ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA

Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896 E-mail: Eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru

88

THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev

Tyumen Oil and Gas University, Volodarskogo 38, Tyumen, 625000, Russia E-mail: sr424@mail.ru Institute for the Exploration of the North, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Malygina 86, Tyumen, 625000, Russia E-mail: sever626@mail.ru

THE ROLE OF MIGRATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ANDRONOV COMMUNITY

The article explores new approaches to the study of the Andronov culture, with special reference to migration. Archaeological data from a vast territory over the steppes between the Urals and the Yenisei suggest that migration was a key factor in population history. In the Middle Bronze Age, two migration waves from the Irtysh River basin, Kazakhstan, have been reconstructed. The rst of them led to the convergence of groups representing various cultures, and eventually to the emergence of the Andronov community; the second wave not only brought about the territorial expansion of the Andronov traditions, but also provided a basis for the emergence of Late Bronze Age rolled pottery and Andronov-type cultures.

Introduction Being virtually universal, migration is a multifaceted socio-cultural phenomenon. One of its functions is to redistribute human populations between regions, stimulating cultural translation and the emergence of new traditions, which, in turn, results in the convergence of unrelated cultures and in the formation of new ethnic groups. Also, migration is an important factor affecting socio-economic processes and demographic characteristics such as birth rate, mortality, marriage patterns, and sex-and-age structure. The emergence of new cultural stereotypes in newlypopulated regions is closely linked to the migrants cultural and economic activities. Insofar as these activities concern adaptation to new environments, their traces are preserved in material culture and are documented by the archaeological record. One of the best cultural indicators is ceramics, which is very sensitive to migratory processes.

Archaeological findings of recent decades have prompted us to address the role of migration in the origin and evolution of the Andronov cultural community, which occupied huge territories of the steppe and forest-steppe belts stretching from the Urals to the Yenisei. The study of prehistoric migration has proceeded in two major directions. On the one hand, attempts have been made to reveal the causes underlying migration, and on the other hand, consequences for both the immigrants and the autochthonous populations have been analyzed (Chernosvitov, 1999: 5). Two main theories have been put forward to explain the causes of migration. One of them focuses on the importance of surplus population pressure under a stable economic level, whereas another one emphasizes the role of environmental, primarily climatic, processes occurring within specific geographic zones. Reconstructing the Eurasian steppe environments during the Bronze Age is a difcult task since no palynological record is available for most of these territories. Normally, archaeologists conduct

Copyright 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.aeae.2008.11.007

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

89

paleogeographic analysis with regard to their own region on the basis of general climatic diachronic tendencies, extrapolating these to local landscape and climate changes (see, e.g., (Kosarev, 1974)). Bronze Age migrations were evidently affected by both surplus population pressure and climatic changes. The migration proceeded both in the longitudinal and the latitudinal direction, in both reverse and crosswise streams. Sometimes the immigrants formed enclaves surrounded by the native populations, resulting in a patchy cultural pattern. Intercultural contacts caused cultural amalgamation, eventually contributing to cultural progress. The impact of climate on migration To reconstruct the climate of central Eurasia, it is especially important to examine data concerning the uctuations of the Aral Sea level. Being a lake, the Aral was a sensitive indicator of general humidization and aridization of the paleoclimate in the region. Divergent views have been expressed as to the causes underlying the fluctuations of the Aral Sea level. According to A.V. Shnitnikov (1969: 116, 136, 157, table 15), the key factor was general humidity, which follows 1850-yearlong cycles of solar activity. He estimated the duration of the three last cycles based on historical and archaeological data pertaining to the Aral area. I.G. Weinbergs and V.Y. Stelle (1980: 177 180) have proposed a different reconstruction, based on palynological evidence. In their view, during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene the Aral Sea receded. The environment at that time was characterized by tundra and steppe landscapes, and the climate was dry and cold. Later, the transgression of the Aral Sea began, coinciding with the climatic optimum. The next regression stage, coinciding with the Bronze Age, was caused by a certain aridization of the climate. The above differences notwithstanding, both Shnitnikovs and Weinbergs and Stelles reconstructions proceed from the assumption that uctuations of the Aral Sea level were caused by changes in humidity level. A divergent view concerning the causes was published by members of the Khorezm Archaeological and Ethnographical Expedition (Nizovya Amu-Daryi, 1960: 14, 23, 8081, 8389; Kes, Andrianov, Itina, 1980: 188189). They believe that the transgressions of the Aral Sea occurred only when the Amu-Darya drained into it; when the river changed its course, regression took place. Before the 2nd millennium BC, the Aral Sea was in the regressive stage as the Amu-Darya disembogued all its waters into Lake Sarykamysh, and only in the late 3rd and early 2nd millennia did the river break through the Akchadarya into the Aral Sea for the rst time. The date

of the event was established on the basis of the presence of late Kelteminar and Kamyshla sites in the northern Akchadarya delta. Throughout the 2nd millennium BC, the Aral delta of the Amudarya was formed, and from the early 1st millennium onward, the Amudarya disembogued into the Aral Sea, resulting in the last transgression. A study of the ora and fauna of the Ustyurt Plateau and of the Syrdarya and Amudarya interuve suggests that over the interval from 104 ka BP, the climate was similar to that of the modern steppe zone. At that time, northwestern Central Asia and the Ustyurt were covered with rich herbaceous and shrubby vegetation, making those territories favorable for human residence (Vinogradov, 1981: 1946; Mamedov, 1980: 98, 170171). Later, the climate became more arid, and desertification began (Markov et al., 1982: 235240). The reconstructed climatic changes in Western Central Asia and Kazakhstan during the Holocene were paralleled by those described by N.A. Khotinsky for Western Siberia (1977: 163165, 180; Khotinsky, Nemkova, Surova, 1982: 150151). According to Khotinsky et al., the climatic optimum began during the Boreal period, and its upper limit was the Atlantic Sub-Boreal boundary. The Sub-Boreal and Sub-Atlantic stages of the Holocene are regarded as a single and relatively stable period in the climatic history of Northern Eurasia. In Western Siberia, the climate became somewhat colder compared to the Atlantic period, the area covered by r and broadleaved forests shrank, and the sub-taiga and taiga zones became swampier. These processes were unaccompanied by considerable uctuations of humidity level or shifts of the boundary between forest and steppe, which had been established as early as the Atlantic period. The topography of archaeological sites in various regions of Western Siberia and Kazakhstan indicates that the climate in the Sub-Boreal period was very unstable. Humidification led to the northward displacement of landscape and vegetation zones. Not only the border between the steppe and the forest-steppe shifted, but that between the forest-steppe and the forest as well (Kosarev, 1974: 2427; 1979; Molodin, Zakh, 1979: 52; Potemkina, 1979: 59; Khabdulina, Zdanovich, 1984: 150). The Middle and Late Bronze Ages (2nd early 1st millennia BC), as most specialists believe, coincided with the subBoreal period. Unlike the preceding period, which was moderately humid and relatively warm, and the beginning of the Early Iron Age, which was moderately arid and warm, the Sub-Boreal period was characterized by a dry climate with temperatures 24 below modern ones (Evdokimov, 2000: 58; Potemkina, 1985: 28). The comparison of climatic processes that occurred in northern Kazakhstan and Western Siberia, on the one hand, and in Western Central Asia, on the other, suggests that these processes largely paralleled one another in intermediate steppe zones. This idea is supported by

90

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

archaeological observations: sites dating from all periods of the Bronze Age are situated on riverine terraces which are not submerged during oods; deep utility pits are dug down below the modern ground-water level; and the cultural layers in depressions are overlaid by alluvial deposits. The above facts indicate that despite a somewhat lesser humidity of climate in the Bronze Age, the overall environmental conditions during the Sub-Boreal period were close to modern ones. The temperature was somewhat above the modern temperature, and the vegetation period was longer. The territory between the Urals and the Aral Sea was covered by grassland steppe with considerable arboreal vegetation in river valleys, passing into foreststeppe with patches of forest in the north. Thus, favorable conditions of the Trans-Ural steppes contributed to the emergence of several Bronze Age cultures based on a mixed economy, apparently due to the immigrants successful adaptation to local environments. Migration and the emergence of the Andronov cultures The Andronov cultural community is a central element in the Bronze Age history of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes. By the mid-1900s, the principal viewpoints regarding the origin, chronology, and evolution of the Andronov culture had been formulated, including the idea that Andronov cultures had existed in the Trans-Ural steppes for a long time. The study of Andronov assemblages resulted in a scheme where local cultures were merged under the blanket term Andronov community (Formozov, 1951: 18). In later years, dozens of Andronov sites were excavated throughout a vast territory stretching from the Volga to the Yenisey, and from the southern fringes of the taiga to Western Central Asia. As a result, the principal challenge is to develop a cultural and chronological classification of artifacts representing the Andronov community (Fedorova-Davydova, 1973: 152). The further accumulation of data over the entire distribution range of that community led to the appearance of divergent theories concerning the origin and interaction of its constituent cultures (Matyuschenko, 1973; Kosarev, 1981; Kiryushin, 1985; Potemkina, 1985; Zdanovich, 1988; Avanesova, 1991; Varfolomeyev, 1991; Kuzmina, 1994; A.A. Tkachev, 2002). A separate theory is proposed by S.S. Chernikov (1960) and is based on materials from the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin. Chernikov proceeds from the fact that the Andronov traditions originated in a culturally diverse core area in the steppe zone of Kazakhstan, from where they spread to the Trans-Ural region, the Upper Ob, Yenisei, and Western Central Asia. Cultural uniformity, according to that view, was due both to common descent

and to similar economies. Ethnic differences arose in the course of migrations and interactions. According to Chernikov, the evolution of the Andronov culture evidences a community of several cultural, hence ethnic, groups, and this community is especially pronounced at the nal stage of their existence. This theory accounts not only for the cultural and chronological specicity of Andronov tribes of eastern Kazakhstan, but also for the similar sequence of historical processes across the vast distribution area of the Andronov community. Modern theories fall into two major groups migrationist and evolutionist. Most scholars feel that the Alakul culture is rooted in the Trans-Ural Chalcolithic (Matyushin, 1982: 297300; Stokolos, 1983: 257; Logvin, 1991: 5253; 2002: 3537). The focal area was initially believed to have been situated in the Tobol and Ishim steppes (Potemkina, 1983: 13, g. 1; 1985: 273), and since the discovery of Sintashta assemblages and the recognition of the independent cultural status of early Alakul (Petrovka) sites, the southern Trans-Ural area and the adjoining steppe regions of Kazakhstan have been viewed as the most likely sources (Tkachev V.V., 1998: 46; Vinogradov N.B., 2007: 3536). The migrationists expressed divergent views as to the core area where the Andronov (Fedorovo) culture had originated. Three areas have been mentioned: the Trans-Ural region (Potemkina, 1985: 272273; Kosarev, 1991: 81), eastern Kazakhstan (Stokolos, 1972: 115; Maksimenkov, 1978: 87; Tkacheva, 1997; Tkachev A.A., 2002: 190), and central Kazakhstan (Kuzmina, 1994: 114 122; Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006: 135). The evolutionists regard the Andronov community as polyphyletic and resulting from a continuous in situ evolution of various cultures representing this community (Salnikov, 1967; Zdanovich, 1984; Avanesova, 1991; Matveyev, 1998). Stratigraphic observations made at several multilayered sites in the Tobol basin, and in northern and central Kazakhstan indicate that the Alakul-Atasu and Fedorovo-Nura ceramics are present with roughly equal frequencies in the same cultural horizons (Zdanovich, 1974: 65, g. 4; Potemkina, 1976: 101105; 1985: 47, 83; Kadyrbayev, 1983: 134139; Tkachev A.A., 2002: tables 22, 31). In most cases, those horizons are overlaid by deposits with Alexeyevka-Sargary pottery decorated with rolls. At stratied Western Siberian sites (Omsk, Irmen I, Krasny Yar, and Kudelka-2), Andronov deposits, situated at the bottom of the sequence, are overlaid by Irmen layers of the Late Bronze Age (Gryaznov, 1956: 3036; Chlenova, 1955: 3847; Zakh, 1997: 66). In other words, no stratigraphic data is available to date to assess the relative chronology of Alakul-Atasu and FedorovoNura assemblages. The stratigraphy and planigraphy of the sites along with results of the statistical analysis of the proportion of various types of ceramics indicate, first, that an

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

91

independent Andronov culture (Kanay) existed in the region between the Irtysh and the Yenisei, and second, that the Alakul-Atasu and Andronov-Kanay populations coexisted in the Tobol Irtysh interfluve during the Middle Bronze Age. No evidence suggesting that one of the two traditions is ancestral to the other, i.e. that Alakul originated from Fedorovo (as Salnikov believes) or vice versa (as Zdanovich, Avanesova, and Matveyev believe) is known to date. Rather, ceramic assemblages from nonstratied Andronov-type sites attest to a common basis of early Alakul (Sintashta, Petrovka, Nurtay) and early Andronov (Kanay) traditions; apparently those traditions, their specicity notwithstanding, emerged on adjacent and environmentally similar territories. The principal source of the Andronov tradition in the Upper Irtysh basin was the pre-Andronov Ust-Bukon tradition, believed to represent a separate stage of the Bronze Age of that region (Chernikov, 1960; Tkacheva, 1997). According to Kosarev (1981: 105), the Ust-Bukon ceramics display certain original features linking it to the Samus ceramics of Western Siberia. Kiryushin (2002: 84) suggested that pre-Andronov assemblages of eastern Kazakhstan, the foothills of the Altai, and the Upper Ob represent a single culture. This idea is hardly acceptable since the difference between the eastern Kazakhstan sites and those of the Altai is more pronounced than the similarity between them. A certain resemblance of ceramic assemblages of both territories is more likely due to evolutionary factors (Ibid.: 86) than to cultural ones. Pottery similar to that of the Ust-Bukon tradition has been found at the Chalcolithic sites of Chemar I, and Nurbay II and III on the borderline between the Upper Irtysh basin and its Pavlodar section (Maerz, 2004: g. 2). Traditions represented by sites such as Chemar I, in our view, underlie the origin of the Early Bronze Age assemblages of the Ust-Bukon type. These sites dene the northern border of the pre-Andronov tradition of eastern Kazakhstan, coinciding with that of the Kazakh hummocky topography and of the southwestern foothills of the Altai. Sites situated north of it, in the steppe zone of the Pavlodar part of the Irtysh basin, are in some respect similar to those of the Yelunino-Krotovo type (Maerz, 2003: 133, g. 1, 1, 1820). Populations associated with these sites were apparently displaced or, more likely, assimilated, by the early Kanay tribes living on the Upper Irtysh at the early stage of the northward migration along the Irtysh valley. The Ust-Bukon pottery resembles that of the southwestern Siberian cultures: Odinovo, Krokhalevka, Yelunino, and Vishnevka, mostly that of Vishnevka in northern Kazakhstan, richly decorated with oblique imprints, and round and triangular pits combined with wavy and horizontal lines (Tatarintseva, 1984: 104110, g. 2, 2, 5, 415). Most researchers date the Early Bronze

Age traditions to the last quarter of the 3rd millennium rst third of the 2nd millennium BC (Krizhevskaya, 1977: 96; Kosarev, 1981: 62; Tatarintseva, 1984: 112; Molodin, 1985: 34; Kiryushin, 2002: 82). The Ust-Bukon tradition, from which the Andronov tradition originated, was related to the Kanay culture, which, having emerged in eastern Kazakhstan, underwent three continuous stages (Tkacheva, 1997). At the early stage of Kanay proper (18th17th cent. BC), its distribution area was restricted to the mountain-steppe part of the Upper Irtysh basin. The ceramics of that stage is still similar to that of the Okunev culture of the Minusinsk Basin and of the Krotovo-Yelunino tradition of the Western Siberian forest-steppe. At the next, Marinino, stage (17th16th cent. BC), the Kanay populations began expanding into the steppe regions of the Pavlodar part of the Irtysh basin and the adjoining parts of the Altai. Marinino ceramics is represented by jars and potjars decorated with incisions and comb imprints. The decoration became progressively more geometric, and oblique triangles appeared. Marinino artifacts are diverse, the most distinct ones being palmate pendants with bosses. Apart from marking the Marinino stage of the Kanay culture, these pendants make it possible to delineate the distribution area of that culture in the second quarter of the 2nd millennium BC the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin and the adjacent steppe regions of the Altai. Similar pendants were found at burial grounds such as Michurino I, Kenzhekol I, Novo-Alexandrovka, Firsovo XIV, Kytmanovo, Rublevo VIII, as well as in a Krotovo culture burial at Sopka II, the Baraba forest-steppe (Molodin, 1985: fig. 34, 21 ). Outside the Ob-Irtysh region, the only pendant of that type was discovered at Murza-Shoku in central Kazakhstan (Margulan, 1979: 311, g. 226, 58). The resemblance of ceramic assemblages of the above sites, situated close to one another in the same environmental zone, points to the territory where the common Andronov cultural tradition had formed, and from where it spread across the steppe belt of Eurasia mostly due to migration. At the Marinino stage, when the climate was becoming progressively more arid, some groups of migrants advanced along the steppe corridor as far east as the Yenisei (Elkin, 1967; Maksimenkov, 1978), and, along the Irtysh valley, into the forest-steppe and the sub-taiga zone, where they contacted the Krotovo people, who borrowed from them certain elements of ceramic decoration and some types of ornaments (Molodin, 1985: 37, 115, g. 34, 1, 16, 21). Other Kanay groups migrated into the steppes of central Kazakhstan, resulting in the emergence of settlements with a peculiar economy based on animal breeding and metallurgy (Atasu, Ust-Kenetay, Ikpen I and III). Contacts between the natives and the immigrants led to the emergence of the Atasu and Nura cultures (Margulan et al.,

92

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

1966; Kadyrbayev, 1983: 139142, g. 2; A.A. Tkachev, 2002: 1829, 95113, 191). In the Ishim basin, migrations and inter-tribal clashes among the Petrovka populations are evidenced by the appearance of fortied settlements on the left bank of the Ishim (Zdanovich, 1988: 133). In the forest-steppe part of the Tobol basin, the situation was apparently more stable. Here, only a single fortied settlement is known: Kamyshnoye II (Potemkina, 1985: 99). Such settlements are absent in the Kustanay part of the Tobol basin, suggestive of a relatively late migration of groups associated with the already formed Fedorovo tradition. The source of migration was the trans-Uralian forest-steppe, where a local variant of the Fedorovo culture originated from the tradition introduced by Kanay migrants. In the TobolIshim interuve, contacts between native and immigrant groups are reected by numerous sites showing mixed Alakul-Fedorovo assemblages (Evdokimov, Varfolomeyev, 2002: g. 8, 1, 3, 1719; 10, 121; Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006; Usmanov, 2005). The scarcity and small size of fortied sites associated with the Petrovka culture, on the one hand, and the presence of burials with Kanay pottery at the Petrovka burial ground, on the other, indicate that migrants from the Irtysh area coexisted with Petrovka natives. What purpose the Sintashta fortified sites served, is yet uncertain. Specialists studying these trans-Uralian proto-cities, claim that people who had constructed those settlements differed from the natives by a higher socio-cultural level, and controlled the steppes from the Volga to the Ishim. If so, the emergence of fortied settlements such as Arkaim and Sintashta in the southern Urals is even more difcult to explain. Two scenarios that might account for the observed facts have been proposed. The rst possibility is that people who constructed those sites had migrated to the Trans-Ural area from very distant territories (Grigoryev, 1999). Alternatively, the fortications may have been built by the natives in order to resist the Abashevo people, who had arrived from the west (Potemkina, 1984), or the Andronov-Kanay people who had arrived from the east (Tkacheva, 1997). The first hypothesis is unacceptable since no assemblages that could possibly be regarded as prototypical for Sintashta have been discovered either in areas adjacent to the trans-Uralian steppes or in more distant territories such as Kazakhstan, the northern Black Sea area, Western Central Asia, the Near and the Middle East, or the Balkans. The second hypothesis is more plausible since all the Sintashta settlements and burial grounds contain a considerable amount of Abashevo ceramics and a somewhat lesser proportion of AndronovKanay ceramics (Gening V.F., Zdanovich, Gening V.V., 1992). This testies to the heterogeneity of the Sintashta culture, which included both autochthonous and newly introduced traditions. Also, this evidences a complex

military and political situation in the Trans-Uralian region, culminating in the appearance of fortied settlements and the emergence of a war-oriented society. At the same time, the map of Sintashta fortied centers shows that these occupy a narrow strip along the eastern piedmonts of the Urals. Possibly they protected the inland steppe areas of the Trans-Urals and Kazakhstan (the Tobol basin and the Turgay steppes, which had been the core area of the Sintashta-Petrovka people) from western intruders the Abashevo people. While the study of relevant sites in that area is in the initial stage, large and original burial grounds of the Sintashta-Petrovka type have already been discovered. Having migrated from their homeland to the forest-steppe zone east of the Urals, the Kanay people encountered the autochthonous tribes associated with the Sintashta-Petrovka tradition. The contacts led to the emergence of the Alakul and Fedorovo assemblages. Ceramics found at Fedorovo-type sites east of the Urals (Fedorovo, Urefty I, Smolino), differs from that of eastern Andronov sites: while the shape of the vessels and the arrangement of patterns is similar, certain Alakul traits are present. These include the impoverishment of the decoration and the appearance of a specically Alakul feature an unornamented stripe between the neck and the body. This feature is present in ceramics both from classical Fedorovo sites such as Fedorovo (Salnikov, 1940: pl. I, 1, 2, 5, 6, 11), Smolino (Salnikov, 1967: fig. 48, 10), and Sineglazovo (Andronovskaya kultura, 1966: pl. VI, 8, 9)), and from mixed AlakulFedorovo assemblages (Chernyaki II (Stokolos, 1968: g. 2, 1, 35), Subbotino (Potemkina, 1973: g. 3, 6, 7), Urefty I (Stefanov, Korochkova, 2006: g. 59, 8, 10; 60, 4), and Priplodny Log I (Malyutina, 1984: g. 5, 4)). The unornamented stripe and scantier patterns distinguish sites such as Fedorovo from eastern Andronov ones such as Andronov proper. Apparently, the sources of these traditions were different. The first migration of the Kanay people occurred before the appearance of funneled earrings in their culture (such earrings are absent at Fedorovo sites east of the Urals). However, a distinctly eastern (Fedorovo) feature did appear as a result of in situ evolution of the Kanay tradition: quadrangular dishes. The Kanay groups attempts to maintain their ethnic specificity in alien surroundings are evidenced by the transformation of the burial rite of the newly-formed Fedorovo population. While in the Irtysh basin, cremation was practiced by the Kanay people in exceptional cases only, the westward migration led to the distribution of that rite, which was practiced more and more frequently, eventually becoming predominant in the Trans-Ural area. All these facts testify to the emergence of a separate population group characterized by distinct cultural traits. In our view, the name Fedorovo should be used only with regard to the

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

93

trans-Ural sites, as suggested by Salnikov (1951: 109; 1967: 288), and not with regard to the entire Andronov cultural community. The Fedorovo ceramics of the trans-Ural region is very different from that of the Kyzyltas type manufactured in the Upper Irtysh basin at the nal stage of the Kanay culture, which had originated from the Marinino tradition. The Kyzyltas ceramics evolved from the Marinino ceramics, whereas the Fedorovo ceramics was heavily inuenced by the Petrovka-Alakul tradition. Small Kanay groups which had migrated into the forest belt of Western Siberia, preserved the custom of decorating the entire body of the vessels, which was typical of people living in the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin, as exemplied by sites such as Duvanskoye XVII (Korochkova, Stefanov, 1983: 147148, g. 1, 1, 2, 4, 7), Cheremukhovy Kust (Zakh, 1995: g. 8, 4; 17, 10; 20, 1, 5), and Chernoozerye (Viktorov, Borzunov, 1974: 2023, g. 2, 6, 7). In Chernoozerye, the Kanay people, threatened by hostile natives, had to reinforce the settlement with a ditch, and a rampart with a wooden palisade. Among the sites with Andronov-Kanay ceramics, this is the only one which is fortied. The contact zone between the steppe regions of Kazakhstan and Altai is underexplored. It seems that one of the main routes leading to the east began on the Uba (a right tributary of the Irtysh), the sources of which are close to those of the Aley (a left tributary of the Ob). On the upper Aley, the burial ground Karbolikha I was excavated; its burial constructions, rite, and burial goods resemble those of the Irtysh cemeteries (Mogilnikov, 1980: 155). The burial grounds of the Kanay culture in the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh area are in some respects very similar to the Andronov ones of the steppe Altai. Specically, surface structures above the graves are indistinct, children were buried on separate burial grounds, and the burial rite and artifacts share certain common features. People whom the Andronov-Kanay tribes encountered while migrating in various directions differed in terms of cultural level. In the west, the migrants experienced considerable pressure from the Alakul people, whose society was socially, economically, and culturally similar to theirs; by contrast, the Yelunino-Krotovo people, whom the Andronov-Kanay people met in the foreststeppe Irtysh area and on the Upper Ob, were associated with an evolutionary less advanced Early Bronze Age culture. The eastward advance from the Ob into the Yenisei steppes was rather rapid. In the steppe corridor between the Ob and the Yenisei, in the Kuznetsk and Minusinsk basins, far less Andronov sites are known than in the Irtysh basin or in the steppe Altai. The Andronov people of the Altai and the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin maintained permanent contacts, and this territory was the core area of the Andronov cultural tradition. That was the source of Andronov migrations,

and the area where the Andronov people coexisted with Yelunino and Krotovo tribes for a long time, because they occupied different ecological niches. At the nal stage of the Kanay culture Kyzyltas the decoration of ceramics manufactured by the inhabitants of the Kazakhstan and Altai steppes became more scantily ornamented, pots with a rich decoration became rare, comb impressions on pottery became larger, the standard pattern was a horizontal herringbone combined with various pits, and the percentage of jar-like vessels increased. The specific feature of the latest Kyzyltas ceramics are vessels with high cylindrical necks. Among other artifacts, funneled earrings are the most indicative. They are believed to be typical of eastern Andronov tribes and do not occur in non-Andronov assemblages (Avanesova, 1991: 5053). The second expansion of the late Kanay tribes coincides with the end of the Kyzyltas stage (14001300 BC), when, due to extremely arid conditions, dry and semidesert steppes were distributed in Kazakhstan, and the steppe and forest-steppe zones in Western Siberia shifted to the north (Kosarev, 1974: 152). Assemblages associated with this migration wave are marked by funneled earrings, which appeared in the early second half of the 2nd millennium BC. They were found at Maly Koitas, Kyzyltas, Berezovsky, Barashki, Zevakino, Menovnoye IX on the upper Irtysh, Rublevo VIII in the Ob-Irtysh interuve (Kiryushin et al., 2006: g. 1, 24), and Kytmanovo in the Chumysh basin (Umansky, Kiryushin, Grushin, 2007: 27, 30, g. 63, 1719; 64, 18 , 19 ). Outside the steppe zone of the Kazakhstan Irtysh basin and the Altai, a few funneled earrings were found in burials on the Yenisei (Pristan I, Sukhoye Ozero I (Maksimenkov, 1978: pl. 52, 2, 4)), in northern Kazakhstan (Sokolovka (Zdanovich, 1988: pl. 10c, 20, 21) and Borovoye (Orazbayev, 1958: pl. IV, 1, 7; V, 14, 20)) and in central Kazakhstan (Sanguyr II (Kadyrbayev, 1961: pl. II, 2, 5)), as well as in the Ob basin (Yelovka II (Matyuschenko, 2004: g. 45, 6, 7; 235, 3, 4)). In our view, the latest earrings are cast with a globular thickening in the base of the funnel, and those forged from nail-like plates. The latter appeared in the 14th or early 13th cent. BC. Ceramic assemblages of that time include vessels scarcely decorated with a simple herringbone, pinches, and nail imprints (Zevakino, Berezovsky, Barashki). During the transition period from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age, all types of earrings coexisted, and certain specimens were still used in the Late Bronze Age (Ermolayeva, 1987: 69, g. 31, 2). During the Middle to Late Bronze Age transition, small late Kanay (Kyzyltas) populations reentered the Minusinsk Basin and the steppes of northern and central Kazakhstan, but the principal migration wave was directed toward Western Central Asia, Dzhetysu, and southern Kazakhstan. In those regions, numerous

94

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

Andronov sites are known, and in many of them funnelshaped earrings have been found (Avanesova, 1991: g. 44, 2931; Gorbunova, 1995: g. 3, 9; Maryashev, Goryachev, 1999: g. 5, 13; Potemkina, 2001: g. 3, 11). Precisely at that time, temporary settlements of the Andronov type appeared in the southern taiga zone of the Ob basin, marking the northern border of the distribution area of Kanay tribes during the second migration wave. Conclusions The settlement and economic exploitation of huge underpopulated areas of the Eurasian steppes was affected by numerous and diverse factors, both geographical and socio-economical. Examining migration as a mechanism of population history, we have arrived at the following conclusions: (1) The proto-Alakul and proto-Kanay groups coexisted on adjacent territories. (2) People associated with various related cultural traditions, while apparently speaking related (northern Indo-Iranian) languages and sharing a common descent (Kuzmina, 1994: 221222), exhibited considerable differences, both physical (Dremov, 1997: 81; Bagashev, 2000: 910), and cultural. The latter concerned ceramic production (Loman, 1993: 29; 1995: 97), elements of costume, and ornaments (Evdokimov, Usmanova, 1990: 6671; Khabarova, 1997: 9394). (3) The rst migration from eastern Kazakhstan (late 17th early 16th cent. BC) resulted in the convergence of various ethno-cultural groups and the emergence of the Andronov cultural community. (4) The second migration from the steppe areas of the Kazakhstan part of the Irtysh basin and the Altai (14th early 13th cent. BC) not only expanded the distribution area of the Andronov community, but provided a basis for the emergence of the Late Bronze Age tradition of rolled ceramics in the steppes of Kazakhstan and Western Central Asia, and of Andronov-type cultures in the foreststeppe and southern taiga belts of Western Siberia.

References
Andronovskaya kultura: (Pamyatniki zapadnykh raionov). 1966 Iss. 1. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka. (Sbornik arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; iss. V3-2). Avanesova N.A. 1991 Kultura pastusheskikh plemen epokhi bronzy aziatskoi chasti SSSR. Tashkent: Fan. Bagashev A.N. 2000 Formirovanie drevnego i sovremennogo naseleniya Zapadnoi Sibiri po dannym kraniologii. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Moscow.

Chernikov S.S. 1960 Vostochnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. MIA, No. 88. Chernosvitov P.Yu. 1999 Osvoenie Krainego Severa: Opyt imitativnogo modelirovaniya po materialam arkheologii. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Moscow: IA RAN. Chlenova N.L. 1955 O kulturakh bronzovoi epokhi lesostepnoi zony Zapadnoi Sibiri. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 23: 3857. Dremov V.A. 1997 Naselenie Verkhnego Priobya v epokhu bronzy (antropologichesky ocherk). Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Elkin M.G. 1967 Pamyatniki andronovskoi kultury na yuge Kuzbassa. Izvestiya Laboratorii arkheologicheskikh issledovanii (Kemerovo), iss. 1: 8995. Ermolayeva A.S. 1987 Pamyatniki perekhodnogo perioda ot epokhi bronzy k rannemu zhelezu. In Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki v zone zatopleniya Shulbinskoi GES. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR, pp. 6494. Evdokimov V.V. 2000 Istoricheskaya sreda epokhi bronzy stepei Tsentralnogo i Severnogo Kazakhstana. Almaty: Inst. arkheologii NAN RK. Evdokimov V.V., Usmanova E.R. 1990 Znakovyi status ukrashenii v pogrebalnom obryade (po materialam mogilnikov andronovskoi kulturno-istoricheskoi obschnosti iz Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana). In Arkheologiya Volgo-Uralskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 6680. Evdokimov V.V., Varfolomeyev V.V. 2002 Epoha bronzy Tsentralnogo i Severnogo Kazakhstana. Karaganda: Karagand. Gos. Univ. Fedorova-Davydova E.A. 1973 K probleme andronovskoi kultury. In Problemy arkheologii Urala i Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 133152. Formozov A.A. 1951 K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii andronovskoi kultury. KSIIMK, iss. 39: 318. Gening V.F., Zdanovich G.B., Gening V.V. 1992 Sintashta: Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki ariiskikh plemen Uralo-Kazakhstanskih stepei, pt. 1. Chelyabinsk: Yuzh.-Ural. kn. izd. Gorbunova N.G. 1995 O kulture stepnoi bronzy Fergany. Arkheologichesky sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, iss. 32: 1330. Grigoryev S.A. 1999 Drevnie indoevropeitsy: Opyt istoricheskoi rekonstruktsii. Chelyabinsk: UrO RAN. Gryaznov M.P. 1956 K voprosu o kulturakh epokhi pozdnei bronzy v Sibiri. KSIIMK, iss. 64: 2742. Kadyrbayev M.K. 1961 Mogilnik Sanguyr II. Trudy IIAE AN KazSSR, vol. 12: 4860. Kadyrbayev M.K. 1983 Shestiletnie raboty na Atasu. In Bronzovyi vek stepnoi polosy Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 134142. Kes A.S., Andrianov V.V., Itina M.A. 1980 Dinamika gidrograficheskoi seti i izmeneniya urovnya Aralskogo moray. In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo regiona v golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 185197.

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

95

Khabarova S.V. 1997 Kulturno-khronologicheskoe sootnoshenie alakulskogo i fedorovskogo zapadnogo kompleksov. In Tobolskii istoricheskii sbornik, iss. 2, pt. 1. Tobolsk: Tobolsk. Gos. Ped. Inst., pp. 92102. Khabdulina M.K., Zdanovich G.B. 1984 Landshaftno-klimaticheskie kolebaniya golotsena i voprosy kulturno-istoricheskoi situatsii v Severnom Kazakhstane. In Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 136158. Khotinsky N.A. 1977 Golotsen Severnoi Evrazii. Moscow: Nauka. Khotinsky N.A., Nemkova V.K., Surova T.G. 1982 Glavnye etapy razvitiya rastitelnosti i klimata Urala v golotsene. In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya Severa Evrazii. Sverdlovsk: Ural. Gos. Univ., pp 145153. Kiryushin Yu.F. 1985 Eneolit, rannyaya i razvitaya bronza Verkhnego i Srednego Priobya. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk. Kiryushin Yu.F. 2002 Eneolit i rannyaya bronza Zapadnoi Sibiri. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ. Kiryushin Yu.F., Pozdnyakova O.A., Papin D.V., Shamshin A.B. 2006 Kollektsiya metallicheskikh ukrashenii iz pogrebenii andronovskogo kompleksa mogilnika Rublevo VIII. In Altai v sisteme metallurgicheskikh provintsii bronzovogo veka. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 3344. Korochkova O.N., Stefanov V.I. 1983 Poselenie fedorovskoi kultury. In Bronzovyi vek stepnoi polosy Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 143151. Kosarev M.F. 1974 Drevnie kultury Tomsko-Narymskogo Priobya. Moscow: Nauka. Kosarev M.F. 1979 K probleme paleoklimatologii i paleogeograi yuga ZapadnoSibirskoi ravniny v bronzovom i zheleznom vekakh. In Osobennosti estestvenno-geograficheskoi sredy i istoricheskie protsessy v Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 3742. Kosarev M.F. 1981 Bronzovyi vek Zapadnoi Sibiri. Moscow: Nauka. Kosarev M.F. 1991 Drevnyaya istoriya Zapadnoi Sibiri: Chelovek i prirodnaya sreda. Moscow: Nauka. Krizhevskaya L.Y. 1977 Rannebronzovoe vremya v Yuzhnom Zaurale. Leningrad: Izd. Leningrad. Gos. Univ. Kuzmina E.E. 1994 Otkuda prishli indoarii?: Materialnaya kultura plemen andronovskoi obschnosti i proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev. Moscow: Ros. inst. kulturologii RAN i MK RF. Logvin A.N. 1991 Kamennyi vek Kazakhstanskogo Pritoboliya (mezolit eneolit). Alma-Ata: Kaz. Gos. Ped. Univ. Logvin A.N. 2002 Turgaisky progib v epokhu mezolita eneolita. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk. Loman V.G. 1993 Goncharnaya tekhnologiya naseleniya Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana vtoroi poloviny II tysyacheletiya do n.e. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Moscow.

Loman V.G. 1995 Andronovskoe goncharstvo: Obschie priemy izgotovleniya sosudov. In Rossiya i Vostok: Problemy vzaimodeistviya, Pt. 5. bk. 1. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 96100. Maerz V.K. 2003 O novykh pamyatnikakh epokhi rannei bronzy Kazakhstana. In Istorichesky opyt khozyaistvennogo i kulturnogo osvoeniya Zapadnoi Sibiri, bk. 1. Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 132141. Maerz V.K. 2004 Novye materialy po eneolitu i rannei bronze SeveroVostochnogo Kazakhstana. In Novye issledovaniya po arkheologii Kazakhstana. Almaty: Inst. arkheologii MON RK, pp. 165169. Maksimenkov G.A. 1978 Andronovskaya kultura na Enisee. Leningrad: Nauka. Malyutina T.S. 1984 Mogilnik Priplodnyi Log I. In Bronzovyi vek UraloIrtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 5879. Mamedov E.D. 1980 Izmenenie klimata sredneaziatskikh pustyn v golotsene. In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo regiona v golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 170175. Margulan A.H. 1979 Begazy-dandybaevskaja kultura. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR. Margulan A.H., Akishev K.A., Kadyrbaev M.K., Orazbaev A.M. 1966 Drevnyaya kultura Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR. Markov K.K., Burashnikova T.A., Muratova M.V., Suetova I.A. 1982 Klimaticheskaya model i geogracheskie zony vremeni golotsenovogo optimuma na territorii SSSR. In Antropogenovye faktory v istorii razvitiya sovremennykh ekosistem. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 230240. Maryashev A.N., Goryachev A.A. 1999 Pamyatniki kulsaiskogo tipa epokhi pozdnei i finalnoi bronzy Semirechya. Istoriya i arkheologiya Semirechya (Almaty), iss. 1: 4456. Matveyev A.V. 1998 Pervye andronovtsy v lesakh Zauralya. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Matyuschenko V.I. 1973 Drevnyaya istoriya naseleniya lesnogo i lesostepnogo Priobiya (neolit i bronzovyi vek). Pt. 3: Andronovskaya kultura na verkhnei Obi. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ. Matyuschenko V.I. 2004 Elovsky arkheologichesky kompleks. Elovskii II mogilnik. Doirmenskie kompleksy, pt. 2. Omsk: Omsk. Gos. Univ. Matyushin G.I. 1982 Eneolit Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka. Mogilnikov V.A. 1980 Pamyatniki andronovskoi kultury na Verkhnem Alee. In Drevnyaya istoriya Altaya . Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 155159. Molodin V.I. 1985 Baraba v epokhu bronzy. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Molodin V.I., Zakh V.A. 1979 Geomorfologicheskoe raspolozhenie pamyatnikov epokhi neolita i bronzy v basseine rek Obi, Ini, Omi i ikh pritokov.

96

N.A. Tkacheva and A.A. Tkachev / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 35/3 (2008) 8896

In Osobennosti estestvenno-geogracheskoi sredy i istoricheskie processy v Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 5153. Nizovya Amu-Daryi, Sarykamysh, Uzboi: Istoriya formirovaniya i zaseleniya. 1960 Materialy Khorezmiiskoi ekspeditsii, iss. 3. Orazbayev A.M. 1958 Severnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. Trudy IIAE AN KazSSR, vol. 5: 216294. Potemkina T.M. 1973 K voprosu o sootnoshenii fedorovskikh i alakulskikh kompleksov. Iz istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 7: 5364. Potemkina T.M. 1976 Kamyshnoe II mnogosloinoe poselenie epokhi bronzy na r. Tobol. KSIA, iss. 147: 97106. Potemkina T.M. 1979 Topograficheskaya i gidrograficheskaya priurochennost poselenii epokhi bronzy v Srednem Pritobole. In Osobennosti estestvenno-geogracheskoi sredy i istoricheskie processy v Zapadnoi Sibiri. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., pp. 5860. Potemkina T.M. 1983 Alakulskaya kultura. Sovetskaya arkheologiya , No. 2: 1333. Potemkina T.M. 1984 Rol abashevtsev v protsesse razvitiya alakulskoi kultury. In Epokha bronzy Vostochno-Evropeiskoi lesostepi. Voronezh: Voronezh. Gos. Univ., pp. 77108. Potemkina T.M. 1985 Bronzovyi vek lesostepnogo Pritobolya. Moscow: Nauka. Potemkina T.M. 2001 Ukrasheniya iz mogilnika epokhi bronzy Dashti-Kozy. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnograi (Tyumen), iss. 3: 6272. Salnikov K.V. 1940 Andronovsky kurgannyi mogilnik u s. Fedorovki Chelyabinskoi oblasti. MIA, No. 1: 5868. Salnikov K.V. 1951 Bronzovyi vek Yuzhnogo Zauralya. MIA, No. 21: 94151. Salnikov K.V. 1967 Ocherki drevnei istorii Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka. Shnitnikov A.V. 1969 Vnutrivekovaya izmenchivost komponentov obschei uvlazhnennosti. Leningrad: Nauka. Stefanov V.I., Korochkova O.N. 2006 Urefty I: Zauralsky pamyatnik v andronovskom kontekste. Ekaterinburg: Ural. Gos. Univ. Stokolos V.S. 1968 Pamyatnik epokhi bronzy mogilnik Chernyaki II. Uchenye zapiski Perm. gos. univ., iss. 191: 210223. Stokolos V.S. 1972 Kultura naseleniya bronzovogo veka Yuzhnogo Zauralya (khronologiya i periodizatsiya). Moscow: Nauka. Stokolos V.S. 1983 Suschestvoval li novokumaksky gorizont. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 2: 257274. Tatarintseva N.S. 1984 Keramika poseleniya Vishnevka I v lesostepnom Priishime. In Bronzovyi vek Uralo-Irtyshskogo mezhdurechya. Chelyabinsk: Bashk. Gos. Univ., pp. 104113.

Tkachev A.A. 2002 Tsentralnyi Kazakhstan v epokhu bronzy. Tyumen: Tyumen. Gos. Neftegaz. Inst. Tkachev V.V. 1998 K probleme proiskhozhdeniya petrovskoi kultury. Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki Orenburzhya (Orenburg), iss. 2: 3856. Tkacheva N.A. 1997 Pamyatniki epokhi bronzy Verkhnego Priirtyshya. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Barnaul. Umansky A.P., Kiryushin Yu.F., Grushin S.P. 2007 Pogrebalnyi obryad naseleniya andronovskoi kultury Prichumyshya (po materialam mogilnika Kytmanovo). Barnaul: Altai. Gos. Univ. Usmanova E.R. 2005 Mogilnik Lisakovskii I: Fakty i paralleli. Karaganda: Karagand. Gos. Univ.; Lisakovsk: Lisakovsk. muzei istorii i kultury Verkhnego Pritobolya. Varfolomeyev V.V. 1991 Sary-Arka v kontse bronzovoi epokhi. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Alma-Ata. Viktorov V.P., Borzunov V.A. 1974 Gorodische epokhi bronzy u sela Chernoozere na Irtyshe. Iz istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 15: 1923. Vinogradov A.V. 1981 Drevnie okhotniki i rybolovy Sredneaziatskogo mezhdurechya. Moscow: Nauka. (Trudy Khorezm. arkheol.etnogr. ekspeditsii; iss. 13). Vinogradov N.B. 2007 Kulturno-istoricheskie protsessy v stepyakh Yuzhnogo Urala i Kazakhstana v nachale II tys. do n.e.: Pamyatniki sintashtinskogo i petrovskogo tipov. D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Moscow. Weinbergs I.G., Stelle V.Y. 1980 Pozdnechetvertichnye stadii razvitiya Aralskogo morya i ikh svyaz s izmeneniyami klimaticheskikh uslovii etogo vremeni. In Kolebaniya uvlazhnennosti Aralo-Kaspiiskogo regiona v golotsene. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 175181. Zakh V.A. 1995 Poselok drevnikh skotovodov na Tobole. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Zakh V.A. 1997 Epokha bronzy Prisalairya. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Zdanovich G.B. 1974 Poselenie epokhi bronzy Novonikolskoe I (po raskopkam 1970 g.). Iz istorii Sibiri (Tomsk), iss. 15: 6168. Zdanovich G.B. 1984 K voprosu ob andronovskom kulturno-istoricheskom edinstve. KSIA, iss. 177: 2937. Zdanovich G.B. 1988 Bronzovyi vek uralo-kazakhstanskih stepei. Sverdlovsk: Ural. Gos. Univ.

Received April 10, 2008.