ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110 E-mail: [email protected] 99THE METAL AGES AND MEDIEVAL PERIODVl.A. Semenov Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dvortsovaya Nab. 18, St. Petersburg, 191186, Russia E-mail: [email protected] THE WUSUN IN NORTHEASTERN CENTRAL ASIAAmong the peoples mentioned in Chinese dynastic chronicles are the Xiongnu and other steppe nomads such as the Yuezhi and the Wusun. The Xiongnu forced both these peoples to abandon their camping grounds and move to Zhetysu. Numerous sites in Tuva of the Late Scythian period (those of the Uyuk–Sagly culture) reveal ties with the Xiongnu and suggest that they were associated with the Wusun. Artifacts from Suglug-Khem-1 and -2 and Khayirakan, Tuva, speci¿cally mirrors with side handles, hairpins, wire earrings, small wooden four-legged tables, painted vessels, etc., are paralleled by ¿nds from burials of the low-ranking Wusun in Zhetysu. Before arriving at Zhetysu, the Wusun crossed the Altai-Sayan highland and the Irtysh below Lake Zaisan, where their presence is attested by sites of the Kula-Zhurga type. The distinctive features of the latter are Àexed burials in stone cists and vessels resembling those from Tuva in shape; other artifacts are extremely rare and similar to those from burials of the low-ranking Wusun in Zhetysu. Keywords: Xiongnu–Sarmatian age, Wusun, Xiongnu, Eastern Central Asia, Tuva, Zhetysu, Uyuk–Sagly culture, chronology, ceramics.Introduction The ethnicon “Wusun” which, in the Xiongnu–Sarmatian age, referred to one of the nomadic tribal unions moving with its herds between Lake Lobnor in the south and the Altai-Sayan highland in the north became known thanks to Han dynastic stories. These sources (Houhanshu and Qianhanshu) report that in the 2nd century BC, the founder of the Xiongnu empire Maodun Chanyu defeated the Yuezhi at Zhanye (Ganzhou) and conquered the territories of the Loulan, Wusun, Hujie and the 26 neighboring appanages. According to various sources, the Yuezhi inhabited the steppes from Dunhuang in the west to Ganzhou in the east. Loulan, a small oasis-state, was situated near Lake Lobnor. The Wusun evidently bordered Loulan in the south and Hujie in the north (Semenov, 1995: 157). The Wusun are also mentioned in classical sources. Pompeius Trogus calls them Asiani; the name cited by Ptolemy is Issedoni; and Henry Hudson was the ¿rst to identify these people with the Wusun (Elnitsky, 1977: 80).In the course of Xiongnu military campaigns, the Yuezhi and subsequently the Wusun hordes invaded Zhetysu where the Wusun founded a nomadic protostate. Its western border passed along the Chu–Talas watershed; its eastern border, across the branches of Tien Shan, in the north; its northern border was Lake Balkhash, and its southern border passed across Lake Issyk Kul, where Chigu (headquarters of the Wusun kunmo (rulers)) was situated. According to Chinese sources, the population of the Wusun state numbered 120 thousand caravans (corresponding to one family each); the total population numbered 630 thousand; combatant forces totaled 183 thousand (Bichurin, 1950: 190–191). The Wusun tribal union existed from the 2nd century BC to the 4th century AD at which time it was annexed by the Turkic Khaganate. The tribal structure of modern Kazakhs of the Elder Zhuz, the Kirghiz of the Lake Issyk Kul Basin, and certain Uzbeks still includes tribal ethnicons such as Sary-Uysun, Uyshun, etc., possibly pointing to Wusun af¿nities (Akishev, Kushayev, 1963: 139).Copyright © 2010, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2010.10.010100Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110Archaeological sources Archaeological sites in Zhetysu which have traditionally been associated with the Wusun, have been excavated by A.N. Bernshtam, G.A. Kushayev, and Yu.A. Zadneprovsky, among others. The artifacts, funerary rite, and human skeletal remains connected to these sites can only be associated with the Wusun in a broad sense. Indeed, nearly all scholars have noted that during the Wusun period, several ethnic groups coexisted in Zhetysu. Descendants of the local tribes were the Saka, whose territories were invaded ¿rst by the Yuezhi and then by the Wusun. According to Zadneprovsky (1992: 73–100; 1997: 73–79), the Yuezhi buried their dead in pits with undercuts and catacombs whereas graves of the local Saka were simple ground pits, and their burials were supine extended. It is dif¿cult to distinguish the burial grounds of the Saka who coexisted with the Wusun and those of the Wusun proper. According to Pompeius Trogus, the Wusun proper were the “kings of the Tochars,” i.e. of the Eastern Central Asian nomadic hordes which destroyed Greco-Bactria. This accounts for terms such as “SakaWusun culture” and “Saka-Wusun sites,” introduced by Bernstam and Kushayev. Especially relevant in this respect are elite mounds, where rulers of certain tribes, the Wusun proper, could have been buried. Zadneprovsky (1997: 82) considered the burial ground at Talgar (Kazakhstan) to be one such site. The site includes 444 mounds, 4–56 m in diameter and 0.1–4.5 m high. In 1956, 13 small mounds, approximately 10 m in diameter, were excavated and in 1973–1976, six large mounds (18–56 m in diameter and 1.2–4.5 m high) were excavated. All large mounds have burial chambers of the same type in the form of pits, 3.0– 4.5 m by 2.0–3.0 m wide and 0.8–1.2 m deep. The walls of the graves were lined with stones and the roofs were made of Tien Shan spruce logs. Certain chambers may have had timber frames. After the pit had been covered with earth, a stone was placed on top. Then an earthen mound was erected and paved with stones. Artifacts found inside these mounds, all of which had been looted, include pottery, both hand-made and wheel-thrown, cornelian beads, a clay stamp representing a winged goat, an iron knife, etc. Golden plaques which decorated the funerary costume were found in nearly all graves. Some 500 were found inside mound 4 which had been sewn to leather clothing painted red. A.G. Maksimova (1980: 114–122) who excavated these burials dated them to the 4th–3rd centuries BC. However, K.A. Akishev (1983: 174–177) suggested the later date, 2nd– 1st centuries BC. There is little doubt that the people buried under the Talgar mounds were indeed members of the Wusun tribal elite, as indirectly evidenced by certain features of the burial chambers. These are typical of EasternCentral Asian sites, most notably those of the Late Scythian culture, primarily Aimyrlyg (Mandelstam, 1992: 178–196), Suglug-Khem-1 and -2, Khayirakan (Semenov, 2003), and Ozen-Ala-Belig (Weinstein, 1966) in Tuva, Chandman/Ulangom in Mongolia, etc. These are distinguished by burials in timber frames (16–20 m2 in square area), normally constructed of four rows of logs. The burial chambers were medium-sized (6–9 m2 in square area) and arranged in pits 2–3 m deep. Some burials were placed in stone cists situated beside the timber frames or on the roof of the frame. In total, 90 timber frames have been registered in the burial sites mentioned above except Aimyrlyg which date from the 3rd–2nd centuries BC. A total number of 392 bodies, 306 adults and 86 children, were buried inside the timber frames. The fact that all the frames have been completely or partly looted makes it in certain cases, impossible to accurately assess the position of the deceased. It appears certain, however, that the vast majority of individuals were buried on the left side with Àexed legs (153 graves). In 82 graves, the bodies were placed on the right side. A west by northwest orientation of the head was observed in 117 cases, a north by northeast orientation was observed in 45 cases and a south by southwest orientation in 37 cases. Six burials were found placed prone and two were supine extended. Our observations suggest that certain skeletons were intentionally destroyed or the remains were reburied after the bodies had been exposed to the open air for a long time (the normal anatomical order of the bones was disrupted, and some had been gnawed by dogs or wolves). In both timber frames and stone cists, numerous clay vessels were found (over 200 have been registered) along with wooden vessels, iron and bronze weapons, golden ornaments that had been sewn to the clothing, pieces of dry red lacquer, bronze mirrors, etc. A.M. Mandelstam (1983: 46–48) noted that certain Scythian-type burials in timber frames and stone cists at Aimyrlyg are paralleled by those found in the Wusun burials in Zhetysu. These include iron hairpins with globular tops, bronze mirrors with side handles and openings, rectangular girdle-like clasps, crutch-like bronze and bone pendants, and clay artifacts decorated with horizontal Àutes and painting. Artifacts similar to those which the Wusun had transported from Eastern Central Asia to Zhetysu, were found at Suglug-Khem as well as at other sites in Tuva and northwestern Mongolia. These items include iron hairpins with globular tops, sometimes clad in gold, crutch-like pendants, painted and Àuted clay vessels, plaque-shaped mirrors of various types with side handles, which are sometimes zoomorphic, typical Wusun earrings made of golden and copper wire, small wooden four-legged tables, clay spindle-whorls, rectangular bronze clasps, whetstones (these, however, were widely used by theVl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110Saka), and tetrahedral arrowheads with split or notched bases. The latter, found in Kazakhstan (Kapchigay III mound 20), were probably introduced by the Xiongnu during their expansion. They occur both in Xiongnu burials in the Trans-Baikal area and in Late Scythian-type burials in Tuva (Semenov, 1999: 177–121). It was traditionally believed that Scythian-type cultures in the Altai-Sayan highland disappeared completely in the 3rd century BC, and were replaced by new cultures associated with Eastern Central Asian Mongoloids. However, the archaeological ¿ndings suggest that both in Tuva and in northwestern Mongolia, the Scythian-type culture survived without appreciable changes through the 2nd and possibly even through the 1st century BC. Previously accepted dates for certain burial sites and single burials of the Uyuk–Sagly culture in that region were revised on the basis of chronological indicators. These include Xiongnu artifacts or their replicas as well as characteristically Scythian objects co-occurring with Xiongnu ones. Thirteen such indicators from timber frames, stone cists, and vaults at Suglug-Khem-1 and -2, Khayirakan (groups 4 and 5), Chandman/Ulangom, etc. were selected (Fig. 1). The frequent co-occurrence of openwork ¿ve-ringed plaques with typically Xiongnu artifacts suggests that most Uyuk–Sagly assemblages were contemporaneous with the Xiongnu culture (Fig. 1, 1). The artifacts in question are spoon-shaped bone clasps from SuglugKhem-1 and -2 (Fig. 1, 3), miniature cauldron-shaped bronze pendants (Fig. 1, 4); socketed three-bladed bronze arrowheads (Fig. 1, 5), three-bladed iron arrowheads (Fig. 1, 8), and robust rectangular iron belt clasps or shackles (Fig. 1, 12). The most informative among these indicators are miniature cauldron-like pendants, found at Suglug-Khem and Khayirakan, and in the Kosogol hoard (Fig. 1, 4ɚ), dating, according to M.A. Devlet (1980: 14) from the 2nd–1st centuries BC. The latter hoard consisted of Xiongnu artifacts such as openwork belt plates and spoon-shaped bronze clasps (Fig. 1, 2) whose replicas were found in Khayirakan vault 5/1 in Tuva (Fig. 1, 2ɚ). The same assemblage includes a five-ringed bronze plaque and an iron knife (Fig. 1, 9), which is paralleled by knives from the Ivolga settlement (Davydova, 1995: 186) and from the Tes burials in the Minusinsk Basin. Other burials at Khayirakan contained five-ringed plaques, spoon-shaped bone clasps, tiny cauldrons, three-bladed socketed arrowheads, openwork bronze bells (Fig. 1, 6), bone arrowheads with split bases (Fig. 1, 7), and iron belt clasps (Fig. 1, 12). The artifacts along with other characteristics suggest that this burial site is culturally closest to Xiongnu. It lacks Scythian-type bronze mirrors or artifacts in the animal style but contains the Uyuk– Sagly ceramics, numerous iron utensils and weapons; along with timber frames, there are collective graves in stone vaults.The Chandman/Ulangom burial site is situated in northwest Mongolia and can be attributed to the Uyuk– Sagly culture. Here 23 mounds with timber-frames and 17 burials in stone cists have been excavated. Initially, the site was dated to the 7th–3rd centuries BC (Tseveendorj, 1980: 95–100). E.A. Novgorodova (1989: 278) suggested a narrower interval of the 5th– 3rd centuries BC. In her view, the Chandman/Ulangom people abandoned their home territory after the Xiongnu had invaded it. In at least ¿ve timber frames, typically Xiongnu artifacts were discovered such as arrowheads with hidden sockets (Fig. 1, 5), robust iron clasps (Fig. 1, 12), and, in timber frame 23, a button with a representation of a bear (Fig. 1, 13). Such buttons were found in burials 100 and 138 of the Ivolga cemetery (Fig. 1, 13ɚ) and in grave 102 at Dyrestui. The latter grave also contained three spoon-shaped clasps, bronze openwork bells, plates with representations of ¿ghting horses, and a Wu Shu coin. The coin sets 118 BC as a terminus post quem for the assemblage and apparently for the entire burial site, since several such coins were found there (Minyaev, 1998: 72–75). S.S. Minyaev dates the entire Dyrestui to the 1st century BC and suggests the same date for the Ivolga complex, while A.V. Davydova (1996: 24–25) dated the latter to the 2nd– 1st centuries BC. Because some chronological indicators of the Uyuk–Sagly mounds are present at Ivolga (both the settlement and the cemetery) and include iron artifacts (Fig. 1, 8, 9, 10, 12), three-bladed arrowheads (Fig. 1, 5), and spoon-shaped clasps made of bronze and bone, it is the author’s opinion that Chandman/Ulangom dates from the 2nd–1st centuries BC (after 177 BC, the year of Maodun’s campaigns against the Yuezhi). Finds of another group are closer to those from Dyrestui. These include openwork conical bells (Fig. 1, 6), models of cauldrons and their bell-shaped replicas (Fig. 1, 4), bone arrowheads with diamond-shaped cross-sections and split bases (Fig. 1, 7), and buttons representing a bear en face (Fig. 1, 13). All these postdate 118 BC. The earliest date of the ¿ve-ringed plaques, which have not been found at Xiongnu sites, is not certain (evidently these appeared before the 2nd century BC), whereas their probable latest date is the 7th century AD. Indeed, a plaque similar to those from Tuva which had been used as an earring was found in Sainsky burial 5, the Perm region, together with a Sassanid coin of Khosrow II dating from 625 AD (Goldina, Vodolago, 1990: pl. 37, 29). Fiveringed openwork plaques and their later derivates occur at sites of the Przewor culture which coincides with the early subphase of the Roman Period (Andraáojü, 1992: 167–189). It may be that these ornaments were introduced to the West during the Sarmatian expansion. The generally Scythian funerary assemblage of Suglug-Khem, marked by artifacts in the animal style, includes certain items that appear alien to the Uyuk-101102Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110 CultureChronological indicatorsSite10 11 12 1310 11 121310 11 1213Age1st century ADSuglug-Khem-1 »131416252627timber frame 2vault 23 Suglug-Khem-2 » Scythian type1st century BCtimber frame 6 8Khayirakan-5 timber frame 3 »Khayirakan-4, -7 Khayirakan-5 vault 1/1 » 1/2 » 5/1 Kyzyl, 1 Turan IV, mound 128 Ulangom »2331, 33, 36, 46118 BCmound 47Kosogol hoard Ivolga cemetery grave 175 18838, 1009, 35, 48, 55, 7546, 57, 84, 96, 171101 177 BCXiongnuIvolga settlement Dyrestui cemetery »398397, 38, 481207, 10, 15, 8623, 62, 1023rd century BCgrave 16Pazyryk Ak-Alakha-3, mound 1Chronological indicators8 24 12a13a1311 4a 1210Fig. 1. Correlation between Uyuk-Sagly sites in Tuva and those of the Xiongnu in the Trans-Baikal region.Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110Sagly tradition. Among them is a bronze plate in the shape of a yak (Suglug-Khem-2 timber frame 7; Fig. 2), which was found together with a cast bronze mirror with a side handle shaped in the form of a feline carnivore (Fig. 3, 3). Items found in the same timber frame include trihedral and three-bladed bronze arrowheads, a bronze pickaxe, an iron acinaces (short sword) with a heartshaped guard and an iron quiver-hook, etc. In timber frame 5, situated nearby, a painted clay teapot was found pointing to links with Xinjiang (Fig. 4, 10). This assemblage also included a fragment of a bone clasp representing a predation scene (Fig. 3, 6; 5), golden plaques that had been sewn to the clothing, and jar-type vessels with curvilinear painted designs on the bodies, typical of Tuva and Gorny Altai (Fig. 6). Timber frame 29 at Suglug-Khem-1 contained typically Scythian Fig. 2. Bronze plate in the shape of a yak. Suglug-Khem-2 golden and bronze items and pottery, but also an timber frame 8. anthropomorphic bone clasp revealing neither Scythian nor Xiongnu af¿nities (Fig. 3, 10). Ceramics remain one of the principal categories of grave goods. A total of 119 intact clay vessels were unearthed at Suglug-Khem-1 and -2 and at Khayirakan. The vessels were measured according to a program suggested by V.F. Gening (1992: 15–45) and includes eight dimensions. 2 Visually, the vessels fall in two groups, narrow-necked pots with round bodies and jars. The former group in turn is subdivided into ¿ve 3 types and the latter consists of two types: closed 1 4 and open jars (Fig. 6). The decoration has not been taken into account in this classi¿cation because of being mostly individual (Fig. 7). 5 A resemblance between Sagly and Altai ceramics is apparent and this is particularly the case with the Pazyryk ceramics. The outlines of the Altai vessels are similar; some of them match those of types I and V of the ¿rst group. The Altai counterparts, however, are more elongate. The height is markedly larger than the 6 maximal diameter; such proportions are seen in vessels from Yustyd, Sailyugem, and Ulandryk, 7 although these assemblages also include stocky pots with low necks and comparatively wide mouths (Semenov, 2003: 75). Many Pazyryk vessels have tall funnelshaped necks. A separate group consists of painted ceramics discovered in Tuva (Aimyrlyg, Suglug-Khem, Khayirakan), Mongolia (Chandman/Ulangom), Altai (Bikeh-1, KaraKoba, Yustyd, Ala-Gayil III, Ulandryk, Katon, Kyzyl-Dhar-1, Tashanta, etc.) (Kubarev, 8 9 10 Slyusarenko, 1990: 185–192) (Fig. 8). Painted curvilinear designs link some of Fig. 3. Works of art from the timber frame burials at Suglug-Khem. these vessels with those from Suglug-Khem 1–5, 7, 9 – bronze; 6, 8, 10 – bone.103104Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110First group. Pots Type I0 5 cmType IIType III5 cm2 1Type IV5 cm5 cm5 cm5 cm5 cm5 cm0 5 cm5 cmSecond group. Jars Type IType VType II10Fig. 4. Painted ceramics of the Scythian age from Khayirakan (1), Suglug-Khem-2 (2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10); and Suglug-Khem-1 (4, 8).Fig. 5. Fragment of a bone clasp representing a clawing scene. Suglug-Khem-2 timber frame 5.Fig. 6. Classi¿cation of Suglug-Khem-1 and -2 and Khayirakan ceramics.and Khayirakan (Fig. 4). More intricate designs which E.A. Novgorodova believes to represent an unknown alphabet (Chandman/Ulangom timber frame 23), resemble painted patterns on vessels from Tashanta-2 mound 4, Suglug-Khem-2, etc. Wavy lines on vessels from Yustyd-22 mound 1 are similar to those on vessels from Chandman/Ulangom mound 47. The clay teapot with geometric painting from Suglug-Khem-2 has parallels among the ceramics from the Xinjiang oases (Fig. 8). Its shape is paralleled by a vessel with a spout from Talgar mound 5. The decoration of pottery found in Xinjiang together with Scythian-type artifacts (the Chow Hugou culture) is quite varied. Along with curvilinear patterns, geometrical designs ¿lled with paint occur as well as hatched triangles, meanders, circles with straight vertical stripes, etc. (Fig. 8). West and northwest of Xinjiang, painted pottery has been found at Wusun burial sites Kapchigay III (Akishev, Kushayev, 1963: 175–182), Shurbarat I (Nurmukhanbetov, Trifonov, 1989: 57–61), etc., andVl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–1101051 0 5 cm9 0 5 cm0 5 cm0 5 cm10 0 5 cm11 5 cm0 5 cm6 0 5 cm0 5 cm13120 5 cm0 5 cm0 5 cm145 cm0 5 cmFig. 7. Decorated vessels from burials of the Ozen-Ala-Belig stage of the Sagly culture. 1, 3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12 – Suglug-Khem-1; 2, 7, 11, 14, 15 – Khayirakan; 4 – Suglug-Khem-2; 13 – Ulangom.12139 5 6 143 101115Fig. 8. Distribution areas of painted ceramics in Eastern Central Asia.15 0 5 cm106Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110in Saka-type burials in the Ketmen-Tyube basin, the middle Naryn, Kyrgyzstan. The emergence of painted pottery in that region, however, was partly due to the cultural impact of Western Central Asian agricultural centers (Zadneprovsky, 1992: 73–95). It may have been introduced to the Altai-Sayan area (central and eastern Tuva, northwestern Mongolia, and the eastern and central parts of the Russian Altai) from the Ili basin in the 1st or 2nd centuries BC. Aside from pottery, which was used to hold burial food and drinks and played an important part in the funerary rite, the assemblages display other important elements which are gender-speci¿c. Males were equipped with weapons; other assemblages were speci¿cally female. Weapons included a bow with arrows, a pickaxe, and an acinaces. Various items are often found missing due to the fact that many burials have been looted. The items that have remained either went unnoticed by the looters or were discarded by them. In some cases, a bronze socket is all that remains of a pickaxe; the only trace of a dagger is a spot of green oxide on the femur; and a few arrowheads are all that is left of a bow and quiver. According to funerary standards, any artifact may be substituted by tiny votive replicas or their parts. The items found most frequently in the Sagly/Wusun timber frames are arrowheads although partly preserved bows are also found. An intact bow was found in a 5th century BC Scythian burial at Saryg-Bulun, Central Tuva. The bow offers the opportunity to reconstruct the type used by the early nomads of Eastern Central Asia before the invasion of Xiongnu whose bows differed from the Scythian bows. The Saryg-Bulun bow had a segment-shaped crosssection and was made of a solid piece of birch split from a trunk. The bow measures 1 m long and 4 cm wide. Sinews were glued to its outer part which was Àat and these are preserved in the upper part. To the inner part, which was convex, a ¿sh (burbot?) skin was attached. It would appear that the entire bow was wrapped in the skin but due to drying only 4–5 cm wide strips remained. On the ends of the bow there were notches for fastening the string. Arrows, ten in number, were held in a quiver which was attached to the belt. The latter had a bronze tip and eight bronze shackles. All arrow-shafts (seven made of birch and three of coniferous trees) are well preserved. Their average length is approximately 70 cm. All shafts have painted geometric patterns near the plumes (Semenov, Kilunovskaya, 1990: 42–43). Similar bows were still used during the late Scythian age (the Wusun period), as attested to by strips of ¿sh-skin under the thoracic bones of a male buried in timber frame 29 at Suglug-Khem-1. The clothing was decorated with foil plaques and a poorly preserved iron pickaxe and an acinaces were found near the belt. Strips of ¿sh-skin and fragments of a wooden bow were also found at Kholash mound 83 where Tuva borders the Altai. The double burialin which one body had been placed above the other was made in a stone cist. Two clay vessels (on the body of one vessel, the remains of painting are preserved) are identical to those from Suglug-Khem-1. The bow from this burial measures 127–130 cm long. The strips of ¿sh-skin measure 4 cm wide. Pieces of solid wood were preserved at the ends, the remainder of the boy having been lost to decay (Semenov, 1997: 15–20). Therefore, both the shape and the size of the bows used by the Tuvan nomads of the Scythian age can be reconstructed with a fair degree of certainty. Arrowheads were made of bronze and bone. Fur animals were hunted with arrows made of solid wood, thickened rather than sharpened in the head parts, the socalled tomars. Bronze arrowheads were of two principal types: tanged and socketed. The former fall into triplebladed, trihedral triple-bladed, and trihedral, whereas the latter are triple-bladed with ring-like sockets similar to Xiongnu arrowheads from the Ivolga settlement and the Dyrestui cemetery in the Trans-Baikal area (Fig. 9). Iron arrowheads (six in number) were found in timber frame 6 at Suglug-Khem-2. These are triple-bladed and tanged with barbs pointing downwards. Similar triplebladed iron arrowheads were found at Ivolga cemetery, providing yet another chronological match between the Xiongnu burials in the Trans-Baikal region and in Tuva. Bone arrowheads fall into several types: trihedral, tetrahedral, tanged, and socketed (the latter include bulletshaped arrowheads). Some tetrahedral specimens have split or notched bases into which the shafts were stuck. Close combat weapons such as daggers and pickaxes were manufactured from bronze but more often from iron. The bronze specimens are survivals of earlier times; they are normally smaller than the others. The iron weapons, some of which are poorly preserved, are full-sized (Fig. 10). The universal female set of grave-goods, kept in leather pouches or toilet cases, consisted of three items, a mirror, a comb and a knife or its ritual substitute (an awl or a needle). Thus we can speak of a “female triad” in the same way as we speak of a “male triad” consisting of weapons. Mirrors are the most popular elements of the female kit and for some reason were never taken by looters. Mirrors found at Suglug-Khem-1 and Khayirakan are of two types. Those of the ¿rst type are medal-shaped and fall into three varieties: (1) mirrors with side handles which have variously shaped openings (Fig. 11, 16); (2) those with side handles which are either animal-shaped or plain (smooth but with a lug on the reverse side) (Fig. 11, 17); and (3) those without handles as they had been broken off. In their place two, or less often, three holes were pierced so that the mirror could be attached to a belt (Fig. 11, 18). Mirrors of the second type are discoid and have lugs on the reverse side. These specimens are survivals of earlier prototypes (Fig. 11, 15).Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110Bronze TypeThree-bladed107Bone Three-bladed– trihedralTrihedralIronTrihedralBullet-shapedTetrahedral101411131215163 cm18 17Fig. 9. Classi¿cation of arrowheads from the 3rd–2nd century BC timber frame burials in Tuva. A – tanged; B – socketed; C – with split bases. All specimens are drawn to scale.Knives were made of bronze or iron. They are laminar; their hilts are not separated from the blades and have variously shaped openings for attaching the knife to a belt. Generally, they reveal no features of the animal style (Fig. 11, 1–4). Most awls are iron and their stems are made of sheep phalanges (Fig. 11, 12); bronze awls also occur (Fig. 11, 6). Combs are represented by two similar specimens with wooden teeth stuck into a round or Àat handle wrapped in sinews. One was found in Suglug-Khem-1 timber frame 14, another at Ozen-Ala-Belig mound 1. The female kit may also have included long iron hairpins with globular tops found in nearly all timber frames at Suglug-Khem. Some, which are U-shaped, may have been used to attach tall pointed birch bark hats to similarly tall coiffures (Fig. 11, 7–10). Hats and their remains are sometimes found in burials; nothing, however, has remained of the coiffures. Earrings made of bronze wire wound in one and a half coils are relatively frequent (one pair of the same shape was made of golden wire). Both male and female burials contain various bronze and iron belt hooks for attaching weapons and other objects (Fig. 11, 5, 13, 14), and tassel pieces of various types. The male costume can be reconstructed on the basis of intact elite Scythian burials in timber frames 26 and 29 at Suglug-Khem-1. The burial costume of a warrior buried in frame 26 was decorated with more than one hundred gold plaques and cowrie shells foiled in gold. On the cranium, there lay a diadem made of cloth with 23 golden eagles,3 03 cm3 cmFig. 10. Iron acinaces (1, 2); bronze (3), and iron (4) pickaxes. Suglug-Khem-1 (1, 4), Khayirakan (2), and Suglug-Khem-2 (3).22 of which were sewn in two rows. A cockade, 90 mm by 50 mm in size, was attached to the central part of the diadem. On the cervical vertebrae lay an iron neck-ring clad in gold foil. The sides of the coat were decorated with 16 plaques in the shape of crouching panthers, and large108Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–1105 33 cm8 91014 111512 13161718 03 cmFig. 11. Knives (1–4), quiver-hooks (5, 13, 14), awls (6, 11, 12), hairpins (7–10), and mirrors (15–18). Suglug-Khem-1 (1–11, 13, 16–18) and Suglug-Khem-2 (12, 14, 15). 1, 2, 6, 8, 13–18 – bronze; 3–5, 7, 9–12 – iron.8 6 101 211 03 cmFig. 12. Plan of burial at Suglug-Khem-1 timber frame 26 (1); reconstructed costume of warrior buried at Suglug-Khem-1 timber frame 26 (2); bas-relief from Khalchiyan, Bactria (3); golden ornaments from timber frame 26 (4–11).Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–1102 37 9121113140 3 cm103 cm151093 cm171618Fig. 13. Belt kits. Suglug-Khem-1 (1, 2, 5, 6, 8–13); Khayirakan (3, 4); and Suglug-Khem-2 (7, 9, 14–18). 1–14, 16 – bronze; 15 – iron; 17, 18 – bone.gold plates with lion heads were attached to the belt along with 20 cowrie shells. Golden plaques in geometric shapes and golden ribbons were sewn to the shoes. A pickaxe and an iron acinaces were attached to the belt (Semenov, 1998: 160–163, ¿g. 12) (Fig. 12). Highly characteristic belt kits consist of various types of bronze clasps with ¿xed prongs, ¿ve-ringed plaques for passing thin leather straps, iron shackle-shaped clasps, various decorated bone clasps, bells, crutch-shaped and spoon-shaped bronze and bone pendants, many of which are similar to those found in Xiongnu graves and in those of the Zhetysu Wusun (Fig. 13). One artifact, possibly representing Wusun art, should particularly be mentioned – an anthropomorphic belt plate 15 cm by 3.5 cm (Fig. 14). It has opening along the perimeter which was probably to enable it to be fastened to some part of the costume and possibly to a belt. The plate bears a representation of a woman with a triangular face and a high rounded forehead; the breasts are accentuated and the arms are folded at the abdomen. The lower part of the plate is covered in a herringbone design. The legs are not shown. To date, this specimen has no parallels either in the Scythian or the Xiongnu tradition. As far as the possible migration routes of the Sagly/ Wusun people are concerned, they stretched from the Upper Yenisei basin to Zhetysu and appear to have passed through the Altai-Sayan region crossing the Irtysh below Lake Zaisan. Here the migration is marked by sites attributed to the Kala-Zhurga culture (Samashev, 1987: 95–104).Fig. 14. Anthropomorphic bone clasp from Suglug-Khem-1 timber frame 29.110Vl.A. Semenov / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38/3 (2010) 99–110References Akishev K.A. 1983 Drevneye zoloto Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata: ONER. Akishev K.A., Kushayev G.N. 1963 Drevnyaya kultura sakov i usunei doliny reki Ili. Alma-Ata: Izd. AN KazSSR. Andraáojü M. 1992 Cmentarzysko ludnoĞci kultury przeworskiej w Pruchnowie, stan. 23, gm. Radziejów Kujawski, woj. Wáocáawek. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, vol. 44: 167–180. Bichurin N.Y. (Iakinf). 1950 Sobraniye svedenii o narodakh, obitavshikh v Srednei Azii v drevniye vremena, vol. II. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka. Davydova A.V. 1995 Ivolginskiy arkheologicheskiy kompleks. Vol. 1: Ivolginskoye gorodische. St. Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburg. fond “AziatIKA”. Davydova A.V. 1996 Ivolginskiy arkheologicheskiy kompleks. Vol. 2: Ivolginskiy mogilnik. Ivolginskii arheologicheskii kompleks. St. Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburg. fond “AziatIKA”. Devlet M.A. 1980 Sibirskiye poyasnye azhurnye plastiny II v. do n.e. – I v. n.e. Moscow: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; D. 4-7). Elnitsky L.A. 1977 Ski¿ya Evraziiskikh stepei. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Gening V.F. 1992 Drevnyaya keramika. Metody i programmy issledovaniya v arkheologii. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Goldina G.D., Vodolago A.V. 1990 Mogilniki nevolinskoi kultury v Priuralye. Irkutsk: Irkutsk. Gos. Univ. Kubarev V.D., Slyusarenko I.Yu. 1990 Raspisnye sosudy iz kurganov urochischa Bike. In Arkheologicheskiye issledovaniya na Katuni. Novosibirsk: Nauka, pp. 185–192. Maksimova A.G. 1980 Kurgany bliz Talgara. Arkheologicheskiye issledovaniya drevnego i srednevekovogo Kazakhstana. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR, pp. 114–122. Mandelstam A.M. 1983 Zametki ob arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikakh usunei. In Kultura i iskusstvo Kirgizii: Tezisy dokladov, iss. 1. Leningrad: pp. 46–48. Mandelstam A.M. 1992 Rannie kochevniki skifskogo perioda na territorii Tuvy. In Stepnaya polosa aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoye vremya. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 178–196. Minyaev S.S. 1998 Dyrestuiskii mogilnik. St. Petersburg: Sankt-Peterburg. fond “AziatIKA”.Novgorodova E.A. 1989 Drevnyaya Mongoliya. Moscow: Nauka. Nurmukhanbetov B.N., Trifonov Yu.I. 1989 Novye pamyatniki sakskogo vremeni bliz g. Alma-Aty. In Problemy arkheologii skifo-sibirskogo mira. Kemerovo: Izd. Kemerov. Gos. Univ., pp. 57–61. Samashev Z.S. 1987 Pamyatniki kulaiurganskogo tipa. In Arkheologicheskiye pamyatniki v zone zatopleniya Shulbinskoi GES. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR, pp. 95–104. Semenov Vl.A. 1995 Tuva v epokhu pereseleniya narodov (nachalnyi etap). Uchenye zapiski TNIIYLI, iss. 18: 157–163. Semenov Vl.A. 1997 Mongun-Taiga. St. Petersburg: Izd. IIMK RAN. (Arkheol. izyskaniya; iss. 54). Semenov Vl.A. 1998 Vooruzheniye i voinskii kostium skifov Tuvy. In Voennaya arkheologiya. St. Petersburg: Izd. Gos. Ermitazha, pp. 160– 163. Semenov Vl.A. 1999 Sinkhronizatsiya pamyatnikov syunnu Zabaikalya i pozdnikh skifov Tuvy i Severo-Zapadnoi Mongolii. In Izucheniye kulturnogo naslediya Vostoka. St. Petersburg: Evrop. dom, pp. 117–121. Semenov Vl.A. 2003 Suglug-Hem i Haiyrakhan. Mogilniki skifskogo vremeni v Tsentralno-Tuvinskoi kotlovine. St. Petersburg: Peterburg. vostokovedeniye. Semenov Vl.A., Kilunovskaya M.E. 1990 Novye pamyatniki rannego zheleznogo veka v Tuve. Inform. bul. UNESCO. Mezhdunar. assotsiatsiya po izuch. kultur Tsentralnoi Azii (Moscow), iss. 17: 36–47. Tseveendorj Z.D. 1980 Chandmanii soel. Arheologiin sudlal, vol. IX, fasc. 1: 34– 105. Weinstein S.I. 1966 Pamyatniki kazylganskoi kultury. In Trudy Tuvinskoi kompleksnoi arkheologo-etnogra¿cheskoi ekspeditsii Instituta etnografii AN SSSR, iss. 2. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 143–184. Zadneprovsky Yu.A. 1992 Ranniye kochevniki Semirechya i Tian-Shanya. Ranniye kochevniki Ketmen Tyube, Fergany i Alaya. In Stepnaya polosa aziatskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskuyu epokhu. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 73–87. Zadneprovsky Yu.A. 1997 Puti migratsii iuechjei po novym arkheologicheskim dannym. In Drevniye nomady Tsentralnoi Azii. St. Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 74–79. (Arkheol. izyskaniya; iss. 40). Received October 7, 2009.