iron weapons

1) Gold foil stripes décor in animal style (felines and eagles); boar fangs; medal-shaped mirrors (F and M) with animal style combat scenes; animal style golden and bead necklaces; ‘grivnas’, hunting amulets

2) No (or less) horse-harness, occasional bridles, S-shaped cheek-pieces, hinged round bits, harness buckles made from both iron and bronze; animal-style bone-handle whips

3) Dramatic increase in weapons bow and arrow kits;

2) Horse-harness:

Y-shaped cheek-pieces; U-shaped cheek-pieces; Stirrup-shapedhorse bits; bronze bridle holder; horse cheek plaques;hoof-patternedbuckles

3) Daggers (M); arrows (M);chekan-battleaxe (M) akinak (M)

4) whetstones 5) awls

7) topsoil ceramics associated with funerary feasts

8) Deer stone

bimetal ( bronze and iron) “akinaki” daggers (utilitarian and votive); elite iron weapon, massive chekan-battleaxe,Eurasian type bronze/bone/wooden arrow tips; bronze knives

4) whetstones

5) bronze pots

6) ceramics inside the burials

Material Gold; importedmaterial ;Sable fur;Turquoise; beads;Ornamented textile (Near Eastern pattern?)

Mega kurgans: Gold, Importedmaterial (amber from Yellow Sea or Persian Gulf, Mediterranean glass, Black sea soda glass, iron turquoise, Indian Carnelian, oceanic cowries)

Other:

?No pottery (only wooden vessels) or occasional pottery waste

Appearance of pottery (symbolically arranged)

Almost no gold

Copper

Iron (for the lack of bronze)

Bone

Bronze

No pottery in the subterranean structure (only occasional wooden vessels)

It is important to acknowledge a constant influx of various

ethnical influences both from the east and the related

Scythian cultures of Altai, such as Pazyryk and Tagar,

responsible for cultural dynamics in Table 1. These influxes

and processes of migration explain the transition from one

culture to another and its appropriate mortuary variation.

Leading up to the dawn of Scythian Epoch, towards the Saglyn

Culture period, there has been a tendency to truncate the

previous burials, indicative of both peaceful reuse of burial

area valued for its ritual symbolism, and violent mutilation

of bones and looting of weapons. The latter is particularly

fascinating in its emphasis on weapon looting with valuables

left intact (Grach 1980), which depicts a projection of enemy

anxiety into the after-life. This logic persists in such

prominent mortuary examples elsewhere as cranial mutilation in

the Near Eastern Chalcolithic cranial caches (Kuijt 1996).

Based on the ‘bottom-up’ social archaeology perspective, the

following social implications can be drawn. Taking into

account the kurgan superstructures and substructures, several

implications can be made from Table 1. The mortuary

archaeology provides the only emic perspective of otherwise

illiterate peoples. The possibility of detecting standardised

gender-specific kits, such as recurring male weapons, female

mirror/comb/knife, and horse bones in elite ones demonstrates

consistency of meaning, reinforcing broader spiritual beliefs

and ideology (Kuijt 1996:315). Although much of the evidence

is incomplete and irregularly represented, the persistence of

body orientation and positioning with little deviation

throughout the epoch demonstrates stability of wider sacred

paradigms, irrespective of social and migration oscillations.

Meanwhile the arrival at a household analogy of burial

substructure in Saglyn, with symbolic apprehension of a

hearth, house door and ‘pillows’, shows increasingly

household/sedentary character prevailing over political

monumentality of previous mega-structures. The presence of

adult burials with no inventory oriented in alternative

southern direction outside the collective timber structures is

clear indication of social inequality for one reason or

another, represented beyond the confines of this life. No

elite kurgans, analogous to Arzhans, have been found so far

for Saglyn Culture, which means that no confident assumption

of ideological shift to domestic affairs can be made yet.

Compared to analogous non-royal burials of preceding Aldy-Bel’

and Uyuk, there is a clear elaboration of subterranean

structure, with almost non-existent superstructures and

increasingly collective burials. Although several individuals

would have been buried in a single complex previously, they

are all confined in Saglyn within a single timber structure,

resembling a house. The disappearance of superstructure can be

symptomatic in two ways: as a move away from mortuary

statements in a competitive political context, or as an

attempt to disguise and protect the sacred mortuary sites in a

context of increased warfare, as seen from elaboration in

weapon kits and frequent violent truncation of earlier graves.

With the existing evidence, by the end of this epoch there is

a significant deviation from the original splendour of

individual monumental kurgans. The Saglyn elite burials are

absent so far. If Hodder (2007:110) describes the dead as a

mode of social advertisement amongst competing social groups,

then the fading of the original monumental mortuary zeal can

be explained as a move towards a socially and politically

affirmed status of Arzhan Chiefdom. Indeed, the wealthy and

grandiose scale of ‘royal’ Arzhans resonates with Childe’s

note that the wealthiest graves appear at stages of early state

formation (Childe 1945:17), when their political status gains

momentum. Marxist perspectives have identified pastoral

nomadism as the first pretext for division of labour based on

the breaking down of communal ownership, kin-ties and rapid

development of property around a new form of means of

production in cattle-breeding (Kahn 1984). The original need

to ‘advertise’ this new form of social and economic

organization to the neighbours would have resulted in

impactful elite structures, demonstrating the economic

advantages of a new polity - Arzhan Chiefdom - which can

afford to invest significant resources and energy into an

‘unprofitable’ funerary project. In this case, the need for

such structures later in Saglyn Culture could have no longer

been required, or would have become replaced by more subtle

triggers, which are not immediately reflected in the mortuary

practices.

Military oriented strategies, seen in elaboration and increase

of weapon-kit by Saglyn period (Table 1), could be evocative

of the military raids, as both requiring and enhancing social

cohesion and the power of elite commander (Cowley 2001:479).

The persistence of weapons in the majority of male burials,

such as along River Yenisei, is indicative of the majority’s

state-like consensus to fight for a society outliving the

voluntary military consensus of a chiefdom (ibid.). Grach

speculates about a four-partite age categories amongst Tuvan

burials: children aged 7-8; adolescents aged 9-16 who are

similar to adults, but are restricted in their gender roles

and humbler artefacts; adults of 16-25 years old; and the

senile (Grach 1980:55). If this is the case, age

differentiation of Tuvan cultures is significant considering

the military oriented strategies towards the end of the

Scythian Epoch, symptomatic of societies reaching class

formation and early state forms, where communities of families

are organized first of all as military groups. The distinction

between these four categories can be seen in the preference of

larger timber-pits for burial of older individuals and the

position of children at adults’ feet in burials, such as

Sagly-Bazhi II (ibid.). If this is so, judging by burial

demarcation of these categories we can assume the existence of

initiation rites for transition along the increasingly

militaristic ladder. A kin-based campaigner at the head of

this hierarchical military structure could elevate into an

independent organ of power over his own peoples as part of

process of social and property differentiation.

The existing evidence during the Scythian Epoch in Tuva

follows a trajectory from highly individualised central power,

represented by radial core-periphery structure of mega kurgans

to collective lineages represented by clusters of kurgans,

which, with continuous ethnical influxes from beyond, become

increasingly competitive as seen by the truncation of

succeeding burials in Aldy-Bel’ Kopto complex (Figure 13) and,

especially, Saglyn (Table 1).

Figure 13. Kopto complex of Aldy-Bel’ Culture (Chugunov 2005) is a stark contrast withindividual Aldy-Bel’ Arzhan-2 kurgan. The complex demonstrates frequent mutual truncationand presence of subordinating oddly positioned individuals with no inventory, suggestingstratification even with less rich collective burials.

5.5 On tripartite social stratification

Overall, the European Scythologists agree that the followingcriteria can differentiate several hierarchical social group: the

height or volume of the burial mound; the number of human and horse

burials accompanying the central burial; the use of gold in horse

harnesses; and the richness of the funeral equipment (Ivantchik

2011:76). So far, these criteria seem to be most agreeable with

Arzhan-1 and Aldy-Bel’ periods in Tuva (Table 2), based on previous

data and some unpublished data (Mikaelyan n.d.) from current project

Kyzyl-Kuragino.

Table 2. The possible tripartite stratigraphy of early Scythian society based onmortuary variability and Iranian templates during Arzhan-1 and Aldy-Bel’ periods,for which substantial evidence for social differentiation exists.

Kurgan type Elite Nobles People

Examples Flat stonekurgans

Arzhan-1Arzhan-2

Kurgans 8,9, 10(Figure 4)

Earthkurgans

Kurgancomplex 4Kurgancomplex 5Kurgancomplex 6Kurgancomplex 7(Figure 4)

Subsidiaryburials inArzhan-1 andArzhan-2Aldy-Bel’ andSaglyncultureskurgans

Duzherlig-Hovuzu I,Dagan Teli IKoptoKhemchik-BomIIISagly-BazhiII, IV and V

Subsidiaryburials inSaglyncomplexesKoptocomplexMazhylyk-Hovuzu I &II

Diameter 80-120m 30-70m

2-15m -

Height of

superstructure

1.5 m 1-8 m 0.05-1 m -

Depth of

substructure

2.6 m (Arzhan-1) 0.4 -1.70 m -

Area of central

burial

64 sq. m (Arzhan-1) About 6-47 sq.m

-

Accompanying

human burials

Central burial of a‘couple’ with 16 accompanying adults(Arzhan-1/2)

Human sacrifice in Arzhan-2Kin:1) rich F burials with more F withoutinventory 2) rich M with weapons and golden jewellery Human sacrifice:3)M burials with horses 4) M, F and teenagers near the entrance to the main chamber or inside the main chamber – usually next to the centralM burial

Central burials of ‘couples’, with abundanceof bronze items and onlysome gold items, imported materials, with some peripheral burials

OR

as subsidiary graves of moreelite kurgans

Middle-aged individuals without inventory,buried at peripheries, outsidetimber structures, in contrary orientation (south as opposedto conventional north/north-west

Symptomatic

features

Mass horse sacrifice (up to 160) Gold ornaments for horses

Excess of gold objects and clothesornaments(golden-bead

Rare horse sacrifice

Horse harness (ritual caches)

Minor gold objects (pectoral, earrings)

No horse harness

No gold

No imported materials

Occasionalbronze

trousers, boar plaques etc.)

Imported materials

Prestigious weapons

Some imported material (sodaglass, turquoise, amber)

Beads

Predominantly Bronze

Standardised Mmilitary kit (both utilitarian and votive): akinak Quiver + arrows

artefacts

Rare weapons

No inventory (with someevidence of human sacrifice), distinguished by alternative peripheralburial in the south-eastern part of burial chamber, laid on right side, rather than traditional left andheads facing north-east/south

The suggested tripartite classification is not too far from

the classical priests-warriors-cattlebreeders layout in Avesta

(Marlow 2002:69) as reflected by gold-bronze material

gradation. However, there is no explicit functional

distinction in the types of goods, which would reflect

professional specialisation. The stark contrast in the

treatment and alignment of some individuals is a clear

demarcation of inequality, which has gotten so far as to

demand representation in mortuary practices. A possible

analogy may be drawn from Levi-Strauss (1977:149) with

reference to a tripartite chiefdom division into hereditary

castes: “Real People”, “Nobles” and the “People”. Here, noble

status is secured bilaterally, where lack of nobility is

brought by a failure to provide noble descent on one side

(ibid.). Considering the mobile nature of a nomadic society,

we can assume a complex fluidity of these transitions.

6. Conclusion and new discoveries

Analysis of scale, distribution and nature of kurgans allows

preliminary reconstruction of important aspects of Scythian

Epoch nomadic social organisation in Tuva. The site hierarchy

and mortuary differentiation imply social stratification, akin

to processes reflecting early class formation, on the one

hand, and simultaneous ritualising of the new socio-economic

order, turning it into a norm, on the other. The early

Scythian phase, 8th-6th c. BC, is marked by Arzhan-1 with a

centralised core-periphery structure. Its implied labour

investment suggests mobilization of resources of a large

territory and population. Despite their similarities, Arzhan-1

stands in stark contrast to the decentralised plan of Arzhan-

2, with its asymmetrical main burial. The monumentality and

scale of these early kurgans, reaching up to 120 m in diameter

and 8 m in height, would have framed a compelling social and

ritual landscape in an unfurling nomadic world.

In the later phase, 6th-4th c. BC, the monumental centralised

kurgans seem to go out of use. Instead collective and

increasingly militaristic Saglyn burials are seen, significant

changes of burial ritual. The nature of new subterranean

structures bears heavy analogies with a house, implying new

migrational/ideological influences craving for a sedentary

lifestyle, which can explain the ambiguous disintegration of

Scythian Epoch nomads. The evolution of Tuvan mortuary

practices has not only reflected the statuses of the deceased,

but also dictated social habitus of living individuals involved,

determining the formation of nomadic society.

Inspite of intuitive assumptions, it is the Early Scythian

Epoch, rather than the later cultures, that has demonstrated

the most convincing evidence for social ranking, epitomised by

elite kurgans Arzhan-1 and Arzhan-2. The individual nature of

these kurgans is symptomatic of a centralised society (Renfrew

& Bahn 2008:203). As an emblematic feature of a chiefdom,

ranking is attributed to different lineages, descending from a

common ancestor, who are graded according to prestigious

proximity to a chief, who is/was the head of a given social

structure (Renfrew & Bahn 2008:179). Having witnessed a

reproductive ‘couple’ as an ideal basic burial unit, the

differential treatment of stone and earth kurgans within

Turan-Uyuk basin itself, and the disparity of scale within

Aldy-Bel’ kurgans, the chiefdom structure is well evidenced

for. Within a conventional chiefdom, however, there is no

developed social stratification (ibid.). The existence of a

monumental centre in the Turan-Uyuk basin, creates a distinct

burial hierarchy with what may be a ceremonial focus of the

local polity.

Although there is no evidence for subordination of Scythian

Epoch cultures in Tuva to a Pan-Scythian social system, the

local societies must have shared a far-reaching network of

relations, suggestive of tribal alliances, typical of 1st

millennium BC Eurasia (Aruz et al. 2000:49). The beyond Turan-

Uyuk basin connections are apparent in such compelling

evidence as the far-reaching origins of imported materials,

the heterogeneous genetic provenance of horse remains in

Arzhan-2, and the outstanding strontium-isotope analysis

results of Arzhan-2 ‘royal’ female skeleton and one of the

horses. If the tributary interpretation of foreign horses can

be confirmed, assumptions of subsidiary regions and therefore

early state hierarchy can be developed (Renfrew & Bahn 2008:

179). Attempt to define the territorial scale of local

societies through time is ambitious, but it can be instructive

to consider Herodotus’ pseudo-mythical estimation of chief’s

land as a territory, coverable on horseback in one day

(Herodotus 4.7). The latitudinal restrictions of Arzhan-1

Chiefdom (Map 3) would roughly indicate an area of about 100

km west-east, with the royal necropolis separated from the

southern chain of the main population’s kurgans along River

Yenisei by roughly 50 km and a mountain chain. Given these

estimations any one point in the southern chain is easily

reachable on horseback.

The secluded nature of the early elite necropolis in the

Turan-Uyuk basin, enveloped by mountain chains to the south

and north stands out as an appropriate centre of

sacred/ritual/elite activity, which can be used frequently by

indigenous community and periodically by inter-tribal

meetings. While the northern border of the chiefdom can be

defined by what appears as a topographical obstruction, the

southern chain is relatively vulnerable, which is compensated

by the kurgans with sound military symbolism, defined by

weapon kit per male burial. The alignment of these with the

mighty River Yenisei (up to one kilometre wide) is a useful

territorial demarcation indeed. This natural topographical

layout (Map 4) alone is informative of Arzhan Chiefdom’s

preference for this strategic locale. Given fluidity of

nomadic societies, it can roughly define the territorial

confines of the Arzhan political unit.

Map 4. Digital elevation model (DEM) of the Turan-Uyuk territory of the Russian Federation (Anon n.d.).

It is also evident that by the time of the early Scythian

Epoch, Tuvan nomads have already reached a stage of evolved

differentiation in rank, status and prestige, reflected by

exclusive ‘access’ of elite individuals or leading families to

monumental mortuary structures. Although these elite figures

are accompanied by otherwise similar standardised Scythian-

type artefact kits, there are obvious deviations. In case of

royal Arzhan weapons, the elevation of employed materials from

predominant bronze to relatively gold can be seen as a

preference of prestige over utility of ‘true’ weapons. The

latter is symptomatic of permanent specialisation of the

leader’s role away from utilitarian occupations, which is

already indicative of beyond chiefdom complexity, akin to

early state social processes (Renfrew & Bahn 2008:181). With

original emphasis of nomadism as a specialisation in livestock

economy, there is a great potential for variation in expertise

and authority over the best pastures, leading to wealth

distinctions and stratification of social status, symptomatic

of early state contexts (ibid.).

Within Tuvan cultures presented in Table 1, many assumed

social stratums are under-represented, so that inferences of

social differentiation are made solely based on elite kurgan

in Arzhan Chiefdom, and non-elite in Saglyn. To obtain a

comprehensive picture, burial customs of society as a whole

need to be considered (Renfrew & Bahn 2008:215). Additionally,

large-scale systematic mapping of kurgans will enable analysis

of wider spatial distribution and territorial relationship of

contemporaneous nomadic mortuary landscapes, through such

simple site patterning as Thiessen Polygons (Renfrew & Bahn

2008:184).

I hope that by this point the evidence demonstrated has been

persuasive and convincing in showing the rich potential of

ancient nomadic archaeology and its social dynamics. Indeed,

the lack of diligent published data and surveys has restricted

my case study to speculative assumptions on the tip of the

iceberg, making the most of the gaps in the evidence. The

current project in Tuva, organised by the Russian Geographic

Society, has already offered contributions to the topic. The

rescue excavation as part of pre-construction works between

Kyzyl and Kuragino railway stations, has revealed a

considerable fraction of what can so far be interpreted as

noble necropolises, stretching along river valleys (Map 5),

south-east of the Turan-Uyuk basin.

M

ap 5. Kyzyl-Kuragino kurgan necropolises in the valley of River Eerbeck, based on 2009

archaeological survey along the planned railway. Legend: red and yellow mounds along the

construction route of the railway; grey line indicates the future railway.

Some of these are preliminarily dated back to 5th century BC,

making it contemporaneous with Uyuk/Saglyn cultures. The

middle-class nature of these kurgans can be assumed based on

the prevalence of bronze objects, with minor golden jewellery

in central timber structures and the stark contrast of mounds,

2-15 m diameter range, which is consistent with the

classification in Table 2. However the individual character of

some of these kurgans, typically bearing two skeletons of a

presumed ‘couple’, are contrary to the existing collective

Saglyn typology, meaning that we are probably looking at

chronological palimpsest of cultures, appropriating pasture-

rich river valley locales.

The Scythian Epoch in Tuva follows a local Scythian trajectory

through socially differentiated dynamism, which is a stark

example of multi-linear social development, counter to

traditional rigid social models. Being nomadic, these

processes show alternative factors in early class formation

based on ideas of kinship, pseudo-kinship and cosmological

binding of these novel socio-economic forms through perceived

social geography of kurgans. The striking evidence for social

disparity is evident in the differentiated attendant ritual,

manifested in the allocation of artefacts, orientation of

bodies and elaboration of tombs, which signals stratified

social structures. Despite maintenance of stable pastoralism

economic sub-structure we have witnessed constant social

dynamics of the superstructure, reflected in mortuary

oscillations – a unique and counter-intuitive phenomenon. It

is therefore indubitably possible and necessary to study

nomads archaeologically. Having inverted the traditional

World-System perspective, where nomads appear at the periphery

of historical narratives, I hope to have shown that within

nomadic social processes, the Scythian kurgans become the

locus for articulation of new forms of political authority at

an early state formation, determined both by internal

differentiation via monopoly over pastures and external

factors of migration and interaction, within a completely

unique nomadic sociality.

Bibliography

Abetekov A., Yusupov. H. 1994. Ancient Iranian Nomads in

Western Central Asia, in J. Harmatta (ed.), History of Civilizations in

Central Asia Volume II: The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700

B.C. to A.D. 250. 23-33. France: Unesco Publishing.

Alekseev, A. 2000. The Scythians: Asian and European, in J.

Aruz, A. Farkas, A. Alekseev, E. Korolkova (eds), The Golden deer

of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes. 41-47.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Yale University Press.

Alekseev, A. 2012. Zoloto skifskih tsarei v sobranii Ermitazha. Saint-

Petersburg: State Hermitage Publishing.

Anthony, D. 2006. The Prehistory of Scythian Cavalry: The

Evolution of Fighting on Horseback, in J. Aruz, A. Farkas, E.

Valtz (eds), The golden deer of Eurasia: perspectives on the Steppe Nomads of

the ancient world. 2-12. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Aruz, J. et al. 2000. The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian

Treasures from the Russian Steppes. The Metropolitan Museum of Art:

Yale University Press.

Artamonov, M. 1947. Obshestvenniy stroi u skifov. VLU (9).

Artamonov, M. 1948. Skifskoe tsarstvo v Krymu. VLU (8).

Artamonov, M. 1949. Etnogeografia Skifii. In Uchenye zapiski LGU No.

85 (13).

Bacon, E. 1958. A Study of Social Structure of Eurasia. New York.

Barnard, A. 2004. Hunter-Gatherers in History, Archaeology and

Anthropology. Berg.

Bettina, A., et al. 2001. Gender and the archaeology of death.

Rowman Altamira.

Binford, L. 1971. Mortuary practices: their study and their

potential, in Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology (25).

Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. 6-

29. Society for American Archaeology.

Childe, G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford University Press.

Childe, G. 1936. Man Makes Himself. Spokesman.

Childe, G. 1945. Directional changes in funerary practices

during 50,000 years, in Man (Vol. 45). 13-19. Royal

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

Chugunov, K. et al. 2007. Isotopniy sostav strontsiya v

kostyah iz drevnih zahoroneniy Saiano-Altaya kak indicator

mesta prozhivaniya i migratsii, in Radiouglerod v arheologicheskih i

paleoekologicheskih issledovaniyah: paper presented on the occasion of 50-year

anniversary conference of radiocarbon laboratory of the Institute for the History of

Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, 9-12 April 2007. 263-273. St-

Petersburg: Institute for the History of Material Culture,

Russian Academy of Sciences.

Chugunov, K. 2009. Arzhan-1 i Arzhan-2: sravnitelniy analiz,

in Nasledie narodov Centralnoi Azii i sopredelnih territoriy: izuchenie, sohranenie i

ispolzovanie: paper presented on the occasion of Kyzyl conference Aniyak, 2009.

48-52. Tuva: Kyzyl.

Cugunov, K., Parzinger., H., Nagler, A. 2010. Der skythenzeitliche

Fürstenkurgan Arzan 2 in Tuva. Mainz: Deutsches Archaolögisches

Institut Eurasien-Abteilung.

Chugunov, K. 2011. Arzhan-2: rekonstruktsiya etapov

funktsionirovaniya pogrebalno-pominalnogo kompleksa i

nekotorie voprosy ego hronologii, in Rossiyskiy arheologi cheskiy

ezhegodnik (1). 262-335. St.-Petersburg.

Cowley, R. 2001. The Reader’s Companion to Military History. Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt.

Cribb, R. 1991. Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press.

Dumezil, G. 1941. Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus: essai sur dieux indo-europeenne de

la societe et sur les origins de Rome, Volume I. Paris.

Dumezil, G. 1962. La societe scythique avait-elle des classes fonctionneles?

IIJ (vol. 5/3).

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2013. Zoroaster [online] <

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/658060/Zoroaster>.

[Accessed on 31/03/13].

Grach, A. 1980. Drevnie kochevniki v tsentre Azii. Nauka.

Grantovskiy, E. 1960. Indo-iranskie kasty u skifov. XXV MKB.

USSR.

Grote, G. 1869. A History of Greece. London: John Murray.

Gryaznov, M. 1955. Nekotorie voprosy istorii slozheniya i

razvitiya rannih kochevyh obshestv Kazakhstana i Uzhnoi

Sibiri, in KSIE (Vol. 24). 19-29. St.-Petersburg.

Gryaznov, M. 1969. The ancient civilization of south Siberia. Barrie &

Rockliff: The Cresset Press.

Gryaznov, M. 1980. Arzhan: tsarskiy kurgan rannesfivskogo vremeni. St.-

Petersburg Nauka.

Hanks, B. 2000. Iron Age Nomadic Burials of the Eurasian

Steppe: A Discussion Exploring Burial Ritual Complexity, in J.

Davis-Kimball, E. Murphy, L. Koryakova, L. Yablonsky (eds),

Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age, 19-30.

Oxford: Archaeopress.

Hartog, F. 1988. The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in

the Writing of History. University of California Press.

Herodotus, 1827. Book IV, in The nine books of the History of Herodotus.

tr. by T. Gaisford. Oxford University Press.

Hodder, I. 2007.Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge

University Press.

Ivantchik, A. 2011. The Funeral of Scythian Kings: The

historical reality and the description of Herodotus (4. 71-

72), in L. Bonfante (ed), European Barbarians. Cambridge.

Jacobsen, E. 1995.The art of the Scythians: the interpenetration of cultures at

the edge of the Hellenic world. BRILL.

Kahn, J., Llobera, J. 1984. The Anthropology of Pre-Capitalist

Societies, in A. Zach-Williams (ed), Africa: Journal of the International

African Institute Volume 54(4). 92-94. Cambridge University Press.

Kilunovskaya, M., Semenov, V. 1995. The Land in the Heart of Asia. Ego

Publishers. St.- Petersburg.

Kisel’, V. 2010. Zakat skifskoi epohi v Tuve: Edinstvo I

Ptorivoborstvo Kul’tur [online]. Available at

http://www.tuva.asia/journal/issue_5/1434-kisel.html. Accessed

on [07/04/13].

Khazanov, A. 1975. Sotsialnaya istoriya skifov. Nauka.

Khazanov, A.1984. Nomads and the Outside World. Cambridge:

Cambridge University press.

Korolkova, E. 2000. The Filippovka Kurgans and the Animal

Style, in J. Davis-Kimball, E. Murphy, L. Koryakova, L.

Yablonsky (eds), Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and

Iron Age, 69-190. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Koryakova, L. 2000. Some Notes About the Material Culture of

Eurasian Nomads, in J. Davis-Kimball, E. Murphy, L. Koryakova,

L. Yablonsky (eds), Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze

and Iron Age, 13-18. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Kradin, N. et al. 2000. Alternatives of Social Evolution: An Introduction.

Vladivostok: Dal’nauka.

Kradin, N. 2006. Cultural Complexity of Pastoral Nomads. Institute of

History, archaeology and ethnology (Russian Academy of

Sciences).

Kradin, N. 2008. Early State Theory and the Evolution of

Pastoral Nomads, in Social Evolution and History Volume 7 (1). 107-

130. Uchitel Publishing House.

Kubaerv, V. & Shulga, P. 2007. Pazyrykskaya kultura (kurgany Chui I

Ursula). Barnaul.

Kubbel’, L. 1988. Ocherki Potestarno-Politicheskoi Etnografii. Nauka.

Kuijt, I. 1996. Negotiating Equality through Ritual: A

Consideration of late Natufian and Prepottery Neolithic A

Period Prtuary Practices, in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

(15). 313-336. Academic Press.

Kurtz, L. 2008. Encyclopaedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict (Volume

III). Elsevier.

Lattimore O. 1940. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York-L.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1977. Structural Anthropology Volume II. Norfolk:

Loew & Brydone Printers Limited.

Lenski, G. 1984. Power & Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. The

University of north Carolina Press.

Mikaelyan, O. n.d. Preliminary data-table of Kyzyl-Kuragino

2012 excavation. Unpublished.

Marlow, L. 2002. Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought: Cambridge

Studies in Islamic Civilization. Cambridge University Press.

Mannai-ool, M. 2010. K voprosu o proishozhdenii Skifo-

Sibirskogo “zverinogo stilya”, in M. Kungaa (ed.), Ucheni

Zapiski (XXII). 50-54. Tuvinskiy Institut Gumanitarnih

issledovaniy pri Pravitelstve Respubliki Tuva.

Marx, I. 2006. Tribal Pilgrimages to Saints’ Tombs in South

Sinai, in T. Levy (ed), Archaeology, Anthropology and Cult: The Sanctuary

at Gilat, Israel. 54-74. London: Equinox.

Marsadolov, L. 2000. The Nomads of Khazakhstan, the Altai, and

Tuva, in J. Davis-Kimball, E. Murphy, L. Koryakova, L.

Yablonsky (eds), Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and

Iron Age, 49-53. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Masanov, N. 1995. Kochevaia civilizatsiia kazakhov. Moscow & Almaty:

Gorizont and Sotsinvest.

Mellink, M. 1964. Dark Ages and Nomads: 1000 BC. Istanbul:

Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologische Institut.

Minns, E. H. 1913. Scythians and Greeks: A Survey of Ancient History and

Archaeology on the North Coast of the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus.

Cambridge University Press.

Obruchev, S. 1965. V Serdce Azii. Mysl’.

Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton

Publishing.

Rakita, G. n.d. Interacting With the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary

Archaeology for the New Millenium. University Press of Florida.

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2008. Archaeology: Theory, Methods and Practice

(Fifth edition). Thames & Hudson.

Rice, T. 2003. The Scythians. F.A. Praeger.

Rolle, R. 1989. The world of the Scythians. University of California

Press.

Rosen, S. 2008. Desert Pastoral Nomadism in the Longue Duree:

A case study from the Negev and the southern Levantine

Deserts, in H. Barnard (ed.), The Archaeology of Mobility: Old World and

New world Nomadism. 115-140. UCLA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Rostovtseff, M. 1913. Predstavlenie o nomarhicheskoi vlasti v Skifii I na

Bosfore. St.-Petersburg.

Rostovtseff, M. 1922. Iranians and Greeks in South Russia. Oxford

University Press.

Savinov, D. 1994. Elitnye kurgany Evrazii v skifo-sarmatskuyu epohu. St.-

Petersburg: Russian Academy of Sciences.

Semenov, V. 2002. Arzhan Barrow as the Universe Model of the

Early Scythians of Central Asia, in A. Evglevskiy (ed.),

Strukturno-Semioticheskie Issledovaniya v Arkheologii. Donetsk.

Semenov, V. 2010. Skifskie kultury Tuvy, in M. Kungaa (ed.),

Uchenye Zapiski (XXII). 54-69. Tuvinskiy Institut Gumanitarnih

issledovaniy pri Pravitelstve Respubliki Tuva.

Spencer, H. 1864. First Principles: A System of synthetic philosophy

(Volume I). D. Appleton and Company.

The State Hermitage Museum. 2003. Digital Collection Results

for Scythians [online]. Available at <

http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-bin/db2www/quickSearchDL.m

ac/DLgallery?

selLang=English&tmCond=scythian&START_ROW_NUM_DL=5&x=5&y=10>

[Accessed on 07/04/13].

Toynbee, A. 1946. A Study of History Volume III. Oxford University

Press.

Winslow, R. 1970. Society in transition: a social approach to deviance. Free

Press.

Yablonsky, L. 2000. “Scythian Triad” and “Scythian World”, in

J. Davis-Kimball, E. Murphy, L. Koryakova, L. Yablonsky (eds),

Kurgans, Ritual Sites, and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age. 3-8.

Oxford: Archaeopress.

Yanin, V. 2006. Arkheologia. Razdel III (Glava 2): Ranniy

zhelezniy vek. Moscow State University.

Images:

Anon. 2010. Map of Tuva [ONLINE}. Available at <

http://www.allaroundthisworld.com/tuva.html> [Accessed

28/04/13]

Anon. n.d. Digital Elevation Map. Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI). Unpublished