"Armed" Females of Iron Age Trans-Uralian Forest-Steppe: Social Reality or Status Identity?

Tumuli Graves – Status Symbol of the Dead in the Bronze and Iron Ages in

Europe Les tombes tumulaires – symboles du

statut des défunts dans les âges du Bronze et du Fer en Europe

Edited by

Valeriu SîrbuCristian Schuster

BAR International Series 23962012

UNION INTERNATIONALE DES SCIENCES PRÉHISTORIQUES ET PROTOHISTORIQUESINTERNATIONAL UNION OF PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC SCIENCES

PROCEEDINGS OF THE XVI WORLD CONGRESS (FLORIANÓPOLIS, 4-10 SEPTEMER 2011)ACTES DU XVI CONGRÈS MONDIAL (FLORIANÓPOLIS, 4-10 SEPTEMBRE 2011)

VOL. 2

Actes de la session 47Proceedings of session 47

Published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 [email protected]

BAR S2396Proceedings of the XVI World Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric SciencesActes du XVI Congrès mondial de l’Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques

Secretary of the Congress: Rossano Lopes BastosPresident of the Congress National Commission: Erika Robrahn-GonzálezElected Bureau (2011-2014):President: Jean BourgeoisSecretary General: Luiz OosterbeekTreasurer: François DjindjianSeries Editors: Luiz Oosterbeek, Erika Robrahn-GonzálezVolume editors: Valeriu Sîrbu, Cristian Schuster

Tumuli Graves – Status Symbol of the Dead in the Bronze and Iron Ages in Europe / Les tombes tumulaires – symboles du statut des défunts dans les âges du Bronze et du Fer en Europe

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012

ISBN 978 1 4073 0989 7

The signed papers are the sole responsibility of their authors.Les textes signés sont de la seule responsabilité de leurs auteurs. Contacts: General Secretariat of the U.I.S.P.P. – International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric SciencesInstituto Politécnico de Tomar, Av. Dr. Cândido Madureira 13, 2300 TOMAREmail: [email protected]

Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 7BPEnglandwww.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

53

“ARMED” FEMALES OF IRON AGE TRANS-URALIAN FOREST-STEPPE: SOCIAL REALITY OR STATUS IDENTITY?

Natalia A. BERSENEVA

Research fellow of South-Ural Division of Institute of History and Archaeology, Ural Branch of RAN Chelyabinsk

[email protected]

Abstract: Female burials with armaments are a trans-cultural phenomenon for the steppe and forest-steppe societies of Iron Age Eurasia. This study concerns the female burials of the Sargat cultural groups (Early Iron Age of the Trans-Urals and Western Siberia). Chronologically, the sites cover the period from the 7th century BC to the 2nd – 3rd centuries AD. These people may be called semi-nomadic and their economy was based on stock-breeding. Female burials with weapons consist on average 18% of all female pit graves. Direct participation some Sargat women in the armed conflicts can be considered proven based on the paleoanthropological data and the contextual analysis of female burials. Nevertheless, the scale of their participation ought to be considered insignificant, since the evidence involves only a very small number of women. The presence of any female regular warrior units is not confirmed of archaeological sources. Judging by the grave goods, “armed women” did not occupy the top of the Sargat hierarchical pyramid. Possibly, their soldiering was more related to individual dispositions and potentialities, but not the certain social position or status of their family.

Key words: Trans-Urals and Western Siberia, Early Iron Age, Sargat culture, female burials with armament

The burials of women with weapons always look intriguing to investigators. Although such graves can be found possibly for all archaeological periods, a peak of this phenomenon occurs in the early Iron Age of temperate Eurasia. The most attention has been focused on the dramatic evidence of early steppe nomads of Eastern Europe – Scythians, Sauromatians and Sarmatians (Smirnov 1982; Fialko 1991; Guliaev, 2003; Strizhak 2007; Bogachenko, Maksimenko 2008). On the one hand, reports of Herodotus and other ancient authors about Amazons corresponded to these archaeological sites (IV, 114). On the other hand, mass excavations and the huge volume of obtained data stimulated further interest.

Among the forest-steppe kurgan cultures of the Trans-Urals and Western Siberia, for many reasons, this question was less addressed. Plundering of the Sargat kurgans and lack of anthropological determinations for early excavations did not allow to collect a sufficient data base for investigation of such burials. As a result of intensive archaeological works in 80’s and 90’s of last century, the study of female burials with weaponry finally became possible.

This paper has several purposes. The main is contextual analysis of the Sargat female weapon graves. The second is to interpret the “armed women” phenomenon on the basis of analysis of grave goods and spatial localization of burials.

SOURCES

The Iron Age Sargat population occupied the vast area between the Ural Mountains and the Baraba lowlands (the Ural-Siberian forest-steppe zone). Western Siberia is

an almost flat plain, and while the river network is not of great density, this is an area of large transit rivers: the Ob, Irtysh, Ishim and Tobol. Chronologically, the sites cover the period from the 7th century BC to the 2-3rd centuries AD. Although these people are thought to have been semi-nomadic with an economy based on stock-breeding, the majority of the population inhabited permanent settlements and fortresses. Judging by paleoanthropological observations, the Sargat people, including the women, spent some time on horseback (Razhev 2009).

Sargat cemeteries consist of burial mounds (kurgans) that are located on high river terraces. They include one or two big kurgans that are surrounded by smaller ones. One or more ditches usually surround the kurgan. Each kurgan contains from one to fifteen burials placed both in the sterile soil and in the mound. There was usually a central (primary) grave in the geometrical center of the kurgan, and the peripheral graves were grouped around it. The primary pits were much larger than those on the periphery and they contained more imposing wooden structures, including large roofed areas. Often the central grave is a paired burial. Cenotaphs are rare in Sargat mortuary practice. Flat grave cemeteries are not found.

The Sargat mortuary ritual was, in general, stable through time although it varied in details. The deceased was placed in a supine position and was oriented in a northerly direction. Usually pots and offerings of food were placed near the head. Clothing, ornaments and slashing weapons were placed where they would have been worn or used in life: bows were put at the side of the body. The quality and quantity of grave goods as well as energy expenditures for grave construction should all be assumed as attributes. Both shallow pit-graves with minimum grave goods and rich burials containing a great

TUMULI GRAVES – STATUS SYMBOL OF THE DEAD IN BRONZE AND IRON AGES IN EUROPE

54

Figure 1 – Map of the Sargat cemeteries localization. 1 – Rafailovsky; 2 – Sopininsky; 3 – Ol’khovsky; 4 – Krasnogorsky, Krasnogorsky Borok; 5 – Savinovsky; 6 – Tyutrinsky; 7 – Gaevsky-1; 8 – Kokuisky-3; 9 – Abatsky-I;

10 – Abatsky-III; 11 – Okunevsky-II; 12 – Okunevsky-IIIа; 13 – Setkulovo; 14 – Artyn; 15 – Kartashovo-I; 16 – Kartashovo-II; 17 – Beshaul-III; 18 – Beshaul-II; 19 – Beshaul-IV; 20 – Strizhevo-I; 21 – Strizhevo-II; 22 – Isakovka-I; 23 – Isakovka-

III; 24 – Sidorovka-I; 25 – Saratovo; 26 – Bogdanovo-III; 27 – Bogdanovo-I; 28 – Bogdanovo-II; 29 – Novoobolon’; 30 – Gornaya Bitiya; 31 – Krasnoyarsky; 32 – Kokonovka-I; 33 – Kokonovka-II; Kokonovka-III; 34 – Kalachevka;

35 – Starokarasuk; 36 – Sibsargatka-I; 37 – Chepkul’-9; 38 – Staryi Sad; 39 – Vengerovo-1; 40 – Sopka 2; 41 – Vengerovo 7; 42 – Markovo 1; 43 – Markovo 6; 44 – Markovo 8; 45 – Abramovo-4; 46 – Ust’-Tartas

number of gold and silver artifacts have been found in the same cemetery.1

There are four main regions of the Sargat sites: Middle Tobol area, Ishim area, Middle Irtysh area and Baraba forest-steppe (Fig. 1). In this study I have analyzed 846 burials of all ages from these regions. The analysis included two stages. Firstly the undisturbed sex/age-identified adult burials have been selected. In the case of intact burials, the presence or absence of a certain artifact implies its deliberate inclusion or exclusion. Because, regrettably, undisturbed burials within single burial grounds are few, these were pooled. Most are peripheral, as nearly all central graves had been looted. On the more positive side, peripheral burials are individual, which makes it possible to associate artifacts with specific individuals. The second stage included contextual analysis of all female weapon burials.

The Tobol and Ishim samples are very modest because most tombs were robbed. Thus at the first level of this study I analyzed 161 undisturbed burials of biologically sexed adults.

S. Lucy (1997) suggested an interesting approach in his study of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in Yorkshire. Lucy determined four types of assemblages: (1) weapons; (2) jewellery; (3) artifacts that are not attributable to the first two categories including vessels and animal bones; (4) no 1 It is necessary to note that most of the Sargat kurgans were robbed in the 17th-18th centuries AD at the time of the Russian colonization of Siberia. This problem has been exacerbated by ploughing in recent times. Many graves in general are characterized by bad preservation of bone remains and suffer from animal activity.

Table 1 – Sargat undisturbed adult burials (with anthropological identification)

Males Females In total

Middle Irtysh area 47 40 87

Tobol area 7 14 21

Ishym area 8 6 14

Baraba lowland 19 20 39

In total 81 80 161

grave goods preserved. The first two assemblages never coexist, while goods from the neutral category can be found in all three assemblages. The type of assemblage was determined for each burial and then correlated with the sex of the deceased (Lucy 1997, 157).

The results of this approach when applied to Sargat artifacts are suggestive. Initially, burials with a “weaponry assemblage” were singled out. All kinds of weapon (for close and distant combat, protection armor) and harness parts were attributed to this assemblage. This category includes graves containing at least one such item. Subsequently, graves containing an “ornament assemblage” containing no less than 20 beads and/or at least one pair of metal adornments were selected. The following category constitutes graves with a neutral set of artifacts that belong neither to the first nor to the second assemblage: ceramic vessels, animal bones, kitchen knives, buckles for attire, solitary decorative pieces, spindle whorls, etc. Clearly, this classification is tentative; the conclusions, however, are suggestive, demonstrating that the deviations are relatively

N. BERSENEVA: “ARMED” FEMALES OF IRON AGE TRANS-URALIAN FOREST-STEPPE: SOCIAL REALITY OR STATUS IDENTITY?

55

Table 2 – “Assemblages of artefacts” of Sargat female burials

Female burials “Assemblages of artefacts”

“Jewellery” “Weapon” “Neutral” “Without artefacts” In total (number/%)

Middle Irtysh (number/%) 9 (22.5) 8 (20.0) 21 (52.5) 2 (5.0) 40 (100)

Middle Tobol (number/%) 10 (71.5) 1 (7.1) 2 (14.3) 1 (7.1) 14 (100)

Ishim (number/%) 2 (33.3) 3 (50.0) 1 (16.7) 0 6 (100)

Baraba (number/%) 1 (5.0) 1 (5.0) 16 (80.0) 2 (10.0) 20 (100)

In total (number/%) 22 (27.5) 13 (16.3) 40 (50) 5 (6.2) 80 (100)

insignificant. Graves lacking grave goods formed a separate group.

Comparison of the four assemblages with skeletons identified as “female” generated some interesting results (Table 2.).

ANALYSIS

From the beginning one needs to say a few words about the weapons found quite often in the burials of Sargat women. In general, these are arrowheads (including quiver sets), horn bow laths and, rarely, daggers but we never find swords or armor in Sargat female burials. In addition, the women were usually accompanied only some elements of armament, for example a single arrowhead or quiver hook. All such cases have been brought into consideration in the first stage of this study.

The distribution of artifact “assemblages” within the female burials shows that the "weaponry assemblage" consists on average 16.3% of all intact individual burials (Table 2).

However, Table 2 clearly demonstrates the domination of the “neutral assemblage” among female graves of the Middle Irtysh area and Baraba forest-steppe. The “jewellery assemblage” dominates in the Tobol area, whereas in the Ishim region “weaponry” predominates. It is difficult to explain this difference. Eastern and western samples differ markedly in their sizes (see Fig. 1), therefore direct comparison is impossible. Probably, the domination of the “jewellery assemblage” in the Tobol region is related to the nearness to the Sarmatian world, where burials with ornaments prevail among the female graves (Berseneva 2009).

The first part of study (analysis of intact burials) allows to unequivocally establish the existence of female burials with weaponry and to determine their proportion of those graves.

Let see all female burials with weapons. If including the looted graves, weapon burials consist on average 18% of all female pit graves

In the Middle Irtysh area, two female burials containing daggers have been found (18-20 year old and 50-55 year

old women), and three female graves contained the laths of compound bows and quivers. In the two first cases, the remains belonged to young women (18-25 years old), in last case, a more mature woman (35-40 years old) (Matyutshenko and Tataurova 1997; Pogodin 1989).

In the river Ishim area, according to N.P. Matveeva’s publication (1994) there is quite a significant number of female graves with weapons. Laths of bow and arrowheads (from 1 to 19) were found in 8 individual female burials (but both together in only one). In two cases females were buried with daggers. The grave of a female (50-60 years old) which both contained many ornaments (two bracelets, three earrings, ceramic drop-shaped pendant and bronze mirror) and weapons (dagger and quiver) was discovered in Abatsky 3 cemetery. Another pit grave of the same cemetery belonged to the young woman 18 years old. Here was found an iron dagger, arrowheads and the great number of glass beads and small gold plaques. Unfortunately, this grave was robbed. Finally, one burial which was identified as female (20-25 years old) included an iron sword, dagger and arrowheads (Abatsky 3).

In the river Tobol area, weapons were rarely found in female burials. Arrowheads (from 1 to 10) were discovered in five female burials, two that shared the grave with children. Bow laths in female individual graves were not discovered here. Daggers occurred in two pits: firstly, there is the undisturbed burial of a woman 50−60 years old (along with a quiver) (Krasnogorsky Borok cemetery; Matveyeva 1993). Secondly, in the kurgan cemetery Tyutrinsky, an18 year old female shared the grave along with a child (age unidentified). Among the grave goods were found a dagger, arrowheads, bits and cheek-pieces. Besides, the glass beads and remains of gold embroidery were identified. The burial was looted (Matveyev, Matveyeva 1991). In the central tomb of kurgan 34 (Staro-Lybaevsky-4 cemetery) were buried six females, and grave goods included an iron sword and plaques of protective armor (Matveyeva 2001). However, the burial was heavily destroyed and the bones poorly preserved, thus the reliability of the anthropological identification is uncertain.

In the Baraba sites, weapons are extremely rare in the female burials. Only separate arrowheads (from 1 to 6) were found in two graves (Polosmak 1987, Table I).


56

Thus, we can see from 124 Sargat female individual burials (including disturbed ones) there are only 7 grave pits which contained either the complete set of distance weapons or daggers or both. This number is minimal, because many burials are plundered. Consequently, the number of females that were buried with more or less true weaponry is reduced to 5.6%.

DISCUSSION

Female graves with weapons are not exceptional for the steppe/forest-steppe Eurasian world in the Iron Age. The fact that weapons are present in female Scythian burials is beyond doubt. Burial mound 7 at the Novozavedennoye II revealed the remains of a woman, 20-25 years of age accompanied by fragments of sword, spear, axe, battle knife, arrowheads, and horse harness parts. The grave also contained artifacts typical of female burials: two spindle whorls, numerous beads of glass, amber, cornelian and jet (Petrenko et al. 2004, 184-186). According to E.E. Fialko, generally speaking, 25 % of Scythian graves with weapons are female burials (1991, 195).

Data concerning the quantity of “Sauromat” (6th – early 4th centuries BC) women buried with weapons have recently been revised (Strizhak, 2007). As it turns out, the “bellicosity” of early nomad women has been greatly overestimated. Among burials that have been anthropologically identified as female, few contained solitary arrowheads, and a dagger was found in just one burial.

The Sarmatians were apparently a quite aggressive group, and in Sarmatian female burials sometimes was found some weaponry (Bogachenko, Maksimenko 2009, 48-51). In the early Sarmatian sample, burials with weapons (20 out of 176) were diagnosed as female in 11% of cases according to skeletal criteria (Strizhak 2007, 75).

Several female burials with weapons have been reported from Pazyryk sites (Early Iron Age, 4th-2nd centuries BC) in the Altai Mountains. The grave of a 16 year old girl at Ak-Alakha-1 contained an iron chekan (battle axe), a dagger, a bow, and a gorytus (kind of quiver) with arrows. Moreover, the girl was dressed in male attire with a fur-coat and pants (Polosmak 2001, 58). According to N.V. Polosmak, this type of burial is not typical, given that Pazyryk women (including those buried in “royal” mounds) were placed in graves dressed in female clothing and the grave good set included jewelry and ceramic vessels only (Ibid. 274-276).

Grave goods of the female burials following the Pazyryk Bulan-kobinskaya culture of the Altai Mountains also included weapons in 16 cases (13.7%): bow and arrows, daggers and even armor plaques (Matrenin, Tishkin 2005, 163-164). Further to the East, in Tuva (Arzhan 2 burial ground, early Scythian period) the woman 30-35 years old was accompanied by a dagger (Čugunov et al. 2010, 29, Tafel 61). The second deceased in the same grave

(male 40-50 years old) had also a dagger, but in addition a bow and gorytus with arrowheads. Abundant gold ornaments were found with both. According to N. Kradin and his colleagues, in Hunnic cemeteries of Zabaikal’e “weapons are found nearly in 50% of all female burial clusters” (Kradin et al. 2004, 83).

Thus, one may conclude that female burials with weapons undoubtedly exist and constitute 10 to 25% in the “kurgan” cultures of the Early Iron Age of Eurasia. Nevertheless to interpret these burials is not easy.

In the archaeological literature different scenarios have been examined: from the existence of the women’ militarized units to symbolic passing of weaponry to the deceased. It cannot be established that all the goods placed in a grave actually belonged to the deceased woman. Some of these objects may represent offerings made to her ancestors, deceased husbands or relatives, as well as to various deities and spirits (Bogachenko, Maksimenko 2009, 55; Polosmak 2001, 276-277; Strizhak 2007, 75). Also there is about the suggestion that some female identification is due to anthropological errors (Razhev 2009, 46-48). But the main question that still interests scholars is the following: did the women participate in true battle operations and, if so, on what basis: regular or casual?

Historians and ethnologists have established the existence of female military units as well as women-warriors and war leaders (Nelson 1997, 139-140; Jones-Bley 2008, 35-50; Green 1995). Many peoples had the goddesses of war as well as gods (Green 1995, 28-45).

But what can we say about the “armed women” of steppe and forest-steppe Eurasia in the Iron Age? Is that the social reality, the existence of a class of women who directly participated in battle actions or are weapons in the female burials e rather symbols of their vertical status?

Physical anthropology supports direct participation of and Sarmatian women in the warrior conflicts. Based on the analysis of the Scythian (Middle Don area) anthropological data, M.V. Dobrovol’skaya has suggested that the “Amazons” were women with hormonal imbalance − “manlike”. Serious battle traumas were found on female skeletons more than 40 years old, some of whom had the traces of hyperostosis cranii. The moderate number of such cases is evidence that only a small part of women could be included in the military profession (obligation?) (Dobrovol’skaya 2009, 191).

The Sargat collections also have been analyzed. D.I. Razhev divided the deceased into two “morphological types” according to skeletal markers of physical activity. In his opinion, the women of the second morphotype (more active) could “participate in battle units as ‘mounted archers’” (2009, 61, 288).

There is a symbolic aspect of weapon burials. Clothes and various accessories, including the weapons, create the


57

image of a person. The specific appearance is usually used to manifest the social inequality and system of gender distinctions. In the absence of centralized direction and written laws, the behavioural stereotypes, fixed visibly, should be very firm. The huge “royal” mounds are clear evidence of high status in the hierarchy in stockbreeding societies of Eurasia in the Iron Age. In the Sargat case, the luxury goods (glass and metallic pottery, gold ornaments,as a rule the imported things) have been found equally in the graves of males and females. However the most impressive and wealthy Sargat burials (the so-called “golden tombs”) with full set of armaments are identified as male (Pogodin 1990; Matyushenko, Tataurova 1997, 11).2

But the placement of armament in the grave does not directly suggest that war was a permanent and principal business of the population that lived in Eurasian steppe and, especially, forest-steppe in the Iron Age. Weapons could be symbols of affiliation to a warrior “caste” or simply to free men and have guaranteed the same place in the afterworld. It is well known that similar ideas existed among many people of Northern Eurasia during the Iron Age and the early Middle Ages. Herodotus reported that fighting was considered the noblest business among the Scythians (Herodotus II, 167). Caesar wrote that Gauls had two main classes: Druids and warriors, the remaining people not having any significance (Cunliff 1997, 107). “Some of the early medieval Scandinavian laws call for free men to keep a set of fighting equipment always with them (even in death)” (Mortensen, 2004, p. 105). Often the weapons in the burials could rather be status symbols, not connected to the ability to fight or the actual experience of fighting (Gilchrist 1997, 47-49; Harke 2004, 203).

Finally, in all these cultures, there are infrequent male burials with so-called “female” artefacts. In the Sargat kurgan cemeteries, male burials sometimes contained a great quantity of jewelry – glass and stone beads (up to several hundred) and earrings – and not weapons (Matveyeva 1993, 143). Of course, these graves were relatively small in number. Nevertheless, in this respect the Sargat culture is not unique. Similar examples can be found in cemeteries of other archaeological cultures and many ethnographic examples are known as well. Thus, in the Early Sarmatian cemetery Prokhorovka I in the South-Urals was excavated the burial of elderly man (identification of sex and age by L.T. Yablonsky) that was accompanied with bronze mirror, glass beads, spindle whorls and one bronze arrowhead, which was found near the skull (probably, it is an amulet) (Yablonsky, Mesheryakov 2008, 202).

The interpretations such cases suggested include a variety of possibilities from errors in sex diagnosis to ritual “transvestism” (Troitskaya 1987). However, due to the 2 It is interesting that we can see the same picture in the Scythian world: “… the more wealthy Scythian burial the greater the weapons in it and the weapons are richer and perfect. Thus armors were predominantly found in the aristocratic tombs” (Khazanov 1975, 180). Female and adolescent graves are no exception (Petrenko et al. 2004).

scarcity of such cases, variants in sex identification and the limited nature of current knowledge a convincing explanation can hardly be supplied.

INTERPRETATION

On the basis of historical and ethnological data many scholars believe that “male” artifacts in female burials indicate the high social status of the women in question (McHugh 1999; Parker Pearson 1999). In Western Europe, medieval queens were buried in armor and with weapons, which pointed to the high rank of the deceased (McHugh 1999). Scythian female burials with weapons were found in elite kurgans (Petrenko et al. 2004). The Sargat weapon burials can be partly interpreted in a similar way. Certainly, the weapons in male graves marked a vertical status. The most magnificent (so-called “golden”) tombs with full sets of weaponry including the complete set of defensive and offensive weapons are identified as male. On the other hand, male individuals buried with neutral grave goods or without grave goods had burial constructions that are usually quite simple. In short, these are “poor” graves.3

According to palaeoanthropological investigations, a relatively small number of cranial traumas is identified for the Sargat people. The index of skull trauma frequency in a group is traditionally interpreted as a specific marker of the aggressiveness of the social atmosphere (Buzhilova, Kamenetsky 2004, 211). D.I. Razhev in his study of Sargat collection (173 skulls) had found 9 injured craniums, 5 of which were with battle lesions (Razhev 2009, 298). Based on his analysis, D.I. Razhev defined the index of battle traumas of the Sargat people as “medium”, typical for those societies which were regularly (but not permanently) drawn into battle actions. However, such a “medium” index (close to the lower limit) of skull traumas is evidence that not all men but only that segment with injuries participated in real battle actions.4

Traces of armed conflicts are fixed on three female skulls from the Sargat kurgans (Razhev 2009, 290-295). These are injuries caused by arrows and slashing weapons. Two of those burials were discovered in the Ishim area and one in the Baraba forest-steppe. In kurgan 1 (Markovo 1 cemetery, Baraba) was excavated the skull of a woman 25-40 years old with the traces of a healing stab wound. Unfortunately, the grave is totally looted; grave goods are not preserved (Polosmak 1987, Table I). In the Ishim area (Kokuisky 3 cemetery), a woman 30-50 years old was buried in a collective tomb along with two men and a child (3 years old). An aperture done by an arrow was 3 Male burials without any weapons (“neutral assemblage”) exist among Scythian and Sarmatian materials (Bunyatyan 1985; Bersneva 2009, 113). It can be added that in the Celtic and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries up to 50% of all males were buried without weaponry (Lucy 1997, 157-162). 4 For comparison, battle traumas are fixed on the 70% skulls of the late Sarmatians. The late Sarmatians, in the opinion of anthropologists, were an extremely aggressive group (Balabanova 2004, 187; Buzhilova, Kamenetsky 2004, 208-211).


58

found in her cranium. The grave seems undisturbed, but the bones of woman were disarticulated. It is not clear whether she had any grave goods or not (Matveyeva 1994, 105-106). The third burial (Abatsky 3 cemetery), in N.P. Matveyeva’s opinion, belongs to the Kashino culture, not to the Sargat. The skull of this woman (25-35 years old) was artificially deformed; grave goods included two glass beads and an iron knife (Matveyeva 1994, 135).

Thus, the correlation between battle traumas and weaponry in the female burials is absent. But not all injuries, especially in the soft tissue, are visible on the bones. Beside this, female burials with weapons confirm the high status of women in the stockbreeding societies in the Iron Age, the great degree of their freedom and their comparable social roles with men. As is well known from ethnographical and historical sources, free nomadic women often have high status and great self-sufficiency, but leadership and certain types of decision-making usually belonged to men. However, women could completely substitute for men during their absence (Kradin 2007, 209).

But are the female weapon burials most wealthy in terms of other grave goods or labor investment at the same time? Unfortunately, no undisturbed female burials in the Sargat “royal” kurgans remain. Isakovka I, kurgan 3 held a rich female grave 3 (2.25 x 4.3 m, 1.7 m deep). Unfortunately, it was robbed; nevertheless, surviving grave goods allow us to judge its initial wealth. More than 500 small gold clothing (or funeral shroud) ornaments (tiny plaques and beads) were found in the infill of the pit. Dozens of colored glass and stone beads, threads of golden embroidery, fragments of glass vessel and, as well as an iron bit and cheek piece were collected. The bone remains belong to a woman of 35-40 years old. Other burials (kurgan 5 of the same cemetery) were similarly rich (Pogodin 1990). But no weapon traces were found.

In the river Tobol area wealthy female burials did not contained any weapons either. We can see the same situation in the Ishim area, with the one exception: that is the mentioned-above burial where an iron dagger was found along with a mirror, rings, bracelets and golden embroidery. In the Baraba forest-steppe – the eastern periphery of the Sargat world – big mounds are excavated only in the Ust’-Tartas cemetery and they unfortunately were totally robbed. Other investigated cemeteries of this region are very modest in terms of grave goods (Polosmak 1987, Table I).

In the Scythian elite female burials, as mentioned above, the presence of weaponry is well documented. Concerning of Sarmatian area, judging from publications, the most wealthy female graves did not include weaponry (Kovpanenko 1986; Skvortsov, Skripkin 2008, 98-116), whereas the males of the same status level were always accompanied by weapons (Dvornichenko, Fedorov-Davydov 1989, 5-13; Yablonsky, Mesheryakov 2007, 55-62). Based on the location and grave goods analysis of Sarmatian female weapon burials, Bogachenko and

Maksimenko have concluded that “apparently, armament in a grave cannot be an indicator of high or low status of dead woman” (2009, 54).

CONCLUSION

Direct participation of some Sargat women in armed conflicts can be considered proven based on the paleoanthropological data and the presence of armament in female burials. At the same time, judging by “complex of archer” in the graves, women could be not only passive victims of violence, but active fighters. Nevertheless, the scale of their participation ought to be considered as insignificant, so the mentioned above evidence concerns only very small part of women. The presence of any female regular warrior units is not confirmed by the archaeological sources. On the other hand, because of the mobile way of life and potentially dangerous situation on the steppe/forest-steppe frontier, the women should wield some weapons according to their possibilities (usually bow and arrow and dagger) to defend themselves, their children and a household as needed. Besides, they were good horsemen (horsewomen?) (Razhev 2009, 280).

It is difficult to comment on the existence of ‘women-warriors’ even though females were quite often buried with weapons since the overwhelming majority of these artifacts are arrowheads, sometimes only one or two. According to some interpretations these women belonged to warrior clans, and arrowheads may well have been a marker (or sign) of this. The separate arrowheads were usually found in the poor burials and it is hard to regard them as a marker of high status. In the material sense bone arrowheads are not particularly valuable. The separate arrowheads could be used in some burial rites during the interment, which symbolic sense is still not clear.

The symbols of high vertical status of woman in terms of grave goods, most probably, are rather luxury goods and rich ornaments than armament. Big mounds and deep pit graves were common status marker for all genders. It seems, that “armed women” did not occupy the top of the Sargat hierarchical pyramid. Possibly, their soldiering was more related to individual dispositions and potentialities, but not the certain social position or status of a family.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the editors for their invitation to publish my paper. I am very grateful to Dr. Karen Rubinson for her comments and correcting my English, and to Leonid Pogodin for the use of his not yet published materials.

Bibliography

BALABANOVA, M.A. (2004) – O drevnikh makro-kefalakh Vostochnoi Evropy, OPUS, Vol. 3, 171-187.


59

BERSENEVA, N.A. (2008) –Women and Children in the Sargat Culture, in K. Linduff and K. Rubinson (eds.), Are All Warriors Male? Gender Roles on the Ancient Eurasian Steppe, Walnut Creek, Ch. 7, 131-151.

BERSENEVA, N.A. (2009) – K voprosu o skhodstve “modeli” pogrebal’noi obryadnosti stepnykh i lesostepnykh kul’tur Urala i Zapadnoi Sibiri v epokhu rannego zheleza, in A.D. Tairov and N.O. Ivanova (eds.), Ethnic interactions in South Urals, Chelyabinsk, 110-113.

BERSENEVA, N.A. (2010) – Sargat Burial Sites in the Middle Irtysh area: a gender analysis // Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia, № 3 (43), 72-81.

BOGACHENKO, T.V. and MAKSIMENKO, V.E. (2008) – Pogrebeniya “zhenshin s oruzhiem” epokhi rannego zheleznogo veka na Dony (metodologicheskie aspekty problemy izucheniya), Nizhnevolzhskii arkheologicheskii vestnik, Vol. 9, 48-61.

BUZHILOVA, A.P. and KAMENETSKII, I.S. (2004) –Sarmaty i boevye stolknoveniya (analiz cherepnykh travm na primere materialov iz mogil’nika Sagvanskii I), OPUS, Vol. 3, 208-213.

BUNYATYAN, E.P. (1985) – Metodika sotialnykh rekonstruktii v arkheologii. Na materiale skifskikh mogilnikov IV-III vv. do n.e.. Kiev.

ČUGUNOV, K., PARZINGER, H. and NAGLER, A. (2010) – Der skythenzeiliche Furstenkurgan Arzan 2 in Tuva, Mainz.

CUNLIFFE, B. (1997) – The Ancient Celts, Oxford.

DVORNICHENKO, V.V. and FEDOROV-DAVYDOV, G.A. (1989) – Pamyatniki sarmatskoi aristokratii v Nizhnem Povolzh’e, in M.G. Moshkova (ed.) Sokrovisha sarmatskikh vozhdei i drevnie goroda Povolzh’ya, Moscow, 5-13.

DOBROVOL’SKAYA, M.V. (2009) – Travmaticheskie povrezhdeniya na skeletnykh ostankakh lyudei iz kurgannykh nekropolei Srednego Dona, in V. Gulyaev (ed.) Arkheologiya Srednego Dona v skif-skuyu epokhu: Tpudy Donskoi archaeologicheskoi ekspeditsii IA RAN, 2004-2008, Мoscow, 174-185.

GILCHRIST, R. (1997) – Ambivalent bodies: gender and medieval archaeology, in J. Moore and E. Scott (eds.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, London and New York, 42-58.

GREEN, M. (1995) – Celtic Goddesses. Warriors, Virgins and Mothers, London.

GULIAEV, V. (2003) – Amazons in the Scythia: new finds at the Middle Don, Southern Russia, World Archaeology, Vol. 35, № 1, 112-125.

HARKE, H. (2004) – The Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite: an interdisciplinary analysis, OPUS, Vol. 3, 197-207.

HERODOTUS (1999) – The History, Moscow.

JONES-BLEY, K. (2008 – Arma Feminamque Cano: Warrior-Women in the Indo-European World, in K.

Linduff and K. Rubinson (eds.), Are All Warriors Male? Gender Roles on the Ancient Eurasian Steppe, Walnut Creek, Ch. 2, 35-50.

KOVPANENKO, G.T. (1986) – Sarmatskoe pogrebenie I v. n.e. na Yuzhnom Buge, Kiev.

KHAZANOV, A.M. (1975) – Sotsialnaya istoria skifov, Moscow.

KOVRIGIN, A.A., KORYAKOVA, L.N., COURTAUD, P., RAZHEV, D.I. and SHARAPOVA, S.V. (2006) –Aristokraticheskie pogrebeniya iz mogilnika Karas’e 9, in G.T. Obydennova and N.S. Savel’ev (eds.) Yuzhnyi Ural i sopredelnye territorii v skifo-sarmatskoe vremya, Ufa, 188-204.

KRADIN, N.N. (2007 – Kochevniki Evrazii (The nomads of Eurasia), Almaty.

KRADIN, N.N., DANILOV, S.V. and KONOVALOV, P.B. (2004) – Sotzial’naya struktura khunnu Zabaikal’ya, Vladivostok.

LUCY, S.J. (1997) – Housewives, warrior and slaves? Sex and gender in Anglo-Saxon burials, in J. Moore and E. Scott (eds.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology, London and New York, 150-168.

MATVEYEV, A.V. and MATVEYEVA, N.P. (1991) –Tyutrinskii mogil’nik, in N.P. Matveyeva, L.A. Dryabina and A.V. Matveyev (eds.), Istochniki etnokul’turnoi istorii Zapadnoi Sibiri, Tyumen, 104-139.

MATVEYEVA, N.P. (1993) – Sargatskaya kultura na Srednem Tobole, Novosibirsk.

MATVEYEVA, N.P. (1994) – Rannii zhelezhyi vek Priishimya, Novosibirsk.

MATVEYEVA, N.P. (2001) – Staro-Lybaevskii-4 kurgannyi mogil’nik po raskopkam 1999 goda, Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnografii, Vol. 3, 98-113.

MATRENIN, S.S. and TISHKIN, A.A. (2005) – Bulan-kobinskaya kul’tura Gornogo Altaya, in N.N. Kradin and A.A. Tishkin (eds.), Sotcial’naya struktura rannikh kochevnikov Evrazii, Irkutsk, 152-182.

MATYUTSHENKO, V.I. and TATAUROVA, L.V. (1997) – Mogilnik Sidorovka v Omskom Priirtysh’e, Novosibirsk, 1997.

McHUGH, F. (1999) – Theoretical and quantitative approaches to the study of mortuary practice, British Archaeological Reports’, 785, Oxford.

MORTENSEN, L. (2004) – The “marauding pagan warrior” woman, in K.A. Pyburn (ed.), Ungendering Civilization, New-York and London, 94-116.

NELSON, S.M. (1997) – Gender in Archaeology. Analyzing Power and Prestige, Walnut Creek.

PARKER PEARSON, M. (1999) –The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Stroud.

PETRENKO, V.G., MASLOV, V.E. and KANTOROVICH, A.R. (2004) – Pogrebenie znatnoi skifyanki iz mogilnika Novozavedennoe-II


60

(predvaritelnaya publikatsia), in L.T. Yablonsky (ed.) Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki rannego zheleznogo veka Uga Rossii, Moscow, 179-210.

POGODIN, L.I. (1990) – Otchet ob arkheologicheskikh issledovaniyakh v Nizhneomskom i Gor’kovskom raionakh Omskoi oblasti v 1989 g., Archive of Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography of Omsk State University, F. II, D. 65, Omsk.

POLOSMAK, N.V. (1987) – Baraba v epokhu rannego zheleza, Novosibirsk.

POLOSMAK, N.V. (2001) – Vsadniki Ukoka, Novosibirsk.

RAZHEV, D.I. (2009) – Bioantropologiya naseleniya sargatskoi obshnosti, Ekaterinburg.

SKVORTSOV, N.B. and SKRIPKIN, A.S. (2008) – Pogrebenie sarmatskoi znati iz Volgogradskogo Zavolzh’ya, Nizhnevolzhskii arkheologicheskii vestnik, Vol. 9, 98-116.

SMIRNOV, K.F. (1982) – “Amazonka” IV v do n.e. na Donu, Sovetskaya arkheologiya, на Дону, № 1, 120-131.

STRIZHAK, M.S. (2007) – O zhenskikh pogrebeniyakh s oruzhiem kochevnikov Priural’ya i Povolzh’ya v VI – nachale IV vv. do n.e., in L.T. Yablonsky and A.D. Tairov (eds.) Vooruzhenie sarmatov: regional’naya tipologiya i khronologia, Chelyabinsk, 71-75.

TROITSKAYA, T.N. (1987) – Yavleniye travestizma v skifo-sibirskom mire, in V.E. Medvedev (ed.) Skifo-sibirskii mir: Iskusstvo i ideologiya, Novosibirsk, 59-63.

FIALKO, E.E. (1991) – Pogrebeniya zhenshin s oruzhiem u skifov, in Yu.V. Boltrik and E.P. Bunyatyan (eds.) Kurgany stepnoi Skifii, Kiev, 4-17.

YABLONSKY, L.T. and MESHERYAKOV, D.V. (2007) –Raskopki “tsarskogo kurgana v Filippovke (predvaritel’noe soobshenie), Rossiiskaya arkheolo-giya, № 2, 55-62.

YABLONSKY, L.T. and MESHERYAKOV, D.V. (2008) – Dosledovanie kurgannogo mogil’nika u d. Prokhorovka, in L.T. Yablonsky (ed.) Rannie kochevniki Volgo-Ural’skogo regiona, Orenburg.

"Armed" Females of Iron Age Trans-Uralian Forest-Steppe: Social Reality or Status Identity?

Documents

Transcript of "Armed" Females of Iron Age Trans-Uralian Forest-Steppe: Social Reality or Status Identity?