- Email: [email protected]
New data on Bronze Age jewelry in the Southeastern Urals
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87 E-mail: [email protected]
82
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
A.V. Epimakhov South Ural Department of the Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kommuny 68, Chelybinsk, 454000, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
NEW DATA ON BRONZE AGE JEWELRY IN THE SOUTHEASTERN URALS* New ¿nds relating to the jewelry of the Alakul people are described. The analysis of molds indicates a much greater variation of ornaments compared to that implied by funerary items. The technology of jewelry is reconstructed. Personal adornments may have been made not only of bronze but of precious metals as well. Keywords: Bronze Age, Alakul culture, adornments, jewelry technologies.
Introduction It is universally believed that personal adornments worn in traditional societies represent ethnic indicators. Two features are especially important. On the one hand, adornments are produced on a mass scale and are standardized. On the other hand, the impact of other factors, such as function, on their appearance is negligible, and therefore convergent resemblance is highly unlikely. Admittedly, as far as archaeological sources alone are concerned, our understanding of the ornament set, its use, etc., is nearly entirely based on ritual (funerary) items. All the comments made above are relevant to the South Ural Bronze Age and particularly to its Timber Grave (Srubnaya) – Andronovo period (13th–16th centuries BC in the system of calibrated radiocarbon dates) (Epimakhov, 2007; Chernykh, 2008). Moreover, typological differences of some adornments (e.g., earrings *The study was conducted under the Integration Project of the Ural Branch and the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, “Culture, Society, and Man during the Metal Ages (the Urals and Western Siberia).”
or plait pendants) allow their attribution to certain cultures in adjacent regions (Kuzmina, 1994: 158–161; Obydennov, Obydennova, 1992: 120; Evdokimov, Usmanova, 1990; Usmanova, 2005; and others). Most artifacts of this sort were discovered at burial sites. Only the isolated ¿nds from settlements (e.g., (Epimakhov, Epimakhova, 2002: ¿g. 2, 10–11)) and molds (Avanesova, 1991: ¿g. 55), in my view, make it possible to gain some idea of the variants of the adornment set not associated with the funerary costume. The list of sites containing evidence of jewelry manufacturing is relatively short (Table; Fig. 1). It includes settlements such as Staro-Kumlyakskoye (Arkaim..., 2009: 186), Alekseyevskoye (KrivtsovaGrakova, 1948: 115–116, fig. 42), Yalym (Salnikov, 1967: 147, ¿g. 32, 24), Zamaraevskoye (Salnikov, 1954: 240; 1967: 338), Kamyshnoye I (Potemkina, 1985: 114– 115, ¿g. 39, 7), Ust-Suerskoye III (Ibid.) as well as an accidental ¿nd from the Sanarka River area close to the village of Verkhnaya Sanarka (Chemyakin, 1976). All the ¿nds are associated with the Alakul antiquities*. *The occurrence of a mold for jewelry casting at Tartas-1 burial ground in the Baraba forest-steppe (Molodin et al., 2005: 415) is noteworthy.
Copyright © 2012, 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.2012.05.010
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
Jewelry casting molds from the Southeastern Urals Settlement
Coordinates
Source
Material
Parallels among adornments
Staro-Kumlyakskoye I
54°22ƍ13Ǝ N 60°19ƍ14Ǝ E
Markov, 1987; Arkaim…, 2009
Stone
Available for some negatives
Verkhne-Sanarskoye I
54°13ƍ24Ǝ N 60°30ƍ53Ǝ E
Chemyakin, 1976
Clay
Absent
Kirzhakul I
55°31ƍ6Ǝ N 61°31ƍ24Ǝ E
Naumenko, 2003
Stone
Available for some negatives
Zamaraevskoye
56°9ƍ44Ǝ N 63°16ƍ5Ǝ E
Salnikov, 1954, 1967
Clay
Available
Yalym
54°46ƍ25Ǝ N 65°5ƍ20Ǝ E
Salnikov, 1967
Same
Available
Kamyshnoye I
55°5ƍ56Ǝ N 65°10ƍ21Ǝ E
Potemkina, 1985
Stone
Available for some negatives
Ust-Suerskoye III
56°1ƍ2Ǝ N 65°50ƍ55Ǝ E
Ibid.
Clay
Absent
Alekseyevskoye
52°58ƍ48Ǝ N 63°11ƍ34Ǝ E
Krivtsova-Grakova, 1948
Stone
Absent
Some casting molds are made of stone (StaroKumlyakskoye, Alekseyevskoye, Kamyshnoye I), while others are made of clay. E.V. Kupriyanova conjectures that most molds were just test samples and never used in practice (2008: 42). This rather categorical inference is based on the scarcity of relevant artifacts at Bronze Age sites and on the absence of signs of utilization on the molds. While it is true that almost none of the molds have exact matches among the actual artifacts, alternative explanations are possible. Thus O.A. Krivtsova-Grakova puts forward the hypothesis that the stone artifact found at Alekseyevskoye could have served as a former in chasing metal plates (1948: 115). This interpretation is hardly applicable to clay molds. Description of the artifact A casting mold was found in 2007 on the eroded western shore of Lake Kirzhakul, 0.6 km southeast of Techensky village, Sosnovsky Region of the Chelyabinsk Province. The artifact was found in association with the cultural horizon of the Kirzhakul I settlement (Naumenko, 2003). There, over an area of 8000 m 2, four hollows were recorded and a rich artifact assemblage was collected from the surface. According to O.I. Naumenko, the ceramic assemblage displays features of the Alakul, FedorovkaCherkaskul and Mezhovka archaeological cultures. The artifact described is obviously associated with antiquities of the Alakul type. The artifact represents a talc tablet of irregular shape, trapezoid in cross-section with smoothed faces (Fig. 2).
0
150 km
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of settlements that contain evidence of jewelry manufacturing. 1 – Staro-Kumlyakskoye; 2 – Verkhne-Sanarskoye I; 3 – Kirzhakul I; 4 – Zamaraevskoye; 5 – Yalym; 6 – Kamyshnoye I; 7 – UstSuerskoye III; 8 – Alekseyevskoye. 1, 3, 6, 8 – stone artifacts; 2, 4, 5, 7 – clay artifacts.
It measures 88 mm by 64 mm and is 13–16 mm thick. Lateral surfaces demonstrate slightly smoothed cut marks possibly made by a metal blade (Fig. 3, 4). Presumably, the craftsman initially tried to shape the mold as an oval, but in the course of use or manufacture the form fractured along one of the two hollows meant for casting
83
84
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
0
trapezoid stems. The broken surface appears to have been worked ¿rst, since the cavities for molding decorations on the opposite side remain undamaged. The mold bears four negatives of different implements, only two of which are clearly identifiable. One negative is used in the production of a round plaque 25 mm in diameter with a cross and concentric circles along the perimeter (Fig. 3, 3). The cross is formed by triple lines converging at the central point, which is 3 mm deep. Most lines imitate fine chiseling. Decorations of this type are known from the Stepnoye-7 burial ground (Kupriyanova, 2008: ¿g. 16) and from Alakul sites (Usmanova, 2005: ¿g. 74, 1–8; Sorokin, 1962: 163; Epimakhov, Epimakhova, 2004: ¿g. 4; and others). Differences include manufacturing techniques and the length of the diameter, which is generally signi¿cantly larger and reaches up to 50 mm. Most decorations such as these are fashioned on thin sheets of foil up to 1 mm thick probably by using a chisel or a stamp (Flek, 2009). Naturally enough, both surfaces demonstrate a replicating relief. In the present case, however, judging by the negative and the sprue, the artifact was a full cast product. The same is true in the case of a mold for a rhomb-shaped pendant measuring 26 mm by 13 mm by 1 mm. This is much smaller and less massive than most Alakul artifacts (Kupriyanova, 2008: ¿g. 17; Usmanova, 2005: ¿g. 74, 32; Sorokin, 1962: 163). Other negatives are less distinct and were intended for manufacturing four pair-wise joined hemispherical plaques 6–7 mm in diameter bearing radial segments along the periphery (Fig. 3, 2). Hemispherical plaques are quite common in Bronze Age sites (Matveyev, 1998: 249; Epimakhov, Epimakhova, 2004: ¿g. 4, 23–28), but their combination in one implement is less typical of the Andronovo culture (e.g., (Matyuschenko, 2004: ¿g. 418, 27–30; Umansky, Kiryushin, Grushin, 2007: fig. 64, 20–23))*. It is more difficult to find analogies to methods of decoration and manufacturing (casting). However, the appearance of the ¿nal product might have changed considerably over the course of subsequent technological operations. This
2 cm
Fig. 2. Mold from Kirzhakul I.
2 1
3
4
Fig. 3. Elements of the mold from Kirzhakul I.
*Of course, the examples cited demonstrate similarity in appearance rather than representing absolute equivalents.
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
idea is suggested by a negative on the casting mold from Staro-Kumlyakskoye (Fig. 4) described as Àower-like female earrings (Arkaim…, 2009: 186)*. Based on the interpretation suggested, the paired plaques might have been further used separately as elements of decoration. The negative comprised of pits connected by lines appears even more enigmatic (Fig. 3, 1). Three lines form a cone-shaped ¿gure and its base and upper portions are intersected by line segments. Their end points are marked as pits and form cross-shaped ¿gures**. The cone-shaped ¿gure is crowned by a kind of rosette composed of a central and seven peripheral pits***. The central pit is slightly asymmetric and signi¿cantly deeper compared to the other pits (5 mm). It might have been used as a point for adjusting halves of the casting mold. Notably, all the other pits seem to have been shaped by the same tool; these are round and 1.0–1.5 mm deep. The pits within the longitudinal lines seem to be different. Judging by their elongated shape, they were cut with a thin metal blade. Importantly, this element is characterized by a relative shallowness of relief and the absence of sprue, which is apparent in other molds (2–5 mm relative to the surface). Therefore, it is indeed doubtful that the object was used as a mold. This sector of the form might have functioned as a matrix for manufacturing adornments from thin metal sheets by stamping and/or chasing rather than by casting. In this case, the central pit of the “rosette” might have been used to puncture a hole for suspension. Interpretation As the description suggests, none of the negatives on the main plane of the artifacts is completely matched by any known ornament. Several explanations are possible. First, only one half of the mold is available, and the thickness of the resulting plaques and pendants could theoretically be regulated by the contact between the halves. In this case, however, the metal could hardly ¿ll the entire space because its viscosity is low due to the metal’s own properties or high temperature. A fusible tin bronze was normally used for adornments (Chernykh, 1970: 139–141). However, in *The site is located 1 km northeast of Stary Kumlyak village (Plastovsky Region of the Chelyabinsk Province), on the left bank of the old channel of the Kumlyak River. The artifact assemblage collected from a ploughed ¿eld comprises a rich collection of Alakul, Cherkaskul and Mezhovka ceramics (Markov, 1987). **Two similar images are present on the mold from StaroKumlyakskoye, where they are interpreted as cross-shaped female earrings. They differ only in size: the ones on the Kirzhakul mold are smaller (8 mm by 6 mm vs 10 mm by 12 mm). ***This fragment corresponds to the negative imprint on the Staro-Kumlyakskoye mold intended for manufacturing Àowershaped earrings mentioned above.
0
2 cm
Fig. 4. Mold from Staro-Kumlyakskoye I (after (Arkaim..., 2009)).
this variant, the completing operations were forging and chasing of the artifact’s entire surface. Thus, casting in a pro¿led mold that requires intensive heating would appear irrational as it is much easier to use a plate. Precious metals, which were well known to the local population, are different however (Salnkov, 1967: 278–279). Precious metals are more plastic, although refractory, too. The second explanation, which would seem more well-founded, is based on the supposition that it was precisely these materials (poorly represented at burial sites) that were used in everyday life. The artifacts described and cast of bronze are rather massive and were not used as ornaments, but rather as dies. The cladding technique is well documented both in the Alakul and preceding assemblages (Vinogradov, 1984; Gening V.F., Zdanovich, Gening V.V., 1992: ¿g. 82, 2; 153, 4; Kupriyanova, 2008). Gold (or silver foil) due to its high plasticity easily takes the form of the matrix. The fact that no such adornment has been recorded is basically an indirect argument since no information is available on the criteria underlying the choice of funerary artifacts* or their resemblance with everyday *It will suffice to mention the Fedorovka sites in the Eastern Urals that yielded no bell-shaped earrings (Stafanov, Korochkova, 2006: 126), although they are considered to be one of the main attributes of this group of monuments. Instead, such earrings (including those made of gold) are widely spread in the eastern Andronovo area (Avanesov, 1991: ¿g. 43).
85
86
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
counterparts. Because of their high value ornaments made of precious metals had to be used with great care and passed down from generation to generation. This circumstance greatly reduces the risk of their loss by the owner and likewise, decreases the possibility of ¿nding them in the archaeological context. The function of the Kirzhakul mold is evidenced by the presence of metal, possibly copper* in the central pit of the “rosette.” This is a drop-shaped tawny piece of metal measuring 5–7 ȝ. This, however, does not provide a conclusive answer to the question of the function of this part of the mold either. The metal fragment may be a part of a thin perforating tool that was broken off during the manufacturing operation. However, it is still possible to interpret it as part of a rod used for ¿tting mold halves during the casting process. Conclusions In sum, adornments used by the Alakul people of the Eastern Urals have turned out to be much more varied than they were previously believed to be. Researchers have proceeded from the seemingly self-evident assumption that the ritual (funerary) attire is virtually identical to the actual costume. Precious metals could have been more widely used than the ¿nds from cemeteries suggest. In the author’s opinion, this explanation is more plausible than the idea of the experimental nature of the respective artifacts (see above). One of the arguments in favor of our explanation is the well-known fact that mythological thinking was oriented towards automatic reproduction rather than creation. One of the illustrative examples concerns the way armorers and jewelers in Kubachi, Dagestan, adhere to their age-old techniques. A visitor’s (an engineer named N. Baklanov) attempts to urge a Kubachi artisan to deviate from the canon in terms of size or shape of artifacts produced proved unsuccessful, “because the work was so routine and the use of technological practices acquired in childhood was so automatic” (Chernykh, 2007: 118, 176–177). As far as the Bronze Age is concerned, a similarly strong adherence to tradition among artisans is to be expected. This is all the more likely because technologically the jewelers’ craft is by no means simpler than that of, for example, metallurgists, as indicated by the variety of techniques, sophistication of metal ornaments, and their considerable number in cemeteries and partly in settlements. The rarity of molds may evidence their value to the artisans and the fact that jewelers were relatively few in number. *Regrettably, A.M. Yuminov (Institute of Mineralogy, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) could only visually examine a small metal sample deeply stuck in the stone base. Its extraction for analytical procedures will entail a partial destruction of the artifact.
Acknowledgments My special thanks go to D. Shageyev, pupil of the Techensky secondary school, who found the mold, and to his teacher V.A. Kandaurov, who assisted in handing over the ¿nd to the Chelyabinsk Museum of Regional Studies. I am indebted to N.B. Vinogradov (Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University) and Y.P. Chemyakin (Ural State University) for the information about unpublished analogues; to V.V. Zaikov and A.M. Yumonov (Institute of Mineralogy, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) for analytical works; and to A.G. Bersenev for the use-wear analysis and photography. I am appreciative of the assistance of A.E. Grishin (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS) who drew my attention to the analogue from the Tartas-1 burial ground and to N.I. Chuyev who helped me in mapping the sites.
References Arkaim: U istokov tsivilizatsii. 2009 G.B. Zdanovich (ed.). Chelyabinsk: Arkaim. Avanesova N.A. 1991 Kultura pastusheskikh plemen epokhi bronzy aziatskoi chasti SSSR. Tashkent: Fan. Chemyakin Y.P. 1976 Otchet ob arkheologicheskoi razvedke na territorii, podchinennoi gorodu Plast v Chelyabinskoi oblasti, proizvedennoi v 1976 godu. Sverdlovsk. Archive kafedry arkheologii UrGU. F. II, D. 301. Chernykh E.N. 1970 Drevneishaya metallurgiya Urala i Povolzhya. Moscow: Nauka. (MIA; No. 172). Chernykh E.N. 2007 Kargaly. Vol. 5: Fenomen i paradoksy razvitiya; Kargaly v sisteme metallurgicheskikh provintsii; Potaennaya (sakralnaya) zhizn arkhaichnykh gornyakov i metallurgov. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kultury. Chernykh E.N. 2008 Formation of the Eurasian “steppe belt” of stockbreeding cultures: Viewed through the prism of archaeometallurgy and radiocarbon dating. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 3: 36–53. Epimakhov A.B. 2007 Otnositelnaya i absolyutnaya khronologiya sintashtinskikh pamyatnikov v svete radiokarbonnykh datirovok. Problemy istorii, ¿lologii, kultury (Moscow, Magnitogorsk, Novosibirsk), iss. 17: 402–421. Epimakhov A.V., Epimakhova M.G. 2002 Poseleniye pozdnei bronzy Kamennaya Rechka III. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnogra¿i (Tyumen), No. 4: 96–105. Epimakhov A.V., Epimakhova M.G. 2004 Novye materialy po alakulskomu kostyumu. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, Ser. 1: Istoricheskiye nauki, No. 2: 112–128. Evdokimov V.V., Usmanova E.R. 1990 Znakovyi status ukrashenii v pogrebalnom obryade (po materialam mogilnikov andronovskoi kulturno-istoricheskoi obschnosti iz Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana). In Arkheologiya Volgo-Uralskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Izd. Chelyab. Gos. Univ., pp. 66–80.
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
Flek E.V. 2009 Tehnologiya izgotovleniya metallicheskikh ukrashenii alakulskoi kultury (krestovidnye podveski, blyashki). In Rol estestvenno-nauchnykh metodov v arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh. Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 339–341. Gening V.F., Zdanovich G.B., Gening V.V. 1992 Sintashta: Arkheologicheskii pamyatnik ariiskikh plemen Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei, vol. 1. Chelyabinsk: YuzhnoUral. knizh. izd. Krivtsova-Grakova O.A. 1948 Alekseyevskoe poseleniye i mogilnik. Trudy GIM, iss. 17: 57–164. Kupriyanova E.V. 2008 Ten zhenschiny: Zhenski kostyum epokhi bronzy kak «tekst»: Po materialam nekropolei Yuzhnogo Zauralya i Kazakhstana. Chelyabinsk: Avto Graf. Kuzmina E.E. 1994 Otkuda prishli indoarii. Materialnaya kultura plemen andronovskoi obschnosti i proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura. Markov S.V. 1987 Otchet ob arkheologicheskoi razvedke, provedennoi v 1986 godu po reke Kumlyak v Plastskom i Uiskom raionakh Chelyabinskoi oblasti. Plast. Archive LAI ChGPU. F. I. D. 14. Matveyev A.V. 1998 Pervye andronovtsy v lesakh Zauralya. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Matyuschenko V.I. 2004 Elovski arkheologicheski kompleks. Pt. 2. Elovski II mogilnik: Doirmenskiye kompleksy. Omsk: Izd. Omsk. Gos. Univ. Molodin V.I., Parzinger G., Grishin A.E., Pieczonka H., Marchenko Z.V., Novikova O.I., Garkusha Y.N., Mylnikova L.N., Rybina E.V., Chemyakina M.A., Shatov A.G. 2005 Polevye issledovaniya na mogilnike Tartas-1 v 2005 godu (Barabinskaya lesostep). In Problemy arkheologii, etnogra¿i, antoropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 9, pt. 1. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 412–417.
87
Naumenko O.I. 2003 Otchet ob arkheologicheskoi razvedke ozera Kiryakul v Sosnovskom raione Chelyabinskoi oblasti v 2002 godu. Chelyabinsk. Archive LAI CHGPU. F. I, D. 35. Obydennov M.F., Obydennova G.T. 1992 Severo-vostochnaya periferiya srubnoi kulturno-istoricheskoi obschnosti. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Univ. Potemkina T.M. 1985 Bronzovyi vek lesostepnogo Pritobolya. Moscow: Nauka. Salnikov K.V. 1954 Andronovskiye poseleniya Zauralya. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 20: 213–252. Salnikov K.V. 1967 Ocherki drevnei istorii Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka. Sorokin V.S. 1962 Mogilnik bronzovoi epokhi Tasty-Butak I v Zapadnom Kazakhstane. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 120). Stefanov V.I., Korochkova O.N. 2006 Urefty I: Zauralski pamyatnik v andronovskom kontekste. Yekaterinburg: Izd. Ural. Gos. Univ. Umansky A.P., Kiryushin Y.F., Grushin S.P. 2007 Pogrebalnyi obryad naseleniya andronovskoi kultury Prichumyshya (po materialam mogilnika Kytmanovo). Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ. Usmanova E.R. 2005 Mogilnik Lisakovskii I: Fakty i paralleli. Karaganda; Lisakovsk. Vinogradov N.B. 1984 Kulevchi VI – novyi alakulski mogilnik v lesostepi Yuzhnogo Zauralya. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 136–153.
Received May 6, 2010.
82
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
A.V. Epimakhov South Ural Department of the Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Kommuny 68, Chelybinsk, 454000, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
NEW DATA ON BRONZE AGE JEWELRY IN THE SOUTHEASTERN URALS* New ¿nds relating to the jewelry of the Alakul people are described. The analysis of molds indicates a much greater variation of ornaments compared to that implied by funerary items. The technology of jewelry is reconstructed. Personal adornments may have been made not only of bronze but of precious metals as well. Keywords: Bronze Age, Alakul culture, adornments, jewelry technologies.
Introduction It is universally believed that personal adornments worn in traditional societies represent ethnic indicators. Two features are especially important. On the one hand, adornments are produced on a mass scale and are standardized. On the other hand, the impact of other factors, such as function, on their appearance is negligible, and therefore convergent resemblance is highly unlikely. Admittedly, as far as archaeological sources alone are concerned, our understanding of the ornament set, its use, etc., is nearly entirely based on ritual (funerary) items. All the comments made above are relevant to the South Ural Bronze Age and particularly to its Timber Grave (Srubnaya) – Andronovo period (13th–16th centuries BC in the system of calibrated radiocarbon dates) (Epimakhov, 2007; Chernykh, 2008). Moreover, typological differences of some adornments (e.g., earrings *The study was conducted under the Integration Project of the Ural Branch and the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, “Culture, Society, and Man during the Metal Ages (the Urals and Western Siberia).”
or plait pendants) allow their attribution to certain cultures in adjacent regions (Kuzmina, 1994: 158–161; Obydennov, Obydennova, 1992: 120; Evdokimov, Usmanova, 1990; Usmanova, 2005; and others). Most artifacts of this sort were discovered at burial sites. Only the isolated ¿nds from settlements (e.g., (Epimakhov, Epimakhova, 2002: ¿g. 2, 10–11)) and molds (Avanesova, 1991: ¿g. 55), in my view, make it possible to gain some idea of the variants of the adornment set not associated with the funerary costume. The list of sites containing evidence of jewelry manufacturing is relatively short (Table; Fig. 1). It includes settlements such as Staro-Kumlyakskoye (Arkaim..., 2009: 186), Alekseyevskoye (KrivtsovaGrakova, 1948: 115–116, fig. 42), Yalym (Salnikov, 1967: 147, ¿g. 32, 24), Zamaraevskoye (Salnikov, 1954: 240; 1967: 338), Kamyshnoye I (Potemkina, 1985: 114– 115, ¿g. 39, 7), Ust-Suerskoye III (Ibid.) as well as an accidental ¿nd from the Sanarka River area close to the village of Verkhnaya Sanarka (Chemyakin, 1976). All the ¿nds are associated with the Alakul antiquities*. *The occurrence of a mold for jewelry casting at Tartas-1 burial ground in the Baraba forest-steppe (Molodin et al., 2005: 415) is noteworthy.
Copyright © 2012, 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.2012.05.010
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
Jewelry casting molds from the Southeastern Urals Settlement
Coordinates
Source
Material
Parallels among adornments
Staro-Kumlyakskoye I
54°22ƍ13Ǝ N 60°19ƍ14Ǝ E
Markov, 1987; Arkaim…, 2009
Stone
Available for some negatives
Verkhne-Sanarskoye I
54°13ƍ24Ǝ N 60°30ƍ53Ǝ E
Chemyakin, 1976
Clay
Absent
Kirzhakul I
55°31ƍ6Ǝ N 61°31ƍ24Ǝ E
Naumenko, 2003
Stone
Available for some negatives
Zamaraevskoye
56°9ƍ44Ǝ N 63°16ƍ5Ǝ E
Salnikov, 1954, 1967
Clay
Available
Yalym
54°46ƍ25Ǝ N 65°5ƍ20Ǝ E
Salnikov, 1967
Same
Available
Kamyshnoye I
55°5ƍ56Ǝ N 65°10ƍ21Ǝ E
Potemkina, 1985
Stone
Available for some negatives
Ust-Suerskoye III
56°1ƍ2Ǝ N 65°50ƍ55Ǝ E
Ibid.
Clay
Absent
Alekseyevskoye
52°58ƍ48Ǝ N 63°11ƍ34Ǝ E
Krivtsova-Grakova, 1948
Stone
Absent
Some casting molds are made of stone (StaroKumlyakskoye, Alekseyevskoye, Kamyshnoye I), while others are made of clay. E.V. Kupriyanova conjectures that most molds were just test samples and never used in practice (2008: 42). This rather categorical inference is based on the scarcity of relevant artifacts at Bronze Age sites and on the absence of signs of utilization on the molds. While it is true that almost none of the molds have exact matches among the actual artifacts, alternative explanations are possible. Thus O.A. Krivtsova-Grakova puts forward the hypothesis that the stone artifact found at Alekseyevskoye could have served as a former in chasing metal plates (1948: 115). This interpretation is hardly applicable to clay molds. Description of the artifact A casting mold was found in 2007 on the eroded western shore of Lake Kirzhakul, 0.6 km southeast of Techensky village, Sosnovsky Region of the Chelyabinsk Province. The artifact was found in association with the cultural horizon of the Kirzhakul I settlement (Naumenko, 2003). There, over an area of 8000 m 2, four hollows were recorded and a rich artifact assemblage was collected from the surface. According to O.I. Naumenko, the ceramic assemblage displays features of the Alakul, FedorovkaCherkaskul and Mezhovka archaeological cultures. The artifact described is obviously associated with antiquities of the Alakul type. The artifact represents a talc tablet of irregular shape, trapezoid in cross-section with smoothed faces (Fig. 2).
0
150 km
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of settlements that contain evidence of jewelry manufacturing. 1 – Staro-Kumlyakskoye; 2 – Verkhne-Sanarskoye I; 3 – Kirzhakul I; 4 – Zamaraevskoye; 5 – Yalym; 6 – Kamyshnoye I; 7 – UstSuerskoye III; 8 – Alekseyevskoye. 1, 3, 6, 8 – stone artifacts; 2, 4, 5, 7 – clay artifacts.
It measures 88 mm by 64 mm and is 13–16 mm thick. Lateral surfaces demonstrate slightly smoothed cut marks possibly made by a metal blade (Fig. 3, 4). Presumably, the craftsman initially tried to shape the mold as an oval, but in the course of use or manufacture the form fractured along one of the two hollows meant for casting
83
84
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
0
trapezoid stems. The broken surface appears to have been worked ¿rst, since the cavities for molding decorations on the opposite side remain undamaged. The mold bears four negatives of different implements, only two of which are clearly identifiable. One negative is used in the production of a round plaque 25 mm in diameter with a cross and concentric circles along the perimeter (Fig. 3, 3). The cross is formed by triple lines converging at the central point, which is 3 mm deep. Most lines imitate fine chiseling. Decorations of this type are known from the Stepnoye-7 burial ground (Kupriyanova, 2008: ¿g. 16) and from Alakul sites (Usmanova, 2005: ¿g. 74, 1–8; Sorokin, 1962: 163; Epimakhov, Epimakhova, 2004: ¿g. 4; and others). Differences include manufacturing techniques and the length of the diameter, which is generally signi¿cantly larger and reaches up to 50 mm. Most decorations such as these are fashioned on thin sheets of foil up to 1 mm thick probably by using a chisel or a stamp (Flek, 2009). Naturally enough, both surfaces demonstrate a replicating relief. In the present case, however, judging by the negative and the sprue, the artifact was a full cast product. The same is true in the case of a mold for a rhomb-shaped pendant measuring 26 mm by 13 mm by 1 mm. This is much smaller and less massive than most Alakul artifacts (Kupriyanova, 2008: ¿g. 17; Usmanova, 2005: ¿g. 74, 32; Sorokin, 1962: 163). Other negatives are less distinct and were intended for manufacturing four pair-wise joined hemispherical plaques 6–7 mm in diameter bearing radial segments along the periphery (Fig. 3, 2). Hemispherical plaques are quite common in Bronze Age sites (Matveyev, 1998: 249; Epimakhov, Epimakhova, 2004: ¿g. 4, 23–28), but their combination in one implement is less typical of the Andronovo culture (e.g., (Matyuschenko, 2004: ¿g. 418, 27–30; Umansky, Kiryushin, Grushin, 2007: fig. 64, 20–23))*. It is more difficult to find analogies to methods of decoration and manufacturing (casting). However, the appearance of the ¿nal product might have changed considerably over the course of subsequent technological operations. This
2 cm
Fig. 2. Mold from Kirzhakul I.
2 1
3
4
Fig. 3. Elements of the mold from Kirzhakul I.
*Of course, the examples cited demonstrate similarity in appearance rather than representing absolute equivalents.
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
idea is suggested by a negative on the casting mold from Staro-Kumlyakskoye (Fig. 4) described as Àower-like female earrings (Arkaim…, 2009: 186)*. Based on the interpretation suggested, the paired plaques might have been further used separately as elements of decoration. The negative comprised of pits connected by lines appears even more enigmatic (Fig. 3, 1). Three lines form a cone-shaped ¿gure and its base and upper portions are intersected by line segments. Their end points are marked as pits and form cross-shaped ¿gures**. The cone-shaped ¿gure is crowned by a kind of rosette composed of a central and seven peripheral pits***. The central pit is slightly asymmetric and signi¿cantly deeper compared to the other pits (5 mm). It might have been used as a point for adjusting halves of the casting mold. Notably, all the other pits seem to have been shaped by the same tool; these are round and 1.0–1.5 mm deep. The pits within the longitudinal lines seem to be different. Judging by their elongated shape, they were cut with a thin metal blade. Importantly, this element is characterized by a relative shallowness of relief and the absence of sprue, which is apparent in other molds (2–5 mm relative to the surface). Therefore, it is indeed doubtful that the object was used as a mold. This sector of the form might have functioned as a matrix for manufacturing adornments from thin metal sheets by stamping and/or chasing rather than by casting. In this case, the central pit of the “rosette” might have been used to puncture a hole for suspension. Interpretation As the description suggests, none of the negatives on the main plane of the artifacts is completely matched by any known ornament. Several explanations are possible. First, only one half of the mold is available, and the thickness of the resulting plaques and pendants could theoretically be regulated by the contact between the halves. In this case, however, the metal could hardly ¿ll the entire space because its viscosity is low due to the metal’s own properties or high temperature. A fusible tin bronze was normally used for adornments (Chernykh, 1970: 139–141). However, in *The site is located 1 km northeast of Stary Kumlyak village (Plastovsky Region of the Chelyabinsk Province), on the left bank of the old channel of the Kumlyak River. The artifact assemblage collected from a ploughed ¿eld comprises a rich collection of Alakul, Cherkaskul and Mezhovka ceramics (Markov, 1987). **Two similar images are present on the mold from StaroKumlyakskoye, where they are interpreted as cross-shaped female earrings. They differ only in size: the ones on the Kirzhakul mold are smaller (8 mm by 6 mm vs 10 mm by 12 mm). ***This fragment corresponds to the negative imprint on the Staro-Kumlyakskoye mold intended for manufacturing Àowershaped earrings mentioned above.
0
2 cm
Fig. 4. Mold from Staro-Kumlyakskoye I (after (Arkaim..., 2009)).
this variant, the completing operations were forging and chasing of the artifact’s entire surface. Thus, casting in a pro¿led mold that requires intensive heating would appear irrational as it is much easier to use a plate. Precious metals, which were well known to the local population, are different however (Salnkov, 1967: 278–279). Precious metals are more plastic, although refractory, too. The second explanation, which would seem more well-founded, is based on the supposition that it was precisely these materials (poorly represented at burial sites) that were used in everyday life. The artifacts described and cast of bronze are rather massive and were not used as ornaments, but rather as dies. The cladding technique is well documented both in the Alakul and preceding assemblages (Vinogradov, 1984; Gening V.F., Zdanovich, Gening V.V., 1992: ¿g. 82, 2; 153, 4; Kupriyanova, 2008). Gold (or silver foil) due to its high plasticity easily takes the form of the matrix. The fact that no such adornment has been recorded is basically an indirect argument since no information is available on the criteria underlying the choice of funerary artifacts* or their resemblance with everyday *It will suffice to mention the Fedorovka sites in the Eastern Urals that yielded no bell-shaped earrings (Stafanov, Korochkova, 2006: 126), although they are considered to be one of the main attributes of this group of monuments. Instead, such earrings (including those made of gold) are widely spread in the eastern Andronovo area (Avanesov, 1991: ¿g. 43).
85
86
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
counterparts. Because of their high value ornaments made of precious metals had to be used with great care and passed down from generation to generation. This circumstance greatly reduces the risk of their loss by the owner and likewise, decreases the possibility of ¿nding them in the archaeological context. The function of the Kirzhakul mold is evidenced by the presence of metal, possibly copper* in the central pit of the “rosette.” This is a drop-shaped tawny piece of metal measuring 5–7 ȝ. This, however, does not provide a conclusive answer to the question of the function of this part of the mold either. The metal fragment may be a part of a thin perforating tool that was broken off during the manufacturing operation. However, it is still possible to interpret it as part of a rod used for ¿tting mold halves during the casting process. Conclusions In sum, adornments used by the Alakul people of the Eastern Urals have turned out to be much more varied than they were previously believed to be. Researchers have proceeded from the seemingly self-evident assumption that the ritual (funerary) attire is virtually identical to the actual costume. Precious metals could have been more widely used than the ¿nds from cemeteries suggest. In the author’s opinion, this explanation is more plausible than the idea of the experimental nature of the respective artifacts (see above). One of the arguments in favor of our explanation is the well-known fact that mythological thinking was oriented towards automatic reproduction rather than creation. One of the illustrative examples concerns the way armorers and jewelers in Kubachi, Dagestan, adhere to their age-old techniques. A visitor’s (an engineer named N. Baklanov) attempts to urge a Kubachi artisan to deviate from the canon in terms of size or shape of artifacts produced proved unsuccessful, “because the work was so routine and the use of technological practices acquired in childhood was so automatic” (Chernykh, 2007: 118, 176–177). As far as the Bronze Age is concerned, a similarly strong adherence to tradition among artisans is to be expected. This is all the more likely because technologically the jewelers’ craft is by no means simpler than that of, for example, metallurgists, as indicated by the variety of techniques, sophistication of metal ornaments, and their considerable number in cemeteries and partly in settlements. The rarity of molds may evidence their value to the artisans and the fact that jewelers were relatively few in number. *Regrettably, A.M. Yuminov (Institute of Mineralogy, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) could only visually examine a small metal sample deeply stuck in the stone base. Its extraction for analytical procedures will entail a partial destruction of the artifact.
Acknowledgments My special thanks go to D. Shageyev, pupil of the Techensky secondary school, who found the mold, and to his teacher V.A. Kandaurov, who assisted in handing over the ¿nd to the Chelyabinsk Museum of Regional Studies. I am indebted to N.B. Vinogradov (Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University) and Y.P. Chemyakin (Ural State University) for the information about unpublished analogues; to V.V. Zaikov and A.M. Yumonov (Institute of Mineralogy, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) for analytical works; and to A.G. Bersenev for the use-wear analysis and photography. I am appreciative of the assistance of A.E. Grishin (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS) who drew my attention to the analogue from the Tartas-1 burial ground and to N.I. Chuyev who helped me in mapping the sites.
References Arkaim: U istokov tsivilizatsii. 2009 G.B. Zdanovich (ed.). Chelyabinsk: Arkaim. Avanesova N.A. 1991 Kultura pastusheskikh plemen epokhi bronzy aziatskoi chasti SSSR. Tashkent: Fan. Chemyakin Y.P. 1976 Otchet ob arkheologicheskoi razvedke na territorii, podchinennoi gorodu Plast v Chelyabinskoi oblasti, proizvedennoi v 1976 godu. Sverdlovsk. Archive kafedry arkheologii UrGU. F. II, D. 301. Chernykh E.N. 1970 Drevneishaya metallurgiya Urala i Povolzhya. Moscow: Nauka. (MIA; No. 172). Chernykh E.N. 2007 Kargaly. Vol. 5: Fenomen i paradoksy razvitiya; Kargaly v sisteme metallurgicheskikh provintsii; Potaennaya (sakralnaya) zhizn arkhaichnykh gornyakov i metallurgov. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kultury. Chernykh E.N. 2008 Formation of the Eurasian “steppe belt” of stockbreeding cultures: Viewed through the prism of archaeometallurgy and radiocarbon dating. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 3: 36–53. Epimakhov A.B. 2007 Otnositelnaya i absolyutnaya khronologiya sintashtinskikh pamyatnikov v svete radiokarbonnykh datirovok. Problemy istorii, ¿lologii, kultury (Moscow, Magnitogorsk, Novosibirsk), iss. 17: 402–421. Epimakhov A.V., Epimakhova M.G. 2002 Poseleniye pozdnei bronzy Kamennaya Rechka III. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnogra¿i (Tyumen), No. 4: 96–105. Epimakhov A.V., Epimakhova M.G. 2004 Novye materialy po alakulskomu kostyumu. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, Ser. 1: Istoricheskiye nauki, No. 2: 112–128. Evdokimov V.V., Usmanova E.R. 1990 Znakovyi status ukrashenii v pogrebalnom obryade (po materialam mogilnikov andronovskoi kulturno-istoricheskoi obschnosti iz Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana). In Arkheologiya Volgo-Uralskikh stepei. Chelyabinsk: Izd. Chelyab. Gos. Univ., pp. 66–80.
A.V. Epimakhov / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 82–87
Flek E.V. 2009 Tehnologiya izgotovleniya metallicheskikh ukrashenii alakulskoi kultury (krestovidnye podveski, blyashki). In Rol estestvenno-nauchnykh metodov v arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh. Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ., pp. 339–341. Gening V.F., Zdanovich G.B., Gening V.V. 1992 Sintashta: Arkheologicheskii pamyatnik ariiskikh plemen Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepei, vol. 1. Chelyabinsk: YuzhnoUral. knizh. izd. Krivtsova-Grakova O.A. 1948 Alekseyevskoe poseleniye i mogilnik. Trudy GIM, iss. 17: 57–164. Kupriyanova E.V. 2008 Ten zhenschiny: Zhenski kostyum epokhi bronzy kak «tekst»: Po materialam nekropolei Yuzhnogo Zauralya i Kazakhstana. Chelyabinsk: Avto Graf. Kuzmina E.E. 1994 Otkuda prishli indoarii. Materialnaya kultura plemen andronovskoi obschnosti i proiskhozhdenie indoirantsev. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura. Markov S.V. 1987 Otchet ob arkheologicheskoi razvedke, provedennoi v 1986 godu po reke Kumlyak v Plastskom i Uiskom raionakh Chelyabinskoi oblasti. Plast. Archive LAI ChGPU. F. I. D. 14. Matveyev A.V. 1998 Pervye andronovtsy v lesakh Zauralya. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Matyuschenko V.I. 2004 Elovski arkheologicheski kompleks. Pt. 2. Elovski II mogilnik: Doirmenskiye kompleksy. Omsk: Izd. Omsk. Gos. Univ. Molodin V.I., Parzinger G., Grishin A.E., Pieczonka H., Marchenko Z.V., Novikova O.I., Garkusha Y.N., Mylnikova L.N., Rybina E.V., Chemyakina M.A., Shatov A.G. 2005 Polevye issledovaniya na mogilnike Tartas-1 v 2005 godu (Barabinskaya lesostep). In Problemy arkheologii, etnogra¿i, antoropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 9, pt. 1. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 412–417.
87
Naumenko O.I. 2003 Otchet ob arkheologicheskoi razvedke ozera Kiryakul v Sosnovskom raione Chelyabinskoi oblasti v 2002 godu. Chelyabinsk. Archive LAI CHGPU. F. I, D. 35. Obydennov M.F., Obydennova G.T. 1992 Severo-vostochnaya periferiya srubnoi kulturno-istoricheskoi obschnosti. Samara: Izd. Samar. Gos. Univ. Potemkina T.M. 1985 Bronzovyi vek lesostepnogo Pritobolya. Moscow: Nauka. Salnikov K.V. 1954 Andronovskiye poseleniya Zauralya. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 20: 213–252. Salnikov K.V. 1967 Ocherki drevnei istorii Yuzhnogo Urala. Moscow: Nauka. Sorokin V.S. 1962 Mogilnik bronzovoi epokhi Tasty-Butak I v Zapadnom Kazakhstane. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 120). Stefanov V.I., Korochkova O.N. 2006 Urefty I: Zauralski pamyatnik v andronovskom kontekste. Yekaterinburg: Izd. Ural. Gos. Univ. Umansky A.P., Kiryushin Y.F., Grushin S.P. 2007 Pogrebalnyi obryad naseleniya andronovskoi kultury Prichumyshya (po materialam mogilnika Kytmanovo). Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ. Usmanova E.R. 2005 Mogilnik Lisakovskii I: Fakty i paralleli. Karaganda; Lisakovsk. Vinogradov N.B. 1984 Kulevchi VI – novyi alakulski mogilnik v lesostepi Yuzhnogo Zauralya. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 3: 136–153.
Received May 6, 2010.