Child Burials during the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals (Sintashta Culture)

BUDAPEST 2010

SITUATING GENDER IN EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGIES

Edited by

Liv Helga Dommasnes, Tove Hjørungdal, Sandra Montón-Subías, Margarita Sánchez Romero, and Nancy L. Wicker

Front Cover IllustrationGold foil from Rogaland in western Norway showing a man and a woman,

often interpreted as the Nordic Vanir god Freyr and his wife Gerd from the family of Giants. 7th–8th century AD.

(Photo: Svein Skare. © Bergen Museum, University of Bergen, Norway.)

Back Cover IllustrationDama Elche (Museo Arqueológico Nacional, Madrid)

ISBN 978-963-9911-15-4

HU-ISSN 1216-6847

© ARCHAEOLINGUA Foundation

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, digitised, photo copying,

recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

2010

ARCHAEOLINGUA ALAPÍTVÁNYH-1250 Budapest, Úri u. 49

Copyediting by Nancy L. WickerDesktop editing and layout by Rita Kovács

Printed by Prime Rate Kft

Child Burials during the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals (Sintashta Culture)

NATALIA BERSENEVA

In archaeology, the contribution that children made to past societies has largely been ignored, but the situation is improving (BAXTER 2005; KAMP 2001; LUCY 2005; MOORE – SCOTT 2007). This large social group has always been extremely important for the normal functioning of a society. Socialization of children guarantees the reproduction of the cultural norms. Sub-adults are not simply raised into adults; they become adults within the framework of specifi c gender stereotypes and gender identities. Gender roles can vary from society to society, through time, and possibly during the individual lifecycle (LESICK 1997). The study of ancient (“archaeological”) children from a gendered point of view is quite problematic. It is usually impossible to determine the sex of sub-adults from skeletal remains, but ascribing the sex on the basis of accompanying artefacts alone is also problematic.

In spite of these diffi culties, the investigation of children is possible and necessary. Unfortunately, in Russian archaeology, children’s burials serve as a matter of special investigation extremely rarely, with only a few exceptions (BERSENEVA 2006, 2008; KUPRIYANOVA 2004, 2008; RAZHEV – EPIMAKHOV 2004).

The aim of this paper is to begin fi lling this gap with my study focusing on the “archaeology of children” based on burials of the Bronze Age Sintashta period (Fig. 1). The fi rst step is to defi ne symbolic markers of gender for adult burials. The second is to determine such markers for sub-adult graves and try to reconstruct the stages of gender and economic socialization of children.

The Bronze Age Sintashta Culture of the South Urals

The Bronze Age of the Eurasian steppe region is central in discussions of such developments as the emergence of Indo-Iranians, early complex societies, the use of domesticated horses for traction and warfare, and the appearance of chariot technology and its diffusion within the steppe zone. The fi nal stage of the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals (Sintashta period) is represented by a great number of archaeological sites and is currently the period most investigated.

162 Natalia Berseneva

Sites of the Sintashta culture are currently dated from the 20th to the 18th centuries BC (HANKS et al. 2007). The settlements and cemeteries of the Sintashta type are concentrated in the northern steppe of the South Urals (Fig. 1). Permanent

Fig. 1. Location of the Sintashta sites. Settlements: 1. Stepnoe; 4. Chernorech’e III; 6. Bakhta; 7. Parizh; 8. Ust’e;

10. Chekatay; 11. Isiney; 12. Rodniki; 13. Кuisak; 14. Sarym-Sakly; 15. Konoplyanka; 16. Zhurumbay; 17. Kamenny Ambar; 20. Ulak; 21. Кizil’skoe; 22. Selek; 23. Аrkaim;

25. Sintashta; 27. Sintashata II; 28. Аndreevskoe; 29. Аlandskoe; 31. Bersuat; 37. Malo-Kizil’skoe; 38. Shibaevo I.

Burial grounds: 2–3. Stepnoe I, Stepnoe-M; 5. Кrivoe Ozero; 9. Solnze II; 18. Kamenny Ambar-5; 19. Knyazhensky; 24. Bolshekaragancky; 26. Sintashta; 30. Solonchanka Iа; 31. Gerasimovsky II; 32. Тanabergen II; 33. Zhaman-Кargala I; 34–35. Ishkinovka I

and II; 36. Novokumaksky; 39. Tcharev kurgan; 40. Ubagan I; 41. Bestamak.

163Child Burials during the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals

settlements, which are round or oval in plan, are supported by sophisticated systems of fortifi cation; the internal space has a very structured organization and is almost entirely occupied by standard buildings that are organized into regular blocks (Fig. 2). The total area of the settlements ranges from 0.8 to 2.0 hectares. The Sintashta economy was based on livestock-breeding, and there are numerous traces of metalworking at the settlements.

Burial rites

Cemeteries are represented by burial mounds of up to ten barrows. Burial grounds, as a rule, are related to the settlement forming the model “one settlement − one cemetery”, and they located across the river from each other (ZDANOVICH – BATANINA 2007). A Sintashta “barrow” constitutes a small cemetery; its mound was shaped from individual mounds over separate graves after their destruction. The mound was not very tall (up to 1 m). Each barrow contained from one or two up to 30–35 burials (Figs 3–4), both individual and collective, and a ditch usually surrounded the barrow. The deceased were placed on the left (rarely on the right) side in a fl exed position with hands near the face. Burial architecture was quite complex. Vast pits were dug into the sterile soil (up to 3.0 m deep), and sometimes there was a wooden ceiling supported by posts.

Fig. 2. Arkaim fortifi ed settlement. Aerial photo and topographic interpretation(after ZDANOVICH, G. — BATANINA 2007).


Fig. 3. Kamennyi Ambar-5 cemetery. A: Barrow 2. Plan: a = position of the dead; 6 = burials with “wheel holes”.

B: Barrow 2, Grave 8. Plan and grave goods: 1–4. ceramic vessels; 5. bronze knife; 6–7. small bronze items; 8. chisel; 9. bone cheek-pieces; 10. stone mace-heads;

11. stone arrowhead; 12–13. beads; 14–15. bone artifacts; 16. amulets. Burial I. male (22-26 years old); II. sub-adult (8 years old);

III. sub-adult (5 years old); IV. sub-adult (6 years old) (after EPIMAKHOV 2005).


Fig. 4. Kamennyi Ambar-5 cemetery. A: Barrow 4. Plan: a = position of the dead; 6 = burials with “wheel holes”.

B: Barrow 4, Grave 15. Plan and grave goods: 1–3. ceramic vessels; 4. bronze adze; 5. beads; 6. stone slab-anvil. Burial is sub-adult (3–7 years old).

C: Barrow 2, Grave 12. Plan and grave goods: 1–12. ceramic vessels; 13. copper ore; 14. bronze awls; 15. bronze knives; 16. bronze adze; 17. beads; 18. bronze bracelet;

19. arrowheads; 20. bone spindle whorl; 21. pebbles; 22. fragment of bronze sickle; 23. amulets from corsac fangs. Burial I: sub-adult (8 years old); II: sub-adult (3 years old);

III: female (25–30 years old); IV: female (18–20 years old) (after EPIMAKHOV 2005).


All age categories are represented except for individuals more than 55 years old. Thus the mortality pattern differs from a “normal” profi le. In relation to the sizes of settlements, the number of persons buried here is relatively small. This, combined with complex burial rituals – including features such as the sacrifi ce of animals, high-value grave goods, and elaborate tomb construction – allows us to consider that these burial grounds were used by only one segment of the population, probably individuals of relatively high status. Judging by paleoanthropological observations from barrow 25 in the Bolshekaragansky cemetery, the buried population was relatively healthy without signs of chronic or periodic diseases. Signs of death through violence are absent (LINDSTROM 2002, 163). On the contrary, for the Krivoe Ozero cemetery, anthropologist Galina Rykushina has stated that all those buried here, with a few exceptions, suffered from enamel hypoplasia, parodontosis (adults), and mastoiditis as cranial pathology. Besides this, traces of meningeal (adenovirus) infection were revealed on all skulls. She suggests that the buried could be epidemic victims (RYKUSHINA 2003, 359–360)1.

One of the most impressive traits of Sintashta mortuary ritual is the paired and collective tomb. Paired graves contain two individuals regardless of their age or sex, whereas collective tombs contain more than two individuals buried (with examples of three to eight), also regardless of their age or sex affi liation. These were not crypts with consecutive interments but communal graves in which all the dead persons were placed in the grave at the same time. In the South Trans-Urals about 55% of all Sintashta dead were buried in non-individual grave pits.

Grave goods usually include many categories: weaponry, horse trappings (shield-like cheek-pieces), clothing attachments and ornaments, and tools and objects linked to metallurgy (Figs 3–4). Traces of chariots – mainly the imprints of wheels – are found predominantly in graves belonging to adult males but also in collective tombs (which may include children) (Fig. 3). Pottery was especially numerous, with one or more hand-made ceramic vessels with recognizable Sintashta decoration included in each burial.

Abundant sacrifi ces of domestic animals often accompanied the dead (ZDANOVICH – GAIDUCHENKO 2002). A horse typically accompanied a man whereas children and young women were usually given small horned animals (sheep or goats) and dogs. On average, fi ve animals were sacrifi ced per person in the Bolshekaragansky cemetery, barrow 25 (ZDANOVICH 2002).

1 Any differences in grave goods and ritual traits between “healthy” and “epidemic” individuals are absent.


Thus a complicated system of fortifi cations, communal mortuary rituals that include an abundance of sacrifi ced animals and grave goods, and the appearance of wheeled transport all suggest the existence of an early complex society. Nowadays, many scholars believe that the Sintashta population was one of the oldest Indo-Iranian speaking groups, and Sintashta antiquities are closely related to Indo-European material (CARPELAN – PARPOLA 2001; GENING et al. 1992, 9–10; JONES-BLEY 2002; KORYAKOVA – EPIMAKHOV 2007).

Sub-adult burials of the Sintashta

In Sintashta burial grounds the sub-adults2 constitute on average 60% of all buried. It is interesting to note that in the South Ural steppes such a large number of children’s burials is typical only in the Sintashta period (20th–18th centuries BC) and in the next Srubnaya-Andronovo period (17th–15th centuries BC)3. Before the Sintashta period and after the Srybnaya-Andronovo, we have a totally different picture.

Preceding the Sintashta period, the beginning of the Bronze Age (third millennium BC) is connected with the Yamnaya (Pit-Grave) “family” of cultures in the steppe zone of the Urals. The Yamnaya sites are very well represented by barrows. Here, adult male burials make up approximately 80% of the buried population (EPIMAKHOV 2009). Following the period under consideration here, very few cemeteries have been investigated from the fi nal Bronze Age, but as far as we know, their sizes and the number buried in them are extremely modest. Adults absolutely prevail among the buried as well. Grave goods are represented exclusively by ceramics and personal ornaments (EPIMAKHOV 2009). In the Iron Age, this territory was occupied by early nomads, the Sarmatians. Iron Age sites are represented only by burial mounds, with children comprising less than a

2 All individuals whose age did not exceed 14 years old were included in the common category “children” (or “sub-adults”). Individuals aged up to three years old can be named infants. There is a problem with adolescent burials – the accuracy of anthropological identifi cation ranges can only be pinpointed to within one to four years on average for Sintashta mortuary sites because of poor preservation of bone remains. All individuals from 15 to 17 years old were included in the common category “adolescents”.

3 Srubnaya-Andronovo sites are genetically related to the Sintashta (VINOGRADOV 2003, 270).


quarter of all buried (BERSENEVA 2008). On the contrary, in Sintashta cemeteries, children up to age 14 are represented in extremely large numbers at prehistoric mortuary sites. Since, as stated earlier, sub-adults constitute on average more than 60% of all buried (Table 1), this unique material is an excellent basis for investigations of ancient childhood.

Table 1. Correlation of adult and sub-adult burials in Sintashta cemeteries4

Buried

CemeteriesB

olsh

ekar

agan

sky

Kam

enny

Am

bar-5

Kriv

oe O

zero

Tana

berg

en II

Tota

l

Adultsnumberpercent

1751.5%

3131.9%

917.6%

1664.0%

7335.4%

Sub-adults, 0–14numberpercent

1648.5%

6264.0%

4180.4%

728.0%

12661.2%

Adolescents, 15–17numberpercent

00%

44.1%

12.0%

28.0%

73.4%

Total buriednumberpercent

33100%

97100%

51100%

25100%

206100%

Most sub-adults were buried in non-individual tombs (61.9% on average).5 (Figs 3–4). The burial rites for children were the same as for adults, and the internal space of children’s burials was organized in much the same way. The body position

4 The age-sex determinations were made for barrow 25 of the Bolshekaragansky cemetery by anthropologist Richard Lindstrom (ZDANOVICH 2002); for Kamenny Ambar-5 by Dmitriy Razhev (EPIMAKHOV 2005); for Krivoe Ozero by Galina Rykushina (VINOGRADOV 2003); and for Tanabergen II by Alexander Khokhlov (TKACHEV 2007). Necropoleis of the eponymous Sintashta settlement have no anthropological identifi cations, and the bone material is lost. Other sites are not fully published.

5 In the Kamennyi Ambar-5 cemetery, 89% of all children were buried in communal tombs (RAZHEV – EPIMAKHOV 2004, 110).


and the location of grave goods for adults and sub-adults are also the same. In addition, wooden structures were found in the majority of tombs in the same manner as in adult graves. The majority of individual children’s pits are smaller in size than adults’, thus usually corresponding to the smaller size of the deceased and the smaller quantity of accompanying grave goods. However, collective children’s tombs with as many as eight individuals were, of course, larger. A small number of Sintashta graves contained pairs of a man and woman lying so that they face each other; sometimes a child was buried along with such a pair.

Nicolai Vinogradov6 characterizes children’s burials in the Krivoe Ozero cemetery as chiefl y individual, not very deep (up to 0.4–0.7 m), and in most cases oriented north-south (VINOGRADOV 2003, 225–226). Grave goods were mainly pottery. Besides ceramics, only astragali7, faience and bronze beads, and a few bone and horn items were discovered. Small horned animals predominate in the sacrifi cial deposits.

Andrey Epimakhov8 notes that in the Kamenny Ambar-5 cemetery, grave goods of children’s burials also did not vary much (EPIMAKHOV 2005, 149–159). Most of the children were accompanied only by ornaments, amulets, beads (Fig. 3. B-12, B-13), shells, necklaces of fox and corsac9 fangs (Fig. 4. C-23), and ceramic vessels. Sometimes the grave goods included bronze awls (Fig. 3. B-8) and needles, metal ornaments, adzes (Fig. 4. B-4, C-16), knives (Fig. 4, C-15), and occasionally stone arrowheads (Fig. 3. B-11). Rarely, tools and weaponry were found in burials of children aged three years and older. One child (age of death, 8 years old) was accompanied by a set of arrowheads (Fig. 4. C-19). On this ground, the author proposes “quite early gender identifi cation” amongst the Sintashta people (EPIMAKHOV 2002, 46; 2005, 149).

Children have been one of the subjects of Vitaliy Tkachev’s recent research (TKACHEV 2007, 123–127). He notes that in Sintashta children’s burials from the Tanabergen II cemetery10, stone tools and weaponry are completely absent. Bronze and bone tools are represented by knives, awls, and bone spindle-whorls.

6 The excavator of Krivoe Ozero (the necropolis of the Chernorech’e settlement).7 An astragalus is the talus bone of an animal, usually sheep or goat. Sometimes astragali

show traces of working with a tool.8 The excavator of Kamenny Ambar-5 cemetery (the necropolis of the Kamenny Ambar

settlement).9 Vulpes corsac, also known as the Steppe Fox.10 He is the excavator this site.


In Tkachev’s opinion, “early gender differentiation” becomes apparent in the abundance of ornaments. He suggests that “sex affi liation markers” were fi xed even for infants11. On this basis Tkachev suggests “the presence of an achieved status in Sintashta society” (TKACHEV 2007, 125–127).

Irina Shevnina and Svetlana Voroshilova have divided the sub-adult burials of the Bestamak cemetery into two groups: infants and young children (up to 7 years old), and adolescents (from 8 to 15 years old) (SHEVNINA – VOROSHILOVA 2009). The infant group is characterized by the following grave goods: ceramic vessels, sacrifi ces of small horned cattle, ornaments (mainly beads), and astragali. Rare items include bronze knives and small axes. Older children were accompanied by more varied grave goods including horses and cattle among the sacrifi ced animals, metal and bone tools, and arrowheads. Astragali were found in all burials of children up to ten years.

Gender markers

In children’s burials, gender and age symbols can “cross-cut” each other. For our purpose, it is necessary to distinguish between possible age and gender markers. Only artefacts that are equally associated with all age groups of the same sex can be fi rm markers of gender. It is logical that it is necessary to determine so-called “sex markers” for anthropologically-sexed adults fi rst. The structural features of the grave – such as depth and interior organization, position and orientation of the body of the deceased, and the presence of certain grave markers – may indicate male/female differences. Clear gender differentiation related to burial location in the barrow has not been observed; both male and female graves were organized along the same principle. There are no systematic differences in the volume and depths of the grave pits of males and females.

In many societies, gender distinctions are marked in burials by artefacts that can be traced archaeologically. As a rule, these artefacts are associated with “femaleness” and “maleness”, and may refl ect social roles performed by individuals of different sexes. Here it is necessary to emphasize some special problems regarding the social interpretation of Sintashta mortuary sites. They are the collective nature of the graves (55%), the fact that at least of half of the burials have been disturbed by animals and robbers (perhaps in antiquity), and a lack of qualifi ed anthropological identifi cations from early excavations.

11 I think that the small ornaments from children’s graves seem rather gender-neutral.


Andrey Epimakhov regards arrowheads, quivers, parts of bows, spearheads, axes, and traces of chariot and cheek-pieces as “fi rm male markers” (EPIMAKHOV 2002, 46). Some types of ornaments – bracelets, beads, spiral pendants, needles and awls, and bronze hair ornaments for braids – he considers as typically female.

Viktor Logvin identifi es rings, bracelets, needles, pendants, and beads (when there are many of them) as mainly female objects (LOGVIN 2002, 194). These items were usually absent in male burials. Axes and adzes were connected only with male graves. Animal bones, vessels, arrowheads, knives, and awls were discovered both in female and male burials.

Vitaliy Tkachev, together with the above-mentioned archaeologists, identifi es weaponry – namely spearheads, axes, and arrowheads – as the “strong attribute of all male burials” (TKACHEV 2007, 122). Female markers are multifarious types of ornaments and bone spindle-whorls.

To verify proposed gender markers, I have summarized and re-analyzed information on gender markers from published and anthropologically identifi ed data from the South Urals (Bolshekaragansky, Kamenny Ambar-5, Krivoe Ozero, Tanabergen II (see Table 1) and from one child’s grave from the Bestamak cemeteries12). In sum, burials of 207 individuals, of which 134 were children and adolescents up to 17 years old, are included in the analysis.

The correlation of the biological sex of the dead and their accompanying artefacts allows me to make the following conclusions:

Artefacts that were exclusively found in male graves are rare categories (chariots, bronze axes, spearheads, etc.), excluding adzes. Despite the fact that weaponry is typically found in male burials, arrowheads and parts of bows and cheek-pieces are rarely found in female and children’s tombs.

There is no doubt that bronze hair ornaments are female attributes. However, some types of ornaments – including fi nger rings, beads, animal fangs, and possibly bracelets – sometimes belong to male burials. Awls are represented in male, female, and children’s grave goods, whereas sewing needles are usually found in female pits, with only one case of a bronze needle accompanying a man (Tanabergen II). Once again I would like to stress that the fi rm gender-linked

12 Unfortunately, the excavation materials of the large cemetery at Bestamak are not fully published, excluding a few adult burials (KALIEVA – LOGVIN 2009; LOGVIN 2002) and only one children’s burial (SHEVNINA – VOROSHILOVA 2009). Anthropological identifi cation of the child’s remains was made by Richard Lindstrom.


grave goods like bronze hair ornaments, spearheads, axes, and chariots are quite rare. The bronze adze may also possibly be considered a fi rm male marker.

Gender analysis of the children’s burials

Finally, I return to children’s burials. In total, I have analyzed 134 Sintashta burials of individuals up to 17 years old in the South Urals. The grave goods of children chiefl y comprised ornaments (mainly beads), so-called amulets (drilled fangs of predators), and also astragali which were often found in large numbers.

Beads of various materials were found in a total in 29 grave pits, including 15 graves belonging to children up to age 14. Ten burials with beads were female. In the South Trans-Urals, there are no reliable male graves with beads. Only in the Tanabergen II cemetery (Cis-Urals) is there a male burial with a few faience beads, which were found near the thorax. Moreover, in this grave there was a “typical female” bronze needle and a “typical male” adze (TKACHEV 2007, 22–24).

Astragali were found in 26 graves, of which 16 burials (58%) belonged to sub-adults (sex unknown), fi ve to adult females, and one to an adult male. The remaining four graves with astragali are collective (or disturbed) tombs, in which the grave goods affi liation for specifi c individuals is impossible to determine.

Bronze knives were rather widespread as grave goods, accompanying six sub-adults up to age 14 and three aged 15 to 17. Bronze adzes, awls, abrasive stones, and arrowheads are less frequently found (Table 2). Nevertheless, there is a certain regularity in that the non-ceramic and non-ornamental grave goods are associated only with individuals older than three years (EPIMAKHOV 2005, 149) (Table 2)13.

13 Often new archaeological discoveries disprove our assumptions about the past and illustrate how little we can understand the mentality of ancient people. Recently some interesting discoveries relating to children’s burials have been made in Sintashta archaeology. In the Bestamak cemetery, the burial of a four-year-old child has been discovered who was accompanied by impressive grave goods, including “adult” adornments such as bronze bracelets, bronze ornaments for braids, spiral pendants of one and a half rounds, and two ring-shaped pendants. Necklaces of beads and three ceramic vessels also were found. However, most surprisingly, a massive bronze spearhead was found here. It is a very rare item even in adult male burials! Animal bones are absent. The abundance of various jewelry and bridal-decoration is evidence of the female sex of the dead (SHEVNINA – VOROSHILOVA 2009). Also in the Stepnoe-M


Table 2. Correlation between grave goods and age of children at death.

Grave goods category Number of children Age of children (in years)Bronze knife 9 3–17Bronze awl 6 3–7Bronze adze 6 3–15Arrowhead 4 3–10Beads (more than 10) 5 3–10Spearhead 1 4Parts of bow 2 9–10Abrasive stones 4 3−17

The regularity that was discovered does not work in the reverse direction since far from all the deceased older than three years were provided with tools or weaponry. However, these objects are completely absent from infant burials.

What kinds of children’s grave goods can we consider as gender-markers? Apparently, pottery and astragali are gender-neutral, although the latter are

mainly associated with children and females. Small ornaments (beads, pendants, amulets, and shells) are chiefl y related to sub-adult burials. It is interesting to note that such adult-related ornaments as bracelets or fi nger-rings are absent from children’s burials. With some reservations, we can assume that a large number of beads (more than ten) and hair decoration were markers of girls. However such burials are relatively rare (Table 2). Bronze knives and awls are frequently found in both female and male graves. It is quite possible that these items were not gender-linked at all. Arrowheads are solely found in female graves. Adzes were only found in male burials and therefore may symbolize a male child.

Early gender differentiation?

Finally, I will return to the question of “early gender differentiation” in Sintashta society. Burials of sub-adults less than three years old did not contain any indicators of their gender identity. One may suggest that the society did not accent distinctions between boys and girls before they reached this age, at least in the funerary sphere. In the case of a death at an age of up to three years, a child therefore necessarily received gender-neutral grave goods. This is a rule without any exceptions (for the present time). Among children three years and older there is also a large number of burials (more than 50%) with gender-neutral

cemetery (not yet published), bone parts of a bow and arrowheads were found in a paired adolescent burial (9–10 years old) (BERSENEV et al. forthcoming).


grave goods. However, in this age group we also have a series of burials whose grave goods confi rm that the adult mourners treated them as (future) males and females. It is diffi cult to explain why this attitude was only shown toward some children and not all.

Clearly, providing dead children with burial artefacts was not strongly gender-linked. To sum up, we can state that most burials of Sintashta sub-adults (ages 3–14 years) are gender-neutral in terms of grave goods. Only a very small number of graves included weapons, tools, or a great deal of jewelry as grave goods to mark the gender of a sub-adult.

Rather, in Sintashta mortuary practice the age of sub-adults has been marked. In graves of children of all ages (and, obviously, both boys and girls) there are items rarely associated with adults: astragali, fang-amulets, and small ornaments including beads and mollusk shells. Astragali are frequently found in child and female burials of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the steppes of Eurasia (BERSENEVA 2008; JONES-BLEY 1994). Both astragali and mollusk shells, in particular, may be included because they were toys. I would also suggest that some items and their choice were completely subjective and left to the discretion of the adult mourners.

Gender-differentiated socialization

Cross-culturally, gender-differentiated socialization starts with the birth of a child or very early in its life. It is a pan-cultural phenomenon: in all societies boys and girls are socialized in different ways. Children adopt cultural norms of behavior, gender appearance, and values. Gender socialization by the age of three is considered normal in contemporary sociology. At this age the child begins to attribute her- or himself to a certain gender with confi dence (so-called gender identifi cation) (BERN 2007, 48). Sintashta children received gender-distinctive grave goods beginning at the age of three. This indicates a normal age for gender-differentiated socialization, according to our norms and probably also those of the Sintashta.

Labor socialization

In many societies, the contribution of children to economic activity is quite great. Ethnographical and historical observations demonstrate that child labor was important in agricultural and pastoral societies (KAMP 2001, 15). Children


perform much work essential to the economy and take part in religious and temporal rites. In general, the responsibilities of children tend to parallel adult gender divisions.

Archaeologically, including children in the economic activities of their communities can be refl ected in mortuary rites by the presence of tools in their graves. In Sintashta adult burials there are many types of metal tools: bronze knives, awls, adzes, needles, chisels, and sickles. Stone tools for ore grinding, polishing, and sharpening are numerous, too. Bone artefacts are represented by bone disks (spindle whorls), various handles, and harpoon-heads. The overwhelming majority of adults (73.5%) were buried with tools. Children (from 3 to 14) were not (see Table 1). Only eleven graves (17.2%) contained metal tools (knives, awls, and adzes) and one included abrasive stone. However, in adolescent burials (14–17 years old), tools were found as often (70%) as with adults. The tools discovered with adolescents include the same types as those found with children but with the addition of stone pestles and abrasives.

One may suggest that in Sintashta society, labor socialization started around the age of three, parallel with the formation of gender stereotypes. Tools from child burials are mostly widespread types, simple and poly-functional. They were tools for day-to-day activities, not miniatures or imitations. One may suggest that the division of labor was organized along lines of gender and age. From the age of 14, sub-adults were fully included in adult work activities, which may signify that they in fact became adults.

Conclusion

As with many ethnographic and historic communities, the sub-adult category in Sintashta society was limited to children younger than 14–15 years (cf. note 2). We have noticed that individuals older than 14–15 were often provided with a greater quantity of grave goods that also refl ect more variety. In particular, tools become more numerous in these graves.

In general, sub-adult burials have much in common with female ones in terms of grave goods. The following are features common for burials of women and sub-adults: the absence of weaponry, the predominance of ornaments and astragali among the grave gifts, and the presence of small horned animals in sacrifi ces. Similarities between females and children with regard to grave goods are observed


in many societies.14 Most children are probably included in domestic labor that is often considered “the female sphere”. According to ethnographic sources, boys (like girls) usually belong to the “mother world” until their initiation (BOCHAROV 2001, 89). Often small boys (up to 6–10 years old) do tasks that are otherwise allocated to women (like girls), for example cleaning or caring for younger children (KAMP 2001, 16).

Archaeologically, we can see three stages of child socialization in Sintashta society:1. Infants up to three years old. All burials are gender neutral regarding grave

goods. Tools are completely absent.2. Children aged three to 14. Burials contain small numbers of tools and

weapons.3. Adolescents aged 14 to 17. Tools are represented in most burials, but their

types are less numerous than in adult graves. In fact, this age category functions as adults.

In conclusion, we can clearly see that the archaeology of gender and childhood, especially in such vast and insuffi ciently explored regions as the Eurasian steppe, is a topic that requires a good deal more attention and study. The abundant archaeological material accumulated by Russian archaeologists needs to be explained in the light of modern theoretical models. Within Russia such an approach is almost unknown, but the richness of the archaeological record demands a fundamental reappraisal of the processes at work in society during the second and fi rst millennia BC. My investigations only begin this huge work.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Liv Helga Dommasnes for the invitation to participate in this book. My gratitude goes to Andrey Epimakhov for his comments and permission to use fi gures from his publication. Also I am very grateful to Nancy Wiсker for correcting my English and to the other editors for their helpful remarks.

14 Age-sex analysis of Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in eastern England highlights the ways that age-based relationships linked children and women; male children were rarely found with male sex-linked artefacts whereas many children, both male and female, were treated as female in terms of grave goods (PARKER PEARSON 1999, 103). These features are typical for Sargat mortuary practice as well (BERSENEVA 2008).


Works Cited

BAXTER, J. E. 2005The Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender, and Material Culture. AltaMira, Walnut Creek.

BERN, S. M. 2007The Social Psychology of Gender. Praim-EVROZNAK, St. Petersburg.

BERSENEV, A. G. – EPIMAKHOV, A. V. – ZDANOVICH, D. G. (forthcoming)

Luki Sintashtinskoi kul’tury: materialy i varianty reconstruktcii (Sintashta Bows: Materials and Reconstructions).

BERSENEVA, N. A. 2006Archaeology of Children: Sub-adult Burials during the Iron Age in the Trans-Urals and Western Siberia. In: Gallou, C. – Georgiadis, M. (eds), The Archaeology of Cult and Death. 179–192. Archaeolingua, Budapest.

BERSENEVA, N. A. 2008Women and Children in the Sargat Culture. In: Linduff, K. M. – Rubinson, K. S. (eds), Are All Warriors Male? Gender Roles on the Ancient Eurasian Steppe. 131–151. AltaMira, Lanham.

BOCHAROV, V. V. 2001Antropologia vozrasta (The Anthropology of Age). St. Petersburg University Press, St. Petersburg.

CARPELAN, C. – PARPOLA, A. 2001Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in Archaeological Perspective. In: Carpelan, C. – Parpola, A. – Koskikallio, P. (eds), Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. 55–150. Soumalais-Ugrilainen Seura, Helsinki.

EPIMAKHOV, A. V. 2002Yuzhnoye Zauralye v period srednei bronzy (The Middle Bronze Age of the South Trans-Urals). YuUrGU, Chelyabinsk.

EPIMAKHOV, A. V. 2005Rannie kompleksnye obshestva severa Zentralnoi Evrasii (po materialam mogil’nika Kamennyi Ambar-5) (The Early Complex Societies of Northern Eurasia (from Materials of the Kamennyi Ambar-5 Cemetery)). Chelyabinskii Dom Pechati, Chelyabinsk.


EPIMAKHOV, A. V. 2009Bronzovyi vek Yuzhnogo Urala: ekonomicheskaya stabilnost’ i sotsial’naya dinamika (The Bronze Age of the South Urals: Economic Stability and Social Trends). Problemy istorii, fi lologii, kul’tury 25, 180−202.

GENING, V. F. – ZDANOVICH, G. B. – GENING, V. V. 1992.Sintashta: Archaeological Sites of Aryan Tribes of the Ural-Kazakh Steppes. Yuzhno-Ural’skoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, Chelyabinsk.

HANKS, B. K. – EPIMAKHOV, A. V. – RENFREW, C. 2007.Towards a Refi ned Chronology for the Bronze Age of the Southern Urals, Russia. Antiquity 312, 353–367.

JONES-BLEY, K. 1994Juvenile Grave Goods in Catacomb Graves from the South Russian Steppe during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age. The Mankind Quarterly 34, 323–335.

JONES-BLEY, K. 2002Indo-European Burial, the “Rig Veda” and “Avesta.” In: Jones-Bley, K. – Zdanovich, D. G. (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium B.C.: Regional Specifi cs in Light of Global Models, Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 45. 68–81. Institute for the Study of Man, Washington DC.

KALIEVA, S. S. – LOGVIN, V. N. 2009Mogil’nik u poselenija Bestamak (predvaritel’noe soobshenie) (The Cemetery near the Bestamak Settlement). Vestnik archeologii, antropologii i etnografi i 9, 32–58.

KAMP, K. A. 2001Where Have All the Children Gone? The Archaeology of Childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8, 1–33.

KORYAKOVA, L. N. – EPIMAKHOV, A. V. 2007The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KUPRIYANOVA, E. V. 2004Miry sintashtinskoi kultury: muzhchiny, zhenshiny, deti (Worlds of the Sintashta Culture: Men, Women, Children). In: Zdanovich, G. B. (ed.), Arkaim. Po stranizam lrevnei istorii Yuzhnogo Urala. 117–126. Krokus, Chelyabinsk.


KUPRIYANOVA, E. V. 2008The Shadow of Woman: Women’s Costume of the Bronze Age as a “Text” (Based on Discoveries in the Necropoleis of the South Trans-Urals and Kazakhstan). AvtoGraf, Chelyabinsk.

LESICK, K. S. 1997Re-engendering gender: Some theoretical and methodological concerns on a burgeoning archaeological pursuit. In: Moore, J. – Scott, E. (ed.), Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. 31–41. Leicester University Press, London.

LINDSTROM, R. W. 2002Anthropological Characteristics of the Population of the Bolshekaragansky Cemetery, Kurgan 25. In: Zdanovich, D. G. (ed.), Arkaim – nekropol. 159–164. Yuzhno-Uralskoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo, Chelyabinsk.

LOGVIN, V. N. 2002The Cemetery of Bestamak and the Structure of the Community. In: Jones-Bley, K. – Zdanovich, D. G. (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium B.C.: Regional Specifi cs in Light of Global Models. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 45. 189–201. Institute for Study of Man, Washington DC.

LUCY, S. J. 2005The archaeology of age. In: Diaz-Andreu, M. et al. (eds), The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. 43–66. Routledge, London.

MOORE, J. – SCOTT, E. M. (eds) 1997Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. Leicester University Press, London.

PARKER PEARSON, M. 1999The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Sutton, Stroud.

RAZHEV, D. I. – EPIMAKHOV, A. V. 2004Fenomen mnogochislennosti detskikh pogrebenii v mogil’nikakh epochi bronzy (The Phenomenon of the Multiplicity of Children’s Burials in Bronze Age Cemeteries). Vestnik archeologii, antropologii i etnografi i 5, 107–113.

RYKUSHINA, G. V. 2003Antropologicheskaya charakteristika naseleniya epokhi bronzy Yuzhnogo Urala po materialam mogil’nika Krivoe Ozero (Anthropological Character-istics of the Bronze Age Population from the Krivoe Ozero Cemetery Materials). In: Vingradov, N. (ed.), Mogil’nik bronzovogo veka: Krivoe Ozero


v Yuzhnom Zauralye. 345–360. Yuzhno-Uralskoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo, Chelyabinsk.

SHEVNINA, I. V. – VOROSHILOVA, S. A. 2009Detskie pogrebeniya epochi razvitoi bronzy (po materialam mogil’nika Bestamak) (Bronze Age Children’s Burials (from the Bestamak Cemetery Materials)). In: Tairov, A. D. − Ivanova, N. O. (eds), Etnicheskie vzaimodeistvia na Yuzhnom Urale. 59–63. South-Ural State University, Chelyabinsk.

TKACHEV, V. V. 2007Stepi Yuzhnogo Priuralya i Zapadnogo Kazakhstana na rubezhe epoch srednei i pozdnei bronzy (The South Zis-Urals and Western Kazakhstan Steppes in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages). Aktyubinskii Zentr istorii, Aktobe.

VINOGRADOV, N. B. 2003Mogil’nik bronzovogo veka Krivoe Ozero v Yuzhnom Zauralye (The Krivoe Ozero Cemetery in South Trans-Urals). Yuzhno-Uralskoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo, Chelyabinsk.

ZDANOVICH, D. G. 2002Arkheologiya kurgana 25 Bolshekaraganskogo mogilnika (The Archaeology of 25th Barrow in the Bolshekaragansky Cemetery). In: Zdanovich, D. G. (ed.), Arkaim – nekropol. 17–110. Yuzhno-Uralskoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo, Chelyabinsk.

ZDANOVICH, D. G. – GAIDUCHENKO, L. L. 2002Sintashta Burial Sacrifi ce: The Bolshekaraganski Cemetery in Focus. In: Jones-Bley, K. – Zdanovich, D. G. (eds), Complex Societies of Central Eurasia from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium B.C.: Regional Specifi cs in Light of Global Models. Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 45. 202–231. Institute for the Study of Man, Washington DC.

ZDANOVICH, G. B. – BATANINA, I. M. 2007Arkaim – strana gorodov: prostranstvo i obrasy (Arkaim – The Land of Towns: Space and Images). Krokus, Chelyabinsk.

Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................ 7

PART ONE

LIV HELGA DOMMASNES – NANCY L. WICKERSituating Gender in European Archaeologies: Introduction ......................... 11

SANDRA MONTÓN-SUBÍASMaintenance Activities and the Ethics of Care ............................................ 23

LISBETH SKOGSTRANDPrehistoric Hegemonic Masculinities .......................................................... 35

LIV HELGA DOMMASNESSituating Standpoints: A Gendered Approach to Norwegian Research History .............................. 51

NANCY L. WICKERSituating Scandinavian Migration Period Bracteates: From Typology and Iconography to Gender, Agency, and Visual Culture ........................................................................................ 67

CHRISTINE MORRISThoroughly Modern Minoans: Women and Goddesses between Europe and the Orient ............................. 83

NONA PALINCAŞLiving for the Others: Gender Relations in Prehistoric and Contemporary Archaeology of Romania ..................................................... 93

VESNA MERCLooking behind the Dead Objects: Gender and Archaeology in Slovenia ......................................................... 117

ANA VALETranslating Materials into Activities and Activities into Persons: The Persistence of Gender Prejudices in Past Narratives in the Iberian Peninsula .............................................................................. 137

PART TWO

SANDRA MONTÓN-SUBÍAS – MARGARITA SÁNCHEZ ROMEROSituating Gender in European Archaeologies: Case Studies ..................... 157

NATALIA BERSENEVAChild Burial during the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals (Sintashta Culture) ....................................................... 161

IRINA SHINGIRAYGender, Identity, and Display: Variations in Materiality among Different Groups of the North-Western Caspian Region during the Early Middle Ages .................................................................... 181

LOURDES PRADOSGender and Identity in Iberian Funerary Contexts (5th–3rd century BC) ... 205

MARIA MINAIn Search of the Cycladic Hunter-warrior: Evidence and Implications for the Understanding of Gender Construction and Roles in the Early Bronze Age Aegean ................................................................ 225

GITTE HANSENNew Pathways for Women in Twelfth-century Bergen, Norway? ............. 245

EVA ALARCÓN GARCÍA – MARGARITA SÁNCHEZ ROMEROMaintenance Activities as a Category for Analysing Prehistoric Societies ................................................................. 261

ALMUDENA HERNANDOGender, Individual, and Affi ne/Consanguineal Relationships in “Egalitarian Societies”: The Awá-Guajá Case ........................................... 283

Biographies .................................................................................................... 308

Child Burials during the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals (Sintashta Culture)

Documents

Transcript of Child Burials during the Middle Bronze Age of the South Urals (Sintashta Culture)