Ancient Civilizations

from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

brill.com/acss

A General Revision of the Chronology of the

Tagisken North Burial Ground

Gian Luca Bonora*

ismeo
eclglbonora@gmail.com

Abstract

The burial ground of Tagisken North, characterised by seven monumental mau-

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

*  Via Masi 360, 44124 Ferrara.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700577-12341334

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
308 Bonora

Keywords

Tagisken North Burial Ground – Andronovo Cultural Complex – Begazy Dandibay

culture – Oxus Civilisation – hub-site

The Plateau of Tagisken (44°15’55” N; 63°39’46” E) is located in the mid Syr-

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 309

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
310 Bonora

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 311

particularly telling absence, from a historical and chronological point of view:

Tagisken North may be considered a pre-Sakā cemetery, older than Arzhan I,
where the earliest animal-style artefacts were brought to light by S.I. Rudenko.
All these factors combined seem to infer a small chronological gap between
the burial ground of Tagisken North and both the earliest Sakā barrow of
Arzhan I and the early Sakā necropolis of the lower Syr-Darya and surround-
ing regions such as Tagisken south, Uïgarak and Sakar-Chaga.

1 Chronology in Central Asia

Improved scientific cooperation, greater accuracy in determining the chro-

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
312 Bonora

upon factual evidence implying trans-regional interaction and technological

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

14  Kuz’mina 1997; 2001, 20.

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 313

– The bones of a horse and a horse-shaped pommel on a staff discovered on

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

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

Namazga V (MBA): c. 2400-1950 BC

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

25  Sarianidi 2002; Salvatori 2003; Kohl 2007, 197-198.

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
314 Bonora

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

Yaz I (EIA): c. 1350/1300-1000 BC

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

Sintashta – Arkaim period: c. 2200-1800 BC

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

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

2 Comparisons with Central Kazakhstan

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 315

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
316 Bonora

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 317

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

3 Comparisons with Karaoba

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
318 Bonora

However, the analogies between the necropolises of Tagisken North and

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

4 Comparisons with the Karasuk Culture

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

56  Beïsenov et alii 2014b, fig. 4, 7.

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 319

in order to more firmly establish the chronological position of the Tagisken

North burial grounds between the 15th and the 12th centuries BC, other analo-
gies have been found and analysed. Thus, some comparisons may be made
with the Karasuk culture prevalent in the Minusinsk Basin and dated between
1400 and 1100 BC may be presented. These analogies involve both bowls with
S-shaped wall64 decorated by a frieze of cross-hatched triangles below the rim
and horizontal rows of hatched triangles over the whole body,65 and small
bowls66 decorated by large triangles along the wall of the pots, below the
shoulder line.67
An earring with three cone-shaped gilded wooden pendants, discovered
during the excavation of the funerary structure 7A of Tagisken North, bears
further analogies with the Karasuk culture. A very similar artefact with trian-
gular body and three pendants was found in tomb 1 of the Chazy cemetery.68

5 Tazabag’yab and Amirabad Evidence at Tagisken North

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
320 Bonora

rim of medium- and large-sized jars with flat base and vertical neck.71 Quoting
the afore-mentioned research by Kutimov, as well as the recent studies by
M. Teufer regarding the Late Bronze Age in the cultural expanses between the
Aral Sea and the Persian Gulf, the Amirabad culture can be chronologically
attributed to the 13th-12th centuries BC.72

6 Evidence of Oxus Civilisation at Tagisken North

Several remarkable analogies between Tagisken North and some Middle

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

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 321

(1900-1750 BC),74 from grave 17 of Necropolis 3 of Djarkutan (1700-1550 BC)75

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

74  Teufer 2015, 271, tab. 20, 10.

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
322 Bonora

from burial 69 of the Kangurttut graveyard, in Tajikistan, dated back to the

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

7 Conclusions

In conclusion, in my opinion a chronological attribution of the Tagisken North

necropolis between the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millen-
nium BC is no longer sustainable. The radiocarbon dating from Mausoleum 6

84  Vinogradova 2008, fig. 55, Tomb 69, no. 2.

85  Khlopin 1997; 2002.
86  Kuz’mina 1966, 79; 2007, fig. 33, on the right side, without number. Agapov & Kadÿrbaev
1979, 61, figs. 7-8; Itina 1977, 132-133, fig. 68, 1; Tkachev 2002, II, 28; Usmanova 2010, 158, fig.
163, 2; Baïpakov et alii 2012.
87  Itina & Yablonskiï 2001, fig. 123, 15.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 323

suggesting a chronology dating to the 1st millennium BC may be wrong or from

a contaminated sample. Even in 1997, an assessment by M.E. Hall, hypoth-
esised from scanty and low-numbered samples for C14 dating, was that “the
North Tagisken and Xiangbababi cemeteries are seen as being the oldest Saka
cemeteries and pre-dating the Bes-Shatyr cemetery, Kurgan 5 at Chilikta and
the Chirik-Rabat cemetery”.88
Today, thanks to the advancement of archaeological research, it may be
stated with a fair degree of certainty that the Tagisken plateau was used as a
burial site for a mobile breeders’ community as far back as the middle of the
2nd millennium BC if not earlier, and it continued to be used in this manner
until approximately the 13th century BC.

Bibliography

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

88  Hall 1997.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
324 Bonora

kul’tur Evrazii v arkheologii Kazakhstana. Sbornik nauchnÿkh stateï, posvyashchennÿï

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 325

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
326 Bonora

Kadÿrbaev, M.K., and Kurmankulov, Zh.K. (1992). Kul’tura drevnikh skotovodov i

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 327

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
328 Bonora

Molodin, V.I., Epimakhov, A.V., and Marchenko, Zh.V. (2014). Radiouglerodnaya

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
A General Revision of the Chronology 329

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded

(2018) 307-330
from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access
330 Bonora

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

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 307-330

Downloaded from Brill.com08/04/2021 08:50:49AM
via free access