- Email: [email protected]
WOODEN ARTIFACTS FROM YALOMAN II MOUND 31, THE ALTAI
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA
Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102 E-mail: [email protected]
93
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
A.A. Tishkin1 and V.P. Mylnikov2 Altai State University, Lenina 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 1
WOODEN ARTIFACTS FROM YALOMAN II MOUND 31, THE ALTAI*
Introduction Excavations of mounds dating to the Scytho-Sacaean period have yielded a huge body of archaeological evidence. Some artifacts, including hundreds of functionally diverse wooden artifacts, are unusually well preserved. Their comprehensive analysis has greatly enhanced our knowledge of woodworking which is one of the oldest crafts practiced by the people of Southern Siberia (Semenov, 1956; Mylnikov, 1999; Mylnikov et al., 2002; Samashev, Mylnikov, 2004). The form, manufacture, and use of the artifacts under study have been reconstructed based on the results of usewear analysis of imprints left by tools, and experiments in replication and application. Three main aspects of the woodworking craft have been analyzed: construction, carpentry, and carving (both simple and artistic). The results of functional analysis have led to a classication of the artifacts based on these three aspects and basic types of burial structures have been described. These studies have revealed a longstanding tradition. Various woodworking techniques have been described with regard to the properties of various varieties of wood. *This study was conducted under the program “Northern Asia during the Early Metal Age: Ethnological and Cultural Origins” (Project: “Comprehensive Study of the Material Culture and Ethnic History of Eurasia in the Holocene”), supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project 07-06-00341).
These properties have been shown to have affected the shape of implements and their structures. Ideological and ethnic factors have also proved signicant. Excavations of sites attributed to the Bulan-Koba culture (2nd cent. BC – early 5th cent. AD) situated near the mouth of the Bolshoy Yaloman (a left tributary of the Katun River, Ongudai Region, Altai Republic) have demonstrated that a number of stone cists contained excellently preserved artifacts made from organic materials (Tishkin, 2005, 2007b; Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003, 2006; Gorbunov, Tishkin, 2006). A comprehensive and comparative study of wooden artifacts from Yaloman II will hopefully offer some insight into the evolution of woodworking in the Altai during the Hunno-Sarmatian period (Savinov, 2002: 150). New data should also extend available information concerning woodworking traditions in the post-Pazyryk period. Based on the technological analysis of artifacts from Yaloman II, the following functional categories of wooden artifacts have been described: burial structures (“roofs,” combined stone and wooden structures in cists), dug-out coffins made of coniferous trees), vessels (dishes with or without stands, beakers, and pots), weapons (wooden parts of bows, details of bowcases, arrow shafts, model of pickaxe), details of horse harness (cheek pieces, complex saddles with seats and arches), awl handles, items of personal attire (combined combs on wooden bases, combs made of a single piece of wood, etc.), and hollowed-out cases with lids for storing implements (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: 488, 491;
Copyright © 2008, 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.2008.04.008
94
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
Tishkin, 2005, 2007a). Other artifacts include those made of birch-bark, wooden bases for metal work, etc.* Preliminary results of technical and technological analysis of wooden artifacts Burial mound 31 of the Yaloman II funerary complex dates back to the second half of the 4th – rst half of the 5th cent. BC (Zhuzha period) and is attributed to the Bulan-Koba culture (the Verkh-Uimon stage) (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: 493; 2005: 161; Tishkin, 2006: 31). The mound represents a “typical” cenotaph (Tishkin, Gushin, 1997). The stone cist contained numerous artifacts found in a good state of preservation due to the quality of the burial construction and substitution of the body of the deceased with a birch bark gure (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: 491; Tishkin, 2005: 67, g. 400 – 405). Vessels Vessel made from tree burl (Fig. 1, 1). This vessel with a small handle was made of a whole birch burl. The wood structure is degraded showing heavy porosity, serration, and shape deformation. The vessel measures 22.4 cm high; body 15.5 cm in diameter; the walls are 3.5 cm thick. The rim of the vessel measures 9.6 × 8.5 cm in diameter and 3.5 cm high. The bottom of the vessel is heavily misshapen. It was most likely damaged by a liquid food stored inside. The bottom is approx. 6 cm in diameter and 0.6 – 0.8 cm thick. A rounded handle triangular in cross-section with a hole is carved on one side of the vessel. Its height on the body is 5cm; width, 3.5 cm; thickness of the body, 1.6 cm. The hole was made with a chisel; the interior surface of the handle was smoothed with a featheredge knife and polished by an abrasive. The dimensions of the hole measure 2.2 × 1.5 cm most likely corresponding to the size of an adult’s forenger. The vessel seems to have been held with three ngers: the forenger was placed in the hole and the object held with the thumb and middle nger. The vessel was manufactured by a skillful craftsman. This supposition is supported by the proportional thickness of the bottom and walls, neck and the body diameter as well as extremely accurate working of the surface. Despite considerable deformation and degradation of the wood, the exterior and interior surfaces reveal traits of primary (surfacing with a cutting *The xylotomic analysis of various samples was conducted by M.I. Kolosova at the State Hermitage Department of Sciencebased Methods (St. Petersburg).
tool) and secondary (polishing) working. A rectangular opening (8 × 3 mm) can be observed on the vessel body to the right of the handle, 7 cm below the rim. No traces of working have been found inside the opening. This is possibly a knothole geometrically regular in shape. Table-dish with four ¿xed legs (Fig. 2). This tabledish was manufactured from a whole root part of an at least 100 year-old birch. It is rectangular in shape with rounded corners (34.5 × 26.5 cm). One of the corners is slightly decomposed; another is missing. The bottom is deeply fractured in various directions. The outer side of the table-dish rim is 4 – 4.5 cm high; inner rim is 3.5 – 3.7 cm high. The rim is 0.5 cm thick at the top and 0.8 cm thick at the bottom. The thickness of the bottom measures 0.7 – 0.8 cm. Two legs are heavily deformed while the other two are well preserved. Judging by the preserved legs, they were cylindrical in form with one pointed edge. The legs are similar in cross-section to the handles of some Pazyryk chekan pick-axe. The legs are 3.7 – 3.8 cm high and 3.3 × 2.5 cm in cross-section. To make the table-dish more steady the legs were xed at a small angle (10 – 15°) to the border. The entire surface of the table-dish, as well as the legs’ basic surface, was thoroughly polished. The interior surface of the table-dish bears a few traces of cutting from chopping meat. A sub-square hole can be observed on the bottom in the middle of a long sideboard, 3 cm from the center. Two wooden nails are wedged in the opposite corners of the hole. The interior side reveals a spiral curl of a woodknob with pointed nail tops severed with a chisel. These possibly represent traces of repair or remedying of a defect that had appeared during the course of manufacture. Weapons Bow. The use-wear, technological, and typological analyses suggest that each bow represented a separate weapon composed of well-matching elements. Only skilled masters were able to manufacture a bow of such quality which could take several years to make (Okladnikov, 1940; 1950: 204 – 205). As experiments have demonstrated, manufacturing even a simple wooden bow required technical knowledge, considerable skill, and time. The process involves virtually all basic and optional woodworking operations. The earliest bow made of a whole piece of wood was found in Mesolithic sediments of Holmegaart in Denmark (Clark, 1953: pl. 1, g. 1). Reexive bone plates for the Neolithic bows have been recovered from burial grounds of the Serovo culture in the Cis-Baikal region. (Okladnikov, 1950: 220 – 224). No complete
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
0
0
3 cm
3 cm
1 2
Fig. 1. Vessel made of tree burl (1) and box (2).
0
0
3 cm
Ɋɢɫ. 2. Table-dish.
3 cm
95
96
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
bows have been found at Bronze and Iron Age sites in North and Central Asia. The available specimens are represented by fragments only. Some fragments were uncovered in the Altai, Tuva, Mongolia, and adjacent territories (Surazakov, 1983; Novgorodova, 1989: 329, 334, 335, 341; Kubarev, 1991: 83; 1992: 69 – 70; Kocheyev, 1997; Gorbunov, 2006: 13 – 14). It is not possible to reconstruct the complete process of bow manufacture. Researchers suppose that two types of bow existed during the Scythian and Sarmatian times in the steppes of North and Central Asia: short battle “Scythian” (100 cm long) sigmoid bows and long “hunting” (120 – 135 m long) simple segmental bows (Melyukova, 1964: 14 – 15; Volkov, 1967: 25 – 26; Kubarev, 1987: 69; 1992: 70 – 71). The available fragments of a bow grip and limbs suggest that the Pazyryk and Sauromatian bows were manufactured of several at thin plates of different kinds of wood. This technological method was applied to increase resiliency and the destructive power of the bow no less essential since these bows lacked reexive bone covers, which were added to increase killing power (Smirnov, 1961: 32; Khazanov, 1966; Hudiakov, 1980: 66 – 75). To x the plates rmly, joining surfaces of wooden plates, oval and rectangular in cross section, were covered with incisions. The details glued together were enveloped in thin birch bark or skin and then tied up with sinews following the oblique notches made on the edges of the facets. In Tuva, judging from bow fragments from the Holash and Saryg-Bulun burial grounds (Semenov, 1997: 17 – 18), bows were made as follows: A birch frame, segmental in cross-section and 4 cm wide, was glued over with sh skin over the entire surface. The grip was rmly wound with thin sinews to increase the killing power and elasticity. The reconstructed length of the bow measures 127 – 130 cm. Mound 31 of Yaloman II contained fragments of the central part and limbs of a bow (Fig. 3). Preliminary usewear analysis shows that the bow was composed of two suitably matched birch blanks. Having been primarily
0
1 cm
worked, the two blanks were firmly attached to each other in the center of a riser along long oblique hatched planes with an adhesive material and bone pieces. Then they were rmly wound with sinews. The central part of a riser and wide limb sides were placed perpendicular to each other. The preserved part of a riser with a limb fragment is composed of two elements bound together with an adhesive. The place of attachment is xed. The glued surfaces were covered with oblique criss-crossing notches made by a knife to secure solidity of the joint. Surfaces for attaching end bone plates were worked in a similar way. The reconstructed length of the bow measures 143 – 150 cm (Gorbunov, 2006: fig. 11, 1; Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007: 166). Arrow shafts (Fig. 4). The assemblage totals 33 specimens of different size and state of preservation. In addition, 31 iron arrowheads were found (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007: 168). All the shafts were made from birch blanks. They are round in cross-section; their lower, middle, and upper parts are distinctly different in diameter, securing greater stability of the arrow during flight. The shafts are thoroughly made, apparently following standards. The use-wear analyses of the shafts’ surface made it possible to reconstruct several operations: initial – cutting (transversal and oblique) and shaping/ chipping (longitudinal and notched); secondary – smoothing (attening of the wood to make the implement rmer) and polishing. The shafts can be classied into two types: (1) shafts bearing slightly visible thickening at the end with a nock designed for ngers (15 specimens); and (2) shafts bearing a denite narrowing at the end with a nock designed for ngers (17 specimens). The reconstructed length of complete specimens is 70 cm (Ibid.). The shafts are 4 – 5 mm in diameter at the part designed for the ngers, 6 – 7 mm at the thick end with a nock, 7 – 8 mm in the middle of the shaft, 5 – 6 mm where the arrowhead is attached. The end with a nock measures 2.5 – 3 cm long. The nocks measure 5 – 6 mm wide and 6 – 7 mm deep.
1 2
Fig. 3. Bow. 1 – limb; 2 – fragments of the central part.
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
97
0 1 cm 0 1 cm
Fig. 4. Arrow shafts.
In most shafts, the area above the grip, where the wing was attached, is painted with natural dyes (black in four specimens and red in the remaining ones). On some shafts, the area of the etching attachment is bordered by one to three black lines 2 mm thick. Some shafts are composed of two fragments: their symmetrically cut wedge-shaped edges are glued. Similar wedge-shaped pointed cuts are observed on some short shafts bearing iron trilobite arrowheads with a bone whistle. Quiver (Fig. 5). Numerous fragments of a composite quiver made of wood and a canvas were found. Wooden elements include a bottom, upper lid, side plates (carved for a belt and frame with rows of paired holes), and a hook. The quiver bottom represents a circular platform with a at base, slightly concave sides, and proled interior surface in the form of a conical protuberance bearing a hemi-spherical hollow. The platform is 8 cm in diameter at the bottom and 9 cm at the top; height, 1.7 cm. The sides incline at an angle of 15° and are approx. 1 cm thick. The central hollow is approx. 3 cm in diameter. Nine hollows 3 mm in diameter probably intended for fastening a textile bag for arrows are drilled on the interior surface along the rim of the bottom. The quiver’s upper lid is hoof-shaped. It has a at upper surface, slanting sides, and a convex spherical lower surface. The at upper surface of the lid is 7.8 cm long; the lower proled surface, 8.4 cm long. The maximum thickness is 5.2 cm, height, 1.4 cm. Ten hollows of similar
diameter for attaching the upper edge of the arrow bag were made along the exterior edge of the lid at an equal distance from each other. A carved lateral frame attached to a waist or shoulder belt represents an elongate conical plate (23 cm long), arch-shaped in prole. The batten is 16 and 9 mm wide and 13 and 10 mm thick. Regular notches 2 mm deep and 11 mm wide are made at the base on the at surface 2 cm from the batten ends. Two holes 2 mm in diameter are made on each side of the notches. At the opposite end of the plate, grooves for straps are carved. The wider end of the plate bears a thin oval protuberance 2 mm thick, 6 mm wide, and 9 mm long. The lateral frame plates (ribs of the cloth bag) have equal spaced pairs of holes with grooves between them and are composed of several wooden fragments, arched in cross-section, and varying in length, 6 – 8 mm wide and 4 – 5 mm thick. The reconstructed quiver is a long tube-like bag made of cloth with a wooden circular bottom and crescent top, three lateral plates, an attachment for a strap, and a pocket (Gorbunov, 2006: g. 11, 4; Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007: 168, g. 3, 1). One more wooden element – a long fragment of a round-triangular plate 7 – 9 mm thick bearing a carved hook-shaped protuberance – was found among the quiver fragments. The function of this artifact is unknown. The quiver was decorated with appliqués cut out of bark (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007, Fig. 3, 1, 4).
98
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
0 1 cm
the interior surface of the tree. This part may not have been subjected to secondary treatment. The exterior surface is well polished and bears no traces of primary working. Notably, burial 1 of mound 33 at Yaloman II contained an almost complete wooden base of a solid saddle without stirrups (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: g. 2, 4 – 7). These artifacts are relevant in understanding the evolution of the saddle (Savinov, 2005; Hudiakov, Komissarov, 2006). Tool kit
Ɋɢɫ. 5. Quiver.
Horse harness parts Wooden saddle base. Poorly preserved fragments of a wooden saddle (parts of a tree, a pommel, and a cantle made of birch) were found. Holes for the pommel and a cantle fastening are of two kinds – rounded (3 mm in diameter), made with a drill or a reamer, and subsquare (4 × 4 mm) made with a chisel. These are located 2.2 cm apart. Traces of axe blade can be seen on
Box (see Fig. 1, 2). The box made of a soft wood fragment was intended for storage purposes. It measures 33 cm long, 8.7 – 8.9 cm wide, and 5.7 – 6.4 cm high. The bottom of the box is 6 – 8 mm thick, the sideboards, 5 mm thick, the lower part of the butt walls, 10 mm thick and their upper part, 25 mm thick. The wood is moderately preserved; the butts are cracked. A large irregular hole caused by wood decay can be seen on the bottom. One lateral board is complete and another one is slightly rotten bearing a transverse fracture in the middle. The complete board has two subsquare holes (3 × 3 mm) 1.6 cm down the edge. They were executed with a chisel with a ne at cutting edge. In the middle of the opposite board, only one hole has been recorded. Each butt-end of the box is evenly pointed from four sides to the center. One of the butts bears a hole in the form of a truncated pyramid 7 × 7 cm in perimeter from the exterior surface and 4 × 4 cm from the interior surface. It was cut with a ne chisel 1.2 cm from the box edge. On the inside, both butts were treated with a small chisel or an adze. Judging by the location and character of cutting marks, blows were directed downward. Techniques of surface working and execution of the cavity are similar to those utilized for manufacturing a large block. The box lid is made of Siberian pine. It is at, 32 cm long, 8 cm wide, and 0.6 cm thick. The butts of the lid are straight and slanting to the bottom. There are three holes matching those on the box. The lid may have been attached with rawhide straps passing through the double openings. The single opening may have corresponded to a lock, which possibly also included a strap. The outer surface of the long sides and the top surface of the lid are covered by numerous intersecting incisions made with a knife and probably resulting from cutting leather or birch bark, with the box being used as a support. Some ne indistinct marks or patterns are present on the rims. Fragment of an iron awl with shaft (Fig. 6, 7). A metal awl inserted into a wooden shaft was found inside the box. The shaft is circular in cross-section with a spherical bulb at the end, made of a birch blank. The
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
99
0 1 cm
2
1 cm
0
3
1 cm
0
4
5
1 cm
0
1 0
1 cm 0
1 cm
7
6
0
1 cm
Ɋɢɫ. 6. Birch bark anthropomorphic gure and accompanying artifacts. 1 – anthropomorphic gure; 2 – comb fragment; 3 – fragments of a snake-like piece; 4 – “playing (divination) beans”; 5 – thin wooden pipe (a writing implement?); 6 – items of indenite function (rods); 7 – fragment of an iron awl with a shaft.
shaft measures 6.4 cm long; the bulb, 1.6 cm long and 2.1 cm in diameter. The smoothed surface of the shaft suggests intensive use of the artifact. The working element is a corroded iron stick, square in cross-section (4 × 4 mm). The preserved part measures 1.8 cm long. The awl was inserted into a square hole made with a ne chisel and slightly hammered into the shaft. A redhot metal rod or the awl itself could have been used to make the hole. For stronger xation the metal awl was probably stuck with glue.
A fragment of heavily corroded pointed rod, circular in cross-section (the top of the working element) was found near the awl. This fragment measures 10.2 cm long and 0.8 cm in diameter. Item of personal attire Comb fragment (Fig. 6, 2). The fragment with ve teeth measures 5.3 cm long, 1.8 cm wide, and 0.4 cm thick.
100
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
The comb was manufactured from a one-piece blank. The teeth, similar in length (2.6 – 2.9 cm) and width (2.5 mm), are cut out with a thin knife. The surface of the comb top is covered with a delicate carved herring-bone pattern. Despite its relatively short teeth, the comb may have been used as a decorated hair pin. Ritual and other objects Fragment resembling a snake (Fig. 6, 3). This item circular in cross-section was probably manufactured from a one-piece blank – a tree root twig. The wood is dark showing traces of decay. Two of the three preserved elements of the item greatly resemble a snake’s body with its major features: gradual proportionate decrease in diameter from a rounded head to a pointed conical tail. One fragment bearing a circular and oval thickening at the end seems to represent the snake’s head and a part of a body. A hole, 1.5 mm in diameter, featuring the snake’s eye can be observed in the middle of the oval head. This fragment measures 7.7 cm long; the oval head, 1 cm in diameter; the remaining part of the fragment measures 0.5 cm in diameter. The second fragment most probably renders the snake’s body and tail. The fragment is conical, 6.4 cm long, 0.4 cm in diameter at the bend, and 0.2 cm at the pointed tail. The pointed tip bears a delicate conical thickening thoroughly pointed by ne cuts. “Playing (divination) beans” (Fig. 6, 4). In form these wooden artifacts bear a strong resemblance to beans. Nine complete specimens were found. One face of the “beans” is round; the other has two surfaces sloping towards the center. The edges are narrow, which make one “bean” strongly reminiscent of a sunflower seed. Some have slightly concave edges. Sloping surfaces of three items are covered by carved double crossed lines resembling an X or a slanting cross framed with four angle brackets. The opposite face bears carved transversal notches, subcircular or square in cross-section, 2 mm wide and 2 mm deep. The sloping surfaces of these “beans” are covered with glued ne bark sheets. Thin wooden pipe (a writing implement?) (Fig. 6, 5). Two fragments were found of a thin (2.5 mm in diameter) rod (a twig) with a longitudinal through hole. One piece measures 5.4 cm long. It retains a shiny coating made of very ne bark. The second fragment measures 6.2 cm long. The preserved end has a regular oblique cut at 45 – 55°, reminiscent of a quill and thus possibly evidencing a previously unrecorded graphic practice. Items of indefinite function (Fig. 6, 6). Five well-preserved conical elongated rods circular in
cross-section were found. These measure 5 – 8 cm in diameter, 3.5, 4, 4.3, 5, and 6 cm long. The three longest rods have thoroughly pointed ends; two shorter ones have truncated ends. The former have flat cut-off base ends, the latter – semispherical ones. One side of a short rod bears a tiny notched cut made with a knife. Large birch bark human ¿gure (Fig. 6, 1). Since human remains were absent in the stone cyst, a stylized birch bark anthropomorphic gure substituted for the deceased. The gure measures 36 cm long; 10 cm wide at the shoulders, and 8 cm wide at the chest and hipline. A hole, 2 mm in diameter, is perforated at the navel area. Two holes represent the eyes. Morphologically, the birch bark gure is analogous to the anthropomorphic representations from the Aimyrlyg burial ground (Stepnaya polosa…, 1992: pl. 78, 44 – 46). A similar object was found at the Novotroitskoe I site of the Kamenka culture (Early Iron Age) (Umansky, 1992: 54, g. on p. 110). Conclusions Excavations of sites dating to the 2nd-cent. BC – early 5th cent. AD in the Altai have yielded unusually well preserved wooden artifacts, providing an opportunity to reconstruct principal woodworking practices. The results will be compared with those concerning adjacent territories such as Tuva (Weinstein, 1970; Dyakonova, 1970a, b; Mandelstam, Stambulnik, 1992; and others). The large number of artifacts, their diversity and high quality indicate that the level of woodworking in the Altai during the Hunno-Sarmatian period was quite sophisticated. The results of our pilot analysis evidence construction practices such as the making of funerary structures, and carpentry, which included the production of dishes, weapons, personal items of attire, domestic, and ritual items. A noteworthy feature is the virtual absence of ornamental carving. Judging by our ndings, this tendency began in the late Pazyryk period. It can probably be explained by the disruption of old traditions by a people associated with a new culture, and by the loss of carving skills, which had reached a peak during the Scytho-Sacaean period. In the Hunnu age, complex ornamental carving gave way to simple geometric designs, which could easily be reproduced by carvers of later periods. Generally, 2nd-cent. BC – early 5th cent. AD woodworking was still a domestic craft and the bulk of necessary artifacts were manufactured everywhere. More complex artifacts, primarily weapons, were made by more experienced carvers.
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
References Clark J.G. 1953 Doistoricheskaya Evropa: Ekonomicheskii ocherk. Moscow: Izd. inostrannaya literatura. Dyakonova V.P. 1970a Bolshie kurgany-kladbischa na mogilnike Kokel (po rezultatam raskopok za 1963, 1965 gg.). In Trudy Tuvinskoi kompleksnoi arkheologo-etnograficheskoi ekspeditsii. Vol. 3: Materialy po arkheologii i antropologii mogilnika Kokel. Lenigrad: Nauka, pp. 80 – 209. Dyakonova V.P. 1970b Arkheologicheskie raskopki na mogilnike Kokel v 1966 g. In Trudy Tuvinskoi kompleksnoi arkheologoetnograficheskoi ekspeditsii. Vol. 3: Materialy po arkheologii i antropologii mogilnika Kokel. Lenigrad: Nauka, pp. 210 – 238. Gorbunov V.V. 2006 Voennoe delo naseleniya Altaya v III – XIV vv. Pt. 2: Nastupatelnoe vooruzhenie (oruzhie). Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ. Gorbunov V.V., Tishkin A.A. 2006 Weapons of the Gorny Altai nomads in the Hunnu age. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4: 79 – 85. Hudiakov Y.S. 1980 Vooruzhenie yeniseiskikh kyrgyzov VI – XII vv. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Hudiakov Y.S., Komissarov S.A. 2006 Rol syanbi v razvitii konskogo snaryazheniya i zaschitnogo oblacheniya pantsirnoi konnitsy v Tsentralnoi Azii. In Integratsiya arkheologicheskikh i etnogra¿cheskikh issledovanii. Krasnoyarsk, Omsk: Izd. dom “Nauka”, pp. 124 – 128. Khazanov A.M. 1966 Slozhnye luki Evraziiskikh stepei i Irana v skifo-sarmatskuyu epokhu. In Materialnaya kultura narodov Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 29 – 44. Kocheev V.A. 1997 Luki gorno-altaiskikh kurganov (k voprosu o lukakh skifskogo vremeni Gornogo Altaya). Izvestiya laboratorii arkheologii. Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Univ., No. 2: 147 – 152. Kubarev V.D. 1987 Kurgany Ulandryka. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 1991 Kurgany Yustyda. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 1992 Kurgany Saylyugema. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Mandelstam A.M., Stambulnik E.U. 1992 Gunno-sarmatskii period na territorii Tuvy. In Stepnaya polosa aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoe vremya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 196 – 205. (Arkheologiya SSSR). Melyukova A.I. 1964 Vo o r u z h e n i e s k i f o v. M o s c o w : N a u k a . ( S v o d arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; vol. D 1–4). Mylnikov V.P. 1999 Obrabotka dereva nositelyami pazyrykskoi kultury. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN. Mylnikov V.P., Parzinger H., Chugunov K.V., Nagler A. 2002 Elitnoe pogrebalnoe sooruzhenie iz dereva v Tuve. In Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i
101
sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 8. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 396 – 402. Novgorodova E.A. 1989 Drevnaya Mongoliay. Moscow: Glav. red. vost. lit. Okladnikov A.P. 1940 K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii i meste luka v istorii kultury. KSIIMK, vol. 5: 17 – 22. Okladnikov A.P. 1950 Neolit i bronzovyi vek Pribaikalya: Istorikoarkheologicheskoe issledovanie, pt. 1/2. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 18). Samashev Z.S., Mylnikov V.P. 2004 Derevoobrabotka u drevnikh skotovodov Kazakhskogo Altaya: (Materialy kompleksnogo analiza derevyannykh predmetov iz kurgana 11 mogilnika Berel). Almaty: Berel. Savinov D.G. 2002 Ranniye kochevniki verkhnego Yeniseya: (Arkheologicheskie kultury i kulturogenez). St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ. Savinov D.G. 2005 Paradnye sedla s geraldicheskimi izobrazheniyami zhivotnykh. In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri, iss. 23. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, pp. 19 – 24. Semenov A.I. 1956 Obrabotka dereva na drevnem Altae. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, vol. 26: 204 – 230. Semenov V.A. 1997 Mongun Taiga: (Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Tuve v 1994 – 1995 gg.). St. Petersburg: Izd. IIMK RAN. Smirnov K.F. 1961 Vooruzhenie savromatov. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR (MIA; No. 101). Stepnaya polosa aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifosarmatskoe vremya. 1992 Moscow: Nauka. (Arkheologiya SSSR). Surazakov A.S. 1983 Kurgany epokhi rannego zheleza v mogilnike KyzykTelan I. In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Gornom Altae v 1980 – 1982 godakh. Gorno-Altaisk: GANIIIYL, pp. 42 – 52. Tishkin A.A. 2005 Otchet o provedenii arkheologicheskikh issledovanii v Ongudaiskom raione Respubliki Altai i v Pervomaiskom raione Altaiskogo kraya letom i oseniu 2003 g. Barnaul: Alt. Gos. Univ. (Arkhiv Muzeya arkheologii i etnograi Altaya Altai. Gos. Univ; No. 220). Tishkin A.A. 2006 Altai v epokhu pozdnei drevnosti, rannego i razvitogo srednevekovya (kulturno-khronologicheskie kontseptsii i etnokulturnaya istoriya). D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Barnaul. Tishkin A.A. 2007a Kitaiskie izdeliya v materialnoi kulture kochevnikov Altaya (vtoraya polovina I tysyacheletiya do n.e.). In Etnoistoriya i arkheologiya Severnoi Evrazii: teoriya, metodologiya i praktika issledovaniya. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkut. Gos. Tekhn. Univ., pp. 176 – 184. Tishkin A.A. 2007b Fiksatsiya arkheologicheskikh obyektov v Gornom Altae: Opyt takheometricheskoi syemki kompleksa pamyatnikov okolo ustya reki Bolshoi Yaloman. In Pogrebalnye kompleksy s merzlotoi v gorah Altaja: strategii i perspektivy. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Univ., pp. 104 – 109.
102
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
Tishkin A.A., Gorbunov V.V. 2003 Issledovanie pogrebalno-pominalnykh pamyatnikov kochevnikov v Tsentralnom Altae. In Problemy arkheologii, etnogra¿i, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 9, pt. 1. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 488 – 493. Tishkin A.A., Gorbunov V.V. 2005 Kompleks arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov v doline r. Biike (Gorny Altai). Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ. Tishkin A.A., Gorbunov V.V. 2007 Kompleks vooruzheniya epokhi velikogo pereseleniya narodov iz Sayano-Altaya (po materialam mogilnika Yaloman II). In Vooruzhenie sarmatov: Regionalnaya tipologiya i khronologiya. Chelyabinsk: Izd. Yuzhno-Ural. Gos. Univ., pp. 164 – 172. Tishkin A.A., Grushin S.P. 1997 Chto takoe kenotaf? Izvestiya laboratorii arkheologii. Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Univ., No. 2, pp. 24 – 28.
Umansky A.P. 1992 O raskopkakh bliz Novotroitskogo v 1989 godu. In Problemy sokhraneniya, ispolzovaniya i izucheniya pamyatnikov arkheologii. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Ped. Inst.; GANIIIYL, pp. 53 – 55, 110. Volkov V.V. 1967 Bronzovy i zhelezny vek Severnoi Mongolii. Ulan-Bator: Izd. AN MNR. Weinstein S.I. 1970 Raskopki mogilnika Kokel v 1962 godu (pogrebeniya kazylganskoi i syyn-churekskoi kultur). In Trudy Tuvinskoi kompleksnoi arkheologo-etnograficheskoi ekspeditsii. Vol. 3: Materialy po arkheologii i antropologii mogilnika Kokel. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 7 – 79. Received June 19, 2007
Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102 E-mail: [email protected]
93
THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIOD
A.A. Tishkin1 and V.P. Mylnikov2 Altai State University, Lenina 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia E-mail: [email protected] 1
WOODEN ARTIFACTS FROM YALOMAN II MOUND 31, THE ALTAI*
Introduction Excavations of mounds dating to the Scytho-Sacaean period have yielded a huge body of archaeological evidence. Some artifacts, including hundreds of functionally diverse wooden artifacts, are unusually well preserved. Their comprehensive analysis has greatly enhanced our knowledge of woodworking which is one of the oldest crafts practiced by the people of Southern Siberia (Semenov, 1956; Mylnikov, 1999; Mylnikov et al., 2002; Samashev, Mylnikov, 2004). The form, manufacture, and use of the artifacts under study have been reconstructed based on the results of usewear analysis of imprints left by tools, and experiments in replication and application. Three main aspects of the woodworking craft have been analyzed: construction, carpentry, and carving (both simple and artistic). The results of functional analysis have led to a classication of the artifacts based on these three aspects and basic types of burial structures have been described. These studies have revealed a longstanding tradition. Various woodworking techniques have been described with regard to the properties of various varieties of wood. *This study was conducted under the program “Northern Asia during the Early Metal Age: Ethnological and Cultural Origins” (Project: “Comprehensive Study of the Material Culture and Ethnic History of Eurasia in the Holocene”), supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project 07-06-00341).
These properties have been shown to have affected the shape of implements and their structures. Ideological and ethnic factors have also proved signicant. Excavations of sites attributed to the Bulan-Koba culture (2nd cent. BC – early 5th cent. AD) situated near the mouth of the Bolshoy Yaloman (a left tributary of the Katun River, Ongudai Region, Altai Republic) have demonstrated that a number of stone cists contained excellently preserved artifacts made from organic materials (Tishkin, 2005, 2007b; Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003, 2006; Gorbunov, Tishkin, 2006). A comprehensive and comparative study of wooden artifacts from Yaloman II will hopefully offer some insight into the evolution of woodworking in the Altai during the Hunno-Sarmatian period (Savinov, 2002: 150). New data should also extend available information concerning woodworking traditions in the post-Pazyryk period. Based on the technological analysis of artifacts from Yaloman II, the following functional categories of wooden artifacts have been described: burial structures (“roofs,” combined stone and wooden structures in cists), dug-out coffins made of coniferous trees), vessels (dishes with or without stands, beakers, and pots), weapons (wooden parts of bows, details of bowcases, arrow shafts, model of pickaxe), details of horse harness (cheek pieces, complex saddles with seats and arches), awl handles, items of personal attire (combined combs on wooden bases, combs made of a single piece of wood, etc.), and hollowed-out cases with lids for storing implements (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: 488, 491;
Copyright © 2008, 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.2008.04.008
94
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
Tishkin, 2005, 2007a). Other artifacts include those made of birch-bark, wooden bases for metal work, etc.* Preliminary results of technical and technological analysis of wooden artifacts Burial mound 31 of the Yaloman II funerary complex dates back to the second half of the 4th – rst half of the 5th cent. BC (Zhuzha period) and is attributed to the Bulan-Koba culture (the Verkh-Uimon stage) (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: 493; 2005: 161; Tishkin, 2006: 31). The mound represents a “typical” cenotaph (Tishkin, Gushin, 1997). The stone cist contained numerous artifacts found in a good state of preservation due to the quality of the burial construction and substitution of the body of the deceased with a birch bark gure (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: 491; Tishkin, 2005: 67, g. 400 – 405). Vessels Vessel made from tree burl (Fig. 1, 1). This vessel with a small handle was made of a whole birch burl. The wood structure is degraded showing heavy porosity, serration, and shape deformation. The vessel measures 22.4 cm high; body 15.5 cm in diameter; the walls are 3.5 cm thick. The rim of the vessel measures 9.6 × 8.5 cm in diameter and 3.5 cm high. The bottom of the vessel is heavily misshapen. It was most likely damaged by a liquid food stored inside. The bottom is approx. 6 cm in diameter and 0.6 – 0.8 cm thick. A rounded handle triangular in cross-section with a hole is carved on one side of the vessel. Its height on the body is 5cm; width, 3.5 cm; thickness of the body, 1.6 cm. The hole was made with a chisel; the interior surface of the handle was smoothed with a featheredge knife and polished by an abrasive. The dimensions of the hole measure 2.2 × 1.5 cm most likely corresponding to the size of an adult’s forenger. The vessel seems to have been held with three ngers: the forenger was placed in the hole and the object held with the thumb and middle nger. The vessel was manufactured by a skillful craftsman. This supposition is supported by the proportional thickness of the bottom and walls, neck and the body diameter as well as extremely accurate working of the surface. Despite considerable deformation and degradation of the wood, the exterior and interior surfaces reveal traits of primary (surfacing with a cutting *The xylotomic analysis of various samples was conducted by M.I. Kolosova at the State Hermitage Department of Sciencebased Methods (St. Petersburg).
tool) and secondary (polishing) working. A rectangular opening (8 × 3 mm) can be observed on the vessel body to the right of the handle, 7 cm below the rim. No traces of working have been found inside the opening. This is possibly a knothole geometrically regular in shape. Table-dish with four ¿xed legs (Fig. 2). This tabledish was manufactured from a whole root part of an at least 100 year-old birch. It is rectangular in shape with rounded corners (34.5 × 26.5 cm). One of the corners is slightly decomposed; another is missing. The bottom is deeply fractured in various directions. The outer side of the table-dish rim is 4 – 4.5 cm high; inner rim is 3.5 – 3.7 cm high. The rim is 0.5 cm thick at the top and 0.8 cm thick at the bottom. The thickness of the bottom measures 0.7 – 0.8 cm. Two legs are heavily deformed while the other two are well preserved. Judging by the preserved legs, they were cylindrical in form with one pointed edge. The legs are similar in cross-section to the handles of some Pazyryk chekan pick-axe. The legs are 3.7 – 3.8 cm high and 3.3 × 2.5 cm in cross-section. To make the table-dish more steady the legs were xed at a small angle (10 – 15°) to the border. The entire surface of the table-dish, as well as the legs’ basic surface, was thoroughly polished. The interior surface of the table-dish bears a few traces of cutting from chopping meat. A sub-square hole can be observed on the bottom in the middle of a long sideboard, 3 cm from the center. Two wooden nails are wedged in the opposite corners of the hole. The interior side reveals a spiral curl of a woodknob with pointed nail tops severed with a chisel. These possibly represent traces of repair or remedying of a defect that had appeared during the course of manufacture. Weapons Bow. The use-wear, technological, and typological analyses suggest that each bow represented a separate weapon composed of well-matching elements. Only skilled masters were able to manufacture a bow of such quality which could take several years to make (Okladnikov, 1940; 1950: 204 – 205). As experiments have demonstrated, manufacturing even a simple wooden bow required technical knowledge, considerable skill, and time. The process involves virtually all basic and optional woodworking operations. The earliest bow made of a whole piece of wood was found in Mesolithic sediments of Holmegaart in Denmark (Clark, 1953: pl. 1, g. 1). Reexive bone plates for the Neolithic bows have been recovered from burial grounds of the Serovo culture in the Cis-Baikal region. (Okladnikov, 1950: 220 – 224). No complete
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
0
0
3 cm
3 cm
1 2
Fig. 1. Vessel made of tree burl (1) and box (2).
0
0
3 cm
Ɋɢɫ. 2. Table-dish.
3 cm
95
96
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
bows have been found at Bronze and Iron Age sites in North and Central Asia. The available specimens are represented by fragments only. Some fragments were uncovered in the Altai, Tuva, Mongolia, and adjacent territories (Surazakov, 1983; Novgorodova, 1989: 329, 334, 335, 341; Kubarev, 1991: 83; 1992: 69 – 70; Kocheyev, 1997; Gorbunov, 2006: 13 – 14). It is not possible to reconstruct the complete process of bow manufacture. Researchers suppose that two types of bow existed during the Scythian and Sarmatian times in the steppes of North and Central Asia: short battle “Scythian” (100 cm long) sigmoid bows and long “hunting” (120 – 135 m long) simple segmental bows (Melyukova, 1964: 14 – 15; Volkov, 1967: 25 – 26; Kubarev, 1987: 69; 1992: 70 – 71). The available fragments of a bow grip and limbs suggest that the Pazyryk and Sauromatian bows were manufactured of several at thin plates of different kinds of wood. This technological method was applied to increase resiliency and the destructive power of the bow no less essential since these bows lacked reexive bone covers, which were added to increase killing power (Smirnov, 1961: 32; Khazanov, 1966; Hudiakov, 1980: 66 – 75). To x the plates rmly, joining surfaces of wooden plates, oval and rectangular in cross section, were covered with incisions. The details glued together were enveloped in thin birch bark or skin and then tied up with sinews following the oblique notches made on the edges of the facets. In Tuva, judging from bow fragments from the Holash and Saryg-Bulun burial grounds (Semenov, 1997: 17 – 18), bows were made as follows: A birch frame, segmental in cross-section and 4 cm wide, was glued over with sh skin over the entire surface. The grip was rmly wound with thin sinews to increase the killing power and elasticity. The reconstructed length of the bow measures 127 – 130 cm. Mound 31 of Yaloman II contained fragments of the central part and limbs of a bow (Fig. 3). Preliminary usewear analysis shows that the bow was composed of two suitably matched birch blanks. Having been primarily
0
1 cm
worked, the two blanks were firmly attached to each other in the center of a riser along long oblique hatched planes with an adhesive material and bone pieces. Then they were rmly wound with sinews. The central part of a riser and wide limb sides were placed perpendicular to each other. The preserved part of a riser with a limb fragment is composed of two elements bound together with an adhesive. The place of attachment is xed. The glued surfaces were covered with oblique criss-crossing notches made by a knife to secure solidity of the joint. Surfaces for attaching end bone plates were worked in a similar way. The reconstructed length of the bow measures 143 – 150 cm (Gorbunov, 2006: fig. 11, 1; Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007: 166). Arrow shafts (Fig. 4). The assemblage totals 33 specimens of different size and state of preservation. In addition, 31 iron arrowheads were found (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007: 168). All the shafts were made from birch blanks. They are round in cross-section; their lower, middle, and upper parts are distinctly different in diameter, securing greater stability of the arrow during flight. The shafts are thoroughly made, apparently following standards. The use-wear analyses of the shafts’ surface made it possible to reconstruct several operations: initial – cutting (transversal and oblique) and shaping/ chipping (longitudinal and notched); secondary – smoothing (attening of the wood to make the implement rmer) and polishing. The shafts can be classied into two types: (1) shafts bearing slightly visible thickening at the end with a nock designed for ngers (15 specimens); and (2) shafts bearing a denite narrowing at the end with a nock designed for ngers (17 specimens). The reconstructed length of complete specimens is 70 cm (Ibid.). The shafts are 4 – 5 mm in diameter at the part designed for the ngers, 6 – 7 mm at the thick end with a nock, 7 – 8 mm in the middle of the shaft, 5 – 6 mm where the arrowhead is attached. The end with a nock measures 2.5 – 3 cm long. The nocks measure 5 – 6 mm wide and 6 – 7 mm deep.
1 2
Fig. 3. Bow. 1 – limb; 2 – fragments of the central part.
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
97
0 1 cm 0 1 cm
Fig. 4. Arrow shafts.
In most shafts, the area above the grip, where the wing was attached, is painted with natural dyes (black in four specimens and red in the remaining ones). On some shafts, the area of the etching attachment is bordered by one to three black lines 2 mm thick. Some shafts are composed of two fragments: their symmetrically cut wedge-shaped edges are glued. Similar wedge-shaped pointed cuts are observed on some short shafts bearing iron trilobite arrowheads with a bone whistle. Quiver (Fig. 5). Numerous fragments of a composite quiver made of wood and a canvas were found. Wooden elements include a bottom, upper lid, side plates (carved for a belt and frame with rows of paired holes), and a hook. The quiver bottom represents a circular platform with a at base, slightly concave sides, and proled interior surface in the form of a conical protuberance bearing a hemi-spherical hollow. The platform is 8 cm in diameter at the bottom and 9 cm at the top; height, 1.7 cm. The sides incline at an angle of 15° and are approx. 1 cm thick. The central hollow is approx. 3 cm in diameter. Nine hollows 3 mm in diameter probably intended for fastening a textile bag for arrows are drilled on the interior surface along the rim of the bottom. The quiver’s upper lid is hoof-shaped. It has a at upper surface, slanting sides, and a convex spherical lower surface. The at upper surface of the lid is 7.8 cm long; the lower proled surface, 8.4 cm long. The maximum thickness is 5.2 cm, height, 1.4 cm. Ten hollows of similar
diameter for attaching the upper edge of the arrow bag were made along the exterior edge of the lid at an equal distance from each other. A carved lateral frame attached to a waist or shoulder belt represents an elongate conical plate (23 cm long), arch-shaped in prole. The batten is 16 and 9 mm wide and 13 and 10 mm thick. Regular notches 2 mm deep and 11 mm wide are made at the base on the at surface 2 cm from the batten ends. Two holes 2 mm in diameter are made on each side of the notches. At the opposite end of the plate, grooves for straps are carved. The wider end of the plate bears a thin oval protuberance 2 mm thick, 6 mm wide, and 9 mm long. The lateral frame plates (ribs of the cloth bag) have equal spaced pairs of holes with grooves between them and are composed of several wooden fragments, arched in cross-section, and varying in length, 6 – 8 mm wide and 4 – 5 mm thick. The reconstructed quiver is a long tube-like bag made of cloth with a wooden circular bottom and crescent top, three lateral plates, an attachment for a strap, and a pocket (Gorbunov, 2006: g. 11, 4; Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007: 168, g. 3, 1). One more wooden element – a long fragment of a round-triangular plate 7 – 9 mm thick bearing a carved hook-shaped protuberance – was found among the quiver fragments. The function of this artifact is unknown. The quiver was decorated with appliqués cut out of bark (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2007, Fig. 3, 1, 4).
98
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
0 1 cm
the interior surface of the tree. This part may not have been subjected to secondary treatment. The exterior surface is well polished and bears no traces of primary working. Notably, burial 1 of mound 33 at Yaloman II contained an almost complete wooden base of a solid saddle without stirrups (Tishkin, Gorbunov, 2003: g. 2, 4 – 7). These artifacts are relevant in understanding the evolution of the saddle (Savinov, 2005; Hudiakov, Komissarov, 2006). Tool kit
Ɋɢɫ. 5. Quiver.
Horse harness parts Wooden saddle base. Poorly preserved fragments of a wooden saddle (parts of a tree, a pommel, and a cantle made of birch) were found. Holes for the pommel and a cantle fastening are of two kinds – rounded (3 mm in diameter), made with a drill or a reamer, and subsquare (4 × 4 mm) made with a chisel. These are located 2.2 cm apart. Traces of axe blade can be seen on
Box (see Fig. 1, 2). The box made of a soft wood fragment was intended for storage purposes. It measures 33 cm long, 8.7 – 8.9 cm wide, and 5.7 – 6.4 cm high. The bottom of the box is 6 – 8 mm thick, the sideboards, 5 mm thick, the lower part of the butt walls, 10 mm thick and their upper part, 25 mm thick. The wood is moderately preserved; the butts are cracked. A large irregular hole caused by wood decay can be seen on the bottom. One lateral board is complete and another one is slightly rotten bearing a transverse fracture in the middle. The complete board has two subsquare holes (3 × 3 mm) 1.6 cm down the edge. They were executed with a chisel with a ne at cutting edge. In the middle of the opposite board, only one hole has been recorded. Each butt-end of the box is evenly pointed from four sides to the center. One of the butts bears a hole in the form of a truncated pyramid 7 × 7 cm in perimeter from the exterior surface and 4 × 4 cm from the interior surface. It was cut with a ne chisel 1.2 cm from the box edge. On the inside, both butts were treated with a small chisel or an adze. Judging by the location and character of cutting marks, blows were directed downward. Techniques of surface working and execution of the cavity are similar to those utilized for manufacturing a large block. The box lid is made of Siberian pine. It is at, 32 cm long, 8 cm wide, and 0.6 cm thick. The butts of the lid are straight and slanting to the bottom. There are three holes matching those on the box. The lid may have been attached with rawhide straps passing through the double openings. The single opening may have corresponded to a lock, which possibly also included a strap. The outer surface of the long sides and the top surface of the lid are covered by numerous intersecting incisions made with a knife and probably resulting from cutting leather or birch bark, with the box being used as a support. Some ne indistinct marks or patterns are present on the rims. Fragment of an iron awl with shaft (Fig. 6, 7). A metal awl inserted into a wooden shaft was found inside the box. The shaft is circular in cross-section with a spherical bulb at the end, made of a birch blank. The
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
99
0 1 cm
2
1 cm
0
3
1 cm
0
4
5
1 cm
0
1 0
1 cm 0
1 cm
7
6
0
1 cm
Ɋɢɫ. 6. Birch bark anthropomorphic gure and accompanying artifacts. 1 – anthropomorphic gure; 2 – comb fragment; 3 – fragments of a snake-like piece; 4 – “playing (divination) beans”; 5 – thin wooden pipe (a writing implement?); 6 – items of indenite function (rods); 7 – fragment of an iron awl with a shaft.
shaft measures 6.4 cm long; the bulb, 1.6 cm long and 2.1 cm in diameter. The smoothed surface of the shaft suggests intensive use of the artifact. The working element is a corroded iron stick, square in cross-section (4 × 4 mm). The preserved part measures 1.8 cm long. The awl was inserted into a square hole made with a ne chisel and slightly hammered into the shaft. A redhot metal rod or the awl itself could have been used to make the hole. For stronger xation the metal awl was probably stuck with glue.
A fragment of heavily corroded pointed rod, circular in cross-section (the top of the working element) was found near the awl. This fragment measures 10.2 cm long and 0.8 cm in diameter. Item of personal attire Comb fragment (Fig. 6, 2). The fragment with ve teeth measures 5.3 cm long, 1.8 cm wide, and 0.4 cm thick.
100
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
The comb was manufactured from a one-piece blank. The teeth, similar in length (2.6 – 2.9 cm) and width (2.5 mm), are cut out with a thin knife. The surface of the comb top is covered with a delicate carved herring-bone pattern. Despite its relatively short teeth, the comb may have been used as a decorated hair pin. Ritual and other objects Fragment resembling a snake (Fig. 6, 3). This item circular in cross-section was probably manufactured from a one-piece blank – a tree root twig. The wood is dark showing traces of decay. Two of the three preserved elements of the item greatly resemble a snake’s body with its major features: gradual proportionate decrease in diameter from a rounded head to a pointed conical tail. One fragment bearing a circular and oval thickening at the end seems to represent the snake’s head and a part of a body. A hole, 1.5 mm in diameter, featuring the snake’s eye can be observed in the middle of the oval head. This fragment measures 7.7 cm long; the oval head, 1 cm in diameter; the remaining part of the fragment measures 0.5 cm in diameter. The second fragment most probably renders the snake’s body and tail. The fragment is conical, 6.4 cm long, 0.4 cm in diameter at the bend, and 0.2 cm at the pointed tail. The pointed tip bears a delicate conical thickening thoroughly pointed by ne cuts. “Playing (divination) beans” (Fig. 6, 4). In form these wooden artifacts bear a strong resemblance to beans. Nine complete specimens were found. One face of the “beans” is round; the other has two surfaces sloping towards the center. The edges are narrow, which make one “bean” strongly reminiscent of a sunflower seed. Some have slightly concave edges. Sloping surfaces of three items are covered by carved double crossed lines resembling an X or a slanting cross framed with four angle brackets. The opposite face bears carved transversal notches, subcircular or square in cross-section, 2 mm wide and 2 mm deep. The sloping surfaces of these “beans” are covered with glued ne bark sheets. Thin wooden pipe (a writing implement?) (Fig. 6, 5). Two fragments were found of a thin (2.5 mm in diameter) rod (a twig) with a longitudinal through hole. One piece measures 5.4 cm long. It retains a shiny coating made of very ne bark. The second fragment measures 6.2 cm long. The preserved end has a regular oblique cut at 45 – 55°, reminiscent of a quill and thus possibly evidencing a previously unrecorded graphic practice. Items of indefinite function (Fig. 6, 6). Five well-preserved conical elongated rods circular in
cross-section were found. These measure 5 – 8 cm in diameter, 3.5, 4, 4.3, 5, and 6 cm long. The three longest rods have thoroughly pointed ends; two shorter ones have truncated ends. The former have flat cut-off base ends, the latter – semispherical ones. One side of a short rod bears a tiny notched cut made with a knife. Large birch bark human ¿gure (Fig. 6, 1). Since human remains were absent in the stone cyst, a stylized birch bark anthropomorphic gure substituted for the deceased. The gure measures 36 cm long; 10 cm wide at the shoulders, and 8 cm wide at the chest and hipline. A hole, 2 mm in diameter, is perforated at the navel area. Two holes represent the eyes. Morphologically, the birch bark gure is analogous to the anthropomorphic representations from the Aimyrlyg burial ground (Stepnaya polosa…, 1992: pl. 78, 44 – 46). A similar object was found at the Novotroitskoe I site of the Kamenka culture (Early Iron Age) (Umansky, 1992: 54, g. on p. 110). Conclusions Excavations of sites dating to the 2nd-cent. BC – early 5th cent. AD in the Altai have yielded unusually well preserved wooden artifacts, providing an opportunity to reconstruct principal woodworking practices. The results will be compared with those concerning adjacent territories such as Tuva (Weinstein, 1970; Dyakonova, 1970a, b; Mandelstam, Stambulnik, 1992; and others). The large number of artifacts, their diversity and high quality indicate that the level of woodworking in the Altai during the Hunno-Sarmatian period was quite sophisticated. The results of our pilot analysis evidence construction practices such as the making of funerary structures, and carpentry, which included the production of dishes, weapons, personal items of attire, domestic, and ritual items. A noteworthy feature is the virtual absence of ornamental carving. Judging by our ndings, this tendency began in the late Pazyryk period. It can probably be explained by the disruption of old traditions by a people associated with a new culture, and by the loss of carving skills, which had reached a peak during the Scytho-Sacaean period. In the Hunnu age, complex ornamental carving gave way to simple geometric designs, which could easily be reproduced by carvers of later periods. Generally, 2nd-cent. BC – early 5th cent. AD woodworking was still a domestic craft and the bulk of necessary artifacts were manufactured everywhere. More complex artifacts, primarily weapons, were made by more experienced carvers.
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
References Clark J.G. 1953 Doistoricheskaya Evropa: Ekonomicheskii ocherk. Moscow: Izd. inostrannaya literatura. Dyakonova V.P. 1970a Bolshie kurgany-kladbischa na mogilnike Kokel (po rezultatam raskopok za 1963, 1965 gg.). In Trudy Tuvinskoi kompleksnoi arkheologo-etnograficheskoi ekspeditsii. Vol. 3: Materialy po arkheologii i antropologii mogilnika Kokel. Lenigrad: Nauka, pp. 80 – 209. Dyakonova V.P. 1970b Arkheologicheskie raskopki na mogilnike Kokel v 1966 g. In Trudy Tuvinskoi kompleksnoi arkheologoetnograficheskoi ekspeditsii. Vol. 3: Materialy po arkheologii i antropologii mogilnika Kokel. Lenigrad: Nauka, pp. 210 – 238. Gorbunov V.V. 2006 Voennoe delo naseleniya Altaya v III – XIV vv. Pt. 2: Nastupatelnoe vooruzhenie (oruzhie). Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ. Gorbunov V.V., Tishkin A.A. 2006 Weapons of the Gorny Altai nomads in the Hunnu age. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 4: 79 – 85. Hudiakov Y.S. 1980 Vooruzhenie yeniseiskikh kyrgyzov VI – XII vv. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Hudiakov Y.S., Komissarov S.A. 2006 Rol syanbi v razvitii konskogo snaryazheniya i zaschitnogo oblacheniya pantsirnoi konnitsy v Tsentralnoi Azii. In Integratsiya arkheologicheskikh i etnogra¿cheskikh issledovanii. Krasnoyarsk, Omsk: Izd. dom “Nauka”, pp. 124 – 128. Khazanov A.M. 1966 Slozhnye luki Evraziiskikh stepei i Irana v skifo-sarmatskuyu epokhu. In Materialnaya kultura narodov Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 29 – 44. Kocheev V.A. 1997 Luki gorno-altaiskikh kurganov (k voprosu o lukakh skifskogo vremeni Gornogo Altaya). Izvestiya laboratorii arkheologii. Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Univ., No. 2: 147 – 152. Kubarev V.D. 1987 Kurgany Ulandryka. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 1991 Kurgany Yustyda. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Kubarev V.D. 1992 Kurgany Saylyugema. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Mandelstam A.M., Stambulnik E.U. 1992 Gunno-sarmatskii period na territorii Tuvy. In Stepnaya polosa aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoe vremya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 196 – 205. (Arkheologiya SSSR). Melyukova A.I. 1964 Vo o r u z h e n i e s k i f o v. M o s c o w : N a u k a . ( S v o d arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; vol. D 1–4). Mylnikov V.P. 1999 Obrabotka dereva nositelyami pazyrykskoi kultury. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN. Mylnikov V.P., Parzinger H., Chugunov K.V., Nagler A. 2002 Elitnoe pogrebalnoe sooruzhenie iz dereva v Tuve. In Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i
101
sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 8. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 396 – 402. Novgorodova E.A. 1989 Drevnaya Mongoliay. Moscow: Glav. red. vost. lit. Okladnikov A.P. 1940 K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii i meste luka v istorii kultury. KSIIMK, vol. 5: 17 – 22. Okladnikov A.P. 1950 Neolit i bronzovyi vek Pribaikalya: Istorikoarkheologicheskoe issledovanie, pt. 1/2. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. (MIA; No. 18). Samashev Z.S., Mylnikov V.P. 2004 Derevoobrabotka u drevnikh skotovodov Kazakhskogo Altaya: (Materialy kompleksnogo analiza derevyannykh predmetov iz kurgana 11 mogilnika Berel). Almaty: Berel. Savinov D.G. 2002 Ranniye kochevniki verkhnego Yeniseya: (Arkheologicheskie kultury i kulturogenez). St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ. Savinov D.G. 2005 Paradnye sedla s geraldicheskimi izobrazheniyami zhivotnykh. In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri, iss. 23. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, pp. 19 – 24. Semenov A.I. 1956 Obrabotka dereva na drevnem Altae. Sovetskaya arkheologiya, vol. 26: 204 – 230. Semenov V.A. 1997 Mongun Taiga: (Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Tuve v 1994 – 1995 gg.). St. Petersburg: Izd. IIMK RAN. Smirnov K.F. 1961 Vooruzhenie savromatov. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR (MIA; No. 101). Stepnaya polosa aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifosarmatskoe vremya. 1992 Moscow: Nauka. (Arkheologiya SSSR). Surazakov A.S. 1983 Kurgany epokhi rannego zheleza v mogilnike KyzykTelan I. In Arkheologicheskie issledovaniya v Gornom Altae v 1980 – 1982 godakh. Gorno-Altaisk: GANIIIYL, pp. 42 – 52. Tishkin A.A. 2005 Otchet o provedenii arkheologicheskikh issledovanii v Ongudaiskom raione Respubliki Altai i v Pervomaiskom raione Altaiskogo kraya letom i oseniu 2003 g. Barnaul: Alt. Gos. Univ. (Arkhiv Muzeya arkheologii i etnograi Altaya Altai. Gos. Univ; No. 220). Tishkin A.A. 2006 Altai v epokhu pozdnei drevnosti, rannego i razvitogo srednevekovya (kulturno-khronologicheskie kontseptsii i etnokulturnaya istoriya). D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Barnaul. Tishkin A.A. 2007a Kitaiskie izdeliya v materialnoi kulture kochevnikov Altaya (vtoraya polovina I tysyacheletiya do n.e.). In Etnoistoriya i arkheologiya Severnoi Evrazii: teoriya, metodologiya i praktika issledovaniya. Irkutsk: Izd. Irkut. Gos. Tekhn. Univ., pp. 176 – 184. Tishkin A.A. 2007b Fiksatsiya arkheologicheskikh obyektov v Gornom Altae: Opyt takheometricheskoi syemki kompleksa pamyatnikov okolo ustya reki Bolshoi Yaloman. In Pogrebalnye kompleksy s merzlotoi v gorah Altaja: strategii i perspektivy. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Univ., pp. 104 – 109.
102
A.A. Tishkin and V.P. Mylnikov / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 93–102
Tishkin A.A., Gorbunov V.V. 2003 Issledovanie pogrebalno-pominalnykh pamyatnikov kochevnikov v Tsentralnom Altae. In Problemy arkheologii, etnogra¿i, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 9, pt. 1. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 488 – 493. Tishkin A.A., Gorbunov V.V. 2005 Kompleks arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov v doline r. Biike (Gorny Altai). Barnaul: Izd. Altai. Gos. Univ. Tishkin A.A., Gorbunov V.V. 2007 Kompleks vooruzheniya epokhi velikogo pereseleniya narodov iz Sayano-Altaya (po materialam mogilnika Yaloman II). In Vooruzhenie sarmatov: Regionalnaya tipologiya i khronologiya. Chelyabinsk: Izd. Yuzhno-Ural. Gos. Univ., pp. 164 – 172. Tishkin A.A., Grushin S.P. 1997 Chto takoe kenotaf? Izvestiya laboratorii arkheologii. Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Univ., No. 2, pp. 24 – 28.
Umansky A.P. 1992 O raskopkakh bliz Novotroitskogo v 1989 godu. In Problemy sokhraneniya, ispolzovaniya i izucheniya pamyatnikov arkheologii. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Altaisk. Gos. Ped. Inst.; GANIIIYL, pp. 53 – 55, 110. Volkov V.V. 1967 Bronzovy i zhelezny vek Severnoi Mongolii. Ulan-Bator: Izd. AN MNR. Weinstein S.I. 1970 Raskopki mogilnika Kokel v 1962 godu (pogrebeniya kazylganskoi i syyn-churekskoi kultur). In Trudy Tuvinskoi kompleksnoi arkheologo-etnograficheskoi ekspeditsii. Vol. 3: Materialy po arkheologii i antropologii mogilnika Kokel. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 7 – 79. Received June 19, 2007