- Email: [email protected]
New Early Iron Age Statue From Sary-Arka
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94 E-mail: [email protected]
86
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
L.N. Ermolenko1 and Zh.K. Kurmankulov2 Kemerovo State University, Krasnaya 6, Kemerovo, 650043, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 2 A.Kh. Margulan Institute of Archaeology, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Pr. Dostyk 44, Almaty, 050010, Kazakhstan E-mail: [email protected] 1
NEW EARLY IRON AGE STATUE FROM SARY-ARKA*
The article introduces a statue of the Saka period from Sary-Arka (Central Kazakhstan) and shows the similarities between its attributes and the weaponry of the Early Iron Age cultures of the Eurasian steppes. Speci¿c features of the Sary-Arka statues and their iconographic similarities with Eastern European Scythian sculpture are described. Keywords: Stone statue, dagger, pick axe, Early Iron Age, Saka period, Sary-Arka.
Introduction Anthropomorphic stone sculpture provides an informative and artistic type of archaeological monument. From this valuable source scholars can obtain data for reconstructing the worldview, life and self-perception of ancient people as well as the processes of cultural genesis. Therefore, a discovery of such a monument is a signi¿cant event in archaeological discovery. In the second half of the 20th century, statues of the Scythian period were discovered in the western part of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes (Gutsalov, Tairov, 2000); “Sarmatian” statues were found in the Aral-Caspian region (Olkhovsky, 2005: 131–151), the Chemurchek statues were discovered in Xinjiang (Kovalev, 2007), and some statues were discovered near Hakkari in Asia Minor (Leus, 2007). At the beginning of the 21st century, a small series of sculptures from the Saka period were discovered in Sary-Arka (Kazakh Uplands) (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011a, 2011b). In *This study was carried out under the Federal Program, “Scienti¿c and Pedagogical Human Resources of Innovative Russia” (Project No. 14.B37.21.0954).
the summer of 2011, the present authors in collaboration with M. Abdikarimov and Sh.M. Abdikalikov examined a fragment of an Early Iron Age statue at the Sartogan locality (Tersakkan Rural District in the Ulytau Region, Karaganda Province), about 3 km north–northwest of the Zhantel farming camp. Its iconography and attributes reveal not only the originality of stone anthropomorphic sculptures of the Sary-Arka group, but also some similarities to the Eastern European Scythian sculpture. Description of the statue The statue (hereafter, the Sartogan second statue) was discovered in 2011 by M. Abdikarimov (from the Museum of the Ulytau Reserve), along with another fragment (hereafter, the Sartogan ¿rst statue), which was brought to the Museum. The fragment was documented and published by L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov (2011a, 2011b). The Sartogan second statue was lying 15 m west– northwest of a stone and earthen mound that had a diameter of 30 m and height of 2 m, surrounded by a trench with a width reaching 3 m (Fig. 1). The mound was visually
© 2013, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2013.04.009
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
87
a slight slope towards the tip (Fig. 3, a). The handle of the dagger is turned to the right side of the statue, where a pick axe is carved on the projection, corresponding to the Àank bone in the human skeleton (Fig. 3, b). The handle of the pick axe faces downward, and its pointed end is directed to the front facet of the ¿gure. The bodily features of the statue are rendered by a groove. The genitals are shown on the front facet (the rounded testicles and a U-shaped phallus) (Fig. 3, c); an inverted Y-shaped figure on the back (Fig. 3, d),
Fig. 1. Statue lying near the mound.
ɚ
0
20 cm
Fig. 2. Second Sartogan statue. b
de¿ned as a site of the Early Iron Age. The coordinates of the ¿nds are 49º 31ƍ 24.9Ǝ N; 67º 30ƍ 46.2Ǝ E. The altitude is 519 m above sea level. According to M. Abdikarimov, the ¿rst statue was found near the same mound. The statue was cut from a block of dirty purple ¿negrained stone and was broken at the waist. The statue was modeled with projections on the front and on the sides. Only the lower part of the statue has been preserved (Fig. 2) and the upper part has not been found. The stone surface shows signs of damage, otherwise the natural form of the block was not signi¿cantly altered by the cutter. Sideways on the sculpture gradually expands to the middle and narrows down to the rounded base. Facing forward the outline is uneven and asymmetrical: the block expands downward, is skewed in the lower third, and is pointed at the right side. The surviving fragments of the statue measure 130 × 30...50 × 20...35 cm. Weapons and some bodily features are represented on the statue. The weapons are rendered in bas-relief and include a dagger and pick axe (chekan). The image of the dagger is located at the top of the front facet, right below the break line and parallel to it, almost horizontally with
c
d
Fig. 3. Representations on the second Sartogan statue. a – dagger; b – pick axe (chekan), c – phallus; d – buttocks.
88
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
apparently, marks the dividing line of the buttocks and the interior line of the thighs.
a certain similarity of the Sartogan dagger’s pommel with the crescent-shaped or V-shaped pommels of the Prokhorovka-type daggers, the con¿guration and width of the guard and the combination with the pick axe may Attributes of the statue and their parallels point to the need to compare it with the weaponry of the Scythian period. Dagger. In order to date the monument, the dagger There may also be a partial analogy among daggers represented on the statue was analyzed for parallels with butterfly guards and parallel blades from the although no direct parallels were found (Fig. 4, 1). burials of the Sauromatian period. One such example The dagger handle has an antenna-shaped (arced, even with a crescent-shaped pommel was found in kurgan 1 parabolic) pommel; a wide guard signi¿cantly projects of the burial ground of Besoba in Western Kazakhstan beyond the base of the blade, and the blade slightly widens (Kadyrbaev, Kurmankulov, 1977: ¿g. 2, 8) (Fig. 4, 3). in the middle and narrows in the last third. The total length M.K. Kadyrbaev and Zh.K. Kurmankulov noted the of the dagger is 27.5 cm; the handle with the pommel and archaic character of its guard compared to straight guards the guard measures 13.5 cm in length (pommel 3.5 cm, (in the form of bars) typical of daggers with crescentguard 3 cm); the blade measures 14 cm long , 3 cm wide. shaped pommels (Ibid.: 113). Being as such daggers The length of the guard is approximately 6 cm; its edges were apparently in use in the 5th–3rd centuries BC and extend by 1.5 cm. It should be noted that the position of the burial ground of Besoba functioned in the second half the dagger implies the presence of a suspension mount, of the 6th–early 5th century BC, the dagger was dated the details of which have not been rendered. Taking into to “no later than the beginning of the 5th century BC” account the fact that the dagger shows a clearly de¿ned (Ibid.). Despite the differences in the details, it is similar tip, it can be assumed that the dagger is shown without to the Sartogan Second Statue’s dagger in terms of its the sheath. dimensions. It is dif¿cult to compare this dagger with archaeological Another dagger with an antenna-shaped (V-shaped) materials, since the dagger is shown in a rather sketchy pommel of elliptical form comes from burial 1 of manner, particularly the guard (moreover, the outlines kurgan 3 at the Priozerny burial ground in the Palassovsky of the edge bordering the break line are damaged). The Region of the Volgograd Province (Kokurkina, 2007: shape of the guard can be de¿ned as oval. A rubbing of ¿g. 2, 7) (Fig. 4, 5). According to O.V. Kokurkina, this the guard shows that it does not protrude at an angle burial belongs to the ¿rst chronological group of diagonal towards the handle as butterÀy or heart-shaped guards burials (end of the 6th–5th century BC) and “can be do. Angularity is not expressed at the undamaged edge dated to the 5th century BC” (Ibid.: 197). At the same as would be the case for butterÀy-shaped or bar-shaped time, referring to the studies of A.I. Melyukova and guards. From the side of the blade there is no visibly clear K.F. Smirnov, Kokurkina found similarities between the recess that a kidney-shaped guard would show. Despite dagger from Priozerny with the Scythian and Sauromatian swords of the 6th–5th centuries BC (Ibid.: 196). Apart from other features, the Priozerny and the Sartogan daggers differ in proportions: the ¿rst dagger has a longer blade and different ratio of blade length to tip. The dagger with an antenna-shaped pommel, butterfly guard, and ribbed handle (with two longitudinal Àutes) was found at Issyk-Kul and was dated by S.S. Ivanov to the 5th–4th century BC (2008: 41, fig. 1, 6) (Fig. 4, 4). Compared to the Sartogan dagger, this 0 2 cm 0 2 cm dagger has shorter “antennas-horns” and different proportions being more 3 5 7 1 4 6 2 elongated. Fig. 4. Daggers represented on the ¿rst and second Sartogan statues and their As for visual parallels, the parallels. representation of a dagger with an 1 – second Sartogan statue; 2 – first Sartogan statue; 3 – Besoba (after (Kadyrbaev, antenna-shaped possibly crescent Kurmankulov, 1977: ¿g. 2, 8)); 4 – Issyk-Kul (after (Ivanov, 2008: 41, ¿g. 1, 6)); 5 – Priozerny pommel on a statue from Stepnogorsk (after (Kokurkina, 2007: ¿g. 2, 7)); 6 – Fedorovka (after (Melyukova, 1964: pl. 19, 9)); 7 – So¿evka (after (Melyukova, 1964: pl. 19, 10)). (Akishev, Khabdulina, 2011: 182)
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
is geographically closest to the Sartogan dagger. The weapon is shown at the waist level at an angle with its handle to the left (from the position of the figure represented). The guard is not visible, but in terms of its proportions, the Stepnogorsk dagger is similar to the Sartogan dagger. There is a date of the 6th–5th centuries BC on the ¿gure caption to the statue which the authors de¿ne as a “Saka” statue. The Sartogan dagger should be compared with bladed weapons of the Prokhorovka type, represented on the “Sarmatian” statues of the Aral–Caspian region and dated back to the 4th–2nd centuries BC (Olkhovsky, 2005: 145). This type of weaponry includes swords and daggers. The swords were incused on the front facet of the statues, and daggers – on the side facet (except for the rare cases when a pair of daggers was depicted). The swords with their handles directed to the right hand of the ¿gure are shown below the waist in a horizontal position or with an inclination towards the tip. The daggers are shown on the right thigh vertically with their handles up. According to V.S. Olkhovsky, the antenna-shaped and crescent (rarely straight, ring- or claw-shaped) pommels, and narrow guards of straight bar-like forms prevail in the design of bladed weapons (Ibid.: 144). Swords and daggers, as well as other attributes, are reproduced in detail. This is largely explained by the qualities of easily processed raw materials like limestone. According to some scholars, Àat faces of many “Sarmatian” statues are also the result of the natural shape of stone slabs (Samashev et al., 2007: 211). Bladed weapons are depicted in sheathes, often with bouterolles. The sheath bears the representation of a rib (Ibid.: 248) or longitudinal strip in relief, which may be called “the nervure of the blade” following the de¿nition of V.S. Olkhovsky (2005: 144). Since the “nervure” passes through the bouterolles, most likely, this is the part of sheath decoration. Suspension systems are carefully rendered, but not on all statues which have weaponry in positions implying suspension. Although the dagger, represented on the ¿rst Sartogan statue (Fig. 4, 2) differs from the dagger on the second statue, the joint presence of these statues in situ calls for an explanation. The dagger from the ¿rst Sartogan statue is shown suspended from the belt on one “strap” (4 cm long and 0.8 cm wide), almost horizontally, with a slight tilt to the tip. Its total reconstructed length is approximately 13 cm; the length of the handle is about 5 cm; the width of the guard is 1.7 cm; the guard extends on one side by about 0.8 cm. The handle (approximately 2 cm wide) slightly narrows towards the guard and its end is rounded. The end of the relief with the dagger was damaged by the breakage, but the rubbing revealed rounded outlines. This detail, along with the “strap,” may mean that a sheathed weapon was depicted. The one-sided protrusion of the guard is noteworthy; it may be evidence that the weapon might have been a single-edged sword.
According to S.V. Makhortikh and S.A. Skorii, bladed weapons of the Scythian type without pommels appeared in the early 7th century BC, possibly in the late 8th century BC, in the Caucasus. Their distribution area to the east and west could be the result of active expansion by the steppe Scythians or perhaps a convergent development of weaponry (Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 76). A poorly preserved dagger without a pommel yet with a guard similar to a heart-shaped one was found in kurgan 2 of the burial ground of Karsakbas in the former Turgai Province (Tairov, Botalov, 1996: 175, ¿g. 2, 8). A.D. Tairov and S.G. Botalov point out that according to the form of the handle and guard, the dagger is similar to the swords and daggers without pommels which are dated to the 6th– 5th centuries BC (Ibid.: 166). Assuming that a single-edged bladed weapon was depicted on the ¿rst Sartogan statue, some parallels may be found in the corpus of Scythian weaponry, published by A.I. Melyukova, namely, in seven single-edged swords without pommels, three of which date back to the 4th– 3rd centuries BC (Melyukova, 1964: pl. 19). Thus, the guard of the Sartogan dagger resembles the guard of the sword of the early 4th century BC from a burial mound at Kruglik near the village of Fedorovka (Ibid.: pl. 19, 9) (Fig. 4, 6). A small bend of the “sheath” on the statue seems to match the concavity of the blade of a short sword from the burial near the village of So¿evka (Ibid.: pl. 19, 10) (Fig. 4, 7). (Incidentally, A.I. Melyukova also noted a slight convexity on the back part of the Fedorovka sword). Considering the fact that A.I. Melyukova identi¿ed the So¿evka blade as a sword (41 cm in length), it should be noted that this identi¿cation is disputable, since according to Melyukova “daggers had a length of 17 cm to 40 cm,” whereas most swords are from 50 to 70 cm long (Ibid.: 46). Following V. Ginters, Melyukova believed that single-edged swords appeared among the Scythians “as a result of the inÀuence of the makhaira sword on regular Scythian forms” (Ibid.: 60). S.V. Makhortikh and S.A. Skorii have found proof for the existence of bladed (not single-edged) weaponry without pommels in the visual sources, such as the sword of a rider on a plaque with a hunting scene from the Siberian collection of Peter I (Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 76, ¿g. 2). There is no agreement concerning the date of such plaques: the dates range from the 5th to the 3rd century BC (Gryaznov, 1961: 21, 25; Artamonov, 1971: 86; Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 76–77). M.I. Artamonov argued for a more speci¿c date for the creation of the plaques (¿rst half of the 3rd century BC) (1971: 90). Meanwhile S.V. Makhortikh and S.A. Skorii thought that the sword on the plaque had not a straight but a kidney-shaped guard and therefore should be dated to the earlier time (Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 77). Among the objects accompanying “Sarmatian” statues, single-edged weapons have not been found.
89
90
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
Pick axe (chekan). It is difficult to identify the pick axe, represented on the second Sartogan statue (Fig. 5, 1) with the real weapon. Firstly, only the outline is represented. Secondly, the form of the pick axe is distorted due to the fact that the relief of a part of the striker (near the tip) was made on the edge of the stone block. A copy made by rubbing shows that the end of the striker is curved upwards, a detail incompatible with the function of offensive weaponry. The total length of the pick axe is 20.5 cm; the length of the butt is approximately 6 cm, and the length of the striker reaches 11 cm (including the tip of about 2.5 cm). The width of the blade is 2.5 cm almost along the entire length; near the tip it is approximately 3 cm. The end of the butt is rounded and slightly inclined downward. In the upper part between the butt and the striker there is an arced protrusion of 4.5 cm long and approximately 0.5 cm high without clear boundaries between the base of the pick axe and the handle. The representation of the handle is partially destroyed; its thickness seems to have been approximately 4 cm. The pick axe, similar to the dagger on the same statue, is represented as hanging (at the waist) without any details showing the method of attachment. If the pick axe was socketed, the upper end of the handle would have had a larger protrusion judging by the
0 2 cm
1
3
5
0 2 cm
2
4
6
Fig. 5. Pick axes represented on the ¿rst and second Sartogan statues and their parallels. 1 – second Sartogan statue; 2 – ¿rst Sartogan statue; 3 – Krasnyi Yar (after (Smirnov, 1961: ¿g. 42, 1)); 4 – Alypkash (after (Tairov, 2007: 147, ¿g. 47, 2)); 5 – Tobol (after (Chlenova, 1981: ¿g. 1, 6)); 6 – Donetsk Province (after (Alekseyev, 2003: ¿g. 4, 8)).
Altai socketed pick axes with the remnants of handles (Kubarev, 1987: ¿g. 33; 1991: ¿g. 18), and also images of weapons of this type, for example, in the Mountains of Kulzhabasy (Samashev, 2011: fig. 17–19)*. The protrusion between the striker and the butt may represent the upper part of the socket or a convex shield above it although the lower edge of the socket is not marked. The considerable width of the blade makes it possible to assume the existence of a flat prototype, more precisely, a blade plane-rhombic in cross-section, since the triangular edge of a Àat blade, in our view, required a reinforcement rib. Keeping this in mind, one may point to another parallel, a bronze pick axe from the village of Krasnyi Yar of the former Samarsky Uezd, which was an accidental ¿nd from the “territory of the Sauromates” (Smirnov, 1961: fig. 42, 1) (Fig. 5, 3). K.F. Smirnov suggested that it was of Siberian (Tagar) origin, pointing to the fact that this type of weaponry was foreign to the Sauromates (Ibid.: 74). According to M.V. Gorelik, the pick axe from Krasnyi Yar can be dated to the 6th–5th centuries BC (1993: 273). It is similar to the representation on our statue in terms of the ratio of striker to butt size (approximately 2 : 1) and also similar in terms of the outlines of their endings, although the Sartogan pick axe has a shorter pointed end. Another possible reconstruction of the prototype may be offered due to the fact that the triangular outline of the tip on the second Sartogan statue resembles the faceted end of strikers in heavy pick axes. An example is a bronze pick axe from kurgan 1 in the Alypkash burial ground. This pick axe, according to A.D. Tairov, dates back to the 7th century BC and “does not show any direct parallels either to the Tagar or to the Ananyino antiquities” (Tairov, 2007: 147, ¿g. 47, 2) (Fig. 5, 4). Yet it differs from the Sartogan pick axe to a greater extent than the Krasnyi Yar pick axe, for example, which has similarities due to the rectangular end of its butt, its proportions (the blade is somewhat narrower, and the striker is longer), as well as in the curve and faceting of the striker. The pick axe, represented on the second Sartogan statue, should be compared with the pick axe depicted on the ¿rst statue (Fig. 5, 2). Its total length is 11 cm; the length of the butt is 3cm, the striker, 7.2 cm (including the tip, 2.5 cm). The width of the butt with rectangular end measures 1.8 cm; the striker, 1.9–2.2 cm (the smallest width is near the base of the pick axe; the largest width is at the transition to the tip). The handle, 11 cm in length, slightly expands to the rounded end (the width at the base of the pick axe is 1.0 cm; the width at the end is 1.4 cm). *Z.S. Samashev (2011: 61) dated a battle scene on the petroglyphs of Kulzhabasy to the 5th–3rd centuries BC on the basis of weaponry and armor belonging to one of two ¿gures that consisted of a socketed wedge-shaped pick axe with a skewed butt and small rectangular shield.
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
The pick axe is shown suspended on a “strap” 3.5 cm long and 0.6–0.8 cm wide. As opposed to the second statue, the pick axe on the ¿rst statue is turned with its tip to the back of the ¿gure. Due to the reduced dimensions of the ¿rst Sartogan statue and disproportion of the hands which are shown on the torso, the sizes of the attributes are also unlikely to be close to real measurements. It should also be noted that pick axes represented on the ¿rst and the second statues are close in the ratio of striker and butt length; both have a triangular tip (longer in the ¿rst one) and the expansion of the striker at the place of transition to the tip (less pronounced in the second pick axe). The blade of the pick axe on the ¿rst Sartogan statue is much wider (if we take into account the proportions). In the ¿rst study it was suggested that the pick axe might have reproduced a bimetallic model (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011a: 254). Thus, some similarities with two bimetallic pick axes from the right bank of the Tobol River (Chlenova, 1981: ¿g. 1, 6) (Fig. 5, 5) and from the Donetsk Province (Alekseyev, 2003: ¿g. 4, 8) (Fig. 5, 6), were discovered. Both have rectangular butt ends, symmetric tips, and a close ratio of butt to striker length. There are also some differences: the strikers of the bimetallic pick axes are not expanded at the place of transition to the tip; the representation does not show a loop-shaped detail between the base of the striker and the socket or the longitudinal reinforcement rib. A.D. Tairov clari¿ed the dating of bimetallic pick axes (¿rst half of the 7th century BC) and explained their distribution to the North Caucasus, Southern Ural region, eastern Aral Sea region, and Western Siberia by ties with the Kama region (Tairov, 2010: 102, 103). Concerning the visual similarities, hardly any exact parallels to the Sartogan pick axes have been found among the weaponry represented on Scythian anthropomorphic sculpture* as well as among the “battle axes” whose *It has already been pointed out that there are some similarities in the outline of the pick axe shown on the ¿rst Sartogan statue, and the strike weapon carved on a Scythian sculpture from Kozhemyaki (late 6th–early 5th century BC), which V.S. Olkhovsky defined as a “battle axe or a battle hammer” (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: 21, ill. 20, 33; Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011a: 254). However, this weapon has a skewed striker in the summary plate of arms in the study of V.S. Olkhovsky and G.L. Evdokimov (1994: pl. 16, 33) as on the side image of the statue, whereas on the frontal image, it looks symmetrically pointed (Ibid.: ill. 20, 33). Unfortunately, we were unable to compare the drawing and the original. However, knowing that V.S. Olkhovsky attached a great importance to creating accurate drawings (2000: 254), we can assume that this discrepancy was caused by the perspective distortion of the bas-relief detail, executed on the surface of a three-dimensional ¿gure. For this reason, there is a difference in the shape of the pick axe on the side drawing of the ¿rst Sartogan statue and on a separate copy made by rubbing.
drawings were provided by A.I. Melyukova in her corpus of Scythian weaponry (1964: pl. 21). However, the fact that this attribute was widespread in the iconography of Scythian statues is important. Items of strike weaponry (axes, poleaxes, war hammers) are included in the repertoire of objects of the early chronological group of Scythian sculpture (7th–6th and 6th–5th centuries BC) and are the indicators of this group (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: 71). The same manner of carrying weapons of this kind (on the right side, handle down, tip points forward) is represented on the Scythian statues and on the second Sartogan statue (Ibid.). The reverse direction of the tip on the ¿rst Sartogan statue corresponds to the position of the “axe or war hammer,” depicted on the Scythian sculpture in the third quarter of the 6th century BC from Kutsevolovka (Ibid.: ill. 45, 78). Strike weaponry is absent from the attributes of the “Sarmatian” statues of the 4th–2nd centuries BC. A T-shaped object depicted on the statue from Karamunke can be de¿ned as a narrow pick axe (Olkhovsky, 2005: ill. 150). It is located with its handle up on the right side of the front plain of the statue. The end of the handle reaches the waist. The set of objects depicted on this statue with a broken head is limited to a pick axe and belt. Thus, the attempts to correlate the attributes of the second Sartogan statue with archaeological materials (both physical and visual) from the Eurasian sites of the Early Iron Age have on the one hand demonstrated the originality of the dagger and pick axe carved on the statue, and, on the other hand, revealed a certain similarity between the represented weapons and the ¿nds of the 6th–5th centuries BC. Partial parallels with weapons of the type depicted on the ¿rst Sartogan statue have a broader chronological framework ranging from the 7th to the 4th–3rd centuries BC. However, such a discrepancy in dates is not consistent with the conditions in which the statues were found, which we have described above. Since both statues were found lying near the burial mound, initially they might have been a part of a single archaeological assemblage and might have belonged to the same time and culture. Perhaps the search for closer parallels is complicated by the fact noted by A.Yu. Alekseyev for Scythian statues: the representations of acinaces on the statues do not fully match the real daggers due to the absence of additional details, such as stylized depictions of the eye at the base of the antenna-shaped pommels (Alekseyev, 1991: 275)*. The attributes of most of the Scythian statues made of sandstone are usually reproduced in a generalized way, similar to the Sartogan statues which were also made of ¿ne-grained stone. *We should add that iron acinaces can be significantly modi¿ed by corrosion; their pommels do not always survive; moreover, wrought objects always differ from each other in one way or another.
91
92
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
Unique attributes of the Early Iron Age statues from Sary-Arka and the issue of similarity with Scythian sculpture In our opinion, the second Sartogan statue may be included in the Sary-Arka group of the Early Iron Age. The set of objects depicted on this statue is the same as on the ¿rst statue. The position of the hands on the ¿rst Sartogan statue (exaggerated large hands with spread fingers; one pressed against the chest, the other one against the stomach) is similar (although mirrored) to the position of the hands on the statues from the stow of Aibas-Darasy (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011b: fig. 1, 3, 4). This iconographic detail and type of depicted weaponry shares similarity with Scythian sculpture (Ibid.: 158). Judging by the dagger with an antenna-shaped pommel, the Stepnogorsk statue shares similarity with the second Sartogan statue. The haircut in the form of a lock of hair on the top of the head (oseledets, aidar) con¿rms our suggestion that a fragment of statue with a “lock of hair” from the Museum of Karaganda belongs to this group of sculptures of the Early Iron Age (Ibid.: ¿g. 1, 1). It also has accentuated and large ears of kidneylike shape rendered by a closed roll. The museum of Ulytau Reserve exhibits another statue with a “lock of hair,” also broken at the waist, which Zh.K. Kurmankulov brought to the museum from the village of Egindy of Ulytau District in 2004. The statue was found whilst a ¿eld was being ploughed, however, the exact location of the ¿nd is unknown. This statue has some similarity to the second Sartogan statue in color and texture of stone, as well as in the form of the cross-section at the place of breakage. The Egindy statue represents a human head. The eyebrows and nose are rendered with a conjoint T-shaped bas-relief. The shape of the head and the outline of the face give an impression that the face is framed by a deep headdress similar to a hood (Fig. 6, a). However, this type of headdress clearly does not match the large ears which are stylized with clamp-like roll (Fig. 6, b)*. The bas-relief on the head represents the “Àask-shaped” “lock of hair”: a narrowing bas-relief roll is depicted on a rounded, slightly protruding plane from the top of the head to the back of the head (Fig. 6, c). A speci¿c iconographic feature of the Egindy statue is that its lock of hair on the head is arranged symmetrically whereas the Karaganda and Stepnogorsk statues show the “lock of hair” as bent and laid, respectively, on the right and left sides. The Egindy statue’s set of features include a straight lock of hair, ears, and a speci¿c way of modeling the face and head (which associates with a hat) that corresponds with the *Thus, all three of Sary-Arka statues with “locks of hair” have big ears. The Stepnogorsk statue, according to the published drawing, has ring-shaped ears.
iconography of the Scythian statues from Kutsevolovka (Black Sea region, third quarter of the 6th century BC) and Manychskaya (North Caucasus, the end of the 7th – third quarter of the 6th century BC) (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: ill. 45, 78; 89, 154). The combination of these elements on the statues is interpreted by scholars as a “helmet of the Kuban type” (Ibid.: 27, 39, 67)*. It should also be noted that the T-shaped representation of eyebrows and nose on the Egindy statue ¿nds parallels in Scythian sculpture (Ibid.: ill. 9, 12; 22, 38; 42, 75). A roll carved under the recess separates the head and torso on the front facet and on the left side facet of the Egindy statue. The roll is disconnected under the chin and narrows towards the end, located below the left ear. At the junction of the front and right side facets, the roll is bent downwards and becomes almost invisible due to the breakage. It is dif¿cult to say which detail the roll was meant to represent, but it was not likely to be a torc since the roll was opened at the front, and not shown at the back**, although V.S. Olkhovsky and G.L. Evdokimov interpreted the disconnected roll on the front and back sides of the neck of a Scythian statue of the 4th century BC from the Crimea as a torc (Ibid.: ill. 64, 107). In addition to the iconographic similarities of the SaryArka statues with the Scythian statues described above, we had previously mentioned other similarities, including signi¿cant width of the sides of faces, a characteristic pro¿le of the head: Àat face, and rounded top and back of the head (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011b: 156, 158). The second Sartogan statue provided new data for comparison with the Scythian sculpture in its set of attributes. The iconography of this statue combines the attributes of weaponry (dagger and pick axe) and bodily features (phallus and buttocks). This combination has only been found in Scythian sculptures (instead of a pick axe they may include a variety of strike weapons typical of the Scythians). In the Black Sea region such sculptures include the statues from Kozhemyaki (late 6th–early 5th century BC) and Novovasilevka (¿rst third of the 5th century BC); in the North Caucasus – a statue from Prokhladnoe (¿rst half of the 6th century BC), and possibly from Besskorbnnaya (second half of the 6th century BC) (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: ill. 20, 33; 10, 15; 85, 147; 72, 120). On some of these statues from the Black Sea region, the buttocks are outlined by protrusions on the back facet (Ibid.: ill. 41, 74, 46, 79). A number of Scythian sculptures show an incomplete set of attributes (Ibid.: ill. 14, 20; 53, 90; 69, 117). The phallus and testicles on *It is possible that the “ears” and the “lock of hair” of the Kutsevolovka and Manychskaya statues imitate a decoration detail of a headdress. **It is possible that the “ears” and the “lock of hair” of the Kutsevolovka and Manychskaya statues imitate a decoration detail of a headdress.
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
93
c
ɚ
the statue with an “axe or poleaxe” from Sibioara (¿rst half of the 6th century BC) and on the second Sartogan statue are stylized in a similar way (Ibid.: ill. 1, 1). Phallus and buttocks were not depicted on the “Sarmatian” sculptures of the Aral-Caspian region. S.Yu. Gutsalov and A.D. Tairov pointed to the appearance of these physical features on the earlier (compared to the “Sarmatian” statues) sculptures from the western UralKazakhstan steppes – from Kashkantau (end of the 6th– ¿rst half of the 5th century BC) and Ilinka (Gutsalov, Tairov, 2000: 239; Tairov, Gutsalov, 2001: ¿g. 1, 2, 4). According to these scholars, the Kashkantau statue with the representation of the phallus* shows “the traces of the inÀuence of the Scythian artistic tradition” (Gutsalov, Tairov, 2000: 247). V.S. Olkhovsky attributed this statue, among seven other statues from the Volga region and Southern Urals, to the group of the “Scythoid” monuments (2005: 141–142). Conclusions The second Sartogan statue supplemented a recently distinguished group of sculptures of the Early Iron Age from Sary-Arka. So far this group includes six statues. Four were found in the valleys of the Ulytau Mountain Ridge (Sartogan, Aibas-Darasy, and Egindy), one near Stepnogorsk, and another uncategorized statue is kept in the Museum of Karaganda. Except for the Stepnogorsk statue, the Sary-Arka sculptures of the Early Iron Age were not preserved intact, but even their fragments show features that are atypical of numerous medieval sculptures. The Early Iron Age sculptures from Sary-Arka differ from Ancient Turkic and Kipchak sculptures of the *V.S. Olkhovsky questioned the accuracy of identi¿cation of this detail due to the “schematism of the drawing” (2005: 142).
b
Fig. 6. Statue from Egindy village.
Kazakhstan steppes not only in terms of iconography and object repertoire (according to the terminology of V.S. Olkhovsky), but also in material. Where medieval statues were mostly carved of pink medium- and coarsegrained stone, the statues of the Early Iron Age were made of ¿ne-grained dirty purple or brown stone. The statues have a speci¿c outline: all have wide side faces, and the Stepnogorsk and Karaganda statues have a concave or Àat facial pro¿le, contrasting with the three dimensional modeling of the head. Since the sculptures are fragmentary, their iconography in general cannot be commented upon, however, their elements in combination can be studied. Two statues (the ¿rst Sartogan statue and the Aibas-Darasy statue) show the same, but mirrored position of the arms; the ¿ngers of the hands are spread and hypertrophied. One is pressed against the chest, the other against the stomach. The hand position of the Stepnogorsk sculpture is unclear although the hands appear to be placed together on the stomach. It is possible that the statues, represented by fragments of the upper part (the Karaganda and the Egindy statues), were originally busts. The Sary-Arka sculpture of the Early Iron Age has speci¿c attributes. The original attribute, the “lock of hair”, was found on three sculptures, from Karaganda, Egindy, and Stepnogorsk. The weapons, pick axes and daggers, also have speci¿c forms; pick axes with a wide pro¿le show the length ratio of striker to butt as approximately 2 : 1, while bladed weapons include daggers with antennashaped pommels (one of them has wide oval guard) or blades without pommels, probably, single-edged. The parallels between the representations of weaponry on the statues and real weapons found in the archaeological materials are partial, but in combination with the iconographical data they demonstrate af¿nity to the Scythian statues from the Black Sea region and the North Caucasus, and make it possible to date the Sary-Arka group to the Saka period. However, it is not yet possible
94
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
to establish the cultural identity of these statues because of the unique character of their attributes. One can only emphasize the well-known fact that in the Saka period, the territory of Ulytau, where the Sary-Arka statues were found in situ, constituted a part of the Tasmola cultural area (Vostochnaya Sary-Arka..., 2004: 219). References Akishev K.A., Khabdulina M.K. 2011 Drevnosti Astany: Gorodishche Bozok. Astana: Evraziiskii natsionalnyi univ. Alekseyev A.Yu. 1991 Etyud ob akinakakh. In Klein L.S. Arkheologicheskaya tipologiya. Leningrad: LF TsENDISI AN SSSR. Leningrad. nauchno-issledovatelskoe arkheolog. obiedinenie, pp. 271–280. Alekseyev A.Yu. 2003 Khronografiya evropeiskoi Skifii VII–IV vekov do n.e. St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha. Artamonov M.I. 1971 Kompozitsii s landshaftom v skifo-sibirskom iskusstve. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 82–92. Chlenova N.L. 1981 Svyazi kultur Zapadnoi Sibiri s kulturami Priuraliya i Srednego Povolzhya v kontse epokhi bronzy i v nachale zheleznogo veka. In Problemy zapadnosibirskoi arkheologii: Epokha zheleza. Novosibirsk: Nauka, pp. 4–42. Ermolenko L.N., Kurmankulov Zh.K. 2011a Izvayanie rannego zheleznogo veka iz muzeya Ulutauskogo zapovednika (predvaritelnoe soobschenie). In Margulanovskie chteniya – 2011: Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi arkheolog. konferentsii, Astana, 20–22 aprelya 2011 g. Astana: Evraziiskii natsionalnyi univ., pp. 253–256. Ermolenko L.N., Kurmankulov Zh.K. 2011b Originalnoe izvayanie iz fondov Karagandinskogo istorikokraevedcheskogo muzeya. In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri: K 80-letiyu Ya.A. Shera. Kemerovo: Kemerov. Gos. Univ., pp. 156–161. Gorelik M.V. 1993 Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka (IV tysyacheletie – IV v. do nashei ery). Moscow: Nauka. Gryaznov M.P. 1961 Drevneishie pamyatniki geroicheskogo eposa narodov Yuzhnoi Sibiri. Arkheologicheskii Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, No. 3: 7–31. Gutsalov S.Yu., Tairov A.D. 2000 Stely i antropomorfnye izvayaniya rannego zheleznogo veka yuzhnouralskikh stepei. In Arkheologiya, paleoekologiya i paleodemogra¿ya Evrazii. Moscow: GEOS, pp. 226–251. Ivanov S.S. 2008 Kinzhaly rannikh kochevnikov Semirechiya i Tyan-Shanya. In Drevnie i srednevekovye kochevniki Tsentralnoi Azii. Barnaul: Azbuka, pp. 37–41. Kadyrbaev M.K., Kurmankulov Zh. 1977 Materialy raskopok mogilnika Besoba. In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Otrare. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR, pp. 103–115. Kokurkina O.V. 2007 Territoriya i vremya bytovaniya rannikh diagonalnykh pogrebenii. Voprosy istorii i arkheologii Zapadnogo Kazakhstana (Uralsk), No. 2: 195–210.
Kovalev A.A. 2007 Chemurchekskii kulturnyi fenomen (statya 1999 goda). In A.V.: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov v chest 60-letiya A.V. Vinogradova. St. Petersburg: Kult-Inform-Press, pp. 25–76. Kubarev V.D. 1987 Kurgany Ulandryka. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 1991 Kurgany Yustyda. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Leus P.M. 2007 Kamennye stely iz Khakkari (Turtsiya) i nekotorye paralleli k nim. Arkheologicheskie vesti, No. 14: 56–61. Makhortikh S.V., Skorii S.A. 1986 Mechi ta kindzhali skifskogo chasu bez navershiv. Arkheologiya, No. 56: 72–78. Melyukova A.I. 1964 Vooruzhenie skifov. Moscow: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; D. 1–4). Olkhovsky V.S. 2000 Monumentalnaya skulptura kochevnikov Evrazii: Problemy istochnikovedeniya. In Arkheologiya, paleoekologiya i paleodemogra¿ya Evrazii. Moscow: GEOS, pp. 252–276. Olkhovsky V.S. 2005 Monumentalnaya skulptura naseleniya zapadnoi chasti evraziiskikh stepei epokhi rannego zheleza. Moscow: Nauka. Olkhovsky V.S., Evdokimov G.L. 1994 Skifskie izvayaniya VII–III vv. do nashei ery. Moscow: IA RAN; Inst. arkheologii AN Ukrainy. Samashev Z. 2011 Ob odnoi batalnoi stsene petroglifov rannego zheleznogo veka iz Kuzhabasy v Zhetysu. In Kazakhstanskaya arkheologiya i etnologiya: Sovremennye dostizheniya i innovatsionnye tekhnologii: Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii “III Orazbaevskie chteniya” 29–30 aprelya 2011 g. Almaty: pp. 55–74. Samashev Z., Kusherbaev K., Amanshaev E., Asta¿ev A. 2007 Sokrovishcha Ustyurta i Mankystau. Almaty: Aktaus. Gos. Univ. im. Sh. Esenova. Smirnov K.F. 1961 Vooruzhenie savromatov. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 101). Tairov A.D. 2007 Kochevniki Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei v VII–VI vv. do n.e. Chelyabinsk: Izd. Yuzhno-Ural. Gos. Univ. Tairov A.D. 2010 Bimetallicheskii chekan iz Yuzhnogo Zauraliya. Chelyabinskii gumanitarii, No. 4 (13): 101–108. Tairov A.D., Botalov S.G. 1996 Mogilnik Karsakbas. Voprosy arkheologii Zapadnogo Kazakhstana (Samara), No. 1: 164–175. Tairov A.D., Gutsalov S.Yu. 2001 O genezise kamennykh antropomorfnykh izvayanii AraloKaspiiskogo regiona. Materialy po arkheologii Volgo-Donskikh stepei (Volgograd), No. 1: 161–168. Vostochnaya Sary-Arka: Karkaralinskii region v proshlom i nastoyashchem. 2004 Almaty: Evero.
Received March 2, 2012.
86
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
L.N. Ermolenko1 and Zh.K. Kurmankulov2 Kemerovo State University, Krasnaya 6, Kemerovo, 650043, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 2 A.Kh. Margulan Institute of Archaeology, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Pr. Dostyk 44, Almaty, 050010, Kazakhstan E-mail: [email protected] 1
NEW EARLY IRON AGE STATUE FROM SARY-ARKA*
The article introduces a statue of the Saka period from Sary-Arka (Central Kazakhstan) and shows the similarities between its attributes and the weaponry of the Early Iron Age cultures of the Eurasian steppes. Speci¿c features of the Sary-Arka statues and their iconographic similarities with Eastern European Scythian sculpture are described. Keywords: Stone statue, dagger, pick axe, Early Iron Age, Saka period, Sary-Arka.
Introduction Anthropomorphic stone sculpture provides an informative and artistic type of archaeological monument. From this valuable source scholars can obtain data for reconstructing the worldview, life and self-perception of ancient people as well as the processes of cultural genesis. Therefore, a discovery of such a monument is a signi¿cant event in archaeological discovery. In the second half of the 20th century, statues of the Scythian period were discovered in the western part of the Ural-Kazakhstan steppes (Gutsalov, Tairov, 2000); “Sarmatian” statues were found in the Aral-Caspian region (Olkhovsky, 2005: 131–151), the Chemurchek statues were discovered in Xinjiang (Kovalev, 2007), and some statues were discovered near Hakkari in Asia Minor (Leus, 2007). At the beginning of the 21st century, a small series of sculptures from the Saka period were discovered in Sary-Arka (Kazakh Uplands) (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011a, 2011b). In *This study was carried out under the Federal Program, “Scienti¿c and Pedagogical Human Resources of Innovative Russia” (Project No. 14.B37.21.0954).
the summer of 2011, the present authors in collaboration with M. Abdikarimov and Sh.M. Abdikalikov examined a fragment of an Early Iron Age statue at the Sartogan locality (Tersakkan Rural District in the Ulytau Region, Karaganda Province), about 3 km north–northwest of the Zhantel farming camp. Its iconography and attributes reveal not only the originality of stone anthropomorphic sculptures of the Sary-Arka group, but also some similarities to the Eastern European Scythian sculpture. Description of the statue The statue (hereafter, the Sartogan second statue) was discovered in 2011 by M. Abdikarimov (from the Museum of the Ulytau Reserve), along with another fragment (hereafter, the Sartogan ¿rst statue), which was brought to the Museum. The fragment was documented and published by L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov (2011a, 2011b). The Sartogan second statue was lying 15 m west– northwest of a stone and earthen mound that had a diameter of 30 m and height of 2 m, surrounded by a trench with a width reaching 3 m (Fig. 1). The mound was visually
© 2013, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2013.04.009
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
87
a slight slope towards the tip (Fig. 3, a). The handle of the dagger is turned to the right side of the statue, where a pick axe is carved on the projection, corresponding to the Àank bone in the human skeleton (Fig. 3, b). The handle of the pick axe faces downward, and its pointed end is directed to the front facet of the ¿gure. The bodily features of the statue are rendered by a groove. The genitals are shown on the front facet (the rounded testicles and a U-shaped phallus) (Fig. 3, c); an inverted Y-shaped figure on the back (Fig. 3, d),
Fig. 1. Statue lying near the mound.
ɚ
0
20 cm
Fig. 2. Second Sartogan statue. b
de¿ned as a site of the Early Iron Age. The coordinates of the ¿nds are 49º 31ƍ 24.9Ǝ N; 67º 30ƍ 46.2Ǝ E. The altitude is 519 m above sea level. According to M. Abdikarimov, the ¿rst statue was found near the same mound. The statue was cut from a block of dirty purple ¿negrained stone and was broken at the waist. The statue was modeled with projections on the front and on the sides. Only the lower part of the statue has been preserved (Fig. 2) and the upper part has not been found. The stone surface shows signs of damage, otherwise the natural form of the block was not signi¿cantly altered by the cutter. Sideways on the sculpture gradually expands to the middle and narrows down to the rounded base. Facing forward the outline is uneven and asymmetrical: the block expands downward, is skewed in the lower third, and is pointed at the right side. The surviving fragments of the statue measure 130 × 30...50 × 20...35 cm. Weapons and some bodily features are represented on the statue. The weapons are rendered in bas-relief and include a dagger and pick axe (chekan). The image of the dagger is located at the top of the front facet, right below the break line and parallel to it, almost horizontally with
c
d
Fig. 3. Representations on the second Sartogan statue. a – dagger; b – pick axe (chekan), c – phallus; d – buttocks.
88
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
apparently, marks the dividing line of the buttocks and the interior line of the thighs.
a certain similarity of the Sartogan dagger’s pommel with the crescent-shaped or V-shaped pommels of the Prokhorovka-type daggers, the con¿guration and width of the guard and the combination with the pick axe may Attributes of the statue and their parallels point to the need to compare it with the weaponry of the Scythian period. Dagger. In order to date the monument, the dagger There may also be a partial analogy among daggers represented on the statue was analyzed for parallels with butterfly guards and parallel blades from the although no direct parallels were found (Fig. 4, 1). burials of the Sauromatian period. One such example The dagger handle has an antenna-shaped (arced, even with a crescent-shaped pommel was found in kurgan 1 parabolic) pommel; a wide guard signi¿cantly projects of the burial ground of Besoba in Western Kazakhstan beyond the base of the blade, and the blade slightly widens (Kadyrbaev, Kurmankulov, 1977: ¿g. 2, 8) (Fig. 4, 3). in the middle and narrows in the last third. The total length M.K. Kadyrbaev and Zh.K. Kurmankulov noted the of the dagger is 27.5 cm; the handle with the pommel and archaic character of its guard compared to straight guards the guard measures 13.5 cm in length (pommel 3.5 cm, (in the form of bars) typical of daggers with crescentguard 3 cm); the blade measures 14 cm long , 3 cm wide. shaped pommels (Ibid.: 113). Being as such daggers The length of the guard is approximately 6 cm; its edges were apparently in use in the 5th–3rd centuries BC and extend by 1.5 cm. It should be noted that the position of the burial ground of Besoba functioned in the second half the dagger implies the presence of a suspension mount, of the 6th–early 5th century BC, the dagger was dated the details of which have not been rendered. Taking into to “no later than the beginning of the 5th century BC” account the fact that the dagger shows a clearly de¿ned (Ibid.). Despite the differences in the details, it is similar tip, it can be assumed that the dagger is shown without to the Sartogan Second Statue’s dagger in terms of its the sheath. dimensions. It is dif¿cult to compare this dagger with archaeological Another dagger with an antenna-shaped (V-shaped) materials, since the dagger is shown in a rather sketchy pommel of elliptical form comes from burial 1 of manner, particularly the guard (moreover, the outlines kurgan 3 at the Priozerny burial ground in the Palassovsky of the edge bordering the break line are damaged). The Region of the Volgograd Province (Kokurkina, 2007: shape of the guard can be de¿ned as oval. A rubbing of ¿g. 2, 7) (Fig. 4, 5). According to O.V. Kokurkina, this the guard shows that it does not protrude at an angle burial belongs to the ¿rst chronological group of diagonal towards the handle as butterÀy or heart-shaped guards burials (end of the 6th–5th century BC) and “can be do. Angularity is not expressed at the undamaged edge dated to the 5th century BC” (Ibid.: 197). At the same as would be the case for butterÀy-shaped or bar-shaped time, referring to the studies of A.I. Melyukova and guards. From the side of the blade there is no visibly clear K.F. Smirnov, Kokurkina found similarities between the recess that a kidney-shaped guard would show. Despite dagger from Priozerny with the Scythian and Sauromatian swords of the 6th–5th centuries BC (Ibid.: 196). Apart from other features, the Priozerny and the Sartogan daggers differ in proportions: the ¿rst dagger has a longer blade and different ratio of blade length to tip. The dagger with an antenna-shaped pommel, butterfly guard, and ribbed handle (with two longitudinal Àutes) was found at Issyk-Kul and was dated by S.S. Ivanov to the 5th–4th century BC (2008: 41, fig. 1, 6) (Fig. 4, 4). Compared to the Sartogan dagger, this 0 2 cm 0 2 cm dagger has shorter “antennas-horns” and different proportions being more 3 5 7 1 4 6 2 elongated. Fig. 4. Daggers represented on the ¿rst and second Sartogan statues and their As for visual parallels, the parallels. representation of a dagger with an 1 – second Sartogan statue; 2 – first Sartogan statue; 3 – Besoba (after (Kadyrbaev, antenna-shaped possibly crescent Kurmankulov, 1977: ¿g. 2, 8)); 4 – Issyk-Kul (after (Ivanov, 2008: 41, ¿g. 1, 6)); 5 – Priozerny pommel on a statue from Stepnogorsk (after (Kokurkina, 2007: ¿g. 2, 7)); 6 – Fedorovka (after (Melyukova, 1964: pl. 19, 9)); 7 – So¿evka (after (Melyukova, 1964: pl. 19, 10)). (Akishev, Khabdulina, 2011: 182)
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
is geographically closest to the Sartogan dagger. The weapon is shown at the waist level at an angle with its handle to the left (from the position of the figure represented). The guard is not visible, but in terms of its proportions, the Stepnogorsk dagger is similar to the Sartogan dagger. There is a date of the 6th–5th centuries BC on the ¿gure caption to the statue which the authors de¿ne as a “Saka” statue. The Sartogan dagger should be compared with bladed weapons of the Prokhorovka type, represented on the “Sarmatian” statues of the Aral–Caspian region and dated back to the 4th–2nd centuries BC (Olkhovsky, 2005: 145). This type of weaponry includes swords and daggers. The swords were incused on the front facet of the statues, and daggers – on the side facet (except for the rare cases when a pair of daggers was depicted). The swords with their handles directed to the right hand of the ¿gure are shown below the waist in a horizontal position or with an inclination towards the tip. The daggers are shown on the right thigh vertically with their handles up. According to V.S. Olkhovsky, the antenna-shaped and crescent (rarely straight, ring- or claw-shaped) pommels, and narrow guards of straight bar-like forms prevail in the design of bladed weapons (Ibid.: 144). Swords and daggers, as well as other attributes, are reproduced in detail. This is largely explained by the qualities of easily processed raw materials like limestone. According to some scholars, Àat faces of many “Sarmatian” statues are also the result of the natural shape of stone slabs (Samashev et al., 2007: 211). Bladed weapons are depicted in sheathes, often with bouterolles. The sheath bears the representation of a rib (Ibid.: 248) or longitudinal strip in relief, which may be called “the nervure of the blade” following the de¿nition of V.S. Olkhovsky (2005: 144). Since the “nervure” passes through the bouterolles, most likely, this is the part of sheath decoration. Suspension systems are carefully rendered, but not on all statues which have weaponry in positions implying suspension. Although the dagger, represented on the ¿rst Sartogan statue (Fig. 4, 2) differs from the dagger on the second statue, the joint presence of these statues in situ calls for an explanation. The dagger from the ¿rst Sartogan statue is shown suspended from the belt on one “strap” (4 cm long and 0.8 cm wide), almost horizontally, with a slight tilt to the tip. Its total reconstructed length is approximately 13 cm; the length of the handle is about 5 cm; the width of the guard is 1.7 cm; the guard extends on one side by about 0.8 cm. The handle (approximately 2 cm wide) slightly narrows towards the guard and its end is rounded. The end of the relief with the dagger was damaged by the breakage, but the rubbing revealed rounded outlines. This detail, along with the “strap,” may mean that a sheathed weapon was depicted. The one-sided protrusion of the guard is noteworthy; it may be evidence that the weapon might have been a single-edged sword.
According to S.V. Makhortikh and S.A. Skorii, bladed weapons of the Scythian type without pommels appeared in the early 7th century BC, possibly in the late 8th century BC, in the Caucasus. Their distribution area to the east and west could be the result of active expansion by the steppe Scythians or perhaps a convergent development of weaponry (Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 76). A poorly preserved dagger without a pommel yet with a guard similar to a heart-shaped one was found in kurgan 2 of the burial ground of Karsakbas in the former Turgai Province (Tairov, Botalov, 1996: 175, ¿g. 2, 8). A.D. Tairov and S.G. Botalov point out that according to the form of the handle and guard, the dagger is similar to the swords and daggers without pommels which are dated to the 6th– 5th centuries BC (Ibid.: 166). Assuming that a single-edged bladed weapon was depicted on the ¿rst Sartogan statue, some parallels may be found in the corpus of Scythian weaponry, published by A.I. Melyukova, namely, in seven single-edged swords without pommels, three of which date back to the 4th– 3rd centuries BC (Melyukova, 1964: pl. 19). Thus, the guard of the Sartogan dagger resembles the guard of the sword of the early 4th century BC from a burial mound at Kruglik near the village of Fedorovka (Ibid.: pl. 19, 9) (Fig. 4, 6). A small bend of the “sheath” on the statue seems to match the concavity of the blade of a short sword from the burial near the village of So¿evka (Ibid.: pl. 19, 10) (Fig. 4, 7). (Incidentally, A.I. Melyukova also noted a slight convexity on the back part of the Fedorovka sword). Considering the fact that A.I. Melyukova identi¿ed the So¿evka blade as a sword (41 cm in length), it should be noted that this identi¿cation is disputable, since according to Melyukova “daggers had a length of 17 cm to 40 cm,” whereas most swords are from 50 to 70 cm long (Ibid.: 46). Following V. Ginters, Melyukova believed that single-edged swords appeared among the Scythians “as a result of the inÀuence of the makhaira sword on regular Scythian forms” (Ibid.: 60). S.V. Makhortikh and S.A. Skorii have found proof for the existence of bladed (not single-edged) weaponry without pommels in the visual sources, such as the sword of a rider on a plaque with a hunting scene from the Siberian collection of Peter I (Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 76, ¿g. 2). There is no agreement concerning the date of such plaques: the dates range from the 5th to the 3rd century BC (Gryaznov, 1961: 21, 25; Artamonov, 1971: 86; Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 76–77). M.I. Artamonov argued for a more speci¿c date for the creation of the plaques (¿rst half of the 3rd century BC) (1971: 90). Meanwhile S.V. Makhortikh and S.A. Skorii thought that the sword on the plaque had not a straight but a kidney-shaped guard and therefore should be dated to the earlier time (Makhortikh, Skorii, 1986: 77). Among the objects accompanying “Sarmatian” statues, single-edged weapons have not been found.
89
90
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
Pick axe (chekan). It is difficult to identify the pick axe, represented on the second Sartogan statue (Fig. 5, 1) with the real weapon. Firstly, only the outline is represented. Secondly, the form of the pick axe is distorted due to the fact that the relief of a part of the striker (near the tip) was made on the edge of the stone block. A copy made by rubbing shows that the end of the striker is curved upwards, a detail incompatible with the function of offensive weaponry. The total length of the pick axe is 20.5 cm; the length of the butt is approximately 6 cm, and the length of the striker reaches 11 cm (including the tip of about 2.5 cm). The width of the blade is 2.5 cm almost along the entire length; near the tip it is approximately 3 cm. The end of the butt is rounded and slightly inclined downward. In the upper part between the butt and the striker there is an arced protrusion of 4.5 cm long and approximately 0.5 cm high without clear boundaries between the base of the pick axe and the handle. The representation of the handle is partially destroyed; its thickness seems to have been approximately 4 cm. The pick axe, similar to the dagger on the same statue, is represented as hanging (at the waist) without any details showing the method of attachment. If the pick axe was socketed, the upper end of the handle would have had a larger protrusion judging by the
0 2 cm
1
3
5
0 2 cm
2
4
6
Fig. 5. Pick axes represented on the ¿rst and second Sartogan statues and their parallels. 1 – second Sartogan statue; 2 – ¿rst Sartogan statue; 3 – Krasnyi Yar (after (Smirnov, 1961: ¿g. 42, 1)); 4 – Alypkash (after (Tairov, 2007: 147, ¿g. 47, 2)); 5 – Tobol (after (Chlenova, 1981: ¿g. 1, 6)); 6 – Donetsk Province (after (Alekseyev, 2003: ¿g. 4, 8)).
Altai socketed pick axes with the remnants of handles (Kubarev, 1987: ¿g. 33; 1991: ¿g. 18), and also images of weapons of this type, for example, in the Mountains of Kulzhabasy (Samashev, 2011: fig. 17–19)*. The protrusion between the striker and the butt may represent the upper part of the socket or a convex shield above it although the lower edge of the socket is not marked. The considerable width of the blade makes it possible to assume the existence of a flat prototype, more precisely, a blade plane-rhombic in cross-section, since the triangular edge of a Àat blade, in our view, required a reinforcement rib. Keeping this in mind, one may point to another parallel, a bronze pick axe from the village of Krasnyi Yar of the former Samarsky Uezd, which was an accidental ¿nd from the “territory of the Sauromates” (Smirnov, 1961: fig. 42, 1) (Fig. 5, 3). K.F. Smirnov suggested that it was of Siberian (Tagar) origin, pointing to the fact that this type of weaponry was foreign to the Sauromates (Ibid.: 74). According to M.V. Gorelik, the pick axe from Krasnyi Yar can be dated to the 6th–5th centuries BC (1993: 273). It is similar to the representation on our statue in terms of the ratio of striker to butt size (approximately 2 : 1) and also similar in terms of the outlines of their endings, although the Sartogan pick axe has a shorter pointed end. Another possible reconstruction of the prototype may be offered due to the fact that the triangular outline of the tip on the second Sartogan statue resembles the faceted end of strikers in heavy pick axes. An example is a bronze pick axe from kurgan 1 in the Alypkash burial ground. This pick axe, according to A.D. Tairov, dates back to the 7th century BC and “does not show any direct parallels either to the Tagar or to the Ananyino antiquities” (Tairov, 2007: 147, ¿g. 47, 2) (Fig. 5, 4). Yet it differs from the Sartogan pick axe to a greater extent than the Krasnyi Yar pick axe, for example, which has similarities due to the rectangular end of its butt, its proportions (the blade is somewhat narrower, and the striker is longer), as well as in the curve and faceting of the striker. The pick axe, represented on the second Sartogan statue, should be compared with the pick axe depicted on the ¿rst statue (Fig. 5, 2). Its total length is 11 cm; the length of the butt is 3cm, the striker, 7.2 cm (including the tip, 2.5 cm). The width of the butt with rectangular end measures 1.8 cm; the striker, 1.9–2.2 cm (the smallest width is near the base of the pick axe; the largest width is at the transition to the tip). The handle, 11 cm in length, slightly expands to the rounded end (the width at the base of the pick axe is 1.0 cm; the width at the end is 1.4 cm). *Z.S. Samashev (2011: 61) dated a battle scene on the petroglyphs of Kulzhabasy to the 5th–3rd centuries BC on the basis of weaponry and armor belonging to one of two ¿gures that consisted of a socketed wedge-shaped pick axe with a skewed butt and small rectangular shield.
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
The pick axe is shown suspended on a “strap” 3.5 cm long and 0.6–0.8 cm wide. As opposed to the second statue, the pick axe on the ¿rst statue is turned with its tip to the back of the ¿gure. Due to the reduced dimensions of the ¿rst Sartogan statue and disproportion of the hands which are shown on the torso, the sizes of the attributes are also unlikely to be close to real measurements. It should also be noted that pick axes represented on the ¿rst and the second statues are close in the ratio of striker and butt length; both have a triangular tip (longer in the ¿rst one) and the expansion of the striker at the place of transition to the tip (less pronounced in the second pick axe). The blade of the pick axe on the ¿rst Sartogan statue is much wider (if we take into account the proportions). In the ¿rst study it was suggested that the pick axe might have reproduced a bimetallic model (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011a: 254). Thus, some similarities with two bimetallic pick axes from the right bank of the Tobol River (Chlenova, 1981: ¿g. 1, 6) (Fig. 5, 5) and from the Donetsk Province (Alekseyev, 2003: ¿g. 4, 8) (Fig. 5, 6), were discovered. Both have rectangular butt ends, symmetric tips, and a close ratio of butt to striker length. There are also some differences: the strikers of the bimetallic pick axes are not expanded at the place of transition to the tip; the representation does not show a loop-shaped detail between the base of the striker and the socket or the longitudinal reinforcement rib. A.D. Tairov clari¿ed the dating of bimetallic pick axes (¿rst half of the 7th century BC) and explained their distribution to the North Caucasus, Southern Ural region, eastern Aral Sea region, and Western Siberia by ties with the Kama region (Tairov, 2010: 102, 103). Concerning the visual similarities, hardly any exact parallels to the Sartogan pick axes have been found among the weaponry represented on Scythian anthropomorphic sculpture* as well as among the “battle axes” whose *It has already been pointed out that there are some similarities in the outline of the pick axe shown on the ¿rst Sartogan statue, and the strike weapon carved on a Scythian sculpture from Kozhemyaki (late 6th–early 5th century BC), which V.S. Olkhovsky defined as a “battle axe or a battle hammer” (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: 21, ill. 20, 33; Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011a: 254). However, this weapon has a skewed striker in the summary plate of arms in the study of V.S. Olkhovsky and G.L. Evdokimov (1994: pl. 16, 33) as on the side image of the statue, whereas on the frontal image, it looks symmetrically pointed (Ibid.: ill. 20, 33). Unfortunately, we were unable to compare the drawing and the original. However, knowing that V.S. Olkhovsky attached a great importance to creating accurate drawings (2000: 254), we can assume that this discrepancy was caused by the perspective distortion of the bas-relief detail, executed on the surface of a three-dimensional ¿gure. For this reason, there is a difference in the shape of the pick axe on the side drawing of the ¿rst Sartogan statue and on a separate copy made by rubbing.
drawings were provided by A.I. Melyukova in her corpus of Scythian weaponry (1964: pl. 21). However, the fact that this attribute was widespread in the iconography of Scythian statues is important. Items of strike weaponry (axes, poleaxes, war hammers) are included in the repertoire of objects of the early chronological group of Scythian sculpture (7th–6th and 6th–5th centuries BC) and are the indicators of this group (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: 71). The same manner of carrying weapons of this kind (on the right side, handle down, tip points forward) is represented on the Scythian statues and on the second Sartogan statue (Ibid.). The reverse direction of the tip on the ¿rst Sartogan statue corresponds to the position of the “axe or war hammer,” depicted on the Scythian sculpture in the third quarter of the 6th century BC from Kutsevolovka (Ibid.: ill. 45, 78). Strike weaponry is absent from the attributes of the “Sarmatian” statues of the 4th–2nd centuries BC. A T-shaped object depicted on the statue from Karamunke can be de¿ned as a narrow pick axe (Olkhovsky, 2005: ill. 150). It is located with its handle up on the right side of the front plain of the statue. The end of the handle reaches the waist. The set of objects depicted on this statue with a broken head is limited to a pick axe and belt. Thus, the attempts to correlate the attributes of the second Sartogan statue with archaeological materials (both physical and visual) from the Eurasian sites of the Early Iron Age have on the one hand demonstrated the originality of the dagger and pick axe carved on the statue, and, on the other hand, revealed a certain similarity between the represented weapons and the ¿nds of the 6th–5th centuries BC. Partial parallels with weapons of the type depicted on the ¿rst Sartogan statue have a broader chronological framework ranging from the 7th to the 4th–3rd centuries BC. However, such a discrepancy in dates is not consistent with the conditions in which the statues were found, which we have described above. Since both statues were found lying near the burial mound, initially they might have been a part of a single archaeological assemblage and might have belonged to the same time and culture. Perhaps the search for closer parallels is complicated by the fact noted by A.Yu. Alekseyev for Scythian statues: the representations of acinaces on the statues do not fully match the real daggers due to the absence of additional details, such as stylized depictions of the eye at the base of the antenna-shaped pommels (Alekseyev, 1991: 275)*. The attributes of most of the Scythian statues made of sandstone are usually reproduced in a generalized way, similar to the Sartogan statues which were also made of ¿ne-grained stone. *We should add that iron acinaces can be significantly modi¿ed by corrosion; their pommels do not always survive; moreover, wrought objects always differ from each other in one way or another.
91
92
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
Unique attributes of the Early Iron Age statues from Sary-Arka and the issue of similarity with Scythian sculpture In our opinion, the second Sartogan statue may be included in the Sary-Arka group of the Early Iron Age. The set of objects depicted on this statue is the same as on the ¿rst statue. The position of the hands on the ¿rst Sartogan statue (exaggerated large hands with spread fingers; one pressed against the chest, the other one against the stomach) is similar (although mirrored) to the position of the hands on the statues from the stow of Aibas-Darasy (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011b: fig. 1, 3, 4). This iconographic detail and type of depicted weaponry shares similarity with Scythian sculpture (Ibid.: 158). Judging by the dagger with an antenna-shaped pommel, the Stepnogorsk statue shares similarity with the second Sartogan statue. The haircut in the form of a lock of hair on the top of the head (oseledets, aidar) con¿rms our suggestion that a fragment of statue with a “lock of hair” from the Museum of Karaganda belongs to this group of sculptures of the Early Iron Age (Ibid.: ¿g. 1, 1). It also has accentuated and large ears of kidneylike shape rendered by a closed roll. The museum of Ulytau Reserve exhibits another statue with a “lock of hair,” also broken at the waist, which Zh.K. Kurmankulov brought to the museum from the village of Egindy of Ulytau District in 2004. The statue was found whilst a ¿eld was being ploughed, however, the exact location of the ¿nd is unknown. This statue has some similarity to the second Sartogan statue in color and texture of stone, as well as in the form of the cross-section at the place of breakage. The Egindy statue represents a human head. The eyebrows and nose are rendered with a conjoint T-shaped bas-relief. The shape of the head and the outline of the face give an impression that the face is framed by a deep headdress similar to a hood (Fig. 6, a). However, this type of headdress clearly does not match the large ears which are stylized with clamp-like roll (Fig. 6, b)*. The bas-relief on the head represents the “Àask-shaped” “lock of hair”: a narrowing bas-relief roll is depicted on a rounded, slightly protruding plane from the top of the head to the back of the head (Fig. 6, c). A speci¿c iconographic feature of the Egindy statue is that its lock of hair on the head is arranged symmetrically whereas the Karaganda and Stepnogorsk statues show the “lock of hair” as bent and laid, respectively, on the right and left sides. The Egindy statue’s set of features include a straight lock of hair, ears, and a speci¿c way of modeling the face and head (which associates with a hat) that corresponds with the *Thus, all three of Sary-Arka statues with “locks of hair” have big ears. The Stepnogorsk statue, according to the published drawing, has ring-shaped ears.
iconography of the Scythian statues from Kutsevolovka (Black Sea region, third quarter of the 6th century BC) and Manychskaya (North Caucasus, the end of the 7th – third quarter of the 6th century BC) (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: ill. 45, 78; 89, 154). The combination of these elements on the statues is interpreted by scholars as a “helmet of the Kuban type” (Ibid.: 27, 39, 67)*. It should also be noted that the T-shaped representation of eyebrows and nose on the Egindy statue ¿nds parallels in Scythian sculpture (Ibid.: ill. 9, 12; 22, 38; 42, 75). A roll carved under the recess separates the head and torso on the front facet and on the left side facet of the Egindy statue. The roll is disconnected under the chin and narrows towards the end, located below the left ear. At the junction of the front and right side facets, the roll is bent downwards and becomes almost invisible due to the breakage. It is dif¿cult to say which detail the roll was meant to represent, but it was not likely to be a torc since the roll was opened at the front, and not shown at the back**, although V.S. Olkhovsky and G.L. Evdokimov interpreted the disconnected roll on the front and back sides of the neck of a Scythian statue of the 4th century BC from the Crimea as a torc (Ibid.: ill. 64, 107). In addition to the iconographic similarities of the SaryArka statues with the Scythian statues described above, we had previously mentioned other similarities, including signi¿cant width of the sides of faces, a characteristic pro¿le of the head: Àat face, and rounded top and back of the head (Ermolenko, Kurmankulov, 2011b: 156, 158). The second Sartogan statue provided new data for comparison with the Scythian sculpture in its set of attributes. The iconography of this statue combines the attributes of weaponry (dagger and pick axe) and bodily features (phallus and buttocks). This combination has only been found in Scythian sculptures (instead of a pick axe they may include a variety of strike weapons typical of the Scythians). In the Black Sea region such sculptures include the statues from Kozhemyaki (late 6th–early 5th century BC) and Novovasilevka (¿rst third of the 5th century BC); in the North Caucasus – a statue from Prokhladnoe (¿rst half of the 6th century BC), and possibly from Besskorbnnaya (second half of the 6th century BC) (Olkhovsky, Evdokimov, 1994: ill. 20, 33; 10, 15; 85, 147; 72, 120). On some of these statues from the Black Sea region, the buttocks are outlined by protrusions on the back facet (Ibid.: ill. 41, 74, 46, 79). A number of Scythian sculptures show an incomplete set of attributes (Ibid.: ill. 14, 20; 53, 90; 69, 117). The phallus and testicles on *It is possible that the “ears” and the “lock of hair” of the Kutsevolovka and Manychskaya statues imitate a decoration detail of a headdress. **It is possible that the “ears” and the “lock of hair” of the Kutsevolovka and Manychskaya statues imitate a decoration detail of a headdress.
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
93
c
ɚ
the statue with an “axe or poleaxe” from Sibioara (¿rst half of the 6th century BC) and on the second Sartogan statue are stylized in a similar way (Ibid.: ill. 1, 1). Phallus and buttocks were not depicted on the “Sarmatian” sculptures of the Aral-Caspian region. S.Yu. Gutsalov and A.D. Tairov pointed to the appearance of these physical features on the earlier (compared to the “Sarmatian” statues) sculptures from the western UralKazakhstan steppes – from Kashkantau (end of the 6th– ¿rst half of the 5th century BC) and Ilinka (Gutsalov, Tairov, 2000: 239; Tairov, Gutsalov, 2001: ¿g. 1, 2, 4). According to these scholars, the Kashkantau statue with the representation of the phallus* shows “the traces of the inÀuence of the Scythian artistic tradition” (Gutsalov, Tairov, 2000: 247). V.S. Olkhovsky attributed this statue, among seven other statues from the Volga region and Southern Urals, to the group of the “Scythoid” monuments (2005: 141–142). Conclusions The second Sartogan statue supplemented a recently distinguished group of sculptures of the Early Iron Age from Sary-Arka. So far this group includes six statues. Four were found in the valleys of the Ulytau Mountain Ridge (Sartogan, Aibas-Darasy, and Egindy), one near Stepnogorsk, and another uncategorized statue is kept in the Museum of Karaganda. Except for the Stepnogorsk statue, the Sary-Arka sculptures of the Early Iron Age were not preserved intact, but even their fragments show features that are atypical of numerous medieval sculptures. The Early Iron Age sculptures from Sary-Arka differ from Ancient Turkic and Kipchak sculptures of the *V.S. Olkhovsky questioned the accuracy of identi¿cation of this detail due to the “schematism of the drawing” (2005: 142).
b
Fig. 6. Statue from Egindy village.
Kazakhstan steppes not only in terms of iconography and object repertoire (according to the terminology of V.S. Olkhovsky), but also in material. Where medieval statues were mostly carved of pink medium- and coarsegrained stone, the statues of the Early Iron Age were made of ¿ne-grained dirty purple or brown stone. The statues have a speci¿c outline: all have wide side faces, and the Stepnogorsk and Karaganda statues have a concave or Àat facial pro¿le, contrasting with the three dimensional modeling of the head. Since the sculptures are fragmentary, their iconography in general cannot be commented upon, however, their elements in combination can be studied. Two statues (the ¿rst Sartogan statue and the Aibas-Darasy statue) show the same, but mirrored position of the arms; the ¿ngers of the hands are spread and hypertrophied. One is pressed against the chest, the other against the stomach. The hand position of the Stepnogorsk sculpture is unclear although the hands appear to be placed together on the stomach. It is possible that the statues, represented by fragments of the upper part (the Karaganda and the Egindy statues), were originally busts. The Sary-Arka sculpture of the Early Iron Age has speci¿c attributes. The original attribute, the “lock of hair”, was found on three sculptures, from Karaganda, Egindy, and Stepnogorsk. The weapons, pick axes and daggers, also have speci¿c forms; pick axes with a wide pro¿le show the length ratio of striker to butt as approximately 2 : 1, while bladed weapons include daggers with antennashaped pommels (one of them has wide oval guard) or blades without pommels, probably, single-edged. The parallels between the representations of weaponry on the statues and real weapons found in the archaeological materials are partial, but in combination with the iconographical data they demonstrate af¿nity to the Scythian statues from the Black Sea region and the North Caucasus, and make it possible to date the Sary-Arka group to the Saka period. However, it is not yet possible
94
L.N. Ermolenko and Zh.K. Kurmankulov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/4 (2012) 86–94
to establish the cultural identity of these statues because of the unique character of their attributes. One can only emphasize the well-known fact that in the Saka period, the territory of Ulytau, where the Sary-Arka statues were found in situ, constituted a part of the Tasmola cultural area (Vostochnaya Sary-Arka..., 2004: 219). References Akishev K.A., Khabdulina M.K. 2011 Drevnosti Astany: Gorodishche Bozok. Astana: Evraziiskii natsionalnyi univ. Alekseyev A.Yu. 1991 Etyud ob akinakakh. In Klein L.S. Arkheologicheskaya tipologiya. Leningrad: LF TsENDISI AN SSSR. Leningrad. nauchno-issledovatelskoe arkheolog. obiedinenie, pp. 271–280. Alekseyev A.Yu. 2003 Khronografiya evropeiskoi Skifii VII–IV vekov do n.e. St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha. Artamonov M.I. 1971 Kompozitsii s landshaftom v skifo-sibirskom iskusstve. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 82–92. Chlenova N.L. 1981 Svyazi kultur Zapadnoi Sibiri s kulturami Priuraliya i Srednego Povolzhya v kontse epokhi bronzy i v nachale zheleznogo veka. In Problemy zapadnosibirskoi arkheologii: Epokha zheleza. Novosibirsk: Nauka, pp. 4–42. Ermolenko L.N., Kurmankulov Zh.K. 2011a Izvayanie rannego zheleznogo veka iz muzeya Ulutauskogo zapovednika (predvaritelnoe soobschenie). In Margulanovskie chteniya – 2011: Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi arkheolog. konferentsii, Astana, 20–22 aprelya 2011 g. Astana: Evraziiskii natsionalnyi univ., pp. 253–256. Ermolenko L.N., Kurmankulov Zh.K. 2011b Originalnoe izvayanie iz fondov Karagandinskogo istorikokraevedcheskogo muzeya. In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri: K 80-letiyu Ya.A. Shera. Kemerovo: Kemerov. Gos. Univ., pp. 156–161. Gorelik M.V. 1993 Oruzhie drevnego Vostoka (IV tysyacheletie – IV v. do nashei ery). Moscow: Nauka. Gryaznov M.P. 1961 Drevneishie pamyatniki geroicheskogo eposa narodov Yuzhnoi Sibiri. Arkheologicheskii Sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, No. 3: 7–31. Gutsalov S.Yu., Tairov A.D. 2000 Stely i antropomorfnye izvayaniya rannego zheleznogo veka yuzhnouralskikh stepei. In Arkheologiya, paleoekologiya i paleodemogra¿ya Evrazii. Moscow: GEOS, pp. 226–251. Ivanov S.S. 2008 Kinzhaly rannikh kochevnikov Semirechiya i Tyan-Shanya. In Drevnie i srednevekovye kochevniki Tsentralnoi Azii. Barnaul: Azbuka, pp. 37–41. Kadyrbaev M.K., Kurmankulov Zh. 1977 Materialy raskopok mogilnika Besoba. In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Otrare. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR, pp. 103–115. Kokurkina O.V. 2007 Territoriya i vremya bytovaniya rannikh diagonalnykh pogrebenii. Voprosy istorii i arkheologii Zapadnogo Kazakhstana (Uralsk), No. 2: 195–210.
Kovalev A.A. 2007 Chemurchekskii kulturnyi fenomen (statya 1999 goda). In A.V.: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov v chest 60-letiya A.V. Vinogradova. St. Petersburg: Kult-Inform-Press, pp. 25–76. Kubarev V.D. 1987 Kurgany Ulandryka. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 1991 Kurgany Yustyda. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Leus P.M. 2007 Kamennye stely iz Khakkari (Turtsiya) i nekotorye paralleli k nim. Arkheologicheskie vesti, No. 14: 56–61. Makhortikh S.V., Skorii S.A. 1986 Mechi ta kindzhali skifskogo chasu bez navershiv. Arkheologiya, No. 56: 72–78. Melyukova A.I. 1964 Vooruzhenie skifov. Moscow: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; D. 1–4). Olkhovsky V.S. 2000 Monumentalnaya skulptura kochevnikov Evrazii: Problemy istochnikovedeniya. In Arkheologiya, paleoekologiya i paleodemogra¿ya Evrazii. Moscow: GEOS, pp. 252–276. Olkhovsky V.S. 2005 Monumentalnaya skulptura naseleniya zapadnoi chasti evraziiskikh stepei epokhi rannego zheleza. Moscow: Nauka. Olkhovsky V.S., Evdokimov G.L. 1994 Skifskie izvayaniya VII–III vv. do nashei ery. Moscow: IA RAN; Inst. arkheologii AN Ukrainy. Samashev Z. 2011 Ob odnoi batalnoi stsene petroglifov rannego zheleznogo veka iz Kuzhabasy v Zhetysu. In Kazakhstanskaya arkheologiya i etnologiya: Sovremennye dostizheniya i innovatsionnye tekhnologii: Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii “III Orazbaevskie chteniya” 29–30 aprelya 2011 g. Almaty: pp. 55–74. Samashev Z., Kusherbaev K., Amanshaev E., Asta¿ev A. 2007 Sokrovishcha Ustyurta i Mankystau. Almaty: Aktaus. Gos. Univ. im. Sh. Esenova. Smirnov K.F. 1961 Vooruzhenie savromatov. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 101). Tairov A.D. 2007 Kochevniki Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei v VII–VI vv. do n.e. Chelyabinsk: Izd. Yuzhno-Ural. Gos. Univ. Tairov A.D. 2010 Bimetallicheskii chekan iz Yuzhnogo Zauraliya. Chelyabinskii gumanitarii, No. 4 (13): 101–108. Tairov A.D., Botalov S.G. 1996 Mogilnik Karsakbas. Voprosy arkheologii Zapadnogo Kazakhstana (Samara), No. 1: 164–175. Tairov A.D., Gutsalov S.Yu. 2001 O genezise kamennykh antropomorfnykh izvayanii AraloKaspiiskogo regiona. Materialy po arkheologii Volgo-Donskikh stepei (Volgograd), No. 1: 161–168. Vostochnaya Sary-Arka: Karkaralinskii region v proshlom i nastoyashchem. 2004 Almaty: Evero.
Received March 2, 2012.