Interpreting the archaeological record is complex and sometimes abstract, but quantitative methods such as statistics can also tell their stories. For the early second millennium in the Southern Urals, a rich funeral record with remains of early chariots have gained international attention. The scientific discussion resolves around a complex constellation of archaeological cultures, their affiliation and chronological constellations. In this situation, applying new methods can lead to new insights and discussions. In this article I present the results of pottery statistics on Bronze Age material from the Southern Urals. This way, a continuous chronological record for funeral pottery from the Middle to Late Bronze Age can be document. But also the genesis of burial sites and the dynamics in funeral ritual become clearer.
Insights into the Bronze Age burial rituals of the Southern Urals
New methods for improving the chronology of prehistoric Central Eurasia
Introduction
Interpreting the archaeological record is problematic if no additional information exists from written sources. In this case, archaeological typology and scientific analysis are often the main tools for gaining insights into prehistoric life, even though they may be rather abstract.
In the centre of the Eurasian Steppe-belt, which stretches from Eastern Europe to Mongolia, the South Ural Mountains occupy a key position, as they form a threshold between the European and Central Asian steppes. The surrounding areas not only form a unique geographical and ecological region, but also, in prehistoric times, an interconnected cultural area called the "Great Urals".[i]
During the Bronze Age, the steppes of the South Urals were inhabited by groups of pastoralists who mainly raised cattle, sheep and horses. The population was mostly sedentary and engaged in copper production. The Bronze Age in Middle Eurasia is a special period because it differs greatly in subsistence strategies and material culture from the preceding Neolithic/ Aeneolithic hunter-gatherers and the later highly mobile horse pastoralists.
A number of fortified settlements have been recorded in the Middle Bronze Age. The finds have been termed the Sintashta culture. Internationally, the Sintashta culture is known for burials with very early chariots in the burial chambers.[ii] In general, burials of the Sintashta culture are unusually sumptuous compared to contemporary cultures in the wider area. In many cases, a wooden burial chamber was constructed. A chamber could contain up to eight individual corpses. A large number of different weapons, tools, ceramic vessels and sanctified animals were placed around the deceased. Many individuals wore jewellery. Flat kurgans (tumuli) were constructed over the graves, which may cover a large number of individual graves.
In comparison, the subsequent Late Bronze Age settlements are much smaller and unfortified. The burial sites are much larger than before, but the individual graves are very simple and uniform, consisting of small burial pits for (mostly) single individuals. Pottery was very common in the graves, and jewellery was also worn on the body, while weapons and tools occur only sporadically. The Late Bronze Age finds are part of a litter complex of several related cultures, commonly summarised as the "Andronovo family of cultures ". Numerous studies have attempted to define this cultural complex and describe their cultural affiliations and chrono-spatial placements. Nevertheless, the burial customs are predominantly comparable to each other.
This general dichotomy of Middle and Late Bronze Age cultures is well known. In recent years, many scholars have argued that a continuous cultural development led from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age in the Southern Urals,[iii] but the highly fragmented cultural record makes the analysis of cultural development en gros difficult.
As an approach to facilitate a general comparison, a chronological typology of funerary pottery was conducted. Pottery is the most common object in graves. Also, the vessels provide many features, namely shape and ornamentation for a general typology. Furthermore, the Middle and Late Bronze Age pottery, although different, lies on a spectrum and is therefore largely comparable. Since the pottery was produced locally and had to be reproduced regularly, vessels are more chronologically and regionally specific compared to more valuable objects.
[i] For a general overview on the Bronze Age in the Southern Urals see L. N. Koryakova/A. V. Epimakhov, The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge world archaeology (Cambridge, New York 2007); R. Krause/L. N. Koryakova (ed.), Multidisciplinary investigations of the Bronze Age settlements in the Southern Trans-Urals (Russia). Frankfurter archäologische Schriften 23 (Bonn 2013).
[ii] For the discussion on chariot from the Southern Urals see the most recent study by Lindner: St. Lindner, Die technische und symbolische Bedeutung eurasischer Streitwagen für Europa und die Nachbarräume im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 20 (Rahden/Westf. 2021).
[iii] See for example: I. V. Chechushkov/A. V. Epimakhov, Eurasian Steppe Chariots and Social Complexity During the Bronze Age. Journal of World Prehistory 31, 4, 2018, 441.
Refining Chronology with Correspondence analysis
Correspondence analysis is a multivariate statistical method for visualising complex relationships. In archaeology, it is an established method mainly for reconstructing chronological sequences, although other aspects can also be detected as long as gradual differences exist in the studied material.[i] In the Southern Urals, correspondence analysis has not yet been conducted on archaeological materials. Therefore, it should first be examined where this method provides reasonable results in this context.
The funeral pottery from a number of Late Bronze Age sites from the trans-Ural forest steppe was examined. The biplots depicts the individual graves in a broad but clearly visible curve. This observation is typical for a correspondence analysis, which shows that the pottery consists of a spectrum. Furthermore, the material is roughly grouped by site and has no visible gaps. A look at the anthropological records, the location of the studied sites and other features of these graves indicate no biases by regional or social differences. Therefore, the results can be interpreted as chronological developments in pottery production. Dividing the plot into different phases, it is possible to describe the typical pottery for each phase as a starting point for a chronological model.
In general, a gradual transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age can be seen in the pottery. The earliest pottery shows a strong variance and plurality. As the Bronze Age progresses, the pottery becomes more uniform and becomes much more sensitive to chronological changes, while regional and social differences do not have a strong influence on the selection of burial pottery. The ornamentation was also more sensitive to chronological changes, while features of the vessels’ shape were replaced only very slowly. The analysis can prove that a joint evaluation of different cultures from the Southern Urals is possible and can help to describe the overall situation.
[i] Multivariate statistical methods have been estabished in western archaeology in the 1950s; for an overview see M. K. H. Eggert, Prähistorische Archäologie. Konzepte und Methoden. UTB Archäologie 2092 (Tübingen 22005) 205.
Bayesian modelling and the absolute chronology
Currently, the chronology of prehistoric sites in Central Eurasia is dated using the radiocarbon method. Unfortunately, radiocarbon dating is prone to a number of biases that have not been adequately studied in Central Eurasia. As a result, dating contexts, sites and cultures suffer from a great deal of inaccuracy. Consequently, it is currently unknown if Middle and Late Bronze Age cultures overlap or succeed each other in time, as radiocarbon dates are not accurate enough.
In recent years, Bayesian modelling has helped to improve the results and lead to more reliable chronological models. Until now, this method has rarely been used in the southern Urals, but initial studies prove the value of Bayesian modelling for testing radiocarbon dates and improving chronology.[i] So far, the number of radiocarbon-dated sites in the Southern Urals is limited and many individual dates seem to be affected by biases, which affects the overall quality of the model. The Middle and Late Bronze Age lasted for the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. However, the observed differences between settlement and burial chronology point to as yet unresolved problems in absolute dating, so the chronology is still provisional. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly clear that Bayesian modelling will be crucial for refining the chronologies of prehistoric Eurasia.
[i] St. Lindner, Chariots in the Eurasian Steppe: a Bayesian approach to the emergence of horse-drawn transport in the early second millennium BC. Antiquity 94, 374, 2020, 361–380.
Dynamics of Burial Traditions
The recorded differences between the burials are not only visible in pottery. If we compare the burial rites between the phases, the dynamics in different aspects become visible. In general, burial rites become simpler over time and less work was invested: Wooden chambers became much rarer, while simple pit burials increased in frequency. In some phases, stone cists were popular. Kurgan burials were largely abandoned at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, giving way to large flat burial sites.
Unfortunately, anthropological information is insufficient and cannot be compared in detail. Burials with a large number of bodies are becoming uncommon. It is noteworthy that while inhumations in crouched position are the standard burial form, the number of cremations increases with time and becomes predominant at the end of the studied sequence.
The many non-ceramic grave goods buried with the dead also have a chronological dimension. The earliest burials are generally more sumptuous than later graves. In the Middle Bronze Age, tools and weapons are very common in burials, but decrease in frequency before becoming very rare in the Late Bronze Age. This is also true for chariots and chariot-related objects in the graves, although chariots only occur in a minority of graves and disappear altogether in the Late Bronze Age. However, even if weapons, chariots and metalworking tools become rare as grave goods, evidence from settlements shows that they were still present in everyday life. Their disappearance in burials thus had a cultural significance.
Animal bones occur in most early burials. In the Late Bronze Age, animals only occur in a minority of burials, but they still appear regularly. Only jewellery and pottery vessels seems to remain significant in the burial rites and continue to be common. When cremation burials appear frequently at the end of the Late Bronze Age, grave goods, with the exception of pottery, generally became rarer.
At the level of individual sites, the dynamics in burial sites can be documented. Many sites started small, in Sintashta near earlier "ritual buildings", and were later expanded. In other cases, small burial sites were abandoned and only central sites in a region remained in use. The differences between the sites cannot be explained from the funeral record alone but need to be further investigated in a broader context in the future. At present, the data base is too small to make general assumptions about the genesis of burial sites.
Conclusion
The Bronze Age finds from the Southern Urals are unique and fascinating, but the fragmented archaeological record makes interpretations difficult. Multivariate statistics on funerary pottery has proven to be a suitable tool to study chronological differences in the material. Correspondence analysis is a common method for chronological studies in Central European prehistory, but it has never been tried in this cultural context. This method could be one of the tools leading to a redefined inter-cultural dating method on pottery one day.
The results also allow us to observe trends in burial customs. As described earlier, the differences between Middle and Late Bronze Age burial rituals have long been known. With the phase model, all differences appear as long trend developments. Therefore, social changes during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC seem to have influenced the peoples burial customs, which resulted in a gradually changing funeral tradition. In the Southern Urals, burial rites become much simpler over time. This concerns the structure of the grave, the number of weapons and tools and of sacrificed animals, but strikingly also the number of human bodies in a single grave. On the other hand, jewellery and pottery remained stables in the burial custom for a much longer time. Cremations become dominant in the last phase, indicating a major change. Since this study included material from several established archaeological cultures, the results indicate a continuous cultural development in the Bronze Age of the Southern Urals.[1]